(Concluded from p. 54.)

As mentioned in my former paper, this, my last, will be to consider Mr. M.'s interpretation of 2 Tim. 20:2-22 in the light of the passage itself.

No one taught of God understands by the apostle's term, "a great house," that the house of God as fundamentally constructed is intended. There are no "vessels to dishonor " in the house of God as fundamentally constructed "and arranged. If we think of it as Christ's building ("I will build My Church," Matt. 16:18), we cannot conceive of His building with bad material. If we think of it as the "habitation of God by the Spirit" (Eph. 2:22), it is composed of saints alone. There may be believers from among Jews and believers from among Gentiles in this habitation, but only believers compose it. " A great house," containing both "vessels to honor" and "vessels to dishonor," is therefore not used by the apostle to illustrate, or symbolize, the house of God in its fundamental character.

A reference to i Cor. 3:9-15 will help to form a true idea of what the expression, "a great house," is intended to represent. The apostle, as having received from God a dispensation, or administration (Eph. 3:2), was constituted "master builder," 1:e., the authoritative establisher of the house of God in the outward form it was to have as an institution of God set up here on earth among men, and in the internal arrangement by which it was to be characterized. In this sense he laid the foundation of the house of God. He did it under the special guidance of the Spirit of God. The purpose of the Spirit in guiding the apostle in the work, (the administration given to him) was to set up and establish among men an institution to have the character of being the pillar and foundation of the truth (i Tim. 3:15). This I may express as follows:The house of God, fundamentally, is both the proclamation and the upholder of the truth-the truth of the great mystery of the person of the Christ. The apostle Paul, by the will of God, was the "master builder" of such an institution. He therefore says, in i Cor. 3:10, "I have laid the foundation." He had established its outward form and internal arrangement. In verse n he insists that this is the only thing that is the house of God fundamentally. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid " means, that any other construction is not the building of God's design:that it is not, and could not be, the pillar and foundation of the truth-the proclamation and upholder of the truth of Jesus Christ.

Other servants are solemnly warned as to their responsibility in regard to the character of this institution established by the apostle. "Let every man take heed how he builds." Each builder is responsible to carry on the apostolic building; to so build that his work will result only in what is the original character of the building-the reflection, or display, of the perfections of Christ. Any building resulting in what is the fruit of fallen, sinful man-the man who does not endure, whose glory passes away as the flower of grass, and who has become like stubble to be consumed by the fire of the judgment of God-is not maintaining and carrying on the apostolic foundation.

The idea of the Spirit, in Paul, was not a house containing a mixture of vessels of gold, silver and precious stones with vessels of wood, hay, and stubble- "vessels to honor" and "vessels to dishonor." Such a house is not the house of God according to its apostolic foundation. 2 Tim. 2 :20 does not therefore represent the house of God in its fundamental character, but as the result of not heeding his warning in i Cor. 3:10:it is that which has not maintained the fundamental character of the house of God. It has become such as admits mixture:a house so planned that "vessels to dishonor can come in with "vessels to honor."

In the house according to God's thought, of which Paul laid the foundation, there was no conception of a house in which there should be use for "vessels to dishonor." The Master of Paul's house has no dishonorable service. All His service is honorable. The plan of this house did not contemplate the mixing together of saved and unsaved. There was no provision in it for any service by the unregenerate.

In 2 Tim. 2:20 the house is not so. It is characterized by mixture-a house of unholy associations. There are "vessels to honor" in it, but associated, alas, with "vessels to dishonor." While so associated the "vessels to honor" are not "sanctified" vessels. They are '' vessels to honor " in unholy associations.* *Of course, the house of God, as founded by the apostle, abides, because the Spirit maintains what He Himself established by the apostle. What is called "a great bouse" is not a new foundation, but the perversion of that already laid. The perversion is not of the Spirit of God. The great need is to learn what is the authoritative apostolic foundation, so as to be able to distinguish it from its perversion by bad builders. The Spirit maintains the true, and all who build by the Spirit, build after that pattern :all else is of man, not of God.*

