Present Testimony: Volume N1, 1867-1868

Table of Contents

1. 2 Corinthians 5:12-18
2. Additional Notes on the Greek Article
3. Address
4. All Things Are of God
5. Remarks on "Christianity and Modern Progress"
6. Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 1
7. Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 2
8. Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 3
9. David on His Throne a Type
10. The Effect on England and Progress of Democratic Power
11. Doctrinal Evil
12. Thoughts on Faith
13. The Feasts of Passover and Tabernacles
14. Fragments
15. God, Who Is Rich in Mercy
16. The Introductory Portion of the Gospel of John
17. Heaven or Canaan the Hope of Abraham?
18. Home
19. How to Get Peace*
20. Immanuel's Rule and Service
21. The Immortality of the Soul
22. Lord, We Rejoice That Thou Art Gone
23. Luke 24:26
24. Matthew 16
25. My Gospel
26. Notice
27. Paul's Gospel: Do You Preach It?
28. The Power of the Heavenly Calling
29. Psalms
30. Revelation 20:4-15
31. Scripture on the Judgment to Come
32. Self Judgment
33. Shechem and Sychar
34. Historical Notices of Sichem, Shechem
35. The Gospel of John, Part 3
36. Things as They Are and the Time of the End

2 Corinthians 5:12-18

"We commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart. For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."

Additional Notes on the Greek Article

Every noun which is not itself a proper name is in direct contrast with this latter; it is the name of what a thing is, not of an individual. Where, in the nature of things, there is ostensibly only one, as Sun, Moon, Heaven,-imagination easily personifies them. But as John, Peter, etc., are names of individuals, or become so, so tree, table, glass, etc., is the name of a thing not of an individual. Such a word, or appellative noun, answers to the question
What? Just so a proper name answers to the question
Who? I say, " Who, what individual, is that "? The reply is, "Peter, John," etc. If I say, " What is that"?
The answer is, " It is a tree, a table," etc., that is, what it is.
Habits of language may vary. A language may have an indefinite article, or use the number one for it; and either of these individualizes; thus in French, un homme, a man; and even in Greek, εἱς (one) is often so used in the New Testament. But the noun in itself states what a thing is, -table, chair, etc.
In this lies the whole doctrine of the article; at least the root of it all. The style of language varies as the mind of the people who speak it. An Englishman says, law; that is, he uses the abstract idea law by itself'. French cannot bear this. It must have a positive object before the mind, it cannot deal in abstractions. Hence it can say sans loi, because sans excludes existence, but not par loi. Where the sentence implies existence, it cannot use a mere abstract word. It must be toute loi, toute loi quelconque, or something tantamount.
Each nation may insist that its own habits of thought are the best. That does not affect the question which we have to treat.
Whenever a word is merely descriptive of something else, not an individual, it needs no article. So, even in French, par bonte. In Latin all is thus abstract. Every noun, when not defined by a pronoun possessive, or the like, answers to the question "What "? not to " Who"? or, it is not individualized. German and Dutch are more like French. Our business now is with the Greek; but the general principle will help us to understand it.
A noun, as elsewhere, is always a quality or kind of being, or answers to "What"? As for instance,
ανθρωρος, βιος, οικια, etc. The article makes it individual, ὁ ανθρωπος; a similar principle will be found in Hebrew; and its form, when a word is in regimen, shows the individualizing, indicative character of the article; Ish ha-elohim, the man of God, that is, a man, that one that is of God. So we have ha-Adam that special race, or being, which God had created, and Himself quickened so ha-nahar, the Euphrates.; ha-baal the lord (baal). Now, in Greek, when once we have taken a noun substantive for what a thing is called, and the article as indicative of individualization, all becomes easy; -νομος παρεισηλθε-(Rom. 5:20) in English, "law," the thing so called; ὁ νομος, the law (scilicet) of Moses; ανθρωπος, What (not who) came? A being that was a man not an angel. In English we should say "a man;" δἰ ανθρωπον, by man. In English, either "by a man," or "by man" would do, but better " by man."
What follows is striking: ὁ θανατος; but αναστασις νεκρων, anarthrous: The latter-this thing what is called by that name; the former might have been equally anarthrous, but points it out as the well known king of terrors. It is individualized, a being to the mind. Abstractions are the chief difficulty: being the article individualizes. But a thoroughly abstract word is made a unity of, i.e., individualized by contrast with all other things possible compared with it. Hence an individual of any kind, and an abstraction will both have the article. When I say "man," I individualize the kind or race, sum up qualities which distinguish him from animals, angels, God, etc., with which the mind would compare him. So ὁ ανθρωπος may be man, that kind of being summed up as an individual being in thought, or a particular individual man, already known. So ὁ νομος may be " law," or " Moses's law," or any other known law; less familiar here because νομος is more difficult to individualize abstractedly by a tacit comparison with other things: a few particular laws, is what we think of, or law simply in its nature, i.e., the name for what it is. Law cannot be so abstract a thought, is more positively instituted. With abstract qualities, the case is simple. That particular one is, itself, in contrast with all other qualities, ἡ ανομια, ἡ ἁμαρτια. I think it will be found that of such words, those that are in kind familiar to us in detail, we make what is called an abstraction of; i.e., we sum up the various things as a whole, and it becomes a unity, and in Greek has an article: as ἡ ἁμαρτια, ἡ ανομια. The principle applies anywhere, but such a word as νομος, for example, is less liable to be summed up thus. Species afford facility for this; if accustomed to be viewed as species, they are individualized in contrast with other species. In English every species is not individualized: the word remains -a kind of adjective. I say man. I say the horse, meaning the horse tribe, and the ox, sheep, that class. God and man are alone, I think, given a personal name thus, in English. It is not a set of beings, but a being. It is really a name.
Take, now, to illustrate the principle John chap. 1:- ὁ λογος is an individual personal being;-Θεος a kind of being;-προς τον Θεον a personal being; εν αρχη is absolute, [εν τη αρχη would be a particular beginning, perhaps, of all things, but one, designated one]; ξωη ην; it is, what was there [ἡ ξωη would have individualized it, and there would have been none anywhere else,—that life would have been in Him alone as a whole]; then ἡ ζωη, because it is the life mentioned, i.e., it is individualized. It is not what—but which life. So το φως το αληθινον, it was the light of men. Here it is clearly individualized, a particular light, and, indeed, the only one owned as of men. In the case of τη σκοτια, it is important. You could not say φως φαινει εν because there would be no darkness if the nature (the what) of the thing was in question, but τη σκοτια is a particular darkness,—abstract, no doubt, but what was opposite to the light of men, which was life in Christ the Word. What that found itself in, was a darkness opposed to it, and which could not comprehend it, the darkness of this world. It is stated mysteriously, but it is that darkness in which the light of men, Christ, shines.
That darkness did not comprehend it,—no doubt because it was darkness, but the opposite of that light. Whatever is contrasted has an article. for it is thereby a positive object individualized, consequently, as one whole before the mind; hence as above species. Εγενετο ανθρωπος sent παρα Θεου. What was sent? A man, not an angel; here it is evident. So παρα Θεου is what the being was, he was sent from; παρα του Θεου is Greek, but it individualizes God, παρα Θεου characterizes Him: the messenger was a man, but a man sent from God;-ονομα αυτω, is not his name was, but there was a name to him, John. We have, lower down, το ονομα αυτου, here it is a particular name amongst others. Here, what had he? a name, which was John. You could not say, I apprehend; as stating a fact ονομα αυτου, because the genitive gives a particular name-his name. It is known that in ordinary cases the possessive pronoun requires the article before the noun;-εις μαρτυριαν, that is what he came for-his mission, what particular testimony it was, he goes on to say;-ὁ κοσμος is the one individual world, clearly;-τα ιδια, οἱ ιδιοι, I note as being plural, where the plurality itself clearly individualizes, gives positive objects as units to the mind,-only it also embraces all of them, τα, οἱ all the units which bear the name or designation of ιδια, ιδιοι;-εξ αἱματων, etc., is clearly of what: εκ των αἱματων would have specified the particular kinds, i.e., individualized each kind of blood,-probably it is meant to exclude all, if not a mere hebraism εκ θεληματος ανδρος is noticeable, because a genitive very commonly brings an article with it, as giving the particular kind of the governing noun, and so objectively individualizes it (το φως των ανθρωπων), but here the whole is merely what the thing is, εκ marking nature or quality. Their birth was not of that kind, that was not what it was. It is not merely an actual will supposed to exist in the individual man.
ὁ λογος σαρξ is a common form of proposition, that individual person or being did now become that.
την δοξαν αμτου, there was the particular actual glory which they saw; δοξαν ὡς, then, what it was, its quality. This may suffice.
την δοξαν stands as a name. Yet involving they saw. Yet even here, where it is used personally and objectively, the article is used; προς τον Θεον it was somebody He was with; but παρα Θεου, the quality of His mission. So here ἑωρακε Θεον, Him, who is truly such; τον Θεον would have been personally, and not have given the force; it would have been the fact. Here it is more in the nature of things. In John 8 it is εκ του Θεου, for it was from God himself [that] He came out.
In verse 44 you are εκ πατρος του διαβολου; the Devil, is personal, individual; but they were not out of him personally but characteristically. They had him morally as their father. From the Devil as father, the source of what they were.
το φευδος objectively contrasted-with ἡ αληθεια and, so, individualized; ἡ αληθεια what he is.
εκ των ιδιων-Of distinct things which are his own.
So περι ἁμαρτιας is neither one particular sin, nor as Ian ideal or abstract whole, but what they could or could not convict Him of.
So αληθειαν, speak truth, what characterizes the speaking. Hence, as heretofore observed, in such cases of accusatives after verbs, and of the verb substantive, an anarthrous word is usual.
In John 5:37 we have an instance which might seem strange, φωνην αυτου. It is not properly his voice as one known voice which speaks, but a voice, any voice of his; so ειδος αυτου, anything that was his form. It is not one known voice or form, but anything that (what) was that. But τον λογον αυτου (ver. 38) because that is one recognized word. In (ver. 41) παρα ανθρωπων that character of praise, παρα των ανθρωπων living individuals in fact. So (ver. 44) δοξαν παρ’αλληλων, but την δοξαν την παρα του μονου Θεου.
John, perhaps, tests the principle best, from the peculiar, abstract way in which many things are stated by him. In more narrative books it is simpler.
I quote now some more peculiar forms. Acts 14:3, ικανον μεν χρονον.
Here, clearly, it was not the object to designate one particular, pretty long, time, individualizing it from others-but what the time was; it was a ἱκανον χρονον. With ην and εγενετο, as stated, it is the question of what took place; there was a ὁρμη there [ver. 4 and some (ησαν) were with the Jews and some with the apostles] ver. 5, ως δε εγενετο ὁρμη των εθνων τε και Ιουδαιων συν τοις, etc. The individuals των of both classes.
It is a mistake to think there is never an anarthrous noun followed by an article. When the first noun depends on another word to which it answers, as "What," and the following one is of individuals who refer to that, you will have the first anarthrous, the second not. When the first is an individual whole, dependent on the following genitive, it must have the article, το πληθος της πολεως.
It was the multitude, the one whole multitude of that city, not of another (ver. 4); but ὀρμη των εθνων, etc., because there it is merely what took place and does not belong wholly and exclusively as an embodied individual to those people..
Ver. 8, και τις ανηρ εν Αυστροις αδυνατος τοις ποσιν. The man was αδυνατος τοις ποσιν: his two individual feet, though there is no αυτου (his); χωλος εκ κοιλιας μητρος. [αυτου], his mother's womb is merely a date to characterize his lameness. The womb is not before us objectively as an existing thing.
Ver. 10, ειπε μεγαλη τη φωνη is somewhat peculiar, but accounted for in the same way; μεγαλη φωνη would do, but simply characterize the manner of ειπε: τη φωνη is his voice, raised to a loud pitch,-I have not the character of speaking but Paul's voice; μεγαλη φωνη is, practically, one word. Hence, the article in the plural, unless there be a limiting word, means all of that kind.
Ver. 13, ταυρους bulls, τους ταυρους would be individuals designated; and the what is ταυρους, i.e.; all that comes under that name.
All this is not a different principle from the previous paper on it, but goes to the root; the other more to the form. The former grammatical, this metaphysical.
The noun is always characteristic, or the what of something, even when there is an article. The article indicates an individual, or single (many if plural) object which is that, "What." The form of subject and predicate is merely an effect of this. The person “όor object I call man, the what of the object is an animal.
Other words may take the place of the article in individualizing as τις, πας, πολλοι. Oἱ πολλοι is something else; οἱ gives a number of designated individuals in contrast with one, a number of individuals lost in the designation πολλοι in contrast with some one or few otherwise connected though contrasted with them-οι ἱγγεμονες, οἱ πολλοι, πολλοι is, becomes, a qualification, not a mere uncertain number. Hence, as a general rule, an unmentioned individual kind has no article; αιγγελος, ανθρωπος, προς παρθενον. It is what the being is; singular, but known by its character.
When mentioned, the article comes, too, as a rule, because an individual (now known) is designated.
There is an oracular absence of the article which, though apparently exceptional, only confirms the rule: πνευμα ἁιγιον: και δυναμις ὑψιστου. It specially characterizes what it was and is, not merely historical of what took place; in which case, the article would have been used. The translation (Acts 1:8) is right: "Ye shall receive power, the Holy Ghost coming upon you;" not as in the margin, that would have been, I conceive, την δυναμιν.

Address

THAT the present moment is, in the last degree, critical for the Church of God, none scarcely would be found to deny.
The desire, under divine grace, of those who have undertaken the present publication, is to meet the need of the Church in the position in which it is actually placed, by the communication of that truth (according to the measure in which it is given them), which the grace of God has furnished in the word for this as for every time of His Church's need. They are ready to receive any communication which may minister to this.(provided it be according to truth and godliness), though it should not be precisely according to their own thoughts in every point, leaving each writer responsible for his particular view: yet they would carefully watch that nothing may escape them contrary to the faith of God's elect, or lowering to the standard of holiness and separation from the world, which becomes the Church of God-the Bride of the Lamb. That standard it is their desire to maintain in the fullest way in all earnestness of purpose and grace. They can only trust. God, to be kept and helped in this case. On the same ground, without sanctioning everything in the original " Christian Witness," and satisfied that God has brought out many things in a clearer light on several important points, yet they cannot doubt that God did by it afford to His Church much true light from Himself, to help it on its way. That grace they would own, and thus far receive, as the proof of God's goodness to the Church. To own the goodness of God, is to receive the blessing of it. But they trust also to be enabled to afford a present testimony, according to the mind of God, towards His Church and Saints now. The rapidity of events, that is, of the development of principles-the principles of this world and of Satan-demand such a light and help to the Saints. Those who have undertaken this publication count upon the goodness of God, however feeble they may be, to supply it. Whatever really assists in the intelligence of Scripture will surely minister to this, and will find a ready place in " The Present Testimony." Their confidence is in the Lord, that He will help them in thus ministering to the need of His Church. Upon His grace they cast themselves, recommending themselves and their labor to the love and prayers of their brethren.
The Editor (for the time being) adds a word:-
He feels and desires to keep intact, his own individuality of responsibility to the Lord Jesus, as Head-and to Him alone. As thus placed, he has, through grace, found fellowship with his brethren, partakers of one Spirit, children of one Father; their servant and fellow-helper, therefore, he would be; yet always under Christ.
While availing himself of all brotherly counsel, as to the details of his duty, he does not feel free to alter anything whatsoever, in any paper, except by request of the writer. At the same time he will feel free to add a note, signed ED., upon his own sole responsibility. EDITOR.
*** As it does not seem to harmonize with the walk of faith to settle " how often such a Part or Number should appear"-let this be left where Faith casts all its burdens.

All Things Are of God

“All things are of God”
It is a well known fact, that Satan, when he cannot entirely set aside any truth of God, seeks to pervert it; and' the most advanced saint has need to watch, and be prepared, for such perversion. Nay, so subtle is the nature of it that invariably the most effectual instrument, in the hand of Satan, is the one who hitherto has progressed furthest in truth; for the higher one has reached, and the more one has learned, the more extensive the injury he perpetrates, if he be perverted. The higher, and the larger the building, the greater the crash when it falls. A small one might be unnoticed, but a great one necessarily involves great damage.
In every day it has been according to the vigor in. which truth was presented, that there was opposition to it but the opposition most successful, and the one most difficult to counteract, has always been that which dome' within a shade of the truth. The greatest lie is that which is nearest to that truth which it seeks to supplant, and to be accepted instead of. And often the line of difference is so fine that to give a definition of it is difficult;' and it can only be determined by the eye set on God, and not on man; for it will be found that the perversion of the most dangerous and injurious order takes its rise from having the eye turned to man, and seeking to make the truth suit him, and not to conform man to the truth; so that the way to resolve this almost invisible line of difference is by the simple question, Is it God-ward Tam looking, or man-ward? 'When Satan turns Eve's eye to herself' and her own advantages, God gets no place in her mind; but on the contrary, His will is refused, and His nature denied. Cain thinks only of man, and what suits the creature as such, without any reference to what God, in His nature, may require of the creature now under judgment, because of sin.. Lot thinks of himself, and of what suits his own interests: he does not leave Canaan; but while remaining in it, he thinks of things entirely in relation to himself. God is not thought of; and thus, His object, and purpose, in calling Abram out of Mesopotamia, is entirely over. looked. This is a sample of the most dangerous and effectual order of opposition; and that to which the people of God so continually fall victims. Lot does not depart from the call of God; but while acceding to the letter of the truth, he thinks only of himself; and is eventually found in Sodom; his righteous soul vexed from day to day with their ungodly deeds. Jacob, in the same way, thinks only of his own interests and what suits himself' (and that, too, after he had been taught in the wrestling that God is supreme, and that man is set aside in His presence, as his halt ever after declared) and settles down at Shalem. He might say that as within the land, he was within the territory of God, the limits of divine call; but yet he was thinking only of what suited himself. God was not in his thoughts, but with reference to himself, his altar, El-Elohe-Israel, and hence, not only, like Lot, does he personally suffer, but he and his family become an offense instead of a testimony to the world. If God had been simply before his eyes, how differently would he have acted! It appears very small at the beginning; but with what grave, and singular consequences, is this, almost imperceptible departure, attended. Moses in another way, is an example of how the most earnest and devoted may be turned aside, by having self before the mind more than God. He in the zeal and freshness of his heart attempts to deliver his brethren by his own hand. He rests on his own strength, fails, and has to retire discomfited and helpless into the land of Midian. And forty years afterward he is as slow to stand.-for God, -where-he had-failed before, as he was, in the former instance, rash. Why? Because his eye was on the failing Moses again, and not on God, where it ought always to be set.
I need not multiply examples. For 490 years, even during David's time; Israel neglected the observance of the sabbatical year; which was the most distinct and blessed opportunity and call to them to declare their dependence on God; and how He was for them; for, though apparently God's kingdom, they, at the very refused to confess Him in ah act of the greatest moment and significance; and which more than anything would have marked them on the earth, as His people. What a testimony to all around for those three years, and to their own souls too, that all things were of God! If God had been before their eye, and not what suited themselves, how His favor, and blessing, would have enriched them! In one year they would have received from Him a supply for three years. They could have rested without care on the sabbatical year, and have said daily and hourly to themselves, in the joy, of their hearts, " all things are of God." The brightest glory of the kingdom; the chief brilliant of the crown, is surrendered thoughtlessly, almost imperceptibly, and without an expression of regret; just because man is thought of and not God. I do not speak of the gross evil into which the people of God fall, but of the indifference to which the most advanced are exposed, and into which they fall, while apparently on the right ground, and going on in the line of His counsels. I do not speak of Israel as idolaters, or as corrupted among the nations; but I would refer to such as the captivity in the days of Haggai, who had returned from Babylon; who had sought the Lord's glory on their return; but being hindered, had now contented themselves with being in the right place, and had no longer thought of the temple, and of God's things, but simply and entirely of their own. They are in fact as. " the slothful man, who will not roast what he took in hunting." They had surmounted all the difficulties; had braved everything, and had openly declared for God, according to His mind, in Jerusalem; but-now they went-away everyone to his own house, and the house of the Lord lay waste! The point I desire to impress is, that those who are most right, are liable to religious selfishness, their altar is El-Elohe-Israel; and that their self-occupation is more damaging than the grossness of the ignorant, or unbelieving. Now, our Lord's disciples, in His day, were examples of the snare of self-occupation and self-seeking, of which I speak, more than the Pharisees. The latter were open and avowed opposers, never accepting or assenting to the truth, while the disciples were openly and boldly on the right ground; but were continually misinterpreting the Lord, and His purposes, simply and solely because their eyes rested on man, and not on God. Who tells the Lord to send away the hungry multitude? The disciples-they, who of all others, ought not to obstruct His will, or check His grace. Who pray Him to send away the Syrophenician, " for she crieth after us"? Was it not they, who ought to have understood His mind, and not to have attempted to thwart it, in its finest purposes? Where young children were brought to Him that He might touch them, who rebuked those that brought them? The disciples, " And when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased." Who suggest to Him to call down fire on the Samaritans but the disciples? Peter, the most earnest and foremost of them, rebukes Him when He foretells His rejection and death; which subjected him to the severest reproof from the Lord. " Get thee behind me, Satan, thou savourest not the things which be of God, but the things which be of man." Do not all these instances pronounce to us, that being on the right ground and being nearest to the Lord, in zeal and affection, does not preserve from the self-thought, which one falls into, if the eye rests on man and not on God. I have not referred to every instance in which the disciples attempt to check, or compromise, the work of the Lord; but I have noticed enough to convince any true heart, that if the eye is turned to man, no knowledge, no zeal, or purpose, will preserve from false judgment, and false apprehension of the-Lord's mind.—No -amount -of enlightenment, or practical walk in the right path, will secure from perversion, if the eye is turned man-ward, instead of God-ward. Not only will a Mark return from Pamphylia, but a Barnabas will be carried away by the dissimulation of a Peter. " Of your own selves" (the elders), " shall men arise, speaking perverse things; to draw away disciples after them." Nothing can be more distinctly set before us in Scripture than the fact, that among the most advanced, and the most earnest, some have been turned aside, and have slipped from the true line, because, in a crisis, their eye considered for man, and not for God. While, on the other hand, when God simply controlled the vision of the soul, everything opened out according to His mind. And hence, in every time, there was a reaching forth, and a yearning, for that era of full blessing, when it shall literally be true-that -" all things are of God." And it is in this connection, that the Apostle uses those wondrous. words (2 Cor. 5:14). He had said that "if one died for all, then were all dead. And that he died for all; that they which live should henceforth not live unto themselves, but to him who died for them, and rose again." And then, to make this more decided, and unequivocal, he adds, " though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more Therefore, if any man be in.Christ, he is a new creature Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself, by Jesus Christ." Failure in saints is always attributable in one way, or another, to the eye being turned to man, instead of to God; and there never can be any real strength or ability but as the eye rests simply on God.
But now, we are not struggling by faith outside the being, and he world, in which we are, as were the saints before the death of Christ; but by the Spirit of Christ, we are before God, on the ground that all is swept away. They (the saints of old) occupied a creation which had fallen from God, and which by faith they saw as, one day, to be set aside in resurrection. This was all faith could do before the death of Christ; but now we are on the ground of all things being new, all things of God." The understanding of the difference between the faith of the most advanced saint before the death of Christ, and what it is now, is of great moment and value, both for our blessing and testimony. We have seen that the great and unfailing balk to the saint is man; and that in every instance, where any servant of God walked with Him, it was in proportion as God, in His own purpose, was before his soul. Be it an Enoch translated; an Abraham ascending Mount Moriah; the children of Israel passing through the Red Sea; or Peter walking on the water; one and all are great only in proportion as man is overlooked, and God only, and entirely, before the soul. But in each of these cases there was no knowledge of the ground where faith now puts the soul. With each of them it set them before God, and all was pure blessing; but it could, at best, be but as expectant of the removal of all that which stood in the way. There was, by faith, a flight above and beyond the old creation, but there could have been no clear or distinct perception of the fact of its removal, for it was not as yet removed, which is the only true place for faith now; for " old things are passed away, and behold, all things are become new." Faith did carry a saint, before the death of Christ, unto God; but though it filled his soul with God, it could not give him a clear and positive assurance that old things had passed away, for they had not passed away; and faith, while connecting the soul with God, and blessing it in God, could not lead it to see and know, that there was an end to the flesh (even Christ in the flesh) until the fact was accomplished. And the knowledge of this fact is the simple, yet momentous, difference between the saint who has only the faith in God which those before the death of Christ had, and the faith which saints now are entitled to have. The faith proper to me now, asserts not only that I am before God, but that there is nothing remaining which is not judged in the cross of Christ, and therefore judicially passed out of existence before Him; so that, on this ground, man in no wise appears. " Old things are passed away." It is not that the eye rests-on God, stepping over the old creation; but it rests on God now, all the old things having passed away. There is nothing to cross, or to skip over; for all are removed, as judged in the cross; they have no recognized existence before God; and when I am in faith, I am entitled to see that no such thing exists; the ground is cleared; all things are of God.
I fear many in the present day fall back to the faith known to the saints before the death of Christ; instead of dwelling in that proper to them now; realized, I suppose, in its blessed extent, by Stephen only, when he saw his place in the glory with Jesus. It is impossible to explain fully the difference; but the spiritual will at once see how morally important and wide is the difference. In the one case, I must, as it were, close my eyes to all I am in, and by faith remove myself away from it, because I am in the standing of the first Adam which is at enmity with God, and hateful to Him (Rom. 7). The body of this death must depress me, and I necessarily have a conscience ever anxious and harassed, and seeking absolution in a satisfactory sacrifice; for there is no assurance, nor indeed could there be, of the judicial removal of it; and, consequently, if not removed, I am while in it, answerable for it according to God's claim on it; whereas I am by faith in Christ Jesus, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and entitled to see the flesh as entirely removed, judicially terminated before God. And if I return to it, I have not to seek a sacrifice to atone for the delinquency of that which is a recognized, responsible existence; but I have, because Christ is my advocate, to take in confession God's side against myself, and repudiate in toto that which, being judged and re-moved from God's eye in judgment, I have no right to return to, or acknowledge; and the more I am in His light, the more do I see, not only how blessed it would be to be borne over it, and at rest before Him, but that I may search for it in vain; for " old things are passed away; behold, all are become new and all things are of God. ' Oh how blessed! My true standing now is, the life which I live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." In the one case, I mourn over that which is unequal to its imposed responsibility; in the other, I denounce its intrusion with horror, because judged in the cross, and I return it, by the power of the spirit to the " burial " from which it had escaped.
Now, if this truth be clearly apprehended, it must produce very marked practical effects. Man, as man, would not be consulted or ministered to. Christ alone would be the guide, strength, and motive for everything. Now, as we have seen, there is no strength or rest, but as faith reaches above and apart from man; and this at every time, even when man was still standing on the ground of responsibility before God, and when there could be no escape from it. To be in a " dry and barren land, where no water is " was always the trial to faith. And the Lord says to His disciples, " Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation, for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.' There was then a demand on the flesh. Though weak, its existence was owned as still responsible; and there was no escape from it. There must have been a very different exercise of soul then, when the flesh was required to please God (which, in the person of Jesus on earth, was truly fulfilled); and now, when we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. To understand clearly the consequences of being in the Spirit, and not in the flesh, is of great moment; for if there is confusion in the mind on this point, the conscience suffers accordingly. If I could realize ever so distinctly the goodness and love of God, as the disciples did in Christ (by Whom, while present, they were preserved from open evils, into which they; according to the weakness of nature, fell, when separated from Him), I still must feel myself bound (and the more I knew His grace, the more so), to make my flesh do its required duty to Him, and even if it did, my distress must be " Oh, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death." Its very weakness, not to speak of its willfulness, would be unceasing trial to me, and this weakness the disciples betrayed the moment they were, even for a little while, separated from the Lord. They could not watch one hour. The moment He is betrayed by Judas, they all forsook Him and fled. The immense difference cannot but be plain, whether I am regarded by God, in a creature existence, which is entirely inadequate (or worse) to meet His will-one positively under judgment; or, that this existence, being judged in the cross of Christ, I can now enjoy every revelation of His love without the mortifying feeling that the more He shows me of Himself, the more I am convicted of the weakness and wretchedness of myself, as His creature, to walk before Him. The knowledge of His love and grace to me, a sinner, saving me eventually, would not in any measure relieve this exercise of conscience; nay, on the contrary, would aggravate it. What could more distress me than to be led to see God's love and mercy, for me, as it is in His heart, and yet to know that I am a creature before Him, never pleasing Him; and that as such a creature, I am under judgment, which indeed he had redeemed me from, yet that He required me to meet the duties which He had enjoined, and to act up to the law which he had given. In a word, though assured of my final redemption, because of the virtue of Christ's sacrifice, which in perfection did all that the offerings under the law proposed to do; yet that I was still in the flesh, and required of God, as now a partaker of this grace, to do exactly what those under the Jewish economy were enjoined to do, but failed to accomplish. If this were true, which many think, my conscience would be always in the seventh of Romans, and never rise to the happiness of even a saint, who had by faith, through the types and shadows, reached God. The nearer God comes to man, as in the case of Job, the more is he, however amiable, made to feel how entirely unfit in nature he is for His presence. There cannot (unintentionally done I admit) be devised a more effectual way for depressing and saddening a soul than to proclaim to it all the grace of God in Christ, in redemption, and then tell the man, that as man, he is bound to maintain the law as the duty of one so largely indebted to God. Why nothing can so aggravate my sense of misery as to show me all I have received because of my ruin in -the flesh, and then say that I am expected to live in the flesh, as if I were not ruined and helpless. It is surely singing songs to a heavy heart. It is, in a word, to declare to me, how gracious God is in redeeming me, a poor undone sinner, and telling me to live henceforth, because of this mercy, in the flesh which needed the mercy, as if it had never needed it;-that it is a duty I owe to my blessed Savior, to live now as if I had never required a Savior; and that the very grace shown me as a sinner and undone, makes it obligatory on me henceforth to act, as if I had not need of any Savior, because that I should now do and keep the law. The favor, though inconceivable, is counteracted by the obligation attached to it. What would be thought of the one who would pay all the debts of a bankrupt, but insist that, as an obligation, the bankrupt should resume his former business without capital, and never get into debt again, and thus show that his getting into bankruptcy could have been avoided by the exemplary manner in which he now gets on, though he had nothing but a clearance of debt in resuming his business. It is plain that with such a notion as this, there could be no clear or true, apprehension of how all things are of God. Everything of man in the flesh is ended judicially in the cross for God, and now I am through grace, not only freed from the burden of my sins, but I am a new creature in Christ Jesus. Old things have passed away, I am to live in Christ, and thus I am higher in moral life than ever the law required me to be.
It ought to be hardly necessary to go into this point; but the more one inquires into the condition of souls, the more will it be found that there is more or less a sense of obligation because of the grace conferred in Christ, that though I could not, before partaking of this grace, make my flesh please God, yet that now I can; and hence the greater the sense of the grace, the greater the distress of soul, because of the inability to answer to the obligation. Conceal it, cloak it, or call it what name you like, but if I am in the flesh, in the old man, I must, if I have any conscience, seek to make it answer to God's demand on man, and I cannot get rid of the sense of obligation without getting rid of the man to whom the obligation would attach. Hence, -I-should regard-sins in a very different way if I am still as a man under obligation; and if not, not that the enormity of sins could be lessened. Sins are sins whatever way they be dealt with; but let us see for a moment how the soul is before God. in His grace, if the flesh has no longer a recognized existence, and is therefore no longer under any obligation, but is to be regarded really as dead.
If the existence of the creature, which I am in by nature, is under judgment, and if judgment has been passed on it in the cross of Christ, and I by faith accept this judgment, surely I do not desire or expect it to be revived. If I, by faith, accept what Christ has accomplished for me, I am delivered from the judgment. If I do not, I refuse the only door of escape, and the judgment resting on me is not removed. The judgment for sin inflicted on man has been borne by the Son of God, but He has risen out of it, and as the risen one, is the author of eternal salvation. Having judicially terminated the existence of the man under judgment, and on the ground of full victory over death, He says that He draws all men unto Him. Every man is under judgment, but every one who looks to Him, the Risen Man, receives life from Him, just as he had received death from the first Adam. Everyone who does not, has the judgment resting on him, and if it be not removed, it abides on him (John 3:36). Christ's death has ended man for God, and God no longer addresses him as capable of doing ought to please Him. The old man is crucified in the cross of His Son, and any one who walks in the first
Adam, practically denies the death of Christ, and still links himself with that which is under judgment, and that, in the presence of One, who has borne the judgment. The Gospel calls man to accept Christ as the One who bore it, and is therefore the only door of escape to him out of it; but if he disbelieves or does not find the mercy, the judgment on himself is not arrested; he has not participated in the benefit secured by Christ's death; he has not life eternal; but is lost eternally under judgment. Thus we see the fact of Christ's bearing the judgment on man, and judicially ending man before God, -does not of -itself-entail the-salvation-of every man without exception. It opens the way in righteousness for God to save every man; but on every one who does not receive life, through this open door for mercy, the wrath of God abides. God is quite free in righteousness to go forth, and bring every one into this blessing; but if man lingers in the place of judgment, he will find that the One who would have been his Savior is his Judge; and simply because he preferred his own life to the life that cometh from God. The believer accepts Christ, and finds life in Him, outside that life and being which is judged in the cross; and as he lives in this life, now his in Christ, he is consciously above and apart from all of that (man) which is judged in the cross, so that he seeks to live no longer unto himself, but unto Him who died for him, and rose again. As he enters into and understands the place of life and new creation in which he is in Christ Jesus, so the more fully does he see that he ought not any longer live to himself, but to Him. In a word, that living to himself is incompatible with the fact and the blessing in which he is set, namely, that he is dead, as the death of Christ for him proved; and that if he lives in that which was thus proved to be dead, he contravenes the necessity and value of Christ's death; for if he recognized the necessity and value of it, he could not dare live to that for which He died, for " he died that they which live should henceforth live not unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again." How could I live in that which He by dying proved to be dead, and prefer it too, to Him who died for me. The fact of grace is, that every man in Christ is a new creation. It is senseless, as well as defiant to Christ, to live to myself in that standing, which is not only counted dead by God, but which was judged in the cross. If I am alive in Christ, and outside of myself which is dead through His death, can 1 nullify and make nothing of His death by returning to myself, at one and the same time losing my own blessing, and despising His love and service? No. If I am true to that which is true, namely, that I myself am dead, which is proved, not merely by judgment having had its course-but because that-judgment having been borne by Christ, who died for me, I must live outside of that which is dead, and in Him who is my life, and in whom I am a new creation; for " old things are passed away, behold all things are become new, and all things are of God." If I go back to that which is dead, I am returning to the things which have passed away. I am in that flesh which cannot please God; I am reviving that which is not only weak, but which lusteth against the Spirit of God and is not " of God." And still more, I have despised the truth that I am outside of the old creation, because made a new creation in Christ. " Old things," and the very best things connected with the flesh as flesh, have passed away.
Hence, if I go back to the flesh and walk in it, I am placed in a very different position from the transgressor before the death of Christ. Such an one had to relieve his conscience by an offering, which never purged the conscience, because " the worshipper once purged has no more conscience of sin." But he was not purged-even though by faith, his soul rose up to the mercy of God, as did an Abel, an Abraham, or a David; he was still in that being, which was held responsible to God; yet never able to stand before God as required, for by mercy only could man be preserved from the judgment which rested on him.
As to the law, so long as the law was kept, the judgment was staved off; but the moment he departed from the law, not only was he exposed to the judgment lying on man, but also to penalties attached to the breach of the law. Hence, under the law, the saint before the death of Christ sought to keep the law, in order to stave off the judgment under which he lay; and therefore the law was a great boon to him as living on the earth, for if he had kept it, it would have saved him for the time from the penalty resting on all men. Hence, the sense of a transgression was only felt or known when it was committed; for it was only after committal that the law declared the act as one of transgression; so that, though the law condemned evil, it did not prevent it, but condemned it when it noticed it, only to exact a penalty for the breach-of it.
Now, with the knowledge of a full sacrifice in Christ, there is, in the present day, an effort to appease the conscience for a transgression committed after believing, in the thought, that if the 'transgressions are put away, one is saved from the judgment after death; thus where the gospel of salvation is apprehended, the effort of the conscience on practical failure is to assure the heart of final salvation, while approving of its exercise, as to present forgiveness. But this gives no real rest or power. If I, as a responsible being, sin, I need an atoning sacrifice to free me from my sin; but if I return to that man which was once responsible, but now is dead because judged in the cross of Christ, and sin thereby, I find that the way for me into the presence of God is by the priest and not by a sacrifice. The Priest before God, in all the efficacy of the sacrifice, assures me of my acceptance before God. I confess my sins; repudiate them, as utterly abhorrent in me, because He suffered for me. I judge myself, and find my link before God, in the advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the source of, and link to, all blessing for me; and in Him only do I find my place of acceptance with God; and my place, as His child before Him. I do not seek to have a set-off for my transgressions in the repetition of the sacrifice: That set-off I have in; but it was by One who not only bore my sins in judgment, but in whom was crucified the old man, in and by which the sins were committed, so that I do not seek to relieve the old nature of a burden lying on it, but I now repudiate it, in all its working, as that which is already judged, which I ought not to touch, and which it is horrible to be connected with, because in the cross I see the gulf between my flesh and God. In the one case, I seek to obtain a righteous exemption for a fault committed, so that the failing thing might still remain; in the other, I acknowledge my sins, as that which I denounce, and as that in which I ought not to be. I have no standing to maintain in that which commits the sins; and hence I confess them not because the law, or any one else, condemns me; I condemn myself; I do not wait for exposure; I expose myself, because I now stand against myself, instead of for myself; and I am freed in my conscience through God's grace, according to the extent of my confession. If I have a standing to sustain, I wait until I am exposed, or found out; but now having none, I discover myself unto God, because I repudiate the flesh, and its works. I am the first to throw a stone at myself: my return to the flesh is darkness; and inconsistent with the place of light, in which I am set. I own my sin, and repudiate my apostasy, and my heart finds its assurance, and solace in doing this, because Jesus Christ holds all my interests in Himself, and is the Righteous One, and has been the propitiation for my sins, and for the whole world. Is there not then necessarily great practical effect, from seeing that I have not to recognize the standing of that which cannot please God; that I have no standing in the flesh, and that when I touch or tamper with it I am the first to expose and denounce myself as having returned to that which I have renounced? Surely there must be, for thus practically I begin to see' how all things are of God; and how, in order that all things should be of Him, everything of man, as to his first estate and condition, must have passed away. I then see, too, the force and necessity of the expression: "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, henceforth know we him no more." Nothing of the once order of the flesh remains. The flesh is an ended existence before Him, and the man now is of entirely another order: not an order in any way predicable, or to be determined or known by that which is judicially ended, but by the last Adam, the Lord from heaven. It is not that the first man has reached up to God, but the Son of God, who has taken flesh and blood and has borne the judgment in the first Adam, forms the new creature now, entirely in Himself and thus in the place and life in which He is Himself. It is not man exalted into heaven exactly; nor is it the Son of God come down to man. It is a new man, the Son made flesh, and ending in His death the man under judgment; but then rising out of the judgment, He is the beginning of a new race and order, which is no wise comprehensible to, or like, the first Adam as to nature, though like in bodily appearance, and as God made man in His own likeness and image. One word more in conclusion. If man, in his first standing is still the existing one before God, then God must require of him; and if he fails on another trial, then there. must be another sacrifice. The man must have been fully tried, and his total inability and depravity, under all trial proved and exposed. The truth is, that both have been done; there has been made full trial, and full exposure of his depravity; and the substitute has conic, and has ended in Himself through judgment, the standing of the first; old things have passed away, and there is no dealing with that man now from God, but with regard to the offer of mercy, which he now presents to him through Christ, risen out from among the dead. If old things have passed away, there ought to be no return to them; though the will of the flesh would ever seduce one into them; and this in every specious way. The humanizing of Christ, and the introduction of natural feelings into Christianity, allowing one's own feelings to influence one more than Christ's mind, are among the many devisings of the flesh to connect the soul with the old things passed away. If old things have not passed away, God cannot condemn man on the 'ground of refusing the light; He can condemn him for having been ever rebellious and self-willed; but if old things have passed away, God, on this ground, condemns man for not accepting the mercy which He freely and fully offers. Nay, " he that believeth not is condemned already;"
because he refuses to accept God's grace offered to him on clear ground-ground where there is nothing, no barrier, between him and God; nothing to bar his acceptance of it; no, nothing! The offer of mercy is on the very terms that every barrier, every old thing has passed away; and the condemnation necessarily is, not on account of disobedience, as in the day of the " old things;" but because man does not believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God. By that Son, God has cleared away all; and hence there is condemnation if I do not believe in Him who has effected-this wondrous work. Man adheres to the old things as if they were not put away, and refuses the Son of God, who now before God occupies the place of the old things, and hence the wrath of God abides on him. If old things have not passed away, we cannot say " Behold all things are become new."

Remarks on "Christianity and Modern Progress"

Allow me to draw your attention to a recent publication which professes to give grounds for harmonizing Christianity and modern progress. Such a production ought to produce pain and sorrow, and be dealt with in the spirit which such sorrow will, through grace, engender.
Still I feel, as it has been brought under my eye, that I ought not to pass it over.
No one, of course, is strictly responsible for it but the author; still as it is an address from the Chair of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, at its annual meeting, it acquires a weight which a mere individual discourse would not have. It shows the tone of the dissenting mind—what finds utterance from the lips of those whom it sets in its high places and in the chief seats of its teachers. It shows us to what point the dissenting body is come in the conflict now going on between faith and unbelief; how completely the high and holy ground of possession of the truth by divine revelation is abandoned, to look for tolerance from the infidel reason of man without God in the world. It is, in fact, a humble supplication to the infidel to be allowed to have share in the inheritance of truth—admitting they have it in their sphere, and craving the admission that the Christian has it in his.
The infidel reasoners are far enough from troubling their heads about the petitioners; as Dr. Raleigh admits, they turn up their noses with contempt at the evidences of Christianity. The air, he tells us, is weary with their repetitions of scorn at Christian creeds. But Dr. R. begs for quarter. If they have scientific facts, Christianity has historic facts.
No doubt it has facts far better proved than any other facts of history, as every sober mind admits. Science has no such facts really. What are called the facts of science are merely the general laws deduced from phenomena or appearances; many, of course, I admit, adequately proved; but which, when of importance to our subject, are not really facts. Nobody, unless some rare German, for I have known such, doubts of the astronomical system, demonstrated by the laws of a principle we call gravity. It is admitted because it accounts for the phenomena. I admit, if you please, as a fact, that the earth goes round the sun. Hence when these laws are known, calculations can be made, as to what will happen if all goes on as usual. In a word, appearances, accounted for by general laws, enable man's mind to draw mental consequences, that is, to calculate the ordinary succession of phenomena.
In natural science, facts have another place. They are observed in their present existence, and what is observed, and that only, is a fact. These facts are then generalized. Not into laws, such as the law of gravity, but into general principles of causes, or rather similarity and successions of forms. Be it that all animal being is reduced to cellular atoms. I have nothing against it. I leave science in possession of its facts, and the gradual development of theories connected with them. The uniformity of succession of facts may be adequately ascertained. Harvey may find that nothing had living being which was not previously in an egg, and sufficient instances may be found in various forms of being to justify a general conclusion. It may or may not be adequately investigated to justify the conclusion that the fact is universal. In these cases I dare say it is. Still the conclusion is not a fact. It is sufficient to make a science, for classification, and for man to act on and to learn by.
So geology, though facts are much less accurately ascertained, still we may say a general succession of formations in a certain order is pretty well ascertained. Sufficiently so to classify, though with defects and difficulties, and to form a science. Now no Christian has the slightest interest in combating these facts, nor, if done honestly and simply, scientific generalizations from them. But man's conclusions are not facts. Sir C. Lye11 finds a skull or some evidence of human existence, in the delta of the Mississippi, begins to calculate the silth deposited by the river, and says man must have lived 100,000 years. That I read in his second edition. I gave that away and got afterward the third, and here he admits he was wrongly informed as to the data, and it must have been 50,000 years. Now, when I find such leaps as this, to say nothing of other questions, can I speak of facts? The fact is, there was a skull in the delta. All the rest is calculation or supposition.
We get some human remains in the Floridas. It must have taken 10,000 years for the coral insects to make the coral. But all this assumes depth of water, rate of increase of the growth of coral, which are not facts; the only fact is that some human remains are in Florida. The case of cutting through what the Tine torrent has brought down has been insisted upon—Roman remains, bronze remains, and then those of the stone period, and then a skull: one thus thousands of years old. I was assured by a member of the Antiquarian Society, referred to in the account, that they all thought this a mistake, and that the skull was clearly stained with bronze on one side. Now I am not a geologist like Sir C. L., but when we have got the facts, others are, or may be, as competent to reason. We have to remember that "is" represents a fact; "must be" always man's reasoning: a very different thing from facts. It is a fact that there is a layer of sandstone of many feet thickness. It is a reasoning, not a fact, that it must have taken 20,000 years to have formed it. When I come to reasoning, and to probable calculations, and probable causes, I come to the uncertainty of man's reasonings, and to speculation as to how things came about, in which a thousand possibilities come in to make the "must be" uncertain. My experience of scientific investigation of causes and calculations has led me to conclude that they are extremely uncertain, and little to be relied on. Astronomy, being a question of mathematical calculation for the most part, is, of course, not liable to the same uncertainty. In general we may say, Science is not a system of facts, but of conclusions from phenomena; and conclusions, however interesting and often adequately proved for common life, are never facts.
But on what different ground matters stand, as Dr. R. puts it, is soon seen when the real question is stated.
Those who take this suppliant ground with the infidel, admit that if the man of science has his facts, all must give way. "When so proved," he tells us, " we have but one thing to do—accept it." "No matter what
they may seem to involve or bring after them. No matter what cosmogonies, ethnologies, chronologies, the facts may seem to favor or frown upon." Now I am perfectly assured that God's work and God's Word cannot contradict each other. But that is not the real question here, but the means of certainty of knowledge, our knowledge. And Dr. R. says: "if they are facts, professed and declared such by the whole scientific world," etc. Now turn the case. Scripture affirms, plainly and positively, something, in the clearest way, as a fact. It upsets the theory of the scientific world. Will Dr. R. say: Well, if Scripture professes and declares it, it is to be accepted, no matter what scientific conclusion it favors or frowns on? If not he has accepted the authority of science as a means of certain knowledge, and rejected the title of Revelation to be such. It is a question of authority, and certainty of knowledge.
I admit science is not the object of Scripture in any way. Of course it is not. It deals with the relationships of man with God. Material facts are before men, and left to men. Scripture speaks on ordinary subjects the ordinary language of men, that man may understand it. It says the sun rises: it does not speak of the sun's rays being, by the revolution of the earth, a tangent at the point forming the horizon to the eye of the spectator. But there are cases where scientific conclusions, not facts, come across the domain of Scripture: say, such as the unity of the human race, involving the race in the ruin and effects of the guilt of the first parents of that race,—cases, consequently, where it is a question of means of certainty.
Which am I to trust, man or God? Thus: there are blacks; that is a fact. Many of these new philosophers conclude that there were originally more than one race. That is a conclusion, not a fact. I read, " by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;" and that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Now I am not discussing here the point in itself of races of men, but what authority is the Word of God to have? Which am I- to trust; man's conclusions; or the statement- of Scripture, because it is a revelation?
I find men differing. Mr. Agassiz may tell me, he is a naturalist, that it is not Darwinian development, that that is utterly unfounded, but that there are many races and that the types of animal forms are different in different quarters of the globe, and that man in each partakes of this typical and characteristic form. Dr. Darwin and followers may insist that the gorilla of Africa, of one quarter of the globe, is the original type of the whole human race everywhere, his own ancestors, as the gorilla is the development of some less perfect form still, and that a stupid penguin may, in a sufficient number of ages, be formed into a clever man by natural selection, let alone gorillas. The ethnologist assures me that negro faces are found in Egyptian monuments in the times of the Osirtasens and Rameses in the earliest records we have of man, and that there must be two races.
Pictet, by accurate investigations of Zend and Sanscrit, assures me that no data of pre-historic man goes beyond some 3,000 years before Christ, as a limit. Now the only fact in all this is that there are figures of negroes on Egyptian monuments, and, if you please, different kinds of pigeons. The causes of which difference of typical form no one has yet adequately explained. But scientific facts, Dr. R. tells us, we are to accept, no matter what cosmogonies or ethnologies they seem to favor or frown on. If they set aside Moses' account, so much the worse for Moses, or Paul's declarations, so much the worse for his ignorance. " It is just as certain (Dr. R. tells us) that there are errors and mistakes in the Bible, considered as a human book  ... . as it is certain that fallible men wrote the several parts of it, distinguished and selected them one by one from other contemporary writings," etc.
Now I will give all credit to Dr. R. possible. The gap I have left out contains this salvo... "which, however, do not affect the substance of its inspiration, or impair the certainty we have of the complete communication of the divine meaning in it. "What is the substance of its inspiration? Who is to put the limits? For instance, is the unity of the human race involving all in sin? The real question is that of the authority when Scripture has spoken.
Critical examination of copies or translations are the careful ascertainment of what is Scripture; the oracles of God having been committed to man, though secured to us by God in grace and providential care. The authority of what is ascertained to be so, is another question. As to this, we have Dr. R.'s assertion: "It is just as certain that there are errors and mistakes in the Bible, as it is certain that fallible men wrote the several parts of it." What then is inspiration? What the authority of the Scriptures? We find in the word that in the perilous days of the last times we are referred to the Scriptures, and it is declared that every Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and that what the apostle taught, having received it by revelation, he communicated it, not by words which man's wisdom taught, but which the Holy Ghost taught (1 Cor. 2). And Peter: holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. I need not recall how the Lord Himself puts His seal on the authority of the Scriptures, and uses them as of divine authority against Satan, and in reference to Himself. The facts of Christianity, Dr. R. tells us, are adequately proved history, and that is sufficient.
Proved by what? "They stand on the highest ground of historic credibility." No doubt they do, so as to prove the folly of infidels. But what has that to do with the authority of the Word of God: our one security, according to the apostle, in the last days? But still if all rests on historic credibility, there may be mistakes. Where is the authority of the Word? "But here is our case (says Dr. R.), that out of this book, as history, and out of other books as histories contemporary and subsequent, there arise up to our view, first dimly in type and shadow, then clearly in personal life, the great facts which stand at the heart of Christianity," etc. Now here the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, I suppose, and other books, are heaped together to prove facts historically. One book may be more exact than another; they are all histories written by fallible men. And all this is to curry favor with, to get a little allowance from, those who care not for them, and will not have, save as an historical document, such as others are for ethnology, their book; nor their Christianity at all at any price.
What shall we say to such pandering to infidelity. "For his princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes, they were all ashamed of a people that could not profit them, nor be an help nor a profit, but a shame also and a reproach." If the Church rests on the authority of God and of His Word, they have a place which that authority will sanction and give honor to. He that believeth not, hath made God a liar. He that is of God heareth us. If they relinquish this to try and put themselves on a level with men, and try and drag in Christianity after them, they have lost all their vantage ground, Divine authority over the heart and conscience; and the infidel, to use an oriental expression, will make them eat dirt, and won't be bothered with their Christianity. And this is the ground leading dissenters have now taken. This is what it is important to notice in what is passing around us. They are giving up the only solid ground of truth. We must know now-a-days who is to be trusted. Christians must be Christ's, and on the ground He has laid for it in the revelation He has given. God's Word must have authority over men, or it is not His Word, and it, and they who should have wielded it as the sword of the Spirit, have lost their place and title and true greatness.
And now, see what a singular and strange blindness this treachery to the authority of God's Word., this pandering to infidels, brings in; It is perfectly incredible that an intelligent man should have fallen into such utter darkness, if it were not that unfaithfulness to God ever brings in blindness, and confusion in man. Men, Dr. R. tells us, were to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it. Man was made," he tells us, "for this world" (the Italics are his), "as, we may say, an earthly man in the higher sense—reproductive, progressive through the ages, industrial, scientific, artistic, conquering, lordly." Is this Adam in Paradise, or out of it? How wholly is the fall ignored here! But, to pursue. "But this is not all: the first chapters of Genesis are full of art and science. Poetry, music, metal working, husbandry, architecture; a whole city is built almost before Eden had time to wither. So far is it from being true that natural knowledge is the natural enemy of revealed religion, we see them here in their cradle, and they are twin sisters." Who would have thought that all here referred to sprung up under the hand of Cain and his family, after he had killed Abel, the accepted one of God and because he was so, and when God had driven him out from his presence because he had thus filled up the measure of sin, and had chased him as a vagabond (Nod) from before his face, from which Cain declares he was now hid, and that Cain had now built the city and embellished it, invented the music and the metal working, to get on as happily as he could without God, and that the result of all was the flood. "This they willingly are ignorant of," even how the World that then was perished—the result of the mixture of the sons of God with the daughters of men.
Let us see the account from which the statement is drawn:—"And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." (Gen. 4:11-22.)
And then Abel and Cain and his city of progress are twin sisters in the same cradle. Is it possible to conceive a greater degree of infatuation than that to which this pitiable servility to infidelity has reduced the writer of the address! Cain, driven out from the presence of the Lord, hid from His face, a mark set on him by God, establishing a city where God had made him a vagabond, and embellishing it with arts and sciences to make it pleasant without God—for God he certainly had not—and which ended in result in the judgment of God in the flood: this is our pattern, this is the twin sister whose embraces we are to court. We are to learn by it, we are told, that there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. Is it possible for infatuation to be more complete? But such is the ground taken by dissent now. And while reading that the friendship of the world is enmity against God, pandering to the world, that the world may, in some small degree, admit it to its company, and its career of progress.
And what is the grand point of agreement? "The need is just this—that each party (if we may speak of parties in the matter) shall accept frankly the facts which are universally accepted by the other."Can anything be more absurd? Why, as to facts, am I to accept all that are accepted by another party? Why are infidels to trust the facts the Christian party accepts? It is merely trusting the competent investigation of the party, they would say their prejudices, a book or fifty books full of errors and mistakes, according to Dr. R. Why should I accept the facts other people accept, without knowing their infallibility or competency as conclusive, or investigating for myself? I take facts on adequate testimony not on other people's accepting them. Nothing can be more absurd. A treaty of peace with those who reject the truth of God on such ground as this; because, indeed, my party believes it, they are to do so too, and I to be bound by their facts as they choose to state them. And where is God in all this, where a revelation? Where a word sharper than any two-edged sword? Men's opinions, for the acceptance of facts is only that, are to be trusted, and trusted on both sides without examination, by an agreement between Christians and infidels; and that is to be the ground of faith and common progress: a ground impossible, I do not say to a Christian, who would be abhorrent from the whole scheme, but to an honest man. But my object is not now to discuss the scheme, which seems to me the shallowest thing imaginable, and base in its servile pandering to infidel men of science; but in these days, when everyone sees that all is breaking up (and dissenters know it as well as anybody else, and this discourse is the proof of it, and the betrayal of their fears), we need to know what we can trust, and whom; and while I doubt not there are many beloved brethren amongst dissenters, saints who believe in and trust the Word of God as I do myself, such a testimony from such a place is a witness and a proof that we cannot trust for a moment the ground on which dissenters have placed themselves, nor the dissenting body as standing on the sure ground of divine truth. I urge, and such statements should only press upon the soul the need of doing so, every humble soul to hold fast the Word of God and its authority, its divine authority.
We all know translations are man's work, and of course in a measure partake of his imperfection. All may know from the Word of God that the oracles of God were committed to men to keep. But they are prophetic, or inspired writings which were so. Their authority is a matter of faith. And though man's failure in faithfulness may affect details, as in the work of his own salvation, they are given, according to the wisdom and will of God to be His Word, and are their own evidence, as the sun in the firmament. Man may, in one sense, labor for his own salvation; he may diligently seek to have the Word of God pure; but the soul taught of God knows God has given both, and will have both owned as His, and appreciated as His. It is God's will that man should use diligence thus; but the humble soul taught of God knows on whom it leans with confidence, and from whom it has alike received eternal life, and the Word by which it has been engendered in him. He may make mistakes in his path, in his interpretation of the Word, but he is; for all that, led and guided of God in both, and attributes his mistakes to man in both, and faithfulness and truth to God. He says: "Let God be true, and every man a liar," and he knows God has not left him in darkness, but that God has given him a revelation from Himself, a revelation of grace and truth come by Jesus Christ; and of all His preliminary dealings, so important to the full understanding of that, and that the Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus, able to make the man of God perfect, and that the entering of God's Word gives light and understanding to the simple. The Christian is one who, by divine teaching, knows the truth, and authority, and power of the divine Word. He accepts it in the largeness and fullness in which it is given, thankful if learned enquirers, as hewers of wood and drawers of water, can give it to him as free from all human imperfections as possible, labor that no earthly particles of mud be in the water, but the water he knows to be water, he drinks it and lives.
J. N. D.
END OF VOL. I.-NEW SERIES.

Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 1

AND is it really come to this? All the boasted attractions of the English Liturgy, its adaptation to all wants, the ease with which it can be followed-(as contrasted with extempore prayer),-is found to be an unintelligible farrago for the masses, impossible for an uneducated. mind to follow.
(* 1866. Third Edition. London Longman and Co.)
The Roman Catholics (where the writer of this paper has known them well), manage the matter better. The service is histrionic, no doubt. But it is in Latin, and the worshipper has nothing to follow. But he is furnished with prayers for himself in his own tongue, which he can say while the priest is saying his, and which are not what the priest is saying at all; a curious form of public worship,, indeed, but the priestly distinction is fully carried out. But, taking the English Liturgy as it is, what is the remedy? A worship in spirit and in truth, such as the Lord God requires from spiritual worshippers, such as the Father seeks? Nothing of the kind. That must besought for, if we believe the Tractarians, neither at Rome nor Canterbury,-neither at this Mountain nor at Jerusalem. Spiritual worship is not sought, nor the object desired. In that they would have to do with God; that is not their object; they seek influence over the masses for themselves, to regain numbers, the many who have slipped away from their influence; and if the end do not justify the means, the means betray the end. Worship is to be histrionic, they tell us; that is, the acting of a play so as to attract the imagination by theatrical spectacles, and secure an unintelligent crowd, pleased with what is acted before them. Let it not be for a moment supposed that this is a harsh accusation. It is their own statement (p. 37).
"Hence a lesson may be learned, by all who are not too proud to learn from the stage. For it is an axiom in liturgiology, that no public worship is really deserving of its name, unless it be histrionic."
Can Christians who know what spiritual worship is believe this?
"To adopt another principle, whether it be that of sermon hearing or meditation, may be salutary enough in its proper time and place, but it is not worship, with which alone ritualism has to do."
Surely neither sermons nor meditation is worship; but neither is histrionic ritualism. The writer only proves that what is worship has never entered into his mind;- but to proceed. The writer then speaks of gin palaces (p. 39)-" so widely and so universally popular amongst the London poor "-these, he urges, are lighted, ornamented, etc., but-
"Many landlords have found even all this insufficient, without the additional attraction of music; and the low singing-hall is sure to indicate the most thriving drinking-shops in the worst quarters of the metropolis. If, then, painting, light, and music are found necessary adjuncts to a trade which has already enlisted on- its side one of the strongest of human passions, it is the merest besotted folly to reject their assistance, when endeavoring to persuade men to accept and voluntarily seek an article for which they have never learned to care, even if they are not actively hostile to it-to wit religion."
"`The fact is seized on by secular bodies, whose aim is to gather as many members as possible from the lower orders. Societies like the Odd Fellows and the Foresters " have found this, " and consequently elaborate processions, with badges, music, and banners, are found needful appliances for attracting numbers; and keeping them together," etc.
" The Tractarians alone, of all the schools in the Church of England, have recognized this truth, and appraised it at its true value," p. 40.
Is it possible! Is it possible to conceive anything more degraded, or more degrading, or more contrary to Christianity? In true Christianity we see the power of the divine word, through the Holy Ghost, bringing light and grace into the soul, revealing God to the heart and conscience, and so leading men through redemption to worship God in spirit and in truth, knowing the grace of the Father which has sought such to worship Him. Instead of this unutterably blessed and holy worship, fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, the aim of the Tractarian is to substitute what one is ashamed to mention in the same sentence, the attractions of a gin palace, and the singing halls of the worst parts of London, the processions and banners of the Odd Fellows and Foresters, to win the masses by pleasing their tastes as they are. They have told their Own tale. The persons they attract to worship, mark it well, not to Christ as a Savior or to salvation, are persons who do not care for-or who hate religion, and they are to be won, not to God or to eternal life, but to outward worship, by that which attracts the fleshly nature, as it would to a gin palace or a society of Odd Fellows! It is not the degradation of the thought in connection with such a subject which (offensive as it is) most strikes one here, but the evidence of the total absence of divine life, spirituality, or thought of spirituality, in those who can take such views. The masses are to be drawn by attractions like those of a gin palace, to see a histrionic spectacle; and that is worship! But we must not therefore suppose that there is not a diligent, and, for its own purposes, efficient system at work. By all human means-means calculated to act on men's wants and natural feelings, and the influences of priest-craft, which are very great-they would exercise universal influence. They would have their agents nurses at all hospitals; guilds of females, made respectable and religious by the patronage of " Sisters," to keep them from mischief in manufacturing towns; confraternities in parishes to get amongst men whom the parochial ministers cannot reach, deferring to influential classes, who might resist such as physicians, but getting their ear so as to be their instruments and carry on their own purposes, and carefully excluding, only one thing, from getting access, as to all they can -the truth of God. The clergy and upper classes need some means to hold the poor under their influence. But the clergy must have the lead, as is natural if of God, yet by service to the poor, by which they may be gained, but the effect is priestly power. If it be a work of Satan (and likening worship to a gin palace and to the processions of the Odd. Fellows is certainly not of God), we must not fancy that Satan does not know what suits and acts on human nature; He knows it well. He cannot stem the power of God, nor love the truth, nor give true spirituality or holiness; but he can, where these safeguards are not, gain human nature and take the form of godliness, and change himself into an angel of light, and thus gain masses of men, and, in this form still more, women; and that is what they want. Of the truth, or the power of the truth, they know nothing, and care nothing. Priestly influence is the object. Take a statement from another paper in the same volume, in which there are many truths, as to the effect of various practices, and whose tone is not so offensive as the one I have quoted above, as that from which my first quotation was taken. There I read:-
," And, it must not be forgotten, that the godless in a parish have to be brought to the consciousness of the existence of a. God, a Heaven, a Hell, and the value of their immortal souls, before they come to Church. Their consciences must first be roused, and then they may be brought to the parish Church to learn the details of their duty to God and their duty to man." (p. 96).
Now is it not a very striking thing that in the case of a godless man, who has to learn the existence of a God, a Heaven, a Hell, and the value of his immortal soul, it never occurs to the writer to think of salvation, or a Savior, of Christ or the truth. Yet so it is. Let it riot be said: But it is assumed he will hear of it at Church.'. No; there he is to learn the details of his duty to God and his duty to man. He will find histrionic spectacles to engage his imagination, but he is not to learn salvation or a Savior; and in truth, with such teachers, he never will. But is not such a statement a striking display of the system? " Thy speech bewrayeth thee." One paper brings him to a theatrical display, the other to learn his duty; neither to God. What a contrast is apostolic simplicity. " Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." But let it be noted, this display is not to win to hear the truth, no catching with guile, as people have falsely applied the text, nor even what Dissenters and Presbyterians do, or are anxious to do, viz., have organs and good singing to attract, and then present Christ, (itself an unholy and evil practice, and savoring of priestcraft), but they are to be attracted thus to worship. It is the worship which is histrionic-to the worship they are to be brought.
Now, I will speak seriously of worship, and Tractarian worship by-and-bye. There are a great many points in which, as to form, though not as to substance, the Tractarians are right, just as Romanists have kept up the name of the unity of the Church. Worship is that for which Christians should meet, and, I add, the Lord's Supper is the center of worship. But to bring persons who do not care for religion or are hostile to it, to worship by histrionic displays, could never have entered into the mind of any but a Tractarian; nor have been invented but by priestcraft and the seekers of priestly power. It is not Christianity. That, and we have the authority of the divine founder of it for saying so, looks for worship in spirit and in truth, and reveals the grace in which the Father seeks such to worship Him. IT IS NOT CHRISTIANITY. Christianity is the activity of God's love towards sinners, and the joying in and worship of God by those who have been reconciled to Him, with all the fruits which flow from it through the presence of the Spirit, and the display of the life of Christ which is imparted by it, wrought, all of it, by the Spirit of God, and the fruit of the accomplishment of redemption, eternal redemption, by Christ. If it is not Christianity, what is-it?
Nor is this insensibility to divine truth or divine objects shown in a casual passage, treating of some collateral subject, or in view of some particular difficulty. There is no other thought presented to us. It is generally known that clergy and laity of all classes hired several of the lower class of theaters to preach in, with the hope of reaching the masses who never go anywhere, and they were successful. The means may have been desirable or not. It is not needful to decide that question here. Speaking of the Liturgy, our Tractarians say (p. 41):-
" There is nothing to impress the eye, nothing to quicken the attention, nothing to make the breath come short, or the pulse beat quicker."...... " It is all very sedate, very decorous, very good, no doubt, for those who like it; but it is not in the very least degree missionary." -
One hardly is aware how worship in itself can be properly so, but (p. 42):-
" The evangelical school has practically admitted this truth by its adoption of theater-preachings, thereby confessing, on the one hand, that it is hopeless of making the Church service attractive to outsiders, and on the other that some fillip of excitement in the way of novelty is needful as a lure."
A lure! Is that the object of worship, that which the Spirit of God can propose to itself in prayer and adoration? and a lure to what? That the zeal which sought the outcasts of London in their own haunts, and
found a response because these outcasts were cared for, may have been mixed with excitement and the attraction of novelty, is possible. But they were allured to God, at least, to salvation, not to " our Church," even if it were Anglican or Catholic. A vast number of preachers, even not ordained by man, and if they were, nobody knew to what denomination they belonged, and a service in a theater was not, and could not be to win them to go there or to belong to any body of Christians. This is evident, be it an evil or a good. It was to win their souls to God, but of that, while declaring that people do not know the existence of a God, nor the value of a soul, a genuine Tractarian has no idea. It does not enter his mind. He can only see a plan to win partisans by novelty and excitements. Again:-
" The Prayer Book, with its somewhat antique phraseology and high spiritual level, is, to the mass of uneducated worshippers, like the score of a piece of music, simply unintelligible. Put the score into the hands of a band of musicians for execution, and all will benefit from the harmony. So, too, let the dramatic aspect of Common Prayer be manifested, and every one can join, however uninstructed." (p. 42).
Join in what?
I close this part of my remarks with one more quotation, leaving the historical part for further consideration.
"Take two Street Arabs, perfectly ignorant of Christianity. Read to one of them the Gospel narrative of the Passion, and comment on it as fully as may be. Show the other a crucifix, and tell him simply what it means. Question each a week afterward, and see which has the clearest notions about the history of Calvary." (p. 50).
Now, to say nothing of the utter Pelagianism of this, the total leaving out of preventive grace, as is the case indeed in the whole of the statements furnished by this article, and, to speak only of means used, I ask what is declared by the Lord and his apostles to be the means of quickening, saving, edifying? Is it the word of truth, or pictures and crucifixes? Let not the objector talk to me of sacraments; they are not in question here. In the alternative put by the writer, he has chosen what God has not chosen;-and God has chosen (what he condemns) the word written and the word ministered by men. But still, though this article be low and degraded, the same fundamental principles characterize it which are insisted on in others.
"The constant appeal to antiquity, the tenets of the dignity of the human body, and of the superiority of prayer over preaching, the appreciation of symbolism, the magnifying the Sacraments as spiritual agents, could not otherwise be practically brought within the observation of the mass of Christians, which has neither taste nor leisure for abstruse research, and this is one of the reasons why, as has been said before in this paper, simplicity, that is, bareness and poverty in the externals of worship, is unsuited for a national, much less for a universal religion." (p. 36).
Gathering for worship by a dramatic display which magnifies the Sacraments (and it is carried even to the adoration of the Eucharist), so as to gather the whole nation or be even universal in its effect, such is the system. But it must be added:-all are not supposed to be communicants; there are to be "non-communicating attendance," or better " non-communicants," to be put indeed out of the choir, but stay in the nave and look on (pp. 500-503); so that in this center of Christian worship (for such the Lord's Supper is, as far as rites go), which ought to be accompanied with the holiest Christian affections, we are to find a drama enacted within the rails, to win by stage effects; and spectators without, kept there by what is now intelligible to all, but not taking any part in it.
Such is Tractarianism-not worship by saints, but religion for the nation, to keep them together! How totally contrary this is to antiquity, it is not needful for one who is the least acquainted with it to say. The word " mass " is simply the corruption of the words " lte, missa est," by which all who did not communicate were sent away. Primitive antiquity had not such a thought as missionary dramas in worship. It did magnify the holy mysteries, as they were called, but it did so by removing all who were not about to communicate. To insist on the. word "mass," as is done by these Tractarians, and provide for a non-communicating attendance, is imposing on the ignorance or inattention of the reader.

Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 2

In my present review I have to do with a more serious paper, written in a more earnest and serious tone, treating upon subjects of the deepest interest, detecting the false points in current evangelical views, and opposing to them forms of truth drawn from the word, but appropriating the value of these truths to that which is wholly unscriptural and even antichristian in its nature, so as to give, if received, the force of these truths to that which is itself, such. Now when truth is used to detect error, and the defects of the erroneous scheme are seen by it, the human mind is apt to believe that what is associated by the detector of the error with these truths is part; of the truth, and thus dangerous error is often introduced by the force of the truth.
It was thus with Irvingism. The Church had lost the doctrines of the coming of the Lord and the presence of the. Holy Ghost in the Church, and the enemy used these truths to introduce deadly error. So it is with the Tractarians. On nearly every point on which they attack the Dissenters and Evangelicals they can produce Scripture to prove their defects; but they use this only to accredit more deadly error still, and to sanction views and practices which subvert Christianity. I will quote their statements as to Dissenters and Evangelicals:
" The theory of the latter requires a disbelief in the doctrine of the visible church; that is, in a divinely instituted Body and an equally divinely-appointed government of the visible Body; it requires a denial of the fact that our Lord appointed a Priesthood in His Church, whose office is to celebrate those mysteries' which are the means and channels of grace and communion between CHRIST and His body. Nay it denies that the Body itself is a visible community or kingdom, separated from the rest of mankind by the partaking of, or communicating in, these Sacraments. On the contrary, the notion seems to be that the Church is not strictly a Body, but an aggregation of individuals who hold a certain theological or philosophical system, gathered out of the Holy Scriptures; that certain truths are revealed in the Scriptures, which truths were systematized by certain learned men in the sixteenth century; and that a belief in these truths constitutes the membership with CHRIST, irrespective of the visible Body and the Sacraments. This is the objective aspect.
Besides this, there is the subjective aspect: a certain consciousness of personal interest in these truths, and a sense of general unworthiness, and a further sense of the removal of that unworthiness, in the belief and apprehension of these truths-the whole matter of salvation being a personal one, between the individual and CHRIST the Savior; and that for purposes of mutual edification and advantage, it is expedient that individuals should unite into distinct bodies or communities, appoint their own teachers, frame their own terms of communion, and administer their own ordinances. Admitting for the most part-not universally-the divine authority of the two greater Sacraments, a form of Baptism is used, and a form of Communion in bread and wine; but these are not really Sacramental in the sense that the Church holds them, as means of grace to the recipients; but rather as seals and pledges of grace already given, outward signs of GOD'S SPIRIT already bestowed, on the part of GOD; and signs of faith in His promises, or rather the fulfillment of His promises, on the part of the recipient " (Pp. 183, 184).
The writer avows he, is " not speaking of the formularies of the different Protestant sects " (p. 184), but " of the views of Protestants at the present time." He is wise; he would have to speak of himself and his own church; nor would it be true in some important statements, and further he takes no notice of national Churches formed by the Magistrate, of which his is one, although he may urge its having in a great measure escaped the hand of the spoiler: " the least deformed because reformed the least." Still, as describing the present state of Protestants, Dissenters and those associated with them in their general views, it is in the main just as to the principal charges. I continue my citation that we may fully have the views of the essayist:
"We repeat, then, that the idea held by Protestants of the present day really amounts to this-That there is no such thing as a visible Church; but there is in the world a body of elect members, known to God only, who shall finally be saved; and that these, and these only, form the. Church of Christ; that the union with CHRIST consists chiefly, if not wholly, in holding certain doctrines of Justification by faith alone in the Atonement of CHRIST, together with a belief in God's promises as set forth in Scripture: and that, consequently, the whole matter is a private and personal one between each individual and CHRIST, quite independent of the belonging to the visible Church, or any sect. In accordance with this, we hear everywhere proclaimed the doctrine of a Universal Priesthood-every man is his own priest, and, in some sects, every woman her own priestess-but that it tends to good order and mutual advantage that individuals thinking alike should unite in some one community or another, choose their own teachers, and frame rules for general government and conduct; that the gifts of grace are not attached to any outward form or ordinance, excepting perhaps that of preaching, but that they are a private concern between Go]) and the individual; that the highest form in which grace manifests itself, is in the knowledge of Scripture and of Protestant doctrine, and especially in the power of preaching.
"In direct opposition to this, is the idea of the Catholic Church, the leading features of which may be stated in the following propositions:-First, that it is a spiritual system, not an intellectual one; a system whose purpose is a re-union of man with GOD, through the incarnation of the Second Person of the HOLY TRINITY. That this union is not effected by merely believing in a certain system of theology, or in the Revelation of GOD in the Bible; but, being essentially spiritual, only effected through those means by which spiritual gifts are conveyed to man. That those means are the Sacraments, which may be termed "extensions of the Incarnation," or means whereby the benefits of the Incarnation are applied to man. That such a union is, in most cases, and at first, independent and irrespective of any exercise of the intellect on the part of the person brought into union, but is by means of the gift of GOD in CHRIST'S own appointed way-Holy Baptism. That that Sacrament is the means of conferring on the recipient a new and spiritual life, similar and parallel to the natural life into which every infant enters at birth: so that it is called regeneration, or the new birth: and that one great effect of the Church is to feed, support, educate, this spiritual life till it comes to the measure of the fullness of the stature of Christ.' That the Church is the body of persons possessing this life, and consequently wholly distinct from the world' without; it is, therefore, a visible body with an invisible life, and that the means of support for this invisible life is invisible grace conveyed through visible forms or signs, instituted and appointed of Christ for that purpose. That the whole being of the Church rests on the Incarnation, or rather, to speak properly, on the SON of GOD become man. CHRIST is the Head of the Body, the Church' (Col. 1:18). That in order to the extension and communication of this spiritual life and grace, our Divine Lord appointed a ministry in His Church, whose office is to administer the means of grace to its members; so that it is His work, though done by the hands of His ministers and ambassadors: consequently, no one can take this office on himself without a direct commission from CHRIST. That He appointed His disciples, in the first place, to be Apostles, with a power to transmit their commission to others, as the need of the Body required; and that without this commission no acts are valid, and no ordinances have any assurance of grace attached to them. That the Episcopate and Priesthood is not only a form of Church government most nearly after the model of Scripture; but it is the one only of divine appointment in the Body, the one only which has the promise of grace attached to it, the one only which has the stamp of the divine commission" (Pp. 184-186).
The Protestant assertion that ministers are mere delegates of and therefore are elected and commissioned by the congregation, at once completely overturns the whole constitution of the Church, reverses the divine order, and substitutes human authority for that of CHRIST."... " The Body is dependent on the ministry, and the ministry is ordained for the Body, mutual fellowship and communion being requisite for growth in grace. Thus the Catholic idea is, that union and communion with the Church is absolutely necessary for union and communion with CHRIST; and that persons are received into communion with the Church in order to union with CHRIST; and, further, that this communion is effected by a communication of a spiritual gift, an actual bestowal of the grace of GOD to the person 'through this ministration of the Church's ordinances; that thus communion with the Church implies and connotes union with CHRIST, as well as supplies the means of such union (p.187).
"On the other hand, the Protestant theory reverses this making an intellectual process called Faith, and a mental conviction. called apprehension of CHRIST by faith, to be the means -not the condition, but the means -of effecting this union with CHRIST; it puts out of sight the fact that a special gift of the Spirit is necessary to create a union; or, perhaps, we shall describe the theory more correctly if we say, that it supposes grace to be an intellectual process going on in the mind, whereby a certain effect called Faith is produced; and that the production of this mental effect accomplishes the union between the individual and CHRIST; that any communion with fellow Christians is subsequent to this, not necessary in itself, but productive of good to the individual in a secondary and inferior way. Thus, according to this theory, the existence of the Church is in no way necessary. It may be believed in as an abstract proposition. but its existence, and communion with it, are quite immaterial" (p.187).
The writer refers to Eph. 4:4,5,6, and adds (p.187):
" A unity of faith and a unity of constitution are predicated here, both of which are essential to the idea of the oneness of the body. The former is defined in the Creeds and the decrees of the Six General Councils; the latter is found in the universal practice of the one Body. We shall not attempt to prove either of these from Holy Scripture; for we must bear in mind, that both the faith of the Church and her visible constitution were complete and in full force before a single word of the New Testament Scriptures was written."
Now there are very grave questions here. The assumptions are without end, and I shall notice them before I close, but the questions meantime are to be met seriously; but I beg my reader to mark the confession that the system is not found in Scripture. There are, they say, allusions to it. But such a confession, when the Word of God assures us that in the last days perilous times shall come, in which there will be a form of godliness with the denial of its power, referring to the Scriptures as the safeguard in them and to nothing else; but those from whom Timothy had learned, had personally learned, the truths he held, that is, Paul himself, to which we may add the other inspired witnesses whose teaching, so
as to know from whom we have learner' them, we have now only in the Scriptures-such a confession is of all importance. But, further, the Scripture, if it does not teach these doctrines, may contradict and condemn them. All this must be seen into. But they tell us the creeds and the six general councils have defined the faith. With what authority? why the six? Are there no more than six? why am I to believe six? Anglican authority speaks of four-why six? Romanists, though it be a sore subject with them for many reasons, and they declare some are to be said " to be and not to be" a council, as Pisa and Basel, yet they make some nineteen. The Anglican articles say they are not infallible and have erred. How can I trust to them as defining faith? And as to the creeds, the Nicene creed which we have now, contains an article-and an article which has divided the Greek, or most ancient Church system, and the Roman- which was not in the ancient creed, and which, was inserted contrary to the express decree of one of these councils and the decision of a very illustrious Pope, who put up the creed without it on silver plates in a Church at Rome that it might not be added; it was introduced by a small Spanish council, insisted on by Charlemagne; sanctioned by a council of three hundred prelates at Frankfort, who also condemned image-worship which had been sanctioned by what the Romanists hold for the seventh general council at Nice; and if we are to believe modern Anglican Catholics, an article forced upon the Pope against his better judgment, and authority, and certainly in spite of the prohibition of a general council and the Pope of the day. And this article is not on some immaterial point, but nothing less than the procession of the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity, and the nature of His relationship with the Father and the Son. The Greeks hold procession from the Son to be error (nor do they nor the Anglicans believe in purgatory with the Romanists); the Anglicans and Romanists believe it to be truth, and recite it in the creed as essential truth. One of these general councils forbad any addition to the creed which did not contain it, and the Pope forbad insertion of this particular clause. What can we say of the certainly defined faith?
But further, " the universal practice of the one body" is the authority for the unity of the constitution. To say that one spirit and one body proves the unity of the constitution of the body and its form on earth, is rather violent; but this we may take up on its own merits further on. Only if this be a strict definition of the unity, it certainly defines nothing as to any constitution on earth, nor even alludes to it. They did well not to attempt to prove it from Holy Scripture, but then why say it defines it strictly? If it did, being Scripture it would prove it clearly; but it says nothing about any constitution, about the only point to be proved-a visibly constituted form on earth displayed in an episcopate and priesthood. But, in point of fact, about one-third of the universal professing Church has not this form, say a quarter of it; universal practice does not prove it now.
It will be said, "But they have separated from the unity as they have not the episcopate and priesthood"; but this is begging the question; universal practice, they say, proves the unity of the constitution of the one body. I show the practice is not universal, and I am told-they are therefore not of the body. This is a mere vicious circle. I shall be told that this is a mere modern thing. Now in the dark ages it was universal, or nearly so; but so, with rare exceptions, was the grossest and most horrible corruption. Our Anglican Catholic essayist will not receive the councils held in these days. Why not? Nor do the Greeks. Why not? But in earlier days it was not universal. We may inquire from Scripture whether it existed anywhere in the earliest days. This is certain, that in the Patriarchate next to Rome in dignity, till the council of Nice set up Constantinople, this constitution did not prevail; but what contradicts formally the whole theory of our Anglican of the necessity of Episcopal ordination to the communication of grace. For this we have no less authority than Jerome, or, if they please, St. Jerome, who declares moreover that there was no difference originally between bishops and, presbyters and that it was introduced as a matter of order to prevent disputes. A singular thing if it was a necessary channel of grace, and equally singular that he should not have known it if it was universal practice, one who was a correspondent of Popes, translator of the Bible and equally conversant with the East and West. He tells us there were not originally bishops, that it was only introduced to keep peace among the presbyters. But all this is by the bye.
But before I treat the main subject I have a few not unimportant remarks to make. In the first place the statement that faith is a mere intellectual process, and alleging this to be the theory of Protestants is an unfounded one-and savors of infidelity in the objector. At least it is the view taken of faith by modern infidels, or at least of belief, for they make faith a sentiment, a feeling of the heart. But the soul may be acted on by the Spirit of God so as to produce a divine conviction' of unseen things revealed by the word-when Paul says, " when it pleased God.... to reveal His Son in me," it was not an intellectual process, and it was not a sacrament. It would seem that the Essayist ignores this altogether—a very serious lack indeed in his religious system. The direct operation of the Spirit of God in bringing truth home to the soul is wholly ignored. His doctrine is practical Pelagianism. All he owns is a sacrament or an intellectual process. What then of the grace of the Spirit of God, as the Lord opened the heart of Lydia. I would further draw my readers' attention to the total absence of all reference to the truth, except to depreciate it and faith in it, in order to exalt the sacraments.
"Grace is communicated, life is communicated, by sacraments, is only effected through these means," "irrespective of any exercise of the intellect on the part of the person brought into union."
But, according to our Essayist, the truth has no place as an instrument in God's hands for quickening and converting souls. In the same way and for the same reason the action of the Holy Ghost is ignored. We have His gifts conferred in Baptism, but no action of the Spirit of God Himself on the soul. Hence preaching is depreciated, and the truth so little material, that in the case of those who have, according to the Essayist, been in heresy for centuries, and out of the pale of the Catholic Church, denying the true faith-yet because the Episcopal form is there, their orders are all valid, effectual grace has been communicated, and they have only to return to a sound confession, and they are part of the Catholic visible Church. Grace, union, life were all there. They denied the faith, left the visible Church through this; but they have all that is essential. But in the case, of Presbyterians or Lutherans, who are not charged with any heresy but may hold the truth as such, all must be begun over again.
"They have cut themselves off from the participation in the one Spirit as living in the Church and flowing through the sacraments, which are the arteries and veins of the body."
In a word, the truth as the instrument of God in the soul is wholly ignored by the Essayist, the action of the Holy Ghost also, and hence also preaching, which surely is not worship, of the importance of which I shall speak. Further, individual salvation, and hence individual responsibility is slighted as much as possible. It is inconsistent with Church authority. Hence we find, too, the Spirit in the Church insisted on; but the Spirit in the individual, mocked at among Romanists as fanaticism, by Anglicans ignored.. Now conscience must be individual, responsibility must be individual, no man can answer for another at the judgment seat of Christ. He may pretend to secure him here, he must leave him to answer for himself if he gets there. The priest will be on the same ground or worse. Hence salvation must be individual, and responsibility. Everyone of us shall give an account of himself to God, and if he is saved he is saved individually; if purged, purged individually. The saint does also become a member of Christ, of His body the Church; but it is a second and distinct thing, though both are true of those who have now believed through grace. But this individual salvation and responsibility does not chime in with the asserted authority of the Church, and they carefully set aside what they cannot secure anyone against, direct individual responsibility to God, and what goes necessarily with it, individual salvation. If I have an individual soul, I must have individual salvation. They reproach Protestants with this saying, "This is a private and personal matter between Christ and the individual." I answer, "It will surely be so for all in the day of judgment."
Even a Romish priest would admit that in the day of judgment each one must answer for himself, just as his conscience is individual now, his soul individual, his sin individual. Scripture is as plain as can be on the point. It, teaches plainly the unity of the body and its union with Christ the head, most true and precious; but the Lord dealt always with individuals as such, and further our individual relationship as Christians takes the first place, because it is with His Father. We are individually His children, the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty; El Shadai is our Father. We cry individually, Abba, Father, and Christ's relationship with us in this respect is of the first-born among many brethren. The reader will find in the first chapter of Ephesians, the epistle where the unity of the body is most fully brought out, that the children's or individual's place with God and the Father is first brought out, and then the relationship to Christ, as the body to the head; but only at the end of the chapter. All John's writings speak exclusively of the individual and of divine life in him. He never refers to the Church at all, but to individual life from and in Christ, adding our individual perfection in Him before God. The truth is, the Church is never mentioned in the epistles, but by Paul, nor the word even used, save in the case referred to in the note, and, similarly, in James. Paul declares he was a minister of the Church (as well as of the Gospel) to fulfill, or complete, the word of God.
This system then, is characterized by leaving out the truth's action in testimony on the soul. The presence and action of the Holy Ghost, and individual responsibility and salvation: all are passed by or slighted. The church is trusted, God is not. Man gets union with Christ, life, and every blessing, unconsciously, without the smallest actual effect in conscience, heart, or any. thing, in any way in which he is brought to God with the sense of what he is, and of God's grace. The parable of the Prodigal is all nothing to the purpose, the weeping, lost one of the city, or the believing thief, the invitation of the laboring and heavy laden, is all, according to this horrible teaching, misleading instruction, for this was individual; this was (not an exercise of intellect indeed, but) individual consciousness of their own state, wrought by God, individual faith in the Son of God, individual salvation taught, if the Savior is to be believed; divine action on the heart, the soul, the conscience, the affections; the eyes opened spiritually to see the Son and believe on Him; men brought to God and the state of their souls manifested, and a divine work wrought in them by the word of the Lord reaching them. I may ask my reader, Does the Savior teach this on the bringing of a person unconsciously into union by holy baptism? Read the Gospels and see if this unholy rejection of the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ, and the divine operation on souls around Him by it, producing faith in His person, in order to substitute unconscious union in baptism, is to be found in them.
But if these great principles and truths be ignored by the Anglican Catholic system, there are important truths on' which it pronounces, and in. which, while it can justly object to Protestant Evangelicism, it is far more deeply and fatally in error. It sets aside all that is vital in individual salvation, leading to carelessness of conscience. and insensibility to personal responsibility. It makes the world not what Scripture does, " the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," but simply, the unbaptized heathen, so as to allow worldliness in Christians. It sets aside Scripture authority; ignores the Holy Ghost in individuals, on which the word of God insists, and passes over or falsifies history, when it meddles with it, and, as I shall now shew, is wholly false on the points as to which it has laid hold of certain truths which evangelical Christians have, by inefficient teaching, left in its hands.
It is not true that Protestants or Evangelicals make faith a mere intellectual process. No Christian does, unless it be the party of the Essayist. But the unity of a visible body on earth has been ignored or denied by them,-they have not generally held the real communication of a new, spiritual life; and they have (at least Dissenters) held the meeting together of voluntary associations which they call churches, and which frame regulations and choose or dismiss their ministers. In all this Scripture condemns them. On the last point the "Catholic," indeed, has not much to say; for it is held by them that everyone is at liberty to choose his own director or confessor, the most important of all their ministers in practice. As regards the true body of Christ, it is become invisible, and Scripture contemplates this without sanctioning it. " The Lord knows them that are His," though, of course, always true, is a state of things contemplated in the last days; but it was not the original state of things. On that, " the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved." There is in Scripture, as I. shall fully show, the doctrine of a visible body. But the object of the Anglican is not to prove that the word of God teaches the doctrine of a visible body on earth, but to set up a human priesthood in the clergy, and show that grace is communicated by their means, only, that grace comes by sacraments; divine life and union with Christ by baptism; that that visible body is to be found only where this priesthood or clergy is. The Reformers taught the being born of God in baptism, and, at any rate, the Anglican body becoming members of Christ by it-Evangelicals hold neither now, but they speak of union with Christ by faith which Scripture never does. When they speak of regeneration they do not, generally speaking, mean a new life really communicated, but the effect, produced by the operation of the Spirit of God on man as he is, not a really new, life communicated. Now Scripture does speak of the Church as one body on the earth, and of only one, with particular churches in each locality, which in that place held that of the body so far though not separated from other members of Christ. It has no idea of distinct churches in one place nor of a national church.
It does speak of the Church in the purpose of. God, as finally one with Christ in glory; but it also speaks of a Church and body of Christ on earth, responsible here below. It also speaks of the Church as the dwelling-place of the Spirit on earth, as the house of God as well as the body of Christ. Scripture does speak of a life really communicated to man; it does speak of a ministry received directly from Christ so as to exclude man s choice and nomination. It speaks of union with Christ. I will take up these points in order, and the setting forth Scriptural truth will, in a great measure, answer the erroneous statements on the subject, both of Evangelicals and Anglicans; but I will also take up, afterward, the positive errors taught by the latter, which are very grave indeed.
As regards the general truth of a body on earth, the Scriptures are plain. Thus, in 1 Cor. 12:12,13, " 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." For by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit, and ver. 27 " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular; and God hath set some in the Church-first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." From this it is evident that there is a body, the Church, and that that body, the Church, is on earth. There are no healings in heaven. " So if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it" (ver. 26). So in Rom. 12:4 and 5, "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another "; and then they are exhorted to the present exercise of their gifts accordingly. So Eph. 1:22,23, only here it is looked at in its completeness and perfection in the counsels of God as a whole, not yet attained, for " we see not yet all things put under Him," though we own Jesus' title as exalted to the right hand of God.. So Eph. 3:10;5. 25-32, all which show the Church set up on the earth as the body of Christ, though letting us understand that it will be presented to Christ a glorious Church. We have the Church also in the character of a building, and, as we shall see, which is of great moment, in a two-fold way. First, Christ Himself says, Matt. 16:18, "And on this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Whom Peter follows, " Unto whom coming, as unto a living stone.... ye, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house " (1 Peter 2:4,5); and so Paul (1 Tim. 3:15), "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Here it is on earth too, for the question is of Timothy's conduct in it. So Eph. 2:21, " In whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Here, as also in 1 Pet., it is only growing up to a future temple, not yet finished; but, in Eph. 22, it is added, "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Here it is a present thing; God's habitation in the person of the Spirit come down from heaven. Now it is to be remarked that in the temple, as forming for its final perfectness and glory, in the gospels the workman is Christ only. " I will build." In the Epistles there is no workman at all who builds. The building, see Eph. 2:21, " fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple": in 1 Pet. the saints come " as living stones." Here it is growing to a house, and Christ carries on the work-against which the gates of hell cannot prevail-on earth but for glory. But when we come down to a present house or building on earth, the case is different "as a wise master-builder," says the apostle, 1 Cor. 3:10. "I have laid the foundation. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon"; men may build with wood, hay and stubble, and their work come to nothing; or with gold and silver, and their work abide. Nay more, a man may defile the temple of God and be destroyed himself. Here men are responsible for the way they build in this building of God on earth. So in the passage in 1 Tim. he was to learn how to behave himself in the house of God. The doctrine therefore of the body of Christ, a body to be perfected in glory, and also that of a body existing on earth-of a house to become a perfect and holy temple in the Lord, and that of a present habitation of God through the Spirit, that which Christ builds infallibly and perfectly for the final result, and that in which, as a present thing, man is responsible by the way-are all clearly taught in Scripture. One the Evangelicals and Dissenters admit, though obscurely, what Christ is building for final glory; but the body now formed on earth, by the Spirit, and the house now the habitation of the Spirit, they have wholly lost sight of; and of these Scripture speaks.
I turn to the doctrine of communicating life. The common Evangelical teaching is, that the operation of the Spirit changes a man's heart, takes the stony heart out of us, subdues the will, renews the affections, etc. Now this is practically true, but is in no way the whole truth. There is the reception of a new life; God hath given to us eternal life, and that life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God bath not life. Christ is that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us, and through grace becomes our life, as it is written, when Christ, who is our life." We are really born of God, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, as that which is born of the flesh is flesh; as everything born partakes of the nature of that it is born of. He that is born of God sinneth not, the seed of God remains in him, he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Hence the apostle sought that the life of Jesus might be manifested in his body. It is a new creation in Christ Jesus,. a new man. And farther; living in Christ _risen, we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord, crucified with Christ, yet alive, but not we but Christ living in us. The flesh still lusts against the Spirit; but we have the life of the last Adam as we had the life of the first. On this Scripture is clear. Christ is become the life of the Christian, but it is Christ who has died and who is risen, so that the Christian is accounted quickened together with Him and all trespasses forgiven-can reckon himself dead, is dead for faith, crucified with Christ, but Christ risen, his life. There is no condemnation thus for him. The word of God does speak of a new life communicated, a new man.
Lastly, the choice of a minister by man is not scriptural. Ministry is directly received from Christ. He, when He ascended up on high, gave gifts to men; apostles, prophets-who were, we are told, the foundation-pastors, teachers, evangelists. The Spirit distributed to every man severally as he would, and as every man has received the gift he is to minister the same as a good steward of the manifold grace of Christ. He that teacheth is to wait on his teaching, and the various gifts are so many various members of the body, to be exercised in their place; as Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, 1 Peter 4:10, and all the history of the Acts show us; only women are not to speak in the assembly. The received talent is to be traded with, or woe be to him who possesses it. In the assembly, order was to be kept; not more than two or three speak, and in succession. These are a summary of the statements as to gifts of ministry in Scripture.
As regards offices, elders and deacons, the only ones spoken of, the elders were chosen by the apostles, Barnabas and Paul; among the Gentiles at least, or by Paul's delegate Titus. Those who served tables were chosen by the multitude, the apostles laying their hands on them when chosen. Choosing a minister or a pastor by the people is wholly unknown to Scripture. Christ chose and endowed them, they were bound to serve: they were again members in the body, and what they were at Ephesus they were at Corinth, that specific member of the-body, whose ministry was for the edification of the body everywhere. Elders, on the contrary, were chosen for each city by the apostles. But gifts were specific members of the body, men could not choose them. They were directly from Christ by the distribution of the Holy Ghost, and the possessors of them Christ's servants in them.' diversities of gifts, but the same. Spirit; differences of administrations, but the same Lord. Men cannot choose when Christ has chosen the vessel, and conferred the gift, and when they are Christ's servants in it, wherever they are, that member in His body,-its exercise being withal, ordered, and that for edification, by Scriptural rules. They are not ministers or pastors of a Church, but in the Church according to Scripture. Nor would such an idea as a pastor and his _flock have been tolerated in the apostles' days or have entered into anyone's mind; they had higher thoughts of service, lowlier of themselves, they were to shepherd the flock OF GOD. The truth is, a set of churches in a place is foreign to the whole teaching of Scripture. If Paul or John were to write now an epistle to the Church of God, which is at -, no one would get it. There is no such one recognized body to be found, not in the boasting Anglican, more than in the narrow Baptist; the Romanist would mock at the Anglican, and raise up his pretensions above all, and the rest would not in general dare to ascribe it to themselves. There is no Church for the letter to reach-the Church has ceased to be what it was, one, known, visible, and united body manifested in different places, but only one in all. Anglicans have pretensions enough, but Rome would not own them, if they own Rome, and no man's commendation of himself will do to give him a title. I know not whose commendation else the Anglican Catholic has got. Of his own he has plenty.
I admit, then, according to Scripture, a new life is communicated. We have now to consider what communicates life. " Holy baptism " says the Anglican. I recognize that the Church was, and ought to be, one visible body on the earth; but we have to consider what constitutes the body. I own a ministry direct from the Lord, but what makes the minister? This is the real question. if we bow to Scripture we have no ground, and, if taught of God, can have no wish to deny the manifestations and blessing of the unity of the body on earth; the communication of divine life; the direct gift of ministry from Christ not of man. But the Anglican uses these truths to set up a. humanly ordained priesthood and deny grace out of it; be attributes the communication of life and union with Christ to baptism. Priesthood and sacraments are the only divine means of grace and unity. The Evangelicals have foolishly denied or neglected the truths, which they have thus thrown into the hands of Anglicans to use as a weapon against themselves; but the Anglicans have- taken these truths to set up a wholly anti-Christian system of priesthood and sacraments of which these truths say nothing. They are wrong, even on their own ground, as to the sacraments, as I shall show; but the main point is, they teach falsely as to the whole way and application of grace to the soul, and set up, not Christianity, but the deceit of Satan clothed with the form of neglected Christian truths.
And first as to life. We have seen how they slight truth and faith, and drop the action of the Spirit of God. Now I shall show from Scripture that to these the communications of divine life is attributed by God. They slight preaching-and preaching, I repeat, is not worship—but to it Scripture attributes salvation. Let us remember that in the beginning Christians had to deal with Jews or the heathen world, and this will much simplify the matter; for unquestionably preaching-it may be private communications as well as public ones, for publicly, says Paul, and from house to house -but the ministry of the word was that which acted on souls, and that by which they were brought to baptism. As many as received the word. gladly, we read, were baptized. So Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. They believed and were baptized. The time was not come for winning kings by processions, so delighted in by Anglicans. and those Christianizing their subjects en masse; nor for driving the Saxons, by arms, into the Elbe to baptize and make Christians of them, as the famous Charlemagne. Faith came by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Let us see the positive teaching of the apostles on this subject. Whoever called on the name of the Lord was to be saved. " How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed; and how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard; and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace and bring glad tidings of good things.... So then faith cometh by hearing (the report), and hearing by the word of God." Salvation is for faith, according to the apostle, and faith by hearing the word, And this is a moral dealing with souls, "Wherefore when I came was there no man when I called was there none to answer," is the appeal of to Israel.
No person can read the Gospels or Acts without seeing that the testimony of the word was the great means of divine dealing with souls. Whatever the miracles of goodness and the ineffable excellency of His person, the service of Christ was preaching, and so He declares, " And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; for therefore am I sent" (Luke 4:43). Accordingly, in describing his service in Matt. 4:23, "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching." " The poor have the gospel preached unto them " was one of the signs of His divine and blessed presence;-when He sent out His disciples, it was (Matt. 10:7), "And as ye go, preach, saying," etc. And after His ascension (Mark 16:20), " They went forth, and preached everywhere." They were to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, he that believed and was baptized would be saved, and he that believed not would be damned. So in Luke 24:47, "Repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem." In carrying it out, Peter's preaching in Acts 2 reaches the hearts of some three thousand and brings them, as gladly receiving the word, to baptism. They could not but speak the things they had seen and heard, and sought grace to speak God's word with boldness. If there were miracles it was the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by signs following; Mark 16:20. So Heb. 1-4. Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. It is needless to go through the whole history of the Acts, which, with abundant confirmatory signs, is the history of the preaching of Peter and Paul indeed,. while giving prayer the first place, it is to this Peter declares that, leaving the care of the poor, the apostles would give themselves. Peter to Cornelius calls the whole testimony of Christianity-" The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all): that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached " (Acts 10:36,37).
Salvation, then, is for every one that believes; faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. What, then, shall we say of' a system which depreciates preaching, calls faith an intellectual process, and puts a ceremony, be it a divinely instituted ceremony, performed on an unconscious person, in the place of living faith and the power of the Spirit and the word? I shall now show, as to the means of receiving life, the application of this grace of the gospel, that it is by the word through faith, faith as a means, not as a condition, but as a work wrought by. God in the soul. James declares: " Of His own will begat He us by the word of truth that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures " (i. 18). Peter tells us: " Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently, being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever " (1 Peter 1:22,23). And to show that it is by the testimony of the gospel, it is added (ver. 25): " But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." Thus the word of God, and the word preached, is that by which we are born of God.
But faith, which receives that word as of God (for he that receives this testimony has set to his seal that God is true), is that by which we are thus born. We are all, says the apostle, the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal. 3:26. So 1 Thess. 2:13,16, " For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of. God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe ".... " Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved," etc. So 2 Thess. 10-14: " Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.... that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, whereunto he called you by our gospel." So the Lord: " Sanctify them by thy truth, thy word is truth." John 17 I might multiply quotations to the same purpose showing that the saving, quickening work of God is by the word, and hence by faith, and by faith as a means not as a condition. That we are justified by faith (the doctrine wickedly called Lutheran, and so hateful to Anglicans) is affirmed so repeatedly by the apostle that is by the word of God, that it is hardly needful to cite passages.
It is the main subject of the whole epistle to the Romans and of that to the Galatians. The whole Christian system is designated by it in contrast with law. "After that faith came' (Gal. 3:25); but our present subject is eternal life and salvation rather than justification. Paul preached the faith, he tells us, which once he destroyed. But the Lord Himself tells us: He that believeth on me, though he were dead yet shall he live, "and again, after stating that the Son quickeneth whom He will, He adds, as to knowing that we have it: "Verily, 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 (judgment), but is passed from death unto life." Thus, through hearing Christ's word and believing on Him that sent Him, a man has everlasting life. It is by the word, it is by faith. The other element of the new birth and the power by which it is wrought is, according to Scripture, the Holy Spirit. " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, as that which is born of the flesh is flesh. And so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." That new nature or life given to us, which is contrasted with the flesh, is attributed to the Spirit, divinely and essentially so. Every life has its nature from that of which it is born. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. You cannot thus speak of water, it is not the communication of a nature, but cleansing power. As far as it 'represents anything, it represents unequivocally death, not life, for we are baptized into Christ's death. That which is born of water is water would be nonsense. It is not presented as the communicator of a nature, the Spirit is. It is a divine, lifegiving Spirit. So of Christ, who acts as well as the Father, in it. He is a quickening Spirit. As the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, so the Son quickens whom He will. Christ becomes our life. I do not doubt that John 3 refers to what baptism refers to, as John 6 refers to what the Lord's supper refers to; but John 3 does not refer to baptism, nor John vi. to the Lord's supper. The passages speak of what baptism and the Lord's supper also figure. Christ incarnate was the true bread come down from heaven, and, having been crucified, His flesh and blood become the way of life and the food of the believer's soul. But as the bread was Christ incarnate, so the flesh and blood are Christ sacrificed on the cross. And hence the chapter speaks of His going up where He was before, showing that it speaks of Christ personally, not of the Lord's supper. The chapter speaks, that is, of Christ, not of the Lord's Supper, in the bread come down from heaven and the flesh and blood, and this is evident and certain upon the face of it, because the Lord's Supper is for the Church only; the bread He gives is His flesh, which He gives for the life of the world. If any man eats of it, he lives forever; but that is not true of the sacrament. Who ever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. This is not true of the sacrament; and this partaking of eternal life is effectual and eternal, Christ " will raise him up at the last day." That cannot be said of every one that partakes of the sacrament. Every one of the passages proves the utter falseness of applying it to the sacrament. The truth is, there is no such Christ now as is figured in the sacrament in existence. It is Christ's body broken in death, and His blood shed, but there is no such Christ now any more than there is a self-humbled Christ come down from heaven. He is gone up glorified, and there is no dead Christ nor shed blood to be found. Those united to a living, glorified Christ, celebrate, till He comes, the blessed memorial of what is no longer, and which has given them a part in Him, now; and with Him and like Him hereafter.
And it is equally false of chap. 3 of John. The Lord speaks of the reality in the operation of divine power, the communication of a new life, of a spiritual life, by the Spirit-that which is analogous to the wind, which is seen in its effects not in itself. Baptism is seen in itself, on the contrary, not in its effects, as every one knows. What, then, does water refer to? Scripture teaches us fully. It typifies the word. Christ sanctifies and cleanses the Church for which He gave Himself, by the washing of water by the word-as James tells us we are begotten by the word. Again John 15, " Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." It is an allusion more particularly to Ezekiel, where Israel's blessings are promised to be restored to them:
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," etc. Ezek. 36:25,26. It is real cleansing within by the word. With this comes, in. Ezekiel, the earthly promises to Israel. Hence the Lord says to Nicodemus, " Art thou a teacher of Israel and knowest not these things?" He ought to have known them, from His own prophets. "If I have told you of earthly things and ye belieVe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things." And the "ye " and the " every one" of John 3:7,8, refer, the first to Jews, the latter embracing the heathen.
The birth of the Spirit, or new life, the new man, is attributed to the Spirit. Cleansed in mind by the word, we are, but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Baptism, we are expressly told, signifies our dying, our dying to sin, which is true inward cleansing, and in Colossians our resurrection is added, but communication of life never. The passage in Titus may be alleged, where the apostle uses the expression, the laver of regeneration; but regeneration is not used in Scripture for the communication of life but for a change of state and condition. It is only used once elsewhere in Scripture, for the new millennial world; where Christ shall sit on the throne of His glory. " In the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory" (Matt. 19:28). Here it is evidently a change of state and condition, not communication of life. Hence, in Titus 3:5, we have the laver of regeneration. One, before a heathen or Jew, or at least born in sin, and outside the place of grace and God's dwelling, was admitted within it. His state was changed. He had been a heathen, a Jew, a sinner, away from promises and God and hope; He passed into that condition where all these were; translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Where being born of God is spoken of, it is another word, not παλιγγενεσια but γεννηθη ανωθεν, or αναγενναω, never παλνγγενναω and with the laver of παλνιγγενεσιας we have, "and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" as a distinct thing. New life is attributed to Him who can give it—the Spirit of God, the Father, and the Son. In result, quickening or communicating life is expressly attributed to the word, to faith, to the Spirit. It is never attributed to baptism. On the contrary, this signifies or figures death. It may be said resurrection, as coming up into a new state. For Christ being our life, this is in the power and status before God of His resurrection. Baptism signifies in fact the quitting an old state by death, that of the first Adam, and an entrance into a new, that of the second Adam; risen from the dead. It does signify washing or cleansing, but in no place giving life. We read of being born of water, but it is not said of baptism, and where the possession of a new nature is spoken of in this very passage, it is referred exclusively to the Spirit. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. We have too the expression the laver of regeneration, but regeneration is a change of state and condition, as Matt. 19 shows, not the communication of life. Baptism is of real importance and deep signification in its true place but it is not in pretending that water can give spiritual life. That the Spirit, direct divine agency, alone can do, and we know, when manifested in this world, it is by the word through faith. But as an entrance into a new state, as death to the old, and, figuratively, washing and cleansing from what belonged to the old by death to it, it has its full Scriptural signification. Hence we read: "Arise and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord," not: Arise and receive life. Communication of life it was not. For in the case of adult heathen and Jews, they believed and were baptized that is, they had life first, for he that believeth on the Son bath everlasting life. In a certain aspect, baptism signified more than giving life; that is, the deliverance and salvation of those who had life. The centurion Cornelius had life, was devout, and we see evidently he was renewed in heart. He was to send for Peter, and hear words whereby he would be saved.
The doctrine of a real deliverance and actual salvation has been so lost that many a true Christian, knowing he must be born again, looks for the fruit of it to ascertain his state. But there is an actual deliverance and translation into the kingdom of God's dear Son, which belongs to every renewed soul, but has been acquired by the death and resurrection of Jesus, of which baptism is the sign, death as we have seen to the old (Rom. 6), and rising into the new condition, all trespasses being forgiven (Col. 2). So in external things Israel brought to God in heart and will in Egypt, was delivered out of Egypt at the Red Sea, by the "salvation of Jehovah and baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Hence, Peter says, the antitype whereto now saves us, even baptism.... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The disposition of Noah through grace gave him a part by faith in deliverance, but he had his deliverance through the flood into a new world. By faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house. That baptism figures, Scripture declares; not the communication of life. We may be said, in a certain sense, to be figuratively born there, as coming out of the womb of death to the old Adam state into a new world (παλιγγενεσια), but not to have life communicated. I admit it is not a sign of what we have already, as is commonly taught; but of getting, through death, into a new position, where we have what entitles us to it. With union it has nothing to do, good or bad. It is not by receiving the Holy Ghost we are born again, nor do we receive the Holy Ghost in baptism. It is not in any way a sign of union. On this, Scripture is as clear as can be. Baptism is baptism into Christ's death, at the utmost rising in coming up from it, when having figuratively passed under death. Union is with a Christ exalted at God's right hand, and only so, and by the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who could not come till Christ was exalted. That is, baptism does not go beyond death, or, at the utmost, resurrection. Union is, with an exalted Christ by the Spirit, where He is on high. The first proposition, I have already shown from Rom. 6 and Col. 2. The reader has only to refer to these chapters. As many as have been baptized unto Christ have been baptized to his death. As a figure we are not baptized as a sign or seal that we are already dead and risen again; we are baptized to death, buried there, wash away our sins there; as a figure it saves us, because we therein pass, by death, out of the old scene and Adam state, and so into the new or risen Christ state. But secondly, in no sense has baptism anything to do with union. We have seen, and Scripture is express, that it is by one Spirit we are baptized into one body, and that is always distinguished from baptism; and the Lord's Supper, not baptism, is the symbol of the unity of the body, though it may figure what implies it as a consequence.
But it does not itself even figure, in any way, introduction into Christ's body. In this Baptists are as wrong as Anglicans. We have seen that baptism signifies death, but having a part in Christ's death, and, hence, death that delivered from an old state and all transgressions connected with it. As Noah was freed by the flood entirely from the old world, which was now gone and had perished in the flood, and emerged out of the ark into a new world; yet that flood was judgment through which he was saved in the ark, so we are delivered by Christ through death and judgment, which He underwent for us, for it would have been our everlasting ruin—out of the old state and brought into a new condition, into which He is risen, if indeed we have a part in Him. Of this, baptism is the figure. We are baptized to Christ's death, and we are to reckon ourselves dead, the judgment having been borne by Christ, it is death to sin, the world, and all that belongs to the old man. We have put off the old man and put on the new, and this is the profession by baptism of every Christian. Where it is said, "few that is eight souls were saved by water," it is not simply saved, not εσωθησαν, but διεσωθησαν, saved through danger or catastrophe, they were saved through the flood,—not by it, though it was salvation as deliverance from an old and introduction into a new world; but it is saved, through a destroying judgment, through what would have been, but for the ark, and was, for others, destruction. Baptism is the antitype (such is the word figure) to this; it passes us through death, not literally of course, as is evident. But in as much as Christ, into whose death we are baptized, is risen, it is deliverance from an old and introduction into a new, even Christ's risen state: really, if we take outward standing here, figuratively if we speak of the condition of the soul before God. But it is death, not communication of life, which it figures in itself. It is the flood of which it is the antitype, death into which we are brought by it. But even, were it the communication of life, this is not union. By the reception of life we become children of God. Christ is, in this aspect, the firstborn among many brethren, not head of the body, and the saints members of His body, that body of which He, exalted above every name, is the head. It is by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, and of that the Lord's Supper is the symbol, not baptism. Baptism is death, and leads to resurrection figuratively through grace, but does not go beyond the latter, does not point farther than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But in order to form the body, Christ must be exalted as the head. This is, in every way, evident from Scripture. The head, i.e. Christ exalted, must have been there to unite the body to.
But in detail,—in the first place as the body is formed by the baptism of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12) it could not be till Pentecost, for that was, we are expressly told, that baptism (Acts 1:5); but that Comforter could not come till Christ went away, then He would send him, and we may add that Christ had not received the Holy Ghost to confer on his members as sent down from heaven until He went up (Acts 2). Further, there was no head to unite the body to, till He went up on high. We are members of His body, we are of His flesh and of His bones, but that it is of Christ exalted the end of Eph. 1 makes as plain as language can make it. To make the incarnation the ground of it is a gross and heretical blunder. Without the incarnation, of course it could not have been, for it is to Christ as the glorified man we are united. But there was no union with Christ incarnate. I will say more of this further on, for it is a very vital point and a capital and fatal false doctrine of Anglican Catholics and even Irvingites: For the present, I confine myself to the fact of union. Till redemption was accomplished, there could be none. A union of the Son of God with sinful, corrupt man is an utter and mischievous error. We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. It is not said He of ours. His real humanity, flesh and blood, is a fundamental doctrine, but that is not union. Union is by the Holy Ghost. He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. But, further, as to the outward dispensation of unity, union before the cross was impossible, because it was by that the middle wall of partition was broken down, in order to make of twain (Jew and Gentile) one new man, making peace, and present both in one body to the Father (Eph. 2). Thus, whether we consider the position of Christ as head of the body, or the power that forms us into one body, or the, time and order of its administration on earth, it is clear that Christ's death and Christ's ascension, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, were all essential to union, to the existence of the church His body. With the last two, baptism has even figuratively nothing to do. Another very grievous error connected with this, is the notion that the giving of the Holy Ghost is the same as being born again, or necessary to it. This error is common to Evangelicals and Anglicans. In the first place, as to prescribed order, it was received after baptism (Acts 2). But as to doctrine, no person receives the Holy Ghost till after he has been born again, and has even yet further grace given to him. In John 7 we read, "This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him should receive." Now, if they believed, they were born again. " In whom after ye believed (Eph. 1) ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? (Acts 19). He that establisheth us together with you in Christ, and who hath anointed us, is God, who also bath sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts (2 Cor. 1). And Gal. 4. is very express: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts." The disciples were believers and clean through the word when the Holy Ghost came upon them. I might add proofs if needed. But it is evident that God cannot seal an unbeliever. He quickens or gives life to the unbeliever through faith by the word. He seals the believer. That, as to prescribed order, it is after baptism, is evident. Repent and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2). So Paul, whereunto then were ye baptized? and then after they were baptized, Paul laid his hands on them, and they received the gift of the Holy Ghost. So in Samaria the Holy Ghost was fallen on none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The exceptional case of Cornelius is an additional proof of the distinction. The Jew demurred to receiving the Gentile. God showed He would, and the apostle could not forbid water. The outward reception here below, since God had put His seal upon him. This is the apostle's own account. But the seal of the Spirit even here was by itself, though first, and was not at or by baptism. The forming of the body, and its union with the head, even with a glorified Christ, is by the Holy Ghost, by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven consequent upon that exaltation. It is in no sense or case by baptism, nor is baptism even a figure of it. The bread in the Lord's Supper is used as a figure of the unity produced down here by it. (1 Cor. 10:17).
Next, as to ministry. Scripture does not own man's choice of ministers, any more than voluntary associations called churches. The Anglican Catholic holds it to be a constituted order derived successionally from the apostles by ordination. Christians in general have gone more or less decidedly into the same system modified after their own thoughts; only the Anglican holds it to be an exclusive channel of grace in the episcopate and priesthood. He says it must be directly from Christ. How a successional system is directly from Christ it would be hard to tell. I understand a person saying God endows a person appointed by man, or even by the Lord, or endows him indirectly through a man. Both are found in Scripture. Christ appointed apostles; they were endowed on the day of Pentecost. And the apostles conferred the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, on, not the ministry, though the Holy Ghost, might operate by them in ministry, but on, the whole company of the faithful, as, at Samaria, Peter and John did. But ministry was free to all and special gift directly from the Holy Ghost, and under the authority, and I may add, gift of Christ. This I shall now show. This directness characterized the ministry of Paul, here, I admit, in its highest or apostolic character, " not of man," he says, " nor BY man." Those who called themselves Jews then, insisted on derivation of ministry from the apostles. Paul gloried in its not being so, but it was not confined to him. Let us see historically. All that were scattered abroad (on the occasion of Stephen's death, that is, all except the apostles) went everywhere preaching the word (Acts 8:4). I suppose the whole Church was not ordained, and in Acts 11:21 in Antioch, we read of them, "and the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed and turned to the Lord." Stephen, using the office of a deacon well, purchases to himself a good degree, and great boldness in Christ Jesus. So Philip. So in 2 and 3 John, Gains is commended for receiving those who went out, and a lady is directed to inquire, not for letters of orders, but what doctrine they brought. Diotrephes refused them. According to our modern Anglicans he did well. As to doctrine, the Lord in the parable of the talents makes the question of faithfulness in ministry turn on trading with a gift from small or great without other authorization than receiving it. That was faithfulness. Peter tells us: "as every one has received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God " (1 Peter 4:10,11). That is, as those who speak on God's behalf, that God may be glorified, as in ministry (service), of the ability which God giveth. The apostle teaching how to discern what was of the Holy Ghost in 1 Cor. 12, tells us, there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit,... then goes through a long list, wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, etc., "all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." These are different members in the body which have need one of another, and these various gifts are not local or an office in a particular church—but God has set in the Church apostles, prophets, teachers. All have not these different gifts, but all who have are responsible for their exercise, for trading with their talent, and they are in the Church, not an office, I repeat, in a church. Hence Apollos, if he taught at Ephesus, taught at Corinth if he went there. They were gifts in the Church, members in the body. Hence the apostle, resisting the first beginning of sects, says, "all things are yours. Paul, Apollos Cephas," etc., all are yours; the gifts belong to the Church at large. So, we read, there were in the church which was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers. We have limits and order set to their exercise, surely. But these show and confirm the general principle. Not more than two, or at the most three, are allowed to speak in the assembly when come together, and women are to keep silence. A strange direction, if only an ordained priest or deacon, aye, or dissenting minister, could open his mouth, and they were the only channels of grace. Such a limit in that case could have no sense at all. But again, in more ordinary and regular ministrations, as may be thought, is their conferring less direct? Christ ascended (we read in Eph. 4) up on high, and gave gifts unto men, and He gave some apostles and prophets, and some pastors and teachers, and some evangelists (eis) for the perfecting of the saints (pros), for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till all are come in the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son. of God, to a perfect man to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. We read: "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," so that we may leave them aside, but pastors and teachers and evangelists are directly given as gifts (talents) by Christ ascended on high. This is direct giving according to Scripture, not of man, or by man. And it is added, " From whom;" the head, Christ, "the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body for the edifying of itself in love."Our essayist was wise not to seek to prove his thesis from Scripture. In 1 Cor. 14:29,31, we read "let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge" "for ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted." James, indeed, warns the saints "not to be many masters (teachers) knowing that we shall receive greater condemnation." But why so if they could not unless regularly ordained to it? Such a warning could have no place according to the system which knows only an ordained clergy. I shall be told there were extraordinary gifts. Some of them were, not all. Pastors, teachers, evangelists are not, nor that which every joint supplieth; nor does James' direction apply to such, nor 1 Peter 4, nor 2 and 3 John. But in any case this is nothing to the purpose. The theory I combat is that God originally instituted a system of episcopate and priesthood, the only channels of blessing and grace, a direct ministry which man could not choose. I am told, indeed, Scripture is not to be referred to, to prove it, as it was established before the Scriptures were written, but that they allude to it often. But I find they speak very fully not by allusion, but historically and doctrinally of another system which God did institute and appoint, and which proves, as to the original constitution of God, the Anglican system to be false; false historically, false doctrinally. If he tells me that his system supplanted what God originally instituted, I admit it. That is the truth, it did supplant it. The system they teach is incompatible with that taught in Scripture, either for the world or the Church. Do they mean to allege that, for some wise reason, God set aside His original system and order and power—for it was God, we are told, who worked all in all; Christ who gave from on high pastors, teachers, evangelists, and every one who had received the gift was so to minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Did God and Christ withdraw all their gifts, ordinary and extra- ordinary from the Church, and substitute the clerical system insisted on by Anglicans? When did he do it? Not in times taught of in Scripture. Or was it man, who, as power died down so to speak, substituted his order for God's? But the external order will be alleged. Bishops and priests. Let us see that positive testimony the word furnishes. It does more than allude to these also. Nor does it recognize the Church's choice even of these church officers, save as regards money and table serving. Then it is insisted on—in Acts 6 the apostles withdraw from table-serving, establishing needed order in the Church—to give themselves not to baptizing or administering the Lord's Supper, one was generally entrusted to others, it is not said to whom—strange case of the exclusive character of grace—and the breaking of bread was daily from house to house, or at home in contrast with the temple. Where were the ordained ministers who communicated the grace? I know not—but the apostles withdrew from tables, to give themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word, a matter so deplorable in the eyes of our modern Catholics. And they have the table-carers, chosen by the people—and these they lay hands on, the only expressly ordained persons in Scripture, and we read, faithfulness in this is a way to higher service. So Paul would not take the money of the saints for Jerusalem unless the churches chose some to travel with him, providing things honest in the sight of men. The word used is (cheirotoneo). Election being made by stretching out the hand, but it has nothing to do with ordination. 2 Cor. 8:19 shows it beyond controversy, and so indeed does Acts 10:41. But there were elders chosen, and they were never chosen by the Church, but by Paul and Barnabas; or Titus was sent to establish them. There were overseers; that is, bishops, expressly so called, in Acts 20, nor is any one else so called. And there were several in each locality, they chose (not ordained, the translation is ecclesiastical but false), elders in every city, some labored in the word and doctrine, some, it appears from 1 Tim. 5:17, did not, but the same epistle shows us it was desirable, but the difference between their office and gift is evident. The gifts were set in the Church and exercised everywhere; the elders, though they might have gifts too, were local officers, city by city or in every church. Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23. And there were not gifts, but offices appointed. They were bishops, I repeat, the only bishops spoken of in the Scriptures, and Christ Himself directly and alone over them. These elders were to shepherd, not their flock, but the flock of God; and were responsible to the Chief Shepherd, who, when He should appear, would recompense them (1 Peter 5:1,4). As we have seen in Acts 20, they are expressly called bishops. Nor has the apostle an idea of any one over them here below, nor of a successor to himself He calls them solemnly together, declares the Holy Ghost had appointed them bishops, tells them he is going away, and they were to watch. Where is the room for the modern bishop here, now he forgot to remind them of Timothy, and their due subjection to his admonitions. He commends them to God, and the word of His grace which is able to build them up. They were to take heed to themselves and all the flock. Where was the bishop? But farther, the apostle was going away and expected never to see them again. Here indeed was the place to " allude" to the episcopate, and the successors of the apostles; but not a hint of such a thing escapes him. It has a strange and ominous silence about it, and, more than that, though he declares that things will go on badly as soon as he was gone, he has not an idea of appointing a vigilant successor to take his place; on the contrary, there will be none; grievous wolves would break in, and even among themselves perverse men would arise. Was there no bishop to consult, no successor in the see to watch? None. They, the elders, Paul's bishops, the only ones he knows, were to watch, and he commends them to God and the word of His grace. He treated his successor very slightingly if he had one. But I shall be told Timothy was the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians. Not Paul's successor then, for Paul was alive. And the apostles as such, and even Bellarmine admits it, had no successors properly, for their charge was universal, not local. The notion of their having successors is indeed absurd. Paul, we have seen, knew nothing of it in Acts 20, the very occasion to speak of it; and so Peter takes pains, that after his decease, all the Jewish Christians should have his teaching in remembrance—has no idea of a successor. Where is the "allusion " to this constitution of God? There is none. (I reserve the question of priesthood as a graver question.) But what then was Timothy? This alleged episcopate must have been either successors to the apostles, as if (which is false) the apostles had a local see, or persons whom the apostles appointed in places they had evangelized and established Christianity in.
But Timothy and Titus were not their successors, for the history we have of them relates to the apostles' lifetime, and the apostles had no local see as such. And we have the account of what they established in the places they had labored in successfully. They established elders in every city, that is, not a bishop, but several elders, or bishops. That is a certain fact, whether in the acts or the epistles to Titus and Timothy, confirmed as it is in that to the Philippians also. Titus and Timothy were especial delegates of the apostle, who were certainly not located in sees, but accompanied the apostle or were sent on special missions by him, his confidential agents. He left Timothy for a time at Ephesus specially about doctrine; but he, after that, desires him to come to him speedily. Titus did not stay in Crete either, in 2 Tim. 4:10, we read of his being gone to Dalmatia. The apostle, or his delegates by his direction, did establish bishops or elders in each city; that is, they did not establish an episcopate in the modern sense of the word, but something else which contradicts it: and if episcopacy is a necessary and exclusive channel of grace, the true primitive Church had no channels of grace at all, and those who followed had no grace to communicate. There were officers, but they were of another kind. Nor is there a hint of communicating grace in the matter. That the Church fell early into a system of episcopacy is perfectly true, and Jerome tells us how and why, as we have seen, namely, to prevent the jealous ambition and disputes of the elders. But the Church's decay was contemporaneous; all sought their own already, the apostle tells us, not the things of Jesus Christ they were in the last times already, John assures us, in his day, and Peter, that the time was come for judgment to begin at the house of God. Episcopacy accompanied this, a human arrangement to meet decaying spirituality. Then some began to say-my Lord delayeth His coming, and began to beat the men servants and maid servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, so that in some 140 years from the apostles' days, Cyprian assures us that one of the most terrible persecutions was only too light as a chastisement from God. The bishops, so called, were running about as commercial travelers, to make money. In a little more than another century the emperors had to make laws to prevent the avarice of priests around dying beds, which were not called for (as Jerome complains) with buffoons or actors, or any heathen priests. For ministry, there was no ordination by man. It was direct. The apostles laid their hands on those who served tables; laymen, so called, laid their hands on an apostle. But no one can show, in Scripture, ordination for ministry. Whoever had a gift, for the world, or for the Church, was bound to exercise it, order being maintained in the Church by scriptural rules. I defy any one to point out ordination for ministry in Scripture, or to sustain it by scriptural authority. Elders and deacons, or servants there were. I dare say hands were laid on them as it was the universal custom, but it is only said of the table servers in Acts 6. Timothy is told not to lay hands suddenly on any one, and I dare say he did on elders or bishops, but God has taken care it never should be stated in Scripture. As to conferring a gift, it was by the laying on of the apostles' hands exclusively.
The question of priesthood and another important one remain. The setting up of a distinct priesthood is the denial of Christianity. A distinct priesthood is a body who can go to God for me, because I cannot so approach God myself. To say there is such a body in Christianity is to deny it. The essence of Christianity is, that we can directly approach God, even the Father, ourselves. We are (1 Peter 2) a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices by Jesus Christ: He has made us kings and priests to God and His Father (Rev. 1). That is our Christian place; to say that others are priests to approach for us, is to deny our place. We cannot hold this too fast that whoever sets up a priesthood other than that of all saints, entering in spirit into heaven, denies (it may be ignorantly, no doubt,) Christianity itself. What does Scripture tell us of priesthood now? First: in the epistle to the Hebrews, we read that if Christ himself were on earth He could not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law, who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. Now this is exactly what is urged for Christian priesthood by the Ritualists. They say indeed that they are not merely (ἱιποδενγματα) copies, shadows, figures (p. 308) of the worship in heaven, but the priest is the " present vicarious representative of the one true, real, and ever-living priest,” (now for a time corporeally absent), acting "in His name." Or,-
" It is the one Mediator, acting in heaven directly, as we may say, and immediately by Himself; acting on earth indirectly and mediately by His minister as His visible instrument, who, forasmuch as in that most solemn of all His duties, He represents the priestly functions of His heavenly Master, is Himself, for that reason, and for that reason only, called a 'priest"' (p. 309).
And so "the Christian Eucharist.... is called 'a sacrifice,'" and ‘that whereon it is celebrated an altar.' " (p. 310).
Now it is clear, Christ on earth, at the time the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, could not have been a priest. There were priests who ministered to the example and shadows. But if Christ could not be a priest on earth, His ministers were. Is it not strange that this whole service is left out where the subject is treated of. Does any honest man (yes, I repeat, honest man,) believe that when this was written, and it was said Christ could not be a priest on earth, there was a Christian priesthood who served as the mediate and indirect instrument, offering sacrifices on earth, a vicarious representative of the great High Priest in heaven. The apostle tells us that such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens; that on earth he could not be a priest seeing there were those that served in the example and shadow of heavenly things. Yet at this very time, we are to believe, there was on earth what was expressly constituted of God to carry the priesthood on on earth riot as a copy, but as "gloriously real" (p. 308). Further, can an honest man believe what the epistle teaches; that repetition of sacrifices was a proof that sin was not taken away but remembered, but that Christ having, by one offering perfected forever them that are sanctified, there was no more sacrifice for sin nor remembrance of sins, and that the worshippers, once purged, should have no more conscience of sins, left it equally true that there was a sacrifice, a memorial sacrifice, gloriously real. And note, it is not merely intercession in virtue of the sacrifice as alleged; that would be scriptural enough, He ever liveth to make intercession for us. It is breaking His body, it is His blood shed. It is offering a sacrifice, which is not intercession. That is founded on a sacrifice, and appeals to its efficacy, but this is the memorial sacrifice itself. I shall enter more fully and directly into this in another paper, I now refer to it in connection with priesthood. The declaration that priesthood is in heaven, and Christ could not be a priest on earth, and that there was no more sacrifice for sin—means that there is a priesthood on earth, who are priests only because they offer a sacrifice. Strange that the New Testament writers should never say a word of this priesthood. But they do speak of priesthood, and in a way which excludes this ordained distinctive one. We are all a holy priesthood, all made a kingdom of priests, and to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Peter too, it seems, had forgotten or never heard of this "gloriously real" priesthood, and puts us altogether as priests. But it affects, as I have said, our place as Christians. Where there was a distinctive priesthood on earth, the vail was not rent, the people could not come beyond the altar, nor were the priests to go within the vail, the Holy Ghost this signifying (Heb. 9:8) that the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest. In contrast with this, the one offering which has perfected forever them that are sanctified having been offered, the vail is rent and we all have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, boldness to enter into the holiest by a new and living way which He has consecrated for us through the vail, that is to say, His flesh, and we are to draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith:—where is the place for a mediating priest here, when I draw near myself into the holiest in full assurance of heart? I am a priest and enter myself where the great High Priest is, over the house of God, the family of God upon earth. There is a great High Priest and a whole body of priests under Him. That is, the whole notion of any other priests between me and God, is thus sedulously excluded. I enter into the holiest where the great High Priest is, and this is founded on the sedulously elaborated declaration that there is, and can be, no more offering for sin, that a memorial offering is a memorial, or remembrance of sins, and there is a diligent application of this to the conscience, that once purged we have no more conscience of sins, that Christ has sat down, is not standing, because there is no more offering, neither by Him nor by any, and with the so urgent and so just reason given by the Spirit, that it must be real, and that if there was, Christ must have often suffered from the foundation of the world, that the reality of suffering was necessary to the reality of His sacrifice; without it there was none accomplished. Christ is not offering Himself now, and on this, that He is not doing so now, the apostle insists. Those high priests were standing," offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins." What a picture of ritualistic priests. But this man, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down at the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till His enemies were made His footstool, for by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Offering for His friends, He has finished once for all, He is seated, and that expecting till His enemies are made His footstool: That Christ is offering Himself now is a heinous anti-Christian falsehood. He appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and as it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and to them that look for Him he shall appear the second time without sin (χωρις ἁμαρτιας) apart from sin to salvation. He is in the presence of God according to the efficacy of that sacrifice, and intercedes for us; but it was when He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the majesty in the heavens. But, save to deceive souls, there is not as much value in any pretended sacrifice now, as in the letters I am forming here. As a lie of the enemy's, it may be a snare for those who have no knowledge of the efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice, and that, by one offering He bath perfected forever them that are sanctified—for those who have not received that word: who needeth not daily, as these high priests, to offer first for His own sins, and then for the people's, for this He did once, when He offered up Himself. Christianity, then, teaches us that in virtue of that one sacrifice we, all believers, enter in through the rent vail into the holiest of all, having a Great High Priest over the house of God, in full assurance of faith. We are the priests, and to set up a priesthood to do it, is to deny the efficacy of Christ's work, the believer's place, and the rending of the vail, that access of every believer to God which is the essential distinction of Christianity. A Christian priesthood, save as all saints are priests, is an anti-Christian lie. Christ offering Himself now, is unscriptural and false, a repetition of His sacrifice in any shape or form, or under any semblance, is a denial of the perfect efficacy of His one offering once for all, in which He offered up Himself. Both, the pretended priesthood and the pretended sacrifice, are a subversion of Christianity; one of the believer's place, the other of Christ's one offering. An offering of Himself implies the cross, implies suffering; He cannot suffer and die now.
Another point, calling for notice, as subversive of Christianity in ritualistic doctrine, is the Church being founded on incarnation, of which the sacraments are an extension. It is false upon the face of it, even on the ground they put themselves upon, that of the sacraments. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord both signify death, have no sense or meaning without it. If these form and nourish the Church, the Church begins by the death of Christ, not by His previous life, and feeds on Him also as having died. All of us that are baptized unto Christ are baptized to His death. Nothing can be more distinct than this. It is not to a living Christ that we are brought by baptism, which they allege forms the Church and unites to Christ; it is to His death we are baptized, the very profession of a Christian can have no place, no existence, till Christ is dead. And, indeed, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone, if it die it brings forth much fruit. A living Christ remained alone; lifted up, He drew all men to Him; He died to gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you." And Paul, who alone teaches the doctrine of the Church, declares, if he had known Christ after the flesh, he knew Him no more. One of these passages is only stronger than the other, and when the incarnate Savior is so blessedly spoken of as the bread that came down from heaven to give life unto the world, then He especially presses on them—" except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you;" and to this, as we are aware, the second sacrament refers. Of course for that He must be incarnate, nor is there for the accepted soul a more blessed subject than God manifest in the flesh, the divine person and path of Jesus; but it is not the less true, that in order to our having that life we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, that is, He must die, and we must so know Him, by living faith, to have life, to know Him really at all.
But in truth union with Christ has no place at all till He is ascended also; "God set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places.... and gave him to be head over all things to the church." Till He ascended as man on high, consequent on accomplished redemption, He could not send, had not to that effect received the Holy Ghost by which His members are united to Him. They are united to the Head in heaven by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The epistle to the Ephesians is clear as to this, as indeed is all Scripture. We are to be the Church, quickened together with Him, and raised up together, and made to sit together in heavenly places in Him. That He had not received the Holy Ghost for this purpose previously, is clear from Acts 2" He being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." Union before redemption is apostacy from the truth, and the denial of the need of redemption as the basis of the Church's place. It is an unredeemed man united to one who has not yet accomplished redemption, a sinner in his sins, and in flesh, with the holy Son of God. And what Christ shed forth after redemption was accomplished, was what formed the Church, nor did any church exist till then, for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, (1 Cor. 12) and that that was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Lord shows us, saying, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence" (Acts 1:5), for which consequently they were told to wait at Jerusalem. Hence too in the distinctive offices given to Christ in John 1, we have, first: " The Lamb of God who taketh away (not the sins, as our Ritualists, with so many, falsely quote it) the sin of the world." and then that the Holy Ghost could not come until Jesus was glorified is beyond all controversy. The Holy Ghost was not yet [given], we read, John 7, because Jesus was not yet glorified. "If I go not away," says Christ, "the Comforter will not come; but if I go away I will send him unto you." The whole distinctiveness of the Christian, the Church and Christianity itself, is the presence of that Comforter. It constitutes the living power by which the Christian is what he is, and the Church is what she is, unity, the ministry, individual consciousness of sonship. Everything that constitutes the Christian and the Church lies in the presence of the Holy Ghost. Christianity is, the apostle tells us, as he ministered it, the ministration of righteousness and the ministration of the Spirit, Christ's death was needed for both; and of this the Old Testament types and the New Testament history gives us a most interesting testimony. The high priest was anointed by Himself without blood; the priests after being, as well as the high priest washed with water, were sprinkled with blood and then anointed with oil. So, on the man Christ, perfect in Himself and perfectly acceptable to God, the Holy Ghost descended as a dove, no blood-shedding, we all know, was needed for Him. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power. But for us the blood of sprinkling was needed. Christ's precious death came in, redemption, and cleansing, and then the Holy Ghost came down, sent from Him on high, and not till then. Our union is with a Christ whom God has raised from the dead, and given in that state and place to be head over all things to the Church, and that union is by the. Holy Ghost who never came till then. Christians ought not to need to have it proved that redemption is necessary in order to our having a part in Christ. Christ's person is the blessed object of our faith-surely—" The Son quickeneth whom He will," but sinners cannot have a part with Him but through redemption. Even the water of cleansing comes out of His pierced side, but He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. The notion of His being bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, as if that were union, is an Irvingite heresy. We are, as I said before, members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. The union of a sinner with the incarnate Lord before He has died, is a denial of the need of redemption in order to have a part with Him; it is a denial of the need of blood-shedding for cleansing (or else Christ and Belial can be in concord); it is a denial of the need of the Holy Ghost for the forming the unity of the body,—and He alone forms it,—for the Holy Ghost could not come till Jesus had died and was glorified. It is a denial of all upon which Christianity is based, as regards the position of sinners. I understand perfectly well what they allege as to communicating life by baptism from Christ incarnate; but this, besides being false—for it is the Spirit that quickens—is adding another error, for true baptism is baptism unto His. death. But the doctrine I combat here is the essence of the system, I mean extension of the incarnation by sacraments. And where we hear Christ speaking, He has no thought of forming the Church during his lifetime. It is upon the title of Son of the living God he founds it; and where was this demonstrated for sinful man in this world? He was declared (determined) Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead. He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and He was rejected by them; but resurrection publicly proved Him the Son of God with power. A man is not justified by incarnation, but by the death and resurrection of the Incarnate One, and being found in Him when risen. Sin is put away only by the sacrifice of Himself; without shedding of blood is no remission. If union is formed by the sacraments, as an extension of the incarnation, then it is formed without sin being put away, without remission, without that in which the blessed Lord glorified God, and redeemed sinners. It is formed without righteousness for He was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. It is formed without the Holy Ghost, without our having access to God, for we have access by one Spirit to the Father, and we are builded together for an habitation of God by the Spirit, and it is certain the Spirit could not be given till Christ was glorified. And it is in vain to say it was by sacraments afterward; for they are only an extension, or, as some have called them, a continuation of the incarnation, Christ's body having been a source of healing and life. But an extension of the incarnation cannot do more than the incarnation itself; a figurative instrument, exalt it as you please, cannot go beyond the personal living power of Christ;—but the incarnation did not and could not put away sin, the incarnation could not bring the gift of the Holy Ghost. Christ declares solemnly, the Comforter could not come unless He went away. Remission of sins could not be obtained by incarnation, nor redemption, for it is by His own blood (in the power of it) He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Incarnation, or any continuation or extension of it, could not give an eternal inheritance, for it is by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, that they which are called might have the promise of eternal inheritance. Incarnation cannot purge the conscience, for it is the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, which purges our conscience. The whole system,—I do not use these as hard words but in the full scriptural force of them,—is a lying fable subversive of Christianity. It may deceive one who does not know what sin is, (which Christ could not put away but by dying,) because the person of the incarnate Son is the blessed object of faith, the attractive object of our spiritual affections, the sufficing delight of the Father Himself, and given to us to be ours. But redemption and remission with all their consequences in the Church by the presence of the Holy Ghost, are the fruit of Christ's death. If there be anything which possesses the soul of the believer, it is the person of the Son of God. Hence what seems to exalt it will naturally affect the mind. But, used to set aside, or to dim the necessity of the cross, of redemption, it is Satan transforming himself into an angel of light. If Christ's incarnation and the communication of the benefits of it by sacraments are the whole substance of the truth, that on which the Church is founded, and by which man is saved, then the cross loses its value, the sinful state of man is denied, redemption is unnecessary, or an immaterial addition to the main truth. It loses its place in the economy of God. " Therefore doth my Father love me," says the blessed Lord, " because I lay down my life that I might take it again." It was because He was obedient unto death, the death of the cross, that God also has highly exalted Him. It was then He could say now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him, and if God be glorified in Him, God shall glorify Him in Himself and shall straightway glorify Him. There is no remission, no putting away sin but by shedding of blood; by Christ's sacrifice of Himself. The peace and security this gives to the conscience, leads us back to contemplate from within, from, if I may so speak, the divine side, the perfection of the living Son of God, and His perfectness in obedience unto death. The eye is opened on the divine beauty of that human walk, and the unutterable perfection of that death which was not that the Prince of this world had anything in Him, but that the world might know that He loved the Father, and as the Father had given Him commandment, so He did. But a sinner cannot gaze thus on this but through the efficacy of a redemption which has reconciled him to God and given him a part and a place in and with the now glorified Savior who is gone to His Father and our Father, His God and our God; words never used, and. which never could be used till He was risen from the dead, and could tell to His redeemed ones, calling them then first "brethren," what He had obtained for them, declare His Father's name to them, as One into the full light of whose countenance He was re-entered after drinking the cup of wrath for them, and thus, as He declares, and not before, in the midst of the Church sing praise to Him. Oh, what a difference between the position of those that, through redemption, have a part with Him gone up as a man into glory, and the vanity of empty ceremonies! for in such case they are so, though most precious when scripturally used, a pretended extension of incarnation, without any redemption at all.
But the very object proposed to us by Ritualists is false and unscriptural in this salvation by incarnation and its extension by sacraments. They say that the object proposed is reunion with God by incarnation. Reunion with God is simple nonsense. Save in the person of the blessed Lord there is no union of God and man, nor never was, still less a reunion. Adam was not united to God when innocent. He was His offspring, [the son] of God, living by a life breathed into his nostrils by his, divine Creator, but there was no union. The union of man and God is the sole prerogative of the Word made flesh. It is incarnation, and that is true of none but Him. And when the Word was made flesh it was in a divinely ordered and miraculous way, He was conceived by the. Holy Ghost so that that born of the virgin was a holy thing, true flesh and blood surely, but untainted by sin. And this is true now of no other humanity. All are born in sin, and there is no question of any union or reunion with dod, nor is the idea in any way scriptural nor is there union with the Lord in incarnation, He was among them " the holy thing;" but He was alone, God and man in one person, but not united to men, to sinful, corrupt man; but, having miraculously formed sinless manhood in His own person. The union with Godhead was now, for the first time, and only here. Reunion there was none; it was not reestablishing an incarnation which had place in the first Adam, for there was none. Incarnation, or union of man with God, was found in Christ alone. We are united to a glorified Christ by the Holy Ghost. It is the man whom God has raised from the dead, whom, as we have seen, God has given to be head over all things to the Church. The avowed foundation of Ritualism is deadly error and heresy.
Another point may require more development. The visible and invisible Church. We have already seen that Christ declared He would build His Church, and that both Peter and Paul speak of that progressive work, by which the building is carried on, to be completed only in glory. Set up, no doubt, perfect at first, but carried on by the Lord by the addition of living stones, and this without recognizing any human hand in it. Nay, speaking so as to exclude man's work, whatever wood, hay and stubble might be put by man into the manifested building on earth. But there was, also, as we have seen, an external, visible building, called withal "God's building," into the formation of which, day by day, the responsibility of man entered, built with gold and silver, and with wood and hay or stubble, yea defiled, corrupted by man. The great principle of Popery and (of its poor imitation) Anglicanism, is to appropriate all the intrinsic principles of the body formed by the Holy Ghost—such as being members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven—to those who have been admitted by man into the outward and visible manifestation of the body, or the building upon earth (for these they, with equal ignorance, confound together) and, in order to this, they have attributed to baptism (which is the ordinance by which men are received into the Christian company) what it is not even the figure of, namely, communication of life, and union with Christ. We have seen, and Scripture is express as to it, that baptism is a figure of death, and that the Spirit is the giver of life. Baptism receives a man outwardly, publicly, and actually amongst Christians, where the privileges conferred on these people in this world are found. But it is responsible man's building, not the Lord and His grace adding only living stones, forming members of His body. No doubt, at first, the ostensible body and the real members of Christ were identical, because the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved; but, as to the earthly building, the insertion of wood, hay and stubble are doctrinally contemplated, and false brethren, coming in unawares, historically recorded. The sacramental Church was not identical in principle with the body formed by the Holy Ghost, and, in fact, soon ceased to be so, as to its limits.
This the apostle intimates with warning, when he declares that all Israel were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink;.... but with many of them God was not well pleased. So a Christian may belong sacramentally to the Church, as Simon did, and have neither part nor lot in the matter, have nothing to do with life in salvation, be still in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. Not "have sinned away baptismal grace," as they say, but not have any part in grace at all; false brethren, spots in the feasts of charity, while they feast with Christians, yet baptized members of the ostensible, visible body. If I turn from the statement of actual circumstances to the prophetic statements of Scripture, I read that in the last days perilous times will come.... there will be a form of godliness denying the power,—from such, turn away; that is, the ostensible body is wholly corrupt, so that the obedient Christian is to turn away; and in Rom. 11 This responsibility of the professing body is definitely pressed on the conscience, comparison is made with the cutting off of the Jews, and it is added: Upon thee goodness, if thou continue in His goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. To say that the body of Christ will be cut off from Christ, would be simply monstrous; but the external system which supplanted Judaism will; that is, Scripture contemplates an external thing connected with the responsibility of man, as well as the true body of Christ, and the house which the Lord builds—and to appropriate the conferring the possession of the privileges of the one to the forms of the other is to falsify all the teaching of Scripture, as to the body of Christ, and the substance of these privileges, the true force of being born of God and partaking of the divine nature, and union with Christ the head, and to falsify the true character and import of the forms themselves. None are more ignorant of what the Church is than the Anglicans, who talk so much about it.
The body is always real; there can be no false members of it. It is formed by the Holy Ghost and not by sacraments at all, though the Lord's Supper symbolizes its unity. The house is building by Christ, and in this there is no bad building, but it is only growing into a temple. But there is a building in which man builds, in which wood and hay and stubble have been built in, and which will be cut off, where Apostacy sets in, which is become as a great house, in which are vessels to dishonor as well as to honor—vessels from which the obedient Christian has to purge himself. We must not confound what Christ builds and what man has built. Against the former the gates of hell shall not prevail: in the latter we may expect wood, hay and stubble. We may expect to find a great house in which are vessels to dishonor, from which we have to purge ourselves—a form of godliness in the last days, denying the power, from which we have to turn away—and, having found it, know that the Gentile branches have not continued in God's goodness, and that it will be cut off. Solemn testimony to Christians. Is there anything which we ought more to lay to heart; anything more deeply affecting, than the ruin of that which was planted in grace, in glory and in beauty?
I have done with the substance of these important questions. I add some remarks on the fallacies which prejudice or ignorance has introduced into the statement of the questions to be treated of. And the ignorance of these Essayists is very great. Now, only note what is assumed or slipped in without any proof. "The visible Church," it is said, "that is, a divinely instituted body, and an equally divinely instituted, appointed government of the visible body." Now we have seen that, in speaking of the body, Scripture is clear; but connection of a divinely appointed government of the body there is none. Gifts there are, members of the body, and manifested in the visible body; but it is to be remarked that the government of the Church, save as gifts in power—" helps, governments "—is never in any way connected with the body, visible or invisible. Elders were appointed, as we have seen, in each Church; but their office was local, not like the gifts set in the Church. I notice this, because it is the secret of the whole papal edifice, confounding gifts and offices. This made the clergy gradually come in, for open ministry continued a good while in some parts, but the confusion went on till office became the exclusive guarantee for gift. But a divinely appointed government had nothing to do with the body as such. Now, unity is made to depend on, yea, to consist in it.
Of priesthood I have spoken. Of mysteries, and means and channels of grace, we may speak elsewhere; but a divinely appointed priesthood, other than that of all Christians, is a mere lie of the enemy. If not, let it be shown. And here I beg to insert Tertullian's, and still better the Apostle John's, rule, that what was at the first is right. The Scriptures are the earliest historical testimony we have, and divinely given. They tell us what was divinely appointed at the beginning. It is in vain to talk of interpretation here. I believe every one taught of God can use them. It is wicked, Satanic fraud, to deprive the Church of the Scriptures. They were written, save three epistles, to the flock, not to ministers, but by them. But certainly, as a history, they are worth the corrupt and interpolated trash which is palmed on the unlearned as the Fathers’. But Luke, Peter, John, Jude, Paul, James, know no such priesthood. If they do, let it be shown. I say their history of the Church denies it. One taught of the Holy Ghost by the word abhors it, as of the enemy.
Again I find in one essay: "The body itself is a visible community, a kingdom." This is very mischievous confusion. The body of Christ is not His kingdom. It is very convenient to assume it, but there is no ground for it whatever. His body is Himself, His kingdom is what He rules over, apart from Himself, He being King over it. King of the Church is a thing unknown to Scripture. When He takes to Him His power and reigns, it will be over all the world. The field is the world now. The devil's work [the tares] is in the scene of His kingdom now. They are not members of His body. We are His body, His bride—of His flesh and of His bones. His kingdom is not that. He does not nourish and cherish His kingdom, He governs it, not His bride and His body. There is not a more mischievous error on these points than what is assumed here as a thing to be taken for granted. The kingdom may be realized within certain limits, and so far as to limits coincide as Christendom, with the professing church; but the field is the whole world, and the form that the kingdom takes, in fact, is the work of the enemy as much as of the Lord. That is not true of the body, and shows the profound evil of the false doctrine which makes baptism the means of communicating life and introduction by union into the body, for a large part of what is in the kingdom is introduced by Satan, namely, the tares, which are to be burned. Have they had life and union with Christ communicated to them by the sacrament of baptism? And let it not be said here: "Yes, but being the seed of the wicked one, they have lost it again." In the parable, they are introduced by Satan, and the theory of the Anglican Catholic is—that they are introduced by baptism, and union thereby. Can there be a greater or more deplorable confusion?
There are a few general remarks I would make in conclusion, to clear up the whole question. It is not the existence of a visible Church which is denied by the Evangelical world. Everyone knows there is such a thing. That there is a Christendom, which, as a religion in the world, can be contrasted with Heathens, Jews and Mohammedans. But Evangelicals do not see the responsibility of the visible Church, and that there ought to be, as there was, a maintenance of corporate unity as a testimony for the glory of Christ. They do not see that Christians were bound to maintain unity and godliness. They do, consequently, content themselves with individual salvation, the individuals being Members of the invisible body of Christ. But the Anglican Catholics do worse; they attribute all the privileges of the true body of Christ to the outward, baptized professors, and the truth of divine operation in the soul, all moral power, all reality in the religion of Christ, is lost. The soul has nothing to say to God in being saved. Christianity becomes a mummery of ordinances, making righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost—the true moral reconciliation with God in a new nature, by the Holy Ghost, in a conscience purged by the blood of Christ—immaterial to the possession of the privileges of Christianity. It is really gross Antinomiamism, with all its legality. Eternal life, and union with Christ, are acquired without any consciousness of real change in the person: this is simply of Satan. For the kingdom of God is in power, it is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. The true Christian is really reconciled to God, there is a renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly. But further, as regards the visible Church itself; the Anglican Catholics, too, have lost the sense of the Church's responsibility. For the outward visible Church is divided; it is more; the parts most esteemed by the Anglican Catholic are grossly corrupted, full of superstition, idolatry, vice and error. Its history has been the history of the worst vices, the worst corruption in the world; not sought out by secret search, but in the open day. We have a Greek Church, a Nestorian Church, a Jacobite Church, a Latin Church, an Anglican Church, who have no communion one with another, and those of the most pretentious are the most corrupt. Has the Church, then, met its responsibility? Has it continued in God's goodness? Has it waited for its Lord from Heaven? Or has it beat the men-servants and maid-servants and eaten and drunk with the drunken? If it has done the latter, its portion is to be cut asunder and to have its portion with the unbelievers, to be cut off. And the attributing the privileges of the body of Christ to this corrupt, external system, slighting its responsibility and insensible to its failure, is the most fatal delusion, hurrying those seduced by it to their final destruction. It is the worst, proudest denial of the responsibility of the visible Church, a seared conscience, which can pretend to security in privileges, as the Jews of old, where God has announced judgment because of the state they are in. If the universal Church is in a normal state, why so much pains to make out its case, to re-unite it, to heal its open public divisions? If it be in a fallen state, are we not to think of its responsibility and see what is the result according to the word of God? What is the effect of a doctrine which leads the visible Church to claim the possession and power to communicate, by ordinances, its highest privileges, without the slightest reference to its fallen state, with a conscience perfectly dead to the evil, which, if God's word be true, is surely bringing on its judgment. Our Essayists, on this very ground of communication of life and union with Christ by ordinances, slight and blame individual earnestness about salvation, individual sorrow for sin, individual peace obtained by grace through faith, Christ having made peace. These are thus described: "A certain consciousness of personal interest in these truths, and a sense of general unworthiness, and further sense of the removal of that unworthiness in the belief and apprehension of these truths, the whole matter of salvation being a personal one.. "
Now this is a very feeble statement of personal conviction of sin and faith; but Scripture does deal with the individual and with conscience. It teaches the doctrine of the Church—we have spoken of it—and of a Church which ought to be visible, holy and one. I have no wish to avoid or enfeeble this part of truth; on the contrary, I desire to press it, as I have done, according to my ability, on Christians; but that withal they should have the deep sense of how we have failed and it is ruined; but it is ignorance, or worse, which would put this in opposition to personal, individual salvation; and the Anglican Catholic system is guilty of this. Save the exhortations of chap. 12, all the epistle to the Romans is individual. In all the epistles of John everything is individual. In Galatians the teaching is individual, and I might add a great deal more; but, besides this, the ruin of the visible Church itself is contemplated, the perilous times of the last days are spoken of, and the judgment of God on its departure, and its apostacy. Not only is salvation individual, but the individual Christian is called upon, at his peril, to judge the state of the Church, to purge himself from vessels to dishonor; to turn away from such and such, from forms of godliness without the power; to depart from all iniquity-where the foundation of God stands sure; but having this seal (not a recognized, visible Church, but) the Lord knoweth them that are His; and when the Lord judges the state of the Church, whoever has ears is called upon to hear what is said to them; the state is one to be judged, not trusted in; the individual's duty is to give heed to what the Lord pronounced upon it. Not only is salvation necessarily individual, but, when the responsible Church is judged, and the Lord, by His testimony, declares that state, the individual Christian is solemnly, and by divine authority, called upon individually to give heed to that testimony, and act according to it. It is at his peril if he neglects the warning injunction, and, if that be the call of God, what shall we say of a system which sets up the authority of that which is to be judged, and closes the ear of the pious against the warning and summons of God to look at the state the Church is in? And let not anyone speak of interpreting Scripture, and its being for the Church; that is, for the clergy to interpret. It was written by the inspired clergy, if people are pleased to call them so, to the Christian people, and for the Christian people. Only three short epistles can be pretended to be written for ministers, and these are now, even so, a part of the common heritage of the Church of God—and as regards the warning of Christ's judging in the midst of the Churches, whoever has ears to hear is called upon peremptorily to give heed to them. The voice of the Lord claims his attention, his individual heed, to His judgment of the state which surrounds the saint in the Church. It is disobedience to the voice of the Lord, addressed distinctively to the individual Christian, and attention to it marks one who has ears to hear, and the judgment of Christ on the state of the Church is that to which he is to give heed. What is judged cannot be a rule and a guide, when we are called to give heed to the judgment, and to guide ourselves by it in our position, in that which is judged. And to make (when thus judged) the judged Church a conclusive and binding rule, is open contempt of the authority of Christ. We are bound to hear Christ, and to act on what we hear, Christ singling out the individual and making him responsible for what is communicated to him, as to Christ's judgment of the Church. I repeat-not to give heed and obey is to slight Christ Himself. And what is substituted for this giving heed to the testimony of God, which claims our attention? What has, been justly called Ecclesiastical Millinery. But, if the Matter be looked at as beneath the surface, it is subjection to ordinances, the denial of being dead and risen with Christ; in which is the force and power of Christianity (Col. 2). A return to the religiousness of the flesh, as if we were alive before God as unredeemed children of Adam. A keeping of days and months and years which, though from Jewish influence, is, the apostle declares, a return to heathenism (Gal. 4:9,10), because as shadows they were instructive before Christ came, who was the substance, but, taken up now, are the rudiments of the world to which we are crucified with Christ; declaring that we have not died to it with Christ, that we are living in the world as children of Adam, subject to its rudiments, not holding the head, certainly not Jews with instructive shadows, but heathens in the flesh, following its religion and abrogated ceremonies. Such are the beggarly and condemned elements which are given to us instead of living union with the head, Christ, by the presence and power of the Spirit of God, and a conscience perfected towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Remarks on the Church and the World: Part 3

