IT is the privilege of the Christian to be occupied with what is good and directly for edification. (Phil. 4:8, 98Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. (Philippians 4:8‑9); Rom. 14:1919Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. (Romans 14:19).) But when we find that new doctrines have grown up in our midst, and are freely taught, and that a place is claimed for them on the ground that we are to "forbear one another in love;" when it is distinctly admitted that these doctrines are different from those we have hitherto accepted as the truth, drawn immediately from the word itself; when the truth, which we have through God's grace been taught, is impugned as "an unwritten creed, usurping to itself the authority that belongs only to the word of God," in order that divers new doctrines may take the place of this so-called "unwritten creed"—it surely becomes us to test these doctrines in obedience to the exhortation, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." The duty of examining them is the more incumbent on us, as (being avowedly based upon much of what through grace we all hold in common), they are insisted on and taught as a more correct expression of the truth by their author, who professes to find countenance for part, at all events, of his peculiar views in writings we little expected to support them. But are we to "forbear in love" with what may be found to lead us to developments which go beyond scripture?
These doctrines are set forth in Help and Food: for the household of faith, a periodical published in America, and more particularly in a tract entitled Life in Christ, and Sealing with the Spirits by F. W. GRANT, It is with this tract (which grew, as the author states, out of a very much shorter one on the same subject) that the following pages are specially occupied.
At the outset of our inquiry we are met by the fact, that we have to do with a carefully elaborated system reasoned out of the word of God. We have not in the tract an orderly exposition of scripture, but "texts" are brought forward (it is our author's own expression), culled from many different parts of it, which treat of different subjects, in order to support statements authoritatively laid down.
The opening pages illustrate this. A passage is quoted, some word or words in it are emphasized; another passage, stated to be "similar," is brought to bear upon it; a con elusion is drawn as a necessary consequence, and thus doctrines are "reached" (p. 35) and we are led on step by step by the force of logic to what "it is not surely possible therefore to deny" (p. 12); and this last, on examination, is found to be nowhere stated in scripture-to be, on the contrary, in whole or in part, a misrepresentation of its teaching. (See for details p. 28 below.) I add here some other examples of our author's method.
On page 24 an "actual fact" is arrived at by a gratuitous assumption as to the Old Testament saints,—a purely imaginary application to, them, when no longer on this earth, of what is stated about other saints after Christ had come, and by a second gratuitous statement as to eternal life which necessarily separates the possession of it from the consciousness of possessing it—a characteristic of this system. All this is set down as "the doctrine which scripture teaches," and in which "there is no difficulty at all." (Page 23.) When we search the scriptures, however, nothing of this is to be found "written."
Take again the reasoning on Rom. 8:99But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9) (pp. 24-28), where our author, laboring to define the sense of "in the flesh," reduces the thought to a fixed form, whether standing or state be treated of, calling to his aid in the process passages from the Gospel of John which treat of an entirely different subject, in order to prove the meaning that should be attached to an expression which John does not use. The reader is embarrassed with a question put in such a way as to beg the whole matter at issue: "May one have this [that is, eternal] life, and still the wrath of God abide?" (Page 26.) He would lead his reader to infer that of course one cannot. But what light has he got g The point of the tract which Mr. Grant is reviewing, and the real point at issue, is, May a man have life and yet, for some reason or other, still have the sense in his soul of dreading the wrath of God I We all know that such an experience is as common as possible, and God has given His truth to deliver from it. (1 John 4:17-1917Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:17‑19).) Of course I in no way would justify each a state of soul, or imply for an instant that a soul should be encouraged to remain in it, by the assurance that it has life. There is such a thing as deliverance, blessed be God; and when that is known, the soul enjoys its true Christian position. But there are to be met with every day, as our author of course admits, quickened souls who are not delivered. As this has been often explained at length, I have no need to dwell upon it. But to return. He concludes his case against the extract he is reviewing by invoking to his aid 1 Cor. 3:1-3,1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3:1‑3) where the expression "fleshly" is employed as to the walk ("Are ye not carnal [fleshly], and walk as men 1"); and, without so much as hinting at this important difference in the application of the term, reasons from it as to its moaning when employed in Rom. 7:14,14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Romans 7:14) as to the condition of an undelivered soul under law, when the subject in hand is the fact and result of the Spirit indwelling the believer. (Rom. 8:9,9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9) compared with 7:4.) And lastly, he sums up his arguments by an "inevitable consequence," that "in the flesh" means "a sinner in his sins."
