I know not whether the writer would allow the Holy Scriptures to be written in virtue, or in exercise, of a gift: if not, all his statements are of little importance; for in that ease it is evident that the most important communications from God, and that inspired ones too, are not gifts. But if we are allowed to consider them as such (and for this I refer to 2 Peter 1:20, 2120Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20‑21) for the principle), then I beg the reader to consider the beginning of Luke 1 (1-4), and say how far, in this case, gifts are distinguished sensibly from what man is capable of by spiritual attainment. So Paul in the Corinthians. I suppose it will hardly be denied that these were the fruits of apostolic gift, “though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent.” Is there anything in this so clearly distinguished from the creature? For my own part, that which to me so exquisitely distinguishes the general character of the New Testament inspiration and gift is, that the Holy Ghost, instead of, as in the old prophets, giving oracularly certain revelations, with “thus saith the Lord,” enters (as come down in the unity of the body, as dwelling in the creature, and associating Himself with all its affections, sorrows, and feelings, helping its infirmities), into all the sympathies, and acts in all the affections which redemption has created and left room for, and which become the unity of one body, and binds it all together. “He who searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to God.” I cite this, not as a gift, but as the expression of the way in which the Holy Ghost introduces Himself into the sorrows and sufferings of the body, as being still connected with the creature. What a marvelous sympathy of God in and with the creature! “He who searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to God.” And were the gifts not of this sympathy and unity? Let any man read the epistles of Paul, and say. Let him read Philippians, Philem. 1:22And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house: (Philemon 2) Timothy, Corinthians, or indeed any; and yet surely, apostolic gift, prophetic gift, doctoral gift, were in exercise here. I do not deny that there is sometimes a distinct enunciation of positive fresh revelations: the book of Revelation is a clear case of this, and so are many passages of Paul's epistles. “This we say unto you by the word of the Lord,” and so on. But will the writer of the tract be bold enough to say, that when the apostle wrote thus, he was exercising his gift) and that all found with it in the same epistles is not the exercise of gift but spiritual attainment merely, though addressed as from an apostle? But if not, his view of gift is surely completely falsified; and it is manifest he has confounded gift with another immediate action of the Holy Ghost—with new revelations. Not that God keeps infallibly now as He did in forming the written word; but this is not the point—it is to know whether He works now so as to give competency, and to guide in speaking, and to lead to speak or to be silent. We have seen that when the apostle was not at the same height of spiritual apprehension and power, he repented having written a letter which we have as an inspired epistle.
Nor can I see that the fact that certain gifts were evidently supernatural, as miracles and signs (which are by the apostle declared to be inferior to others, and as tongues, said to be signs to unbelievers, as indeed miracles were also, to confirm the word), should exalt such form of gift above that which edified the Church or converted souls, but which had not necessarily any such form, and whose power was seen only in the conviction of a sinner's conscience, or the edifying of a believer's soul.
In a passage of 1 Peter, we have a principle very important indeed on this subject, which seems to me to preclude altogether the reasonings of the tract. “As every man hath received the gift, let him so minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” Thus, whatever the manifold grace may be, it is to be ministered as a χάρισμα; for the simple fact is, whatever χάρις (grace) gives is a χάρισμα no matter what. “If any man speak, let him speak as oracles of God; if any man minister (i.e., serve in any way), let him do so as of the strength God supplieth.” That is, he sums up the whole matter into general parts which embraced the general good of the Church, as in ordinary exercise, speaking, and serving.
If any man speak, he must do it from God, as expressing what God gave him; if he served, as of the ability which God gave him; that God in all things may be glorified. All was to be presented as coming directly from God, that God might be glorified. Now this is the very thing set aside. It is perfectly clear that the reasoning of the apostle is null, if it be translated “according to the oracles.” Besides, this is not what is said. It is “as oracles,” not even as “the” oracles. What the apostle is speaking of is the source to which it is to be attributed, in order that this source may have the glory, and not man's attainment. That is, χάρισμα is the source of speaking (χ. being simply the expression for all that the manifold grace gives); and it is forbidden to speak in any other way—it is to be ascribed to the gift of God. And I apprehend that if saints, one and all, were honestly thus to wait upon God, there would be a great deal more real gift, and gifts of less human attainment would be better appreciated; while many a person would be kept in healthful silence, because he could not say that he spoke as of God; and if this were demanded, the flesh would be more easily detected, if he pretended to do so. At any rate, such is, I have no hesitation in affirming, the only true meaning of the apostle.