If, then, the "vessels to honor" are saved persons in association with "vessels to dishonor," or unsaved persons, what is the responsibility of the "vessels to honor ?" What ought saved persons in unholy associations to do ? Verse 21 gives us the answer. " If a man purge out himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work." The meaning of this is perfectly plain; there is no excuse Whatever for misunderstanding it. A "vessel to honor "-a saved man-any child of God, in association with the unsaved-is in unholy associations, and is not a "sanctified" vessel to honor. He is not a vessel suited for the Master's use. He is not a vessel prepared for every good work. While he is a "vessel to honor" he needs to purge himself out from the unholy associations in which he is, in order to become a "vessel to honor, sanctified" and suited for "every good work" in the service of the Lord. And a Christian who argues not, but obeys, must of necessity find himself apart from true Christians who are in the unholy association, and are not obedient. "Stand away (or stand apart) from iniquity, everyone who names the name of the Lord " has already been the imperative demand of verse 19-on the Christian; and, responding to it, the "vessel to honor" purges himself out from the "vessels to dishonor." If " vessels to honor " do not obey, but still continue in the iniquitous association, they are responsible for the being away from their brethren, not the ones who obey. If the responsibility put upon those who name the name of the Lord is accepted and acted on, there is no escape from this.

I notice here a very shocking argument, professedly based on the force of the word for "purge" in the original Greek. I have usually found that a little parade of Greek is very unreliable. The word used here has the force of "purge out " ("expurge"). Its object is "himself." It is not purge out himself, but "purge out himself." From what ? From the other vessels. This is the only possible meaning the language of the apostle can have.

In the face of such plain language, Mr. M. says (P- 25) :

" But from what must he purge himself in order that he may be a vessel unto honor? From other vessels? That, I say again, is manifestly impossible. A vessel can be purged only from what it contains, or from what may adhere to it on the outside. The thought of separation from other vessels is as far as it is possible to get from the thought of this passage, for the passage directs attention to the condition of the vessel itself, not to that of other vessels. The aspirant for honorable service is admonished, not to look out and around for evil in his fellow-saints and to withdraw from their society, but to look within for evil in himself, and to purge himself from that."

This needs but to be quoted alongside the passage itself to manifest its opposition to Scripture. It is astonishing to find in a single paragraph such a collection of unwarrantable assertions. '' A vessel can be purged only from what it contains, or from what may adhere to it on the outside " (!) Where did Mr. M. learn that? "The thought of separation from other vessels is as far as it is possible to get from the thought of this passage" (!) A mere assertion, in opposition to the plain words of the apostle. "The passage directs attention to the condition of the vessel itself, not to that of other vessels." That is, from what Mr. M. says elsewhere, the vessel is to purge itself from its own filthiness! All this is mere assertion, very presumptuous assertion, in the face of the plain statements of the passage. This is not a reverent, but an unholy, handling of the word of God.

Mr. M. quotes other passages in which the word "purge" occurs, to try to prove his assertions. He omits to tell his readers that the construction of those passages is different. For instance, in speaking of the form of the verb "purge," he says, " It is found in Matt. 8:3 and Luke 4:27 to describe cleansing the leprosy from (out of) the leper." But in neither case is the construction the same as in 2 Tim. 2:21. "Him " in Matt. 8:3 is genitive, while " himself" in 2 Tim. 2:21 is accusative. Such mistreatment of the Word is very reprehensible.

But let us pass on. "Vessels to honor" should indeed "shun youthful lusts." But the purging lusts out of oneself is not all that God claims of us. He knows it is impossible to "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace," with a pure, or single, heart while associated with "vessels to dishonor." As long as we maintain the association our hearts are double-our eye is not single-our purposes, or motives, are mixed. To follow "righteousness, faith, love, peace," with a "pure heart," we must necessarily give up associations that enslave us to motives other than those the Lord forms in us. Bat in freeing ourselves from associations which put us in bondage to unholy motives, we find ourselves in the same path and position with others who have in like manner submitted to the Lord's claim. In this verse the apostle now directs us to continue in this path, pursuing together the things which we are now free to pursue with a pure heart. It puts a curb on the spirit of independency into which, in separating from others, we might easily fall. It is perhaps natural to us; but nature is not to control us. We are to be governed by the word of God. It is plain then that the word of God does have something to say to us about our associations. It tells us what associations to keep separate from, and what associations to go on with. It is plain that in the matter of our associations it is not a sufficient rule to insist merely on personal soundness in doctrine and godliness in individual walk. The word of God, as is plain, does require these things, but it imperatively demands more. It insists on holy associations; it forbids unholy ones.