I admit the Lord's Supper to be the center of true worship. I admit, and I adore such ineffable goodness, that Christ leads the praises of gathered spiritual worshippers: "In the midst of the church," we read, "will I sing praise unto thee." But as these essayists, have used neglected truths in other cases to pervert the minds of the simple, of those not guarded by the Word, so they have done here.
But we are speaking of worship, and to know what worship is, one must be a true worshipper; and in this case they have, from the very outset of their pretentious teaching, made statements which prove them wholly ignorant of what true worship is; and I must add that throughout the article there is that ignorance of Scripture and Scriptural truth which characterizes the school. I am not disposed to deny the existence of piety in many of those brought under the influence of these views.
Where redemption is not known and imagination is strong, piety naturally runs into ordinances and what are called mysteries, for ordinances are the religion of the flesh, and where redemption is not known, man, as to the state of his mind, must religiously be in the flesh.
There is, and can be, no walking in the light as God is in the light, for redemption must be experimentally known for that; nor the happy, childlike yet adoring confidence and liberty which cries for itself "Abba, Father;" and as the soul cannot be in liberty with God (a liberty which is exercised in adoration, for the nearer we are to God the more we adore His greatness, and have done with ourselves), it brings God by imagination, not faith, in an awful way near to us in our actual state, and we adore the image formed by our own minds, and are subject to ordinances, have a morbid delight in mysteries, "tremendous mysteries," "transcendant mysteries." I do not say there, is no piety in the article we are occupied with, but there is great pretension to spirituality:
"We speak of truths profoundly spiritual, and needing to be spiritually discerned, though liable, alas! like other high spiritual truths, to be unbelievingly rejected by unspiritual minds, or, if unspiritually embraced, to be perverted" (p.316).
Our essayist of course discerns spiritually these profoundly spiritual truths, neither rejects them as having an unspiritual mind, nor perverts them by embracing them unspiritually. His is a spiritual mind, embracing spiritually high spiritual truths, truths profoundly spiritual. Christ's acts are "embraced in all simplicity of devout affection." This good opinion of self is accompanied by slight and sarcasm cast on the authorities who are over them, the Anglican prelates.
"These would-be iron rulers, whose lightest word would now be obeyed with alacrity, did they know how to show themselves true 'Fathers in God,' would then (i.e., if they cause a schism by 'a mere cold, unsympathetic repression ') (p. 319), have time to reflect in the dull peace of the solitude they had made and might haply come at last to the conviction that, after all, they had ‘fought against God,' and with the usual result—'their own confusion'" (p. 319).
So previously, " Little do some of our Fathers in God seem to reek of the anguish, not unmixed with indignation, caused to faithful souls by the shallow denials of unpopular truths into which they allow themselves to be drawn"? This incessant threatening of ecclesiastical authorities, if they do not acquiesce in and further the movement, is characteristic of the party. Mr. Newman used the same unholy means, and it is now the common weapon to overawe those whom these high-worded men profess to obey, and force them to silence, at least while they carry on their schemes. Do not resist us, they say, or we will make a split in the church.
The utterly unchristian character of such a course is too evident to need comment. But let us see what these, if we are to believe their own account of themselves, profoundly spiritual men, these discoverers of high spiritual truths, have to say for themselves and their doctrine when soberly weighed in the light of God's Word to which they themselves appeal.
Let us do them justice. They declare that there is no repetition or reiteration of the sacrifice of Christ, but that Christ is always offering on high His one sacrifice, and that the ordained priest on earth is doing the same thing on earth, presenting the one unrepeated sacrifice constantly on the altar to God.
"And what does Christ now offer as our Ever-living Priest in the Heavenly Temple? What but His own most precious Body and Blood, the one saving Victim to make reconciliation for our sins and unite Heaven and earth in one " (p. 306).
"The continued offering of a sacrifice, made once for all, does not necessarily imply any repetition " (p. 307). "And this continual offering and presentation of a sacrifice once made, is itself a sacrificial act, and constitutes him who does it a priest" (p. 307). " It is a Propitiatory Sacrifice, as pleading before God for all the successive generations," etc. (p. 307).
"Thus, what the Christian priest does at the altar, is, as it were the earthly form and visible expression of our LORD'S continual action as our High Priest in Heaven " (p. 308). "The earthly priest  ... does on earth that which Jesus does in Heaven. Rather we should say, according to that great principle which is the true key to the whole theory of the Christian ministry, it is Jesus who is Himself the Priest, the offerer of His own great sacrifice, in both cases " (p. 309).
This is connected with perpetual intercession.
"But though He repeats not the Sacrifice, nor can again offer Himself as a Victim unto death, yet in His perpetual intercession for us He perpetually, as it were, appealeth to it " (p. 307).
"Christian Worship is really the earthly exhibition of Christ's perpetual Intercession as the sole High Priest of His Church " (p. 299).
Thus intercession is, according to our essayist, the highest act of worship, Christ Himself carrying it on in heaven. Now, to say nothing else, the statement that Christ is worshipping in heaven, is itself a strange proposition. He is worshipped there, of which more anon; but where shall we find the blessed Lord worshipping in heaven? Not in Scripture, and not in any divinely taught mind, I believe. When He is brought into the world again, all the angels are called on to worship Him, and when the Lamb takes the book to open it in the Revelation, all fall down before Him and declare His worthiness. But who ever heard of Christ's worshipping in heaven? This, while pretending to be profound spirituality and high spiritual truth, flows from what shows total ignorance of what worship is, mistaking intercession for worship.
Intercession is not worship at all. Christ surely intercedes for us, and His intercession is based on His perfect work, and carried on as the perfect one in heaven, whether we speak of a high priest with God, or an advocate with the Father; but intercession applies to infirmity or failure. We have a great high priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, having been tempted in all points like as we are; "and having suffered being tempted, is able to succor those that are tempted." "He is able to save to the uttermost them that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."
I will touch upon the offering and sacrifice in which He is alleged to worship on high in a moment, but intercession never is worship. It is done for others, for their actual failures, or infirmities which make them liable to fail; its only connection with worship that can be alleged is the analogy of the golden plate on the high priest's forehead, and his bearing the iniquity of Israel's holy things; but this only confirms what I have said, that the priestly service of intercession applies to failure. It is the same as regards the analogous case of advocate with the Father. "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins."
The abiding efficacy of this propitiation, no divinely taught soul denies. We cannot be too thankful for it; but the abiding, unchangeable, efficacy of Christ's propitiation for us, is not His worshipping, nor is intercession worshipping, but pleading for others in respect of infirmities and failures.
Worship is altogether another thing. It is the heart rising up through the power and operation of the Spirit of God in praise, thanksgiving, and adoration, for what God has done and does, and for what He is, as we know Him in Christ. The returning up by the Spirit from our hearts in adoration and praise of what has been revealed and descended in grace through Christ to us, expressed in our present relationship to God, the going up of the heart in spirit and in truth to our God and Father in the full knowledge of Him.
Worship is the expression of what is in our own heart to God according to the holy claim He has upon us, and the full revelation He has made of Himself to us. Intercession is intervention with God for another. Christ may be present in Spirit to lead the praises of His saints, and offer also their praises on high that they may be accepted.
It may be in the eternal state that He may lead our praises in glory, but to present Him as carrying on real worship Himself in heaven, and us as entering into it or doing the like sacramentally on earth, is nearer blasphemy and heresy than profound spirituality, though I may acquit the writer of being intentionally guilty of it, and is the result of the egregious blunder of making intercession to be worship. 1 will now consider what is said of the continual offering of the sacrifice. I will not retort the charge of scandalous carelessness or scandalous dishonesty, bandied against the opponent of the writer for his manner of quoting Tertullian.
It certainly is a more serious thing to deal so with Scripture than with that honest and able but heady and unsubdued writer, who, after proving by necessarily legal prescription that it was a sin to leave the great professing body of the church, left it himself (because it was so worldly and corrupt), to throw himself under the power of the fanatical reveries of Montanus, and was as ardent in condemning as once in maintaining the authority of what was held to be Catholic unity.
Let us see rather how our Essayist quotes Scripture to prove his point. I recall to the reader that they say there is no repetition of the sacrifice, only He is ever offering it to God.
The passage quoted is, " For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer." After quoting the latter part of this, the writer adds, " And what does Christ now offer, as our Ever-living Priest in the Heavenly Temple? What but His own most precious Body and Blood, the one saving Victim to make reconciliation for our sins, and unite Heaven and earth in one?" I omit noticing the latter part of this, which, by its obscurity, defies analysis or answer.
Is Christ then a victim now? Is He now making reconciliation for our sins? If not, the sentence has
nothing to do with the matter, it is not applicable now. If it means that He is, it is a denial of the plain, positive, Christian doctrine that believers are reconciled.
"You hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death" (Col. 1:21,22, and 2 Cor. 5:18). "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself." Probably it is ignorance of the Gospel and
Scripture, and I leave it to pursue the question of sacrifice.
Why did the writer omit what goes a few verses before "Who needeth not daily as these high priests to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once (εφαπαξ once for all), when he offered up himself." The passage speaks of the actual offering, as a sacrifice to God (αναφερει). He did, this (εφαπαξ) once for all. And on this the apostle insists as contrasted with the Jewish sacrifices, that the work was effectually, finally done by one single act of sacrifice, done only once and completely; once and once for all, excluding constant, subsequent, as well as repeated offering. Thus Heb. 10 By his own blood he entered in once (εφαπαξ) into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption. And again (and note here the passage refers to his entering into the holy place where it is pretended lie still offers his sacrifice): "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us." Now here is the very place to lead us to that truth of profound spirituality, the constant offering of His sacrifice to God. Alas! rather, thank God, it is just the contrary. "Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world he bath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." That is, when His appearing personally in heaven is the subject, not only has the Holy Ghost not a word to say of this profoundly spiritual truth, but He negatives any such thought. It was once, in the end of the world, the sacrifice of Himself was made, and as it was appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.
It is not, He does not suffer as once, but He offers Himself continually; but He does not offer Himself; for if He did, He must suffer.
The doctrine of a perpetual sacrifice in any and every shape, is a simple denial of Christian truth on the subject and of the efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice. The once, once for all, is the especial theme of the teaching of the Holy Ghost on the subject when it is elaborately treated of, excluding continuation, as well as repetition. The Epistle adds: "But this man, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down (εις το διηνεκες) on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool; for by one offering he has perfected forever them that are sanctified." He was not standing offering often times, as the Jewish priests, but when He had offered one, forever sat down (εις το διηνεκες), i.e., He had not to get up and offer anything any more, and the reason was, by that one He had perfected forever the sanctified.
When He rises up it will be to deal with His enemies as His footstool. As to His friends, the sanctified ones, God remembers their sins no more, and "where remission of these is there is no more offering for sins." Is there, or is there not? It is unconscious infidelity in the efficacy of Christ's one sacrifice to think there is;—there is no such thing as a προσφορα περι ἀμαρτιας now; no bringing anything to God about sin. It has been done once (εφαπαξ), once for all.
I repeat, it is a simple denial of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice which purges the conscience and has obtained eternal redemption, the proof given by the Holy Ghost that it had been offered once for all, that it was eternally efficacious, and that there could be no more.
No doubt His intercession is founded on the efficacy of His sacrifice, but that is not the question. The question is, does He in any sense offer it now? The words of my author are, "the continual offering of a sacrifice made once for all," and, "it is a propitiatory sacrifice." Now this, the Epistle, in every shape and form denies.
He is speaking of offering sacrifice when he says "this he did once (εφαπαξ, once for all)?" He is speaking of it when he says, "there is no more offering for sin," where he declares that it cannot be, because "by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." We have its being once for all, as προσφορα, i.e. the presenting to God to be a sacrifice before Him; and with the word ανενεγκε, the technical word for actually offering up. We are told by the Essayist, He might offer it without being a suffering victim; the word says, “He must often have suffered if it was not once for all." It is a vital point, and handled consequently in every shape in which the devices of the enemy could undermine its efficacy. It is the keystone of Christianity as to acceptance with God and eternal redemption.
We are referred to the Apocalypse as introducing us to these scenes. Well, and what does it show us? The Lamb presenting His sacrifice and worshipping? Far from it. The Lamb in the midst of the throne, and beasts and elders falling down before Him. You may find angelical figures of priesthood it may be; but Christ presenting His offering, or worshipping, never. Did the writer ever read what he is referring to? But all is blundering in these statements. We have, by way of accurate Greek, This is My Body which is being given, This is My Blood which is being shed. That from John 13, the Lord is contemplating His going away and speaking in view of His heavenly position, is perfectly true, but the pretending that it means "is now being given," "now being poured out" (p. 305), that is in the last supper, is, save in the general sense that it was not yet, but was going to be accomplished, or that it was "a sacrificial act," is all a delusion; the very passage (p. 305) in which it is stated, proves the absurdity of it. "The declaration of Himself as the Lamb of God, the very Paschal Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world.... then and there offered by Himself," etc. Now "that taketh away the sin of the world" was spoken by John the Baptist at the very commencement of the blessed Lord's ministerial life, yet it is the ὁ αιρων, the present time. The fact is, such present tenses are characteristic, and do not refer to time. It is a broken body and a shed blood we feed on, not a living Messiah simply.
Thus ὁ σπειρων is the sower, he that sows. He that enters in by the door is the shepherd. He that enteretly not in by the door, where it is evidently characteristic. So in John 6, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood."
But it is useless to multiply examples. It is the commonest thing possible, and the rather that the case referred to by the Essayist proves the fallacy of it, because, "He that taketh away the sin of the world is, upon his own showing, not the sacrificial period, yet it is the present tense.
We are told that the Church triumphant and the Church on earth are all one, we are " the outer court;" both worship Christ presenting His offering in heaven actually, and on earth in the Eucharist; of this last we have spoken. But all is error. There is no Church triumphant. That all departed Christians, whose spirits are now with Christ, will finally make one body is quite true; and that when absent from the body they are present with the Lord, so that to depart and be with Christ is far better, this too it is most blessed to know. It has made death to be a gain. But there is no Church triumphant. For that we must wait till the resurrection. The saints in their complete state, that is, conformed to the image of Christ, bearing the image of the heavenly, are not yet ascended nor glorified. Their spirits happy with the Lord, await the day of glory, which Christ Himself, though glorified, is awaiting.
David is not yet ascended into heaven. And however confused and contradictory the ideas of the early doctors may have been, and on this point they were confusion itself, still early liturgies and all early teaching recognized this; for they prayed for the departed, what afterward, under Jewish traditions, became purgatory.
What subsequently was turned into the saints praying for us, was at first the Church on earth praying for the saints, and this was so distinctly the case, that Epiphanius makes it the proper difference of the person of Christ, that whereas even the Virgin Mary was prayed for, Christ was not. That all sorts of contradictions may be found in the Fathers as to it, I freely admit, but what I state is notoriously true, and known to every one who has a very slight knowledge of church history. You may find, even as a distinct privilege of saints, that they had at once the beatific vision, but a triumphant Church was contradicted by the early doctrine of prayers for the dead: that is certain. Nor is the notion of a triumphant Church scriptural, nor is Christ on His own throne now, but on the Father's throne, sitting at the right hand of God till His enemies are made His footstool. The distinction I have referred to of saints who do see God on high is wholly unscriptural. The whole Church is composed of saints, and none are glorified. The praying for them may be a superstition, but it proves that the early Church held what contradicts a triumphant one, worshipping in heaven while we do on earth. But not only is the especial teaching on the point of sacrifice contradictory to the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that there is a continual sacrifice, the Epistle declaring that there is none; saying that the Lord need not go through what He once went through, the Epistle that He must suffer often if His sacrifice, once for all, was not complete and final; saying that there is a continual offering now, and even that it is propitiatory, the Epistle that it was done once for all—not only is the teaching of the article exactly the opposite of the especial point of the reasoning of the Epistle, but it betrays a total absence of the knowledge of what sin is, what redemption, what reconciliation; so that the whole form and substance of thought is false.
The notions as to Adam and angels, are unfounded. That the angels worship may be freely admitted; that Adam would have done so, we do not doubt; but to attribute surrender of self to them, as if that too was worship, has no ground whatever; there is nothing to surrender; their duty is to stay in the place where they are, such as they are, and just as they are. They delight to serve according to their nature, they have nothing to give up, no selfish will to surrender. Christ could give up His place as to manifested glory and take upon Himself the form of a servant as man, for He was God.
We have to yield ourselves to God as those alive from the dead (and it is a blessed privilege of the liberty wherewith Christ has, made us free), because we have had a selfish will. But in neither case has it anything to do with worship. It may be sovereign grace, it may be duty, through sovereign grace towards us, never worship. Holy and innocent creatures have nothing to do with it. There may be in us a common source of both self-sacrifice and worship. God recovering His rights in the heart; but, save that, one has nothing to do with the other. But the writer's notion of sacrifice betrays his total ignorance of divine truth on these points, that conscience is wholly dead, and that darkness reigns in the mind. Cain, he tells us, did right in offering the fruits of the ground, only something else should be also offered. " This was right." ... . "But this was not enough" (p. 304).
God says to Cain, " If thou doest well shalt not thou be accepted?" but he was not accepted here, so that he did not do well. It is really monstrous, when it is written, " to Cain and to his offering God had not respect," to say, "this was right." Offering, worship, drawing near to God, is supposed not only possible, but right, only insufficient without redemption. It is a denial of all Christian truth. There was no faith in it, as we know from Hebrews; no sense that they were excluded from Paradise for sin, and could not, without redemption, draw near to God, and it slighted the appointed and needed sacrifice, instituted, our writer tells us, by God Himself, which I in no way dispute. He was bringing, so blinded in heart and conscience was he; the marks of the curse as an offering to God, and pretending to approach God in the very state in which God had driven out the man because be was in that state. In a word, an offering which proved that there was no faith, no sense of sin, no conscience of God's judgment executed against man, an entire passing by God's instituted and only way of coming back to Him—a state so really hardened as to bring the sign of the curse to God as an offering "was right."
Nothing can betray more completely the state of mind of the writer, his incompetency to speak on such a subject, than his declaring to be right what God had no respect to; what, if we examine its true character, was the demonstration of a hardened conscience and an utterly blinded heart, breaking out in open rebellion thereupon, and ultimate exclusion from the presence of the Lord, and a mark set upon him of perpetual memorial. We may reverently say, If his path was right, what was God's? But this is the expression of the great general principle of Ritualism—incarnation, reuniting man to God, and sacraments an extension of that, leaving out the place redemption has in the truth of God according to the necessity of His nature and character. So sacrifice, we are told, means the act of offering or presenting an oblation before Almighty God.
Now this very vague statement leaves all the truth untold. We can offer ourselves, everything, to God: our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God—not that this is worship; but must not Christ come first? That is the question. Can sinful man return to God without redemption? If not, if the nature and will and righteousness and holiness of God requires this, so that if the Son took up our cause He must suffer and die, what makes sacrifice thus vague, an act of offering without bringing in redemption is high treason against Christ, apostacy from the only truth. Besides, it is beguiling after all the English reader.
The word specifically rendered sacrifice Zebach, comes from "to slay," and is in contrast with meat offerings and burnt offerings. When the sacrifices are instituted representing Christ, the burnt offering comes first. Christ's offering Himself to death and the αναφερειν, or offering up to God, was on the altar; there was the sweet savor, an offering made by fire. The testing, consuming judgment of God brought out only what was the delight of God.
The προσφορα was the presenting an oblation before God, and this though a first preliminary was not the sacrifice in the true sense of the word, nor could any offering of a sacrifice come after the sacrifice was made. The altar and fire were needed, or there was no sweet savor, no offering made by fire, and this was true of the Mincha or unbloody sacrifice, it was burnt on the altar and so became a sacrifice. It was presented to be one, but it was not one before that. There was no sweet savor till then.
It was not an Ishah, an offering made by fire, a sweet savor to the Lord, and this is always kept up. The two leavened cakes of Pentecost were presented, but they could not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savor. And this Minchas or meal offerings, were offered with the other offerings, and as the burnt offering showed Christ's perfectness in death as an absolute offering to God, ever sinless, but now offered up, so the meal offering showed his perfectness unto death, the pure man, born of the Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, all the frankincense of His grace going up to the Lord, finally burnt on the altar to God, but the food withal of the priests. In its own way death, the altar, the fire was as much brought in here as for the burnt offering. No Christian doubts the perfectness, and perfect-obedience of Christ all the way along, but here it became a sweet savor perfected on the altar of God. And the peace offerings which witness communion, not simply the acting of Christ towards God, confirm this fully. The fat was burned to God, was the food of God, as expressed in the third of Leviticus, before the flesh became the food of the offerer and his guests, and if this feeding on the flesh was too far removed from God's part in it; from the burning of the fat on the altar, it was iniquity not communion, the sacrifice on the altar, the work of redemption. The fire of God consuming the sacrifice or its fat, must be, for any sweet savor or any communion. It is this that Ritualism is directed against. "The word ‘sacrifice’ means ‘a presenting an oblation before Almighty God,'" This is, whosever the sentence is, dishonesty or ignorance of divine things. There was no sweet savor but in offerings made by fire. Presenting it to God, was not the true sacrificial act, the sweet savor to God. There must for that be the hiktir as well as the hikriv, the αναφερειν, as well as the προσφερειν; and in the only case where there was not this because of leaven, it was not a sweet savor to God. Further, when application of sacrifice to man was made, it always began with the sin offering.
When it presents Christ abstractedly, the burnt offering is first, then the Mincha, then the peace offering, then the sin offering. Christ was made this, made sin for us, but having become a man, all that He was for God as sacrifice, began with blood-shedding, and in every case its being burnt on the altar made it to be a sweet savor as an offering made by fire; but where there is application, that is, where man profits by it, the. Sin offering comes first; till this is done there cannot be any other, no enjoyment of Christ as a perfect offering of sweet savor to God, for the sin offering was not an offering for a sweet savor, though as a general rule the fat was burnt on the altar, for Christ was thus Himself perfect for God in that wherein He was made sin. Still for the sinner there must be the perfect putting away of sin by the work of the cross before he can enter into God's presence in the sweet savor of Christ's work. Redemption in the work, redemption in application, must come first, before there can be any approach of a sinner to God, though God be love, yea because He is so.
To say therefore that a sacrifice is the act of offering or presenting an oblation before Almighty God, is
utterly false; for the presenting of the victim, the προσφορα, did not make it a sacrifice at all, nor the presenting of the fine flour or cakes even. It was when ανενεγκε, when it had been offered up on the altar, that it became a sweet savor to God, a true sacrifice. It was not always a living creature, for there was a meal offering added, Christ's perfect human nature and offering as born and anointed of the Spirit, but it was made by fire on the altar of God, or was no sacrifice. The whole paragraph (p. 302) ignores the true nature of sacrifice, though necessary for the system of the continual presenting of Christ on no altar at all. We are told Melchisedek offered bread and wine. This however often repeated is a mere fable. He brought forth (hoze) bread and wine. There is no hint of a sacrifice, no sacrificial word. People may have repeated it till they believed it, but there is not a hint of it in the passage, but the contrary, and so entirely excluded is redemption and the efficacious work of Christ by which it is wrought, in order to introduce this idle notion of Christ's sacrificial worship in heaven, so entirely is the value of His person as of the essence of true sacrifice ignored, that we are told that "the essence of sacrifice as such, that which has made it, and we can hardly doubt, by God's original primeval appointment, to be the chiefest and most important act of worship in every religion, whether Patriarchal, Jewish, Gentile, or Christian, is not the material thing offered, but the inward disposition of devout, adoring homage, and perfect surrender and dedication of ourselves, and our whole will and being, to God, of which the outward sacrifice of the most precious of our material possessions is but the visible symbol and embodiment " (p. 302). Now, could Christ made sin for us, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world the bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, be more completely ignored. That Christ through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, that He did blessedly give Himself up, surrender Himself and His will to God, is most true; but God made Him to be sin for us. The writer is speaking of devout and adoring homage, of an act of worship, so that Christ's sin-bearing sacrifice is wholly excluded, for however perfect His love to His Father and giving Himself up to His glory, sin-bearing is not an act of worship, nor is enduring wrath. And could we speak of the material thing offered being comparatively immaterial where Christ
offered Himself without spot to God? That His inward disposition was perfect no one doubts; but is it not evident that Christ was not in the thoughts of the writer when he wrote this passage? Yet he is treating of what is important in sacrifice and its true nature. Now Christ's sacrifice is the only true key to all sacrifice developed in the law in figures in all its parts and in its application, and here God's original, primeval appointment is referred to. This surely points to Christ. The certain difference of this was that it was the fat of lambs and not the fruit of the ground, on which, without redemption, the curse rested (compare too Gen. 8:21); and if the covering the nakedness of Adam with skins was the occasion on which the divine appointment of sacrifice took place, as is very naturally thought by many thoughtful and learned Christians, the nature of sacrifice is plain. One thing is sure, the meat-offering, or Mincha, was an adjunct to other sacrifices and in itself is never called a sacrifice. And on such a subject Scripture alone can be allowed to have any weight. If God appointed sacrifice, it is there it must be learned: But though the connection of all true worship with sacrifice is evident from what I have said, and that it is founded on it, yet sacrifice is not worship. It is as a gift that it approaches the nearest to it, as bringing such a gift is a homage done to the majesty of God; but as a sacrifice it is not worship. There death, as meeting the righteous claims of God, comes in, and the fire of His judgment which tests the worthiness, or judges the guilt laid upon the victim, and this, in which God has the principal and essential part, is not worship. The προσφορα or oblation for free-will offering, alone has at all this character. The moment it gets into the place of sacrifice, the altar of God, the testing fire of God is applied, His claims on that which is offered. And such an offering comes, so to speak, from without. It may be perfect. I need not say in Christ it was so, but as coming on the part of a rebellious race it must be tested by the majesty of God. "It became Him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering." Corning for man, in behalf of man, He must be dealt with as the majesty and truth of God claimed. The result was to prove His absolute perfectness, but He was tested and tried. And He presents Himself as so coming, and this was true of the meat-offering, the Mincha, though not called a sacrifice. Worship is the free adoration, and for us in the holiest, of those who have been brought High by sacrifice, who know God as love, who know Him as a Father who has sought in grace worshippers in spirit and in truth, and brought them in cleansed, to do so. The worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins. By one offering Christ had perfected them forever, such is Scripture truth (see Heb. 10), and then they worship, adore, praise in the sense of perfect, divine favor and a Father's love. They have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of
Jesus, by the new and living way He has consecrated for them through the vail. It is not that Christ is doing it in heaven actually in the triumphant church, and they on earth in the militant. They enter in spirit into the holiest, in heaven itself, to worship there; and hence a high priest made higher than the heavens was needed for them, because their worship is there, they do not offer the sacrifice in order to come in, they are within in virtue of the sacrifice. And this is the place the symbols of Christ's broken body and blood have in worship. The worshippers are in spirit in heavenly places, Christ in spirit in their midst as it is written. "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee," and they own and remember that blessed and perfect sacrifice by which they can so worship, by which they have entered in. Doubtless they feed on Christ in spirit, but that is not the point we are on now. The Christ that is represented in the Eucharist is a Christ with a broken body, and the cup is His shed blood, not a glorified Christ in heaven. It is His death, a broken body and the blood separated from it, life given up in this world, that is before us; we may in spirit eat also the old corn of the land, be occupied with a heavenly Christ, assuredly we may, and blessedly so, but that is not the Christ that is here. We eat His flesh and drink His blood, i.e. separate from His body—not only the manna which was for the desert and ceased in Canaan, the bread that came down from heaven, but the additional and necessary truth of His death. Hence His going up is only spoken of in John 6 as an additional, subsequent truth. We worship as belonging to heaven and own that by which we got there, that perfect, blessed work which He, who could speak what He knew there, and testify what He had seen, could tell was needed that we might have the heavenly things, and not only tell but in infinite love, accomplished. But no such Christ as the one whose symbols lie before us in the Lord's Supper exists now. It is specifically, solely, and emphatically as a dead Christ that He is remembered there. They were to do that, i.e., use the emphatic symbols of His death, in remembrance of Him. Hence it is the center of worship because hereby know I love, because He laid down His life for us. Here He glorified the Father for me, so that I can enter into the holiest, then the veil was rent and the way opened—but here was the perfect work accomplished, by which I, as risen together with Him, can say I am not in the flesh. In the heavenly Christ I say, by the Holy Ghost, I am in Him and He in me. It is being in Him, being united to Him, He in our midst in grace, a dead Christ I remember. I do not, in the joy and glory in which I have a part, through and with Him, forget that lonely work in which He bore the sorrow and drank the cup of wrath. I remember with touched affections the lowly rejected Christ, now that I am in
heavenly-places through His solitary humiliation. The offering Him up now is a presumptuous denial of Christianity. The remembering Him, that divine person, in His solitary suffering and perfect love to His Father is the most touching of Christian affections, the basis and center of all true worship, as the efficacy of the work wrought there alone admits us to worship at all. The drinking of the blood apart points it out as shed. We show forth the Lord's death, emphatically, not a glorified Christ, but we do so as associated with Him the glorified man, who Himself purged our sins, remembering with thankful hearts, how we got there, and, above all, Him who gave Himself up that we might.
It is a singular instance of Satan's power which Romish superstition has occasioned among those who have carried the Eucharistic sacrifice to its full extent. The cup is denied to the laity. To comfort them under this, they are assured that the body, blood, soul and divinity, a whole Christ, is contained under both species, i.e. in the bread and in the wine. But if the blood be still in the body, there is no redemption. It is a Christ as living on earth which is celebrated, when He had shed no blood to redeem us. It is a sacrament of non-redemption.
I understand these Ritualists being angry with Archdeacon Freeman for having presented this view, though he be as ritualist as they could wish; but it is as evident as truth can make it, to any one who respects the truth, that it is a Christ sacrificed, a Christ who has died, a body broken and blood shed, which is celebrated in the Eucharist, and false as the Essayist's Greek may be in it his testimony confirms it, for he makes it, My body now being given (or broken), My blood now being shed. If so it is not a living, glorified Christ, but a dying, and in real truth a dead Christ, for the blood is clearly presented as shed, and to be drunk apart. But they also see clearly that in this case it can be no carrying on an offering now, as Christ does in heaven for there is no dead Christ there, no body broken, or being broken, and they see clearly enough that this view of Archdeacon Freeman's upsets the real presence, for there is no such Christ to be present, nor can we think of a dead Christ present thus perpetually in the Eucharist.
Finally, the Christian's giving up what he has is not worship, nor is it what an intelligent Christian does. He yields himself to God as alive from the dead, and his members as instruments of righteousness. It is giving himself up to God for service, not worship. Nor is it giving up self, self-surrender. That is surely our part, but that is departing from the wickedness of self-will, from possessing ourselves in will, in spite of God. That is given up when conversion arrives. The Christian has the privilege, when freed by grace, of yielding himself to God, to be the instrument of His will. That is another thing; but though a just homage to God, neither is it worship. That is adoration and praise to God for what He has done, and what He is, as standing in His perfect favor in Christ, and in the consciousness of it, by the Holy Ghost owning Christ's work as that through the perfect efficacy of which we are brought there; and hence the place of the Eucharist in worship, as we have seen, the memorial of His death, of His having died for us, and the truth it refers to, whether actually celebrating it or not, awakening withal every affection which refers to His love and perfect work.
Our Essayist admits Christ to be the one only great High Priest, and all Christians to be priests. And the special priesthood which offers Christ as a sacrifice on the Eucharistic altar, we are told, belongs to that “view of Christian worship. And that without trenching in the least, when rightly understood, on either of those two cognate truths, the sole and unique Priesthood of the one true Priest, Jesus Christ, or the common priesthood of all Christian people" (p. 301). But I can find no explanation of why it does not, nor proof of this third kind of priesthood. Not one word is condescended on the subject. He enlarges with a strange jumble of truth and error on the two first kinds of priesthood, and then says (p. 302), " the special functions of the ordained priest, which distinguish him alike from the deacon and layman." But how we get this priesthood, or what is its authority, whence derived, by whom instituted, where found in Scripture, not a word is uttered. Every one knows that priest is a corruption of presbyter, or elder; but as to what made elder into a priest, in the modern sense, we are left wholly in the dark. There are three priesthoods—Christ's, all Christians, and ordained priests. Where is this found? These poor Christian priests, of whom Scripture speaks, are quite incompetent to perform the "functions of the ordained priest" (p. 302). But where are the three found? If Christ has given to all of us His own titles of kings and priests to God and His Father, how comes it that we cannot do what God's priests have to do? and that another kind of priest, never hinted at in Scripture, is to represent Christ in what is alleged to be the solemn act of priesthood, but that those whom God has made kings and priests, given Christ's titles, cannot? How comes it that He has named the sacrifices which His priests are to offer; that they are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, but that He never mentions that as a sacrifice which the priests He never names are to offer. That He is perfectly silent as to both; yet we are to believe that God's priests are laymen, and those that he has not named are, after all, exclusively priests who have supplanted them. Is all this not very strange? Is it not very like an invention? Is it not an invention of man, or Satan? The result being an offering of Jesus Christ now, denying the value or His one offering of Himself once for all, and the solemn declaration founded on it, that there is no more offering for sin; yet there is, according to these men, and a sacrifice and a propitiatory sacrifice. If a propitiation is needed now, Christianity is not true. The allegation that it is said He is, not was, the propitiation for our sins, is but poor sophistry. That the value of the propitiation is constant and eternally so, is quite true; but for that very reason He is not offering a propitiatory sacrifice now, because He did it once on the cross. But sacrifice, we are told, is the central and important word; and it is alleged that 1 Cor. 10 is a proof that the Eucharist must be one, for it is compared to the idol sacrifices. But it is no such thing; the passages prove just the contrary. It is eating of the sacrifice which it is compared with, and the writer of the article is drawing our attention from that to its being itself a sacrifice. Every true Christian admits of course Christ to have been the true sacrifice, and the passage insists that the priests, who eat of the altar (ver. 18), were partakers with the altar; but it was their eating, not their sacrificing, which did this. It was the same with the Gentiles, they eat of the sacrifices; so of Christians, they eat at the Lord's table; but in no case was it the sacrifice itself which is spoken of, but of feeding on what had been sacrificed. In a word, the passage shows that the Spirit and Word of God look at it as a feeding on what had been sacrificed, and not as a sacrifice. It teaches the contrary of that which the writer insists on in a way than which nothing can be plainer.
It is not very material to our present subject, but the vulgar error of Christ's being the ladder on which angels descend, uniting heaven and earth, being repeated here, I notice it. Christ has Jacob's place, not the ladder's. Jacob was at the foot of the ladder, and these messengers were coming down and going up from God to him, and from him to God. Now the Son of man was to be the object. God's angels would have the Son of man for the object of their service from an open heaven. There is no ladder thought of. Christ, the Son of man, is the object. Nathaniel had recognized Him as Son of God, King of Israel, according to Psa. 2. Christ carries him on to His title in Psa. 8 (being rejected), and says he would see greater things than that, even heaven open, and the Son of man the object of the service of the angels, of God Himself.
I have pretty much examined the material points of this article, though I have passed over many objectionable passages; but the great principle is what is in question. The continuous offering of a propitiatory sacrifice, and that in heaven by Christ, and on earth by the priest in the Eucharist; and further, what is involved in it, the nature of worship. Sacrifice is that by which we approach to God as coming from without; worship, adoration, and praise when we have got within. The Jewish temple-service had the character of sacrifice in general, because they could not go within, the Holy Ghost signifying by the unrent vail that the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest. But we pass through the rent vail into the holiest, and worship there as in the holiest. Knowing withal God as our Father, we recognize—remember with adoring thankfulness—that sacrifice, that rending of the vail, that breaking of the body, that shedding of the blood, through which we can so enter, purged from all our sins and reconciled to God. Christ is in the midst of two or three gathered in his name, but it is a living Christ in spirit, not His body broken and shed blood. Having Him in our midst in spirit, we celebrate His precious death; we do this in remembrance of Him. We cannot have a dead Christ in our midst; and, above all, we cannot have both a dead and a living one.
Let it fully be remarked that expiatory sacrifice (p. 304) is only added to the precious, unbloody sacrifice and worship. Hence, we have seen, it is stated that Cain was right, only wrong in neglecting the other. "This was not enough." Christianity teaches that the sinner cannot come at all but by a true atoning sacrifice; this offering of Cain was the neglect, was the denial of that. It is said God accepted Abel's repentance and faith. Scripture does not say so. He accepted Abel, bore witness that he was righteous on the ground of his gift (Heb. 11), and whatever the homage paid, acceptance and the enjoyment of Divine favor is the fruit of sacrifice, not worship. And so we see in Leviticus, our High Priest must be one higher than the heavens. As Priest He is separated from us, acting for us, not amongst us. This is certain in all priesthood. The statement that all He did from the moment when He said, "This my body," to the moment when He said, "It is finished," was one long-continuous, sacrificial action (p. 305), is necessarily false. First, His surrender of all to God, so far as true was always perfect, the sacrifice was always " made in purpose and in intention"; so far as it was a special act, it was in Gethsemane. As the Lord's agonizing prayer demonstrates, and the discourses in John 14, 15, and 16 are in no sense sacrificial. The priest had, in ordinary sacrifices, nothing to do with the offering till the blood was shed; he received that, and sprinkled it on the altar. The προσφορα was not a priestly act at all, and this προσφορα (oblation) is what we have, even on the writer's own showing, before us here. In the great day of atonement the priest confessed the people's sins on the head of the scape-goat, as representing a guilty people, not as between them and God as priest, but as high priest standing in the place of them all to make their confession. He stood as the guilty person, inasmuch as he represented the people. So did Christ on the cross. He offered Himself, through the eternal Spirit, without spot to God, to be the victim. God made the spotless one to be sin for us. Except as thus representing the guilty people, the priest did not slay the victim, and the offering a victim or himself to God was quite another thing. In no case was the offering of a victim, or surrender of self to God, a priestly act. The statement (p. 307), that "the act of offering or presenting a victim is a sacrifice," is simply a blunder; this was done by the one who offered the victim, not by the priest. I notice these things to clear the ground by Scripture statements; the confusion of the author, by his ignorance of the whole subject, making the analysis of all his statements an unprofitable labor. I have already said a πποσφορα, after the victim had been offered (αναφερεφαι) on the altar, is a thing unknown in Sacrifice. We read again: "As the most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, the alone acceptable Victim to make our peace with God, are offered... ' (p. 308). Now He has made peace by the blood of His cross. All this subverts Christianity.
In result, the propositions of the author are that Christ is to be adored with the profoundest homage in
the Eucharist. Secondly: There is "the solemn pleading.... of that once-sacrificed Body and Blood for ourselves  ... .. as our only hope of pardon, reconciliation, and grace" (p. 315) As to the last, I have spoken of it. We are pardoned, we are reconciled, we stand in grace, if Christianity be true. This theory is not Christianity, but denies it. The former proposition requires a little attention. That Christ is to be adored, every true Christian cordially accepts; but the sting is in the tail, "wherever He is." His body and blood, it is alleged, are in the Eucharist. He is where His body and blood are (p. 315), and, consequently, He is to be adored in the Eucharist. It is the common argument for idols, the divinity is present there. In death, though Godhead may hold its title over the body, nor suffer it to see corruption, yet the soul was separate from the body, or it was not death. The Eucharist, let them say what they will, is a symbol and sign of the dead Christ—a broken body and shed blood. Christ is personally in heaven. He is present in spirit in the congregation; as He expresses it, "In the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto thee." Do they mean to say that He, though in our midst, leads us to worship the signs of what He was when dead. That His body is now to come down from heaven to be broken, for that is what is done in the Eucharist; and that He returns into life before death to be broken and His blood shed, for that they avow is what was doing when He instituted the Eucharist. Christ's place, if we speak of "where" as to Him, is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, nowhere else. God has said, " Sit at my right hand till," and there accordingly He sits, nor will He leave it till the time appointed of the Father. Is He present alive in the bread before it is broken, and then does He go through death, there symbolized by the broken bread and the wine to be drunk? If so, then His soul is separated from His body. Or is He not present then, that is before breaking the bread, but only after His body is broken and His blood is shed. Then it is not He in any sense who is given and His blood shed. I can understand well that such inquiries offend them, as they talk of the devout and simple affections of faith: Reverence is our place, the right spirit to be in when one thinks of the Blessed One given for us. But if they invent false and erroneous views, which pervert the truth, which pretend to bring Christ down from heaven, when God has said to Him, as to His person and glorified
body, "Sit on my right hand," it is right to put questions which have no irreverence for Christ, but expose the fallacy of their views, which show that it is a false, pretended Christ of their own imagination—that there can be no such Christ, for He is glorified in heaven, and not now broken and shedding His blood on earth, nor ever will again. If death is symbolized, and partaking of Him in that character—and it certainly and evidently is so—there is no such Christ now. He is alive for evermore. In death His soul was separated from His body. It is not so separated now. It is of faith, the moment you use a circumscribed where, to say He is in heaven, and nowhere else, till He rises up from the throne of God—"whom the heavens must receive till the time of the restitution of all things of which the prophets have spoken."