This henceforth becomes the stereotyped systematic value of the expression we are expected to receive. That it represents a part of the truth I do not question. But I would ask the reader if he will be content to accept this hard and fast definition, in exchange for the forms of living truth we find in the word of God I The blessed and delicate distinctions of the living word are rudely handled, even trodden under foot, in building up the doctrines of our author and in justifying his conclusions, and that too at the expense of "suggesting" questions as to truths hitherto simply and freely enjoyed in communion with God.
One is happy to agree with the statement (p. 31), that "the truth as to what we are does not, thank God, depend upon our apprehension of it." But why is it not added that there can neither be possession, nor spiritual enjoyment of it, until the truth itself is believed? Deliverance can only come from the truth being believed, brought home in power to the soul by the Spirit of God. "The words that I speak unto you," says the Lord, "they arc spirit and they are life," Theological disquisitions as to ways and times and means may have a certain book interest; but the undelivered soul wants something else, and finds in the living word of God what suits its varying condition, streams flowing fresh from Christ, the fountain of life. Stereotyped forms will not satisfy it. But what are we to expect from one who in the face of Rom. 4:6-7,6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. (Romans 4:6‑7) can write: " Forgiveness is, in a certain sense, the very opposite of justification;" and then proceeds to present Propitiation as less than Substitution (p. 50)—the exact opposite of the truth, if Leviticus 16. is to teach us anything Will this sort of theology help a soul groping in darkness, out into the light and joy which bursts upon it, when it hears and believes that "David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteousness without works, [saying]: Blessed are they whose lawlessness’s have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not at all reckon sin"? And when a soul is in the light, does the subtle distinction sought to be drawn help us to understand better what forgiveness, or justification, is? I venture to say, in presence of Rom. 5:1-10,1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:1‑10) that both get obscured in the soul; and not only so, but that the point of the blessing in verses 10 and 11 is lost.
No one questions the statement, or rather what I suppose the author means by it (for, as a statement, it is most unsatisfactory), that "faith in forgiveness was never made the condition of forgiveness, but sprang out of the certification of the forgiveness itself" (p. 41). Of course, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." It is so written. Faith does not come by feeling; nor is it ever a reason for God's acting, as if by it we merited something from Him. We do not get life because we believe, we get it in believing "He that believes has it." So far we are agreed. But one asks, Why does the writer regularly, persistently, leave out the "blessedness" which accrues to the one forgiven, and which scripture as regularly associates with forgiveness, as he himself is obliged to admit on page 58 of his tract? Why, in referring to the Lord's first word to the woman in Simon the Pharisee's house, does he entirely omit the second word? The point before us is, that the divine word which declares forgiveness is the ground of the believing soul's assured enjoyment of it. The Lord first says to the woman, "Thy sins are forgiven,"—and then He says, "Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace." So in the case of the paralytic man: the Lord does not merely say, "Son be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee" (which of itself implies however the point we insist on), but at the same time He grants to him the healing of his body, associating it in the closest way with the governmental forgiveness of which it was outwardly the expression: "That ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (then he saith to the paralytic), Arise, take up thy bed and go into thy house" (Matt. 9:2-72And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. 4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7And he arose, and departed to his house. (Matthew 9:2‑7); and so it is in Mark and Luke). It was the outward effect of the Lord's power on the man in healing him, that provoked the acknowledgment of it from the eyewitnesses: they "glorified God, who had given such power unto men." Our author not only divorces this connection, but so leaves the second part in the shade, that it practically disappears.