Disobedience therefore in the matter of associations is sinful as surely as it is sinful in other matters. The prophet Samuel tells us, "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to harken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry" (i Sam. 15:22, 23). Saul had not obeyed. He had set up his own reasons against the plain will of God. If we are indifferent to what God has made known of His will, no matter in what, we are not in a right state of soul, but wilfully disobedient.

If God has declared that His mind is that the vessels to be used in His service should be separated from unholy associations, it is a very poor thing in us to talk about " fellow-saints." Sanctioning and having fellowship with them in their unholy associations is not the way to show them our love. Another apostle tells us that loving God and keeping His commandments is the proof that we love the children of God (i John 5:2). This may cost us much; but love yields all to God. The Lord give us the spirit of obedience!

Let us follow Mr. M. a little further. He says:" It is perfectly clear that this scripture (2 Tim. 2) has no reference at all to the qualifications of a saint for companionship or personal association with other saints, either in the breaking of bread or anything else, but that it refers solely to his qualifications for high-grade service."

Indeed! Are these sober words, or the invention of the mind slipping away from the humility that is in Christ ? Where does Scripture ever speak of "high-grade service?" Not this passage, as any sober reading of it will show. It is foreign to the spirit and teaching of Scripture.

Again, of the same passage, he says:"Separation from one's own appetites is the only separation that is spoken of." Why, then, what immediately follows:" Flee also youthful lusts ?"

But Mr. M.'s teaching in page 25 becomes unholy, casting reproach upon God's holy character. He says:

" Nevertheless the vessels are all in the house, and are necessarily in company one with another.

Moreover, they are all needful for the service of the house, though there are various grades of service, some honorable, some dishonorable."

Dishonorable service in the house of God! Has the Master of the house of God dishonorable duties to assign to any one of His vessels ? Mr. M. is so affected by a false principle that he does not apprehend the difference between the house as established by God, and the perversion of it by bad men or careless brethren. Evidently there is yet "unlearned" teaching to "avoid."

Much more might be said to the same effect; but it is painful, and I cease. In conclusion, it is evident that Mr. M. has not apprehended the fundamental construction and arrangement of the house of God. Through the apostle Paul the Spirit has given the pattern which the saints are responsible to keep to and carry on. Through the apostle God has revealed the truth as to it, and it is to be received by faith as truly as any other revealed truth. Failing to apprehend the revealed mind and will of God as to this, Mr. M. has also failed to realize the true place of the breaking of bread in the fellowship which God's Son has set up on earth. In his scheme it loses entirely its character as to the expression of the fellowship of the whole Church. It becomes merely the expression of a local independent (meeting, and even then only of the fellowship of those "who happen to be gathered "at the time.

The representative character of the local assembly is not seen by him; therefore the relations which in Scripture the assemblies have to each other are not understood. Consequently the representative character of the local assembly, and its relation to the universal assembly, is unknown. In the apostolic Epistles the local meeting is not a mere local meeting, independent of the saints that elsewhere call upon the name of the Lord:it is their representative in the locality, expressing their fellowship in that place, and in full responsibility to them all.

The lack of this knowledge has led Mr. M. into what we have seen is nothing short of a delusion. I do not question his Christianity and endowment with rich gifts. The sorrow is to see this marred, and the vessel hindered from being "prepared unto every good work." May the Lord yet make our brother such a vessel! If we have spoken sharply at times, it has been from no personal animosity, but the sense of the deep wrong done to the truth and to God's people. C. CRAIN