Further, I proceed to show that, as regards the distinction of gift from diligence in the use of means, though the gift be not thus acquired, the writer is wrong; and further, that while gift is really gift, inasmuch as God gives it, yet God prepares the vessel, so that suitability is God's way of acting in this.
First, as to diligence in the use of means, the statements of Scripture show the notion of using the creature independently of such diligence to be entirely false. In 1 Tim. 4 the apostle thus addresses his beloved son in the faith, “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon (or occupy thyself with) these things; give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” Is the possession of gift so contrasted here with the use of means, so that profiting should appear Again, “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. . . . That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” The whole of these directions prove that the possession of x(ipecrita was to be accompanied by the use, the diligent use, of means, so that profiting should appear; and that the writer's confined use of it is entirely a false one.
Further, as to being distinct from natural endowment, the writer instances tongues. I really cannot say as to this: it may have been so; but the general rule in gifts for edification is otherwise. The principle of Scripture, of the Lord, is—natural endowment, gift, and diligence through confidence in His love. The two last we have seen in Timothy—, while in Peter we have been guarded from the abuse of it, into which the writer has fallen. In Matt. 25 we have the express statement of the Lord, that when He went away, He called His servants, and gave to each of them according to his several ability; and they then traded with the talents as His given money. So Paul was a chosen vessel as well as the receiver of a gift; and I think no one can doubt the remarkable qualities which preceded his call. Nor in reading the history of Peter, James, and John, “who seemed to be pillars,” can any one doubt that the Cephas and Boanerges of the Lord had qualities before the day of Pentecost, which the Lord had, in divine wisdom, prepared and chosen for the purpose for which He employed them by His gift. And, while equally apostles, it is clear that all were not alike in this respect. Is it unnatural with God to do thus? Or, when He chooses, before He gives the gift (as we know He did both with Paul and the others), are we to suppose that He chooses without display of wisdom, or without a fitness which He Himself has prepared in His instrument? That it is not what would have appeared in man's eyes may be very true, for God seeth not as man seeth: still He seeth, and in some fair and ruddy youth, who is taken from following the ewes great with young, or in some poor fisherman of Galilee, He may have prepared a chosen vessel which will put man to shame, but glorify the profound wisdom of God in His poor creatures; while in the learned and free-born Jew of Tarsus He may show, in an energy which God alone could have sustained, what it was to count those things which were gain loss for the excellency of the knowledge of the Lord, whose very name he had once sought to destroy. The Lord chooses the vessel, and He chooses it in the wisdom which has prepared it for His use. And it is not the substitution of mere spiritual attainment for the creative wisdom which has prepared it, and for the divine grace which has filled the vessel with His own gift, which will put either God or man in his place.
Let us turn to Rom. 12 The apostle, after exhorting every man to think soberly of himself, according as God had dealt to every man the measure of faith, for that we are all members of one body (a point we will touch on presently), adds, “Having then gifts differing according to the grace given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, on ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.” Now I ask, is it possible, if the apostle had the idea of gift which the writer has, that such a passage would have been found I Could he have spoken of ministry—not of the word properly, but of any service to the saints—teaching, exhorting, giving, and ruling, and then pass on to what are fruits and the walk of grace, heading all with the word “gift” (χάρισμα), “Having then gifts differing” —if such a thought had been in his mind as the writer insists on? It is quite evident that, while some gifts bore externally the stamp of supernatural power, or, if believed, having the character of new revelation, were necessarily assumed to be such; the piety, and, I apprehend, the enlightened and scriptural piety of the saints whose record is in the word, recognized everything as a gift (χάρίσμα); and as the Holy Ghost, and He only, did everything in the Church that was good, it was attributed to Him, not as His gift but as His working. (To say otherwise would be to confine His working to signs or revelations, which is clearly false.) And hence the lists of gifts are altogether diverse (according to the subject of the writer), and none of them complete as if it was a regular enunciation of certain known things, because all that was done for God, God was the doer of it; and that doing was gift to the Church, in him in whom it was accomplished; and Peter forbids its being done in any other way.