The above passages quoted by him partially, as I have shown, are made to do service in giving additional proof that "scripture at large," as well as Acts 2:38,38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38) teaches the appropriation of forgiveness to, not by, the believer (pp. 40, 42); not that "appropriation by" is denied, but it is detached from the other, and is to be practically attained by a process of reasoning or by aid of ministry (pp. 35, 42). This is stated plausibly and asserted to be the "plain" teaching of scripture. And no doubt it is when one half of every passage quoted to prove it is omitted! Was there then no appropriation of forgiveness by the psalmist, when his roaring all the day long under God's heavy hand upon him was exchanged for the light and inward peace and joy, expressed in verses 6, 7: "For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found; surely in the floods of great waters it shall not come nigh to him. Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah." (Psa. 32)? Did Joshua the high priest appropriate nothing when he was clothed with the new garments, and the high priest's miter was put upon his head 7 Was nothing appropriated by Isaiah after the confession of his uncleanness "was wrung out of him," as our author states, when he hears the Lord's voice say, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" and, in the joy of deliverance, without a doubt or question, answers: " Here am I, send me "? And, in Acts 2, was there no appropriation of forgiveness by those who gladly received his word and were baptized, and who" received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people"?
Every passage we look at only renders more unacceptable the system we are presented with, and which, for the satisfaction of appreciating certain theological distinctions, involves our giving up the blessed reality of the effect produced on the soul by the word of God, "which liveth and abideth forever." We are asked to be content to know that God's word only appropriates His blessings to us; and then to be taught (p. 42) to appropriate to ourselves what God has appropriated to us, because "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." This process of reasoning intervenes between us and the full sense of enjoyed forgiveness we seek for. The teacher has to help us over the interval somehow or other; for we are not to expect to find directly stated in the scripture such a thing as forgiveness being appropriated by the soul! It had become "a possibility" to those "guilty and convicted men" who in baptism, on the day of Pentecost, were "seeking" for a good conscience! So we are told. "Forgiveness becomes a Possibility (we must not speak of justification yet)." (P. 43.) Is this sober dealing with holy scripture?
But does not every expression which the Lord reads from the book of the prophet Esaias in the synagogue, entirely disprove this system? What is the meaning of deliverance to a captive? What is sight to a blind man? What the acceptable year of the Lord? Do we not find linked together in the closest possible way the glad tidings presented to the poor in the power of the Spirit's unction, and the effect produced in the soul that hears, and who in hearing receives sight, the power to enjoy the light, and finds deliverance, the state in which to enjoy the Lord's favor. The appropriation to, and the appropriation by, go together. Can our author deny it? But what then becomes of his theory? Apparently he would avoid the difficulty by saying, in the postscript at the end of his tract, (or rather, making scripture say) that "having Christ you have all," But so also said M. Scherer, when he turned to infidelity over thirty years ago.
Our author complains that "experiences are brought in to supplement Christ in a really legal way." I would ask the reader, in presence of the passages adduced, whether it is God, or "legal" man, that gives to experiences a place, which this system entirely ignores? Of course it is easy to run to extremes and exaggerate anything, our own experiences perhaps most easily of all, (not because God has so written His word as to put the two sides of appropriation inseparably together, but) because we are selfish and like to think about ourselves. But "to the law and to the testimony:" what does the scripture say 7 Mr. Grant, as we have seen, in seeking to establish his doctrine, leaves out one half of the scriptures he quotes. The point for us is to notice how God presents the truth in His word; what things He links together, and what things He keeps separate; for that is of vital importance for us to-day. He is wiser than we are, and knows how to adapt His truth to our weakness and dullness of hearing. And he has chosen to make appropriation to" and "appropriation by" (to use the expressions of the tract) inseparable. One turns from the human copy to the divine model with a sense of inexpressible relief.
But this is not all. We find here "questions" raised without number, so that at last the poor reader is in a maze of uncertainty as to what he thought he already possessed, on the authority of the word read in simplicity. This is a characteristic of every theological system.