David on His Throne a Type

Few; if any, will dispute the statement that David was a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. When he was raised up to be king over Israel, God had before Him, as it were, the life and acts of His own Son as King, and so ordered the events in the history of the type, that, whilst what took place seemed to outward eyes the lot appointed for David; when his life should be read centuries after his death, its typical character should be discerned, as the history of the one of whom he is a type should be gathered from the prophetic Scriptures.
For convenience in studying this period of his life we may arrange it under four heads-David at Hebron; David at Jerusalem; David in his priestly character; David in his kingly character.
Prophet, Priest, and King are titles of office which belong to the Lord Jesus. By one only besides him have these three offices been in any measure together filled. David and David's Son stand alone in this. But the difference between them when these offices are more carefully examined is immense. David was a prophet, but he was not the prophet. In common with the other ' prophets he probably knew not the value of all that he penned. The Lord as the prophet spake of what he knew, and testified of what he had seen. As Priest, David could not minister at the altar of the tabernacle, much less enter the holy of holies. The Lord will be a Priest on His throne after the order of Melchisedek, and He has now entered the holy of holies, a privilege restricted to the high priests after the order of Aaron. David was king over Israel, and his dominions reached from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, but be could not fill the throne forever. The Lord will have the throne of His father David, and reign over the house of Jacob forever.
From Bethlehem, the burial place of Rachel,, came David. Of all his descendants the only one whom we read was born there, was that ruler, " whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Years before David ascended the throne he had been anointed by Samuel as the king of God's choice. Who can say what time will elapse between the first announcement that God's King, the Messiah, was on the earth, and the reins of Government being placed in his hands? Persecution was David's lot before he reigned. Rejection and death were experienced by his Son.
1. to Turn to David at Hebron.
Saul was dead. David's words on the hill of Hachilah had come true. "The Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish " (1 Sam. 26:10). He had descended into battle, and perished, and with him three of his sons. The man given to the people at their request to be their king had passed away, conquered and slain by the inveterate opponents of his nation the Philistines. Israel had asked for One to fight their battles.. Their king had fought and was overcome. David, the man of God's choice, had been in conflict at the same time with the Amalekites, the persistent enemies of God's people. Saul in the north was fighting with the Philistines; David in the south was engaged with the Amalekites.
Israel under Saul fled. David with the 400 pursued their enemies. The Philistines stripped Saul and the slain, and came and dwelt in the cities of Israel. David entered the camp of the Amalekites, recovered all that belonged to himself and his men, and returned to Judah laden with spoil, to learn that Saul was dead, and the time for him to have the kingdom had come.
To outward eyes it might appear that the kingly power had merely changed hands. In God's eyes we learn it was a most important epoch in the history of Israel, and of the world; for, now was to be set up, that throne on which the Lord is to sit, and rule over all. Unasked by the people, God had selected the family and tribe. David succeeded Saul, not because he was the king's son-in-law, but because he was the Lord's anointed. He was chosen by God, and anointed by Samuel, before he had done anything to commend himself to the people, or had connected himself by marriage with the house of Saul. Before he was at Saul's court he had the anointing oil poured on him. His valor and his wisdom commended him to the people as a fitting successor to Saul; but, before he could show to them what he was, he had been designated by God for the throne. He succeeded Saul, but did not sit on Saul's throne. In point of time he was Saul's successor. As regards dynasty, he was—the head of his own family, and founder of the throne. Ever after it was David's throne on which the kings of Judah sat, however much their dominions might be curtailed, or the glory of the kingdom dimmed. Another point to be noticed is the extent of the kingdom. Saul reigned over all Israel, but was unable to preserve their territory from the inroads of the Philistines; David's kingdom was co-extensive with the grant given by God to Abraham (Gen. 15:18-21). As God did for David, so will He do for His Son. He will set up for Him a kingdom, posterior in time to the four great empires of Daniel's vision, but more extensive than any of them, and deriving its succession and power from none of them-after them, but not of them or from them.
Before Saul's death David had been a wanderer and an exile, not from choice but necessity. Driven from his house when Saul sent messengers to take him. (1 Sam. 19), he was never allowed to have a settled abode till he sat on his throne in Hebron. From his house he went to Naioth in Rarnah to Samuel. Flying from Naioth he is found with Jonathan in the field; thence lie escapes to Nob, and then takes refuge with Achish, king of Gath. Unable to remain there, he conveys his family to the king of Moab, with whom they remain; but himself, directed by God, goes into the land of Judah to the forest of Hareth. Thenceforth the forest, or the wilderness, or a cave sheltered the Lord's anointed, till, his faith failing, he betook himself to the Philistines, and had Ziklag appointed for his residence. Was this to be his home? Had his wanderings now ceased? Was he to be content with that city as his permanent abode?
Was the king of Gath to settle the dwelling-place of God's king? He returned from the camp of the Philistines to find Ziklag burnt with fire, and his wives and substance, and all that belonged to his men, carried away by the Amalekites. He rescued all, and reached Ziklag just in time to hear of Saul's death, and then asks God if he should go up to any of the cities of Judah.
How different were the circumstances of Saul. When made king, he had a home to which he repaired without a question (1 Sam. 10:26). David was a wanderer without any sure dwelling-place. He had many haunts (1 Sam. 30:31), but no home, a type in this of Him, who, when on earth, though king, had not where to lay His head, and, till He receives the kingdom, will never have had on earth, since He began His ministry a settled dwelling-place.
Saul went home to Gibead, i e., a hill, probably a position of some strength, suited to the leader of the hosts of Israel.
David did not betake himself to Bethlehem, and there, among his kindred, commence his reign. He asked counsel of God, and is directed to Hebron, a city of great antiquity, built seven years before loan, in Egypt. It stanch in the middle di a fertile valley, surrounded by hills, which afforded in ancient days good pasturage for flocks. As a shepherd he might have found Hebron a good center, but would it answer as well as the seat of government, and head quarters of a military power? During the days of his persecution, Hebron had been one of his haunts, now it was to be for seven years and six months his fixed dwelling-place. Why, it may be asked, was Hebron selected? Why would not Lachish or Eglon or Jarmuth, seats of Amorite power in common with Hebron, have done? What was there in Hebron more than in Bethlehem? Why was not Jerusalem selected?
With the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Hebron is closely connected: To the oaks of Mamre by Hebron, Abraham first repaired after Lot had chosen the plain of Jordan, and God had just given to the patriarch and to his seed, all the land he could see for an inalienable possession. " To thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever" (Gen. 13:15). There he sojourned for years, and in its neighborhood he was buried. There too, in Hebron, Isaac was living when Jacob saw him on his return from Padan Aram. There Jacob lived till he departed to go down into Egypt. In the Books of Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, Hebron is brought before us in connection with the people of Israel at eventful epochs of their history. Was this the reason that David was directed to go there? Was it because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had lived there? Was it not rather because they were buried there? For David was a type of Him whose reign was to commence in resurrection. Hence on that spot where lay the bones of the patriarchs, and those of Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah, David's progenitors, and as it were over their very graves to shadow this forth, the kingdom was first set up. He, in whose family the promises to Abraham were to be made good, and whose Son in resurrection should exercise dominion over all the land given by God to Abraham, commences his reign in Hebron. Joseph was buried in Shechem, Rachel in Ephrath, i e., Bethlehem, for from neither of these did the kingdom proceed. Jacob's own property, which he bequeathed to Joseph, was not the place he selected for his own sepulcher. With Jacob, as far as we read, that burying place- in the cave of Machpelah was closed. Leah had to be buried there because Judah was her son. Jacob was laid there because his seed should be the king. So David was directed to Hebron, and there began his reign, where, upwards of eight hundred years before, the date of the birth of Abraham's had been first declared. How fitting then it was Hebron should have been selected rather than Bethlehem or any other of the cities of Judah. And though subsequently the seat of power was transferred to Jerusalem, no other spot, not even Jerusalem, could have answered the same purpose as Hebron. It matters little where Saul commenced his reign. It was all, important where David began his. Saul was not the type of Him that was to come. Perhaps David did not " understand the reason of his being directed to Hebron.
We see the reason of its selection in preference to any other city in the territory of Israel. Had David in his own wisdom gone at once to Jerusalem, he would clearly have acted contrary to God's mind. Had he stayed at Hebron all his days, he would equally have run counter to the divine intention. There was a time to be at Hebron, and a time to leave it; and when the seat of government was removed from it, it was never to be brought back. God's purpose regarding it was accomplished. David understood surely something of this when he removed to Jerusalem, and brought thither the ark, and desired to build God an house. He intimated by this that he understood Jerusalem, when once reached, was to be the abiding center of government, and the earthly dwelling-place of the Most High.
Comparing David with Absalom we at once see the difference. David understood about Jerusalem, Absalom did not. Imitating what had been done by his father, he too commenced his reign in Hebron. But the throne once established could not be established a second time. By this action it is clear that he would have set up a new throne. Instead of being David's successor he would commence anew in the place where David had begun his reign. When Solomon began his reign he did not seek out any other place than Jerusalem; neither Hebron nor Shechem did he visit for that purpose. He succeeded David, and so took the kingdom in the place in which it was established.
To Hebron David removed with his two wives as yet childless. His men too did David " bring up, every man with his household, and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron." Anointed by Samuel at Bethlehem, he is anointed by the men of Judah at Hebron. And here for the first time we meet with the men of Judah acting apart from the men of Israel. To all who witnessed this schism it must have seemed natural enough. It was natural that Judah should support one of their own tribe, in preference to going after the king Abner had set up. Natural as it was it was also according to His mind who had raised up David as a type of the Lord Jesus, that under his reign the men of Judah and the men of Israel should be re-united, after they had been separated, in anticipation of that day spoken of by Ezekiel, when the two sticks shall become one, and they shall become " one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be king to them all; and they shall no more be two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all And David my servant shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd." (Ezek. 37:22-24). The differences between Judah and in now manifested, though outwardly covered over in the days of David and Solomon, were never permanently removed. We have an instance of this after the rebellion of Absalom, when the king was to be carried back to Jerusalem. Israel was jealous of Judah, and the contention, though no blows were struck, was the occasion of high words, for we read " the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel." At the end of David's reign Adonijah attempted to interest the men of Judah in his cause, but failed. During the reign of David and Solomon the people once united could not be divided. After Solomon's death the division was easily effected. The two kings types of the Lord, having passed away, the breach, again made apparent, became wider than ever, to be closed, and that finally, only when the David of prophecy shall come. For not only must He come to set the world in order, keep down evil, and establish and maintain to the end of His reign, what never has been maintained throughout the reign of any king, ari unvarying righteous rule, but His presence will also be needful to reconcile the long alienated hearts and tribes of the children of Israel and Judah.
When Saul began to reign, there was a division among the people, but not among the tribes. "The children of. Belial said: How shall this man save us? and they despised him, and brought him no presents." (1 Sam. 10;27). To reject an untried man does not seem strange. But when David took the kingdom, known of all as a successful warrior, whose name in Saul's reign had been much set by, anointed by Samuel as the man of God's choice, which Ishbosheth was not, it does seem strange, till the typical character of his reign is seen, that the greater part of the nation were determined to oppose him. For he must unite all Israel under his scepter, but to do that they must first be separated.
David, however, acts as king over all Israel by sending a message to the men of Jabesh Gilead. He takes cognizance of their kindness to their master Saul, who had rescued them from the king of the children of Ammon. They befriended him in death by decently interring his bones. As God's anointed, David waits his time for the submission of all the tribes, but, whilst waiting God's time, he does not give up for a moment the idea that he, and he only, is the rightful king over the house of Jacob. "I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing," is his promise to the men of Jabesh Gilead. Surely one might have supposed this would have been the duty and desire of Ishbosheth. We read not that he took notice of their action at all. But the anointed king, whose prerogative it is to reward and to punish, lets them know that he is acquainted with, and approves of, what they have done.
Those seven years and six months spent at Hebron were years of expectancy. David awaited the submission of the tribes. He did not strive with Israel willingly, for the battle between Joab and Abner seems to have been forced on by Abner, as Joab's reply (2 Sam. 2:27) intimates. As type of the Lord Jesus we understand how he is owned as king by the house of Judah, before the other tribes hail him as their sovereign. But here as elsewhere we are reminded that David in all this was only a type.. For in his case, Benjamin was with his opponents. When the remnant own the Lord, Benjamin will be associated with Judah, forming part of the ancient kingdom of Judah. Asahel, also, one of the worthies of David, was killed in the conflict by Abner, and never lived to see David king over all Israel; and David, though God's anointed, had to own, after Abner's death, that he was not rightly master in his own dominions. " Know ye not," he said to his servants, " that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? and I am this day weak though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, be too hard for me the Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness." (2 Sam. 3:38,39.) As the type, however, of the Lord Jesus Christ, God works that the kingdom should be his, and he does not owe it to any man. Abner thought to turn all Israel to him. He died before his plans could be carried into execution. David would have received it through the influence of Abner, but that could not be. He must be accepted as king over all Israel, but that consummation must be brought about by God. He was God's chosen one, not the candidate put forward by the people. Joab could not have turned all Israel to David. Abner alone had influence sufficient to attempt this. He was killed whilst busy about it. After his death the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and we read, " David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord; and they anointed David king over Israel." Abner's proposition was that the people should make a covenant with David. To do that they must have been able to treat with him. But man's thoughts are often wrong. David made a covenant with them, not they with him.. And this was fitting. Shall the nation in a future day make a covenant with Messiah regarding the terms on which he shall take the reins of government into His hands? A new covenant will be made, but made by God with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. So here they do not treat with David as an equal, but he treats with them as their superior in position.
We read of the patience of Christ. He waits the Father's time to take the kingdom according to the statement of Psa. 110 " Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Perfect is He in everything. If we compare David with his Lord, the imperfection of the former only comes out more and more. Personally there could be no comparison between them. Typically there can. And what we know is true at this very time of the Lord, we find exemplified in the history of His servant. Again and again he refused to be a party to violent measures for the obtaining of the kingdom. Twice was Saul within his power, and though urged to take his life he refused. When, too, the messenger announced to him the king's death, and professed to have killed Saul at his own request, David had him executed for having put forth his hand against the Lord's anointed. So also when Rechab and Baanah brought Ishbosheth's head to Hebron, he refused all participation in their guilt, though the great obstacle to the union of all Israel under his scepter was thereby removed. He had them killed as murderers. From God had he received the promise of the kingdom, and His time he would await.
2. David at Jerusalem.
The submission of all Israel to his authority having been effected, lie removed from Hebron to Jerusalem. War is the immediate consequence, and David is victorious. The Jebusites, the original inhabitants of the land, left unsubdued since the days of Joshua, have now to be taught that resistance is impossible. Presuming on the strength of their citadel, they think that the blind and the lame can defend it against the king. The gates may be shut against him, but the enemy cannot keep him out. Joabnclimbs up by the gutter, and the stronghold of Zion is taken, and called the city of David. Jerusalem; the citadel excepted, had been taken at an earlier period of their history, but the capture of the hold was reserved for the reign of David. " So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. And David went on and grew great; and the Lord God of Hosts was with him" (2 Sam. 5:9,10). How completely he makes Zion his own. He fashions it as it pleases him, building what it suits him to build, and calling it his own city. He sojourned at Hebron, he dwells at Jerusalem. Reaching it he finds he has reached his permanent resting place on earth. He evidently regarded it as a great point gained. Friends and foes thought so too, as the history now points out.
A new feature in the history of Israel is now brought out. " Hiram, king of Tire, sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons, and they built David an house." Very briefly is this embassy described. It deserves, however, a few minutes attention. It was the first embassy that we read of that ever set out from Tire to Jerusalem. During Saul's reign, the princes of Tire took no heed about the king over Israel. When Joshua conquered the land, and mapped out the territories of the tribes, we never hear of any attempt of the Tyrians to obtain the goodwill of the conqueror. But, when David had taken the citadel of Zion, Hiram sent to build him an house. When Solomon reigned, we find Hiram again manifesting his good will to the king, for he " was ever a lover of David" (1 Kings 5:1). After Solomon, we never find the king of Tire concerning himself about any one who reigned at Jerusalem. Prophecy tells us of the fate of Tire, continental and insular, and of the future yet in store for her. Taken by Nebuchadnezzar, she will be found in the confederacy at the last days (Psa. 83:7); and subsequently " her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord, it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for her merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing" (Isa. 23:18). And when that takes place, Tire will be found, as Hiram was in the days of David, concerning herself with the king at Jerusalem. For we read The daughter of Tire shall be there with a gift" (Psa. 45:12). She exulted at the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek. 26:2.) She will present herself with a gift when Jerusalem is restored, and the Lord reigns, and her colonies also, for " the kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents" (Psa. 72:10). We can understand then this embassy from Hiram to David now at Jerusalem, and see how suited it was, the earnest of that coming day when the wealth of the Gentiles shall flow to Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall yield obeisance to Messiah.
Whilst Hiram manifested good will to David, the Philistines show their enmity by setting themselves in array against him. Whilst he dwelt at Hebron they were quiet. As soon as they heard he had taken Zion they were all astir, and came out to fight him. Does not this remind us of Ps: 2 " Why do the heathen rage,- and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed." Why all this tumult? Because God had set His king on His holy hill of Zion, and the submission of all to the Anointed One must follow. So when. David established himself at Zion the Philistines appear against him, and manifest how important in their eyes was his new position. Whilst in Hebron they could leave him in peace. Satan tried in different ways to prevent the establishment of the kingdom, first by fomenting discord between Israel and Judah, next by the apparently impregnable position of the Jebusites on Mount Zion; and now lastly, when all else failed, by stirring up the Philistines to dislodge him if possible from the stronghold. No stone was to be left unturned to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of David at Mount Zion, the place of God's choice (Psa. 78:68). Outwardly the struggle was between the Philistines, who had vanquished Saul, and their old opponent David. In reality the war was between the god of this world and the Lord God of Hosts. David's move to Jerusalem excited the jealousy of the Philistines. God's choice of Zion for the seat of His Son's throne aroused the anger of the enemy. The uncircumcised and the conqueror of Goliath, could not exist in peace side by side. Hence they determine to subdue him. And as in the last days, before and after the millennium, the conflict will rage round Jerusalem, so it was the selected battle field, when David was anointed king by all Israel. "All the Philistines came up to seek David, and David heard of it, and went down to the hold. The Philistines also came, and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim " (2 Sam. 5:17,18). They sought him, not he them. So will it be when the battle of Rev. 17:14 takes place. " They will make war with the Lamb." All the power of the beast will be collected to make war with the Lamb. But the Lamb shall overcome. All the Philistines were gathered together in the valley of Rephaim, but in vain.
From Jerusalem the wave of conquests spreads. Eight hundred years before Abraham had stood on the neigh- houring mountain Moriah, with his son, as in a figure, raised up from the dead. At that time and on that spot and then and there only, did God make promise to Abraham that his " seed should possess the gate of his enemies." Now from that place where the promise was made, for Mount Moriah formed part of Jerusalem, the fulfillment in its widest extent commenced. Under Joshua the nations of Canaan were conquered. Under David all the nations of the territory given by God to Abraham, were first reduced to submission. As soon as David dwelt on Mount Zion the sword was drawn, which was not to return to its scabbard, till, from the great river, the river Euphrates, to the river of Egypt, and from the wilderness to the sea, the authority of God's anointed should be owned as paramount. Does not this remind us of what Isaiah predicts? " Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He shall judge among the nations, and rebuke many people " (Isaiah 2:3, 4). It was needful then to go to Jerusalem as at first it had been to sojourn in Hebron.. Had the Philistines acquiesced in what God had done in Israel there would have been no war. They entered into conflict with David, and were signally defeated. Twice did they come up against Zion, for the valley of the Rephaim is at its base, and each time they were worsted. Did we not know what all this pointed to we Might wonder at the interest shown in this rock.
The worshippers of idols were at war with the servant of Jehovah. What issue could there be but one? They had slain Saul, for God had forsaken him. They could not conquer David, for God was with him. And most signal were the victories, for David asked counsel of God, and did as He directed. The first time he confronted, them; the second he circumvented them. Before or behind they could not resist him. On the first occasion they left their idols, and David and his men burnt them.
God's Ark had been in captivity amongst these: uncircumcised, but He delivered it in His own way. The idols were taken by the conquerors, and for them there was no deliverance. Was not this a foreshadowing of what Isaiah also predicts? " The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, and the idols He shall utterly abolish.
In that day shall a man cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for.-himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats" -(Isa. 2:17,18,20). When the kingdom is established in power the idols must give way. At the time of the Exodus, the redemption of God's people, on all the gods of Egypt judgment was executed. When the kingdom was first: set up a similar result was seen. And when redemption shall be completed, and the kingdom established in the hands of the Son of man in power, the idols will be demonstrated in the most signal manner to be no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone (Psa. 115).
On the second occasion that the Philistines come out and spread themselves in the same valley, David again inquires of the Lord. He would own each time his perfect dependance for guidance and for strength. This time God preceded the host of Israel. David had to follow where the Lord led: "And let it be, when thou nearest the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry-trees, that then thou shalt bestir thyself; for then shall the Lord go out before thee to smite the host of the Philistines. And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him, and smote the Philistines from Geba until thou come to Gazer" (2 Sam. 5:24,25). How vain was the attempt of the enemy to disturb the purpose of God! Zion had He chosen, Zion would He guard. How vain will be the attempt of the Assyrian in the latter days to frustrate the counsel of God! Zion is God's chosen dwelling-place forever, Jerusalem He will defend. He may, as He has, leave it for a season, but no power in heaven or earth can drive Him from it: "As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also He will deliver it; and passing over He will preserve it." And these battles of David we have warrant for regarding as typical of the contest yet to take place, "when the Lord of hosts shall come down to fight for Jerusalem, and the hill thereof;" just what He did in the days of David, for we read" The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim," referring to these very battles (Isa. 31:4,5;28. 21).
3. We Have Now, Following the Order in 2 Samuel, to View David in Another Character-His Priestly, Character.
Established firmly in Zion, the next step was to bring up " the Ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts, that dwelleth between the cherubims," from Baale of Judah to Jerusalem.—This was an important matter and a memorable epoch, for it was the entry, for the first time, of the symbol of God's presence into the city which He loved. He took possession, as it were, on that day of Mount Zion as His dwelling-place, His rest forever which He has desired (Psa. 132).
From the days of Hophni and Phineas the Ark had been neglected. During the days of Saul the people had not inquired of it (1 Chron. 13:3); once only is it mentioned (1 Sam. 14:18) during his reign. Separated all the time from the death of Eli to the dedication of the Temple from the altars of burnt offering and incense, the service of the day of atonement could not have been carried out; for the high priest, though he might enter within the veil, could not sprinkle the blood on and before the mercy seat. Till the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon, and the great work of his reign completed, no day of atonement could be observed. How this resembles the present condition of things in Israel! Since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Jews have not been able to go through the form of keeping that day. Since the times of the Gentiles began to run, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple, and the Ark ceased to exist, the services of that day have not been rightly carried out. But, as in the time of Solomon, when the kingdom was set up in peace and in power, that day could be rightly observed, so when the Lord reigns in power as Prince of Peace, the day of atonement will again be properly kept. Then, as Ezekiel teaches (xlv. 18, 20), in a new way, and at a different season of the year, in the first month instead of the seventh, will the cleansing of the sanctuary be annually carried out.
The entrance, however, of the Ark to Zion, and the building of the Temple, are very different things; David brought thither the Ark, Solomon built the house. By the Messiah both will be effected in the same order. God's presence at Jerusalem, under the symbol of the Ark, suggested to David the building of the house. The Lord Jehovah's presence on Mount Zion, in the person of Christ, must precede the rebuilding of the Temple. As on the return from Babylon the Lord returned to His city before His house was built (Zech. 1:16), so, knowing of whom David, as king, was a type, we see the propriety of the Ark being brought to Jerusalem in his reign. As king the Lord will appear in Jerusalem, and as king He will build the house: " Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord; even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne" (Zech. 6:12,13).
David felt the importance of the step, as we gather from the psalms sung on that occasion. He regarded it as a remembrance of God's covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that their seed should inherit the land, so they sang Psa. 105:1-15. He looked forward to supremacy over the nations as a, consequence, so they followed with Psa. 96; and he counted on the restoration of Israel to their land in a day future to him, and even to us, so they concluded with the first and the two last verses of Psa. 106 We know, too, that the step then taken was important, as foreshadowing the re-entry of the presence of God into Jerusalem, and the joyful consequences following it, when Messiah himself shall be there.
As the presence of God on Mount Zion, symbolized by the Ark, was something quite new, so we have David appearing in a new character, that of priest; girded with a linen ephod, lie danced before the Ark. With all the house of Israel he brought up the Ark " with shouting and with the sound of the trumpet." Will not there be a day when shouting and the sound of a trumpet shall again be heard in connection with the, presence of God in Jerusalem? Psa. 47:5 surely speaks of it, but it will be when the Lord God is acknowledged by Israel as their king, and the king over all the earth. At the close of that day's proceedings we find David not merely clothed in the priestly garment, worn by those who ministered before the Lord, but acting as a priest, for he blessed the people in the name of the Lord. Saul bad never blessed them; David and Solomon both blessed them, the one after the Ark had entered the city of David, the other after it was placed in the oracle on Mount Moriah. Never more do we read of such an action performed by any king at Jerusalem. Hezekiah and his princes blessed the Lord and the people (2 Chron. 31:8). But the character of the blessing David and Solomon imparted was surely different from this; they blessed the people alone, typifying that which none of the princes could share in. For, as types of the Lord Jesus, the priest on his throne, who could be associated with them? The high priest had been commanded to bless Israel; here, in the presence of Zadok and Abiathar, David exercises that privilege.
On that day none were forgotten; it was a time when all should rejoice. David blessed them, but he did more -he offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and " dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and a flagon of wine" (2 Sam. 6:19). Feasting had accompanied the recognition of David as king over all Israel, but then, some of Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali provided it. Feasting accompanied the work of this day, in Jerusalem, but here David provided it. On that day the king, who took the chief place, must do everything; he offered offerings; he blessed the people, and sent all away rejoicing with what he bestowed after that he blessed his house, something distinct from the nation of Israel.
On another occasion we find David acting in a priestly character. An occasion it was of deep sorrow.
The Lord had been angry with Israel. Satan had moved David to number them, and the plague of three days' duration was the punishment God inflicted. The angel told Gad that David should go and set up an altar in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. This he did, " and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering"(1 Chron. 21:26) and the sword of the angel was sheathed. Here ail depended on the anointed one; he must entreat, he must offer the offerings. The grace of God is manifested in arresting the arm of the destroying angel before David was told to offer the offerings; but the king, not the high priest, could alone act here. Do we not see how this, faintly indeed, yet truly, shadows out the king averting God's wrath from the people by a sacrifice he offered up? In the wilderness Aaron could alone stand between the dead and the living to stay the plague. That was the high priest's work. Now a similar service must be performed by the king. On that day the king was the prominent one. He interceded for the people, he paid the price for the threshing floor, and bought of Araunah the animals for the sacrifices.
When Joshua was appointed captain of the armies of Israel Moses set him before Eleazar the priest, and told him he was to stand before Eleazar, at whose word he and all the people should go out and come in (Num. 27:21). In the days of David a great alteration had taken place. He did not stand before the priest; Abiathar bore the Ark before him (1 Kings 2:26). Nor did he receive directions from the priest how to act. He inquired himself (1 Sam. 23:9;30:8). And he not only regulated the affairs of the kingdom, and the marching of the armies, but also what was connected with the worship of God. The priests received orders from him, and ministered where he located them, and he distributed them according to their offices in their service (1 Chron. 16:39;24. 3). The priests ministered at the altar, but the king instituted " the service of song." The courses of the priests he appointed, the service of the Levites he regulated. By the law of Moses the Levites entered the sanctuary at the age of twenty-five, and carried the burdens at thirty. By the ordinance of David, the tabernacle being no longer migratory, they were to begin their work at twenty. Before his day we never read that singing formed a part of the regular service of God. From the entrance of the Ark into Zion the worship of the congregation had this accompaniment. David appointed of the Levites which he thought to proceed was wrong. He could not build the house, but his son should after his decease. The Prince of Peace builds it. So David must die, but die in the fullest confidence about its erection; for his seed, which should proceed out of his bowels, God would set up after him, and establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Would David's name then be forgotten when the throne of his Son's kingdom should be established, and that forever? It will be the throne of his Son (2 Sam. 7:13), yet David's throne likewise. " Thy throne shall be established forever " (16). And, though he had to die that the promise might be fulfilled, God declared he should live forever; the glory of the kingdom he should behold, the faithfulness of God to His word he should witness, " Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee." To none before, and to none since, have such promises been made. David was the first of his line, his Son shall be the last, but the line will never end. Forever will be the duration of His kingdom. Forever before David his Son will reign. Well might he worship God after Nathan has set before him such a brilliant everlasting future.
4. This Leads on to Other Glories, Which We Must Glance at, Connected With David in His Kingly Character.
The attacks of the Philistines to prevent the establishment of his throne at Zion had been successfully resisted. Now he looked beyond the valley of the Rephaim, and even the confines of Canaan. He had acted on the defensive. He must take the initiative. Beginning with the Philistines he captured Metheg-Ammah. Going outside the land of Canaan he smote Moab, and measured them with a line. Hadadezer, king of Zobah, who went to recover his border at the Euphrates, experienced the irresistible might of the son of Jesse. The Syrians of Damascus, Edom Ammon, and Amalek, all have to succumb to him. He must be supreme between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. In the days of the Judges both Moab and Ammon had been worsted in conflict with Israel, after they had first invaded the territory of the tribes. Now David, it would appear, acts not like Ehud or Jephthah, who delivered Israel from the presence and the yoke of strangers, but he invades their land, and is successful. A second time he is brought into conflict with the Syrians and the Ammonites, only to show them how invincible he is. The Syrians became his servants, and brought gifts; Rabbah of Ammon was taken, and the crown of Hanun transferred to the head of David. For the first time in the history of the world the king, who dwelt at Jerusalem, was obeyed on the banks of the Euphrates. The converse of this has also been seen. From the banks of the Euphrates has word gone out which was obeyed on Mount Sion. By and by it will be again discovered that the king, who shall reign at Zion, must be submitted to as supreme even in the province of Babylon. But besides conquests we have an account of Toi, king of Hamath, who submitted quietly to David. Thus he became the head of the heathen (Psa. 18:43). " The Lord preserved David whithersoever he went. And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed judgment and justice unto all his people" (2 Sam. 8:14,16). The chief officers of his government are enumerated, and his sons are installed as chief rulers. Compare for this Psa. 45:16.
A feature in the wars of David must be noticed. He warred for supremacy, not for extermination. Under Joshua it ought to have been a war of extermination, under David it was not. For, though the scene of Joshua's victories and some of David's battles was the same, their character was very different. Joshua's entrance to Canaan typified the saints of the heavenly places entering their proper place. David's battles in the land, and outside it, represent the establishment of the kingdom on earth under the Lord Jesus. From the heavenlies Satan and his angels must be driven out. On earth all who will submit to the righteous rule will be spared. " The strangers shall submit themselves " (margin" yield feigned obedience ").
Never were greater vicissitudes endured by any nation than by Israel. Entering Egypt at the invitation of the king, a little company of seventy souls to be preserved during the famine, they were detained there in slavery till, numbering 600,000 men besides children, they were brought' out by the strong hand of Jehovah.. A prey to various enemies from without during the time of the Judges, reduced to the most abject condition by the Philistines during the reign of Saul, they found their alliance desired by the surrounding nations under David and Solomon; and, owned by them as superior's, to whom gifts were to be brought, the Egyptians, the descendants of their former masters, came to regard them as equals, when Solomon contracted marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. Reduced to the lowest condition for their sins, an astonishment and byword to the nations of the earth, scattered abroad over the face of the globe, the only nation which is not at home in its own land, they will again be gathered to Canaan, the two tribes first to go through a tribulation unequaled by any yet seen on the earth, after which the ancient kingdom of David will be revived, tnd his family be reseated on his throne in the person)f the Messiah. Where has the like been ever seen, that the sovereignty should be continued in one family without change for such a length of time? Dynasties ise and fall, families die out, but the house of David bides forever. The scepter has indeed fallen from heir grasp. It is ages since one of that family wielded on earth. It has fallen to be taken up by Him who Till rule all nations with a rod of iron, " the scepter f whose kingdom will be a right scepter." The stem Of Jesse, though cut down, has sent up a rod, a Branch as grown out of its root, destined to reduce all nations rider its sway.
Besides the nations submitting to David we read the race of giants being extirpated (2 Sam. 21). here had been a race of giants on the earth whose origin is shrouded in mystery, but whose country formed part of the territory given by God to Abraham and his descendants. First mentioned in the days of Abraham, we read of their gradual extinction. Moabites and Ammonites had prevailed against them. Og, who was of the remnant of the giants, was smitten by Israel under Moses. Caleb slew the three sons of Anak, and now under David the race is finally extirpated. He had slain Goliath, and others killed the rest. The power of man, however great, must bow before the rule which God sets up. -Isaiah sings of a time " when the lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." In the prospect of this the admonition is given, " Cease ye from man whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of?." (Isa. 2:11,22). When the giants are slain we see indeed " wherein is man to be accounted of."
All enemies overcome, God's salvation is celebrated in a song which clearly looks forward to the establishment of the kingdom of His Son. Delivered from the strivings of the people, made head of the heathen, David has reached the pinnacle of greatness. From the sheepfold he had risen to the throne, to wield a scepter which the nations around submitted to. But raised up so high he does not forget those who have accompanied him in his wars, and done acts of service for him. His warriors have each their place in the kingdom according to their deeds, and the special act of devotion of those three at the well of Bethlehem is placed on record never to be forgotten. Besides this, we learn from 1 Kings 2 That service done for him in the day of his flight was indelibly fixed on his heart. Man in the zenith of his power may forget those who have ministered to him in the day of his distress. It was not thus: David acted, for in this surely he is a type of -the Lord Jesus Christ. Barzillai's kindness to David must be remembered, and rewarded by Solomon. It was not enough that David should acknowledge it. It must not be forgotten whilst the Prince of Peace reigns. But here as elsewhere we see that the antitype goes beyond the type. " They came to me " David said, " when I fled because of Absalom thy brother" (1 Kings 2:7). He remembered service done to himself; the Lord will requite service done to others during His absence from the earth (Matt. 25:35-40; Mark 9:41). As David rewards, he also speaks of punishment to be meted out to those who have risen up against him. For all who resisted the authority of the king during any part of
But there is a feature about faith that we need to keep in mind, and it is just what we are reminded of in the last verses of the second chapter. "We beheld his glory, the glory as of an only begotten with the Father " is faith's testimony. We must not separate it from its object, nor from the glory of that object in its view. " Many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did." Was that faith? Clearly not, for it is added, " But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man. It was " in man," then, to believe after that fashion. It was not the manifestation of Divine life at all.
But this is very solemn. It is startling. For if you turn back to the first chapter you will find the character of those who received Him, and to whom He gave title to the place of sons of God, to be expressed in the self-same words, " those that believed in his name." What then is the difference, here, or how shall we distinguish between true faith and false, if this be so? The difference lies in the words added about these at Jerusalem. They believed " when they saw the miracles that he did." Unspeakably solemn truth for Christendom, which yet grounds its faith on the same testimony! But it is certain that that which negatives as true faith this "believing in His name" is that it was one that rested simply upon the ground of His miracles.
But how should this negative it as true faith? Orthodox enough it was as to what they believed. " They believed in his name." Fair-seeming as that was, there was something in it, which to the eye of One who "judged not according to the appearance," rendered it unsound and untrustworthy. It was belief on outside evidence, not the true knowledge of the glory of the Son of God.
You may receive a miracle and say, "This man must be a teacher come from God, because no man can do these miracles which he doeth, except God be with him." All very true, indeed, but it is reasoning and not faith. You say "he must be," you do not say "he is.". When I have Christ's glory before my eyes, I do not say, " it must be there," I know it is. We understand this difference in common things: If I say, I must have left my book in such a place," does it not prove I am not there where it is? As soon as I get there, I do not say, " it must be there," I put my hand upon it, and say, " Here it is." So I may reason about God out of His presence. When I am there I do not reason, I adore.
" We beheld His glory." We did not believe it was there because something outside of it proved it. We beheld it ourselves, we did not need the proof. That is direct, personal acquaintance. " This is life eternal, to know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." Not to argue, but to know.
This is unspeakably solemn.. But some will ask, Do you not set aside the fact that "faith cometh by hearing" or " a report?" and if so, must I not judge if the report be true? I answer, thousands do so judge and believe upon that warrant, who yet remain totally unchanged by it. But when God by His own word searches the heart, it is different. The word, with one to whom it so comes, judges him. It comes in the " demonstration of the Spirit and of power." It is not something which he judges by his reason. He may be an idiot, still he knows that it is God. " The world by wisdom,"-with all its intellectual searching-" knows him not."
When that disciple wrote " we beheld his glory," he was not speaking of an intellectual process, but of faith. They of whom he spoke were none of the world's wise ones, but the wonder of that presence was upon their hearts. Eyes that had watched Him, had not seen it; ears heard nothing of it, that had listened to His words; it had not come of man's heart.' God had revealed it. God was there.
And nothing short of this is life. To know God and His Christ,-that only,-is to live.
Nevertheless in Nicodemus we see how reasoning may be mixed up with faith in the soul of one who really has life. A faith founded on reasoning is a different thing. But just as we know in the same person flesh and spirit lust against each other, so in the same person may intellectualism be at war with faith. So with Nicodemus. He comes professedly upon the same ground as those before spoken of, and the Lord, taking him upon that ground, meets him with, "Except a man be born again." But he comes to Jesus. His heart is attracted, and although his coming " by night" shows his feebleness, it shows too the spiritual instinct of a soul wherein God has wrought. The world will be against him and he comes trembling; but he comes, and to Him whom the world will be against,-he, the Pharisee in the need of his soul; he the wise man, for wisdom.
And thus is brought before us another characteristic of true faith. In the least measure of it there is confidence. The heart is drawn to the person of Christ; for saving faith is, as we have before seen, the knowledge of a person, not of a creed, however true. "He that hath the Son bath life." It is quite true we have to listen to the word of Him to whom we are brought, and to know His work, for peace. And thus fear may contend with love, where His word and work are not rightly known. But there is, in spite of all, a sense of goodness which attracts, wherever there is faith. " He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." That seek Rim, not life merely or a reward: of that men are capable. But naturally, " there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." All that the world understands by religion is something very different from this, nay, the reverse of it. Natural conscience seeks to hide from God; and how many systems of divinity are molded upon this pattern. Elaborate processes to turn away His anger-preparations to meet Him who must be met at last,-futile as the fig-leaves of Eden when God is really there; but salvation thus, with multitudes-God unknown-merely to be saved from Him.
Doubtless, the renewed soul may, in its first bewilderment, be entangled in such devices, but even so, there is a truer instinct at bottom and that before He be known as a Savior and a Justifier. Its sighing is still after Himself; " Oh that I knew where I might find Him!" Life and salvation too, surely, if not known, but withal Him." Gleams of His glory are breaking through the clouds, however lowering, and the soul, while not satisfied, is yet won.
And such an one is Nicodemus. Yet, though not in nature merely, he takes that ground, and therefore must learn what nature is. Indeed, so it is with us all. Only as quickened do we learn what death is. And it is absolutely necessary we should learn it, for therein lies the whole mystery of strength and blessing for us. God's way of saving is the unveiling of Himself. But to be saved I must be a sinner. I must be " ungodly," and " without strength." I must be in my rags before Him. Do you think, when I have Him upon my neck, I would, for anything that you could name, have rather had my rags off before I had Him there?
" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said to thee, Ye must be born again."
The connection with the line of truth which we have in this gospel is here apparent. " Water " has come before us already in the 2nd chapter as a symbol. We have it again in the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 13th, and 19th chapters. In some of these, indeed, it is " living water " that is spoken of, and in the 7th this is interpreted to mean the Spirit: " this spake he of the Spirit." But that helps all the more clearly in the understanding of the rest. The use of water is in cleansing and in refreshing. Both are by the Spirit, and both are by the word. Beautifully, if the Word be water, the Spirit is " living water." " Now ye are clean through the word that I have spoken to you." " The washing of water, by the word."
The commencement of this water washing is manifestly in new birth. After that there is still the daily practical cleansing of our walk and ways. The Lord speaks of both when He says, " He that is washed (or has been bathed) needeth not save to wash his feet."
There is another thing, also, in close connection with cleansing, which water signifies. It is the figure of judgment, as it was actually the judgment of the old world. And to this Peter refers when he writes, " the like figure whereunto, even baptism doth also now save us." For we are saved by judgment. Like Noah, we pass on to our new world through the ruins of the old. " Our old man crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Out of flesh you can get nothing else. There is no change, therefore, as to it: " the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It is judged, not saved-destroyed, not changed.
And withal there is the impartation of a new life, as distinct and real, at least, as was the old. Scripture speaks of it as " eternal life abiding in" us (1 John 3), and of the exhibition of it in its perfectness in Christ's life down here, so that having spoken of Him as the " Word of life," the Apostle goes on to say: " For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us." So distinct, so perfect, so separate from mixture with the old, that it can be said of everyone born of God, " whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The flesh cannot do ought else, for it is not of God, but it is for faith " crucified with Christ," and I look at it and say, "it is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me." As born of God-in the new life which comes from Him-we cannot sin.
Were it otherwise, a gradual change of the old man into the new, it could not be said that God "bath made us meet for the inheritance of the saints in light," where that expression " in light " speaks of everything made manifest. Instead of that we should, only be meet when that process was completed. Nor would new birth be a bathing, a washing of the old person, never needing to be renewed. But Scripture, with perfect consistency, speaks of it as that, as we have seen.
But people naturally object, How about sanctification, then? Is there no growth in grace? Surely there is. We do not start at once into full-grown men in Christ. Spiritually, as in nature, there are babes, young men and fathers; and these very terms may tell us how the two things consist. A child's nature is as perfect as a man's. It wants development, that is all. It gets that as it grows up among men, and has before it the full maturity of what it is. Let a child grow up in a desert apart from men, and it will scarcely be a man at all. Yet not from its not possessing a nature perfect as any other's. Even so, with Christ before us, we grow up, unto Christ, no more perfect in nature at the last than at the first, but perfected in development-the full-grown man.
But how we do marvel when we learn, as we must do practically, this mystery of new birth I When in the sincere desire of our souls we come to Christ as the teacher of righteousness, only to learn that it cannot come of us! How we cavil at it, and question it, and try to falsify it too, seeking the help of His grace to work out a character for ourselves, to substitute our righteousness for His righteousness, and so be at peace! And how, in His mercy, when all such efforts fail-as it is of His mercy they should fail-and we find, indeed, our place in death, ungodly, and without strength-" bap-wed into his death," we find our new birth unto a " living hope," unto "life and peace," in and with Him who lay in death for us, our death, and has risen out of it, the first-begotten from the dead, and brought us up, out of it, quickened together with Him!
Of new birth, law, strictly as law, knew nothing, just as it knew nothing of salvation. " What shall I do to be saved?" is the question of man's ignorance simply. It never said, " the man that doeth these things shall be saved," for if he did them, he needed no salvation. Yet there is a form in which (when, along with law, God's long-suffering goodness was proclaimed, as when the tables came out of the mount the second time) God did connect these things: " When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he bath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." It is not even here " he shall be saved," but " he shall save himself" That is a wide enough difference. In reality it is only the opening up of man's need more distinctly. Already once lost, could he now conform to God's conditions, and save a life already in strictness forfeited? God never so couples doing with His salvation, but if man could even now "save himself," there were the terms.
Just in the same way you find the need of new birth coming out, but it is put upon man himself to effect. As hopeless a task as in Nicodemus' question, " Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" So God says in Ezekiel, " Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
With reference to repentance on the part of God, on the other hand, the word is used thirty-six times. For what the law proposed to man was to change (if he could) God's mind about him. "Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return," had been God's word to Adam, but "the man that doeth these things shall live in them," was the proposition of the law. And in a somewhat modified form, this is announced (Jer. 18) as the principle of God's dealings with the nations. Yet, while this was proposed, practically, if God repented, it was "because of the multitude of his mercies," or else to cut man off in judgment (eq., Gen. 6) as a sinner.
Looking at Israel from "the top of the rocks," one that " heard the words of God and saw the vision of the Almighty," could say, " God is not a man that he should lie; nor the son of man, that he should repent." And an apostle of the New Testament could echo with him that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." This is the only passage in the New Testament in which even the thought of it on God's part suggests itself. It is now to man that repentance is proclaimed.)
Prophetically, however,- Ezekiel tells us, under the new covenant, of God's doing this, and here is what a "master in Israel" ought to have known. "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you an heart of flesh," is certainly complete moral renovation or "new birth." And such a change was necessary in order to the introduction even of the earthly kingdom. If these "earthly things" stumbled him, how would he be prepared to believe One who spoke of things outside the range of the old prophets altogether? " If I have told- you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
And this bringing out of new truth yet further tests the state of the soul to which it is presented. Do I know the Shepherd's voice? Can I distinguish it from the voice of strangers? Or do I receive only what is accredited by the concurrent testimony of the piety or wisdom of past generations? That may seem very humble. It is practical infidelity. I do not believe God until man assures me He has spoken! Which is it then I really trust? It is one of the saddest things in a day of confusion to hear people say, "But so many good men differ." Yes, I reply, but are you listening to the distracting voices of men, then? Does not the Lord Jesus say, "My sheep hear my voice"? And is it not written, " There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you"? The argument that because we are not infallible, God cannot communicate to us His mind infallibly, is as unreasonable even as it is dangerous. It is denying a distinctive characteristic of the Lord's teaching, " He taught as one having authority, and not as the scribes." But if I cannot recognize His voice from that of the scribes themselves, what becomes of that authority? It is as much gone as if He had never spoken, and I cannot certainly say if I be walking in the path of His will or not. Though I " will do his will," I cannot " know of the doctrine." Though my "eye be single," my." whole body " cannot be " full of light."
Nicodemus might have said, " The whole mass of rabbinical commentators say nothing of new birth." Would that excuse him? The question was, did he know the voice of God? And with heavenly things now to be revealed, could he receive them, without the sanction of antiquity, upon the simple word of Him whom he had just acknowledged "a teacher come from God "?
And now, in our day, when there are no new revelations, but only the old truth, amid the perplexity of critics and the -folly of wise men, unperplexed and unchanged, the question still remains for each one of us, with all its interest, and with all its solemnity, Do I know the voice of God?
Then comes the testimony of the glory of His person who is there. " And no man bath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Then the wonder of His work, still more revealing Him, " And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." And then, as soon as you know Him, you know another. In another way than simply by the value of His work, He brings to God. " For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved."
He would not leave you short of that blessed revelation, for that would be still to leave you short of perfect rest. " Lord, spew us the Father, and it sufficeth us," is, though the request of ignorance, for in Christ they had seen the Father, yet a true judgment of what it does need to " suffice" the heart. Were there aught, back of Christ, still to be revealed, we should not yet be fully blest. Christ in His love, paying my debt to God would not content me without the knowledge of God in His love, so declared by that debt paid. If my conscience needs the one, my heart needs the other. " God in Christ,"-that satisfies. " And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation."
For it is a reality that we are " without God in the world " naturally, and that is another and a sadder truth even than being outcasts from God. Both go together, no doubt, but while to be an outcast from God is to be outside all I know of light and goodness, to be without Him is to be without the knowledge of light or goodness.
And it needs- that- surely to make-up the perfect agony of woe.
What a difference it is to say I know that I am safe, and " to know God"! And in one way, although it needs the knowledge of security, perfectly to know Him, this is the first thing proposed, and it is that which we go on in continually. In it comes the knowledge of peace, because to "acquaint thyself with him" is to be at peace." But this is only one of the varied fruits of that tree of life and blessing.
We know Him. We have a God. It is joy to put our mouths in the dust before Him, and to own Him as infinitely beyond us in goodness as in power and majesty He is. This is what the Cross reveals. This is what faith receives. And this is where I begin to live and walk with Him, whom daily I know better, and daily seek yet more to know.
What follows in verses 18-21 is man's responsibility in view of "light," thus " come into the world." John's Gospel gives us no pleading with man, no trial of him. The light exposes him, that is all. What can be looked for from one dead in trespasses and sins? Yet even so, that does not excuse him, his responsibility is unaffected by it. For if he be " dead," it is " in sins." If he be in darkness, he " loves darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil." " This is his condemnation." This is why he does not come to the light, why he does not believe. It is his will that is in fault-his heart. The converse of " they believed not the truth," is simply " but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
-Yet " death " it is, surely. A state out of which none but God can bring. And we must know it, each one for himself, so that it shall be, save in the grace of it, no mystery, that the " Firstborn" of this "new creation" is also " the first begotten from the dead." Even so we, born unto God, are new-born out of death. He for us risen out of it we " quickened together with Him," " that He be-the Firstborn am on g many brethren."
And thus, it is solemn to see the, Lord of life and glory taking up John's work. " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there He tarried with them, and baptized. John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized." It is the last time you meet with baptism in this gospel, for with this chapter we pass out of the region of death into the life beyond. It was fit to have this solemn witness first. It comes as the seal of the previous teaching, and because " the testimony of two men is true," the master authenticates the testimony of the disciple. All this will be left behind when He takes up His own peculiar " witness " of " heavenly things." But while passing on to this, He must confirm the " earthly," for grace does not " make void," but " establish law." The new revelation (if it go behind it) puts emphatically its seal upon the old.
John has accompanied us then so far. But the wilderness voice is now to give its last utterance, and joyful if solemn utterance it is. O how more than calmly we can look on at our own burial when Christ the Life is there! "He must increase, I must decrease" now. Think you there ought to be sorrow about that? Surely in another sense than old Simeon; but with relief of heart like his, we say " Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation."
Beautiful is this last utterance of one, than whom none greater had risen among them that are born of woman. He is still only "a voice," "a witness to the light," "not the light," and he pretends not to it. "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all."
Precious, simple, ungrudging witness! His glory was to be nothing. Cheaply attained as that is, who among us desires it?
But again and again this solemn testimony to man's utter ruin comes. Let heaven pour out its treasures, he does not value them. "What he hath seen and heard he testifieth, and no man receiveth his testimony." To receive that is to set to one's seal that God is true.
Truth is here again everything. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,"
There the voice ceases. What is beyond is not for John (blessed servant as he is) to utter. He that comes from heaven is to speak now the things " which he hath seen and heard." F. W. G.

The Effect on England and Progress of Democratic Power

I need hardly assure your readers that I have no desire that they should meddle in politics; I do not do so myself, nor do I think that a Christian ought. He believes that God governs, and governs with a view to the glory of Christ, and that He will infallibly bring about His purposes. But it seems to me to be well that Christians should apprehend what they have to look for, and be prepared for it, if the Lord tarry. Did it not concern them religiously you would have no word from me on such subjects.
What I purpose doing is to review briefly the course of events, and state what seems to me their results. Parties are all alike to me; they are all alike guilty, and have all alike had their part in what is going on. Lord Derby it was who banished the Scriptures from Irish schools and set up the Irish national (really, Popish) school system. He stated that there was no proselytism, but that " the use of Scripture " was a fatal objection, because it was displeasing to the Priests. We must remember that politicians have no idea of principles, but only of existing influences to which they must be subject.
The next step was that of that most short-sighted man, however great a general he might have been, the Duke of Wellington. I take no side with any party,-I distrust hem all, but he was a Tory as they call it, aristocratic in principle. He, with Sir R. Peel, passed the Catholic Emancipation bill, so called, which admitted some sixty or seventy violent democrats into the house, and by that party (as it is well known), the reform bill of 1832 was passed; the majority of English members were against it. Now, for a state with a political machinery like that of England to work smoothly, a large portion of influential Masses must not be outside its institutions. The Duke of Wellington declared the system perfect which did shut them out, after introducing elements which made it impossible to hold that ground.. He thought to stem it by the House of Lords, and nearly brought on an open revolution; and Lord Harrowby and the waverers (as they were then called), gave a majority to the reform bill in the House of Lords. That bill was a revolution. That is, it was not an admission of excluded influences into existing institutions, but a total change in the institutions themselves. Democracy became ascendant, and possessed the power. The Lords' house became insignificant, and populous boroughs acquired the power once wielded by the land. Old habits modified the effect, but every one knows that this is what took place. The ancient institutions of the country were in principle overturned. With this, railroads and the commercial movement, and the refusal of landlords to increase the population on their lands, concurred to throw the population into the towns. Vaunted education ministered immensely to general infidelity, Satan in that being let loose in that respect, and by the growth of this and of dissent, which predominates in the great towns, the clergy were, on the one hand, thrown into ritualism and popish principles, or, on the other, adopted infidel or semi-infidel principles; and (the bands of the establishment and its general hold on the population of the country loosened), infidel notions acquired a powerful influence over the mental activity of the country, and exercised a very great power in the governing body, the House of Commons. Morally speaking, the Protestant Church was gone, and rationalism and popery, in principle, divided the country. Evangelicalism became practically null in the Establishment:
In this state of things the democratic influence has acquired an immense accession of power by the new reform bill. It is an immense stride in legally revolutionizing the country; checks, and balances, and reckoning on the English character and history is all nonsense. Power is put into hands which will use it. The forms are immaterial; they will probably be changed immediately or ere long.
But my object is to notice the effect on the state of society. God cares for the poor. But the poor have ceased to he so in the Scriptural sense of the word. They are masters. The effect on the masses and on the active minds of the country will be infidelity, exalting man. Even popular religious preaching will take this character. It will keep up the name of Christian, but will exalt man in its statements, not Christ:-despise government, says the apostle, presumptuous, self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Human reason, not God, will be the arbiter of good and evil. What already prevails so largely, will be open to a vast party in the country. The will of the people, confidence in man, his rights, his general perfectability, will be the banner of all this class. The aristocracy, on the contrary, having lost power will seek to compensate themselves (vexed and dissatisfied in heart), by luxury and pleasure. To maintain quiet (principle having gone in both classes), and some influence-some barrier, against the strong will of the people, they will rapidly seek to increase the influence of the clergy-the only remaining one over those that constitute the bulk of those around. In the country it will be the body of the poor subject to priestcraft, and in the towns a very large increase of popery, so as to have an integral place in the population; the bulk of those who are not so, or who do not side with them, being infidel.
It may be thought that I have not sufficiently allowed for the influence of religious dissenters. It is, really, next to nothing, and will be always becoming less. Already exalting man is the system that most widely prevails, going on with the age. But there is another thing, they will join with the Roman Catholic in putting down the Establishment, which has little or no political
hold' on the country. The Episcopalian must then, as against dissenters, base itself on its distinctive character, in alliance with (if not in the form of) popery, successional grace and sacraments, and the clergy the only channels of it. I do not expect Protestantism nominally to cease, but it will be really infidel. You may find individual ministers, Independent or Episcopalian, preaching Christ, but the disruption that is taking place is a disruption into infidel radicalism or popular will, and popery in the aristocracy and in all that they can bring under its influence, as a check upon that will. I have no doubt that God will keep every faithful soul, and maintain every needed testimony, but it is well that Christians should know what is before them, as time goes on more rapidly, perhaps, than we are aware.
I do not look for violence, because I believe there is no courage anywhere to resist the course of events. I do not pretend to say how long it may take to bring these things about. God knows, and God holds the reins or looses them; but I have no doubt as to what is coming on. The Christian may walk in peace through it all, waiting for God's Son from heaven, and keeping the word of His patience: yea, having a specially blessed place of testimony in the midst of it all, but a lowly one, content to be nothing in a world which has rejected Christ, and is ripening for His judgment. Their part is to keep His word and not deny his name.
The result as to the western world will be, as known to students of prophecy, that the Babylonish or idolatrous power, with which the kings of the earth had committed fornication, will be utterly destroyed, and the popular will in the same sphere will give itself to the beast destroyed, with the false prophet, by the Lord Himself coming from Heaven.
The present result of what is now enacting will be: the aristocratic part of the community giving itself up to luxury and pleasure, and, with the dependent part of the population, to Popery; the independent and mentally active part to infidelity. The opposition to Popery will be infidel not Protestant. The general public effect will be a great and rapid increase of centralization or despotic

Doctrinal Evil

.... hast not denied my name (Rev. 3:8).
The following extract is from the letter of a brother in the Lord: we have but one Lord, and I trust we shall love one the other (according to the one faith and one baptism), even as He has loved us. Our Lord's love has not hindered the brother from condemning (contemptuously enough, as it seems to me) what he mistakes for error in myself and others, and he will not, I trust, love me the less for presenting in love the effects upon my mind of his remarks. For, so far as our love is as Christ loved us, it is love in the truth. These are His words:-
"I fail to find in the word any authority for dealing with doctrinal evil. Moral evil we have direct Scripture for judging."
The thoughts which rose in my mind after reading this were-
I. How strange that a good man should not, on committing such a sentence to a letter, be struck with the fact that in so saying he condemns all of that which is called the Reformation (that is, all Protestantism in its setting up), and the whole of Nonconformity too;-for Luther and Calvin, etc., left Romanisrn on account of doctrinal evil. And has not the writer himself left the so-called Church of England, and other things too, upon the same ground of judging doctrinal evil?
Then came this text to my mind: "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?" (Psa. 11:3).
Then came another thought: " It is the discovery that the, so-called, Church of England cannot put out from itself the infidel teaching of Colenso, cannot deal with the writers of the Essays, with the writer of Ecce Homo,' with the Ritualist teachers, which is now driving so many godly people in England out of the Establishment, as out of a city betrayed into the hand of the adversary. Would you say they are wrong?
Then I read the sentence again: " I fail to find in the word any authority for dealing with doctrinal evil," and I said to myself (as if speaking to the writer): " But must, not this be only blindness in yourself? Might another God than Jehovah be preached to Israel, and Israel be passive under it? Ought you not to be sure that there must be, though you cannot see it, some sanction of a shelter from doctrinal error about God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost? Doctrinal error about the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, whereby alone you can be saved? Doth not nature teach you that there must be that which you cannot find?"
But who can divide between doctrinal evil and moral evil, without bringing down the moral good and evil with which he occupies himself, to the mere level of human morality; so leaving out God's ways and thoughts, and so denying that we are to have the same mind which was in Christ Jesus.
I write this foolishly, as a man, just giving the thoughts as they arose in my own mind after reading the extract.
Then I turned to " God and the word of His grace ": and I read such words as these:
" Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8,9). Did Christ give these words by His Spirit, through. Paul, to the. Churches? And can I say. that " I fail to find in the word any authority for dealing with doctrinal evil." A heretic preaches another gospel; I try to deliver him from his error but do not succeed. Try every means in my reach-uselessly. Believe that the man is one of those that the verse refers to-that he is accursed-and can I say " I fail to find in the word any authority for dealing with doctrinal evil."
Again there is some one among my associates who teaches (would that it were less common) not openly, but really, that love in the disciple to the Lord is not needful. I find he does not himself love the Lord. Am I to say " I fail to find in the word any authority for dealing with doctrinal evil " while this text stares me in the face. " If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha " (a curse for eternity) (1 Cor. 16:22).
Again, it is written, " the house of God, which is the church of the living God,the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). What the house and assembly of the living God is to be is the pillar and stay of the truth. Babylon in the Revelation, the city and mother of Harlots, was Satan's strong hold and had nothing save corrupted truth, truth turned to wrong purposes; but of her it is written, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (chap. 18:4). Surely my brother must admit that his statement is, to say the least, too loose. The character of the house and assembly of the living God is, that it is the pillar and stay of the truth. Doctrinal evil comes in,-will he say that the character of the house and assembly contain no authority for dealing in any wise with the doctrinal evil?
To an intelligent mind 1 Cor. 5:5,1. Tim. i. 20, Titus 3:10, would contain authority; but I pass on to texts more immediately limited to doctrine. In the addresses to the seven churches, we have words fully bearing upon the question of doctrinal evil.
" I know.... how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars " (chap. h.. 2). " I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (ver. 9, and comp. iii. 19). " I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate " (ver. 15).
To have among us those that hold false doctrine and those that preach false doctrine is in either case as strongly rebukeable as to have those that do the evil things which result from false doctrine. And the allowing any such among us is here rebuked of the Lord.
" I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication: and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds..And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. But unto you 1 Say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; 1 will put upon you none other burden" (2:20-24).
[This is according to 1 Cor. 11:17-34, where we are taught that we are as individuals bound to judge ourselves; if we do not, then the Lord surely will judge us, UNLESS the assembly does its duty and steps in to clear herself from the evil in us in her midst whatever it may be.]
These texts taken out of the word may suffice to prove that the word does lay responsibility upon us, and so does give authority to deal with doctrinal evil. It warns us against the consequences to ourselves, if we do not deal with the evil.
There are a few important matters which I would add. As 1St. The connection with individual salvation itself of that which is questioned. My eternal salvation requires me to separate-pre-supposes my separating-doctrinal evil from myself and myself from it. Am I saved? Yes. And how? By faith in Him who having died for my sins and risen again for my justification now sits at the right hand of the Father. He is the truth. If the truth has made me free, I know that my salvation and safety are in my holding the truth and walking according to it: to remain under, or in association with, any doctrinal evil is rebellion against my Lord and sin against my own soul. If I resist the devil he will flee from me. Being, through faith, a member of Christ's body and a child of God, I have the Spirit of God and of Christ in me and with me for power. No doctrinal evil, no doctrine of devils, may I knowingly sanction. My walk is to express the mind which was in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:5). In him certainly there was no covering of a lie anywhere soever. Nor need there be in us, as Paul goes on to describe (ver. 14, 15, 16). "Po all things without murmurings and disputings; that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world: holding forth the word of life."
2ndly. But if I have eternal life, I am a member in particular of a body of which Christ is the Head, and also, a child of God. There are others such around me and the relationships which are for eternity have a present existence to us all and we are a company. Through our profession we are also parts of. a habitation of God through the Spirit who was sent down here on the day of Pentecost, in proof of Christ's exaltation on high. This habitation of God down here will not abide forever: it may corrupt itself; it has corrupted itself; it will be judged (see Rom. 11:18-25). As I do not cease from my true profession of Christ because others profess what they do not possess, I cannot separate myself from the house. From the evil of it I must. If asked for my scripture warrant to do so-these texts would suffice me. 2 Tim. 2:20 and 2], and 3:5, from such withdraw thyself,-if a man purge himself these,- from such turn away.
" Shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness: And their word will eat as loth a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus:; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor and some to dishonor If a man therefore purge himself from these [vessels to dishonor, that is men that concerning the truth. err (doctrinal evil?)] he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work" (2 Tim. 2:16-21). The Spirit dwelling in the house down here is the same one as formed in each of us an incorruptible seed through the word of the Gospel; who also unites us to Christ as members of His body, in eternal life. He is the witness down here of and to the truth and against all error. If in a day like the present I have to withdraw myself from those who profess incompetency to deal " with doctrinal evil," I excommunicate no one,—I excommunicate no assembly, no company of assemblies in withdrawing myself from doctrinal evil. Nor do I excommunicate any by refusing to be in companionship with those who avowedly cannot deal with doctrinal evil. The life I have (which is Christ), my conscience enlightened by God and the word of His grace, bid me save myself, if I cannot also save others. The individuals whom I leave, who compromise the truth, stand upon their own individual responsibility. And if they do not repent, sore will be their judgment. Nor is there want of love in thus leaving them, for my continuing in their evil would have been a sanction on my part to it, after they have refused to judge themselves as to it. If they like not the voice which calls to repentance, I can yet pray for them now I am outside of the evil, as I could not while I was inside of it.
3rdly. But the Assembly is responsible for the discipline of the House of God upon earth: The assembly as such, not an apostle or any man, but the assembly.. Take the case of extreme discipline (that is the act of the assembly which. finding a wicked person (1 Cor. 5:13) inside who will not purge himself from evil, puts him outside), this is the act of the assembly as such. Paul knew the power which he had as an apostle-yet he would not go to Corinth until they had as an assembly cleared themselves and their consciences by judging wickedness which was among them (compare 1 Cor. 5 and 2 Cor. 2). To make a sin of immorality to be a•subject Tor-the assembly to judge, and a sin of doctrine a subject for an apostle to judge is sheer ignorance. In either case it is the word of God's grace alone which can skew us what is immoral for a Christian and what is the truth which has to be kept. But in neither case is it other than the Spirit in the assembly which is power with us to act and to put away, if there is to be blessing; for if an apostle had acted without the assembly its conscience would not have been cleared, and if Paul, as he feared, had had to act at Corinth in spite of the assembly, then it would have been to destruction (2 Cor. 10:8),and not for edification. The Spirit of God, to a pure conscience, is quite enough of power to enable an assembly to put away evil. His presence too is our warrant for doing it. False doctrine is leaven of the worst kind. Read 1 Cor. 5:6,7,8 and you will see the call to purge out all leaven, that we may be an unleavened lump.
Observe authority and power are two distinct things.
For those who have professed to separate themselves from the so-called churches unto God, and the word of His grace, to vindicate the toleration of leaven of any kind (in word, or practice, in doctrine, morality, or practice) is to build again the things which they have destroyed, and to male themselves transgressors (Gal. 2:18). They are self-condemned, too, and are to be rejected. When the question is about doctrine, no doubt can remain. See Titus 3:10,11; and 1 Cor. ii. 19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1.
Finally, to use the name of the Church as a cover for evil or error of any kind is, I believe, a great sin, and is to dishonor the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For God's Church is the habitation of God through the Spirit, and contains the children of the Father and the Bride of Christ. That there is a spirit abroad who is counterworking, in every way he can, the Spirit of God in His gracious efforts in these days to gather together in one the children of God who have been scattered abroad, I know. The adversary will be judged, and so will all those who work under him for this wicked end. That some are ignorantly going out in this current " in their simplicity, and they know not whither they go" (2 Sam. 15:11), I also believe. Such I would, if possible, pull out of the fire (Jude 23).
M. R.