The service of ministry which we have (I have no doubt in 1 Peter, but certainly in Rom. 12) as gift, being by Peter contrasted with speaking, and indeed in Rom. 12, too. It is clear that exhortation and evangelizing were neither signs nor fresh revelations, yet they were gifts. Indeed, receiving the word (not on the ground of signs, but) by faith in the conscience is the only true receiving of it; and the fact of signs accompanying it is just the proof that it was not a sign itself. And now see what we have lost as coming from God; we may have it, it seems, as man's sanctified qualities and attainments, but not as a gift from God!"
Further, either there were in the primitive church two sorts of ministry—one which came as a gift from God, and one which did not (which I leave anybody to believe that will, and which I have no doubt Peter forbids expressly)—or else the ministry which is now sought to be set up is altogether different, and is not recognized in Scripture at all; and this is a very serious point, the proper operation of the Spirit being hereby absolutely excluded—His will in sovereignty, in distributing, but, above all, His operation. The individual, it seems, may be sanctified. in this as in everything, but the Holy Ghost never operates in the Church. He may work in a soul for its good, but He never works in the Church. And this is very important, because it goes a great deal farther than a personal question of gifts, even to the living existence and functions of the body, which I beg may be carefully remarked. These gifts are always treated by Paul as membership of the body—the Holy Ghost animating the whole and acting in the parts. There must be no body, then, or, at any rate, no members of the body. I admit freely that this is a figure; and I do not pretend to say such a member is such a gift; but the figure means something. It means that the Holy Ghost is dwelling in and making one the body of Christ, and acting by every one of the members in one way or another, His actings being called χαρίσματα in the members. It is quite true, that some of these may be ostensibly and evidently the power of God. Still, all that is done must come from the same source, according to what is given to each; if not, it comes from the mind and flesh of the individual, and is good for nothing. And, though certain gifts were before, and operated for the gathering of the body, yet, being of it by the then union of all together, they are all treated by the apostle as members of the body. And it is important to remark here, that gifts are never treated as separated, isolated things, though in responsible individuals; as complete in the individuals, as a separate acting of the Holy Ghost in him; but as the consequence of the Holy Ghost acting in the body, of which they were members, and they acting merely as members of the body.
And the apostle is so far from presenting that which is adorned with the outward ostensible sign, as being the most valuable and important gifts, that he states exactly the contrary—distinguishing the two kinds. Comeliness, says he, is put upon what is less comely; for our comely parts have no need: but God has thus tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked.
Let us (passing over for the present the passage of Peter, which forbids speaking save as the oracles of God) consider now the passages of Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians.
I add Ephesians, though the word be not χάρισμα. There may be a shade of idea: substantially they are the same thing: δύμα is not more human attainment than χάρισμα; there is no difference in this respect. That is, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, were gifts, properly speaking (spoken of in a different point of view, I admit, but not the less gifts) in the fullest and highest sense of the word—the consequence of Christ's exaltation; and (with the exception of pastor, which is here identified as the same person, not gift, with doctor) declared elsewhere to be distributions of the Holy Ghost, who is not, as we shall see, left out here. The Church had been declared to be the habitation of God through the Spirit. And they are engaged to walk worthy of this calling. There was one body, they are told, and one Spirit, but to every one of us is given grace (χάρις) according to the measure of the gift (δωρεᾶς) of Christ. Christ had ascended up on high: He had given gifts to men, and He gave some apostles, &c.
The principle stated is that there is a unity of the body in one Spirit; but that to every one of us grace (χάρις) is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ (the χαρίσματα in Peter are said to be received according to the manifold χάρις); that it is Christ who fills all things, who being ascended up, and so head of the Church (and this is the doctrine of the whole epistle), has given in particular those gifts. Every one has received as a member of the body; but these notable gifts are particularly marked out, which especially minister of the fullness of Christ, for the gathering or nourishment of the body, that we might grow up to Him in all things, who is the head. They come from the head (to the Church over all things) that we may grow up to the head: of whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every one part (ἑυὸς ἑκάστου as before) maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love.
Is all this to be given up? For surely (call them δόματα or χαρίσματα) these were no sanctified human attainments; they are gifts which Christ ascended has given, according to the power of the one Spirit in the body, so that each member should work severally in his place, to the edifying of the body in love. Is all unity and membership gone? Or are the members dead? Or are they now to work on some other principle than the living power of the one Spirit in the body, which animates each member in its place, while it makes it a member in the unity of the whole body? Or will it be said that, at that time, besides the perfect corporate system of working by joints and bands, through the power flowing from the Holy Ghost as a center, there was another system, another sort of teachers, another sort of pastors besides, who were not of this perfect system of divine workmanship? If not, and there is another sort now, then not only are gifts gone, but membership, and unity, and the body are gone. Not only have we failed as to them, but they are gone as on God's part; so that my faith cannot look to them. For if they exist, then (if it be not a dead body) does the Holy Ghost work in the several living members for the good of the body, and gift in the true scriptural sense of it subsists; and blessed be God that it does. And this is the question—the existence and unity of the body in its living members.