There is however another trait which is even worse still. We are in the presence of sustained reasoning such as that by which the Roman Catholic proves that Mary is the mother of God: she was the mother of Jesus Christ, and He is God; who can deny it l Who then can resist the evident conclusion I The author, to use an expression of his own, has "thought out" his system; and he delights in its "consistency," and is strengthened in it by the force of contrast with the "inconsistencies" (p. 63) he finds, or thinks he finds, in others. When the system is found fairly to break down, he takes refuge in not knowing what the statements he reviews mean (p. 62). But the difficulty is of his own making, and is the result of his "putting together" things that have to be kept separate; for surely nothing is so varying as divers states of soul, which is the matter treated of in this part of his tract. Pre-occupied with his theory, he habitually misstates his premises and leaves out what in each case Would disprove it altogether. It is at such a cost that "all falls readily into place and harmonizes with the general doctrine." (Page 50.)
I give another example here from pages 40, 41, already referred to. This, though merely a type (upon which, as such, we must be careful not to build doctrine, blessedly as it may confirm and often develop as to detail doctrine that is stated elsewhere in scripture), yet, in this particular instance, as presented by the Holy Ghost, clearly contradicts what it is quoted to establish. I refer to the peculiar case of the sin-offering in which no blood was shed, it being of fine flour. (Lev. 5:11-1311But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. 12Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering. 13And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering. (Leviticus 5:11‑13).) Mr. Grant represents it thus:
"In the exceptional case above referred to, God provided for the poverty that could not bring the offering required. Here, a meat-offering of flour was permitted, and accepted as a sacrifice would have been. This, in type, is significant, and should be helpful to us. Christ trusted in before God, where yet the soul has never grasped the meaning of His cross (I do not say, denies it), Christ trusted in, I say, as a Savior from sin, avails for its remission. And poor as this state of soul is, we may thank God that seeing what really avails to put away sin He can forgive still. Surely this bears upon the point before us. It shows distinctly that forgiveness there can be, apart from the apprehension of the ground of forgiveness.”
Reading the above, one of course expects to find nothing in this offering which corresponds to the "sacrifice;" for it is, he says, "accepted as a sacrifice would have been;" and again, just above, remission of sins, "under the law was universally connected (save in only one case that I know) with sacrifice." (Page 40.) But when we look at the passage, what do we find 7 The scripture adds what, as usual, our author omits, and does not even hint at: " Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin-offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him...."(Vers. 12, 13.)
Is it not clear that what made" the atonement," was not the more presentation of fine flour, as the tract implies, but the burning of the memorial of it upon the altar, "according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord"? That is, it corresponded to the burning of the fat in the ordinary sin-offering. (Compare chap. 4:10, 19, 26, and especially vers. 31, 35.) Does not this, from the fact of there being no blood shed, serve to direct special attention to that which our poor hearts so readily forget, —and without which no blood-shedding could avail to accomplish redemption,—the fire of judgment consuming that which was most excellent in the sacrifice? In type, the fire on the altar of burnt-offering tested and proved the absolute perfection and devotedness of Him who gave Himself for us. From thence the sacrifices went up in sweet savor which showed how God was glorified in respect of sin, and, at the same time, indicated the measure according to which He accepted the person of the offerer. In this way the fat of the sin-offering established the connection between this offering and the burnt-offering, which was cut into its various pieces and wholly burned as a sweet savor upon the altar. Only that in the case of the sin-offering, the person was defiled and communion with God interrupted; whereas in the other offerings, the worshipper's communion was expressed in his approaching God's altar. This important distinction had to be maintained. The sin-offering was peremptory; but the fat of it is treated as the fat of the peace-offering, and in chapter 4:31 is stated to be burned "for a sweet savor unto the Lord." In this particular case, the exceptional absence of blood-shedding brings into relief on the one hand the spotless humanity of Christ, apart from the anointing of the Spirit (for there was to be no oil, nor frankincense); and, on the other hand, His being tested by the fire of judgment as the sin-bearer,-which manifested His holiness and spotless perfection as nothing else did. The sin-offering was "most holy;" it was eaten by the priest who offered it, so that the question of sin was thus removed from the person of the sinner, and the sweet savor of the sacrifice transferred to him as the measure of personal acceptance. The mare fact of a life given, apart from the bearing of sin at the time it was given, could not satisfy the demands of divine righteousness in respect of sin. So we find the scripture insisting upon the blessed Lord's suffering and not merely dying for sin.