Thoughts on Faith

" It is the gift of God."-Eph. 2:8.
" Without faith it is impossible to please Him."-Heb. 11:6.
IT is generally admitted that at the present time, reasoning and credulity are making rapid strides, and are dividing between them the great masses in Christendom.
It is not then out of season, to consider what is the nature of that faith which God gives, by which the sinner is justified, and without which it is impossible for the saint to please Him.
It is a solemn fact, and the world cannot get rid of it, and of the consequent responsibility, that the word of God has been given, and that it is before the eyes, and even in the hands of men. In Christendom God's word is acknowledged, more or less, as the basis of every form of' religious belief; but as man by nature and in -the flesh cannot be subject to God, and to His word, he: does with it (as with everything else with which God has entrusted him) that which seemeth good in his own eyes, and wrests the expressions and words of Scripture to his own meaning. Thus, for instance, such words as " Faith," '' Religion," " Church," '' Regeneration," "Eternal Life or Death," etc., are taken up and interpreted according to the peculiar views of schools or of individuals, and are made to mean just what each one pleases.
It is written that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," but experience shows us that the natural man is exceedingly ready to take up the letter of God's word, and this is very markedly the case in our time.
Men will not let God and His revelation alone. Religion is the order of the day. There is a sort of itching after religiousness. Men do not and dare not believe nothing. They must have what they call " a faith" of some sort. Natural conscience appears to be aroused, and men of every degree, and character of mind, the most worldly, and the most intellectual, make time and opportunity for religious profession, and many even seek to flavor their very worldliness by their religiousness.
And Satan is busy in the midst of this scene presenting this and that error to men's minds for them to rest on. Every shade of superstition and infidelity may be traced within a very limited sphere in Christendom, and the assent given to each of these is called by men their " faith.' Thus that which man calls faith, is his assent to, and belief in such doctrine, creed, or system as he has received either on the evidence of his own reason or senses, or on such external authority as he may please to submit his mind to:-and under these two heads may be ranged every form of rationalism wherein man by searching thinks to find out God; and of superstition, in which he rests his soul for its eternal salvation on the traditions and doctrines of men.
Now in such a world, such a scene of unbounded con' fusion, how important for the soul to examine itself, whether it be in the faith, and prove the reality and virtue of that which it possesses; and it need not go astray, for the faith which is of God has its own characteristics, in which it differs from all that reason, sense, or flesh in its best and fairest forms can show.
Divine faith is, in a special sense, " the gift of God." It is imparted by Him, the work of His own Spirit. It is something in addition to nature, and it is not one of what men call " nature's gifts." Its possession is evidenced in crediting God rather than man. The natural mind credits natural facts, but by divine faith the mind of man credits God. Whenever the word of man, or the judgment of sight and sense come into collision with the word and revelation of God, divine faith sides with God, and says, " Let GOD be true " (Rom. 3:4).
" All men have not faith." Faith is not the mere natural belief of the mind of man, though faith acts through the mind. It is not the same thing to believe man or the evidence of my senses, as to believe God.
It is sometimes said by teachers of the gospel and others that God and His word are to be believed just as men believe one another, or the facts of nature and of history. But this is, not so. The action of the natural mind is, no doubt, the same; but the power is totally different: in one case it is a natural, in the other it is a spiritual power, and this is proved not only by the word of God (1 Cor. 2:14), but in the experience of all true believers. For instance, they know that no mere effort of their minds could have enabled them to receive the simple statements of the gospel as to the value of the work of Christ, until "faith came." Though the facts were not disputed; the value of His atoning work, though equally set forth in the Scriptures, was not apprehended, and never can be except " by faith."
But the question arises, how is the action of the natural mind to be distinguished from divine faith, as up to a certain point both acknowledge and agree to the same truths? This may be explained if it be remembered that the letter of the Scriptures of God being historically true, and better attested than any other facts, the natural mind receives and assents to that which is thus presented to it on unquestionable evidence, altogether apart from divine faith.
Men do not and cannot deny the leading facts and doctrines of Scripture, but giving to them a mental assent, form upon them systems of religious belief.
Faith, however, acts differently, and on another principle. It is indeed the " gift of God." It is a power of which nature knows nothing. When "faith is come" a new and living link is formed between the soul and God, by which God is apprehended as the "living God," and as the One from whom everything is to be expected (Heb. 11:6; Psa. 62).
God becomes the object of the soul by faith; and His word has the first and highest authority over it. Faith neither staggers at the word of God, nor seeks to qualify it. We read " Abraham believed God," and this is the action -of faith. It is not only that he believed God's word, but firstly, he believed God Himself, and thus His word of course.
I may believe the word of one, because the word itself is worthy of credit, and either meets my need, or commends itself to my mind as true, and this without a due apprehension of, or respect for, the one who speaks. It is the apprehension of the person, however, which is the essential point, and then His word derives its authority, not merely from my sense of its truth, or its suitability to my own or others' needs, but from Himself, and this is especially the character of Divine faith. It apprehends and believes God.
Faith in every age and dispensation has thus acted. God being its object, His word or revelation has always by it been received. What Be has spoken, faith has bowed to and believed, and the justification which is by faith has followed. God's mind too has -been apprehended and His will done by those to whom this gift has been vouchsafed, in a way which nothing but faith could accomplish. The eleventh of Hebrews tells us somewhat of this in its wonderful summary of the saints of old.
That men naturally know and believe both in God and His revelation up to a certain point is unquestionable, and even." the devils believe and tremble." That it was so from the beginning we learn from God's own Word, as also that ignorance of God has followed because men, " did not like to retain God in their knowledge " (Rom. 1)
In Israel, as a people, we know that God and His Word were acknowledged and believed apart from divine faith. Their character, indeed, is recorded as that of " children in whom is no faith " (Deut. 32:20), and a people who sought not righteousness by faith (Rom. 9:32). God revealed Himself to them in such a way as to leave no possibility of question as to His being or His will, but apart from faith He was neither known, trusted, or enjoyed, and at last, as we know, He was rejected by them. But all through God was owned and believed in by a remnant on the ground of faith. Before law, and under law, we find the record of their faith, and if we trace their histories shall see that it is evidenced by actions and works very contrary in their character to what nature or sense would dictate. Again, in this dispensation, men have mentally assented to the up.- questionable facts connected with the manifestation of God in the flesh.." The thing was not done in a corner." Christ most surely came, lived in the flesh, is died and rose again, and men know it, cannot deny it. They own it, presented to them as it is on evidence which cannot be disputed, and then, by their natural assent to the leading facts and doctrines of Christianity, they form the outward mass of profession, called " Christendom."
Here again, however, nature is at fault, and while adopting the letter, fails to apprehend the very life and essence of Christianity. It is by faith alone that the Christ of God is known and apprehended, and His finished work for sinners valued in the soul. By natural assent to facts and doctrines Christendom is formed as we have said, but by divine faith God and in revelation in Christ, the sinner is justified,:peace is obtained, the heart of man is satisfied, and the believer is separated forever from the world and from the power of him who rules it. Nature can apprehend facts and doctrines and form upon them a variety of religious systems and beliefs according to the character of the mind that deals with them. It is reserved for faith " the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," to enter into And appropriate the mind and purpose of God in Christ, and find its rest in Faith, then, is not " religion" so called, It is a divine gift, a new and living power to lay hold on God, -His Word, His mind, His purpose, and His will. " Pure religion and undefiled " must follow faith, for " faith without works is dead, being alone," but, according to God, religion is not a system of belief or practice by which the soul is saved, but the fruits of His own grace in a soul saved and satisfied by the knowledge of His love through faith—" faith which worketh by love."
There is one point in connection with the reception of God's word which is important in our day. Faith needs no testimony from man as to the truth of God and of His word. There are those who will assert that the very existence of the Word, as well as the evidence of its divinity, depends on human instrumentality, as for instance on what they call " the Church," on whose authority they say it has been defined, and is accepted as of God. Now, this is true no doubt as to man, apart from faith. Man requires testimony to that which he is asked to believe, and will take it from his fellow man, even in the things of God. But divine faith needs no such evidence. It believes God, and bows to His word, because it is His word. The soul which possesses faith believes the message of God's grace and finds its peace and joy, not because man says it is God's message, but because it is God's message to it. " My sheep," says the Lord Jesus, " know my voice." " He that knoweth God heareth us," says John. This does not touch the fact that God, as a rule, uses man in testimony for Himself, as in the preaching of the Gospel, for " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," but the word of God it is that faith receives and not man's testimony of it (1 Thess. 2:13).
Now, we have before alluded to the fact that it is by faith that God justifies the sinner (not holding the doctrine of " justification by faith," but having the thing itself), and every true believer in the Lord Jesus is thus justified. What is needed, however, in our souls is continuance in the exercise of the faith by which, as sinners, we first found peace with God. It is here that so many of God's children fail. Having been justified by faith they cease to exercise the power on which their every blessing hangs, and yet of them it is said as looked at in grace that they " walk by faith and not by sight."
The failure of God's people now-a-days in this respect may be more clearly seen if we compare the present with the past dispensation.
Under the law faith was not called for, but obedience. Man was under probation in the nation of Israel. The question was, could man obey and live Israel's failure, rejection, and judgment, is the answer. Man as man could not obey or keep the holy law of a holy God, and even under law, faith alone could apprehend its claims, or the inability of the flesh to meet them, as we read, " the just shall live by his faith " (Hab. 2:4). As we have said before, faith in every age apprehended God, and before or under law, in individuals it owned man's sin and failure, and " trusted in God," not on the ground of obedience, but of faith. Such for instance as Abel, Job, Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc. Before Christ the character of God's dispensational dealings was however distinctly on the ground of a carnal obedience and faith so entirely exceptional that the very word occurs but twice in the Old Testament, yet on the other hand obedience was so unattainable by man in the flesh that Israel's very failure is attributed to their seeking righteousness on the around of law, and not of faith. (Rom. 9:31,32.)
But now all is changed. Man is no longer under trial; he has been proved, and proved to be unequal to the claims and requirements of God. Of Israel, with the light of the law of God in their midst, it is written " Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider." Christ, the light has come, and " his own received him not"; and, as to the world, " he was in the world, and the world knew him not " (John 1:10,11). The mission of the Son of God manifested in the fullest manner the character of man, and man's rejection of Him brought to a close the period of his probation.
With the " judgment of this world," however and its conviction of sin by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, to the death and resurrection of Christ, another state of things has been introduced. Whereas God did call for obedience; He now calls for faith. Man having been proved to be incapable of obedience, he is now in the Gospel called upon for faith-i.e. belief in God, and in God's ability (upon the ground of a perfect atonement for sin, made upon that cross, at which the sin of man and grace of God met, and the lesser was swallowed up in the greater) to be " just, and' the justifier of him that believeth in' Jesus" (Rom. 3:26). Men, sinners, are besought to be reconciled to God, not on the ground of any work, religious system, or creed, of their own, but on the ground' of. God's own actings towards them in having sent his Son into the world to save the world;- on the ground that Christ has been " made sin," that sin has been laid on Him, that He has "once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." In all this God will have it to be seen that He is the actor, and He alone. Man having been proved a sinner every mouth is stopped, and all the world has become guilty before God. Faith then is that by which alone man can now respond to the grace of God, or to the' call of God' upon him. It is a dispensation of faith; not as it once was when faith here and there in individuals trusted a God who yet dwelt in " thick darkness," but still trusted Him, though only able perhaps to say " though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him"; but a dispensation in which faith it called for towards a God who has come out to sinners in all the fullness of His grace; in which " the darkness has passed and the true light now shineth."
If one may say it, What could God do more than He has done, and declares in His gospel, to display the riches of His grace and of. His glory, and to speak to the necessities of men. He has indeed spoken by His Son -the Word, the incarnate Word, "the daysman," who can lay His hand upon God and man, and bring them both together.
This then is Christianity according to God: How different from that which the world presents to us. The world has indeed adopted Christianity, but has made of it a religion for the flesh. That which God jealously guarded, leaving really no place for flesh to act in, man has nevertheless wrested from the Spirit, and calling Christ the " Divine Founder of our religion," has sought to follow His teaching and instructions apart from faith. And God's own people, " children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," are carried with the stream:
Now we before have said that God, looking at His people in grace, can say of them that they " walk by faith not by sight"; and this is indeed what they are called to. That faith by which they once looked to Christ as their Savior, and learned that God had justified them, should never cease its operation in their souls. If God has been trusted for salvation, is He not worthy to be trusted for the smallest matter. If, however, we are honest we must admit that this is not so with us, and that so far from the walk of faith characterizing the people of God, their walk is often as much like men as the rest of the world. The saints of God do not stand out now as of old, as those of whom it was said the " world was not worthy," but mingled in the mass of profession they cannot be distinguished (except in rare instances) from that world which with all its outward form of godliness yet " lieth in wickedness."
Faith is the last thing which Christians often think of exercising, except in the one act by which they seek to get peace to their souls, and to escape from hell; and thus blessing to the soul and power against sin and the world are forfeited, and the name of Christ is dishonored. The portion of the saint of God now is only to be known and enjoyed by faith. Faith is God's gift to him for the present season, for the " little while," during which he is neither of the world, nor in the glory. God has given him nothing here below to rest in or to wait for. His every blessing, joy, and hope are linked with One who was rejected in the world and is now at the right hand of God, because rejected here. The assertion of a place or authority in the world, either by the saint or the Church, is therefore completely contrary to the mind of God as revealed in His word. Christ is the measure and pattern of His people, what His portion was here, theirs is here; what He is above they are even now in spirit, and are destined to be in body also. When He comes to the world again to judge, and to reign, they will be with Him sharers of His throne.
May the Lord awaken our hearts more to the exercise of faith, and having the "mind of Christ," to know more of practical fellowship with Him—to be able in our measure to say as one of old, " The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). God has indeed given to us His Son wholly, and without reserve, not to be looked at once for life, and that attained, the eyes then turned to the world for present enjoyment. No, it is to be Christ all the way along, the heavenly manna: the " bread of God," as He said, "he that ' eateth me shall live by me." God has redeemed His people from an evil world to give them to another, and to give to them another object for their hearts, even the Son of His love; and true faith finds in the Son of God a better and a dearer object than all that this poor world can offer. " Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God " (1 John 5:5). Who indeed? And what can give the victory over a world which presents such attractions to the heart of man, but faith which makes so present and so real the love stronger than death, and the abundance and power of that life out of death, which is in Jesus, the crucified and risen, and in Him alone.
Nothing can take the place of faith, knowledge in the things of God will not alone carry us along. Many of God's children now-a-days start on their course with knowledge, but whatever nature may say, in the things of God knowledge is not power apart from the exercise of faith. They thus fail to follow in the thoughts and ways of God, and make shipwreck of their testimony. Solemn is the word to such, "If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him:""
"There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen." Nature's highest flight, and keenest vision, discerns not the way of faith. God has a path for every one of His people, and faith rests in the certainty that that which He has laid out must be the surest and most blessed way to walk in. The end of it is the same for all; His presence for evermore, -and faith waits on Him to make plain every step, and even in the darkest passages can say " when my spirit was overwhelmed within me, then THOU knewest my path."
B.

The Feasts of Passover and Tabernacles

"Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God" was the announcement made to Israel at Sinai. How far they entered into the spirit of these solemn feasts, how long they continued, without any intermission, to go up year by year to appear before the Lord, is not revealed. That there were breaks in the period between their entrance into the land under Joshua, and their leaving it as captives for Babylon, during which they neglected this command we must suppose. At times we have indications that these feasts were not forgotten. David appointed the Levites " to stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to offer (rather at the offering of) all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord, in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts" (1 Chron. 23:30, 31). Solomon wrote to Huram that he desired to build a house to the name of the Lord his God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him sweet incense, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord his God (2 Chron. 2:4). Hezekiah restored the worship of God, appointed the courses of the priests and of the Levites to minister, and appointed also "the king's portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord." (2 Chron. 31:2,3). The returned remnant set up again the altar, on which they offered the burnt offerings on all the set feasts of the Lord (Ezra 3:5). At these epochs of their history, and doubtless at other periods also, they did observe the feasts in their regular order, though, from other Scriptures we learn, that the manner in which they kept them was not uniformly the same. Between the days of Solomon and Hezekiah there was no such Passover as the one mentioned in the reign of the latter. Between the days of Samuel and Josiah there was no such Passover as the one the king kept. Between the days of Joshua and Nehemiah the people had not kept the feast of Tabernacles aright by dwelling in booths. At times neglected, and again at times kept with different degrees of spirituality and gladness of heart, how is it, it may be asked, that we have mention made of the Passover and Tabernacles only at certain eventful epochs in their history?
Of the observance of the feast of Weeks we have no mention in the Bible, till the accomplishment of that which it foreshadowed commenced. Then it first comes before us as a feast which had been kept, but to the celebration of which, during all the period of Israel's history whilst owned of God as His earthly people, no allusion had been made. The reason of this is apparent. Though appointed to be kept in its order along with the other feasts of the year, because in common with them it looked forward to what God would accomplish on earth, it had respect to what was properly speaking outside Israel, regarded as the accepted earthly people. It looked on to that day when the Lord would begin a work outside them, yet not exclusive of any of them who would acknowledge it; but a work which, whilst carried on, would not treat them as a people favored beyond others, and to whom all must be gathered if they desired favor from God. This of course explains at once why, when the ecclesiastical years of Israel shall again run their course, no feast of Weeks is set down for observance. The barley and wheat harvests will be reaped as heretofore, but the first fruits of God's creatures (James 1:18) will before that time have been gathered into His barn. The seasons will come round as surely and as regularly as they did in the days of Solomon, but the great event, to which that feast of Weeks pointed, having taken place, its name is left out of the revised calendar.
With the feasts of the Passover and of Tabernacles it is different. They have special reference to the times when Israel are owned as God's earthly people, so in the calendar of Ezekiel (45:18-25) they appear. Every blessing for fallen man being based on redemption, the Passover, which speaks of this, concerns us equally with Israel; but the special portion of Israel being on the earth, whilst the feast of Weeks has a peculiar interest for us, Tabernacles has a peculiar interest for them; and so, as in the coming time of blessedness for them they will celebrate the feasts of Passover and Tabernacles in remembrance of redemption, and as enjoying final rest after all their toil, these are also the two feasts ordained of God, the observance of which is mentioned from time to time in their history. Our inquiry now is the special reason for the mention of these feasts at these times.
As the Lord's redeemed people, having first kept the Passover in Egypt, and learned the value of the blood, they went up out of it, passed through the Red. Sea, traversed the wilderness, and encamped at Sinai till the 20th day of the second month of the second year after they came up out of that land. On that day, for the first time since the erection of the tabernacle, the cloud was taken up from off it. Brought to Horeb, where Moses had previously been, they had now to traverse a country to which from his request to Hobab (Num. 10:31), was evidently a stranger. But, just before they started on this journey, all kept the Passover. On the 14th day of the first month the congregation kept it according to God's institution. But there were some ceremonially unclean, defiled by the dead body of a man, who could not then keep it. For them and for others who might hereafter be lawfully hindered, the 14th day of the second month was appointed by God. Till all had kept the Passover, and commemorated redemption out of Egypt, the cloud abode on the tabernacle. After that it was taken up, and they journeyed forth afresh with the remembrance alive in their hearts that they were the redeemed of the Lord. How suitable was this. What could have so strengthened their hearts for a journey through an unknown country, and that a desert? What encampments, suited for their herds and flocks, they might come to none of them could know. What difficulties, what enemies, what trials they might have to encounter, of these they were ignorant. There were people in the desert, but people they had not before seen. There were tracks in parts of it, but none among them had ever traced them out. The road, to their leader and to themselves, was new. But they were the redeemed of the Lord. He had charged Himself specially with all their necessities. This should have quieted every apprehension, and checked each rising murmur. We know it did not; but we must agree that the best preparation for that journey was to celebrate the Passover.
Thirty-nine years pass ere we again hear of the Passover. All have died of the congregation who kept it in the wilderness of the age of 20 and upwards, except Caleb and Joshua. The territories of Sihon and Og have been actually portioned out between the two tribes and a half, Jordan has been crossed, and Canaan entered. All the males hitherto uncircumcised having submitted to that rite, the feast of Passover is kept just before they go forth to war with the nations of the land. Could they not have entered the land at a different season of the year? No season was more difficult, for Jordan overflowed its banks all the time of harvest; but no other season would have been so suited, considering what they had to engage in. To fight; to be bold against the Anakims, the Amorites, and the Canaanites; to stand up against the chariots of iron; to defeat and subdue the seven nations greater and mightier than themselves, what could have so well nerved them for the task, what could have so effectually braced up their energies as the remembrance of redemption fresh in their mind. They kept the Passover, and then went forward against Jericho.
Changes take place in Israel; the priesthood no longer holds the first place in the nation; the people, once united, have been for centuries divided; the glory of the kingdom fades away, and the captivity of the ten tribes draws near, ere we read again of the Passover. The pious Hezekiah succeeded his idolatrous father Ahaz, the Temple doors were re-opened, the sanctuary cleansed, the lamps re-lighted, and the worship of God restored. Then he summoned all Israel to keep the Passover. Divers out of Asher, Zebulun, and Manasseh humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem at his invitation. Many of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, presented themselves at the feast, though they were not ceremonially sanctified (2 Chron. 30:11, l8). On the fourteenth day of the second month the king and all those assembled together kept that festival. Much had Hezekiah done previous to this in the work of cleansing the land from idols, but much remained to be done; so we read that, after the Passover had been kept, they proceeded forth on their work. All Israel that were present at the Passover went out to the cities of Judah, and brake in pieces the images, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of Judah and Benjamin, and in Ephraim and Manasseh, till they had destroyed them all. How suited was this action of theirs in connection with the Passover. If the Lord Jehovah was their Redeemer, what had they to do with false gods? If the one true God was the God they owned, what business had they with idols and shrines? His altar was at Jerusalem, His house was on Mount Moriah. He owned no other altar; He had sanctified no other house by His presence. Owning themselves to be His people, the descendants of those redeemed out of Egypt, they finish the work in Judah and Benjamin which Hezekiah had commenced in Jerusalem; but it is after they have been reminded of redemption, and as a direct consequence of it.
Eighty years or more roll by, and this feast is again kept in Jerusalem, this time under the presidency of Josiah. Like his great grandfather Hezekiah, he has been engaged in the work of reformation, but he does it alone. It is his work, more than that of the people. In Jerusalem, in Judah, in Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon and even to Naphtali, he acts with vigor. The altars and the groves are broken down, the graven images are beaten to powder, and all the idols throughout all the land of Israel cut down (2 Chron. 34:6, 7), after which he returns to Jerusalem. His heart thus manifested to be right with God, the word of the Lord is recovered. He hears it, and causes all to hear it. He makes a covenant himself before the Lord, to walk after Him, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart and with all his soul, and makes all present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. His work of restoration already accomplished, God's mind about himself made known, his desire for the people's welfare plainly shown, if anything could persuade the people to be faithful to their God, it would surely be the remembrance of His faithfulness to their forefathers in Egypt; so he summoned all to keep the Passover with him at Jerusalem.
On one other occasion only in the Old Testament do we read of this feast being kept. After the people had returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel, when the house of God had at last been finished and dedicated, God having in the meantime shown them how, if troubles arose from their refusing the assistance of the mingled people in the land in building that house, He could turn the heart of the king, and incline him to favor the work, they keep "the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy; for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel" (Ezra 6:22). He was their God, and had proved it; they were His redeemed people, and they owned it. They kept the Passover. Was not this a fine testimony to all around them? Weak, outwardly, as a people, as they surely were, dependent on the favor of a Gentile sovereign for the completion of the Temple, they here stand forth, and publicly own that they are God's people. What a proof they have had of the rightness of their position in keeping aloof from an alliance with the mingled people. If redeemed by God as a nation He would surely help them. Jehovah of hosts had taken their forefathers to be His people, He avouched Himself to be their God, and now had afresh shown that He would care for those whom He regarded as His own. But though the house was finished, all was not done of which Daniel had prophesied. The wall had to be rebuilt. Besides this, a real separation from those among them who favored the Samaritans had to be effected. In this, as for everything, the secret of their strength lay in complete separation to God, because they were God's. Full of joy, then, because of what had been done, they must have been conscious of much that was still undone. And, knowing wherein their great strength lay, the Passover would remind them of that separation from evil, as God's people, which was absolutely essential to future success. Looking backward, they had just proved the reality of redemption; looking forward, success could attend them on no other ground. They remember the deliverance from Egypt, and rejoice in the celebration of it.
When anything fresh had to be undertaken, the unknown wilderness to be traversed, conflict in Canaan to be commenced, a reformation to be completed, or the hearts of God's professing people to be stirred up, redemption in God's appointed way was first commemorated. Of redemption by blood, saints are reminded in the New Testament. Is it the wilderness, in which we are to be but sojourners, that is before the mind? Peter reminds us that we should pass the time of our sojourning here in fear, because we know we have been redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from our vain conversation received by tradition from the fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ. Are the Corinthians exhorted to keep themselves pure from the vices of the heathen? The reason is given, "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body " (1 Cor. 6). Were the Galatians slipping away from the right ground, to be justified by works of law? The apostle tells them he is crucified with Christ, and the life he now lives in the flesh, he lives by the faith of the Son of God, who loved him, and gave Himself for him. And, to show believers in Crete what they ought to be, he writes to Titus of Him "who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."
After the Passover mentioned in Ezra, we hear no more of the feast in the Old Testament, except the intimation in Ezekiel of its re-observance when there shall be a prince again in Israel, and the people be gathered to their own land in peace. Then, throughout the millennium it will be annually kept; for the remembrance of redemption accomplished can never be out of place on earth, as it will not, we know, be in heaven (Rev. 5).
Coming to New Testament times we meet with the feast again, but now styled "a feast of the Jews," a term as has been pointed out of deep significance, and, what adds force to the deductions drawn from this change of term, that what was originally called by divine authority "a feast of the Lord," is now, by the same authority, called "a feast of the Jews," is this, that the only feast of confessedly human appointment mentioned in the New Testament-the feast of dedication (John 10) has no such appellation given it. Here, where we might have expected it to mark its human origin, we do not find it. But it is applied to those originally instituted by God, to mark how completely the Jews had shut Him out whose feasts they had originally been. The Jews kept the Passover, they gloried in keeping this and other feasts most scrupulously. The courts of God's house at these seasons were thronged with the multitudes who came up. The Pharisees and chief priests thought highly of the Passover, and would not enter the judgment hall of Pilate, but made him come out to them, lest from being thereby defiled they should be prevented keeping the feast. Nevertheless the Evangelist, who wrote from the height of God's thoughts about everything, calls it a feast of the Jews, and well he might, for the one of all others who at such times was a stranger there, and unwelcomed, was the Arm of the Lord Himself. He was there, but unknown. He was in their midst as they outwardly commemorated redemption, but they did not discern who He was. His words at the first Passover they heard with incredulity, and misunderstood. Afterward His life was not safe in Jewry, for the Jews sought to kill Him; and, finally, at another Passover, they crucified the very One who had interposed on behalf of their fathers, and brought them out of Egypt with a high hand. In the Old Testament these special seasons were suited to reanimate God's people; in the New Testament they afforded opportunities for showing, how far a people could go in an outward Profession of piety without one spark of spiritual life, how far they could be occupied with observances, and yet reject Him, when He came, whose intervention of old was the cause of their institution. In the Old Testament they were seasons for stirring up the hearts of the children of Israel. In the New Testament they were the occasions for showing up the hearts of the Jews.
Pentecost, or feast of Weeks, being wholly passed over, as was observed, in the Old Testament, we come next to the feast of Tabernacles, the last in order of the three great festivals, during which all the males were to appear before the Lord. It took place at the end of the harvest, when the corn and the wine had been gathered in, the fruits of the earth garnered, the toil of the year ended. Connected with the harvest, like Pentecost, it could not be observed while in the desert. There the Passover was in place, but these feasts were to be kept only after they had entered the land (Lev. 23:10). Throughout Joshua and Judges we find no mention of Tabernacles. Samuel and David pass away before we read of its observance, not surely that they had never observed it, but that during all those years it did not find a place in history. The ark of God must no longer dwell in curtains, the tabernacle must be superseded by a fixed abode, the temple must be reared up before this feast comes before us. When that is accomplished, when the glory of the kingdom is displayed under Solomon, and the house that was to be very magnifical has been dedicated, then, typical of the millennial rest that will yet dawn on this earth, we have mention for the first time of the keeping of this feast. Was it a mere accident, or was it designed by God, that the feast of dedication should take place in the seventh month, so close to the feast of Tabernacles? "They kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days" (2 Chron. 7:9). Would this have been in keeping with the character of David's reign? Who does not at once see that this arrangement was in perfect keeping with what this feast prefigures? Yet it was only an earnest of the future, for the feast passed away; the people returned to their homes, but the rest had not commenced. Hezekiah and Josiah each keep the Passover, Daniel goes into captivity, and the remnant under Zerubbabel return to Jerusalem before again we read of the feast of Tabernacles. In Ezra 3 it comes in just where we might expect to find it. Prospective in its character, looking forward to a rest that remaineth, it comes in when the feeble few first re-enter their land, an earnest of that full and final restoration which we know will surely come. Under Joshua they had entered the land in the month Abib, under Zerubbabel they re-entered it just before the month Tisri. Could this be called a mere accident, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, which none can account for? It was surely designed that, when the seventh month was come, the children of Israel should be in their cities (Ezra 3). Their first work was to set up the altar, and restore the daily sacrifice. On the first day of the seventh month the day of the blowing of trumpets, they effected this; and afterward, on the fifteenth day of the same month, " they kept the feast of Tabernacles, as it is written." God's word about their restoration by Jeremiah (29:10) had been fulfilled. God's word about the rest and glory of the millennium cannot fail. They kept that feast which points onward to all that, while the city was still laid low, and the house unbuilt, for the foundation of the temple of the Lord, the historian is careful to add, was not yet laid. Sad was the view as they looked around at the desolation that encircled them; bright surely must the prospect have been, as by faith any among them penetrated the vista of ages.
Again, but under brighter auspices, we have mention of this feast. The wall of Jerusalem had been finished on the 25th of the month Elul which immediately precedes Tisri. The gates and bars set up, they could dwell in some degree of security. Nehemiah's great work had been accomplished, and God's word by Daniel fulfilled (9:25), the street had been "built again, and the wall, even in troublous times"; and all Israel, we again read, were in their cities in the seventh month. Of the temple beautified, and finished, we have word in Ezra. Now Jerusalem is again encircled with a wall to the discomfiture of their enemies (Neh. 6:15), and the first of the three feasts, which they have to keep after this, is the feast of Tabernacles. They kept it with great gladness, dwelling in booths. There too, we can see the guiding hand of God. The wall was finished not in Adar but in Elul. Their enemies saw in the finishing of it a proof that God was with them. Had the wall been finished at any time they might have thought this. But for the remnant there was something peculiar in the, season of its completion, for they kept the feast in security, an earnest of that day when in greater security they shall be in perfect rest, for the Lord shall be a wall of fire round about Jerusalem and the glory in the midst of her (Zech. 2:5.)
It is when speaking of this time that the feast is next mentioned in the Old Testament. When the Lord shall come again, sit on His own throne, Israel be restored, and the whole earth be quiet, not as in Zech. 1 2, sitting still and unconcerned about the ruin and degradation of Jerusalem, but quiet, in peace, because the Prince of Peace has come, then Jerusalem being the center to which the nations converge, they shall keep the feast of Tabernacles yearly within her walls. Israel will keep both the Passover and Tabernacles. Of those left of the nations who came up against Jerusalem, it is said, all shall observe the feast of Tabernacles, and worship the king, the Lord of Hosts, in Jerusalem. Failing to do this, judgment will fall on them. Israel will celebrate redemption. These nations are not said to do this, but to own by their presence yearly at Jerusalem, the characteristic of the' dispensation. The king is there, so peace reigns. Such are the occasions on which this feast is brought before us in the Old Testament. Perfect is the order of all God's works. It is nevertheless instructive to trace that order out. The Passover took back their thoughts to the past to nerve them for the work they had to do; the feast of Ingathering carried forward their thoughts far into the future, to tell them of the hope they should cherish, and to encourage them under circumstances calculated to depress.
Once only in the New Testament do we meet with the feast of Tabernacles. Then we read (John 7) of the Jews keeping it without Jesus, and of His brethren being satisfied to go up to it knowing He was still in Galilee. They think they can do without Him. But in the midst of the feast He is found in the temple teaching, in words such as never man spake. Ready to do without Him at first, unable to understand Him when he taught, they seek for reasons to satisfy their consciences in rejecting Him. He knew what man wanted, and stood forth before them all on the last day of the feast to offer it. All the joy of that great feast was nearly over, the morn would see all returning to their place, to await the month of Abib or Nisan, which would again assemble them together. The joys of earth they had, the blessings of a rich harvest they might know; and the rejoicing attending that feast they might have fully entered into. But were they satisfied? To all who were unsatisfied He addressed Himself. " If any man thirst let him come unto me and drink." Nor was this all. Not only would He refresh the soul, which came to Him, with a portion it could find nowhere else; but He added, " He that believeth on me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Satisfied himself, he should be a channel whereby others should be satisfied too. The epoch to which this feast refers had not, nor has it yet, arrived. Creation still groans, and will groan till the manifestation of the children of God. Millennial rest cannot be entered upon till the kingdom is established in power. Creation, bowed down as it is under the consequences of man's sin, knows no rest as yet; but any one, every one, who comes to Him and drinks may get refreshed now. We enter now by faith into the results of redemption, which creation cannot yet do: we can enjoy now in some degree what the feast of Tabernacles will bring to it; for in the kingdom now through grace, and joined to the risen Head, blessings connected with the kingdom are ours already before the king has appeared, and before the earth has welcomed the commencement of His reign.

Fragments

1
Sometimes I look at the Bible in one way and sometimes in another. Looking at it, as it were from outside, I would ask your attention to the remarkable division of time which it gives.
1. The first period is of man, a living soul, in Eden.
Whether he dwelt there a whole week, so as to see a sabbath there, or only a morning or so, we are not told He sinned and soon found himself on the outside of Eden.
2. Ere he was turned out, however, the Lord God spoke to the serpent about " One that was to come," the seed of the woman that was to bruise the serpent's head. " One that is to come" was God's mark for a period of 4,000 years, though He might vary the descriptions of Him to the end of that period.
3. He came—who was born of the woman and she a virgin. His life here below was spent, thirty years in retirement, and three and-a-half years in service. This period—the hinge of all that went before on the one side and of all that follows after on the other, lasted but thirty-three and-a-half years and closed with his death on the cross; which on Satan's, the world's, and man's side was his rejection; on God's side was the corn of wheat falling into the ground and dying that it might not abide alone.
With Himself in heaven and about to come back commenced the present period which has lasted now 1834 years.
Prophecy tells us that He in heaven will reign over the earth 1,000 years, and that
There shall be new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. These are God's marks as to the past, the present, and the future.
2
Rev. 22:6-21, presents us with lessons to three classes of persons.
First. Ver. 6-9 is a word to servants of God: a, their attention challenged; and b, the importance of one duty pressed-
a. "Behold I come quickly;"
b." blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book."
Secondly. Ver. 10-15 is a word about the mixture of good and bad, as is now seen all round about us a, Attention is called to the evil; and b, what should guide people to get out of it is presented.
a. the unjust and the filthy; the righteous and the holy, upon earth mixed up;-but each man having his own character:
b. "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me;" man to be dealt with as he has lived here.
Then ver. 16 Jesus is introduced-the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star-two personal glories in which He announced Himself to the churches.
Thirdly. Ver. 17-21
a. The Spirit and the Bride invite Him to come; and any one that hears, to join in the invitation; and any one that thirsts, or wills, to come to Him,-to come and take the water of life freely.
b. To this He replies-guarding the book-but replying to the invitation; " Surely I come quickly." To which John and the believer answer:
c." Amen. Surely come Thou, Lord Jesus."
3.-the World.-What Is It?
I AM as to religion as other people down here," is a common but very alarming statement.
For what is the " down here"-this world?
First. This world got its present character in the family- of Cain the murderer. He would come to God in his own way and not through blood. Was angry with God; slew Abel; was driven out of Gods presence upon earth, and set up a system for himself outside of God's presence; and the system was, after his own name, one of present possession. The first founder of a city,, polygamy, tents, harp, organ, works in brass and iron,: etc., were found in his family;-everything to make man happy out of God's presence.
Secondly. God tried what the world was. He had a kingdom and a temple down here in Israel. But they refused His Son the throne; and the temple bought His blood for thirty pieces of silver. God tried; too; another part of the world, viz.
Thirdly. The Gentiles,—as the great statue of Daniel shows us. When Israel rebelled against God, the sword of power was taken out of their hands and put into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon; then of
Darius, the Median; then of
Alexander, the Greek; and lastly of
Caesar, the Roman; under whose
reign, and with consent of whose government, Jesus was put to death, and we live.
God's thought about this part of the world is plain. Christ the stone will come and destroy the whole image and it will become as the chaff of the summer threshing-floor.
The great image is now existing, and England is thought to be one of the toes.
Fourthly. See what Paul; the apostle of the uncircumcision, the one who had to preach where the image stood, says of this world. All that he would glory in of it were the crossed bits of wood on which Jesus Christ was put to death!
Such was this world's conduct; an act which crucified the world to him and him to the world (Gal. 6:14).
Fifthly. Everything down here is reserved to be burnt with fire to make way for new heavens and a new earth.
Sixthly. Read now John 17 Jesus, just before He went, let out (His disciples being present as He spake to His Father) how He considered Himself and the Father in heaven and His disciples down here to be in direct contrast and in the most positive separation in nature, motives, objects, ways with this world. That is what the chapter teaches.
And what if the first and then the second great acts on His return should show that the very thoughts which He had when He went, are the very thoughts which He will have when He comes back; as 1 Thess. 4 (the catching up of His own), and 2 Thess. 2 (the destruction of the wicked one) prove! Such is this world!
4.
The Son of man did everything (not only which man ought to have done, but) which God under the circumstances felt that He ought to do.
'Tis a new revelation of God altogether; above creation, providence, or government,-" God manifest in
flesh," with all its attendant consequences, and He, now gone on high, in the glory which He had with the Father before the world was.
5.
Job 28:20. " Whence cometh wisdom? And where is the place, of understanding?"
Ver. 22, 23. " Destruction and death say, We have sent down heard the fame thereof with our ears. God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof."
Ver 28. " And unto man he saith, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil is understanding."
The life and the fate of Judas is an awful illustration of these verses, as the life and fate of the thief repentant upon his death-cross, is a blessed one too. The contrast of the two is also most instructive.
First,-See this in summary estimates of each of the two, made by another and for another purpose, and so, surely; not dressed by myself to serve my purposes.
1. " Jesus pointed out Judas by the sop, which would have checked any other, but which to him was only the seal of his ruin. It is indeed thus, in degree, with every favor of God that falls upon a heart that rejects it. After the sop Satan enters into Judas. Wicked already through covetousness, and yielding habitually to ordinary temptations; although he was with Jesus, hardening his heart against the effect of that grace which was ever before his eyes and at his side, and which, in a certain way, was exercised towards him; he had yielded to the suggestion of the enemy, and made himself the tool of the high priest to betray the Lord. He knew what they desired, and goes and offers himself. And when by his long familiarity with the grace and presence of Jesus while addicting himself to sin, that grace and the thought of the person of Christ had entirely lost their influence, he was in a state to feel nothing at betraying Him. The knowledge he had of the Lord's power helped him to give himself up to the evil, and strengthened the temptation of Satan, for evidently he made sure that Jesus would always succeed in delivering Himself from his enemies; and, as far as power was concerned, Judas was right in thinking that the Lord could have done so. But what knew he of the thoughts of God? All was darkness, morally, in his soul. And now, after this last testimony, which was a token of grace and a witness to the true state of his heart that was insensible to it, (as expressed in the Psalm here fulfilled,) Satan enters into him, takes possession of him so as to harden him against all that might have made him feel, even as a man, the horrid nature of what he was doing, and thus enfeeble him in accomplishing the evil; so that neither his conscience nor his heart should be awakened in committing it. Dreadful condition! Satan possesses him, until forced to leave him to the judgment from which he cannot shelter him, and which will be his own at' the time appointed of God. Judgment that manifests itself to the conscience of Judas when the evil was done, when too late; and the sense of which is shown by a despair that his links with Satan did but augment; but which is forced to bear testimony to Jesus before those who had profited by his sin and who mocked at his distress.
For despair speaks the truth, the veil is torn away, there is no longer sel&deception, the conscience is laid bare before God, but it is before His judgment. Satan does not deceive there-and not the grace but the perfection of Christ is known. Judas bore witness to the innocence of Jesus, as did the thief on the cross. It is thus that death and destruction heard the fame of His' wisdom: only God knows it (Job 28:22,23).
Jesus knew his condition. It was but the accomplishing that which He was going to do, by means of one,' for whom there was no longer any hope. 4 That which thou doest,' said Jesus, do quickly.' But what words; when we hear them from the lips of Him who was love itself!"
2. " It was the king of the Jews who hung there. Abased; indeed,-for a thief, being by His side, could rail on. Him, but in the place to which love had brought Him, for the everlasting and present salvation of souls. This was manifested at the very moment. The insults that reproached Him for not saving Himself from the cross, had His answer in the- fate..of the converted thief; who rejoined Him the same day in Paradise.
This history is a striking demonstration of the change to which His Gospel leads us. The King of the Jews; by their own confession, is not delivered-He is crucified. What an end: to the hopes of this people but at the same time, a gross sinner, converted by grace on the very gibbet; goes straight to Paradise. ' A soul is eternally saved. It is not the kingdom, but a soul-out of the body-in happiness with Christ.
I would say a few words on the condition of this soul, and on the reply of Christ. We see every mark of conversion, and of the most remarkable faith. Conscience upright and vigorous, knowledge of the perfect sinless righteousness of Christ, whom this poor sinner acknowledges to be the Lord, when His own disciples had forsaken and denied Him, and when there was no sign of His glory or of the dignity of His person. He was accounted by man as one like himself. His kingdom was but a subject of scorn to all. But the poor thief is taught of God, and all is plain. He is a comfort to. Jesus upon the cross; and makes Him think (in answering his faith) of the Paradise that awaited Him when He should have finished the work that. His Father had given.. Him to do. Observe the state of sanctification this poor man was in by faith. In all the agonies of the cross, and while believing Jesus to be the Lord, he seeks no relief at His hands, but asks that He will remember him in His kingdom. He is filled with one thought-to have his portion with Jesus. He believes that the Lord, will return; he believes in the resurrection; he believes in the kingdom, while, the -King is rejected and crucified, and when, as to man, there isno longer any hope.. Now: the reply of Jesus adds that: which brings in, not the kingdom, but everlasting life, the happiness of the soul. The thief had asked. Jesus to remember him when He returned in His kingdom. The Lord replies that he shall not wait for that day of manifested glory which would be visible to the world, but that that very day he should be with Him in Paradise. Precious testimony; and perfect grace! Jesus crucified was more than king: -He was Savior. *The poor malefactor was a testimony to it, and the joy and' the consolation of the. Lord's heart,: the first fruits of the love which had placed them side by side, the Lord of glory and the malefactor in the same condemnation, and*the sins of the latter forever put away, they' no longer existed, their remembrance was only that of the grace which had taken them away and which had forever cleansed his soul from them, making him that moment as fit to enter Paradise as Christ Himself!"
Secondly,-I would make a few remarks on the Scriptures quoted. 1St. God knows the way of wisdom and the place thereof. And to man He says: "The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom: and to depart from evil is understanding." Here we have presented to us an inside feeling-" fear;" and an outside action-" departure from evil," as the way of wisdom for man.
There was no fear of the Lord in Judas through his professed discipleship: there was fear of the Lord, in the thief, in the close of his life upon the Cross. Had Judas feared the Lord, he never would have been a thief, and, carrying the bag, taken that which was put therein; he would have departed from evil and have avoided all occasions in which his propensities could have found their opportunity; the fear of the Lord who was as near to him as He could be, would have laid all I within bare, and led to his judging the contrast between himself and that Lord. Himself so lustful and avariciously covetous that even his Master's person he could set to a price. The word of the Lord in John (Chapter 8) may be quoted here, and Judas had heard it, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (ver. 31, 32). Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin, and the servant abideth not forever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (34-36). That Master so obedient in all things to His Father who was in heaven, that He never sanctioned anything that He had not sanctioned, never would seek to save Himself, except when to do so was direct obedience. The wretched man, if too, had a wisdom which was foolish madness,-he thoughtlessly trifled with Divine things and even with the person of Jehovah Himself. Scripture was not his chart, nor was the light of God's eye and presence his guide. Subjection to God there was none in principle, theory, or practice. And of all awful phases of evil, what phase so awful as-that which he exhibited? The chosen body-attendant of the Lord; adopted for a mission which he knew not, nor cared to consider; partaker of all the privileges of light and love, grace and kindness which his position of nearness to Christ, gave him,-a user of the supernatural power put into his hand in common with others, the messenger of his master's message,-partaker of every privilege which it was possible for a mere man, while the Lord was upon earth, to partake of,-used by the Lord for God and Himself,-gifted with power from the Spirit,-used against the world, the flesh and Satan-and he, all the while, without the fear of the Lord and never departing from evil. The picture is of all pictures most solemn: If a man fear the Lord, the question of what he himself is, purposes, thinks, loves, desires, does-and how far it all tallies with the Lord whom we fear, must arise and arise as a practical question. Not one step outwardly will the Lord-fearer take in seen, known evil. Christ had no selfish "I" within Him and He was holy, harmless, separate from sin. Judas had a selfish " I" within him which was never through grace supplanted by Christ, and all his service was but the ripening of the poisonous weed for the burning. A thick black mist, with, perhaps, a light from beneath (like that which rises from decomposing matter) dancing before him, characterized him of whom we speak.
Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame of wisdom with our ears. Surely this was awfully true in Judas's case as to what he purposed and did in connection with wisdom's ways. Lying and destruction are the two marks of Satan. He was a liar from the beginning, and to destroy is the very meaning of the names Apollyon and Abaddon. But who can turn aside God, in His ways of wisdom. John shows us, and so does Luke in the Acts, how, in the wisdom of God, death lay before the Lord Jesus, and how man, unwittingly, in spite against Him, made good the counsels of God: " Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them. Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should' die for the people and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spake not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied' that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children' of God, that were scattered abroad." The counsel of wisdom was the Lord's-the accomplishment of it was out of man's spite. (John 11:47-53); "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved' of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by' wicked hands have crucified and slain " (Acts 2:22-24). And Judas had his full part in the delivering up and death of Messiah. The setting aside of Israel's hopes and the betrayal of thee Prince of Life rested at Judas's door.
His conduct too, in another way, savored of destruction and death. Wrung in conscience, he " when he saw that he' was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:3,5). He went to his own place.
It is solemn to think that Judas's nature is the same as what one's own was as a man. And that if God has led one to see one's own nature and, character in the light of Christ—fear' leads, to self judgment and to putting away of all evil and till the adoption of all good. But with every external privilege which Judas had, the fear of the Lord had not wrought that change of life inwardly and outwardly which would have kept, him as Christ's servant to the end.
What a contrast in all this is the thief! Every way of wickedness had been his-and his soul within and life without, were utterly reprobate. He cast in Christ's teeth (Matthew- tells us) the same reproaches as did the other. He thought of outward things. But when the light of God dawned in upon his soul he took another position and rebuked his companion. (Luke 23:39-49). " Dost not thou fear God?" He owned the justice' of the sentence now already under execution. We are in the same condemnation " we indeed justly." He confessed to his bad deeds: " for we receive the due reward of our deeds." He saw the contrast between Christ and Himself, yea all men: " but this man hath done nothing amiss." The fear of the Lord broke the hardness of a life of sin;-it led, so far as in him lay, to separate from evil. It did more; his soul became, through faith, the receptacle of the attractive beauty and the glory, kingly and divine, of the Lord. Poor sinner as he confessedly was, he saw enough in the Lord to attract his confidence and to lead him to heave his soul upon Him, when, possessed' of a kingdom, His word would have all power: " Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." None but one who has tasted for himself that attractive power of Christ, can understand this; none but he that has faith himself can accredit the thief's discovery of a king in one that hung upon the cross beside him, -or the glory of that kingdom which the thief saw lay beyond the cross. And what grace in the reply; " Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." What an answer of blessedness did those two words contain for the thief, "with me." He had found in his awn circumstances, one' more despised and contemned than himself: he had found attractiveness in Him, Lordship, a kingdom, glory-companionship as he never knew of. And now this wondrous one was going to take him away with Himself into Paradise. Destruction and death had for the poor thief been quenched' and changed to salvation and life by Christ. But what a tale it -all tells of what sin is and of what man, too, is.
Destruction and death Judas's case reigned triumphant. His heart barred to Christ, no inward change had taken place: destruction and death were in the end. Destruction and death in the thief's case had yielded within when the light of who. Christ was shined into his soul, and his ways told it, for the light shined out; and salvation and life and departure to be with Christ was his portion.
Ver. 20. Christ the Wisdom of God. Whence cometh He? and where is the place of Him, understanding (ver. 22, 23). The fame of Him has reached the ears of Destruction and Death,-both of them children of disobedience; and, as among men, offspring of the Destroyer, Satan. But God alone knows and can trace Wisdom's way; He only knows its place. Christ received into a man brings thither the fear of the Lord and departure from evil. Scripture tells us there was a counsel in the death of Christ, as well as the death accomplished by man's means, through Satan's instigation. Judas took not Christ into his soul; but, occupied with his own views of circumstances, took a lead in the death of Christ, in putting Wisdom out of the world.—Judas judged not himself, ceased not from himself; and he perished The thief saw the counsel, judged himself, and ceased from himself; and he found a Savior and Life-giver in Him who is the Wisdom and Intelligence of God.
" Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood,' and made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen " (Rev. 1:5,6).
It was the sight of the Person, Jesus Christ Himself which here set the heart of the beloved disciple thus in movement. Himself, even though presented in a somewhat peculiar and less known aspect (viz. the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth)-Himself seen ever moves the renewed heart where He is known!
Faithful Witness, first begotten out from among the dead, prince of the kings of the earth-yes He is all that and a thousand other things too: but " He has loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood."
This points to His present use, for us, of the blood which (having shed on the cross at His first coming) He afterward used as that by means of which the throne of God on high became the mercy seat, and the way from it to us a way of mercy as marked by the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost: seal of God's thoughts and estimate of the Lamb that had been slain, but was alive again for evermore. Having taken us up as the gift of His Father to Himself, (" thine they were and Thou gavest them me "), He loved us; saw in and on us that which He (familiar with God and His Father) knew must forever have shut us out from His presence; He had given His blood, that God might be able to be just while justifying the chief of sinners who believed in Jesus; He now brought that blood to bear on us-His own life-blood-and our sins were gone. The conscience was clean. Blood upon the mercy seat, blood before the mercy-seat-had in the types and have in the antitypes, a voice from God outward. Blood to cleanse the conscience, and blood to cleanse the robes are not exactly the same applications: here it is us who were washed:-in conscience we are personally clean every whit from our sins through His blood; and therefore we are now able to use the new and living way which He bath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say His flesh and we can boldly enter into the holiest. Why did He do this? He loved us-is the only answer can give.
But having, with divine perception, met that in us which He saw would have hindered peace with God -His love ceased not. His Father had given to Him to be Ruler in a kingdom and Conductor of worship for God,-king and priest. What love (to show His consciousness of His Father's oneness with Himself).-He shares to us what He has received,-makes us parts of the Royal Priesthood. The title He gives us now; we are such already in title. When He comes a second time, we shall be displayed as such. The wrath of a Nero could not take away the consciousness of the reality of this truth.
4. " To Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."
Himself,- whose presence stirs our hearts with thoughts of what He has done, is doing, and will do for us,-is the One to whom we give back the tribute of the love shed abroad in our hearts.
And what wondrous power His, to usward who believe. " Glory and dominion forever and ever be to Him":,the expression at once and equally of the renewed affections of a loving heart in a poor exile in Patmos,-and of God the Holy Ghost's estimate of the eternal counsel about this same Jesus!
Gr: V. W.
7-a Wounded Conscience and Its Remedy.
CONSCIENCE.
(Prov. 18:14.)
Go gather the down which floats on the wind,
And the leaves from ev'ry tree;
Can ye find a couch for a troubled mind?
Can ye find a rest for me?
Go gather the honey-dew from the leaf,
And the labor sweet of the bee;
-Can ye ‘suage the bitter tongue of grief?
Give a drop of sweet to me?
Let the cold wind blow through the midnight rain.,
And the breeze flutter over the sea;
Can it breathe one chill on a burning brain?
Can it cool my brain for me?
Let the gale which springs in the morning cloud,
Give life to all that be;
Can it quicken again my murdered mind?
Give back my mind to me?
Let the spring-time shine, with its sunny hours,
And the merry birds all in glee;
Can ye gather amidst ten thousand flowers,
One bud that blooms for me?
ATONEMENT.
AH! there is a bed that was hewn in stone,
Where He lay that was nail'd to the tree!
Twas there my Lord lay all alone,
And there's the rest for me.
And there was a dew all silvery bright,
It fell on plain and lee;
They gathered it fresh at the morning light;
And sweet its taste to me
And there was a rushing mighty wind,
It blew o'er a bloody sea,
It breathes a calm for my troubled mind,
A Comforter for me.
And there was a gale when the day-star rose;
Its Shining clear I see;
My mind, in His beams, revives and glows,
And all is life with me.
And there was a flower, which sprung from the tomb,
When the days had number'd three.;
Upon my heart that flower shall bloom,
Eternal joy for me.
(BULL.)
8-From the Greek Liturgy.
" By-all Thy sufferings known and unknown,
Good Lord, deliver us."
"I consider that prayer to be one of the most touching ever uttered-the UNKNOWN sufferings of Christ.- Rowland Hill.
9-the Sea of Glass.
" And before the throne there was a sea of glasslike unto crystal." Rev. 4:6.
THE laver in the tabernacle was a large vase or vessel of brass,-filled with water, wherewith the priests used to wash their hands and feet on entering the sanctuary (Ex. 30:17-21). This, afterward, when Solomon's temple was built, was exchanged for the molten sea (1 Kings 7:23), or, as it is otherwise termed, "the brasen sea, that was in-the house of the Lord." (2 Kings 25:13). Now observe, this vessel, without water in it, could not be termed a sea; and again, the water of course needed a vessel to hold it: these two, the vessel and the water, were indispensable one to the other; and when taken together they constituted what we read of as the MOLTEN or BRASEN SEA. Now this helps us to understand the symbol of " THE SEA OF GLASS LIKE UNTO CRYSTAL" before the throne of God in the heavenly vision in Rev. 4 This was not, we believe, as is commonly thought, a solid surface of crystal or glass, but, just as the BRASEN SEA was simply a vessel of brass filled with water, so by analogy this SEA OF GLASS was a reservoir or vessel of glass, with water therein, which we are to conceive as outspread like a lake before the throne of God in the heavens. Observe, if this sea be thought of as solid, then the idea of the HOLY GHOST,
THE SPIRIT OF GOD, which living water so expressively shows, is entirely lost (see John 7:37-39). The "pure river of water of life" in the New Jerusalem, we are to conceive as a river in its natural state; not petrified water, but as liquid, living, and flowing. There it is the symbol of the HOLY GHOST IN THE CHURCH, which the golden city expresses; here it shows forth the same blessed Spirit in connection with THE MARTYRED REMNANT OF ISRAEL, after they have been translated to heaven; as it is written, " I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb," etc. (Rev. 15:2,3). What a symbol, what a picture this is! here, like the priests of old in the temple, having passed through the water, having washed their hands and feet in this heavenly laver; having done with sin and defilement forever; these blessed ones stand on this sea, whether on its edge or its surface, with their harps and their songs, unblemished and perfect, in the presence of Him whom they love, or rather who loves them with a love which He Himself, and He only, can fathom. The water, and at the same time the fire mingled therewith, have both done their work. The water has cleansed them; the fire (another symbol of the Spirit) has consumed all that was of the old nature within them. These are they, as we have seen, who have gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name; and hence, like the host of Israel by the Red Sea after having been delivered from Pharaoh, they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and with it they mingle the song of the Lamb; one showing that they are among the elect seed of Abraham; the other, that they are such as through faith in the Lamb, who previous to this, in Chapter vi., had opened the seven-sealed book, have stood in the trial, have laid down their lives for the faith; thereby gaining a nobler victory by far than if they had been rescued from martyrdom.
And here let me add another thought on this subject. It is this-that while a LAVER OF BRASS may have suited the sanctuary on earth, it would be out of place altogether in a heavenly scene such as this vision presents. Hence, the laver here shown is of " GLASS LIKE UNTO CRYSTAL," of a material so exquisitely clear and pellucid that the eye cannot distinguish the vessel from the pure lymph within it. Transparent they both of them are; and equally so-they seem but as one. So it is with the blessed Lord, whom we believe the crystal-like laver shows forth; and the Holy Ghost, which the living water expresses, seeing that the Spirit is given to Him for the use of His people-He being the receptacle and depository thereof.
In a word, what we here see, as we take it, is Christ and the Spirit of God; who, though personally and individually distinct from each other, at the same time are ONE, one both in nature and in the blessed Godhead; one also in wisdom, in counsel, in action, in the ministration of blessing to those to whom, as we here see, it has been given to celebrate with their harps and their songs the victory which has been gained for them over the enemy.
And here let me add that it is, I believe, a mistake to suppose that there is any resemblance between the sea of glass and the Red Sea, which opened at the bidding of Moses to let Israel through. The triumphant songs of these harpers, like those of their fathers of old after their deliverance from Egypt, as well as the allusion to Moses, has, it is likely, suggested this thought: but if what I t' have said at the outset, as to the analogy between the, sea of glass in this vision and the brasen sea in the house of the Lord, be correct, there is no foundation for such an idea.
Again, I would say in conclusion that the idea of fire here referring to affliction seems equally groundless. The word of the Psalmist: " We went through fire and through water, but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place' (Psa. 66:12), has perhaps led to this thought. But if the sea is to be viewed as a laver, it is surely more consistent to regard the fire, equally with the water mingled therewith, as expressing the Spirit of God; and those who stand on the sea as saints who have been finally cleansed, who have been " baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire." E. D.
10-a Lot's Thanksgiving to God for Disappointments.
GOD of my life, how good, how wise,
Thy judgments to my soul have been!
They were but mercies in disguise-
The painful remedies of sin:
How diff'rent now thy ways appear-
Most merciful when most severe!
Since first the maze of life I trod,
Hast Thou not hedged about my way-
My worldly vain designs withstood,
And robb'd my passions of their prey-
Withheld the fuel from the fire,
And cross’d my every fond desire?
Trouble and loss, and grief, and pain,
Have crowded all my forty years;
I never could my wish obtain,
And own at last, with joyful tears,
The man whom God delights to bless;
He never curses with success.
How oft didst Thou my soul withhold,
And baffle my pursuit of fame,
And mortify my lust of gold,
And blast me in my surest aim-
Withdraw my animal delight,
And starve my groveling appetite?
Thy goodness, obstinate to save,
Hath all my airy schemes o'erthrown-_.
My will Thou would'st not let me have:
With blushing thankfulness I own
I envied oft the swine their meat,
But could not gain the husks to eat.
Thou would'st not let Thy captive go,
Or leave me to my carnal will;
Thy love forbade my rest below-
Thy patient love pursued me still,
And forced me from my sin to part,
And tore the idol from my heart.
Joy of mine eyes, and more beloved
(Forgive me, gracious God!) than Thee;
Thy sudden stroke far off removed,
And stopt my vile idolatry,
And drove me from the idol's shrine,
And cast me at the feet Divine.
But can I now the loss lament,
Or murmur at Thy friendly blow?
Thy friendly blow my soul bath rent,
From every seeming good below:
Thrice happy loss! which makes me see
My happiness is all in Thee.
How shall I bless Thy thwarting love,
So near in my temptation's hour!
It flew my ruin to remove-
It snatch'd me from my nature's power-
Broke off my grasp of creature-good,
And plunged me in th' atoning blood.
See then at last I all resign-
I yield me up Thy lawful prey:
Take this poor, long-sought soul of mine,
And bear me in Thine arms away,
Whence I may never more remove-
Secure in Thine eternal love.
Wesley.
11-1. Whom Will Ye Serve?
" If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend; whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth "*
John 19:12,13.
" Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
John 15:14.
Caesar's friends? or friends of Jesus?
Solemn question for to-day!
Friends of Caesar! Friends of Jesus!
Take your sides, without delay.
If ye pause for man's forbidding,
Caesar's friendship ye secure;
If ye do the Father's bidding,
Scorn, reproach ye shall endure.
Friends of Caesar! Friends of Jesus!
Stand revealed! your choice declare!
Who in truth two masters pleases?
Who may rival banners bear?
Jesus' friends account Him precious,
Lose for Him all other gain;
Dearer far the smile of Jesus
Than the praise of sinful men.
Caesar's friends! Ye foes of Jesus!
Mingling in a motley throw,
Shall your sheepskin garb deceive us?
Wolves to Christ's fair flock belong?
Mighty is Jehovah's fellow,
Though on earth in weakness seen;
Righteous is our Royal Shepherd!
He will sweep you from the scene!
Free from Caesar, friends of Jesus!
Stand in phalanx! never fear!
Love, severely tried, increases,
Courage yet! the Lord is near!
Onward still, His Name confessing,
Weaving crowns to grace His brow;
Lo! His hands are full of blessing,
Lifted for your succor now.
Caesar's friends were we, but Jesus
Owns us for His friends to-day!
What! shall rival friendship please us,
While the Bridegroom is away?
No! through grace would we surrender
Caesar's things to Caesar's care,
Whilst to God, our God, we render,
Filial homage, praise and prayer.
2. After " the November Meteors," 1866.
Thus, blessed Lord, at intervals of time,
Thy distant handiwork gleams forth to sight;
Thy hidden glories o'er our pathway shine,
Diffusing luster through the wintry night.
Too soon, we deem, the blissful vision dies,
Like torches fading ere the marriage feast;
But faith keeps vigil with unwearied eyes,
Until the dawn spreads upward from the east.
Thy cloudless morning! fairer and more sweet
Than starry splendor seen amid the night;
Thy promised day! when all Thy watchers meet,
To chorus forth the praises of the light.
Creation tells not half her Lord hath done;
Thou art the morning star: the rising sun!
3. -"His Name, Jesus"
Yes, Jesus only, none beside
Can do the sinner good.
Far off was I, but Jesus died
And I have peace with God.
His name is dearer to me now,
Than every name beside
All glories beam around the brow
Of Jesus crucified.
The Holy One who knew no sin,
God made Him sin for me:
The Savior died, my soul to win,
He lives, and I am free!
His precious blood alone availed
To wash my sins away;
Through weakness He o'er hell prevailed,
Through death He won the day!
His beauty shineth far above
A seraph's power of praise;
And I shall live and learn His love
Through everlasting days.
The knowing that He loveth me
Hath made my cup run o'er,
Yes, JESUS all my song shall be,
To-day and evermore I
4." Far Better."
" Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith, not by sight:) we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor, that whether present or absent, we maybe accepted of Him." 2 Cor. 5:6-9.
To be with Thee, Lord Jesus
At home with Thee, on high,
That were a joy more precious
Than aught beneath the sky;
Oh were I with Thee yonder,
‘Tweer well indeed with me;
Yet never need I wander,
Whilst looking off, to Thee.
In service never tiring
Thy word would I obey,
More fervently desiring
Thy summons, every day.
I only wait Thy pleasure,
A stranger here below;
Thou art Thyself my treasure,
The All I have to know.
'Tis good to wear the fetter
That holds, me here awhile;
But better, Lord, far better,
Thy blissful presence-smile;
As Thou didst serve the Father,
Thy bondslave I would be,
In chains, but willing rather,
That Thou shouldst set me free.
We see Thee now, Lord Jesus!.
With glory, honor, crowned.
Thy work, completed, frees us
To stand on holy ground.
And as we thus adore Thee,
Thy footsteps would we trace
Till called to share Thy glory,
Through Thy surpassing grace.
5. We Will Be Glad and Rejoice in Thee.
Ach mein Herr Jesu, dein Nahesein, Bringt grossen Frieden ins Herz hinein.
Ah, Jesus, Lord, Thou art near to me,
Great peace flows into my heart from Thee,
And Thy smile of love Tells me so with gladness,
This weary body forgets its sadness,
For thankful joy.
We see Thy countenance, beaming bright,
Thy grace, Thy beauty, by faith, not sight;
But Thou art Thyself to our souls revealing,
We love Thee, Thy presence and favor feeling,
Although unseen.
Oh, who would only, by night and day,
Be set on joying in Thee alway,
He could but tell of delight abounding,
Through body and soul one song resounding,
" Who is like Thee?"
To be compassionate, patient, kind,
Thy pardon leaving our sins behind-
To heal us, calm us, our faint hearts cheering,
Thyself to us as a Friend endearing,
Is Thy delight.
Ah, give us to find our all of joy
In Thee, Thy service our sweet employ.
And let our souls with a constant yearning
In need and love, to Thyself be turning,
Without a pause.
And when we are weeping, console us soon,
Thy grace and power for Thy peace make room;
Thy mirror'd likeness Thy praises telling,
Thine own true life, in our bosoms dwelling,
In love be seen.
Truthful in childlike simplicity,
Guileless, arrayed in humility,
Be the holy wounds of Thy tribulation,
The fount of our peace and our consolation
In joy and woe.
Thus happy in Thee till we enter heaven,
The children's gladness to us be given;
And if, peradventure, our eyes are weeping,
Our hearts on Thy bosom shall hush their beating
In full repose.
Thou reachest us, Jesus, Thy pierced hand,
Thy faithfulness, gazing, we understand;
And shamed into tears by Thy love so tender, Our eyes flow over, our hearts surrender
And give Thee praise!
CHRISTIAN GREGOR,
1742-1801.
"The Asaph of the Moravians."