And here a word on what is called impulse, in passing. I have no love for the word, but rather the contrary; but I am not frightened by a word either. If by impulse be meant the real present acting of the Holy Ghost leading saints to speak, and guiding them in speaking, it is surely the only thing of any value or power. If they are not so led by the Holy Ghost, they must be led by something else, which will not be, to say the least, the present acting of the Holy Ghost; and, therefore, if even very good things may be said, it will not be power, for in every sense power belongs to God. We have already seen that organic utterance (if there be any gift which is simply such, i.e., the use of the creature without his mind) is the lowest kind, and the Corinthians are treated as children in understanding for thinking much of it. We have seen real, proper gift, or χάρισμα, identified, in the case of Timothy, with the diligent use of means. And I add here, that the mind using truth, and the Holy Ghost using the mind, are two different things; for God is in ONE Of them: but the Holy Ghost's using the mind is gift, properly and truly gift, and stated by the Apostle to be the superior kind of gift. Having already spoken of this I cannot be charged with any wild idea of impulse; but I do say that the acting of the Holy Ghost in, and by, man, in a member of the body (which is what the apostle calls gift), is what we are to look for by faith, and is the only thing of any real value or power. I admit that the Holy Ghost can, in another's mind, use what is not such. The testimony of Christ printed on a playbill for an oratorio may be used by the Holy Ghost in the reader's mind for conversion; and the mind's statement of the truth may be used in another's soul by the Holy Ghost for blessing; but it is not what we are to look for. It is not power in service.
Take another point. “Be not drunk with wine, but be ye filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” I suppose, when filled with the Spirit the Holy Ghost was acting, and acting immediately—I may say, sensibly. Is all this to be laid aside, too? Is it wrong to be filled with the Holy Ghost? or, wrong to hope there may be more of it? And this “be not drunk with wine,” is wonderfully like, “these men are not drunken, as ye suppose,” when tongues were spoken. I am not adducing this to show that we are to look for tongues, but that the notion of denying gift goes much farther than is supposed; that it goes to the denying the present acting of the Spirit of God; the being filled with the Spirit as well as the unity of the membership of the Church of God; which are either dead or active by virtue of the Spirit in what is called in Scripture, gifts; and that, ἑνὶ ἑκάστψ to each one, and called χάρισμα, too.
For, turning to Corinthians, we have the same principles as in Ephesians; only (the subject not being the exaltation of Christ over all things, as the one head of the body) the subject is approached from a different side, to suit the πνευματικά, and the contrast of the one Holy Ghost with the many demons. But while thus taking it up on a different ground, it comes to the same statements; the same doctrine is found in it. First, that which distinguishes the Holy Ghost is that He says, in the saint, “Lord Jesus.” A demon would not. But this shows that it acted in the mind, person, and faith of the individual; as indeed the demons often did, when really such, as in an oracle. See the case of Legion: “What have I to do with thee; I pray thee torment me not;” only it was by blinding the mind, and not by light; nor do I doubt that this often happens now.
Then, there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. Here I would remark by the way, that this is not calling them gifts of, or given by, the Spirit, but merely that it was not, as with demons, many, each acting by himself; but that, though the gifts were many, the Spirit was one. It was clearly the operation (ἐνεργεία) of the Spirit in these gifts; but He is never said to be the giver. Of most of them (I doubt not of all), Christ is said to be the giver, as in Eph. 4; and so in Acts 2, “being by the right hand of God exalted, he hath shed forth this which ye see and hear.” But in the economy of God, the Spirit is said ἐνεργεῖν,διαιρεῖν, i.e., to operate or distribute rather than to give; something like Eleazar, who had all the goods of his master in his hand, and distributed them, disposed of them, but they came from another. I say, something like, because the word “master” is irrelevant here; and the Holy Ghost being God, the operations are the operations of God: a truth carefully preserved in this chapter. To explain further this distinction, I could notice the word employed; it is given διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, through the means of the Spirit; καρὰ τὀ πνεὐμα, according to the Spirit; ἑν τψ πνεύματι, in [the power of] the same Spirit.