Only by leaving out the essential feature of the passage can it be made to skew that the sinner may find a Savior in Christ without having "grasped the meaning of His cross;" that there can be forgiveness "apart from the apprehension of the ground of forgiveness." We have seen, on the contrary, that if there is a passage which, more than another, brings into relief the deep meaning of the cross, in its perfect adaptation to the sinner's state and need, (the blessed Lord's being tested under judgment, suffering "under the same judgment," Luke 23:40,40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? (Luke 23:40) while drinking the bitter cup for sin), it is this peculiar case of the bloodless sin-offering. It slims the absolute necessity of apprehending His work in its true moral character, in order that we may not stop short at the fact of His life being given; which in our negligent short-sightedness we are in danger of doing. Thank God, our blessing does not depend upon our apprehension of it; but to divorce it from the inward work of the Spirit in the soul, and which supposes some measure of apprehension at any rate, is disastrous: it is incipient ROMANISM.
This tract habitually replaces direct scripture statements by reasoning such as, on examination, is found to be defective, exaggerated, or false. It is in this way that a passage is made to yield a "simple, obvious," (?) sense, "implied" by a parallel drawn from an expression found elsewhere (p. 25). It is not surprising that "questions supposed settled" by such a system, "return upon us" (p. 26). Seeking to define where God does not define, results in raising questions which are little else than strife about words, to no profit. (2 Tim. 2:1414Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. (2 Timothy 2:14).)
There is a sad example on page 46, where our author, to settle a "question" raised by himself, introduces us to a nice theological distinction. He says, "It is we, not our faith, that are sealed, and this is a great practical difference." But let me ask who is the "we" here ? Is it not believers, according to Mr. G. himself? If there were no faith, there would be no seal on those indicated by the "we." But the author's sophistry is for the purpose of disconnecting the seal of the Spirit from faith in the work of Christ; which, he tells us, two pages further on, “the word of God absolutely omits altogether" in this connection! And it leads him into a fresh difficulty, which he has to get out of by another theological invention. He says, the seal " can only be the witness of the perfection of the one in whom He (the Spirit) thus can dwell." This of course needs explanation, so he adds—" Christ's personal perfection, ours in Him.' But how was it that when the Holy Ghost fell on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, He took the form of tongues of fire rather than that of a dove? Does not this testify to the presence of sin in us (1 John 1:88If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)), in contrast to Christ's personal perfection? This is confirmed by the fact that in the feast of firstfruits—the Mosaic "Pentecost," the two wave loaves were "baked with leaven," and a he-goat had to be offered at the same time, as a sin-offering, which was not the case when the wave sheaf was presented, seven weeks before (Lev. 23:9-219And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. 13And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. 14And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 15And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord. 17Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Lord. 18And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the Lord, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savor unto the Lord. 19Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. 20And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. 21And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations. (Leviticus 23:9‑21)). There is in us what needs constant self judgment in the power of the Spirit. But this is all omitted, not to say denied, in the theory before us.
Thus it is that the mysteries of life and truth are reduced to certain stereotyped forms, the beauty of which depends upon the likeness to the original, just as flowers in wax or porcelain are admired according as they resemble the living models from which they are copied. But because they are copied, what really constitutes the value of the living flower, to one who is able to estimate it and who cares for it as divine, is lost. He has the external form which enchanted the eye of the superficial observer, and this too no more subject to change or decay, as the living one; but he has no longer any means of seeking out the hidden treasures which, in every detail, reveal the glory and perfect wisdom of the Creator. The way in which God has blessedly adapted the manifestation of His glory to the varying forms of our weakness and needs remains unobserved, unknown.
