Dear Brother in Christ,—In going among the poor, I have learned something of the nature of the claims put forward by earnest men, who consider themselves to be “Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord,” on behalf of the church. To the poor these claims are rather of a practical character: What the church can do for souls—at birth, throughout life, at death, and even after death. But, exalted as are these claims, they are always, so far as I have observed, made in professed subordination to Christ Himself. They are ever presented as His benefits, though the church dispenses them. Alas! as to results, the church (or rather its ruler) takes the place of Christ in the minds of many, to His dishonor and their ruin.
Still, in terms, His pre-eminence in all things is ever maintained. This leads me to the question which crave permission to put to you, for an answer, if you deem it of sufficient importance, in the “Bible Treasury.”
In a magazine, lent to me by a brother, is the following statement:— “First then, we have arrived at this, that the church is Christ's body, and that there cannot be any distinction between one part of Christ and another. Paul's first lesson is conclusive on this point. The Lord regards his persecution of the church as personal, as done to Himself “Why persecutest thou me?” No room here for the error that there is a difference between an offense done to the church, and one done to the Head, as if they were two parts of a great whole which can exist separately.”
I ask,—Does Acts 9:4 so apply to the church as to warrant the writer's deduction of no distinction and no difference? Other passages, besides Acts 9:4, plainly state, that the Lord graciously counts, and will count, what is done to others as done to Himself, and this, where there is no thought of the church, or of union; as in the case of His servants—of the remnant (in Matt. 25)—and of a little child received in His name. But granting that union is implied in Acts 9:4, does union involve equality?
The words, “There cannot be any distinction between one part of Christ and another,” must convey to most minds that the writer holds, and would have his readers hold, that, because the church and the Head “cannot exist separately,” neither is greater or less than the other. Is this consistent with the glory of Christ? and can saints accustom themselves to such statements and not get “their spiritual senses deadened, their hearts hardened, their consciences torpid, and their judgment perverted “?
If you would briefly review the whole article, it would be helpful, I trust, to many besides O. A.