But to pursue: one more point. Whatever were the manifestations of the Spirit, it was for profit, not for display; but, whatever they were, the point insisted on is, it was one and the same (τό ἒν καὶ τὸ αῦτὸ) Spirit. “For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.” And here I would ask, Is Christ so now? That man has marred and maimed this body, as regards its condition on earth, is admitted; yea, earnestly urged; but in the principle of its existence, can it be said now, So also is Christ? This, evidently, is a most serious question.
Haggai could say to Israel, on whom Lo-ammi was already written, “As in the days when ye came up out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you, fear ye not.” What a blessed and important consolation this! and ground on which faith could rest in its hopes, its confidence, or its labor.
For, continues the apostle, by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, whether Jews, &c., and have all drank into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many, dm: but now the members are many but the body one: and after a passage above quoted, it is said, “that there may be no schism in the body, but that the members may have the same care one for another.”
“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular, and God has set (οὒς μὲν ἔθετο) in the Church, first apostles.... And seek earnestly the better gifts.”
Now what I would remark here is, the way in which the gifts, χαρίσματα, are indissolubly knit up with the unity and membership of the body: and this is no casual idea. We have found the same connected with the headship of Christ, as δόματαa, in the Ephesians. Here we see the basis is stated: “by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body.” And this baptism with the Holy Ghost is what distinguishes the Church, and the ministry of Christ Himself as exalted on high in respect of it. “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Having stated the principle in chapter 12, and the excellency of charity in chapter 13, in chapter 14 he applies it to the state of the Corinthian church; and we have connected with this subject, singing, blessing, and giving thanks; and he prefers doing it with his mind. That is, the whole action of the Holy Ghost in the body is brought out in connection with this subject, whatever pre-eminent gifts might be found among them.
And further, this universality of action is assumed as a possibility in the whole body, in respect of the most public and evident gifts. When ye are gathered together in one place, if all speak with tongues, will they not say, You are mad? “But if all prophesy..... he is convinced of all, he is judged of all,” and the secrets of his heart being revealed, he falls down and confesses that God is in you of a truth; i.e., that God is in the assembly, in the saints. Is all this gone too? He does not fall down and confess that God is in such or such a gifted person; much less does he admire or look up to the spiritual attainments of an individual; he confesses that God is in the assembly, among the Christians. And is this to be lost, and not even sought, and individual attainment substituted for the presence of God in the assembly? For this is the real question: not merely, whether such individual acts on such or such a principle? but whether I am to look to God or to man—to God's presence in the assembly, or to man's competency by acquired attainments? Can I be satisfied with the latter without some very clear proof that the former is not to be sought—that God has abandoned the assembly of His saints? For, if there, is He not to make His presence known? If He do, it is a manifestation of the Spirit in the individual who acts—it is a gift, and, if you please, an impulse. It is God acting—that is the great point.
And here I remark that the application of “the rest,” or οἱ ἄλλοι, “let the rest judge,” to a certain number of recognized teachers, is entirely against the sense and spirit of the passage. That an unspiritual man, in whom the Holy Ghost's power is not, is incapable of so judging, is quite true, though “the spiritual man judgeth all things.” But what the apostle is considering is the power of the Spirit of God in the gathered assembly; so that God is confessed to be in them; so that all might speak with tongues; all prophesy, the person entering be convinced of all, judged of all. And the Holy Ghost is so acting that they might all prophesy one by one, that all may learn (a very good position for every one to be in sometimes), and all may be comforted.
Let us turn to Romans. Here again the same principle meets us. “For I say,” says the apostle, “through the grace given unto me, to every man among you, not to think highly of himself, above what he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith.” Here again we have a very important principle: no false pretension—sober thoughts of self and gift. Χάρισμα (as we may see in what the apostle goes on to say) is spoken of as God's dealing to every man the measure of faith;—this is to be the ground for every man to act upon; if he goes beyond it, much or little, he is in the flesh, and in folly, let his attainments or acceptance be what they may. We want God in order to be profited, and that is according to the measure of faith, and that in every man. For as in one body, we have many members, but all the members have not the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, but each members one of another; but having different gifts, χαρίσματα, according to the grace given to us, whether prophecy [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith.