This is the case with all human systems. They suit the cravings of man's mind, but necessarily leave the heart and conscience unaffected, and consequently open to any and every form of worldliness. It is in vain to insist upon holiness—learning the truth so as to enjoy it holily (pp. 35, 53)—if the moans of doing so is practically severed from the source which alone is life-giving. 'What reason is there in a system that "the salt" should "lose its savor"? It is easy to modify or recast dogmas. This requires no exercise of heart in the presence of God, as to whether the state of soul corresponds with the doctrine presented, or as to whether the doctrines themselves live in the soul in the power of the Spirit of God. The form of godliness may be to a certain extent preserved, but the reality of it, in its inward hidden power, is lost. The effect can only be to deaden more and more true spiritual affections, while fostering the imagination of an intellectual mind, which degrades itself by feeding upon the things it has created. And the nearer the system comes to the divine model, the more it resembles the things it professes to present,—the more the heart is beguiled into admiring the cleverness of the workman who has elaborated and thought it out, and the more also the vigilant enemy of souls finds his work made easy of palming off human workmanship as a substitute for divine. It is the very principle of idolatry in its root and source; the degrading effect of it is a mere question of time. GOD has been exchanged for man as an object before the soul; and the life of the word is lost in forms which flatter the mind because they are its creature, but which from the necessity of the case are lifeless, and, while using scripture as servile support, carry the adept beyond the action of the word they profess to illustrate. This is so, even supposing what never is the ease, namely that the system, so far as it goes, represents exactly what it pretends to treat of.
We speak not of one particular system or another now, but of the principles involved. Surely such considerations ought to make us beware of reducing scripture to systematic forms, and allowing our minds to reason upon what no mate knows, but only the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2:1111For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11).) True exposition of scripture leads us to see the divine perfection and unfathomable depths of the living word, while helping us to roach the treasures contained in it. It applies the truth directly to the soul, developing the appreciation of it for its own sake, and cultivates in the soul the sense of having to do directly with GOD, as to its reception and formative power. The systematizer, on the other hand, culls out of scripture what suits his theory; and, absorbed and blinded by it, presents it as a true representation of mysteries; which the human mind cannot grasp, though, in the simplicity in which scripture reveals them, they are the delight and food of faith. But the mind that reasons satisfies itself and its disciples with forms of truth made easy through being detached from the mysteries of life from which they spring, mysteries which escape the attention of the reasoner, or are explained away.
The reader will judge from the examples given—and almost every page in the tract might furnish others—whether our remarks are applicable or not to the system which is before us. Its author thinks he has the word of God for his guide, and that he is subject to it. It is not difficult for us to accept fully his assertion in this respect; but the more we examine the writings, the more we recognize in them the work of the clever artist who seeks to reproduce the works of God in nature. No doubt he would fain present a true and faithful copy even to minor details which would escape a less careful observer; but not less is the result human and lifeless; and that is the very thing we have to dread in the things of God. The result we are presented with is not scripture, though professedly built upon it,-but replaces it, and sets it aside.
From what we have seen already of the tract before us, it is readily perceived that the doctrines concern especially the subjective side of the truth. In treating of this, however, it is impossible to avoid speaking of the objective side. And here we are struck by a characteristic of the system, already noticed in part. Our author, when dealing with what is objective, mixes up history and doctrine, which scripture invariably keeps distinct, revealing on the one hand God's purposes of grace toward us in Christ, and on the other, showing how they were practically brought to man so as to be entered into by him, received in more or less power and intelligence, and so enjoyed,-or else again, were misapprehended, rejected, forfeited and lost. But when dealing with scriptures which treat directly of the application of the truth to the soul, he invariably leaves out the effect produced by it, the point on which scripture regularly insists in the passages themselves.
One would have thought that the admission on page 58, to which we have referred already, would have made the author pause in his self-imposed labor; for his system receives a rude shock in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. But he is unable to resist the satisfaction of having fixed formulas which embrace and explain everything, even " the difficulties which beset souls and so he tones down the truth to suit every possible state of ignorance and darkness, instead of leaving the word of God in its own blessed simplicity and living power, to meet souls where they are and bring them out of their darkness. Referring to the example of Abraham's faith, he puts in italics the word "therefore," in verse 22, and then asks the question, "But when was it that in fact all this took place '?" He continues thus:
"When he was about a hundred years old." But that is in Gen. 17, and it is in Gen. 15, at least fourteen years before, that 'he believed in the Lord, and Ha counted it to him for righteousness.' But what had intervened? Why, that account of Hagar and Ishmael which shows that not yet had Abraham's faith acquired the strength which afterward was so manifest Yet God pronounced as to the germ as if it were the fully developed thing. He imputed it to him for righteousness on account of what He foresaw it would be. And this is the example the apostle gives us. All is of a piece, then, with regard to justification.... &c., &c." (Page 59.)
