IN the third instance in which the believer has to " walk worthy," it is " God, who calls us to his kingdom and glory, that comes before the soul, supplying a motive to the heart for our walk, by what His grace is bringing us into. It is not said we are to walk worthy simply of God Himself, as this would be but a repetition of the -truth of Colossians, nor is it exactly that we are to walk worthy of the kingdom and glory, as this would give too great a prominence to the position itself, but of God, as associating us with Himself in what He is about to establish for His own glory. When God displays Himself in His power and glory, He will have us with Him in that display.
Such was the wondrous and mighty, yet touching, motive that Paul, as a father, brought to bear upon the Thessalonian saints, to form their walk in this world while waiting for God's Son from heaven.
Here again we must note, that it is the individual walk of the saint that is in question. Each one having his own place in God's kingdom and glory, the walk of each, irrespective of others, is to be suited to God according to the exalted position His grace is bringing His people into.
The appeal of God to our hearts (for it is His appeal through His servant Paul) is most affecting. As of old, God could say as to His earthly people Israel, " what could I have done more to my vineyard than I have done?" so surely He may appeal to us in deeper tones and say, " What more can I give you than I have given you-in My own kingdom and glory I will have you with Myself to share all I possess with the Son of My love? And now while down in this world, where all is away from Me and dishonors Him, I want you to walk in a manner suited to the grace and dignity I am conferring on you."
As a motive for our walk, second only to the cross itself, that infinite revelation of His love, and foundation of all our blessing, which lies behind us, and which has saved us and started us on our way to heaven, is the revelation of the glory we are going on to. Nor is it merely glory, God Himself awaits us in that glory: He " calls us to His own kingdom and glory."
What a difference it would make to us in every way if that "kingdom and glory" were ever before our eyes as the near future of our pilgrimages How would the vanities of this world lose their power over us in view of the exalted position we are about to occupy! Satan is the god and prince of this world, and the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them are all at his disposal, and to have any place or portion here we must take it from his hand and have it in association with him. A terrible thought, but is it not a true one?
All our portion, as believers, is in that future world, and there God has all the power and glory, but we must " walk worthy" of Him in this present world. What is suited to Him, as those who are to share with Him that future power and glory, must have its display in us now; Heaven will afford no opportunity of a worthy walk.
By grace, let us make those of this world know that none of the motives that govern their hearts and control their actions govern or control ours. Thus only will it be manifest that we " walk worthy of him who calls us to his own kingdom and glory." But this alone is possible to us as we humbly follow and rely on Him who has trodden the path before us. As he did, we must meet Satan and all his seductions, as dependent and obedient ones, with the word, " It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;' and we must let the world find in us what it found in Him who could say, " that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, so I do." c. w.
(Concluded from page 75.)
LETTERS AND EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS OF J. N. D. ON SUBJECTS OF GENERAL INTEREST.
BELOVED BROTHER, The ground taken by your dear son.... is not, I think, a happy one. What I mean is this. It is not exercise of conscience for himself, but reasoning for others; and finding a defect of argument, or a supposed defect, the ground of putting them in the wrong, and even sheaving them on their own principles they ought to go further. This is argument, not conscience and thought for Christ's glory. Supposing that it proves that they ought to go further and that they are inconsistent, let them go further, it has nothing to do with its being right or not, but whether A. B. is consistent or not.
In many cases I judge that they are inconsistent. I should make a difference between misleaders and misled for the Lord's table sake, but they must not have a false flag-false to Christ. But in my personal conduct, though I could not have communion in religious things as. members of the same body, true Christian kindness would seek to make them feel their false position. Yet I should make a great difference between such and those who, untrue to Christ, sought to pervert-" Of some have compassion, and others save with fear." I see Satan's work, and would fain deliver. Satan's instruments are a horror to me, though even they may be delivered. If there is bona fide ignorance of facts-not willful, for some refuse to know to save the trouble of having their consciences exercised-and they are not true to Christ (and bond fide ignorance is more rare than is imagined), their conscience is not bad. If they had been connected in ignorance with meetings, I should inquire and see if they were so on principle. If so, they are also false to Christ, they accept Christ and Belial going together. If they say no, and if that be so, I should not walk with them on any account, but I should not refuse them, only warning them that we knew they were so, and could not have communion with gatherings which were thus loose, and if they went back after warning, the case would be altered. Ignorance, where they have never had to say to Bethesda and her followers, is sufficient to preclude all further question; but ignorance alleged, when they have been connected with such gatherings, is saying that they do not know on what principle they were gathered, which may be, but which is strange; and at any rate they imbibe the spirit and tone of looseness, which is exactly opposite to all the scriptural directions for the last days.