It is, then, in the unity of the body, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. This is the principle of gifts (χαρίσματα): happy are we that it is so simple. That there were gifts which had a sensible miraculous character, I do not deny, and such as we have lost: but I deny that this was the necessary character or real meaning of χάρισμα, but the effect or prudence of χάρις, grace, here applied to the action of a member of the body, in service. These gifts, however, were by no means the most important ones, and their absence does not touch the truth of the presence of the Holy Ghost hi the body, acting, as He is still sovereign in doing, in the unity of the body in its several members, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith. I add here, I have no doubt that the object of the apostle in this passage is to confine each to his measure of faith, to think soberly of himself, and to confine himself to what God has dealt to him; first, as to the nature, and secondly, as to the measure of the gift; and I add that I do not doubt that many a brother's gift would be recognized, if he did not go beyond his measure in it. If he prophesy, let him prophesy according to the proportion of faith—all beyond that is flesh, and putting himself forward; and this is felt and his whole gift rejected; and it is his own fault, because he has not known how to confine himself to it, and therefore his flesh was acting, and his speaking is attributed to this, and no wonder. It is also true as to the nature of a gift. If a man sets about to teach, instead of confining himself—to exhorting, if he exhorts—he will not and can not edify. I humbly think—but in this I fully confess I may be mistaken, and desire that he may be blessed with every gift—that this is our brother's mistake. This tract is teaching: I believe his gift to be much more exhorting, and that it is out of the measure, if not out of the nature, of his gift—a gift in which I know he has been blessed. I do not think his estimate of χαρίσματα is scriptural, or according to any sober measure of teaching from God. I trust he will bear with me in saying this: we owe such a remark to each other—that I say not to the Church. I will add (to spew that I do not despise anything that comes from him, where I can trace divine teaching), that I think his suggestion on σοφία is of importance for the understanding of that point; and though I have not examined it fully in the word, several passages connect themselves with his remark, in my mind, which make it of interest and importance to me.
I add yet further, that I recognize fully certain gifts which we may call permanent, or perhaps more accurately attached to the person: He gave some apostles, &e. I have spoken of it elsewhere. I repeat it now, that the putting forth of another part of the subject, which is of equal (I apprehend, indeed, of much greater) importance, namely the presence of the Holy Ghost's acting in the body, should not be exclusive. The main point is the Holy Ghost's acting in the unity of the whole body, and in each several member; but in so doing, Christ constitutes certain persons as vessels of certain gifts, and gives them for the service to which he is pleased to call them. I do not believe either will be kept in their place of blessing unless graciously owning the other. But it is equally clear that the unity of the body and the presence of God in it, is of more consequence than that which ministers to the maintenance of that unity. Yet these do help to maintain the saints in that unity. But if they despise that unity manifested in the positive action of the Holy Spirit in all the members, then they become a positive and crying evil. It is the principle of Popery; which, as a practical fact, places the operation of the Spirit in the teachers, not in the body. Along with this, unity may be insisted on, as we know from Popery; but it is the unity of slavery and death.
There is no such evil in the Church as the claim of spiritual power in the Church, where it is not fully owned as really and practically acting in the members of the body. These cannot, on the other hand, by the Spirit deny his operations in special service. But it is service—a service to Christ and the saints. Christ gave Himself for the one, the body: He acts by the others, by whom He will, by the Holy Ghost.
I add one word as to the translation of 1 Peter 4:1111If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:11), εἴ τις λαλεῖ ώς λόγια θεοῦ. εἵ τις διακονεῖ, ώς ἐξ ἰσχύος ἧς χορηγεἴ ὁ θεός. ἵνα ἐν πᾶσιν δοξάζηται ὑ θεὸς διὰ Ἰ. Χ. Is it not evident here that the question is (not of a rule according to which things should be done, but) of the source of power and capacity; so that it should be attributed to that source, even God himself, and thus He receive all the glory It is not the scriptural accuracy of what is said, but the divine source to which all is to be attributed, that the apostle is insisting on. It is quite true that, if it is not according to Scripture, it does not come from God. But this is a means of proving the thing. The literal translation of the passage is this: “If any man speak, as oracles of God; if any may serve (or minister—the word means any service not properly of a slave), as of the ability which God supplieth; that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.”
Ὡς λόγια, it seems to me, cannot, by any possibility, be translated, “according to the Scriptures.”
I do not in the least pretend here to have treated the subject in full; but merely to have said what I believe is a sufficient reply to the ground our brother has taken, and to afford light to the saints on it.