God, Who Is Rich in Mercy

" But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great Jove wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Such are the words of the Spirit of God by the pen of Paul the apostle.
The contrasts which led him to use the little word "but" are remarkable. I will notice them shortly. At present, let me call attention to the words themselves. But God being rich in mercy is a more literal rendering; and it is, I think, a happier one too, as tending to throw the mind upon the character of God-of whom mercy is so distinctly a mark,-rather than upon His resources,- the resources by which mercy told out its own tale; it acted toward us in a truly astonishing way, according to an almighty love which found us even when we were dead in sins. We were parts of the first creation, as descended from Adam, the man who was made a living soul but who fell away from God his Maker ' we were, as to nature in our original state, without life as to any understanding of, or power to understand, thee things which pertain to Him who is the One that creates anew; and as to our own actual state when He found us, sins and not obedience characterized it. But God made us parts of that new creation which is yet to be fully displayed in the future new heavens and new earth wherein is to dwell righteousness. The Father works hitherto and the Son works, in redemption for the bringing out from amid the rubbish of the fall, whatsoever divine wisdom sees it good to bring and to make fit to be displayed in redemption-glory. And not only so; for the place in which the mercy here spoken of sets us, is a most peculiar one. It is peculiar in being in the leavens where Christ Himself is; and it is still more peculiar in that it is such a portion in the heavens as, unlike some other portions, cannot be separated either from the Lord Himself; or from Him in His life and the honor wherewith He has been honored in heaven. Quickened together with Christ; raised up together with Him, and made sit together with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus! The words " quickened together with Christ" show that we have the same life as He has; yea, He Himself is our life; our life is hid with Christ in God: He died and His body was laid in the grave,-He suffered in our stead; but He left the grave and afterward left the earth-(the one, the place opened for the sinner; the other, the place prepared at first for Adam, and) He ascended up on high; and we that believe are one spirit with the Lord Jesus, and are looked upon by God, and by the faith that is in us (which always sees things as God sees them) as one with Him. To faith and to the Spirit the grave and the earth are passed; we are gone up in Him. And not only so but we have a stable and abiding resting place in Him in heaven; in spirit in Him who sits there in His own peculiar place,-firstborn among many brethren,-Head of His body the Church. Who can separate between the only begotten Son of the Father and the children by adoption, whom the Father has entrusted Him to bring to Himself at His own proper cost and as His own proper workmanship? Who can separate Him from the members as to whom God says that this Christ Jesus at His own right hand is now the glorified Head?
When we were dead and in sins, there was nothing in us to commend us to God as Creator; nor can any right or title be found in Saul, or in the Ephesians, or in ourselves, as ground why God should have taken us up as individuals and left so many other pharisees, so many other heathens, so many others who like us had the form of godliness without the power of it behind. All that we can say is: "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us ": this was, is, and ever will be, to faith, the starting point of the blessing:-
"How shall I: meet His eyes?
Mine on Himself I „cast,,—
And own myself the Savior's prize;
Mercy from first to, last."
But mercy! What is mercy? And where is mercy? Mercy clearly is not the same thing as grace Grace is free gift, and does not necessarily raise the question of the agreement or disagreement of the characters of the giver and of the party given to: Free gift, gift without any-remuneration paid for it to the giver, seems to me to be the meaning of the word grace. But there is more in mercy than that; the term itself marks de-merit in the receiver, consciousness too in the giver or shower of mercy that the party to whom he shows it deserves a contrary kind of treatment: as -to merit harsh treatment was due, not kindly. Thus the two words are carefully distinguished in the use of them in Scripture.." Grace and peace to you," etc., are constantly (as has oft been noticed) wished to the Church by the apostolic writers: mercy is never so introduced. "Grace, mercy and peace" are- the expressed desires of the apostles when writing to individual believers, who in their individual conflicts and walk down here, are looked at as men in the body; while the assembly once taken up is looked at as being in the Spirit. Again the Son of God as Son of man was never the object of divine mercy. That could not be. He was the channel of it; and a perfect, competent and worthy channel too. But love divine does delight to trace out all the rich free gifts of God which cluster around Him who led captivity captive and took His seat on high. Poor sinners and feeble saints need mercy, and so does he who through faith would over-come and share with Him, THE Overcomer, all that He has. And this brings not with it to faith, any question. For He who in love has claimed me for Himself and given Himself, His own self, to me, will with Himself make, one way or another, all that He has mine: If I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine, surely His sheep, His vineyard, His kingdom, His all is mine; and mine- forever all that is His: and He too will provide me with mercy and grace to help in every time of need till I come to see Himself.
But whence is mercy? Whence could it be but from God? He giveth liberally and does not upbraid. He is good and doeth good, and loves to construct and form scenes of enjoyment for His creatures;-these very scenes are witnesses of and for Himself. " The Lord is merciful and gracious." Mercy is part of His character. "His mercy is from everlasting (eternity without beginning, before time) to everlasting (past time)": it is the blessed cord which hangs from eternity, across the dark vale we are now in, right across to eternity beyond. So His word, who cannot lie, declares. He Who was the enemy of God and became the enemy of man, loves to destroy and pull to pieces all that he can, and he is a liar from the beginning. But God had and has in Himself a character which enables Him to look upon that which is out of the way, which has a character of its own which is diametrically opposed to the character of that One man whom God delights to honor (the Lord Jesus Christ) and to look, in mercy and to propose to His Son to bring the self-willed rebel from under Satan and from out of this world and its judgment and to make of him a vessel of mercy.
If we turn now to Paul's epistle to the Romans, we shall find some profitable and some soul-humbling, but rest-giving instruction about this subject of mercy. In the course of the epistle he takes up the argument in three ways. First, as to the whole race of man in its present state: there is no possible ground for there to be blessing to any single individual of that, race other than the pure mercy of God.
Secondly, that for a person saved by mercy, mercies are reserved in store by God for his portion.
Thirdly, dispensationally, nor Jew nor Gentile-the two classes into which God's ways, while governing the earth, and while waiting in mercy on sinful man, had divided the race-had any ground of blessing save mercy.
These are the first three parts of the epistle. After the introduction, Chapter 1:1-15, we have, first, Chapter 1:16 to 3:20, man's utterly lost and ruined condition shown-a state so far as he himself, with all his resources of power, is concerned, utterly hopeless; then, secondly, Chapter 3:21 to 7, the provision which God, who is rich in mercy, had made for this state of things, and Chapter 8 the portion provided for those who should own this mercy as their only ground; thirdly, Chapter 9, 10, 11, nor Jew nor Gentile had any ground to rest upon save mercy; and, fourthly, the character of walk consistent with the profession of having found mercy, been found in mercy.
The introduction, Chapter 1:1-15, naturally enough also contains the whole outline of the truth which, at the moment of his writing, was pressing upon the mind of the writer whom mercy had found-as he writes of himself (1 Tim. 1:11-17), " according to the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief: Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory, forever and ever. Amen."
Such an one was made a servant of Jesus Christ, an apostle by calling, and set apart for the proclamation of God's good news: subject which told out what was the ground of that peace which is God's own peace, spite of all that Satan, or the world, or man can do to counter-work Him; subject on which He loved to occupy Himself and His prophets of old-His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. And this Jesus was seed of David according to the flesh, but marked off from every other as the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.
A man, and He the Son of God-set off with this distinctive peculiarity, He is the Raiser from death, the Raiser out from among the dead;-death being the wages of sin, and the end of man's natural course here-is plainly enough God's mercy. It is His putting forth-out of His own resources and to counterwork Satan, whom man has put in the place of power as to everything that man could dispose of-the Son of God. In result to man it is mercy or judgment to every individual according to his own conduct and state now with regard to this blessed announcement. And a worthy subject this to be that which was entrusted to Paul for the obedience of faith among all nations.
When Paul begins his letter itself, as in Chapter i. 16, he presents man as needing salvation and righteousness (ver. 17), and deliverance from the wrath of God revealed from heaven (ver. 18). And all this was contained in the glad tidings of Christ. That man's state and condition needed such a deliverance, he then proves in various ways. Firstly, creation has a voice and proclaims that there is power which has a spring in itself and that power is God's. But man kept not in his place, remained not subject to that eternal power and God. Every part of creation around us still has this voice, a voice in direct contrast with that which man's ways and walk proclaims; for man's ways and walk do not declare man's owning that God is the source and end of his life and being (19-21); secondly, idolatry followed and man degraded himself, as to God and his fellows, below the brutes of the earth (22-32); thirdly, men on whom God forced the light of right and wrong, used this knowledge not for self-humiliation and correction, but for self-exaltation above their fellows. " We know and are able to condemn you " is a fearful word from one who is a hearer but not also a doer of God's righteous will, while on his way up to the judgment of the great white throne. To teach another and set at naught one's own teaching; to prohibit theft and be a thief; for the adulterer to prohibit adultery; the sacrilegious man, idolatry, etc., etc is what, but hypocrisy. And how distinctly, does the apostle's resume of the state inward and outward of man, prove that he knew of no foundation in man for acceptance before God, as he—writes. Chapter 3:9, " We have before -proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no,, not one; there is none that un derstandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is: none that doeth good, no, not one.. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongue they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood.; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes,. Now we know that what things -soever the law saith„ it saith to them who are under the -law that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.".
If by the law is the knowledge of sin, what remains for man in himself to trust to? Creation, in its, origin and the order it observes, points to One: whom man honors not, and it condemns him.. History, the expression of Man's conduct toward God in His patience and pro- violence and government of man, of man on the earth, condemns him, Can man bring out of himself an obedience if God give him a standard of right and wrong? No-the great thing which such standard can do for him, is to give him: the knowledge of sin..; knowledge of his need, as a ruined creature, of something clean out- side and above that which is found in the fields of creation, Providence and government of God around him, and of what is within himself too.
Secondly, the only remedy for- man under these circumstances is in God, God's righteousness without, man's works,: even that which is by faith of Jesus. Christ, which is towards all„ and is upon all them that believe: Note how these words "all have sinned" (ver. 123); "justified freely by His grace, through redemption which is in Christ-Jesus" (ver. 24):; " for the' remission of sins that are, past through the forbearance of. God " (yen: 25); " to declare his righteousness that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth ". (ver. 2G), each and all of them proclaim mercy on God's- part. Just so (Chapter iv., 3) " Abraham believed God,, and it was counted unto him for righteousness„" followed by that fine statement of Paul, " Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness " (ver. 4 and 5). And not only so, but David after his failure rejoiced " in the blessedness of the man unto whom, God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." And this way was according to God as a promise-maker, through faith (ver. 13), by grace that it might be sure (ver. 16): of God who quickens the dead, and speaks of things which are not as though they were (ver. 17). " Now, what he has promised, He is able also to perform " (ver. 21). And faith knows this and stays upon it. Now, if any man say " Amen " to God's promises, God will say " Amen " to the establishment of that man in them. For " these things were written about not for Abraham's sake only, but for us also, to whom it shall be reckoned, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from, the dead."
The fifth chapter shows how we have peace with God consequent upon justification by-faith, and rejoice in hope of sharing God's glory; how all of this life's troubles too are made to pay tribute to us; how the Spirit,, which is given to us, fills our hearts with. God's love. We were without strength, ungodly, sinners, enemies—when. Christ died for us; but now, reconciled by His death, we count upon being saved by His life, and we rejoice in God through Jesus Christ; and gladly do we own the contrast between the first Adam, who lost everything through disobedience, and the last Adam who won everything through obedience: " Grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus. Christ."
The sixth, chapter gives us thee divine, way by which.
God welds into one the fortunes of the sinner that believes and of the Savior that died and rose again from the dead; and how, if God reckons that the Savior died in my stead and that thus I am clear of guilt and dead to sin, I am to reckon it so too and am to cease from sinning and to live unto God. Dead to the penalty, I am to be dead to the power,—-of sin.
The seventh chapter takes up afresh the question of law and shows how Paul judged that the only thing it could do for a man who was under it, was to convince him of his own utter helplessness. In the case which he portrays as under it, what was reaped from it? Great gleanings, (ver. 5) the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death: that was one lesson. A second was, " That I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet (or lust)" (ver. 7). Then came a third benefit, the discovery that "sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence (or lust). For without the law sin was dead" (ver. 8). Another discovery was, that " when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" (ver. 9). Then again (ver. 10), "the commandment which was to life, I found to be unto death." This taught him the deceivableness of his sinful self: " For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." And poor comfort was it to find that, all the while, " the law was holy and the commandment holy and just and good." But the application of this good thing to him made the sin that was in him to be exceeding sinful; and laid home upon him the truth that he was carnal, sold under sin. And what a picture of man's powerlessness is then given! Doing what I allow not. What I would that do I not. What I hate that do I. The law thus proved that sin was in the man that it was over. Sin; though there might be a good will, yet no power to perform. " For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do." Sin my tyrant, despising all my wishes and all my dreads, and leading me captive! What a picture of the medicinal effects of the law when placed upon a man! Well might He cry out: " O wretched man that I am I who shall deliver me from the body of this death!" Now note it, here the law takes notice of what a man should be before God. Quite right that: but if applied to a sinner, it brings out sin and self to light in every varied way. The I, a mountainous I (of the party under the law in that seventh chapter of Romans), is upwards of forty times heard to groan and cry out. But not till brought to the sense of wretchedness, and to cry out in despair, Who can save me from myself!-can it say, " I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Yes; and there is balm in that Jesus Christ our Lord, to answer and set aside forever all the wretched experience of self-writhing under law and its requirements.
The eighth chapter gives us the charter of privileges provided for those who own God's mercy as their only wellspring of blessing. Beginning with " no condemnation," it ends with " no separation." No condemnation in Christ, though we be still in the body down here; for He who loves us, died for us; no feeling of condemnation, if our obedience is after the spirit and not after the flesh, for we have the Spirit of God and of Christ: our life is there, and we know it, and that all about us is death. Obedience to our God and Father we render, knowing that we are His sons and heirs, co-heirs together with Christ,-therefore, we suffer now and look to be glorified hereafter. Our blessing is now by faith and in the Spirit. But our external bodies too will be glorified. Now, till then, the Spirit helps our infirmities, our ignorance-is a Spirit of intercession in us; One, as to whom we know that He who on high searches our hearts, thoroughly understands them. And we know too that all things work together for good to us. Called of God according to His purpose, His foreknowledge of us and predestination to be conformed to the image of His Son (that. He might be the firstborn among many brethren), is our comfort. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (ver. 30). So we can say, "God for us, who against us?" The free gift of His own Son for us secures His giving us all things. Who shall lay charge against the choice ones of God? God is the justifier. Who the condemner? Christ died.-; yea, risen, is at God's right -hand in heaven, interceding for us. If Christ who is above loves us, shall any circumstance down here-whether arising from a physical world out of order or from men that hate Christ separate us from the love which He has to us? No: we voluntarily have taken up all that He had to bear. If sheep for the slaughter on the one hand, on the other we are in all such things more than conquerors through Him that loved -us. And this the rather because we know, the world of eternity being opened to us (a larger sphere than what this earth presents to us) (ver. 37 and 38), no creature is able to separate us from God's love to us which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.. There is no separation.
Thirdly, chaps 9, 10, 11 give us the instruction that the mercy presented as the only portion for any individual in the earlier chapters is the root of all God's past, present, or future dealings in blessing with man, when dealt with and blessed in The mass upon the earth.—Gathered now as individuals upon the earth, our massing in company is by faith, to the person of Christ in heaven. Christ, the head of the new creation, is now in heaven; we, as parts of it now, will all shortly be there too. Inspirit we are there, now already. But Israel was as a nation blessed upon earth, and will be blessed upon earth hereafter; and, besides our individual heavenly calling and faith in an' ascended, glorified Lord, Gentiles now hear of mercy and are of the house of God down here upon earth; and when the nation Israel is finally blessed, the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. We find these massed companies, blessed on earth, to be looked at in these three chapters.
Why was Israel made the channel of God's testimony here upon earth?
Why were the oracles of God committed unto them? (Chapter 3:2)
Why were they Israelites; why-had-they the adoption and the glory and the covenant and the giving of the law and the service an d the promises? How came they to be connected with the family of which as concerning the flesh Christ came? They were not all the children of Abraham because they were his descendants? All had the promises in their hands, though all Were not the children of the promise.." God was so pleased to bless them," is the only answer which I can give. And " mercy-His only plea." But mercy for' time is not always among men mercy for eternity, and so He who would have a seed for eternity had to act, in His own right and title, and to secure an eternally blessed people in Isaac and in Jacob. " For- He saith to Moses I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I- will have compassion" (Chapter 9:15). Yes, that is it: there is a God who has a right to do as He wills, and will do as He likes, -Satan and a wicked world and sinful man, notwithstanding. Or is God the only Being that may not act? Is He the only one that has no right to please Himself,-to do His own pleasure, to act according to His own thoughts? Let man now approve, or let man now disapprove, He chose to create this world and to make and set man on it. And He has chosen through nigh six thousand years to bear, with a patience altogether divine, man's incessant, -unmendably bad manners; and He chose Himself to come as Son of man into the world, and He means in the end to reckon with man and to judge him for all his high thoughts—and his ungodliness.. The verse I have cited sets His dealings with the nation Israel of old in a peculiarly striking light. " He saith to Moses, I will have Mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion." Israel had just cast God off- and made a calf (with Aaron's help) out of the trumpery and finery of the women, their ear-rings, etc.;—a calf of gold; had declared " These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord ' (Ex. 32:4,5). This was the occasion, when on Moses's intercession with the Lord, the Lord says, " I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy " (Ex. 33:19).
Why did the. Lord not act upon what He had said to Moses (Chapter xxxii., 9) " Let me alone, that my Wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation?" -why this change? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? " I will," if He says it, who can say unto Him, What doest Thou? "I will to whom I will,- and I will on whom I will." ‘Tis blessed to know there is One that can and will and does say " I will,." and His " I will " stands firm and sure. He knew what His own grace and mercy and compassion prompted Him to do, and He here chose to let it flow out. But mark how Israel, about whom He chose in His absolutism and uncontrollable will so to speak, had lost itself everything, made shipwreck of all that had been entrusted to them, were a wreck themselves;-they had made other gods and danced and feasted before them. Jehovah had a right to act as He pleased, notwithstanding their sin, and He chose to act according to His own nature and to take care of His own character; so He said, " I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion"; consequently, Israel was not cut off, and He did not make a nation out of Moses.
Satan is not almighty; he cannot say, " I will," and his word stand fast. Otherwise universal destruction and universal delusion would be our portion. But God is almighty, and mercy and compassion are in His character, and He says " I will," and mercy and compassion are ours; and if made ours in Christ Jesus, then ours for eternity; for in Him is no variableness, nor the shadow of a turn. I do see and feel that all my blessing hinges upon this absolutism of God and His having a character of His own on which He, naturally enough, chooses to act and in which He has been pleased to act to me-ward, and upon which He has made me to trust and think and hope that He is acting as to myself. And mark it, too, if His mercy and His compassion are the ground of the soul's peace, the soul owns to demerit in itself.
And Paul stops not with the broad statement of the principle, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion "; but makes the wholesome deduction an application to individuals: " So then' it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Chapter 9:16). What fountain in itself can a creature finite and ruined have? Is not God the only spring of every good gift? Did He not do the work of Christ according to His own plan and wisdom and in spite of man? Has not Christ been sitting eighteen hundred years in heaven before I was born? Was there not mercy in Him when I thought only of what I could do to please (not God but) myself? Was He not determined to break down all my thoughts of my power and of my might, and make me a debtor to mercy? And did He not do this, ere ever I was willing or running at all. It is not that willing and running are bad things they are Christ's gifts to all his people but the question is Do they come out of the old Adam nature or from Christ Himself? An absolute God, full of mercy is the refuge of a poor sinner. He that has fled to Him will never find fault with His absolute " I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion." If on the contrary men stand upon their rights and their own power, let them tremble. God is not mocked. Paul shows us that the absolutism of God, when resisted by proud man, is irresistible in judgment. If men will not have God and mercy,-they may find like Pharaoh that they have absolute judgment (read Rom. 9:17-22). It is what man's " I will" when it comes into collision with a despised God's "I will" leads too. Better, surely, for a rebel creature that God should be occupied and guided by His own goodness, and not be guided with the badness of the creature, than that the rebellion of the creature should be the turning point, as the sinner wishes of the conduct of the Creator.
But if Paul accounts for Israel's having been spared of God, through His mercy, the nation stood down here upon earth, as all does that is on earth, on trial; and when it had failed down here, mercy took a larger sphere.
" And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he bath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" (ver. 23, 24). " That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith" (ver. 30).
In chapter 10 He shows how all is of mercy,-the door open to "whosoever believeth " (ver. 11),-to "whosoever shall call upon the name, of the Lord" (ver. 13); there is no difference when all turns upon this, " The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him " (ver. 12). Yet, thus, the Gentile comes in, upon this no difference ground; but comes in not so as to exclude the Jew on the one hand, for there is no difference, nor on the other hand necessarily into a company whose blessing will be more permanent than was the blessing of Israel as a nation; for there is, in this also, no difference. God takes up a position of showing mercy, of delighting in mercy in both cases; and His taking that position toward men on earth forms a company. But then in both cases He, at least, is truthful and means what He says; in this too there is no difference. He will have mercy. And this means not only that He will be upon the ground of mercy, but that He will have man also to be upon the ground of mercy. If He will give, man must receive; if He take mercy as the ground of His action towards man, man that comes to rejoice in the door opened to him of association with God, must know himself also to be upon the ground of mercy. God's position of being upon the ground of mercy towards Israel, was taken; and they were a people who had the oracles of God and the privileges of being His nation. When they would not be upon the ground of mercy themselves, and would not have the God of mercy (whom they crucified in Christ Jesus) among them upon earth, nor own Him afterward in heaven, when on Pentecost He proclaimed mercy "beginning at Jerusalem," they were set aside; and Himself in heaven (made Lord and Christ, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven) became a new position taken by God for showing mercy to "whosoever should call upon the name of the Lord." But with this new position a new company was formed, and to it the oracles of God were committed, a house of God upon earth. What lay at the bottom of all this was mercy on God's part. But as before this, if the blessing is to be permanent it supposes that he that is blessed takes the ground of being upon and living upon mercy. If God is showing from heaven mercy now, I, to be really blessed must also, my own self, stand upon and act upon mercy. For God here too is real. He means not only to make a show of mercy but to give it; and if He gives there must be (His name be praised-His own glory needs it and He will secure it and make it good) a receiver too of mercy.To see that God has taken a new position, that it is one open to the sinner, to every sinner that believes, for there is no difference whatsoever, is good news indeed; to be able to say " And I stand connected with that God and with that salvation " is blessed. But we must receive into our own souls and for our own selves that mercy, stand upon it, live under it and from it, if there is to be lasting blessing. Reader, can you say, " God, thou knowest that Thy mercy by. Christ Jesus dwells in my mind and that I love it and glory in it and try to live as one that has found it. Mercy is behind me as to my past; mercy is with me and in me as to my present; mercy is my hope as to all that is before me.' These are solemn truths: for Chapter 11 shows us why the nation Israel was cut off. They walked not in mercy's path. " Elias had to make intercession to God against Israel (for whom Moses had interceded!) saying, Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life" (ver. 3). The restraining power of God's hand had however, unknown to the prophet, been acting. " But what said the answer of God to him?" " I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal." What a blessed thing it is that the same One who said to Moses, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion," (at a time when Moses stood all alone for God) should have reserved, at a time when Elias thought he was left alone, seven thousand men. And why? It was the proof at once of His power and of His love of mercy. But the self-confident mass who gave the character and stamp of things even to the eye and mind of an Elias,-they stood for themselves and for their competency and their ability to obtain righteousness by their own works. And where, I pray you, is the conscience and mind and heart of a ruined sinner who is occupied with what " / can, and I will, and I mean to do "? Is such an one set in mercy, a receiver of it, glorying in it and living in and from it? "I and my works among men and my difference from other men "-is it the same thing as " God's mercy to me the chiefest of sinners." And what if God really does delight in mercy-has set Himself for a display of mercy, and that a stream of mercy flows forth and they who profess to be connected with God and His throne and possessors of the privileges of being associated with Him,-what I say, if such lie and do not the truth; will not stand for mercy in and from God to man a ruined sinner, but claim and wait for the righteous judgment of God upon human works"? This was the case with Israel of old, in Elias's, in David's, in the Lord's, in Paul's days. Must God give up His mercy, or take a new position for Himself, and while carrying to it all that would have mercy, leave behind to providential judgments all that despised His mercy? That is: Is God, or is sinful man to take the lead, to have the upper hand, to rule? Blessed be God I though man tried, instigated by Satan, to put God out of the way, and killed the Son lest the Romans " should come and take us away," they in their blindness and dark sightedness were but putting forward God's mercy. They were giving the proof that mercy had no place in them, when they killed the Prince of life; and so they were justifying God's departure from themselves, yea, provoking Him to judge them according to their boasted measure of self-righteousness; and, so far as in them lay, too, they were thrusting Him whom they murdered into the new place, the new position which God would take; for Christ on earth was Messiah to Israel. Christ earth, rejected, heaven-welcomed, is Lord and Christ for " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord." The sphere of Israel a nation on earth had rejected, renounced and denounced mercy: Alas! for it, then and there. But, blessed be God, mercy was as dear to Him as ever. -He felt that Israel's sphere was not large enough -for. Him for the display of—His mercy. Little was the mountain from which and small the sphere to which, through Moses' intercession, He had proclaimed mercy. Great the height of His throne in heaven and wide the range of the sphere to every human being under heaven, to whom mercy was now to be proclaimed, beginning at Jerusalem. And, not only so, but in the outsounding of mercy in this larger sphere, He thought to provoke Israel, that cared not for mercy, to emulation. What a love of mercy is His! " Have they stumbled that they should fall? God- forbid: but through their fall salvation is come unto the' Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness (ver. 11, 12)?" " For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead (ver. 13)?" Their fall was not of God that the nation should be lost; but that, they removed for a time, salvation might be proclaimed to the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. If their removal from the place of honor for a time be for the enriching of a larger circle, what blessing will pertain to that larger circle when all the fullness of Israel's blessing is set forth? God's delight in mercy led Him to take a new position with such thoughts in His mind. How everything as to the revelation of mercy and the making of it good to any and in any, in every position which the God of mercy has taken, all depends upon Himself, His absolute power' and His delight in mercy! And this as surely for eternity as for time!
But what as to this new position taken by God, and what as -to the position of those that gather down here under the preaching of it? are either of them permanent? God's mercy is permanent: that is clear. The position of God bidding His Son sit in heaven until He makes His foes to be His footstool, is not to those who count the long suffering of God to be salvation His permanent' one; it is until. Until what? Until He make His foes to be His footstool. Until the Father bids the Son to rise up and fetch the adopted children to His house on high (John 14), to fetch the Church which is to be the Bride, the Lamb's wife, in' heaven,-to claim the land of Israel that it may be Beulah, married to Jehovah, and that from the City Jehovah-Shammah, the knowledge' of the'glory of the Lord may flow out to cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. And Paul puts before us the other side of this truth, viz., Gentiles grafted into the channel of testimony and fruit-bearing down here on earth for a time (see -Rom. 12:17-25)
The Gentiles had been of a wild olive tree, but were made to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree (ver. 17). What brought them there? God's delight in mercy. In mercy they might boast then, but not against the branches, when upon a root which was not theirs by nature. Fear, surely, becomes one who is brought into a place of responsibility out of which, for failure, another has been removed; and not high-mindedness. It is a place of responsibility and in time, and God is a righteous judge. If He spared not the natural branches, will He spare those who were made, because of the failure of these to be their supplanters? No: He is good, for He stands for mercy. But He does stand for mercy, and therefore He is determined and cuts off whatever receives not, abides not in, mercy. If He cut them off and grafted us in, why should He not cut us off and graff them in again if we stand not for mercy? They have the birthright in their favor, and the root is called by their name. If the Church, as the house of God down here, had received and stood, and walked and hoped in mercy. it would never be removed, shaken, cut off; but mercy, righteous judgment would find another way of fulfilling His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Israel. But Roman and Greek churches, and all Protestant churches too, have failed, utterly failed in responsibility as to holding and living in and hoping in mercy, and nothing but mercy. is this my hard-hearted thought—or God's? God's it is most surely, who also gave it to Paul that he and all other true servants of God, might not be overwhelmed in seeing that as man had failed upon earth from Eden down to Pentecost, in every responsibility' put into his own hands to keep,—so would it be again from Pentecost onward. God has no faith in man's competency, or wisdom, or energy or faithfulness. " For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Then shall Israel, as a whole nation, be saved: " as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (ver. 26). For there is a covenant with them to this effect, when He shall take away their sins. Enemies they were to the gospel in its present form- and allowed to be so, that mercy's voice might sound out in the wider circuit of " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord." But the promises to the fathers remain unfulfilled as yet, and God is true and knows not the shadow of a turn. Israel was chosen to be the earth's center of blessing, and endowed and called thereto. And though generations of them have refused to have this place upon the ground of mercy, this will not hinder the nation as a nation having it hereafter, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (ver. 29). God is absolute, and He stands for mercy to the nation Israel. The Gentiles once did not know God so as to be able to believe in Him; when Israel disbelieved in mercy, the Gentiles obtained mercy; Israel disbelieved and rebelled against mercy to the Gentiles; God left them to their unbelief and to the judgments consequent thereon, that they might learn that they could not do without mercy (ver. 30, 31). For God has shut them up in their unbelief, left them to their own way, that so when He comes to bless them it may be clear to all that the blessing flows upon the ground, is received too upon the ground of mercy-pure, free, unmixed mercy.
The present house of God upon earth has been the birth-place of many a soul for heaven, part of the family of God the Father, part of that body of which Christ is the head: they shall all be removed to heaven. But the house on earth committed to man's building and care, man has defiled and it will come into judgment. And the eternal lover of mercy will return to Israel and mercy's streams shall flow forth thence to the uttermost parts of the earth, even to the extern nations-those beyond the four Gentile dynasties, and be among them in power too. The language of Paul, when he wrote on these things, well becomes us. " O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable his judgments, and his ways past finding out" (ver, 33). And then he goes on with thoughts expressive of his own sense of the littleness of man; thoughts well calculated to make us see our own littleness. What searching questions these: " For who hath known the mind of the Lord?
" Or who hath been His counselor?
" Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?" Not I, surely each one must say,-
" For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen" (ver. 33-36).
Into the fourth division of the Epistle to the Romans, it is not my intention at present to enter: I merely give the opening of it as confirming what I have said about the place that mercy holds in God's dealings, as set forth now, and as presented in this epistle.
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service " (Chapter 12:1). But the whole of this portion (from Chapter 12:1, to the end of the epistle) is but the deduction of the fruits natural to the reception of the mercy and mercies referred to in the preceding parts -of the epistle. And, surely, the close of this part ought ever to be remembered by us:
" Now to him that is of power to stablish you," let us mark it well, " Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel and the Preaching, of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but is manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets [or by prophetic-scripture], according to the commandment of the ever—lasting God, made known to all nations FOR THE, OBEDIENCE of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen" (xvi. 25-27).
And can any man who has rejoiced in mercy himself and known its suitability to man's ruined and lost condition, for a moment think that the practical life of persons professing' Christianity now-a-days, is the fruit of their having tasted mercy? Can he whose heart has had to challenge itself in the fear of the Lord, not know what the result of all the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye,, and the pride of life which now characterize Christianity (so called) must be? Or could any one that counts mercy to be a priceless treasure wish the present state of things to continue, or mercy to be limited to its present bounds and not to be, even through judgment, presented in a more boundlessly extensive way, and that too in man's day?.
To return now to my thesis, "But God who is rich in mercy," I would call attention to the contrasts in the context which led to the introduction of the little word,." But."
In the middle of the first chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians (ver. 15), Paul turns to the blessings which grace had provided for the saints in Christ Jesus, and, as it were, draws aside the curtain and shows us the Son of man, the faithful servant of God, seated in heaven in all His present glory. Raised from the dead and set at God's right hand in heavenly places,-exalted above every power and name named in this age or that which is to come,-everything put under His feet and Himself made head of a body, for which He not only uses His power over all things, but which He himself fills in every part! What glory like that, all the excellency of God's ways set forth by Him. All the beauty of. God seen in Him. In contrast to this come the place and the state in which those; now the members of His all glorious body, were found, dead in trespasses and sins; their movement then, according to the routine of a place set up for sinners to be happy in without God,, out of His presence, the energy then working in them, that of the prince of the power of the air, spirit that energizes in the children of disobedience. Such had been these Ephesians to whom he wrote. Had he been better? no: lusts of the flesh, lusts of the flesh and of the mind, had characterized the Jews-children of wrath even as others (Chapter 2:13); what a contrast! Well might he introduce here the word " But." " But God who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins.-"And mark well here, the height of blessedness and glory to which we were raised and in which set, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised up together, and made sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." If anything could add to this blessing so freely given, bestowed in so divine a way, in Christ Jesus,-it would be the explanation which follows of an object which was accomplished, to say the least, by God in so doing. For I like not to speak of it as His motive; that I suppose was higher still. But one object which was given was, "That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us through Christ Jesus " (ver. 7).
" For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God bath before ordained (or prepared, -works worthy of our being, each one, members of that body, or which Christ is the glorified head) that we should walk in them " (ver. 10).
Thus our creature working, to get into the place of acceptance and blessing, is excluded:-" We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus," that on the one hand; and on the other, the abuse of mercy and grace is guarded against, for our creation in Christ Jesus, is " unto good works," of a kind prepared by God that we should walk in them.
G. V. W.

The Introductory Portion of the Gospel of John

OH 1:1-2:22
The main feature of this most precious book that lies before us is the exhibition of the Lord Jesus as the Word made flesh, the glory of the only Begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, and who reveals the Father as one with Him. The book is made up of these glories, which pass successively before our eyes in its successive chapters. Hence there is so much of " testimony" and "witness" in it: God calling our attention, as it were, all through to Him in whom all Heaven's glories meet, and meet for the supply of man's need, discovered in its deepest in the light of this glory; for "whatsoever doth make manifest is light."
Man's need in its deepest is that he is "dead in trespasses and sins." At the end of long ages of trial the full manifestation of this was made in the person of Jesus come in grace among men. Man's trial was not limited to that. It was only the close of a long course of it which God in His patience had given him: the "ages," of which the apostle Paul speaks in Heb. 9:26, at the " completion" of which Christ " appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
The cross thus stands as the dividing line between two periods of entirely different character; the former of which was characterized, as I may say, by its being the time of man's being manifested and God hidden; while the latter shows us, on the contrary, man set aside and God revealed.
It is most important to see this, to which the whole of Scripture gives the most unequivocal testimony. So in 1 Cor. 10:13, it is said, " Upon whom the ends of the world (literally αιωνων, ages) are come." As to the character of these ages (of which several other passages make mention) Rom. 5:6 speaks-" When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." The " due time" was when man had been thus manifested, "ungodly" and "without strength." These ages had run on from the fall itself; and their probationary character, as to the most important of them, is strongly marked in Scripture. Take the law. " God is come to prove you," says Moses, before it was given. And the apostle Paul, answering that question, which still perplexes multitudes, " Wherefore serveth the law?" replies, " It was added "-not as our translators have it, " because of trangressions," but-" for the sake of transgressions;" that is, to produce them, to bring out the sin of man's heart in open shape, as transgression of the plain command of God. Take it as elsewhere, where there needs no emendation of the text-" The law entered that the offense might abound " (Rom. 5:20), the necessary result of " proving " one, of whom " every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually."
But this verdict upon man's state had been pronounced long before. It was spoken at the close of his first trial, which the judgment of the flood ended. For the full result God had waited. He had let men have the earth to themselves, and given them ample time to show what they would do in it; and at the end of nearly two thousand years " God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." then God said, " The end of all flesh is come before me."
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord;" and in his person, brought through the judgment, wherein " the world that then was, perished," human government was set up of God, and man was made his brother's keeper. " Whoso shed man's blood, by man his blood was to be shed." Such was the divine principle. But instead of that, the form it takes is that of tyranny in the hands of Nimrod, and that course of ambition and thirst for power begins which has filled men's chronicles ever since. All fails once more, and God calls Abram from his kindred and his father's house to walk with Him, a pilgrim and a stranger upon earth.
The character of the law, which followed after that, we have already seen. In it God took up man again in his own way, to see what he could do. The people undertook it,-" all that the Lord bath spoken;" but the covenant is broken before ever the tables of testimony are come to them from the Mount. Under pure law they do not stand a moment. The law finds them under its curse; but God retreats into Himself, and falling back on His divine prerogative of mercy, takes them up anew. "I will have mercy," says He, " upon whom I will have mercy." And though the law is given a second time, there is now along with it a proclamation of the "Name of the Lord." Christianity is not that, it is a declaration of the Father's name. This to Moses was not properly a revelation of God Himself, but of His "back parts"-the skirts of His glory. " And He said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live;" but "it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen."
I would call attention to these words, because they give us so perfectly the contrast between those long dark ages, and the blessed light of Christianity, into which we are brought. Take the brightest display of God's goodness to the most favored of His people then, still it was -" No man can see me and live.".The veil of the holiest afterward, according to Paul's testimony in the Heb. 9, declared the same thing—" The way into the holiest was not yet made manifest." No one could come into God's presence, to see Him face to face. The high-priest on the Day of Atonement, if a seeming, was no real exception: he was to " put incense on the fire before the Lord that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat, that is upon the testimony, that he die not;" for the presence of the Lord was there.
The difference between "proclaiming the name of Jehovah," and " declaring the Father's name" was in short, all the difference between God hidden and " God manifest." The first was Judaism; the last Christianity.
It was an important announcement, no doubt, and served, in some measure, to temper the severity of an outraged law. Yet it did not change it, nor man's nature. It gave no life and therefore no righteousness. It left man space for repentance, but wrought no repentance in him. It left him under responsibility to meet God still and answer for himself.
" And the Lord descended in the cloud, and proclaimed the name of the Lord (Jehovah): and Jehovah passed by before him, and proclaimed Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious; long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third, and to the fourth generation."
Christian reader, with all the grace of this announcement, is it the revelation of God, such as we know Him? Could you or I go into His holy presence on the footing of what is here declared? Alas, the veil of the holiest and the high-priest's incense tell the same truth about it, and our consciences bear witness we could not. For law is still law here, whatever be the mercy, and a God who "can by no means clear the guilty," is not one before whom we can stand. The grace here may, like the angel's hand, trouble the waters of -the law and make them " Bethesda,"-a pool of healing; but what are we to do with our poor, palsied limbs?
Yet though it were but the " back parts," not the face of God that was seen here (as to which the passage itself is conclusive), yet God having declared Himself " gracious," He could still go on with those who had already manifested themselves " a perverse, rebellious people.' He could patiently show out His goodness, and manifest His power in their behalf. All this protracted, indeed, the trial without altering the result. But it was of God that it should be protracted, that man should have full time and space to show himself in. And so he does, alas, to the end. Law broken, mercy despised, God's messengers persecuted whom 1-le sent in His love, "rising up early and sending them"; such is his course throughout. And at length the trial is once more over, and with the sentence of " Lo-Ammi" upon them (not God's people), they are led away captive to Babylon. " The mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, nor can be."
Still the " due time" for the display of God, the full revelation of Himself, was not come even yet. One last resource remained, one last way of trial: it is thus represented by the Lord Himself in the parable of the vineyard-" And he said, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence my son, when they see him."
And " God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." In the lowliest form, in the " form of a servant," self- emptied, yet full of power and grace for man's deliverance from all that sin had brought upon him, the earth was hallowed by the footsteps of One " who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with Him."
Such a sight it had never seen before; such a sight it shall never see again. He could touch the leper, and his leprosy was gone. He could heal the sick. He could raise the dead. Devils would give up their victims at His word. He could speak as never man spake. He could say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," and work a miracle to assure that it was done. He was the Friend of sinners, and blushed not to own it. From whomsoever needed Him He could not be hid. And in all this, it was His constant declaration that He came but in His Father's name, to declare Him, whom knowing they knew not; that God, whom behind the veil and "in thick darkness" they had worshipped, now made known.
Alas, " He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."
They said, " This is the heir; come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours." " So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him."
That was the end of the trial, and therein was " the judgment of the world" (John 12:31).
The mind of the flesh, when under law, "not subject. to the law," was now manifest, outspoken " enmity against God."
But if sin had now reached its height, it was time for God's grace to abound over it. Man, "dead in sins," could be set aside, and God could unveil Himself. Christ died, and the veil was removed. The way into the holiest was made manifest. Man could see God and live.
Instead of One who " could by no means clear the guilty," there shone out the glory of Him who " justifieth the ungodly."
It will require little thought to understand my object in dwelling upon this so much at length. It is most needful to the right apprehension of the whole scope and character of John's gospel. For this gospel is lust the shining forth of this divine glory which in Judaism had dwelt within the circling flames of Sinai, or behind the veil of the temple. God is no longer here "in the thick darkness"; the testimony is that He "is light, and in Him is no darkness at all"; and we " walk," therefore, " in the light, as He is in the light."
Not indeed that the full time of manifesting God, in one sense, had come, while Jesus walked on earth, though He were indeed Himself " God manifest." A verse in this first chapter of the gospel explains the seeming contradiction. For though "in Him was life, and the life was the light of men," yet it is added, " and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Nor was this true only of dead men upon whom the light might shine, but not remove their darkness. Even the eyes of disciples,-of those who could say afterward, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,"-were scarcely opened to it They saw what was " the glory of the Only Begotten," but not at that time did they apprehend its wondrous significance. Only after Christ's death had fully rent the veil, and the Spirit of God had come to lead them into all truth, did they apprehend it. Only then could they say, " the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth." Even at the very close of that marvelous course Philip could say, " Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us," and the Lord answer, " Have I been so long time with you, and past thou not known me, Philip?" What a flashing out of glory it must have been, when the true light did indeed shine unto their souls! " In that day," says the Lord again, "ye shall know that I am in the Father;"-yea, and beside that,—" and ye in me, and I in you."
But the Gospel of John, nevertheless, puts us in the full light of this already. For it is not man's history simply, true history though it be, but God's revelation. It is the Spirit of God, now come, taking of the things of Jesus, and showing them to our souls. Hence, though historically and for man, the veil of the holiest was not rent, there is no veil here. And though men were not yet introduced into the blessing, the blessing itself is already here. -his ",God manifest in flesh," manifest in love and grace for men " grace and truth come by Jesus Christ." It is divine fullness for men's need, and when that need is fully exposed. " Life" for him as dead; "light" for him as in darkness; "grace" for him-as a mere sinner, and only grace, nay, as it is expressed here, "grace upon grace."
In a word, man is set aside, as fully convicted and exposed, and God is manifested. The cross is, as it were, over; (not of course that it historically was;) "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." That is, as it were, the moral of Luke's Gospel. " He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." That is pre-eminently Matthew's. And now " to as many as received. Him, to them gave He power" (privilege or authority, rather) " to be the- sons of God, even to those that believe on His name." And- what of these? " Who were born, not of blood (or natural generation), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Thus at the outset we are met by this great truth of regeneration. And after the introductory portion of the gospel is over, it is that with which (in Chapter 3) we start again. None of the other gospels speak of it at all. They give us the grace of God in its appeal to man: its solemn warnings, its exhortations, its tender and blessed invitations.- But it is not these we have- in John: There is not so much as " Come to me, and I will give you rest." There is, surely, the solemn, truth stated, " Ye will not come," but no invitation, though " him that cometh, He will in no wise cast out." But it is not man's coming that we are occupied with, nevertheless. It is " God's coming," rather. He quickens. He " quickens whom He will." Men are " born of God ": a thing into which one's own will enters as little as when we are born into the world.
And then it is upon this being born of God, that all blessing, is founded. Being born of Him, we are owned His children; and thus are given to lay hold of and enjoy that revelation of the Father, which. Christ, the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, Makes of Him.
And I add another thing. In the light which manifests everything in its true form and character, a dead Jew is no more than a dead Gentile. Judaism is therefore already gone, (not historically, as I said in another case: that was at the cross, but practically;) and " the true light,"-true to the nature of light, falls on all alike. " That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." In contrast to the law, as one outside it, (and so He says, " What is written in your law?")-it is said, " The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
It will be seen that these are the principal features of Chapter 1:1-18, which is evidently the doctrinal introduction to the whole gospel, and gives its distinctive character. The whole, however, of the first chapter, and down to the end of ver. 22 of the second, is introductory, and beyond that the main subject matter of the book begins in the distinct enunciation of man's real need, and its only true remedy. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh," so that " ye must be born again."
And thence out of the fullness of the "'Word made flesh," is developed in varied and orderly succession, the blessedness which is his. Man put in his true place as a recipient merely, the fullness of divine bounty is poured into his bosom,-" grace upon grace" indeed,-commencing with the supply of first wants, but pouring on and on, till the full cup overflows in deep, adoring worship, in the unveiled presence of Him to whom we are brought: " presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy."
Before going on to consider this, however, I would spend a short time upon the introductory portion of the book. This seems evidently to divide into three parts. The first, simply doctrinal (as we say), and which I have now briefly noticed (John 1:1-18). The second, the witness of John (John 1:19-34). The third, the dispensational view of the grace here witnessed of, first, with regard to the saints of the present time (John 1:35-42), and then to the remnant of Israel in the last day (43-51); the whole closing with the millennial features of glory and of blessing (John 2:1-11), of a holiness.; which is to be maintained in power, by Him, who is " declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead' (verses 12-22). And surely of great importance it is to have these distinctive characters of blessing set before us in the first place, before we go on to consider the portion of the heavenly saint, as it is detailed in the following chapters of the book.
As for the first section of this introductory part, what I have already written may suffice. I would now notice how beautifully characteristic is the Baptist's testimony in this book, and how the glory of the Son of God completely fills the eye and heart of him whom the other gospels give us as the preacher of repentance. Here he whose place was in the wilderness, who came in the way of righteousness" to others, apart from them as judging them unclean, himself falls into the dust before those blessed feet, "whose shoe latchet he is unworthy to unloose." Here we see it was no thought of self-righteousness that set him in that place apart. The eye that now drinks in " the light of this world " was once closed to it as much as others. Nothing but infinite grace had made the difference. " I knew him not" is, twice over, his lowly acknowledgment. It was the registry of the condemnation of the world.
But how the eye, divinely opened, is taken up with the object now revealed to it. And the Spirit of God Himself, how He presents to us this picture, as delighting in it, of a man absorbed with Christ. They come out to him from Jerusalem, attracted by his fame, to find one whose heart is an utter stranger to it all. He is "not the Christ," he says. What need they care who he was, when he was not Christ? He was " a voice " only: a voice that spoke not of itself but of another; a voice to imprint the imperishable " Word" upon the hearts of men; and then to be forgotten. " He confessed and denied not, but confessed," says the recording Spirit with emphasis.. A little thing, it might seem, and only not presumption; but among such as we are, how great a thing! " He must increase, but I must decrease:" words how true for us all! but only grace can add to it such words as elsewhere the Baptist,." This my joy therefore is fulfilled." And this is he of whom our Lord said, " Among those that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." If this is true greatness, then, how is " the first last, and the last first!" how human thoughts are reversed! But is not he really greatest, who in lowliness is likest to his Master?
And what then must be the blessedness of heaven, where these principles have their only full and uninterrupted sway. You get a blessed picture of that in Mark 10, and which in many parts of it we cannot wonder to find repeated elsewhere. It is where the Lord is enforcing this principle of true glory, and showing Himself in opposition to all the narrowness of man's heart, even in disciples, where all sought their own. Peter had been reminding Him of the "sacrifices," as we speak, that they had made to follow Him. And the Lord assures him, that He knew it all, in a love which could not forget the very smallest particular, and would not be left a debtor, but overpay it a hundredfold.
But he adds the significant reproof,—for it was needed, -that the judgment of God would yet be the very opposite of man's own. And many that are first shall be last, and the last first." He whose heart vaunted the largeness of its offering was not of necessity the one who had offered largest. Giving to receive was not a gift. Love would forget nothing indeed that was the fruit of love.
But he who thought he had done most only showed the poverty of his love in it. For love reckons not what it does, and where truest, has its blessedness, after the pattern of Him in whom it is perfect, in giving rather than receiving.
How sweetly is the unutterable grace of God maintained, and yet the heart searched in its inmost workings, in this word of Jesus.
But it does not end here; for then we find the Lord laying open His own heart. His way was even then to the Cross.—" Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and,unto the Scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles; and they shall mock Him and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again."
It falls as the " shadow of death " indeed upon them.
There is no response to it. But the solemn lesson of the cross unheeded, they return to that which occupies them. Two of those most honored, one of them the disciple whom Jesus loved," ask Him for the best seats, right and left beside Him in the kingdom. The Lord proposes to them the Cross. Are they able to drink His cup, and be baptized with His baptism? The, moment it is set before them as the way to their own blessing, they " are able." Jesus says, that though they shall have His cup and baptism, as " seeking their own in it, it would be folly: the places in the kingdom should, be given to them " for whom it was prepared of the Father."
But this arouses the jealousy of the rest, and "they began to be much displeased with James and John. And now comes the full answer to it all. "Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles; exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them." A few simple words, but how, again, they search the heart! Is it not the key to the-whole history of human " greatness"? " Seeking honor one of another": place, and power, authority and patronage; how much of this, or what would satisfy man's pride in this sort, do we suppose we should find in the possession of those seats in glory? Nothing; absolutely nothing. There will be such seats; but all that on earth men covet in them, what of that? " So shall it not be among you, but who will be great among you shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all." That is " the first last, and the last first " again. Not only fitness to rule is required in the servant's place, (though so it surely is;) but heaven's order -is the reverse of man's order, and heaven's " greatness" the reverse of all his thoughts. The greatest is the lowliest, and where all shall be, delivered from the " reproach of Egypt," circumscribed the second time, and delivered from that badge of misery, " seeking one's own," in the glory of the kingdom, rule" shall be " service" still; the blessedness of giving higher than of receiving; the pattern of all greatness, of all blessedness, He who is the same Jesus, impossible to change, who, as " Son of man " down here, " came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many."
And recurring to what our Lord says of John the Baptist, have we not the real key to it here, and to what He adds to it, which has been not a little cause of perplexity to many. " Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." I cannot turn to these opening chapters of John's Gospel without feeling this "greatness" to be that of a man (whose like in it Scripture indeed scarcely spews us again) to whom Christ is all, and to whom therefore, self is nothing; and the words " notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," open to me not a vista of thrones and titles, but a glorious scene when (in the coming kingdom) Christ shall be the one blessed and satisfying object filling perfectly all hearts. John shall be greater than himself there, and the least in it shall be more perfect in it than this precious picture which we have of him.
He was no stoic steeled to human sympathies, though he walked so alone, apart from all. He was no practicer of a long penance, done to propitiate a God he knew not, like many, his would-be imitators since. He was simply a man occupied with Jesus; too happy in it to turn aside to other things. His sanctity (notwithstanding his garb and food, in which he stood a witness to others simply) was no creature of his own making, no fruit of ordinances and self-mortification. No, it was the abstractedness (if you please) of one who was simply filled with the glory of another, whose whole heart said, with his lips, '44 Behold the Lamb of God." We shall do well to ponder it.
With the 35th verse of the first chapter begins the third division of this introductory portion of the Gospel.
It begins with this witness to Jesus as " the Lamb of God," the fulfillment of and contrast to; all Jewish shadows, a witness which, given from the fullness of a believing heart, gathers disciples to the Lord. That which follows is a beautiful picture of believers in the present time. The question as to where Jesus dwells,- the place itself unnamed as if earth knew it not,-their stay with Him through the night that follows,-are all significant. They are things indeed which spiritually interpreted characterize the Christian now, while He who declared, "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world," is absent from us. In this way we learn to say, while looking for the morning of His return, " The night is far spent, the day is at hand." Yet even so we are not children of the night, but of the day,- though the night be about us; we know where He dwells, and in heart and spirit dwell with Him whence the night is banished.
And no less significant is the adding to the number of these first disciples, of one who was afterward, though " apostle of the circumcision," chosen of God to teach others the lesson he had himself first to learn, to " call no man common or unclean," and to open the door of the kingdom to the Gentile: one to whom as taken out of natural relationships, a new name in grace is given, speaking of the spiritual ones into which he should be brought, as a living " stone" in that building of God, which was to be His own peculiar " habitation."
And similarly significant are all these "interpretations." Grace is speaking another language from that of Judaism. Even the Hebrew title " Messias" is changed into the Gentile "Christ" And in all this who cannot see intimated the great change that was at hand, as well as its character? The temple was already empty, the people already were " Lo-Ammi," and now people and temple were to be but one in the new Christianity which was to replace this worn-out system, and this temple should never be deserted: the Spirit given to abide with us forever, should dwell in it and consecrate it to God forever.
Not that it should abide here or belong ever to " the world." Like the tabernacle, which "grew into " the temple, and which was in germ the temple, it should have the wayfaring character and be a pilgrim. Indwelt of, and dwelling with the Lord we yet mourn His absence and look for Him, and are (as I said before) in heart and spirit with Him where He is, "not of the world" just as and because He is not.
And this I say again is Christianity. It is marvelous, yet how thoroughly lost sight of in men's systems. It could never without changing its very nature, gain the throne of the world. Nor will it change the world. Its mission is to gather out of it " a people for His name": a people who will be to the end, and even in the most fair-seeming times, " a little flock," poor, despised, persecuted, struggling against all the power of him who is the " god of this world," and against the " course of this world," ruled by him.
If the world were to receive the Gospel, we should have in large measure to lay aside our Bibles as quite unsuited to times so changed. The whole web and woof of Scripture, so far as it affects our Christian walk and character, would be distorted and displaced. We could no longer say "the whole world lieth in wickedness." He " that would live godly in Christ Jesus" would no longer "suffer persecution." That which makes up " the world" for God would no longer be " the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." Such things would be the mere records of a state of things which had passed out of being.
And yet the word of God shall surely be fulfilled, and " the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." Yes, when " He shall appear in His glory." But at that time,-it is the express assurance of the Word,-" when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory." And when " this King shall reign in righteousness," we " shall reign with him " who has " made us," in all the value of His work, " kings and priests to God." Is it now this reign of righteousness? Are Christ's foes now made His footstool?, Are all things now, put under Him? Nay, says the apostle, "we see not yet all things put under him."
That will be in what he calls "the world to come" (Heb. 2), not heaven, but earth blessed and purified, a dominion extending to,-according to the apostle's quotation of Psa. 8-even " all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air and the fish of the seas, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."
But if those who now look and wait for Christ are in the day of His power to sit down with Him on His throne and share His dominion, who are to be the subjects of this blessed rule? Chief among these is to be restored Israel: " Ye which have followed Me," says the Lord to His disciples, " in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit -upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Than this nothing can be more precise. It distinguishes the two parts, the heavenly and earthly glories of the kingdom which is to be set up. Other passages speak of " Jerusalem " being " the throne of the Lord," in those days, and " the law going forth out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Then shall " Israel blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit": " the Gentiles shall come to the light" of that glory of the Lord, now risen upon her, " and kings to the brightness of its rising."
I do not enter upon these things more at length. But the same passage which I have just quoted forewarns that the darkest of the night will precede the dawning of this millennial day. It is when " darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people," that "the Lord," it is said to Israel, " shall arise upon thee; and his glory shall be seen, upon thee."
Thus darkness as gross as that which for ages has covered Israel is yet to fall upon all the vaunted enlightenment of Gentile Christendom.. They would not " walk in the light " while they had the light, and it shall be taken from them. The saints caught up to meet the Lord in the air, the." light of the world" gives place to darkness. Out of this darkness, according to the testimony of this passage in Isaiah,. Israel is to be the first to emerge.
She is to be new-born to God with all the throes and anguish of childbirth. She is to be " chosen," once more, "in the furnace of affliction." It is impossible to go into detail. All I can say here is that a little remnant of Judah will first be brought to the Lord amid the cruel persecution of their unbelieving brethren. And in the judgments of those days " it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord is my God." (Zech. 13:8,9.)
This is not a needless digression from the subject of the chapter before us. In ver. 43 we are carried in spirit beyond the Christian and (in principle) Gentile confession of the Lamb of God, to a new acting of grace which gives rise to a new testimony, and Nathanael becomes the representative of the gathering of a future day, as Peter has already been seen the representative of the present. " We have found Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write," is Philip's testimony; and Nathanael questioning at first, is drawn nevertheless to Jesus to find in Him one who had already known him in grace (as it ever is) and all the exercises of his heart, while yet unconscious of the love that even then was yearning over him. " Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee." The fig tree is the constant figure of the Jewish nation, and the book of Psalms is the precious witness to this remnant in their " time of trouble " among the mass of the unbelieving people, of a true and tender heart in sympathy with them. When they " look upon Him whom they have pierced" what a witness it will be of His love who has all through " borne their griefs and carried their sorrows." Nathanael like, their hearts shall burst forth in the adoring exclamation, " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel."
This is the complete reversal of former unbelief. The two charges that they brought against the Lord, and in the order in which they were brought, are here recalled. That He made Himself the Son of God was the charge before the Jewish court. That He made Himself king was that before Caesar's. They shall yet acknowledge Him as both and then the Lord's words to Nathanael shall find their complete fulfillment, " Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the figtree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, from henceforth (αρ’ αρτι) ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Even thus Israel's eternal day shall begin in the glory of an open heaven, and the angels, the ministrants of their past economy, shall wait upon Him whom they have rightly owned as Son of God, and who Himself delights to -call Himself by that touching name of sympathy and tenderness, "the Son of man."
To use the figure of Revelation (Chapter 12.) Israel clad with the glories of the risen sun, shall issue forth from her " night of weeping," all her past reflected glory, but as the dim moon eclipsed by day-dawn, beneath her feet.
The second chapter carrying on the type, gives us restored Israel's union with the Lord. The figure of a marriage is no uncommon one in the prophets, and with express reference to Israel. Thus their past relationship with the Lord is styled, and their departure from Him is judged as adultery. So Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak, and so their return to the Lord in the latter days is given as under the figure of the renewal of marriage-vows: " Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married to you: and I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and bring you to Zion" (Jer. 3). And in Hosea, after the sentence of divorce for unfaithfulness is pronounced: " Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am 1 her husband," and the judgment against her is fully executed, then in judgment mercy is remembered: "'Therefore, behold, I will allure her and bring her into the- wilderness and speak comfortably unto her. And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Athol' for a door of hope; and she shall sing there as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt; and it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shall call me Ishi, (my husband) and I will betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness and in judgment, and in loving-kindness and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord" (Chapter 2:14-16, 19, 20.)
The scene at the marriage at Cana in Galilee is a divine picture of what the prophet thus foretells. The very mention of " the third day " marks it as a period of resurrection-gladness. The question put to Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones will be answered then. With noise and shaking bone will have -come to bone, and the sinews and flesh covered them, and the breath from the four winds- come unto them. Israel's hope, which they have clung to through so many long and weary years, will at length have reached fruition; and men will realize in their case that " the gifts and calling of God are " indeed "without repentance."
Israel's Bridegroom, too, will be the risen Lord. In the type of it here, He takes as it were that place towards the close, providing the wine of the feast, which it was the bridegroom's part to do. Thus it is told forth what He will be when the day comes for accomplishing these shadows. Yet very sweetly, notwithstanding, is the higher blessing of His heavenly " disciples " kept in view. " Both Jesus was called and his disciples to the marriage." So inseparable from Him are they, that if one were called so must be the other. And so it will be when the day of Jerusalem's bridal comes. " When Christ shall appear, we shall appear with Him in glory." Then, when those hitherto empty waterpots being filled with the purifying water,- they shall draw out of them with gladness the best wine kept till now.
What a striking figure of hollow formalism were those empty waterpots! And even such was the nation when the Lord first came among them. Like the mother of Jesus they asked Him for the wine then, but His "hour was not yet come." He must shed His blood for that: noway else could they have it. The " wine that cheereth. God and man" comes from the side of the Crucified One. This is the Samaritan's balm for our deadly wounds. This is the " strong drink " for those " ready to perish," the cordial for those " of heavy hearts:" " that they may drink, and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no
more."
And when the set time to favor Zion shall have come, when " they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced," they " shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son, and be in bitterness for Him as one that is in bitterness for his first-born." Then the antitype of their day of atonement will have come, " a sabbath of rest," when "they shall afflict their souls," and through the offering made for them, " be clean from all their sins before the Lord." Then the water pots shall be filled even to the brim, but the water of repentance shall be, by a mightier miracle than that of Cana, changed unto the wine of joy and gladness forever. Those resurrection words of blessing shall be again spoken: " Peace be unto you," and He shall say again as He said once to Thomas: " Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing." And with Thomas they shall answer and say to Him:, " Our Lord and our God." But the higher' blessing still shall be theirs, who having not seen, have yet believed. We, too, shall be Nazarites no longer. We shall drink of this new wine also. In a higher sense still to us, that shall be fulfilled: " I will drink the wine new with you in my Father's kingdom."
In the 13th verse of this chapter, another feature of this time of blessing is presented. Cleansing the judgment is what is before us there. The Lord is as one whom zeal for His Father's house devours. His title to cleanse is resurrection: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." " He spake of the temple of His body."
And very blessed it is to see, that just as Jesus is represented to us all through His blessed life of lowliness down here,-One who comes not in His own name, nor seeking His own glory, but His who sent Him,-, so is He the selfsame Jesus, "yesterday, to-day and forever," when in glory He takes the kingdom. When on earth the prayer He put into the mouth of His disciples was not for His own, but for the Father's glory: " Our Father,... Thy kingdom come," passing over His own throne as Son of man,-passing over the blessedness of the millennial day,-on to the time when in the " new heaven and new earth," (for there only " righteousness " shall "dwell,") " His will shall be done on earth even as it is in heaven." In like manner when He takes His throne on earth, He reigns until " all things are subdued unto Him," and when that is accomplished, " He delivers up the kingdom "-none taking it from Him-" to God even the Father." And " then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may " be all in all."
Of course this touches not the truth of His absolute divinity. As God He gives up no place: as man He is subject. How wondrous the union of these two, in one adorable Person! " The image of the Invisible God,"- " the first-born of every creature." The blessed unperishable link between God and all that He has made. The eternal display of divine glory in its fullness before the eyes of all. God who loveth,-who is Love,-and who has brought us unto Himself that in the knowledge of Him our hearts might be filled with joy,-might over* flow in worship. For that it is WORSHIP that is so to occupy us in heaven, is just the testimony of how full, even to overflowing, every heart shall be. G.

Heaven or Canaan the Hope of Abraham?

