I admit that what is called open ministry has given occasion to the flesh. But I do not think the remedy for it is to deny the presence and operation of the Spirit of God; which as far as it goes, is the principle of the tract. And I will add further that, while I admit that the flesh has taken occasion from spiritual liberty to take license to itself (as God has warned us it would), and while I think that flesh acting thus ought, as in every other case, to be judged by the church if the individual does not judge it for himself, I have no hesitation in saying that I have found spiritual devotedness and spiritual intelligence and brotherly joy unequivocally inferior, and a very carnal following of particular ways of thinking taking their place, wherever teachers (with a comfortable opinion of themselves, because able by natural qualifications to be acceptable to many, without denying that they might have gift) have absorbed into their own hands the ministry of the word. It is, and has been in all ages, one of the first symptoms of spiritual decline in the church. Another consequence is, that sisters lose a most blessed place which God had given them in the church, and take one which He has not given, and which is really a dishonor to them before God.
Moreover (while I would press upon every heart, and especially upon those who would act upon the deplorable and unchristian principle of “having a right to speak,” that grace is “swift to hear and slow to speak,” and that, while faithful in the exercise of what God has given, one must ever be ready to esteem another better than oneself), I believe that the love of power is as much to be dreaded in those who can gratify the ears and minds of many (and that is not edification), as the love of doing in those who can please but few; and this especially where spiritual power is on the decline, and teaching looked to stimulate, instead of the Lord enjoyed in grace. The consequence is, you will find more or less the teacher takes the place of the Lord. Seemly flesh is not more pleasant to God than rude flesh, though it pave the way more easily for the church's contentedly leaving God and forgetting His presence.
Teaching, precious as it is, is not His presence. I dread much when I hear people say, “Dear Mr. Such-an-one.” It may be accompanied with grace in other ways, but I do not think they would have so spoken of Paul or Apollos, when the grace and holy power which puts the conscience in the presence of Christ was in its energy, though they would have esteemed them very highly in love for their work's sake.
You may perhaps think I am blaming others—I am not. I have seen the same spirit working as regards myself; and I think I may say I have struggled against it, though this (in the feebleness of the church as to laborers) is not easy; but in trusting God for this, I have found that blessing has followed, whatever the danger seemed. I believe that the Holy Ghost dwells in the church. This will never make man careless in watching over the saints for their good—quite the contrary; but the belief of it will hinder his taking the Spirit's place. God will be respected in the church, and His Spirit in the whole body and in the least of its members. And those that honor Him, He will honor.
The pamphlet you have sent me is just the setting aside of all this, and the expression of the decline, in the writer's case—I might almost say, the ceasing to believe in the presence and operation of God in the church. I do not suppose that you can force, so as to be profitable, the speaking of those who have little gift or but few words to say. The forcing a member to act may not restore the tone of the body, want of which has disabled the member from acting; but to take this state as the healthful one, because the acting of the members made the body in its sickly state ill at ease, is a sad mistake.
This is the progress of the thing: when real and fresh joy in the Lord is there, and the saints think much of the Lord, a few words spoken about Him recall Him, and they are full of joy and happy. If another can speak largely of His grace (though in fellowship this would be to me exceptional), they feed; Christ is still thought of, His glory present, and the soul perhaps carries away meditation for another moment. The speaker and the hearers together think of Christ. Where the Lord is much less thought of, the few very same words would not recall Christ scarcely at all to the heart, because He is not there in the same way, and they are wearisome, they do not stimulate; and he who once was wont so to speak thinks himself and his gift despised.
Perhaps, too, some defect of education or the like has accompanied these few words: it was quite or almost overlooked when Christ was very present, but now it is very evident and displeasing. If sometimes he went beyond what the Spirit gave him, this, though perceived and (if there was faithfulness) mentioned in grace, with the recognition of Christ in all the rest—now that Christ is not the source of the same blessing, has not the same place in the hearer—becomes remarked and offensive, because what man is, is now much more prominent.
Hence the more accomplished teacher who does not offend the ear and the taste becomes necessary -a dreadful snare to himself and to the whole assembly. But when this comes to be insisted on as the right thing and those who have educational qualifications come to insist on this state of things as the right state, it is very sad. Failure, and building on failure to sanction the position which the flesh would assume for its ease because of failure, are two very different things. The first, man has to confess; the last, is assuming his ease in it and setting aside God and his own responsibility at once. And I do avow I have a little distrust of this, coming always from those who take the whole matter to themselves on this ground. I think, if the history of the church be examined, it will be found that the decline of any revival always took this road.
One word more of general remark. I do not at all say that in any gathering where such is the state of things, those who can edify very little, or not at all, are to force themselves on the gathering, or to be encouraged in that state of things to speak. If it does not edify, it can be of no use. The point is, that all should feel what the state of things is, and, above all, not sanction as right what is the proof of failure and decay. I have no hesitation in saying that worse spiritual decline is always the consequence.
That the flesh has used liberty for license I do not doubt: the gifts did not hinder that. It may be, too, that in a given gathering there may not be a teacher at all; this is very possible, because the gifts are in the unity of the whole body, not in a single gathering. The state of the church may make our weakness very apparent in this respect; but if we are humbled, we shall accept this position and he blessed. The attempt to restore gift by, or rather to substitute for it, the quietness which decent human attainment may give, is just to avoid the holy, humble, God-owning confession of the state we have brought the church to. It is building again (and worse) the things which we have destroyed.
It is, after being awakened, refusing to acknowledge and bow our heads on account of the sorrowful state of the church; and this I see fast growing in many a mind because of the blessing which God in His sovereign goodness deigned to bestow on those who did so own and humbled themselves on account of that state. The Lord keep us lowly, and keeping the word of His patience.