All that is said of " ad infinitum" is only the repetition of what we have too often heard, and has no real sense the moment the church is known to be one. The question is, Does a person come from a place which, has identified itself with the refusal to judge evil? It little matters to me how many steps a person is from the first in the country who had the typhus fever; five or fifty are all alike if a man has got it. Evil is judged as evil wherever it is, and this argument is simply the denial of the church and the unity of the body. If a gathering accept the fellowship of those (one or fifty) who have refused to maintain the glory of Christ, it is contaminated as such would have left..; would he have gone to or to both in communion with Bethesda, and receiving from it, yea, because they were of it, and whose members went there? This was the real case we had.
When there was intercommunion, there was moral identity, cases of bona fide ignorance excepted. They have turned to independency to avoid the evident consequences themselves, as I stated to you in a former letter; they have found this evil and are now willing to exclude heresies, but I hear nothing of unity, so that there is no guarantee for what others may do, or security, so that gatherings may be owned. If they are faithful and honest in this (in excluding heresies) the reason for excluding persons belonging to them might fail, but the gathering itself denies unity and its responsibility as to other gatherings, nor is there honest confession. They would not be bound by a discipline common to all. Each person would have to be received by brethren individually; belonging to a gathering thus faithful would not of itself be a ground of exclusion; their connection with others remaining to be inquired into. Only where they have been in communion with and those associated with it, one has a right and a duty to ask if they have given it up. If they refuse to say, they are not honest and have not done so. They maintain this unholy liberty to do evil, and have not judged evil in themselves.
The making a difference between misleaders and misled, has nothing to do with its being a question of Christ and of principle.
All this reasoning is very sad. It tastes of ... . and those who sustain it. In this country ... . we have acted on the principle of refusing those belonging to bodies who allowed heresies, having nothing to do with ... . but denying the immortality of the soul; and the results have been blessing. And the state of things around us every way confirmed us in the need of faithfulness. I shall own no gathering once in connection ... . with and its supporters, which has not given it up. Nothing more simple, they are indeed formally inside the camp. I have already spoken of cases of ignorance, but if a person deliberately chose to continue in connection with loose principles, I could not own him; he has not a pure heart in his worship, and it is a mercy to himself that he should learn it. It soon comes out distinctly if there is faithfulness.
One of the most striking things in my late labors in the United States has been that everywhere, by being faithful and holding the word, persons esteemed and active in union prayer meetings and the like have professed themselves infidels. Socinians, deniers of the immortality of the soul, of the inspiration of the word of God and the like. They were strange and trying scenes, but useful; but I felt I had the immense comfort of having only to bring forward scripture. It had not got so far in the loose gatherings everywhere, but it had got very far indeed; only many have been frightened, but those of the loose gatherings who came to this country, are in full fellowship with this state of things-lead the meetings, &c. They have gone back into the camp just when the saints are being called out of it. I know one of the nicest of them boasting that he had succeeded in contaminating a young saint, so that now he could not be received among us; the latter is now grown worldly and flourishing in the religious world.
I seek to separate to Christ from evil; they will not. I never heard an argument which was not for more or less tolerating evil; where forced, they would leave it where it discredited them, but retain as much liberty as they could under the plea of charity. Such a person's conscience is not purged, he cannot but defile others if allowed.
A passage that gave me a clue on my first starting, was in that wonderful chapter, Jer. 15, " If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them." Take the Epistles, or chapters which refer to the last days, and see if in all, separation from evil is not pressed. Patience and grace are required, but no acceptance of evil. It is Christ, it is principle, it is faithfulness and obedience to God which are in question. It is whether the church of God is bound to confess and maintain the truth with Him that is holy, Him that is true, and whether there is one church to be found upon the earth-that is the question.
If a person comes from a gathering which has been connected with ... . I am entitled and bound to ask him, "Have you broken with it?" If the person says, " No;" I ask him, How is that? He may be ignorant, though it be very rare. I say we cannot walk with that gathering because it is unfaithful. If he says, “I prefer going with as it is," he judges himself, he is unclean. I would tell him what was the principle of action, and sufficient of the facts to show him the application of the principle. If he honestly says, " If the facts are so, I would not walk with them a moment;'' I am in a great measure relieved. If he says, "I had rather wait and inquire," one has only to leave it. If he refuse to hear the facts or be informed, he has a bad conscience, he prefers walking loosely to taking a little trouble for Christ's glory, his heart is unsound, as a man who would refuse to be examined by a priest for leprosy, he condemns himself. All this requires patience and toil of heart, but the grace of Christ is sufficient for us, and quiet firmness will meet its sure reward.