Faith, that divinely given principle by which the testimony of God is livingly received into the soul, is one and the same principle in every individual believer, in every age; and life, through faith, is one and the same divine life, no matter in whom, or in what dispensation it is found. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abram, Moses, Paul, and ourselves, are on common ground as to this; but the unity of faith, and the unity of life, do not, by any means, involve identity in the blessings presented to faith, nor, what is' the same thing, identity in the hopes unto which believers of different dispensations have been quickened. The blessing presented to the faith of Noah, for example, was not the same as that presented to the faith of Abram. Noah's blessing was in connection with the whole earth, as the sphere, and the whole family of man as the subject of his rule. Universal government was committed to him, and responsibilities pit upon him in connection therewith, for the suppression of violence, and for the maintenance of the principles on which the due relation of man. (on earth) to God depended..
The failure of mankind under the Noahic calling, the sad progress of which failure resulted in universal idolatry, led to the calling out of Abram whose promised blessing was connected with a given land, and with his own seed in particular as part only of the human family.
This earth was from the beginning, so far as revelation teaches, the destined sphere of man's existence and blessing. Neither the sin of our first parents, nor of man in any subsequent age, has led God to abandon His purpose as to this, though He has from time to time in the riches of His grace materially changed His ways, and brought to light more and more of the wisdom and perfection of His goodness. The calling of Abram was accordingly no abandonment of the larger purpose of God as set forth in the calling of Noah; on the contrary, it was a " witty invention " of God, to secure to Himself a channel through which He would fulfill all His purposes of goodness and of glory in connection with man on the earth in spite of man's sin.
The promise made to Abram was that he should possess the land of Canaan (Gen. 13:15,17); " the land which thou seest to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever Arise, walk through the land in the
length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give—unto thee." Also Chapter xv. 7, " 1 am the Lord that brought thee out of the land of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it;" and again, xvii. 7, 8, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
Nothing I apprehend could be plainer than the difference thus pointed out between the specific objects presented to the faith of these patriarchs, and nothing surely could be more plainly defined than the earthly character and sphere of their respective callings.
The mission of the blessed Lord Jesus Christ to this earth, viewed in connection with the position and responsibilities of Israel, was for the ostensible purpose of fulfilling to them the promises made to the fathers. The history of His life and ministry furnished in the gospels—is not the history of the abrupt and formal setting aside of Judaism, and the equally abrupt and formal introduction of what we understand by the Christian dispensation, but the history of the last trial of Israel, whether having failed from age to age and forfeited their blessing, they would then judge themselves by the light of Him who was the light, and accept their blessing at His gracious hands. They hated and crucified their Deliverer and King; and after He had been raised from the dead, and received back into the heavens, taking manhood in His own blessed person thither, they rejected the offer of His return made by the Holy Ghost through Peter (Acts 3:19-21), and finally, by the stoning of Stephen, they sealed their own doom for a season.
At this juncture a mighty change in the relation of Christ and of His people to this present world took place. It became no longer an earthly people awaiting the return of the Lord to establish the kingdom and the glory here; this He will do when the proper time arrives in spite of everything; but a people called out from the world, from its hopes and interests alike, as well as from its judgment, to be associated with Christ in heaven, not to be reigned over by Him as Israel will be, but to reign with Him-the Church, which is His body-the bride, the Lamb's wife. This is our present calling, and of this the Old Testament Scriptures taught nothing. It is the mystery of Eph. 3:3 that was made known to Paul, not by the Scriptures, but by special revelation. It had, as the Apostle says, " been hid in God from the beginning of the world to the intent that now [in this time of the Lord's rejection and the consequent postponement of Israel's blessing] unto principalities and powers in the heavenly places, might be known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God." This is the blessing presented to faith now, as distinct from that which pertained to any previous age.
The atonement wrought by the death of -Christ on Calvary is the one common basis of ALL blessing to man, whether in heaven or on earth; but the blessing of man on earth under the reign of Christ, and the blessing of the Church in association with Himself in heaven, are essentially different things, and cannot be confounded without serious damage to the present testimony; both must have their fulfillment. To have a portion in the heavens, where all will admit he now is „awaiting- the resurrection, will be to Abraham far better than the fulfillment of the promises respecting Canaan, but it will not
be in itself THEIR Fulfillment, nor is it what was revealed and promised to him, and if through the want of a better understanding of the testimonies of God we attribute to Abram as the object of his faith, a calling and a hope identical with that of the Church of God in the present dispensation, we falsify the Scriptures, and the effect must be to lower the tone of our own walk. The relationship of God with Abram was marked by special outward providences, and the possession of worldly riches, posterity, etc., were marks of the favor of God, but it is not so now, and if we overlook or forget this difference, we shall be quickly betrayed into the pursuit of earthly things, and shall measure God's love to us by the providential bounties of His hand instead of by the gift of His Son, and the revelation He has given to us In His word of the counsels and interests of His heart concerning us. It has an attractive appearance of humility to refuse to accept a higher order of blessing than the worthies of old were called to know as theirs; kit what we have to do with is the testimonies of God.
It is impossible to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called, unless we know of a surety what that vocation is, and if the enemy of God and of His Christ can betray us by a " voluntary humility " from the sense of our high and holy calling to a common level in this respect with the calling of any in by-gone dispensations, the power of a true and effective testimony is gone. Let us see to this with all fear in the presence of God. Before entering briefly into the consideration of Heb. 11:8, which is the stronghold of those who assume Abram to have been actuated by a spiritual and not a literal understanding of the promises, I would remark upon two passages in particular which are also Used as if they taught that these the blessing of believers of every age was one and the same thing, and that all were-merged into one great family. First, in Gal. 3, Abram is- called the father of the faithful, and it is said that we that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abram.
" Blessed with"- does not here signify identity of blessing, but identity of the principle, faith, upon which we are blessed in opposition to works. The other passage is Eph. 3 where the expression every family is rendered the whole family, as if, as we have just said, all distinctions between the heavenly and the earthly people of God were merged. That -Abram will have a place and a portion in the heavens in the day of glory, cannot, I think, be denied; several scriptures seem to indicate this; but that that place and portion will be in the church of God as now called out, and that this was the object presented to his faith when upon earth,' and what he looked for as that which was signified by the promises’ made to him concerning Canaan are what the Scriptures nowhere teach, as we have already intimated. In Matt. 8:10-12, the Lord said, in connection with the faith of the Gentile centurion, which contrasted so strikingly and so sadly with the unbelief of the Jews,' " Verily I say unto you I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel; and I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west (i e., Gentiles] and shall sit down with Abraham, and. Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom [i e., Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This passage directly connects Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with the kingdom of heaven, which is certainly not heaven, much less is it "the Church which' is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:23).
We will now turn to Heb. 11:8-16, etc.
Ver. 8. " By faith, Abram, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed, and he went out, not knowing whither he went."
None have -a doubt I suppose but that the place Abraham was called to go out into, and which he should after receive for an inheritance, is the land of Canaan.
. Ver. 9, 10. " By faith, he sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in TABERNACLES with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he looked' for a city which bath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." That which is to be particularly noticed here, is, that Abraham's faith did not suffer him to go before God, in taking possession of any part of the land of promise. In patience he possessed his soul; and until God should be pleased to give as well as to promise him an inheritance therein, he was content to be a stranger though in it. He did not build himself a city, nor anything of the nature of a settled habitation; but dwelt in tabernacles. Nor was this a passing effort of faith, much less was it a mere excitement of the energy of the flesh which passed away with the novelty of his position: it was an enduring confidence in the word of Him that had promised; and therefore it is said, not only that he dwelt in tabernacles, but that he did so with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promises. A hundred years did he thus wait upon God,. WAITING indeed for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. " A city which hath foundations" is here in contrast with tabernacles which have none, being movable; and its builder and maker being God, is in contrast with anything he might have built for himself. There is not a syllable in these verses to make it necessary to assume that the city the patriarch waited for was to be in heaven, or anywhere in fact but in Canaan. It was moreover to be Abraham's habitation, whereas the Holy City, the new Jerusalem to which this passage is said to refer, is not the habitation of the risen saints, but the risen saints themselves the habitation of God.
Verses 11 and 12 may be looked upon in connection with the present subject as parenthetical.
Verse 13. " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." It seems to me that to attribute to these worthies a hope IN heaven as distinct from a heavenly order and condition of earthly things in Canaan with God for their God, nullifies entirely the special and peculiar excellence of their faith, as set forth in these verses, and robs the passage of its proper force and beauty as an illustration and example to us.
Had heaven been the object of their hopes, there would have been nothing so particularly remarkable in their DYING in faith; death would have been to them, in that case, a step in the direction of their hopes, as it is with us; it would have brought them so much nearer the consummation of their desires: but if, instead of this, death were according to the nature of things the cutting of them off from the very place which God had promised to give them for an inheritance; if it were the natural severance of them from the place of the fulfillment of the promises, it was marvelous faith that could enable them thus to die out of the scene and yet to believe that God would give it to them. This is, I take it, what gives its especial value to their faith; it was faith in the living God that raiseth the dead. The expression " on the earth," at the close of this verse, very naturally suggests the idea of a contrast between earth and heaven; it is, however, the same word in the original as that rendered in verse 9, "the land of promise." It was in " the land" that they confessed themselves to be strangers and pilgrims.
Verses 14, 15. " For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned: but now they desire a better, that is a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He bath prepared for them a city."
These verses show conclusively that in God's view the question that might possibly have exercised the minds of these worthies (Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and Sarah), would not have been between the relative attractiveness of heaven and earth, but of CANAAN and MESOPOTAMIA. Had heaven been the place of their hopes as contrasted with the earth, the land from whence they came out would have had no more attractions for them than Canaan, and the Holy Ghost's argument would have been of little force. The better country which they desired Was not heaven as better than earth; but Canaan as better than Mesopotamia. A heavenly country indeed, that chosen land will be, that is, ordered and arranged in a heavenly and divine way, and in it there shall be nothing contrary to God; the heavens ruling and the days of heaven realized upon earth. One thing is certain, viz., that a heavenly country is not heaven.
Furthermore, the declaration that God was not ashamed to be called their God, is, I take it, another proof of the earthly character-of the hope that actuated these worthies: for on reference to Gen. 17:8,- it will—be seen that it was in direct connection with the promise to give Abram and his seed this very land, Canaan, wherein he was-then a stranger, that God said He would be their God. By faith they looked forward to the possession of that land, and God owned their faith by calling Himself' their God. The words of Gen. 17:8, are, "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein—thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
If anything further be needed to satisfy any one of the essential difference between the blessing promised to the saints in the past dispensations from Abram downwards, and the proper hope and calling of the Church in this, it is found, I think, in the last verse-of the chapter before us (Heb. 11), where it is declared that they have not yet received the fulfillment of their hopes, because it is the good pleasure of God to have provided some BETTER. THING for us; and that they should not enter upon the fulfillment of theirs until we, believers in this dispensation, shall enter upon the consummation of OURS. " And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Compare Rom. 8:19-23, where the whole creation is said to groan, waiting for the same thing, viz., our perfection in redeemed risen bodies, before
it can be delivered into the glorious liberty that awaits it. The fulfillment of earthly blessing in connection with even church blessing is seen in the fact that the t: twelve apostles are to possess earthly glory as well as heavenly, for they are to it upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
G. O.

Home

OH! bright and blessed scenes,
Where sin shall never come,
Whose sight my longing spirit weans
From earth, where yet I roam!
And can I call my home
My Father's house on high;
The rest of God my rest, to come,
My place of liberty?
Yes, in that light unstained,
My stainless soul, shall live;
My heart's deep longings more than gained,
When God His rest shall give.
His presence-there my soul,
Its rest, its joy untold,
Shall find, when endless ages roll,
And time shall ne'er grow old.
My God the center is,
His presence fills that land;
And countless myriads own'd as His,
Round Him adoring stand.
My God, whom I have known,
Well known in Jesus' love;
Rests in the blessing of His own,
Before Himself above.
Glory supreme is there,
Glory that shines through all,
More precious still that love to share,
As those that love did call.
Like Jesus in that place
Of light and love supreme,
Once man of sorrows full of grace,
Heaven's blest and endless theme.
Like Him, O grace supreme!
Like Him, before Thy face,
Like Him, to know that glory beam,
Unhindered face to face.
Oh! love supreme and bright,
Good to the fullest heart,
That gives me now as heavenly light
What soon shall be my part.
Be not to me, my God,
As one that turned aside
To tarry for a night, and trod
His onward way. Abide
With me as light divine,
That brings into my breast
Those glad'ning scenes e'en now as mine,-
Soon my eternal rest.
The above lines on "Home " are borrowed, with permission of the Editor, from "A Voice to the Faithful," No. 5. May, 1867.
24, Warwick-lane, E C., London.

How to Get Peace*

How can I get peace with God?
He has " made peace by the blood of the cross."
I do not deny that; I believe it; but I have not peace; and how can I have that peace myself?
"Being justified by faith, "we have peace with God."
Well, I know it is so written, but I have not peace; that I know: I wish I had, and I sometimes think I do not believe at all. I see you happy; and how is that happiness of soul to be had?
You do not, then, think it presumptuous to be at peace with God in the assurance of His favor, and thus of our own salvation?
I think it would be in me; but I see it in Scripture, and therefore it must be right; and I see a few who enjoy the Divine favor, in whom one sees it is real. But I do not know how to get this. It leaves me distressed if I think of it, though I get on from day to day as other Christians do; but when this question is raised, I know I am not at peace, nor assured of. Divine favor resting upon me, as I see you and others enjoying it. And it is a serious thing, because if " being justified by faith, we have peace- with God," as you say, and as I know Scripture says, I have not peace with God; and how, then, can I be justified?
You have not the true knowledge of justification by faith. I do not say you are not justified in God's sight, but your conscience has not possession of it. The Reformers, all of them, went further than I do. They all held that if a man had not the assurance of his own salvation he was not justified at all. Now, whoever believes in the Son of God is, in God's sight, justified from all things. But till he sees this as taught of God, till he apprehends the value of Christ's work, he has no consciousness of it in his own soul, and, of course, if in earnest, as you are, has not peace; nor is his peace solidly established till he knows he is in Christ, as well as that Christ died for him, and the Christian's getting on, as you say, day by day, is a false and hollow thing, which must some time or other be broken up. It is that Which often causes distress on death-beds. And the character of Christian activity is sadly deteriorated and made a business of, a kind of means of getting happy, not work in the power of the Spirit; by a soul at peace. If a person is really serious, walks before God, he cannot rest in spirit till he be at peace with Him, and the deeper all these exercises are the better. But He has made peace by the blood of the cross. All these exercises are merely bringing up the weeds to the surface' as plowing and harrowing a field. They are useful in this way, and necessary; but they are not the crop which faith in the finished work of Christ produces. His work is finished. He " appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself;" and He finished the work which His Father gave Him to do." That work, which puts away our sin, is complete and accepted of God. If you come to God by Him if your sins are not all put away by it, completely and forever, they never can be, for He cannot die again; and all by the "one sacrifice," or else, as the Apostle reasons in Heb. 9, " He must often have suffered."
I see that more clearly, and that it is a perfect finished work,' done once for all.. What do you want, then, still, in: order: to have peace?
Well, that is what I want to see clearly.
I am anxious, before we speak of your state and hindrances to have the work itself clearly before our minds. Who did this work?
Why, Christ, of course.
What part had you in completing it?
None.
None, surely, unless we say your sins. And to what state of your soul does it apply,-a godly or an ungodly state?
Well, must not I be holy?
Surely, " without holiness no man shall see the Lord." But do you see how quickly, and with the instinct of self-righteousness, you turn from Christ's work to your own holiness-to what you are? It is curious -the quicksightedness of man to what makes nothing of him and his self-approbation. Your desire of holiness, however, is the desire of the new man. Were you indifferent to it, one's work would be to seek to awaken your conscience, not to talk of peace; rather, perhaps, to break up false peace. But we are now inquiring how an anxious soul can find peace.
Quite so. I am sadly indifferent sometimes, and that is one thing that troubles me; but I have not peace, and I would give anything for it.
I do not doubt such indifference retards, in a certain sense, your finding it, but we have humbly to learn what we are; the gain of a few dollars would give more earnestness to many a soul. But I repeat my question, -does this work of Christ apply simply to your ungodliness or godliness, or to an improved state, at least?
Why; simply, of course, to my ungodliness.
Undoubtedly. Consequently not to your holiness, if there were any, nor to an improved state. Yet, what are you looking for to get peace? Is it not an improved state of soul?
Why, yes.
Then you are on the wrong road, for that by which Christ " has made peace " applies to your ungodliness.
Your desire is right, but you are putting the cart before the horse,-as men speak,-you are looking for holiness to get Christ, instead of looking to have Christ to get holiness.
But I do hope for His help in order to get it.
That I can believe, but you are looking for His help, not to His work, or blood-shedding for peace. You want righteousness, not help. We need His help every moment when we are justified. He is the Author of every good thought in us before. But that is not peace, nor His blood-shedding, nor righteousness. Yet this search is not without its fruit, for all that, because it leads you to see that you cannot thus find what you seek for. You will neither find holiness thus, nor peace by it. But, Ending that you cannot, and that when " to will is present," you do not find " how to perform that which is good," will lead you, through grace, knowing that there is no good in you, to that which does give peace, -Christ' s work,-and not your state and the work of grace in you. That work God works; but it is not to lead us to look at it as the way of peace, but through it and out of ourselves, simply and wholly, to Christ's work and His acceptance before God. But come now, where are you before God?
I do not know. That is just what troubles me. Are you lost?
I hope not. Of course, we are all lost by nature; but I hope there is a work of grace in me, though I sometimes doubt it.
Suppose you stood before God now, and your case had to be decided, where would you, be, had it, as it must in judgment, to be decided by your works?, Have you confidence?
I hope it would be right; I cannot help thinking there is a work of grace in me; but I cannot think of judgment without fear.
I trust there is a work of grace in you,-do not doubt it; but here is the turning-point of our inquiry:-What you want is, to be in God's presence, and know, there, that you are, if God enters into judgment with you (as it must then be in righteousness and in respect of your state and works), simply lost! Now you are a sinner, and a sinner cannot subsist before God in judgment at—all. It is not help you want here; that is, if actually in God's presence, but righteousness, and that you have not got; I mean as to your own faith and conscience, through and in which we possess it. Righteousness can alone suffice before God; and now the righteousness of God, for we have none, and only this is to be found. Nor does the work of grace in us produce this. It is by faith, through the work of Christ, and in Him we possess it; through Him God justifies the ungodly. The case of the Prodigal Son will illustrate this. There was a work of God in him; he came to himself, found himself perishing, and set out towards his father. When setting out he acknowledges his sins, adding " make me as one of thy hired servants." There was uprightness, a sense of Divine goodness, and a sense of sin, and he was drawing conclusions as to what he might hope for when he met his father; and so are you. He had what the world of Christians call humility and a humble hope; was drawing conclusions just as you are, which proved what?-that he had never met his father. He could not reason as to how he would be received when he did meet him, if he had met him. It is the position of one who had never met God, though God had wrought in him. When he did meet his father not a word of making him like " the hired servants" is to be found. There was the confession of sin fully, and his previous experience had brought him in his rags to his father, in his sins (not loving them, but in them and confessing them). The effect of the previous process was that he then met God, as to his conscience, in his sins; and that was all; and had his father on his neck-grace reigned-and had the best robe, Christ, the righteousness of God, which no progress had given him, of which he had nothing before. It was a new thing conferred on him. When in God's presence we need Christ, not progress; righteousness and justification through Him, not help or improvement. God has helped us, or we should not have been there. There has been progress, but the progress has been to bring us into God's presence, not to judge of the progress and hope because of it; but to judge of sin in His sight and know He can have none of it, and to find Christ our perfect acceptance in His sight instead of ourselves-Christ; who has borne our sins,-Christ, who is our righteousness, perfect, absolute, and eternal. It is not in looking at our progress that we find peace. Were it so, we should have to say: " therefore being justified by experience., we have peace with God;" but that the word of God never says. True progress as to this is our being brought as mere and wholly lost sinners, confessing our sins, and that "in us, that is, in our flesh, there is no good thing," into God's presence; and thus the consciousness that we are lost as a present thing. It is not a question what we shall be, or how we shall be judged to be in the day of judgment, but the discovery of what we are,-our actual sins and our sinful nature-which is the real plague of an upright soul, and getting Christ instead of these—-" the best robe," instead of our "rags," when in God's presence in them. We have found Christ and believed in Him. He has been the propitiation for our sins, bearing them in His own body on the tree; and, having Christ, He is our righteousness; God has condemned sin in the flesh, when He was an offering for it {Rom. 8:3), and we are not " in the flesh," but "in Christ." Instead of Adam and his sins, that is, ourselves, we have Christ and the value of His work. This is true of every one that believes in Him, comes to God by Him: Were we as simple as Scripture it would be seen in a moment. But we are not, and we have to be cured of the self-righteousness of our hearts, and, as mere sinners before God, find that God in love has taken up the question of our sins and our evil nature, has anticipated the day of judgment, and settled the question for every one that comes to God by Him, '" once for all," and forever, on the cross, has dealt with the sins which. I should have had to answer for in the day of judgment; and dealt with them in putting them away according to His own righteousness, and that there our fullest form of sin in flesh against God, that is, enmity against God, met with God dealing with sin, in grace to us, but in judgment against it. Sin and God met on the cross, when Christ was made sin for us, and by His death we have died to it, and are the fruit of the travail of his soul before God. He bore the sins of many, and appeared to put away sin, has glorified God about it in righteousness in that momentous hour. He took what I had earned; I get the fruit of what He has done. Practically speaking, I come to God like Abel, with that sacrifice in my hand;_ God must own its value; I have the testimony that I am righteous; the witness is borne to my gifts; my acceptance is according to the value of Christ's sacrifice in God's sight; coming with that is confession of righteous exclusion in myself, not of improvement in state; I come with Christ in my hand, so to speak, my slain Lamb, and the testimony is to my gift. God looks at that when I thus come by it, not at my state, which, so coming, is confessedly that of a sinner, and only a sinner, as to his own title, shut out from God.
But must not I accept Christ?
Ah, how "I" gets through the blessedest testimonies of God's ways towards us in grace. I say here is Christ on God's part for you—God's Lamb your answer,- "but must not I?" I am not surprised. It is no reproach I make; it is human nature, my nature in the flesh; but know that in " I" there is no good thing.
But tell me, would you not be glad to have Him?
Surely I should.
Then your real question is not about accepting Him, but whether God has really presented Him to you, and eternal life in Him. A simple soul would say, " Accept I I am only too thankful to have Him!" but, as all are not simple, one word on this also. If you have offended some one grievously, and a friend seeks to offer him satisfaction, who is to accept it?
Why, the offended person, of course.
Surely. And who was offended by your sins?
Why, God, of course.
And who must accept the satisfaction?
Why, God must:
That is it. Do you believe He has accepted it?
Undoubtedly I do., -
And is -
Satisfied.
And are not you?
Oh! I see it now. Christ has done the whole work, and God has accepted it, and there can be no more question as to my guilt or righteousness. He is the latter for me before God. It is wonderful I and yet so simple! But why did I not see it? how very stupid!
That is faith in Christ's work, not our accepting it, gladly as we do, but believing God has. You have no need to inquire now whether you believe. The object is before your soul, seen by it: what God has revealed is known in seeing it thus by faith. You are assured of that, not of your own state. As you see the lamp before you and know it; not by knowing the state of your eye, you know the state of your eye by seeing it. But you say how stupid I was. It is ever so. But allow me to ask you what you were looking for?-Christ, or holiness in yourself and a better state of soul?
Well, holiness and a better state of soul.
No wonder you did not see Christ then. Now this is what God calls submitting to God's righteousness, finding a righteousness which is neither of nor in ourselves but finding Christ before God, and the proud will, through grace, submitting to be saved by that which is not of nor in ourselves. It is Christ instead of self, instead of our place in the flesh. Had you obtained peace in the way you sought it you would have been satisfied with whom?
Myself.
Just so. And what would that have been? Nothing real indeed, and shutting out Christ if it were, save as a help, shutting Him out as righteousness and peace. And as an upright soul taught really of God cannot be satisfied with itself, it remains, though confidingly in love if walking with God, yet without peace for years perhaps, till it does submit to God's righteousness.-And now note another point: for the soul at peace with God can now contemplate Christ to learn. He has not only borne our sins, and died to sin, and closed the whole history of the old man in death for those who believe, they having been crucified with him:-but He has glorified God in this work, (John 12:31-33: 17:4, 5) and so obtained a place for man in the glory of God: and a place of present positive acceptance, according to the nature and favor of God whom He has glorified; and that is our place before God. It is not only that the old man and his sins are all put out of God's sight, but we are in Christ before God; and this we have the consciousness of by the Holy Ghost given to us. (John 14:20.) Accepted in the Beloved; Divine favor resting on us as on Him. And thus too He dwells in us; and this leads unto true practical holiness. We are sanctified, set apart to God by His blood; but we are so in possessing His life, or Him as our life, and the Holy Ghost, and these, or, if you please, He Himself becomes the measure of our walk and relationship with God. We are not our own but bought with a price, and nothing inconsistent with His blood, and the price of it and its power in our hearts becomes a Christian. This was beautifully expressed in the Old Testament in figures. When a leper was cleansed, besides the sacrifice the blood was put on the tips of his ear, his thumb, his great toe. Every thought, every act, all in our walk which cannot pass the test of that blood, is excluded from the Christian's thoughts and walk. And how glad he is to be freed from this world and the body of sin, practically, and have that precious blood as the motive, measure, and security for it; that what- ever grieves Le Holy Spirit of God, by which we are sealed when thus sprinkled, is unsuited to a Christian, seeing He dwells in him. And that precious blood and the love Christ showed in shedding it become the motive, and the Holy Ghost the power of devotedness and love, in walking as Christ walked. If we are in Christ, Christ is in us; and we know it by the Comforter given (John 14); and we are the epistle of Christ in this world: the life of Jesus is to be manifested in our mortal body.
But your standard is very high.
It is simply what Scripture gives. " He that saith he abideth in him ought to walk even as he walked."
God Himself is set before us as the model, Christ being the expression of what is divine in a man. "Be ye followers of God as dear children and walk in love as Christ has loved us and given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor." Nor is there any limit. " Hereby know we love because he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." " Now are ye light in the Lord, walk as children of light." But you may remark here that there is nothing legal, nothing by which we are seeking to make our case good with God. Many would say that complete grace and assurance leaves liberty to do as we like; that if we are completely saved, what are the motives or need of any works. It is a dreadful principle. As if we have no motive but "getting saved" to work, by, none but legal bondage and obligations; and if we are saved all motive is gone. Have the angels no motive? It is an utter blundering mistake, such as we could not make in human things. What should we think of the sense of one who told us, that a man's children were exempt from obligation, because they were certainly and always his children?-I should say that they were always and certainly under obligation because they were always and certainly his children, and if they were not the obligation ceased.
That is clear enough though I never thought of it. But you do not mean to say, that we were under no obligation before we were children of God.
I do not, but we were not under that obligation; you cannot be under the obligation of living as a Christian till you are one. We were under the obligation of living as men ought to live, as men in the flesh before God; and of that the law was the perfect measure. But upon that ground we were wholly lost, as we have seen.-Now we are completely saved who through grace believe, and are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. And our duties are the duties of God's, children. Duties always flow and right affections too, from the relationships we are in, and the consciousness of the relationship is the spring and character of the duty;-though our forgetting it does not alter the obligation..And so Scripture always speaks,-" Be ye followers of God as dear children." " Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy."-Right affections and duties flow from the place we are already in, and are never the means of getting into it. We enjoy it when we walk in it, rather we enjoy the light and favor of God, communion with Him in it.-But failure, note, in faithfulness, does not lead to doubt the relationship; but because we are in it, to blame ourselves for inconsistency with it. Here the advocacy of Christ comes in and other truths, which I cannot enter into now though most precious in -their place. Only remark that that advocacy is not the means of our obtaining righteousness, but is founded on it, and Christ's having made the propitiation for our sins. Nor do we go to Him that He may advocate, but He goes for us because we have sinned. Christ had prayed for Peter before he had even committed the sin, and just for what was needed; not that he might not be sifted; he wanted that; but that his faith might not fail when he was sifted. Ali, if we knew how to trust Him! See how, in the midst of His enemies, He looked to Peter at the very right moment to break his heart!
How simple things are when we take the word; and how it changes all your thoughts of God. One is altogether in a new state!
True indeed, and this leads to " two other points I wished to advert to. We have looked at Christ's work as satisfying, yea, glorifying God, because we had to see how righteousness was, to be had. But we must remember it was God's sovereign love which gave Christ, and the same love in which He offered Himself for us. It is not for us righteousness reigns; that will indeed be true hereafter, when judgment returns to righteousness, when God will come and judge the earth. But for us grace reigns, sovereign goodness, God Himself, through righteousness, a divine righteousness, as we have seen, which gives us a place in glory in God's presence according to the acceptance of Christ, and like Him it is wise than as forgiven, and accepted in the Beloved, and knowing it, as one who has " not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."
But if I receive this there is a passage which I don't understand. We are told to " examine ourselves whether we are in the faith," and what you have said sets, it seems to me, this aside.
We are told no such thing. Many a sincere soul is honestly doing it, and we all pass naturally through it. But it is there in Scripture.
The words are part of a sentence in 2 Cor. 13:3,5. But the beginning of the sentence is this: " Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me" then a parenthesis. " Examine yourselves whether you be in the faith." It is a taunt. The Corinthians had called in question Christ's speaking in Paul, and the reality of his apostleship, as you may see all through both epistles. And he says, as a final argument, " You had better examine yourselves; how came you to be Christians?"- for he had been the means of their conversion.-Hence he adds, " Know ye not your own selves that Christ dwells in you except ye be reprobates." How came He there? He appeals to their certainty to prove his apostleship to their shame: but this is no direction to examine whether one is in the faith. It is all well to examine whether we are walking up to it; but that is a very different thing. A child does right to do that as to his conduct as such; it would be sad work for it to do the other and examine if he was a child. The consciousness, and the never-failing consciousness of a relationship, is a different thing from consistency with it; and we must not confound the two. The loss of the consciousness of the relationship, (which, however, I do not think takes place, when once really possessed, unless in cases of divine discipline for sins,) destroys the grounds of duty and the possibility of affections according to it. Look at the passage.
I see it plain enough. There is nothing to complete the passage, " Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me," if we do not connect this with it. And, in any case, the force of the Apostle's reasoning is clear, and he appeals to their certainty-" Know ye not." This last would have no sense if they were to examine, as a duty, if it were so. But where had we got to with Scripture?
Rather where had we got to without it! You don't read and search as you ought. Do so, and the truth will be clear to you; only, surely, we need God's grace and looking to Him, that we may receive the " sincere milk of the word as new born babes."
I have yet one point I wish very briefly to notice to clear up our minds on the subject we are inquiring into. In receiving Christ we receive life. " This is the record," says, John, " that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that bath the Son bath life." Between this life and the flesh there is no common thought. If we do not realize redemption, our being quickened (not taking us from under law and the sense of our own responsibility) puts us in misery of heart at finding sin in us; as in the seventh of Romans. If we do know redemption, and have been sealed by the Spirit, still " the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; they are contrary as ever one to the other." But if led of the Spirit we are not under the law. Now you have been trying to draw hopeful conclusions from finding signs of life in yourself; having only a general apprehension, which always accompanies true conversion, of the goodness of God, strengthened by the knowledge that Christ died. But all this reasoning about yourself was in no way faith in redemption. It left you still, though, with better hope, in view of judgment; or, at least, if when looking at the cross you Saw that there was there what you needed as a sinner, you still looked for something better in yourself, you could not say you possessed what you needed in the cross: yea, were the fruit of it, as to your state before God, and when you turned to the judgment, your state would stand you in no good stead there. Life is not redemption. Both belong to the believer, but they are different things. You were looking for proofs of life, concluding that if they were there you could pass in the judgment; and then, perhaps in a vague way you brought in Christ to boot!
I think you have described my case pretty nearly.
Now when a person lives close with God in simplicity of heart, the sense of goodness in God predominates, and there is the savor of piety; but when they do not there is uneasiness and restlessness; the accusing conscience predominates, and we are unhappy, if not dismally afraid. But in neither case is redemption really known; -it is not known that Christ has taken our place in judgment, and given us His in glory; only we must wait for the adoption itself; the redemption of the body. The way in which Scripture unites these two truths is in the resurrection of Christ. This is the power of life; and the seal of the acceptance of His work-His corning fully up out of the consequences of our sin into another state. So we in. Him. We were dead in sin, exposed to judgment, and under death; Christ comes down from heaven, accomplishing, in dying, the work of putting our sins away; and we are dead with Him; and then He, and we with Him are raised, consequent on the completed work, and God's acceptance of it. He has quickened us together with Him having forgiven us all trespasses. It is life whose full divine power is shown in resurrection; it is not only eternal life communicated, but deliverance out of the state we were in, and our entrance into another; not outwardly, of course; yet, but really by the possession of this life. Redemption means, though, by price, a deliverance out of the state I was in, and bringing me into another and a free one. Hence we talk of the redemption of the body, which we have not yet. Life does not, by itself, give this: through it we feel the burden of the old state we are in; but when we find that we are redeemed also, we know that we have been brought, at the cost of Christ's death, out of the old Adam state we were in, into Christ. Hence we have " boldness in the day of judgment, because as He is so are we in this world."
I cannot follow quite the course of scripture thoughts you give. I must learn these things; but I see the difference between redemption and life; though we have both in Christ now; He has died and is risen. I suppose I had life before; but I have, in a measure, now understood redemption too.
Yes, you were, of course, redeemed. And surely God had wrought in you in grace, as you said; but, as already said, you were looking at this in view of a God of judgment, with glimpses of divine love, but had not faith in accomplished redemption. See how the reasoning of the Apostle applies to this in Rom. 5:19: " By one man's obedience many shall be made (constituted) righteous." -" Then," says the flesh, " I may live in sin." What is the answer? No, you ought not! This would be to put you back under the claims of law, and so destroy again what is taught of Christ's obedience. In no wise; " How can we that are dead to sin live in it?" You have been baptized to Christ's death, and are a Christian, by having part in death. How, if you have died with Him to sin, can you live in it? We are now free to give ourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead.
Well, while the old foundations remain, it makes a new thing of the whole matter. It is not the same way of putting Christianity at all. I have to realize it, though I am quite different as to my ground of peace already; or, rather, I have one, and had not before. But I see it is in Scripture and I must search that out.
The truth is, the great body of true sincere Christians are as those without, hoping it will be all right when they get in; instead of being within and showing what is there to the world, as the epistle of Christ.
But you would make us all out and out Christians, dead, as you say, to the world and everything.
Surely; " a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." It is the single eye which causes the whole body to be full of light. We are not our own. The new man cannot have his objects here; his service he has; so had Christ; in nothing did He have his objects. We are crucified to the world, and the world to us; and so we have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts. Only remember, that the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and that it needs vigilance, " working out," as to the passage of the wilderness, " your salvation with fear and trembling": not because your place is uncertain, but because God does " work in you to will and to do:" and it is a serious thing to maintain God's cause when the flesh is in us, and Satan disposes of the world to hinder and deceive us. But do not be discouraged, for God works in you; greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world. You cannot be in wilderness difficulties unless you have been redeemed out of Egypt. My grace is sufficient for thee, says Christ. My strength is made perfect in weakness. If God be for us who can be against us. The secret is lowliness of heart and the' sense of dependence and looking to Christ with confidence who has, saved us and called us with a holy calling. You cannot mistrust yourself, nor trust God, too—much. By redemption you are brought to God, and are in the place of His people, and now we can say of His children and church, as such, set to make good His glory there. The true knowledge of redemption brings one in perfect peace, into true and constant dependence on the Redeemer. But if you have not the first you cannot have the second; nor can you walk with God if you are not reconciled to Him.
It is true. Do not suppose I want to make difficulties, but there is still a question I have to ask; I wish to get clear on these points. We have been taught to rely on God's promises and trust them for our salvation.; it is the language we constantly hear, and I do not see, if your view be right, how exactly to connect it with trusting in the promises for salvation; and surely we should do that.
The answer is very simple, and I am glad you put the question. It is just these points we have to inquire into. Trusting God's promises is clearly right, that is certain, and there are most precious promises, too. But tell me, is it a promise that Christ shall come and die and rise again?
No: He is come, and has died, and is risen, and is at God's right hand.
This, then, cannot be a promise, because it is an accomplished fact. For Abraham it was a promise; and he did right to believe it as such. To us it is an accomplished fact, and we must believe it as such. And so, Scripture speaks. He believed that that which God had promised He was able also to perform. But we believe that what by its efficacy saves us, He has performed. It would be unbelief to treat it yet as a promise; and so it is written-" You to whom it shall be imputed, believing on Him who bath raised up Jesus Christ from the dead." You will find both passages together, speaking of this very point, at the end of Rom. 4 As to help on our journey onwards, there are many and ; cherished promises. " I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." " God will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able to bear." " No man shall pluck His sheep out of His hand." " Who will also confirm you to the end that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.' I might cite many others of the greatest comfort and value to us in our difficulties on the way. But the work in which I have to believe as justifying me and reconciling me to God, as alone and perfectly putting away my sins and redeeming me to God, is not a promise: nor can be looked at as such. It is an accomplished fact, a work already accepted of God.
I see it clearly; indeed, nothing can be simpler and plainer the moment it is before you. What justifies before God is not a promise at all but an accomplished fact. I had never noticed that passage in Rom. 4 It is very plain. How carelessly one reads Scripture! But indeed, the truth of what you say is evident on the face of it.
Allow me as we have touched this point to draw your 1 attention to another thing in the form in which the work and testimony of grace is put. You may remark that in the passage in Rom. 4 it is said, not “believe on Christ, however true that remains, but '" on him that- raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." So Peter, " who by him do believe in God who raised him up from the dead and gave him glory." So the Lord Himself as to His coming into the world, " He that heareth [ my words and believeth on him that sent me." We know God Himself only really, by knowing Him through Christ. If I know Him thus, I know Him as God our Savior; as one who has not spared His Son for me; as one who, when Christ was dead as having taken our sins, raised Him from the dead. In a word, I not only believe in Christ but in Him who has given Christ and owned His work.; who has given glory to man in Him; as a God who has come to save, not as one who is waiting to judge me. I believe in Him by Christ. When Israel had passed the Red Sea they believed in a God who had delivered them and brought them to Himself; and so do I. I know no other God but that. If I believe in Him by Christ I do wait for a promise, for the redemption of the body, for the full results of His work. Thus Christianity gives us present affections, in peace, in a known relationship, and the energizing power of hope; the two things that give blessing and energy to man as to his position; for love is the spring of all. Love, because He first loved us; and finding our joy in Him, love to others, as partaking of His nature, and Christ's dwelling in our hearts, so that love constrains us.
You make a Christian 'a wonderful person in the world; but we are very weak for such a place.
I could never make him in my words what God has made him in His. As to weakness the more we feel it the better. Christ's strength is made perfect in our weakness.

Immanuel's Rule and Service

sa 1:1-64:12
STANDING on the top of Pisgah, in the field of Zophim, -Balaam, gifted with the -spirit of prophecy, peered through the long vista of ages not yet ended, and announced to Balak, awaiting the prophet's curse on Israel, that God had blessed them and he could not reverse it. Hopeless was it to expect he could prevail by any incantation against this people; for " the Lord was called from the threshing-floor to subdue the Midianites, " so that they lifted up their heads no more" (Judg. 8:28). Jephthah, the outcast and exile from his family, was recalled from the land of Tob to confront the armies of the Ammonites, whom he smote, " from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards with a very great slaughter.—Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel" (Judg. 11:33). David was taken from the sheepfold to do battle with Goliath of Gath. So He by whom God's people shall be finally set free was once in this world in -lowliness the reputed son of a carpenter. But how great is the difference in this between Gideon, Jephthah, David, and the Lord! They were of low estate, and God exalted them. He had to humble Himself; for He is God over all. Accordingly we have in this prophet the Lord presented as God and as man, filling various offices, and appearing in different characters. He is the mighty God, yet a helpless infant; King, yet servant; over- comer, yet overcome; intercessor and avenger; the Holy One of Israel, yet the bearer of His people's iniquities.
Beginning with the moral condition of the people, with which both heaven and earth are made acquainted, the prophet speedily passes on to the day of the Lord, the commencement of the millennium, when the nation of Israel should enter on the enjoyment of permanent blessing on earth. Much, however, had to take place before that era could dawn on the people of God. Unfitted by their moral condition for God's presence, judgment must do its work. So the vision of Chapter 6 is recorded. Its date is significant, the close of Uzziah's life. During his reign prosperity attended Judah; for he warred against the Philistines, and brake down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and built cities about Ashdod; and among the Philistines. And God helped him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians that dwelt in Gur-Baal, and the Mehunims. And the Ammonites gave gifts to Uzziah: and his name spread abroad even to the entering in of Egypt for he was marvelously helped till he was strong" (2 Chron. 26:6-15). This prosperity continued under his son Jotham, who "fought with the king of the Ammonites, and prevailed against them " (2 Chron. 27:5-6). But though outwardly prosperous- Judah was not obedient to God, and no more morally fit for the presence of God in their midst than Israel, whose condition at this time was one of anarchy; confusion, and lawlessness; for during the fifty-two years of Uzziah's reign he had seen six different monarchs in Israel, three of whom were murdered. At this juncture it was then that Isaiah received his commission from Jehovah, seated on a throne, to announce
judgment on the whole nation. Yet a remnant should be preserved. He saw Jehovah of hosts, but John 12 tells us it was the Lord Jesus Christ who then gave judgment against His people, a judgment the- righteousness of which none-could question after the glory of the only begotten of the Father had been displayed, and His own had refused to receive Him. (John 12:37-41; Acts 28:25-27). But this judgment is not final. It carries on " until," etc. (see ver.- 11-13).
Since Israel became a nation, God has raised up, instruments- to deliver His people, or lead them to victory. Moses, Joshua, the Judges, David, are instances of this. In the days-yet to dawn on that afflicted nation we learn. He' will act in a similar manner. But, " by whom," one may ask in the: words of Amos, " shall Jacob arise? for he is small." (Amos 7:2). We get the answer in our prophet, Chapter 7-12, accompanied I with an account of the inroad and success of the Assyrian of the prophet's day, typical of the king of the north in a future day. The virgin's son, Immanuel, is the man of God's choice, and the time: selected for the prophetic announcement of the manner of His birth was during the reign of Ahaz, when Judah had been brought low, and Ahaz was dispirited, threatened with a confederacy, organized against him and his kingdom, of Israel and Syria. "Behold a virgin shall conceive-and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” To Him the land shall belong. The Assyrian might invade Judah, and overspread the country, as he did subsequently in the reign of Hezekiah he might reach to the' neck, but should never overwhelm: it. The stretching out wings might fill the breadth of the land, but there he must stop; for the land belongs to Immanuel, which is 'God with us.' The waters may burst their banks, but they cannot rise beyond the permitted level, for no counsel, no might can, withstand God. This prophecy, partially fulfilled in the reign of Hezekiah, awaits its complete accomplishment in the latter day (see 10:12, 24, 25). The land being Immanuel's (8:8), the people need not fear the threatened attack, nor need the faithful join with the others in desiring a confederacy to ward off the impending calamity; for Immanuel (as we learn from Heb. ii. 13) speaks words of encouragement; " I will Wait upon the Lord that hideth His face from the house of Israel, and I will look for Him;" and the remnant, who obey God's voice, He owns as children given Him for signs and wonders in Israel from the " Lord of hosts which dwelleth in Mount Zion." Nor can the faithful be disappointed. For He, who owns them as the children given Him, owns the land, and will sit on David's throne. The great ones of the earth have titles and dignities suited to their high positions. He likewise has His. Immanuel speaks of God's presence with His people. His names in 9:6 show bow fitted is this child to get the victory, and to fill that throne vacant for ages, but just previous to all this seized on by the usurper Antichrist. " His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace." A new era must then dawn on this world, for the stability and duration of His rule is next declared. " Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."
In chapter 11 we get something more about the kingdom, viz., that which characterizes His rule. His title is indisputable, for He is the rod out of the, stern of Jesse, a branch that grows out of his roots. His perfect fitness: for the duties which, as King,. He must perform is secured, for " the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick under standing in the fear of the Lord." Faithfulness and righteousness will characterize Him, for " he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." He will be armed with almighty power, or "will smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips will he slay the wicked, righteousness being the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins." The enmity between Judah and Ephraim removed, their land shall again receive them, and the adversaries of Judah and Israel be .'.
cut off'. From Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, and the isles of the sea shall His people be brought back to God's land. Borne " on the shoulders of the Philistines towards the west, spoiling them of the east together, they shall lay their hands on Edom and Moab, and the children of Ammon shall obey them." To Him, the hope and head of Israel, shall the Gentiles seek. Once were the Jews the object of scorn, when Pilate said, Shall I crucify your King? Now, to that f King, first crucified, shall the Gentiles come. Nor will the beneficial effect of His reign end there. The enmity between Judah and Ephraim removed, the scorn of the Gentile for the Jew made to cease, there will cease like- i.-
wise the enmity between man and beast. For He who then shall reign is Prince of peace, as well as the mighty God. As the latter He has power over creation; as the former all parts of the universe shall share in the blessing of peace, " for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Seated on the throne as Jehovah in Chapter vi., decreeing judicial blindness on the nation, till a certain epoch, should arrive-now that epoch has Come, He is seen seated on David's throne as man and conqueror (9); rightly there because He is David's heir (11), and the only one who can wield supreme power in righteousness over Israel and the earth, because He is the Holy One of Israel (12:6); and the descendants of those Who heard and read Isaiah's prophecies in the land before the Babylonish captivity, will, when enjoying peace under His righteous rule, see how literally all has come to pass..Ruling in righteousness (32); all enemies cut off, Babylon (21), Antichrist (30:33), the nations who besiege Jerusalem (29:7), the Assyrian (10), the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth (24), Leviathan, the piercing crooked serpent, punished (xxvii.); fear which kept the remnant in their stronghold will be dispelled, and they, beholding the land that is very far off, shall also see the King in His beauty. Such is the manner in which the Lord Jesus is brought before us in the first thirty-nine chapters of this prophecy.
A cursory glance at the book discloses a marked difference between these chapters and those that follow. These tell us of the circumstances in which the people then were, and will be in the latter days; whereas chapters 40-46. treat more especially of their moral condition; so the prophecies of the Lord in the latter part of the book present Him, not so much in His official character as King, but in His servant character, not effecting the deliverance of an oppressed people so much as calling out a faithful remnant from the midst of an apostate nation, a preparation for that time when the widowed condition of Jerusalem should cease forever. And this is in perfect harmony with God's ways in times of old; He sent deliverers to His people to rescue them out of the hand of their enemies, as Othniel, Ehud, Gideon, Jephthah, David. He also sent prophets to recall them to their allegiance, and to awake in their hearts a sense of contrition for their grievous declension from the right way; so 'He by whom the final deliverance of Israel shall be effected first appeared as a prophet or teacher. For what duty is there which any of the sons of men have been fitted by God to discharge towards His rebellious people, which He in His goodness and condescension will not Himself stoop to perform?
Turning to the prophet we find chap. 40 opening with a proclamation of comfort to God's people and to God's city. " Her warfare is accomplished, her iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." Jeremiah predicted that God would recompense their iniquity and their sin double (16:18). Isaiah speaks of it as accomplished, and so the time of Jerusalem's consolation approaches. Closely following this announcement we have the commencement of these events stated which will end in that happy consummation. The voice of John the Baptist is heard crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Jehovah, the God of Israel, is coming to His people.. And as the Lord appeared on the throne as Jehovah before the announcement of His incarnation and descent from David after the flesh was made known, so here, before the character of His service is set forth, His divinity is proclaimed. Isaiah was charged with a message from God of governmental dealing for a time; John is found' in the wilderness of Judea speaking to his countrymen of grace as he preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Ages have passed away since John's voice was heard in the wilderness of Judea, but the word must surely be made good; for, though " all flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field," the grass may wither and the flower thereof may fade, " but the word of our God shall stand forever"-so " the Lord God will come with a strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him;" and to the cities of Judah it shall yet be said, "Behold your God." Now, then, there begins to be unfolded the character of the service He must perform ere Jerusalem can rejoice.
He takes the place of Jehovah's servant. " Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles" (42:1). God's servant, God's chosen one, He takes the place of man, of Israel, on earth; endures the contradiction of I! sinners against Himself without taking vengeance on them (42:3-4;. Matt. 12:14-21):; is dependent on God for everything, though by Himself the worlds were made, and He upholds all things by the word of His power; and all this that He might " open the blind eyes, bring out the prisoners from the prison), and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house; " for Jew and Gentile shall receive blessing through His humiliation. Surely such grace, it might have been supposed, would have won all hearts. Chapter 49 tells us how the Jews as a nation were affected by it. Fitted for His work by God. Himself, He here calls (49) to the isles and peoples afar off to hear, but what? the submission of Israel to their God incarnate? something very different,-the present failure of His mission to Israel. Yet blessed be God we stop not here. Because of that failure grace now flows out to Gentiles (49:8, compared with 2 Cor. 6:1, 2), and by-and-bye a faithful remnant shall be gathered to Zion. What a place has He consented to fill, what treatment has He stooped to receive! Labored in vain, His strength spent for naught and in vain, despised of men, abhorred of the nation,-a servant of rulers, such was His condition when on earth, by whom alone Israel, the Gentiles, the world can be fully blessed.
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel" is nevertheless, great as such a work will be and important as regards Israel, too small a sphere for Him to be restricted to. " I will also," says the word of God, " give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the ends of the earth." As far then as the confines of earth may reach, so far will the benefits of His work extend. Israel's king " shall be great to the ends of the earth " (Mic. 5:4). Thus prepared beforehand for the coming of their Messiah, if that substratum of good really exists in man, which so many fondly imagine, His advent would have been gladly hailed, and His rule cordially welcomed. Such however we know was not the case. His appearance in the midst of the people gave occasion for the display of what man really is, and how utterly corrupt and alienated is his heart from God. Nothing which under ordinary circumstances would have acted as a determent stopped the Jews in their headlong course of bitter enmity against the Lord. Men are wont sometimes to be lenient in their judgment of the one who can be of use to them, or has added glory to their nation. But though apprised of His future greatness, and reaping benefits from His presence among them when on earth, witnessing " the powers of the world to come," they yet openly rejected Him, and heaped indignities upon Him. This too was predicted. Chapter 1 speaks of it. Able to deliver, acting with divine power in creation, able to dry up the sea by His rebuke, to make rivers a wilderness, to clothe the heavens with blackness, and to make sackcloth their covering, He yet learned how to speak a word in season to him that is weary. What service was this I He suffered, too, from His creatures because obedient to God. " I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." With full power as God to crush His enemies, He yet kept the place of dependance, and waited for God to justify Him. And wherefore this? That others should know how to act, and learn how to trust; that when walking indark- ness and having no light they might trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon their God. Then follow three appeals to the faithful remnant to hearken to Him (51:1-8). They need not be discouraged if few in number; they need not fear if men are against them. He who addressed them shall judge nations, the isles shall wait on Him, and on His arm shall they trust. How beautiful the alternation of complete dependence and supreme power! For He is the arm of the Lord, and so the remnant now call on Him to awake and act as of old (51:9).
Further on we get something more about the arm of the Lord. He is the One by whom God's purposes on earth shall yet be carried out (li. 16). Next we get what the great ones will think of Him when they see Him delivering Israel. His last appearance to the world was on the cross, and when taken down from it to be laid in the grave; now they behold Him in glory arrayed with strength (52:13-15). Chapter 53 is wholly occupied with the arm of the Lord, but as filling a different position to that spoken of at the end of the previous chapter, and occupied with a very different work. It speaks of what He was, and what he suffered for Israel, for men, the foundation of all blessing, the source of all hope,—His death on the cross and His portion in resurrection. Jehovah of hosts, the Son of God, the arm of the Lord, He was also the sinner's substitute. He died, cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of God's people. It pleased the Lord to bruise Him, and on Him our sins were laid. And now, atonement effected, "he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." What a passage from the throne to the cross, from the manifested glory of Jehovah to the insults and rejection of sinners! And as 52 states what effect His future appearance will have on the kings when they see Him, this chapter tells us what was thought of Him by the remnant when on earth before. " He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised and we esteemed him not. Surely he bath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted." He died: but death, to man the extinction of all hopes for this world, death, which separates him from all that concerns the things of earth, was the appointed path for Him to tread that He should take His kingdom and reign; for us having died and risen He will sit on David's throne, see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied, when surrounded by the countless myriads of the heavenly saints, and make secure to Israel then on earth the sure mercies of David (55:3 compared with Acts 13:34).
A sketch of His life on earth as the servant of God would be incomplete without a summary of what He taught. This we get in 61, in a passage He quoted, applying it to Himself as the fulfiller of it, when He sat down with the eyes of all on Him in the synagogue at Nazareth. But then He stopped in the middle of the second verse. He preached the acceptable year of the Lord, but not then the day of vengeance of our God. Yet that He was to speak of. The prophets have predicted it; the Revelation is full of it; and this last, be it remembered, is the " Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John." There we get described the day of vengeance which will come, and the signs which shall precede it, with the judgments to be poured out previously, and the messengers to be sent (Rev. 11:3;14. 6). Then shall be comforted all that mourn, the signs of sorrow be removed, and Israel take her place as head of the nations, and everlasting joy be her portion (61:2—4). His birth, His lowliness, the treatment He received, His devoted service, the good news He declared, His rejection and death having been brought forward, and His resurrection intimated (3. 11, 12), what remains, it might be thought, but to take vengeance on His enemies. He will surely in God's own time; but first He has another work to perform, which He is now carrying on, He intercedes for Jerusalem. Absent from earth where He was crucified, He does not forget the place where God dwelt, and where He will dwell forever. He intercedes for Zion. " For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof shall go forth as- brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth " (62:1). Nor does He rest with this. He raises up intercessors on earth to pray for this (ver. 6, 7). How He intercedes above is not revealed, but what they say is (see 63:7; 64:12). He is asked to -return from heaven (64:1). He will. And in 63:1-6, we have a description of Him having returned and having executed judgment on Edom. From the throne to the manger, from the manger to the cross, from the cross to heaven, from heaven to earth as conqueror and vindicator of God, and deliverer of His people, such is the path of the Lord as set before us in Isaiah. " What hath God wrought," we may well exclaim. Many have been the instruments God has used to carry out His purposes on earth, feeble oftentimes have they been, that the power of God should be more fully displayed in them. But here we see something else. We see an instrument, a mighty instrument in the Lord's hand accomplishing His purposes, filling every position His servants could fill, and some they never could-Jehovah's throne and the cross on Calvary; and that instrument is Jehovah Himself. God has often wrought by others. Here He works by His Son. He has accomplished redemption from everlasting death for all who will accept it; He will effect the final deliverance of His people Israel on earth. He stooped to death, and Satan appeared to have gained the victory. He rose from the dead, and went to heaven, where He intercedes for Jerusalem. Satan's conqueror, the sinner's Savior, the faithful witness, the suffering servant, these are the characters which He appears in, these are the works he performs. He does them all Himself, for by Him and Him alone can all these be effectually accomplished.
C. E. S.