This is an ingenious theory, no doubt, woven with the help of the historical element of the reasoning, with which the writer regularly furnishes us; the "fourteen years" (of which, by the way, the apostle says nothing) could not be overlooked No one questions that God graciously led on Abraham in the knowledge of Himself, in the wonderful path of separation in which sovereign grace had placed him. If any one likes to call this the "development" of his faith, I have no objection. But is the apostle speaking of this in Rom. 4.? The subject is altogether different. Does the scripture say that God counted Abraham's "germ" of faith for righteousness "on account of what He saw it would be," as our author says? There is not a hint of such a thing. And as doctrine it is very bad; for it would make justification in fact depend on the amount of our faith. If it is small—only a "germ"—God, who "foresees its future strength," recognizes it, and calls "in this way" (the author says) "the things that be not as though they wore." For that is what is positively stated in the tract before us Did he not see that, on his own showing, this would be the assertion that in Gen. 15 Abraham had no faith at all? But that is where we get to, when we reason upon scripture.
Bad he called to mind the Lord's word to the disciples in Luke 17:6,6And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. (Luke 17:6) he would have felt, I trust, that his theory as to the germ of faith is a complete misrepresentation of scripture truth. And I would ask again, Was a serpent-bitten, dying Israelite healed, in looking at the serpent on the pole, because God "foresaw" that his faith would afterwards gather strength? What becomes of scripture with this system? And besides, how does the author know that Abraham's faith was stronger in chapter 17 than it was in chapter 15.? Scripture does not say so.
But there is worse still behind. The author's "therefore," added on to his historical development, so falsifies the whole passage, that the very point of it is lost; and we are occupied with man all through and not with GOD. It is the essence and the evil of his system. I do not speak merely of the strange application of verse 17 of the chapter, unaccountable in one occupying Mr. Grant's position, and serious too, when we remember that it is holy scripture which is in question (for I suppose no sober-minded Christian ever thought before of applying the statement about God's "reckoning things that be not as though they were" to Abraham's "germ" of faith); but, in occupying the mind of the reader with this development, the direct teaching of the chapter is lost to view. The apostle does not say one word about it. He shows how God in the fullness of His grace meets man in a state of utter moral ruin, basing all blessing for man upon what He is in Himself. There are three chief points in it. First, the principle of justification is established fully by the divine word in Gen. 15:6,6And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6) "Abraham believed God." It is no question of the amount of faith, "germ" or "development;" it was GOD, the living God, that he believed. He received His word, and God accounted to him this faith as righteousness. David, in Psa. 32, describes the blessedness of the man so justified. He is utterly defiled and incapable of remedying his position, and has no claim on God; but God meets him in his ruin, the "God who justifies the ungodly." Secondly, it is a matter of promise simply, the fulfillment of which depends upon the GOD that made it, not upon the works of law, and necessarily excludes the theory of development as a ground for reckoning faith as righteousness; for it is quoted directly by the apostle in verse 17, from Gen. 15:5,5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. (Genesis 15:5) the very moment at which Abraham's faith is reckoned for righteousness. As to detail, our faith is not called forth by a promise, like Abraham's, but by the already accomplished manifestation of God's power in raising Jesus our Lord from among the dead. But the faith spoken of is faith in God's promise, at the time the promise was made, the faith our author calls the "germ." Here again then his theory is disproved. Thirdly, the apostle brings out the true character of the promise made; shown in figure to Abraham, and through him to us,—when God's time was come to give him the son, already spoken of in chapter 15. The occasion, in chapter 17., of Abraham's felt incapacity, when nature both as to himself and Sarah had practically negated all hope in death, was the suited moment for God to reveal Himself to Abraham as the "Almighty God," and to make known His creative and quickening power, and reveal what it was to have to do directly with Him who "quickens the dead and calls those things which be not as though they wore." (Compare Heb. 11:11, 1211Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. (Hebrews 11:11‑12).) At that time Abraham found strength in faith (there is not a word about its "development"), giving glory to God, being fully persuaded that what HE had promised HE was able also to perform; wherefore also it was imputed to him as righteousness. The "wherefore" has nothing to do with the history, as Mr. Grant would have us believe, but serves to bring into evidence the kind of faith in question—the way in which Abraham turned from himself to God and counted upon Him, oven the God, who raises the dead. (Compare John 5:21, 2421For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. (John 5:21)