A work of Satan has been going on; alleging evil doctrine was no 311 after; people have been mixed up with it; I must know if they are clear where they have, or are accepting the evil as no matter. I do
not expect to carry on the work of the Lord without Satan seeking to throw difficulties in the way, but I do count on the blessed Lord's faithfulness to be with us, and difficulties are gain if that be the effect.
I accept the principles of grace fully, but grace which is not holiness is not God's grace, and holiness is by truth. " Sanctify them by thy truth." Thus saith " He that is holy, he that is true."
Canada, 1873. J. N. D.
MY DEAR -, I am glad. for your own sake that your tract is withdrawn; you will perhaps, ere I write, have received a letter from me; its effect I had no fear of, for the simple reason that it wholly gave up all the principles brethren meet on, and would be judged by every intelligent brother.
The ... .. brethren have done so pretty generally. I could give you, very easily, an account of all those you speak of, but feel it is better to avoid speaking of individuals. The question is not whether they are logically in precisely the same position as the blasphemers, but whether their position justifies their not being received to communion. They are not according to scripture a new lump if they acquiesce in evil in their midst-not clear of the committed sin. So jealous is the apostle as to the truth, that a simple friendly " adieu" makes a man partaker of his evil deeds; how much more a willful, determined reception of them into communion, one of the pastor's holding most of the blasphemous doctrines, and when the brethren
pretended that ... ..had changed, and acted in discipline, declared they had not, and that as far as he knew they would do the same in like case, and that he did not know a single person at who held. Mr.... for a heretic. This was Mr....'s published statement long after the matter had happened. It was the open support of blasphemy, and the breach took place by an effort on the part of neutrals to force us to go on with, as they openly stated, and I personally know. There is no such thing as members of a church local or not local in scripture, but members of Christ, a totally different idea; he speaks of foot, hand, eye, &c.; you have only to read the whole passage (1 Cor. 12) and not a shadow of doubt can remain.
Members are members of Christ, whatever may mean, but it cannot have the meaning you put upon it, as it does not apply to what they were members of. Now as regards the seven churches, they are neither the unity of the body, nor directions how to act from the Head by the apostle, but judgment by Christ on their state (I get positive directions for my conduct in 2 Timothy)-Christ's judicial estimate of the whole, and what He will do if they do not repent; and this has been used to chew we are to acquiesce in things as they are-if so, with everything and exercise no discipline at all, for none is spoken of. But it is Christ's judgment of the state of things. That is found very clearly stated elsewhere. Hence it is commonly taken, and I doubt not partly for a history of the church at large, to the end of Popery, and the end of Protestantism. Your use of it would go to allow all evil in an assembly, fornication, communion with idols, and all else; and so it has been used. As 10 "ad infinitum" it is a mere bugbear; whatever associates itself with evil, be it three or three thousand or three millions, is on the same ground. If I associate myself with a principle of action, what matter how many assemblies are engaged in it, if they are so Besides, it is a denial of the unity of the body. I know of so many assemblies; discipline in one is discipline in all, and the denial of this skews plainly enough where you have all got. This is the whole question. is partaker thus in the guilt in question, if another gathering is in communion with it, receives from it as it is, goes to it, they are one; if fifty do it, they are one. I cannot own them as assemblies of God as a guarantee for integrity in one coming from them. I can make a difference between misleaders and misled, and allow for ignorance, but that is not the question. I sigh over those ensnared by the unfaithfulness of others, but I find them soon corrupted in principle. I have seen none where integrity has not suffered by having to say to it. Mr ... . urging reconciliation writes a pamphlet blaming us, and told me that Mr— was a decided heretic and ought to have been put out; and when I said, " Why then do you blame me for not going there, when he was not put out?" I do not blame you at all," he replied, and then goes on to do his best to condemn us I I sigh over ensnared ones, but I am sick of this falseness which characterizes all that are in it. says Popery is all wrong, and stays in it. Episcopal and Presbyterian ministers say the state of things is all wrong, and stay in it. This is a system destructive to conscience, and the habit of excusing evil is ruinous to the soul. " Holy," " true," (Rev. 3:77And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; (Revelation 3:7)) I find characterizes Christ in His relationship to the church. He approves to the end. The whole question is, Is the church of God to maintain the truth in unity? My experience of the opposite system in the States, in all shapes, has made me firmer than ever in the path of what is called exclusiveness-exclusion of false doctrine and false practice. in contrast to protecting and excusing it.
Yours affectionately in the Lord.
J. N. D.
I do not, the least, confine discipline to the table; where persony, deliberately take up the loose principle, I have nothing to say to them in divine things anywhere-could not say grace at table with them, and am, of course, blamed for exclusiveness. Canada, 1873.