24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24).) All this is at aside by the theory. Justification too has been plunged: into the author's petrifying spring; and all is "of a piece”
Indeed it is, alas, and on the next page (p. 60), the "peace with God," of Rom. 5, shares the same fate. Are we to receive all this, and "forbear with it in love”
We find the truth so separated from the effect produced by it, that its subjective power is practically invalidated. We are left for the reception of it to certain specious processes of reasoning, and to the help of the teacher who is to steer us through them; but the direct teaching of the word of God on the matter is kept out of sight. Is it not a warning as to the effect of making up a system? It is surely no small matter to mingle what scripture keeps apart, and separate what scripture puts together. But when we come to the details, we are confronted with a tissue of reasoning wholly untrustworthy, made up of detached morsels of scripture so explained as to form an apparently consistent whole.
It is against this we would especially protest; for false and bad as the conclusions arrived at are, they fall into the shade, comparatively, when weighed with the spiritual damage a soul receives that unsuspectingly follows in the author's wake, and thus learns to reason, instead of simply abiding in the doctrine we have received from the beginning.
Still the effect of the system as presented is no less than a practical upsetting of the subjective truths of Christianity.
In the more naïf and less studied tract, put out as a sort of feeler, and the predecessor of the larger one before us, the author ignored entirely the starting-point of Christianity, Christ's present place as a Man in glory, the Spirit being sent in consequence. (John 7:39; 1639(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) (John 7:39)
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (John 17:6)) This was pointed out to him; and in the present tract he has supplied the serious omission, for it was the very point he was treating. He states now the fact, but in such a way (as we shall have to notice further down, p. 110) as to becloud and destroy practically another truth, unless his quotations from the Synopsis of the hooks of the Bible on page 18 be meant to correct what is stated on page 6, "But if life be only now in Christ, since it is only as risen AND ASCENDED, He is made Lord and Christ, yet in the Son' it was ever, &c." (The italics and small capitals are my own.) In any case the distinction between being quickened by the Son, and being quickened together with Christ, when GOD is looked at as the Quickener, is obliterated. We only find as to quickening, one undeviating form: he says (p. 13), " As to quickening now being other than this, if quickening be giving life, I read, He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son (sic) hath NOT life.' (1 John 5:1212He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (1 John 5:12).) So the quickening together with Christ is directly out of being dead in sins. '"Notice the little word" so " here; thoroughly characteristic of the tract.
All this demands further examination, and in detail. But I notice, in passing, how the author has made a vital truth of scripture fit in humanly, while leaving his system just what it was, and insisting again upon his perversion of the meaning of John 14:2020At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20) (p. 14), as if the commencement of chapter 13 had been erased from his Bible. The delicate distinctions of scripture disappear in this tract. We find "born again," "quickening," "eternal life," used by the author interchangeably in an undefined way; and he argues from one to the other as if they were all synonymous terms, so that the reader is enveloped in a maze of uncertainty, not knowing where he is being led, except that he is painfully conscious that, under this leadership, he is wandering away from holy scripture.
In considering more particularly that part of these "new doctrines" which refers to life and propitiation, we shall find fresh confirmations of what we have already remarked as to the systematic conclusions reached, and the characteristic processes by which they are arrived at.