The Immortality of the Soul

There is nothing new under the sun. The Jewish Mystics and Cabbalists, and the Gnostics of the second and third centuries (against which last Paul warns us, and who, though beginning earlier, were in those centuries fully developed) held the doctrine of the non-immortality of the soul and its end, just as heretics on these points do now. They were divided even into the same two classes as now, i.e., some held the soul died with the body, others that it would be cast into the fire afterward, on being judged, and then consumed. Not only so, but they founded their teaching on the same reasonings as to nephesh, psuche, chaia, and ruach, etc. It may be well, therefore, after showing the facts to be so, to examine the various words and ascertain their use in Scripture, as well as that of some others sought to be employed to the same end. The doctrine of Jewish Rabbis was not, as is evident, that of Jesus Christ being eternal life, or they would not have been Jewish Rabbis. But, wherever they found it, basing it on the merit of works and keeping the law, as we may suppose, they taught that the higher spiritual life was a distinct thing from the animal life, and received at a distinct time. Their system is not uniform; more scriptural, but in many parts the same as our modern doctors, and the Gnostics completely so. The records of Jewish mysticism are comparatively of late date, but they record early opinions, many of which are found in early Christian fathers, such as Origen, Jerome, and others, and in Philo, and even Josephus. The Gnostics formed their systems in the same countries, Syria, and particularly Alexandria, the great seat of all these opinions. My impression is that all these views came from the East. But I have not used research enough to verify this, nor is it necessary for the reader. My object is to meet from Scripture the assertions of ancient and modern error. In the present case by inquiry into the use of words.
The Jewish doctors distinguished three souls: the nephesh, the ruach, and the neshama. The nephesh they held, as our moderns also tell us, to be the animal soul, the soul by which the body lives; ruach is the spirit suited to the middle world; neshama that suited to the upper, and in which was the image of and union with God. Thus in the book Sohar we have: " Let a man sanctify himself and they shall sanctify him more, and when a man is sanctified with the holiness of his Lord, he is then clothed with a holy mind, which is the inheritance of the holy one, and then he becomes heir of all things, and such are called the sons of the holy blessed God, as is written in Deut. 14 Ye are the sons of Jehovah your God.'" This doctrine of the three souls or parts of man pervades the Sohar. " Nephesh, the animal soul, is annexed to the body; the spirit to the soul (ruach to nephesh); and mind, the neshama or superior spirit, to the ruach. Some of them held that, if the child at least behaved well, having only the nephesh; he got the ruach at thirteen and a day old, and the neshama at twenty or twenty-one. Otherwise not. Some held there are those who never had any soul but the nephesh; others, that and the ricach; and others, again, the neshama also,-and they would be with God. If they had only the nephesh it remained in the grave with the body,-ended with it.
There was another system, which Origen applied even
to Christ, that the higher soul could not come into this world without taking a secondary soul, and so, consequently, the body Indeed, according to him, they are born here according to their conduct in a previous existence. Josephus says the Pharisees held the metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. It would seem that this trinity of the soul was some way connected with their speculations about the Godhead, the Memra, Shechinah, and a tissue of irreverent absurdities, which I need not enter into here.
In all ancient mythology and tradition, heathen and Jewish, will be found the craving of the human mind after truths which revelation gives us in their perfection. Infidels have, consequently, alleged these truths were borrowed from the traditions; than which nothing can be more false. They were the source of Arianism, and Gnosticism, Universalism, and Annihilationism. Thus Rationalists tell us that the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, was derived from the Alexandrian, or even Palestinian, Jews. These had their Memra, those their Logos, and Philo speaks largely of it, and makes the visible world itself an expression, so to speak, of the Logos, a living expression of it. But mark the real bearing of this. The reason was, that the supreme God could not by any possibility be in connection with matter. The mystic Rabbis held God for a kind of nonexistence, because there was no such connection with what we hold to exist. Hence there was a secondary God, the Logos, or Word, which partook of his nature but was not the Supreme, and he then revealed himself and was in communication with the creature. Yet in general, matter (Hule) was a thing evil in itself, a bond to the soul, and eternal, too.
Now Christianity teaches the exact contrary of this doctrine of the Logos. The Logos is God,-created everything,-and the very essence of Christianity is the immediate personal connection, in incarnation, between God and the creature-God and man in one person. All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily. " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," that Word which, in the beginning, was, when all began. In eternity He was God, and personally, too, with God. By Him was everything made, and the Father dwelt in Him, and He was in the Father. " We know Him that is true, and are in Him that is true, even in His Son. He is the true God and eternal life." One of the striking facts of the 1St Epistle of John is that it is impossible to separate Christ and God. It is one Person, one Being. Thus: " And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He shall appear we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming" (ii. 28). Whose coming? Clearly, Christ's. Continue: " If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him." Of whom? Of God: and so it follows: "Behold what manner of love the Father bath bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God Beloved, now are we the sons of God." Here, clearly, the Person or Being of whom he speaks is God. But continue: " Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it bath not yet appeared what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him." Here it is, again, Christ; for it is: " Christ our life shall appear." And " He was -manifested to take away our sins, ' continues John him—self. That is, the apostle, the Spirit of God, does take up, and, in a great measure, anticipatingly, the question -of the Logos, and gives us the exact opposite to the Platonic and Alexandrian doctrines,—the full divine -truth in answer to all the wanderings and speculations which the cravings of need and the glimmerings of tradition had led men's hearts to suggest to themselves and to systematize.
The other form these speculations took was wilder, if not worse. There was a fullness, a pleroma, of Godhead, which, in spiritual abstractions, of which depth—man, church, wisdom, and other scriptural subjects formed part in male and female characters; an idea which entered into all Brahminical, Rabbinical, Egyptian, and Gnostic theology, the Egyptian being nearest to the Rabbinical. This plerōma was limited by horos (boundary). The plerōma was within; outside was hule, or matter. The male and female of each pair were called suzugies, or yoked pairs. Sophia (wisdom), one of the lower members of the plerōma, wanted to unite herself with, penetrate into by research, bathos, or depth, the first origin of the whole plerōma. She got outside the limit (horos), and hence this world, a mixture of matter and spirit. Christ, a new member of the plerōma, came out to disengage what was spiritual from what was material, and bring it back within the limit, or horos. This branched out into a thousand forms and speculations, useless to follow here. It connected itself with Manicheeism in Persia, and reached on to the Bulgarians and Albigenses in France and Italy. But for a long time it was the great plague of the church. They forbade to marry; commanded to abstain from meats; Christ had no real body; (there was no atonement, could not be if He was not a man;) abstinence, and disengaging spirit from matter, that was really -saving. This error, also, the Spirit anticipated. The apostle John carefully tells us that confessing Jesus Christ come in flesh was essential to Christianity; that the Word was made flesh; that they had touched Him with their hands and Paul, that all the fullness (plerōma) was pleased to dwell in Him; that He was not an aeon, as they were called, but that all the fullness (plerōma) of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily; that every, creature of God is good and to be used with thanksgiving; marriage honorable in all.
It may be asked why I refer to all this. First, the divine perfection of Scripture is interesting. It anticipated and met all the wandering speculations of the human mind. But there is another reason. The doctrines of the soul's mortality and of annihilation have their origin in these speculations; they were the doctrines of the Rabbis and Gnostics also, of whom we have been speaking, and are met by the Scriptures. Some of the Rabbis, holding a little more to Scripture, were not so far gone in their speculations as their fellow doctors and modern Annihilationists. They held that it was by the communication of the neshama, the highest kind of life, that man became a living soul; but that if he was not faithful, denied this life, he lost it.
I shall now give the passages from Rabbis and Gnostics which confirm what I have just said. First, the general idea from the Rabbis. Rabbi Abr. Seba says: " God has created three parts (souls) of men, the nephesh, the ruach, the neshama. ' In another mystic book; " Three forms of souls are in men: the first the neshama, the intelligent soul; the second the ruach, the speaking soul; the third the nephesh, the animal soul, which always lusts." There are other passages to which I have already alluded, but these will suffice to give the idea. The doctrine was, as I have already remarked, largely developed in the mystic Jewish writers. There were rewards suited to each. The Gnostics added their notions as to ' the evil of matter. The fleshly (sarkikos) connected itself with the soul life (psuchikos); translated " natural man," in Scripture, and "flesh." For Scripture, as I have said, meets all these questions, and gives the divine answer to them. Truth is one, but it meets, consequently, all error,-all that is not truth. The simple soul has only need of the truth itself,-thank God. But there is in it what meets gainsayers. So we read in Jude—" sensual (psuchikoi),.not having the spirit." The Gnostics treated the question according to their views of matter, using. Scripture, of course;—man was hulikos, material (hulic, from hule, matter), choaos, from choos (1 Cor. 15:47); " the first man," translated " earthy," [ literally, " of dust," from Gen. 2:7;3. 19; then psuchikos,! "having a soul," and pneumatikos, " spiritual." But all this with them was man as man; for they held, as Origen and Grecian philosophers, that the spirit, or neshama, being from the upper world, could not be connected with matter without taking the cover, or embodiment of a soul,-a ruach, to speak with the Rabbis. This took, then, a nephesh, or animal soul and body. If this last soul-here was their religion-was not spiritually married to that above, it, it remained a mere beast's or animal life, and died. The mystic Rabbis and Gnostics were exactly on the same ground here as modern deniers of immortality.
My reader will now see why I have referred to all these views. We are now exactly on the ground of modern Annihilationists, and, as will be seen, of both classes of them; for they differed then as now. The mystic Rabbis say men who have only nephesh die, simply. The nephesh goes down and remains in the grave. If it got united to the ruach, then it did not. " There is a garment," they said, " which subsists and which does not subsist, is seen and is not seen; with this the psuche (animal soul, or nephesh) is clothed." But the nephesh was not for thorn immortal, and where this only was, there the life of the soul was in the blood, and as an infidel would draw from Ecclesiastes:-" That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them. As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they all have one breath. So that a man hath no pre-eminence over a beast; for all is vanity. All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." That is, indeed, all that is seen "under the sun," as to " the life of our vanity." The Positivists, as one class of infidels are called, go no further. They have not the sense to add, with the Preacher,-" Who knows the spirit of man? it goes up on high; and the spirit of the beast? it goes downward to the earth." So one modern class believe death is simple death-ceasing to exist. If a man has not received the divine life, the neshama, his nephesh dies with his body, like a beast. They have answered the "Who knows? " of the Preacher, -have taken, as the Positivists, the ignorance they are in as a proof that there is nothing beyond it. The beast ceases to exist, and so does the man: nephesh is all the one has, nephesh is all the other has; both go to dust alike. They lie in the hell like sheep, death gnaws upon them. The mystic Rabbis are found again, and the ancient Gnostics. The nephesh has not put on the enduma aphtharsias, the garment of incorruptibility and immortality. It has gone down under death, and there it lies. So in the Cleinentinae, 20 (early Gnostic writings pretending to be Clement's), on Gen. 2:7, he attributes to the breath of God, Theou pnoee, as an indescribable clothing of the psuche, its being able to be immortal.
But I shall be told that all do not hold this. They believe in resurrection, judgment, punishment, and then destruction, or, if preferred, as one of their teachers once put it, " the soul will lose its personality and individuality and pass off into its elements; for nothing is ever annihilated." It is true there are the two classes, and so there were then. Hear the Clementinae, 3:6: " Those who have not repented will come to an end (to telos exousi) by the punishment (kolaseos, the word in Matt. 25) of fire. They will be put out (extinguished), becoming extinct by eternal fire: puri aionio sbesthentes aposbesthesontai." Here is exactly the other class of modern Annihilationists, the intellectual and theological children of the mystic Rabbis, and the Gnostics of the early ages, the object of special warning on the part of the Spirit of God in the apostles Paul and John, as the special power of evil in these days.
If we examine Scripture, we shall see it furnish the simple truth, and, at the same time, by its statement of it, meet all these human wanderings. It speaks of nephesh, and ruach, and neshama, but it speaks in a way which, in a few sentences, sets aside all the speculations of men. In the leading text on the subject,-the revelation of God on the subject, we read God formed man (as a potter, vayizar) dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils a breath of life, (a nishmath chaia), and man became a living soul (a nephesh chaia). Here we find that it was by God's breathing this highest power of life from Himself that man became a living soul. He had formed his body before, as He saw good, and it was by the communication of life from Himself that He animated the form He had made. The animals had issued, by His will, from the earth. He had said, " Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (a nephesh chaia come forth) (yozu), and it was so." Not so with man. God consults solemnly as to his creation, and resolves to make man in His image, after His likeness. So God created man in His image, and gave him dominion, and God blessed him, and God spake to him, and gave him to know his place, his food, the beasts' food. He was the vessel of divine communications, as of the divine breath of life, and the object of divine counsels. He was to have a helpmeet for him, as an intelligent and affectionate and devout creature. God made a paradise, a dwelling for him, and for none else, gave him his easy and pleasant service, putting him into the garden.
But more than this, He put him into conscious relationship with Himself, as son of God, and put him under responsibility, giving him a law not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That would bring death in. The sea monsters were made to multiply themselves, beasts created after their kind, and we know they multiply, and it is enough. But not only God formed the human form, and animated it from Himself,—of which there is no hint as to beasts, but He formed, builded, the woman, too, by a mysterious process, which gave her a simple, and the closest, tie to the man; builded her, as the word is, Himself,—and when He had, presented her Himself to Adam.
Man is said to be of the race—the offspring—of God (Acts 17:28); and Adam is called son of God, (Luke 3:38). "In him we live, and move, and have our being," and, though fallen, are still recognized as made after the image of God James 3:9). So God, though He found him lost, could come down and walk in Paradise and have intercourse with Adam. And it is the more important to recognize that he was fallen, because it gives the distinct and definite witness, that, though death had come in, man was still the responsible being he was before, having to say to God in a double way,—the exercise of present government in the earth, and exclusion from God's place of blessing and His presence. The case of Cain shows us the same thing, the responsibility and its results being distinctly stated. " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? if ill, sin (or a sin-offering; which I doubt not is the sense) lieth at the door." Man's relationship, and responsible relationship, with God is thus clearly placed before us. The whole history of Scripture up to his rejection of Christ is the development of it. Sin, from the entrance of lust up to hatred of God, is as fully, as sadly, brought out. He had a soul capable of affections towards God; for it was found that the mind of the flesh was enmity against God. This, mark, was the unregenerate man, the man with only a psuche, a nephesh chaia, if they will have it so. He, God's offspring, had a soul capable of feelings towards God in this relationship. Alas! enmity was his state.
But I am told that Hebrew will tell us wonders, and I have only to make some square Chaldaic letters and immortality disappears. Let us follow the Scripture use of these Hebrew words. Now I think it will be found that neshama is the act of respiration, or breathing. If from God in the power of the life in Him, but breathing. Ruach, spirit (but used for the Spirit of God, a wind, or other spirit, the spirit of man, or even of beast, in Ecclesiastes), is that by which man or beast breathes—the life which expresses itself in breathing. Hence, in the flood, all wherein was the nishmath mach chaiim, the breath of the spirit of life, died, man or beast, all whose present life was sustained by breathing. Nephesh chaia is the actual result, in a living individual. The man or beast doing this is a nephesh chaia, a living soul, any living animal, man or beast. And nephesh so fully gives the idea of what is individual, seen and known, moving about, represented to us by bodily presence, that it is used for a dead body, because the same once-living form is there. An Israelite was not to profane himself by a dead body (nephesh), rightly so translated, but there is no neshama nor roach. So we should call dead relatives by their names and show their corpses as themselves, though we well know there is no life in them. It is called nephesh meeth, a dead body, or simply nephesh. Priests were not to profane themselves by it, unless for their nearest of kin.
But the Scripture rejects the thought of the soul's not living distinct from the body, where it uses nephesh properly for the soul of a man, as it does, see 1 Kings 17:21,22, where Elijah prays that the child's soul may return to him again, and the Lord heard him and it returned. On the contrary, but proving the same point, Saul says of Eutychus, "his soul is in him" Acts 20:10. What the creation, therefore, affords us is he most careful elaborate distinction between man and other animals. they, by God's will, springing up out of the earth, to live by breathing, and being nephesh chaia, a living individual being with a body, having breath, neshama, and a roach, a life which lived by breathing,—man having all this, too, as every one on the face of the earth knows, without knowing. Hebrew at all.. But it teaches us that man got to be such on the earth in a totally different way from other living animals, namely, by God's breathing from Himself into him, when He had formed his body of the dust, a breath of life, and that thus he became a living soul. Hence he was the offspring (genos, offspring, race, kind, generation, is the only true meaning of this word, and it is so used in Acts 17) of God, lived and moved and had his being in Him, and was in responsible relationship with, Him, intelligently subject to a law, and, alas! not only disobedient but capable of hating God, capable of such an apprehension of Him as ought to have drawn out love, but from his moral state brought out hatred; capable of receiving communications from God as in nature and place in relationship with Him. It teaches that he has, in fact, received these communications, and that God has dealt with him—as acceptable, if good, or, if sinful, as the object of a provided sin-offering when in that natural state, no question of the gift of eternal life having been raised. The whole of Scripture proceeds on this ground, exactly where the gift of eternal life is not spoken of. That is a new thing given, but man is dealt with all through as a responsible being, where it is not given, and this, whether, to use the first grand statement of it, you say sin, or, as I should, a sin-offering, lies at the door. The death of Christ, though, surely, a means, and, in fact, a needed means of it—applies not to the gift of eternal life in the first instance, but to a responsible sinner, a child of Adam.
The Old Testament saints, however obscurely, did gather the truth of the subsistence of the soul after death, and the resurrection, too, I admit obscurely, but they gathered it. Abraham looked for the City which bath foundations. The Preacher speaks of the spirit's returning to God who gave it. The Psalms told of the King's soul not being left in Hades, nor His body seeing corruption; and in God's presence fullness of joy (Psa. 16); and being satisfied when one awoke after God's likeness (Psa. 17). Many suffered, looking for a better resurrection; to say nothing of Job's hope shining through his wasting disease. And the Lord's judgment is pronounced on the Sadducees that they greatly erred, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God; and we read in Luke not only there was a resurrection, but " all live unto God." They are dead for man, they are not so for God. But eternal life, we are told, is " God's gift in Christ," and so only. Admitted, fully. But first, then, let it be admitted that eternal emphatically means eternal; for otherwise, after the reception of eternal life, a man may as little have immortality as before; and after its reception even, in the Scripture use of immortality, that is true, for mortal applies to his body, and it is only in resurrection that the saint ever puts on immortality. But that (the gift of eternal life in Christ alone) has nothing to do with the question of the immortality of the soul. It neither proves it nor disproves it,-save only that, in a very vague way, it suggests immortality, because the gift of eternal life to a beast would make him a wholly new kind of being. Eternal life, though above and out of the reach of man's responsibility, yet is connected with it. It is grace to a being capable of it, while remaining the same being, and dealt with on the footing of his previous responsibility. Were it given to a beast, it would have no connection at all with it as a being, or have anything to say to its previous existence. It would be itself a simply new being. But while eternal life is a new gift to man, in Christ, and comes in Christ become man, yet it is fully connected with, and refers to, man as previously existing, is, by the word acting on his mind, heart, conscience, and, while a new thing, in itself, wholly, acts in and connects itself with him to whom it is given, so that he remains the same person, and by it recognizes and takes notice of all that he was before, as a responsible and the same person. The " I " remains the same. The nature is acted on, and by it judged and condemned, and the " I " for so acting in it.
The gift of eternal life proves, as far as it goes, an immortal soul that has relationship to God, not a beast's estate,-" made to be taken and destroyed,"-" the beasts that perish." Indeed, why should such language as here quote be used if man was just the same? But Scripture does not so speak. It does express the darkness of man, who sees his present life disappearing and knows nothing beyond, but even then, it carries him onward, in thought and hope,-cravings, not knowledge that the spirit returns to God who gave it. It does not know, but asks " who knows the spirit of man? It goes up above." There is not knowledge here; there is the heaving desire of what was breathed from God-not the answer to it. Man had plunged himself in darkness. Death was there,-what beyond? Hope, saintly confidence in God, a deliverer and a deliverance to come which would not leave believers without hope. But life and incorruptibility were brought to light by the gospel. They were not brought to light before; mind, he does not say, did not exist. The poor and shallow sophistry that would use this to say, they began to be then, must deny that saints had life, from God too, were born of God; or that Enoch and Elijah were other than fables, or exceptions to the truth as to others, even in their souls; and Abraham's faith vain, and that God was the God of the dead, not of the living. They were brought to light, then, in the Gospel revelation, because they were there to be brought to light, though the incorruption had only been wondrously exhibited, the life dimly apprehended, though certainly there, and not the subject of the immediate government and revelation of God. In Christ life has become the light of men, and we have the light of life, we do not walk in darkness.
But I am told, God only has immortality. Undoubtedly. But if this use be made of it, the saint has not it.. The angels are mortal, too. But both statements are clearly unscriptural,-see Luke 20:36, not to cite other passages..It is not, therefore, what the passage means it is a false use of it. God only has, possesses, immortality in Himself, independently. But we, all men, live, move, and have their being in Him who is so. None of us have it, independently, in ourselves. All things subsist by Him. But whether a being is perishable or not by his creation, is a question of fact. The angels do not die. God only possesses in Himself immortality. On the other hand, thneetos (mortal) is never applied to the soul, always to the body, as Rom. 6:12; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:11;5. 4; 1 Cor. 15. 53, 54; and, which is the important point here, man is mortal when he certainly has eternal life and his soul will never die. Mortality applies to his body. He is only called mortal in the New Testament, when, by the confession of all, he has a life which can never die. That is, mortality does not apply to his soul at all, as used in the New Testament, where the truth is brought to light. So as to death. In the Old Testament, it is applied to the fact of dying, and,—generally, darkness lies beyond. It is sought to use " The soul that sinneth it shall die" as meaning that the soul shall die after death, or, as the out-and-out Annihilationists would say, in death itself. These last fly in the face of Scripture, because, to say no more of it, after death comes judgment. But if it is not in death, then death does not mean ceasing to exist,-as, in fact, it never, does,-but ceasing to exist in the way and relation ship men were living in. Of the second death we will speak further on. Man ceases by death to be a nephesh chaia,-a living soul and body in this world,-and becomes, as to this world, a nephesh meeth,-a dead body, or body of death. But, if we turn to the passage in Ezekiel where the expression is found, and whence it is taken, we, shall see that it has nothing to do with the death of the soul as apart from the body, but a man's death as living in this world. Such a use of soul, for person, is common now. I say it is a town of fifteen thousand souls. Who misunderstands me? Israel complained that they were in trouble and cut off for their fathers' sins; that the fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge (Ezek. 18:2), and, such was the law, the son bore the iniquity of the father-the iniquity of the father was brought upon the children. This should no longer be done. As the soul of the father, so the soul of the son, was Jehovah's. The soul that sinned, it should die. A devout father had a wicked son: "should he live? (verse 13) he shall not live; he bath done all these things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him." So when the righteous turned away from his righteousness and committed sins, he should die in them. As the Lord said: " If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." " Our father," say the daughters of Zelophehad (Num. 27), " died in the wilderness; he died in his own sin." But with a wicked father, if the son bath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and bath done them, he shall surely live: the soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. " Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord, and not that he should turn from his ways and live?" So if the righteous turn from righteousness, in his sins that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. What light may be thrown on the, final result by the New Testament, is another question. But in Ezekiel what is spoken of is a man belonging to this world dying in his sins. Death never means ceasing to exist. It is used for other things than physical death, The woman that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. The believer has passed from death unto life. He who loves the brethren has passed from death unto life. That is, when applied to the soul, it has nothing to do with ceasing to exist, but means separation of the soul from God, as a state of a soul which was alive, as to existence, not possessing divine life, but as much alive, as a being, as when he had. So Rom. 7:10, and verse 24, teaches us the same truth. Paul found the commandment to be to death;' but he was just as much alive, as to existence as ever. The sin unto death is physical death. In a word, death means either simple physical death as we see it; or separation from God,-not having divine life,-when a' man is alive.
We have now to see if physical death is the extinction, or even the sleep of the soul. And, farther, we must search the New Testament, where these things are brought to light. First, it is stated that all live to God. This is given as a general principle, when the living state of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is declared to the Sadducees, who held annihilation doctrine. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Thus far it may be reasoned that it only applies to the saints whose God God is. The Lord therefore adds: "For all live unto Him." It is a general truth not merely applicable to Abraham and those that had his faith. It is true of all: pantes gar auto zosin. And this is the more important because the Lord is speaking of saints. For though they were born of God, He does not rest the truth of even their being alive on that, but says: "God is not the God of nekron, but of zonton,—not of dead men, or bodies, but of living persons. What is the great principle on which it is founded?—" For all live unto him." No one is really dead as regards God. Accordingly, the Lord charges His disciples not to fear them that can kill the body and have no more that they can do, but Him who, after He has killed, can cast into hell. That is, death is positively declared not to be the end or cessation of existence. Death means men killing the body, and no more. Killing (apokteino;—thanatoō is more to have a person put to death, as in a persecution, or judicially) and death are fully correlative, as may be seen in Rom. 7. Further, the parable of Dives and Lazarus plainly pictures the same truth. Death is no ending of existence for wicked more than for just. Hades was known to the Jews, and Hades was owned of the Lord as true.
And this leads me to the question: Is the state after death, for just or unjust, a state of unconsciousness? Is the soul asleep? The reader has the answer from Luke 16 already. But a word more. It is never said nor hinted that the soul sleeps after death. That is all a fable. Death is called sleep or falling asleep, as to the just. But there is not the most distant suggestion that the soul sleeps. When Christ told His disciples, " Our friend Lazarus sleepeth," He explained the word. Lazarus, apethane, has died. " He spake" we are told, "of his death," not of his state after death. Falling asleep is a man living in this world's dying, not his state after dying. Stephen fell asleep, not Stephen's spirit, which surely was received up by Christ, as Christ's had been by the Father. Did He cease to exist, or was He unconscious? Again, the Lord said to the thief, replying exactly to the point in question: " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Did that mean, he should go to sleep and know nothing? Paul thought it far better to depart and be with Christ. Did that mean, go fast asleep and know nothing? To be absent from the body and present with the Lord,—which meant, that he should be fast asleep, and not know whether the Lord was there or not I have said the thief's case applies directly to the point. The thief, in his bright faith owning Christ to be King when all had forsaken Him, asked, thinking only of that, that the Lord would remember him when He came in (not into) His kingdom. The Lord's answer is, " You shall not wait for that happiness. I have a heavenly place for my people's souls meanwhile; to-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Which means, I promise you, you shall be fast asleep and know nothing till the kingdom comes! Are we to be mocked with such interpretations? Finally, the rich man in Hades, and the poor in. Abraham's bosom were very far from being asleep. We are told it is only a picture on Jewish principles. No doubt. But it is the Lord's picture, who meant to teach us by it, and certainly not that the dead are fast asleep, but just the contrary.
But we are told it is in the second death they are extinct. But this destroys itself, for then death does not mean ceasing to exist; for if death meant ceasing to exist, there could be no second death, for the being would have ceased to exist in the first. It is all a fable, so using death. Christ has died. The saints have died, just as truly as the wicked. They may have a life which the wicked have not, but they have as truly died, and they have not become extinct nor ceased to exist. And if the wicked undergo a second death, death does not mean ceasing to exist; for they died the first death, and did not cease to exist, for they have to undergo the second. But then, we are told, the second will be-not because it is death we have seen,-and we must look to Scripture to see if that is meant by the second death, i.e., if ceasing to exist is what is meant. Scripture teaches the contrary. Men at the final judgment are cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. The second death is the punishment of the lake of fire,—;—not that punishment's teasing by the punished ones' ceasing to exist. The punishment destroys them, we are told, as the Clementine Gnostics had told us before. But then, the lake of fire, the punishment, is the second death, not their ceasing to exist so that the punishment ceases. " They have their part in the lake of fire, which is the second death," existing there in it, having their part in it, is the time they are in the second death. Their part is not said to be punishment, ending by death, but the actual punishment of the lake of fire. So the Devil, that deceived the nations, was cast into the lake of fire, and shall be tor- mented day and night forever and ever... There is no word of the close of their existence and of torment being the second death. It is the punishment itself, of the lake of fire, which is so called, the outer darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
This naturally leads me to the word eternal (aionios). We are told it does not mean eternal. If I go out of Scripture I find the fullest proof that it means eternal. Aristotle defines it, aien on, always existing. I have found several others, but I quote only one passage from Philo, because it is so directly to the point, and is the Greek used at the time of our Lord: en aioni de oute pareleluthen ouden oute mellei alla monon huphesteke,- in eternity nothing is either past or to come, but only subsists-it is proper eternity. What we have then to look to is how aionios, the adjective, is used in Scripture. Now. I say that the word regularly means, in Scripture, " eternal,' in the sense of contrast with any period of time. " If our earthly house of thiS tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens!' (2 Cor. 5:1). " To whom be honor and power everlasting". (1 Tim. 6:16). " The God of all grace, who has called us to His eternal glory" (1 Peter 5:10). "And being made perfect, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him" (Heb. 5:9). "Having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12)." They which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance " (Heb. 9:15). " Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God " (Heb. 9:14). " For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal " (2 Cor. 4:18, and Rom. 16:26), which is conclusive. Now these suffice to show that the regular meaning of aionios, in its own plain and absolute sense, is eternal. Where it is used of punishment, in Matt. 25, it is in purposed and express contrast used of life; the one have eternal life, the others eternal punishment. The duration of the punishment of the wicked, and of the life of the just, are expressed by the same identical term,—4 may add, that of the existence of God Himself. And this term is put in contrast elsewhere with all that has a temporary duration, so that I do not see how it could be stated more plainly.
But we do not escape these efforts to elude what is plain, even by this. Punishment, we are told, does not mean punishment. It means pruning, or I know not what, cutting off a branch-lcolasis is the word. It is used in one other place in Scripture: " Fear hath torment." Its scriptural sense is torment. So in a passage I have quoted from the Clementinae, it is used as torment. And that is its meaning-punishment, or torment. This, according to this verse, is eternal, not temporal. But the verb kolazo (punish) is found elsewhere in the New Testament. Acts 4:21: " Finding: nothing how they might punish them." So 2 Peter 2:9: " Reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished." This is the plain sense of the word.
But the word destroy, also, is referred to, to show that though the punishment is everlasting, the punished are not. A thing hard for a simple mind to understand. For if there remain none to be punished, it is hard to conceive how punishment remains. Hard to suppose that where the Lord uses the figure, " their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," they die, or cease to exist, though the worm and the fire remain, though it be their worm that does not die. Still we will see if destroy means what is said. It is very hard to understand " everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord " to mean, that nothing exists. What is out of the presence of the Lord? What is everlasting destruction? If a thing ceases to exist, and destruction means that, it cannot be everlasting. But the truth is, on their own showing, the passage has not this sense at all. For this happens at Christ's appearing, at the beginning of the Millennium, when there is no destruction, in their sense of it, at all. They are punished with destruction, but in that destruction, they still subsist, as is admitted. It is the time of weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness (Matt. 13). That destruction is everlasting in which the punished ones subsist.
But the word does not mean this ceasing to exist. The angel of the bottomless pit is called Apollyon, or Abaddon, the destroyer, in Greek and Hebrew words. But he can destroy nothing. It is written, " O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help." " I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." " Destroy not thy brother with thy meat, for whom Christ died." " And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish." " If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost." " Zacharias perished between the temple and the altar." " Carest thou not that we perish?" " The scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him." " Not willing that any should perish, but ' that all should come to repentance." "Art thou come to destroy us?" (Mark 1:24.) In Matt. is an analogous case. They say, " Art thou come to torment us before the time?" This was in the bottomless pit. But Satan, we read, is tormented in the lake of fire " forever and ever "-the term used for the existence of God. Matt. 10:39, "He that saveth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." " For when they shall say Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them,"-confessedly here not ceasing to exist. 1 Tim. 6:9, " Foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." "They perish in the gainsaying of Core." " So the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
The word, then, is used for ruin, moral or physical. It is false to say it means simply a ceasing to exist. It may mean a ruin of the state in which a thing existed; hence the driving a human being from the Lord's presence, or his present state of alienation from it; and it is so used. I doubt a single passage could be found which proves it means causing to cease to exist. I have known Annihilationists object to the name, because nothing can be annihilated. But if so, their whole theory falls to the ground. It is merely making a physical thing of the soul, dispersed, then, into its elements, instead of moral ruin for which, as to the soul, the word is certainly used, as we have seen. I have cited passages where apollumi, apoleia, and olethron are used. The root is all the same. The statements made on these subjects set aside one another. If death be ceasing to exist, there can be no judgment after. It is in vain to say they are raised; for if they have ceased to exist there is no one to raise. Nor can punishing, or destruction, in the sense of ceas- ina to exist, come afterward.
My object has been, to go through the words by which, or as to which, Annihilationists seek to puzzle simple minded Christians,-not to reason out the subject. I add only two or three words to show why their fair words and smooth speeches do not attract me, where they seem fairest. We have seen that the morally dead and the lost may be alive, and that Scripture so speaks. But if the soul be simply mortal, with the body, and there is no life, out of Christ, beyond this, where do sinners get the life they are punished in till burned out? It must be from Christ, for creation has not given it to them. That is, they get, not their wicked life, in which they are fallen, and enemies to God, but a new life of Christ, in which to be punished in another world. I do not see the moral sense or attractiveness of this doctrine. Further; I understand an immortal soul that is at enmity with God and excluded from Him, though once formed to own Him, being forever miserable. But why God, out of pure pleasure, should keep alive a soul to torment it for a time, only to burn it out at the end, for no possible effect, I cannot conceive., It does not alarm men now. For tell them that they will simply perish in the end, and it is, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." The infidel finds it a very comfortable and reasonable doctrine. It is in vain to say, it is not honest to say, that men fear total destruction and perishing more than anything, for its advocates resist eternal punishment because it is dreadful to think of. They know, it is not the same thing. No doubt man does not like dying or perishing, in itself, as to this world, where he is alive,-but to come to an end in a future one, where there is only torment, he likes very well.
My horror of this doctrine is, its weakening our sense of the nature of sin, of our responsibility, and of the atonement. If sin means eternal exclusion from God's presence, it is dreadful enmity against God now, exclusion from God then. If death is the only wages of sin, Christ had no more to suffer for me. Nay, if I am a Christian, He had nothing to suffer, if I die before the Lord comes. I have paid the wages myself. If it be only some temporary punishment I had incurred, He had only that to bear. "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me" has lost its force. It is in vain to say, He gives us life. He can, in itself, quicken without dying. If He died, He died for my sins, and bore them. If death be the wages, millions of saints have paid them. And if a partial punishment be all I had to bear, it is all Christ had to bear. The sense I have of sin and its desert is not, being forsaken of God, shut out from Him when I can know what it is, but a temporary punishment, a quantum of offense,-which is all I have to think of, and all Christ had to bear, if anything.
It is alleged, I have been told since I wrote this, that there is another view held, namely,-that the soul, having its life in Christ is in Christ when a man dies, and is, so to speak, lost in Him, and then at the resurrection becomes a conscious person again. This is a mere notion, and a foolish one too. It destroys not consciousness nor has anything to do with sleeping, but personality. It applies only to saints, and as to them is in direct violation of the testimony of Scripture, which attributes personality to the saints when gone hence. "To-day shalt thou be with me." There are the distinct persons. Again, " present with the Lord." There must be a distinct person to be present with the Lord. And so with other texts. That our life is hid with Christ in God, the only allusion to an idea approaching it in Scripture, proves, as far as it goes, the contrary; because it is spoken of saints living on the earth, where their personality is unquestionable. But the best answer to it is, it is a mere human invention. In the hiding in God we are associated with Christ. He also now is hid in God,-I suppose a conscious person,-and it is in contrast with our appearing to others when He appears, not to any living personality in which we enjoy His presence. It is, we have seen, spoken of our present state, when living personality is unquestionable.
There is another word I have omitted to notice, basanizo, and basanismos, torment. This, we are told, comes from a Lydian stone used to test gold. Very likely, but the conclusion that, therefore, the words, when passed into common use, meant " to prove," and not " to torment," is simply false. Thus, Matt. 8:6: " My servant lieth sick, grievously tormented." What has that to do with the lapis Lydius? 2 Pet. 2:8, " He [Lot] vexed his righteous soul." In Rev. 9:5, the verb and the noun are used for the torment of a scorpion's sting. Matt. 14:24: " tormented by the waves." So of the men, Mark 6:49,-showing how the etymological meaning was wholly forgotten for the fact of torment.
Rev. 14:11: those who worship the beast are tormented forever,-have no rest. Rev. 18:15, we read of Babylon's torment; xx. 10, the devil is tormented day and night. Is he put to the proof as gold by the lapis Lydius? Matt. 18:24, the unforgiving servant delivered to the tormentors. The attempt to deny that basanismos, because that in its etymology it is borrowed from the lapis Lydius, means torment, in the ordinary sense of the word, is a mere fraudulent effort to pervert the plain fact.
There are a number of Hebrew words out of which something has been attempted to be made, in one tract I have seen, as acharith, tikvah, opher, etzem and otzem, tzelem, and others; but what is said of them does not really deserve any notice. It astounds somewhat a person who has the smallest acquaintance with Hebrew, or can use a dictionary and concordance. But I recall the reader's attention to the fact, that " this mortal" is said distinctly of the body, not of the soul. " This mortal shall put on immortality," " our mortal bodies" and the like. That consequently we read of killing the body, and having no more that they can do. We read of God, as the "Father of spirits"; "the- God of the spirits of all flesh"; and " that formeth the spirit of man within him." The fact that the angels do not die and are not mortal is the plain proof that it is a false use of God only having immortality, using it to prove men have not immortal souls; for the same argument would prove angels were also mortal,-which is false. But of this I have spoken. It is immortality in and of Himself.
It has been attempted to say, there is no appeasement of wrath with God. The words ilaskesthaz, ilasmos, ilasterion all have exactly this sense. They meet the qualities or attributes, in God, which are necessary and must be maintained or He is not God as He is, or not God at all, to maintain what He is, His holiness and righteousness. But He is supreme in love.
I press, too, on my reader that when a man receives eternal life, he takes notice of all his past evil and sin as that for which he is responsible. If a beast received eternal life,-and the theory makes animal life the same in all,-could a beast hold himself- responsible for all his previous conduct as a guilty, responsible soul? Are they to be judged as in their nature capable of guiltily rejecting Christ? If not, the whole theory is a disgraceful fraud on our minds. If athanasia was literally, as to the fact, to be applied only to God when Paul wrote it, then the saints who had got eternal life had no immortality even then, or else mortality applied only to their bodies, which is the fact in Scripture, for, as I have said, the saints are spoken of as mortal, like the rest. Thus it is evident that mortal, corruptible, death applies to the state in which we are down here as men living on the earth, where death is entered by sin, and to the separation of soul and body. It is, as Scripture speaks, killing the body, and has nothing to do with the soul A person who, in his soul, has eternal life, has not athanasia more than another,-has still to put it on. That is, it has nothing to do with the dying nature of the soul, or the contrary. It means that it cannot cease to exist in the state in which it exists at present; not that it has it in itself, as God, but that is its condition by His will. What puts on immortality is what was liable to death,—this body which could be killed in a saint as in a sinner, for the saint lives because Christ lives,-his soul cannot die more than Christ now; yet he is as mortal as the sinner, and so, in fact, did Christ die. Did he cease to exist, or did He not truly die? Does it cease to be true that God only hath immortality, when we are raised,- for then we certainly have athanasia
When I find all these efforts to falsify the use of words, I know the source of this doctrine, and that no lie is of the truth.
B. M.

Lord, We Rejoice That Thou Art Gone

"If ye loved me ye would rejoice, because... I go to the Father."—John 14.
LORD, we rejoice that Thou art gone
To sit upon the Father's throne;
And, all Thy days of suffering o'er,
Thou now shalt weep and grieve no more.
Lord, we delight Thy path to trace,
So full of wisdom, power and grace;
To sit as learners at Thy feet,
And find Thy loving words so sweet.
The desert and the mountain brow,
Garden and lake are sacred now;
Each spot Thy holy footsteps trod-
The Son of man, the Christ of God.
We love to muse on Olivet,
The guest-room we shall ne'er forget,
Nor thy dark vale, Gethsemane!
The groans, and sweat, and agony!
But how our hearts again, again
Upon Thee on the cross remain;
Searching the heights and depths to know
Of love, e'en greater: than Thy woe!
O wondrous cross! O blessed tree!
We glory now in naught but thee;
Where God's own Lamb was crucified,
And, for our sins a ransom; died!
We love to look within the tomb
Thy vict'ry robbed of all its gloom;
The stone, the guilt-all rolled away,
Witness that death has lost its prey.
We joy to see Thee, Lord, arise
Triumphant through the opening skies;
And hear the shouts of rapture there
Thee worthy,-Thee alone,-declare!
Worthy to sit upon the throne!
Worthy to reign as Lord, alone!
The Lamb of God for sinners slain,
Worthy at God's right hand to reign!
Lord, we rejoice that Thou art there,
In spirit we Thy triumphs share;
But perfect will our rapture be,
(When we Thy face in glory see)
Or-When we shall share them all with Thee.
D.
O God, Thou art my God."—Psalm 63:1
SHALL I distrust Thee, O my God?
Whom can I trust but Thee?
I rest upon Thy faithful word;
I call Thee Abba, Savior, Lord;
For Thou art God to me.
Creator! I Thy creature owe
All that I am to Thee;
Thy hands each day each gift bestow,
Provide for all my wants below;
For Thou art God to me.
Savior! how blessed is that name!
Salvation is from Thee.
'Twas from Thy bosom Jesus came,
To bear my sins, and curse, and shame,
For Thou art God to me.
"Abba," my Father—God Thou art,
Abba! I cry to Thee;
Among Thy children is my part, -
I have the witness in my heart,
Thou "Abba " art to me.
All that I have or hope to have,
I have my God from Thee:
He who for me His own Son gave,
And raised as First-born from the grave,
Is God of Love to me.
Yes, I will trust Thee, I will cleave
All my life long to Thee:
No more, by doubts Thy spirit grieve
But all thy promises believe,
A God of truth to me.
D.
THE "MAN OF SORROWS."
O! ever homeless Stranger,
Thus dearest Friend to me:
And outcast in the manger
That Thou might'st with us be.
How rightly rose the praises
Of heaven, that wondrous night
When shepherds hid their faces
In brightest angel-light:
More just those acclamations,-
Than when the glorious band
Chanted earth's deep foundations,
Just laid by God's right hand.
Come now and view that manger:
The Lord of glory see,
A houseless, homeless stranger
In this poor world for thee.
To God in the highest-glory,'-
'And peace on earth' -to find;
And learn that wondrous story-
' Good pleasure in mankind.'
O strange, yet fit beginning,
Of all that life of woe,
In which Thy grace was winning
Poor man his God to know.
Bless'd babe who lowly liest,
In manger-cradle there;
Descended from the Highest,
Our sorrows all to share.
O, suited now in nature
For love's divinest ways,
To make the fallen creature
The vessel of Thy praise.
O love all thought surpassing,
That thou should'st with us be;
Nor yet in triumph passing-
But human infancy.
We cling to Thee in weakness,
The manger and the cross-
We gaze upon Thy meekness
Through suffering, pain, and loss.
There see the Godhead-glory
Shine through that human vail,
And willing hear the story
Of love that's come to heal.
My soul in secret follows
The footsteps of His love-
I trace the Man of Sorrows
His boundless grace to prove.
A child in growth and stature,
Yet full of wisdom rare:
Sonship, in conscious nature,-
His words and ways declare.
Yet still, in meek submission,.
His patient path He trod;
To wait His heav'nly mission,
Unknown to all but God.
But who, Thy path of service,
Thy steps removed from ill,
Thy patient love to serve us,
With human tongue can tell?
Midst sin and all corruption
Where hatred did abound,
Thy path of pure perfection
Was light to all around.
In scorn, neglect, reviling,
Thy patient grace stood fast,
Man's malice unavailing
To move-Thy heart to haste.
O'er all, Thy perfect goodness
Rose blessedly divine-
Poor hearts oppressed with sadness
Found ever rest in Thine.
The strong man, in his armor,
Thou mettest in Thy grace,
Didst spoil the mighty charmer
Of our unhappy race.
The chains of man, his victim,
Were loosened by Thy hand-
No evils that afflict him
Before Thy power could stand.
Disease, and death, and demon,
All fled before Thy word,
As darkness the dominion
Of day's returning lord!
The love that bore our burden
On the accursed tree,
Would give the heart its pardon,
And set the sinner free.
Love that made Thee a mourner
In this sad world of woe,
Made wretched man a scorner
Of grace that brought Thee low.
Still in Thee, love's sweet savor
Shone forth in every deed,
And showed God's loving favor
To every soul in need.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I pause,-for on Thy vision
The day is hast'ning now,
When for our lost condition
Thy holy head shall bow.
When deep to deep still calling,
The waters reach Thy soul;
And death and wrath appalling-
Their waves shall o'er Thee roll.
O day of mightiest sorrow-
Day of unfathomed grief-
When Thou shouldst taste the horror
Of wrath without relief.
O day of man's dishonor,
When, for Thy love supreme,
Man sought to mar Thine honor,
Thy glory turn to shame.
O day of our confusion-
When Satan's darkness lay,
In hatred and delusion,
On ruined nature's way.
Thou soughtest for compassion,
Some heart Thy grief to know;
To watch Thine hour of passion,
For comforters in woe.
No eye was found to, pity-
No heart to bear Thy woe:
But shame, and scorn, and spitting!
None cared Thy name to know.
The pride of careless greatness
Could wash its hands of Thee:-
Priests-that should plead for weakness-
Must Thine accusers be.
Man's boasting love disowns Thee;
Thine own the danger flee-
A Judas only owns Thee,
That Thou may'st captive be.
O man, how hast thou proved,
What in thy heart is found-
By grace divine unmoved,-
By self in fetters bound.-
Yet with all grief acquainted
The Man of Sorrows-view,
Unmoved—by ill untainted,
The path of grace pursue.
In death, obedience yielding
To God, His Father's will:
Love still its power is wielding
To meet all human ill.
On him who had disowned Thee,
Thine eye could look in love-
(Midst threats and taunts around Thee),
To tears of grace to move.
What words of love and mercy
Flow, from Thy lips of grace,
For followers that desert Thee,-
For sinners in disgrace!
The robber learns beside Thee,
Upon the cross of shame,
While taunts and jeers deride Thee,
The savor of Thy Name.
Then finished all, in meekness
Thou to Thy Father's hand-
(Perfect Thy strength in weakness)
Thy spirit dost commend.
O Lord, Thy wondrous story,
My inmost soul doth move;
I ponder o'er Thy glory-
Thy lonely path of love.
But O, Divine Sojourner,
Midst man's unfathomed ill,
Love that made Thee a mourner,
It is not man's to tell.
We worship when we see Thee,
In all Thy sorrowing path-
We long soon to be with Thee;
Who bore for us the wrath.
Come then, expected Savior-
Thou Man of Sorrows, come!
Almighty, Blest Deliv'rer,
And take us to Thee, home!

Luke 24:26

THE work of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the life which He lived when on earth, though carefully distinguished in the scriptures from the death which He died on the cross, should never be separated from it, or we shall miss that grand whole, which embraced His incarnation, and found its accomplishment in His crucifixion. Nevertheless, this mighty whole has its parts, and it is encouraging for us to know that the Holy Ghost has employed apostles and prophets to give out the particular aspect or relation of the Christ of God with which each was entrusted.
The history of the world and the ways of God with mankind are plainly enough recorded, and perhaps sufficiently understood, to lead any careful reader of the Old Testament to discover that the Creator was, as a consequence of Adam's sin, restricted to a general but providential care of His creatures,-and that all men being sinners, and the world itself filled with violence as the result of sin, the waters of the deluge closed up that state of things, by the righteous judgment of God, and the destruction of all flesh. What else could follow, when man was corrupting his way upon the earth by the activity of a fallen nature, and when God, supreme in His own goodness, was lavishing every outward gift providentially upon His creatures. Man had the more to corrupt, by the very liberality of his Creator, who put all into his hands-till it repented God that He had made man upon the earth! Sovereign grace preserves Noah; and the ark, floating upon the waters of death, shows how in judgment God remembers mercy.
It is at this very point, that a great difference is established in the further relations of God and mankind; for if Adam's blessing was based on his personal responsibility in obedience, and lost,-God will pass Noah through death and judgment to bring him forth upon a new earth, with covenanted blessings secured by the bow in the cloud. In Adam's world, man was a driven out creature,-in Noah's new world, man is reprieved, and an heir of covenanted blessings, on the ground of the altar and its sweet savor.
The confederacy of the nations in combined will and action at Babel, led to the confusion of tongues by the righteous judgment of God, and to the consequent scattering of the people over the face of the earth. This state of things in punishment leads to the calling out of Abram from his country and his father's house into a land that God would show him; and makes him righteous by faith, and the head of this new family,- the father of us all. These new principles of action, thus introduced and established, get their width in the people called out of Egypt by Moses, and finally "brought in, and planted in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in; the sanctuary, O Lord which Thy hands have established " under Joshua as captain-and under Solomon as the typical king. How cheering, as one takes a place in Jerusalem, and reads, in those chronicles of Jehovah's faithfulness to His promises, the people's prosperity and peace, under their king, or takes a place in the temple, to witness the nation's worship and allegiance to the God of Israel and God of the whole earth, under the anointed priesthood of Aaron and his sons! What a point of glory is reached by the king who sits, on the throne under this theocracy of Israel,-and what a point of holiness is maintained in the temple, so that the covenanted relations of Jehovah and the people promise fair! Alas, who that has learned the fall in Eden does not tremble to see the advancing steps of Noah, Abram and the patriarchs,-then of Israel under Moses and Aaron, or under David and Solomon. What splendid and weighty endowments,—but depending upon the fulfillment of added responsibilities. For though all these blessings are finally covenanted and sure, yet were they necessarily conditional upon obedience from a people under the government of Jehovah. It cannot be too plainly seen that Christ, the true seed has secured, by His own death and resurrection, all these forfeited blessings for the " heirs of promise," as well as by redemption secured the people being brought under the new covenant; and thus fitted for their enjoyment in perpetuity, to be made true in application, at His second coming! Most of the Lord's people see and acknowledge this, though many have not as yet discovered the immense charm which the righteous and personal title of Christ sheds upon all the future ways of God with His earthly people. For instance, must God, in absolute, sovereign power, accomplish His own promises, as due to His own faithfulness,-and must He in this way too, make good all His covenanted blessings,-or is there a Christ, who has come in, as a man, and a true Israelite, and on account of whose intrinsic excellence, and perfect obedience from first to last, this new consideration springs up, as to what is due to this Son of man, in righteous—reward from God? What a new question is this for settlement! and with what joy is every eye turned upon such an answer as His ascension to the right hand of God supplies.
But, before we follow this risen Son of man into places where man never was before,-what shall be said or done as respects the many places and relations in which typical men had been once set-and failed? Will this same Jesus charge Himself with the defects and disgraces of the people, as well as finally with their sins, and so personally stand in these positions towards God as not merely to regain them, but, because of what He is, bring a higher character and luster into them all than they could have had in any other way? In this way God is vindicated by this Son of man, in every relation in which God had been outraged: by these means, the ways of Jehovah with Israel are re-established, for He goes over the whole path in perfectness with the remnant at John's baptism. The devil is also defeated by the temptations in the wilderness;-and man, in the person of Christ, is master of the whole position, in righteous title through obedience! What a triumph (not got by death and resurrection-but) by those three and thirty years, which measured what else was immeasurable. Besides the recovery of lost positions for man and for Israel, and securing these in His own person for the latter day glory, and for the people that shall then be born, the Lord will only now take them up with His people, in a manner suited morally to their state, and the condition, through their own failure and sin, of everything around them. For example, "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses;" and again, "the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." Besides these positions, and others, into which man lapsed by transgression and punishment, but into which the perfectness of Christ brought Him, as recognizing all such penalties, not as due to Himself, but as righteously fallen on the sinful race in whose behalf He came-what a relief to our souls is it to see this last Adam gathering all these sufferings around Himself, and making them the very stepping-stones by which He will reach the place where as a man, in such a world as this, He can suit Himself to the holiness of God! He is not yet putting aside the causes or these sufferings and sorrows,-this He will do at the Cross: but He will go down into their consequences, so that in all their afflictions He may be (not separate from them) as the afflicted one; and, being there in righteousness as the only position into which correspondence with the mind and ways of God towards men could place Him, He will cry out of those depths, or suffer being tempted in those depths. God can now change the whole course of His government, and open the heavens to this "fulfiller of all righteousness,"—or send the Spirit like a dove to rest upon Him, or send angels to strengthen Him, or make His own voice to be heard (as it rolls around the length -and breadth of the whole world), " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." What a moral victory is won in these very depths of man's disgrace, and of God's dishonor! and with what astonishment and fright does the devil cast his eye upon this second man, triumphant in the very circumstances which, alas! had only, hitherto, been the proofs of man's defeat, and of Satan's strongest holds! This Son of man will win, by such weapons as these, more than Adam ever had to lose, and far more than the beloved nation even when at her brightest, could ever forfeit. But He will win it all for Himself in righteous (though suffering) title first, with His people, till, in making atonement for their sins, He will glorify God yet further by laying down His life, and by shedding His own blood for the remission of His people's transgressions, and even exhaust the judgment of God, by suffering " the just for the unjust." What a history is this! and how brightly does it shine, in its pathway of light, across this dark world-with its closed gates, and flaming sword, and the waters of a flood,—or, in later times, with a nation judicially blinded, and with a veil upon their hearts. Who can dispute the fact, that the Messiah has for Himself (and, as one of the people, for them too) made a claim upon Jehovah to come out from the strange place of lightnings and thunderings, into which He had withdrawn Himself-as the voice from the excellent glory on the mount of transfiguration shows us, and to come out to bestow " majesty and glory " upon this beloved Son, in that hour when " His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light." What a change passes upon this Son of Man in the heights, -corresponding to His jealousy for the holiness of God in those depths out of which He rose for this bright moment of intercourse with the heavens about "the decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem." But He must descend into those very depths again and deeper and rougher ones still, so that " all thy waves and thy billows'.' should pass over Him, and He from the bottom of that pit, cry, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me." A scene such as this is for the loving heart of a disciple, much more than for the pen of a writer. The soul would find its relief in being melted, in its measure, where His soul was melted like wax; and the heart would feel how becoming is a broken heart, where He broke His. Precious Jesus, what we owe thee! Man is recovered and saved; yea, redeemed by blood, risen with Christ, in eternal life, and sealed by God through the Spirit as an heir of glory, and a child of the Father's love. God has known ONE, upon this earth, who accepted the place of man's dishonor and defeat, that He might justify God in all His ways with men,-and then (surpassing, in virtue of His own perfectness all that Creation had ever witnessed in what the Creator gave) found a new title for Himself, and for His Church, upon His own righteous sufferings, so that not only He should get a new answer by ascension to the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, but leave His own people His own pattern for their present conformity: "for me to live is Christ." But for these new ways between this Son of man and God, how could the Apostle say, " that I may know Him, and the power of: His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. These are, now, the footsteps of His chosen ones, and it is upon this moral elevation that they assert their true dignity, "the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, etc." Who made such a position as this, for others, but. He who won it for Himself, as "He glorified God upon the earth." May we not say, further, it is these moral victories below, which give to the heavens their jubilees. Who was it that said: "Get thee hence, Satan," and when was it, and where? "Angels must come and minister to Him" the emptied one, the humbled one, this obedient servant-this fasting, hungered, and tempted son of man. "Then the devil leaveth Him." What triumphs are these, in the living ways of Christ, previous to the final overthrow and destruction of Satan's power in the grave, by His own death. How all is changed between the heavens, and the earth; and the power of hell-the devil is defeated; the Son of man is the victor everywhere, and God is glorified. "Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth, and break forth into singing, O mountains." "Yea, let the very trees of the fields clap their hands," as it befits them. But will the Lord Jesus win these triumphs for Himself alone, and stand solitary in the midst of all this glory? No. For He will say, " except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit" that by means of His death and resurrection, we, and His people, may hold the respective places now, and in the millennial age, which He secured for Himself. The " Son of man," upon the earth, having been thus led of the Spirit, and tempted by the devil, and tested and proved by God, in every place and relation on behalf of man and Israel, He will close up all that He was in life, by going into the strongholds of the enemy's power; " that by means of death he might overcome him that had the power of death, that is, "the devil," and so possess Himself of the keys of death and of Hades! That prophetic word too, " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts," having found its full accomplishment in the atoning sufferings of Christ on the cross, and judgment having done its strange work upon Him, as the victim, the cup of wrath having been drunk to its very dregs by our Substitute,-and everything done, that as our Surety He undertook to do -He will at last say, " It is finished," and give up the ghost! Nothing, no nothing remains of this kind for Jesus to do below. He has made Himself known amongst us, as the One " who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself; and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." This One has said upon the earth, " have glorified thee, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." The fulfiller " of all righteousness " in His life; -the taker-away of the sin of the world the justifier of God by suffering the consequences of His righteous government on the earth, and making a path, through them all, for Himself;-the vindicator of God, as regards all the inflictions and penalties and wrath itself, by bearing these in His own body on the tree, where He put away sin by (the sacrifice of Himself...... What can God now do as the suited answer to obedience and sufferings such as these? What will He do, but rend the veil that hid Him, from the top to the bottom. If care for the glory of God led Jesus to death, God will introduce the new power of resurrection, and give Him the new title of "first born from the dead." Will He lay Himself in the sepulcher with its guard of soldiers? It shall only be to declare "the snare of the fowler is broken." He has indeed finished the work, and completed all "by binding the strong man, and taking away the armor wherein he trusted and spoiling his goods."
Hitherto we have been tracing the steps and paths of "Him that descended" into the wreck and ruins of this world and its occupants, since the fall. But what becomes of the paradisiacal symbols in that brief day, when the man and the woman were first created;-when the Lord God brought her to Adam, because " He said It is not good that man should be alone,"-the hour when this last and only void was filled up, where all else was good? Will this first, and perfect type, this "great mystery" be out of reach, And will it be the abiding and everlasting witness, that there was once a purpose in the mind of God, brought out in the annals of time too, and set up in this Adam and Eve in the garden, before the fall, in figure, which is lost and gone forever? What a question! and will the perfect one, the second man, the Son of God on earth, give an answer to this, as He has to every other question? Yes, He will, for, in the depths of His solitudes, He will say "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." The very thought of "abiding alone" is repugnant to Him; and He will take up in anticipation His own deep sleep, and speak of "falling into the ground, like a corn of wheat, and dying," that He may bring forth His fruit in His season, and get His Eve, His Bride; that so in the coming day of His joy, He may " present the Church to Himself, a glorious Church, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." But first He will go into this sleep, His own deep sleep of death, that God may go into the new place of "the quickener of the dead," and call the heavens and the earth to behold another power introduced into the scene of ruin and wrath around—" the power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." Another sphere is required for this antitypical mystery, when Christ and the Church are to be displayed, and it is our turn now to learn, that He, the Son of man, who has won every blessing that the future day of His glory will make good in manifestation upon the earth, has also won new trophies and new relations for God and for Christ and for the Church Which the heavens must open to receive, and which the heaven of heavens are alone worthy to display. Through what Christ has done in death, and because of who and what He is and deserves, another wisdom (the hidden wisdom) and another power, (which raised up Christ from the dead) will settle such new demands as these: and this " Son of God with power, according, to the Spirit of holiness," will make the opportunity for the bringing out of all the hidden mysteries of God, as He passes triumphantly by ascension title, into all His new glories, with His redeemed ones, throughout the everlasting ages! Thus will the Lord Jesus Christ open a new volume with its ever-increasing perfections; by which will be displayed, in the risen populations above, the present meaning of that scripture, " for it became Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." In prospect of this result in glory, Jesus had said, when His hour was come to depart out of this world unto the Father, " I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." The Father's House, and its many many mansions, shall ere long receive its "many sons." And in that day, when the Father has His many sons, God will take care that the Son shall have His "many brethren," according to that word " for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren." Moreover if this " salvation " (when inquired and searched into by prophets, who prophesied of the grace that should come,-or, in later times, when reported to us by the Holy Ghost sent down), was a "thing which the angels desired to look into,"-what shall be said as to these new lessons, now that the grace which has come, is about to get all its fulfillments in the glory? What must the Bride, the Lamb's wife, be in the light of the coming nuptial day? What must be their instructions and attainments in the things which are ours, when we are taught that one object of God is "to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God!" These sons of God had shouted for joy when Creation's work was done; but since then they have viewed our "great mystery of Godliness, God was manifest in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." Redemption by the blood of the Cross, flowing from Him who hung there, and resurrection from the dead, and the ascended glorified One in the heavens,-are their new objects. Angels ministered to Him once on earth; two angels in white were at His sepulcher; angels attended on Him, as He went up in the clouds; and, in the coming morning of His reintroduction, " when God brings again His first begotten into the world," He will say, " Let all the angels of God worship Him." How truly are we brought, and how well can we perceive why Jesus must say, No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him": and he turned and said privately," Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see."
Nevertheless He will leave behind Him like the Sinaitic inscriptions which marked the journeyings of His ancient people, the proofs and witnesses of the out-of-sight path which He made for Himself, as we are led to the manger,-the carpenter,-Egypt,-Jordan,-the opened heavens,-the descending dove,-the voice of God,-the wilderness and Satan -the last supper,-the Sanhedrim,-the Judgment Hall,-Gethsemane, and Calvary,-the crown of thorns, -the soldier's spear,-His cross,-His death,-the sepulcher (that womb of sorrows and suffering which gave birth to " the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead "); the man the Word made flesh (who cleared the world of all that stood in the way of God's glory, and of universal blessing) is now, by ascension title, at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens, "crowned with glory and honor and set over all the works" of God's hands. What new places and relations with a Father's delight open out for this Son of his love, in the bright future which He has made for Him!
Man being no longer under judgment (through the efficacious work of Him who bore it on the Cross), and God having now got man for Himself in resurrection, and that same man, too, who is the righteous and appointed heir of all things,-He, in whom all the covenants and promises are made yea and amen, and who has won, for Himself and His people, the necessary and suited positions and spheres for their accomplishment in glory on this earth and in the heavens-what will God invest Him with, as due to such an One, but all " honor, power, wisdom, riches, and strength and glory and blessing." If the garden of Eden showed us the man who had forfeited everything, the earth and the heavens are to manifest in glory the second man, who is worthy to receive all the Father has, and has given Him. Besides this, " God has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." Daniel by the spirit of prophecy had long before said, " I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days and they brought him near before him, and there was given unto him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people and nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." An evangelist will tell us, that the humbled Son of man who stood alone in the earth, as the master of the entire position by life and death, and who is now in the ascendant at the right hand of God, is soon coming again; and, that " when this Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, etc." An apostle will confirm this great fact in result, as he says, " Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power; for lie must reign, till lie hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor. 15:21-28) " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first- fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." The Apocalyptic writer will tell us, " I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he cloth judge and make war and he bath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written; King of kings and Lord of lords." "All power is given unto me (Jesus said) in the earth and in the heavens "-the proof (not merely of the Son of man's righteous title to power and glory everlastingly, but) that "the. Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth." Yea, God himself will tell us not only of the place this Son of man had in the eternal counsels of the Father, but that be is glorified by making room in all the further displays of His wisdom and grace and glorious power by leading this Son, the second man, to the very highest place in heaven: " above all principalities," and making Him the unchanging center of all accomplished blessing,-" that, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him," etc. What a relief to the aching heart, which has learned its humiliating lessons with the man who fell, to see where Man is, in the Person of the Son, in this new creation of God,-the risen, the ascended, and the exalted One. The might of that arm which rolled back the stone from the door of the sepulcher and began the celebration of its acts and deeds in Him who lay there in the silence and majesty of death, by raising Him from the dead, will presently " bring again his first begotten into the world,' which once cast Him out, to begin there, afresh (not the triumphant career of the man, great and supreme in His weakness and humiliation, but) the pathway of the mighty One, whose name shall be celebrated evermore as the " Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace;-of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom to order it, and establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever." This authority to set in order, and to establish everything great and small,-and to put aside, in righteous retribution, all his enemies-gets a yet further extension in John's gospel: " Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation:"—and all " authority to execute judgment (founded moreover on the title) because he is the Son of man," is His. As one with Him, and His associates in these very scenes, we are reminded (by the apostle to the Gentiles) "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life!" The poor man who once cried out of the depths, and "was heard in that he feared "—the, one who knew no sin, when made in the likeness of sinful flesh," and bore the judgment of our sins in His own body on the tree-He who once bowed His head and gave up the ghost-is now in the ascendant, and has all judgment committed to Him, " that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father." And execute this judgment He will, as the Son of man on the throne of His glory-as the Messiah-King when He brings His majesty and power into connection with the throne of David; or when the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. The Lord Himself says, in anticipation of His day of renown, "now is the judgment of this world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out." And to the very last will He affirm " the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." How supreme is our Jesus, in these noiseless victories, as He thus gives them out to us -and as He bids us be of good cheer in an overcome world; and not to let our hearts know either trouble or fear, through the conscious peace which He leaves us, till He comes in power " to judge and to make war"; for all His enemies shall lick the dust!
The first Adam's transgression threw Satan into prominence and strength, and obliged God to retire into the heaven of heavens, or else maintain His righteousness in judgment by destruction. The second Man (come to do the Father's will, in the body prepared for Him) has set up a claim before God to come forward, and (by righteous judgment) take this perfect One, out from the death into which His devoted obedience carried Him, and put Him into position, place, power and glory! " Behold I make all things new," is the only, and fitting reply from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He introduces the man of the new heavens and the new earth, into their length and breadth, and instals Him as the beginning of the new creation of God I We may well ask in the midst of such gains and triumphs as these, is there a power that can not merely grapple with Satan and overcome Him-but is there authority likewise to put aside the great enemy " the Wicked One " himself? With what gladness to our hearts (afraid because of the past) is the assurance from the risen One, " and I saw an angel come down from heaven having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand, and he laid hold on the dragon, that old Serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him' etc." How freely can one breathe now, as we see the Son of man exalted into the highest place-the center of all prophesied, promised, covenanted, and purposed blessing for the glory of God with His redeemed,-the families in the heavens and on the earth in their Goshens, by undisputed right, and in undisturbed possession, and Satan—nowhere! or, if memory, bestows a thought on the past, as regards that old serpent, only to be assured by the key, and the chain, and the bottomless pit, and the seal, that the stronger than he, who once took away his armor, wherein he trusted, has now shut him up, and shut him out, " that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled," and that when loosed for a little season "out of his prison," only to earn a heavier punishment, by being driven to his own place. "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever." The liar, from the beginning, is gone! the great enemy of God and man is judged and cast out! Man, in the person of our Jesus, has glorified God upon the earth, and finished that work, in life and death, which was given Him to do; and God-thus liberated from His place of righteous judgment against sin by the waters of a flood, and by melting elements through fervent heat-is set free to raise, and exalt, and glorify, and crown the man whom He made strong for Himself, and to re-introduce man from the heavens, into the whole scene of previous defeat and disgrace and destruction below, till every creature's heart and voice shall give expression to their new-bought joy in ascribing salvation and honor and glory and blessing unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever. What a day for our God-and what a day for our Lord I how truly will He take the place of His typical Solomon in times of shadows and figures, when He said, " the Lord hath said that He would dwell in the thick darkness; but I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling forever!"
" Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God," so God rested from all His works on the seventh day.
B.

Matthew 16

Whatever may help to make the mind clear on passages used to support the errors of Popery and Puseyism, is of use at this moment,-at least to supply an answer to those whose minds are less exercised on such subjects, even though their own faith may be settled by positive truth. God's goodness may preserve a soul from Popish error; but, as to doctrine, where redemption is not clearly known, I have always felt that there was nothing to secure the soul from its inroads. Its positive superstitions and errors may suffice, under mercy, to lead the mind to reject it, and for this we may thank God; but, as to peace and acceptance, a vast portion of the evangelical world is so little removed from the Popish faith that one can never be surprised (in the present confusion, and prevalence of superstition) if people fall into the snares its agents lay for souls. Even the doctrine of the Reformation of assurance of salvation," held then by all, and condemned by the Council of Trent as the vain confidence of the heretics, is condemned by a vast body of Protestants now-a-days as presumptuous, and is possessed by few in simplicity of well-grounded faith, though the number of these be, thank God, increasing. Where redemption is clearly known, where what Christ positively promised is possessed, " In that day ye shall know that I am in the Father and ye in me and I in you," the whole system of Popery and Ritualism falls to the ground, has no possible place in the mind. Popery and Ritualism profess to patch up continually the conscience for those who are still far from God; leaving them to answer for themselves in the day of judgment: the true believer is with a perfect conscience in the presence of God. He is accepted in the beloved and has boldness to enter into the holiest now, and knows that God will remember his sins and iniquities no more.
Where this is the case all the appliances of Popery have no possible place. But how few of those opposed to Ritualism are there! A Jew had his sacrifice for every sin; a Roman Catholic has his absolution when occasion arises; the Christian has by one offering been perfected forever, though he may humble himself and make confession to God for every failure. But the evangelical world will speak of re-sprinkling with the blood of Christ or, if Calvin be listened to, be taught, where failure has occurred, to look back to baptism, or will account the Lord's supper a means of forgiveness; for forgiveness of sins is attributed to sacraments in Reformation-theology. On these subjects the Protestant theology is too vague and too inconsistent to meet the positiveness of the deadly and faith-denying errors of Popery. The cardinal point of complete redemption, of Christ's having by one offering perfected forever them that are sanctified, of our being accepted in the beloved, of Christ's appearing in the presence of God for us our abiding righteousness, is unknown or feared; and you have the pretension of positive priestly absolution in an uncertain conscience: in both an uncertain salvation; the doctrine of scripture is lost. We cannot insist too much on the godly life of the redeemed, but Scripture will never use it to weaken the truth or completeness of redemption. Sacraments are most precious, in their place but not to undo or neutralize the efficacy of that of which they are the signs; warnings and exhortations are, thank God, abundantly given for our path, as redeemed, through the wilderness, and as to our dependance every instant on grace to carry us through, but never to make us doubt the faithfulness of Him who exercises it in bringing us to the end of our journey, confirming us to the end that we may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our sin and condemnation has been learned, but also Christ's substitution for us and the truth that we are made the righteousness of God in Him; so that the question of our righteousness before God never can be raised again, for Christ is it always, and always before God for us. Our weakness we learn every day, but to know that Christ's strength is made perfect in weakness; failure alas! may occur; but it gives occasion to Christ's intercession, to His washing our feet; chastening may be needed from our not judging ourselves, but it is applied that we may not be condemned with the world. There is abundant exercise and testing and trying of the life given, but because Christ lives we shall live also. My object is not now however to pursue the testimony which Scripture gives of a complete and accomplished redemption into the enjoyment of which in its sure efficacy we now enter by faith (in itself a far more interesting subject), but passages and subjects which might perplex the mind in reference to forgiveness and ecclesiastical authority. It will lead us into some inquiry as to the government of God and the discipline of His house; the kingdom of God and the so-called power of the keys. We may take the well-known passage in Matt. 16 as our point of departure.
The essential difference of the synoptical gospels and John's is that the three former show us Christ presented to the responsibility of man, and especially of the Jews in this world, with the result. While John's assumes the Jews to be reprobates, and develops sovereign grace and electing love in connection with the person of the Son of God as a man in this world, which, and not merely Judaism, is now seen as its sphere, and the gift of the Holy Ghost consequent on His going away. There is this peculiar to Luke amongst the three first, that in the first two chapters we have the deeply interesting picture of the godly remnant in Israel; then Christ traced up to Adam-(not from Abraham and David)-and grace comes out as revealed to man in Him more fully< In the Gospel of Matthew (which especially speaks of Christ as Emmanuel, Messiah), the narrative, which develops great principles more than facts in historical order, is arrived, in the chapter I refer to, at the point where the Jews had practically rejected the Savior; so that (verse 20) He charges the disciples that they should no longer tell that He was the Christ, and proceeds to show His disciples that He must suffer, and the substitution of the Church and the kingdom of Heaven for the Jewish system (in chap. xvi.), and the coming glory of the Son of man in His kingdom (in 17) are brought before us by the spirit of God. The Church and the kingdom of heaven form, consequently, the weighty revelation of the Lord in chap. xvi. On this let us dwell for a moment.
All is founded on the revelation of the person of the Son of God. Various opinions were formed by men as to Him, but the Father himself had revealed to Simon Barjonas that Jesus was the Son of the living God. On this rock Christ would build His Church. The true force of v. 18 is: " and I say also." That is, The Father had told Simon what Christ was, Christ tells him what he Simon is. He is Peter, or a stone. But on the doctrine of His person as Son of the living God Christ would build His Church. It was on a risen Christ, for this, was the public witness that He was Son of the living God, and all the power of Satan, who has the power of death, should not prevail against what Christ thus built. The important thing here to note is that Christ and Christ only is the builder. No man has any- thing to do with it, nor is that which Christ builds, yet finished. It is a building which continues till the whole temple is complete according to the mind of God. So when Peter speaks in his Epistle (1 Peter 2:4,5), he says, Unto whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house. We have no human builder. So in Eph. 2, Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple, in the Lord. In all this, we have no builder save Christ, and the building is only growing up to a temple in the Lord. I have spoken elsewhere of the contrast of this with 1 Cor. 3 where we have the agency and responsibility of man. Paul is a wise master builder; some might build with wood, hay and stubble, but be themselves saved, others corrupt the temple of the Lord and be themselves destroyed. Into this I do not enter further here. But they are looked at here as the temple of the Lord already, and God's building, not merely growing to it.
What we learn from Matt. 16 is that in the building against which the gates of hell do not prevail, man takes no part. It is Christ who builds; while in that in which man's responsibility is engaged, wood and hay and stubble may be built in and the work destroyed by fire. To confound these two things (a confusion on which the whole pretensions of Popery and Puseyism are built up) is most mischievous, and makes God answerable for man's evil work, and bound to maintain and sanction it. It is a very wicked doctrine.
Further, there are no keys to the Church. It and its building have nothing to do with the keys. Christ builds and does not build with keys. The keys are the insignia of the administration of the kingdom. These were in a special manner entrusted to Peter individually; but the passage gives him nothing to do with building the Church at all, nor does he pretend to it when he refers to this passage in his Epistle. He partakes in a remarkable manner of that on which the Church is founded. He is a stone, has part in the nature of the living stone, the Son of the living God, the truth on which the Church rests, but that is all. Of the kingdom of heaven he had the administration specially entrusted to him. The kingdom is not. the Church, and never will be. In a general way we may say, those who compose it have a part in the kingdom, will hereafter reign in it as they now suffer for it. It is the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ now; hereafter the kingdom and glory. Christ had, as John the Baptist had, preached the kingdom of heaven as at hand, as did the twelve (Matt. 10:7). When at length it was set up, though in no outward power, Peter had in an especial manner the administration of it as we see in the Acts. The Lord added to the Church daily (then openly) such as should be saved. This was His own work; but we see Peter, whether in testimony to Jews or Gentiles, or ordering the choice of deacons, or dealing with Ananias and Sapphira, having the administrative lead in the work. And what he preaches is the lordship of the ascended Man as a present thing (in chap. 2), and His return in power to accomplish the prophecies (in chap.3) The assembly was there, and the Lord added to it but the testimony was to the lordship of Christ, made Lord, and returning in power. In the case of Cornelius, the Church does not come in question. Peter never preaches once that Jesus is the Son of God. He is exalted, made Lord and Christ. In this administration of the kingdom, Heaven put its seal on his acts. Whatever he bound or loosed was bound or loosed with an authority which heaven sanctioned. I will speak of forgiveness in a moment, but in general what was established by Peter's apostolic authority in the administration of the kingdom, had heaven's seal put-upon it. But- in the-xvi. of Matthew, the keys have no connection with the Church, and Peter has nothing to do with building that church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Scripture never confounds the Kingdom and the Church.
Further, binding and loosing is not confined to forgiveness, even if, in a collateral way, it may include it, and it is only in such a way that it does. Whatever Peter established by the authority committed to him was sanctioned in heaven, as was also whatever two or three did, as really met in Christ's name. That too was sanctioned in heaven as much as Peter's administrative acts. But only what was within the competency or left to the service of the place he was put in, or of the two or three gathered in Christ's name. Heaven's sanction on what they did does not mean that they could determine all that heaven could. The sanction of all that an inferior authority does, is not saying that that inferior authority can do all that its superior is entitled to do or has to do. Many things may not be left to it. It is a question of what is rightly left. Thus " What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in, heaven " does not include binding anything in heaven. Whatever in Christianity belonged to heaven itself, whatever was done there, Peter and the Church had no power whatever. He bound things on earth and only there; his commission did not go further; what he did in these that heaven sanctioned; but he had nothing to say to what was bound or loosed in heaven itself. And this is of all importance when we come to certain points. He, Simon Barjonas, had the administration of the kingdom confided to him, backed by heaven's authority; a most important and solemn charge, but that was all.
The same, in its own sphere, is committed to any Christian assembly-two or three gathered together in Christ's name, for such is the assembly spoken of in Matt. 18; but no one dreams that such an assembly can bind beyond its own sphere of action, and determine things in heaven. W hat it does according to Christ's institution, heaven holds for good, but that does not confer a power of binding beyond the reach of its commission. Heaven's-sanction of what is within, is not the same thing as giving a power beyond its limits. I come now to the case of forgiveness.
All true Christians are forgiven, have received the forgiveness of their sins, and God will remember their sins and iniquities no more. God has quickened us together with Christ, having forgiven us all trespasses. I write unto you, says John, little children (addressing all Christians), because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake. This can neither be bound or loosed by any one, for God has settled it. Remission of sins is the portion of every one who has the true standing of a Christian. He is accepted in the beloved. We have redemption through Christ's blood even the remission of sins. Through Christ (we read) all that believe are justified from all things. Christ is made righteousness to us of God. In the Old Testament this was not made clear.- There was occasional forgiveness, and the full acceptance of the person was not revealed, no more than the full character of sin. A sacrifice could be offered to atone for faults committed; for some there was no remedy; a prophet might be sent to proclaim the putting away of sin. It was administrative forgiveness. The righteousness of God was not revealed. In the Gospel it is. There was the forbearance of God, who did know, of course, why; but the end of the third of Romans makes this point quite clear-that the actual remission of sins according to the revealed righteousness of God came in by the Gospel-" Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God, to declare I say at this time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. This is a most important sentence on this subject. God had been righteous in forbearing as to the sins of the Abrahams and Davids and others, because of the sacrifice of Christ; and that righteousness was now declared, and the ground of it seen. It was by Christianity God's righteousness (we read in Rom. 1) is now revealed, and Christ has been made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence peace-and remission of sins was to be preached in His name; all who believed were justified. The prophets witnessed that, through. His name, whoever believed in Him should receive remission of their sins, and this was now come and announced in the name of the Lamb slain, with the blessed testimony for those who received it, that their sins and iniquities would be remembered no more; that, sitting at the right hand of God, Christ was the perpetual witness there that the work was accomplished and owned of God, of which the Holy Ghost testified down here, come forth in virtue of Jesus being up there, and that Christ sits uninterruptedly there, because by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity those who are sanctified.
It is not at all a question as to sins committed to-day or to-morrow, but of a work done before we had committed any, into the present efficacy of which with God we enter, an efficacy which is of perpetual witness before God: that, further, we are in Him, accepted in the beloved, of which our life will be the practical proof for others, seeing that if we are in Him, He also is in us. This is not an administrative matter. It is the condition and standing of every true Christian. Peter preached this, and Paul preached this, as we may read in Acts 2;10;13, and the passages I have quoted from Rom. 1;3, and Hob. x. They preached it, and, so far as causing heathens or Jews to be received by baptism, administered it externally, though the latter act was accomplished by any and every Christian when the occasion presented itself; the apostles did it very rarely indeed. But a Christian was a forgiven, accepted person, according to the value and efficacy with God of Christ's work which never varied. He was accepted at all times in Christ, according to the abiding value of Christ's work. We have forgiveness, " all that believe are justified " are apostolic words. Once a person was a Christian, Simon Barjonas had nothing to do with administering this.
This leads me to another point in connection with this passage. It is a personal matter with Simon the son of Jonas; He was blessed by the revelation from the Father and the keys of the kingdom were given to him; he was Peter, he only so designated of the Lord: to him, and to him only were given the keys or administration of the kingdom of heaven; what he, Simon, bound on earth would be bound in heaven, what he would loose would be loosed. He was the first confidential and divinely guided servant of the Master of the house. That was wholly personal to him as the revelation of Christ by the Father to him was.
But the sanction of heaven on loosing and binding on earth is declared, in another place, to belong to another depository of power where it is not personal, which does not refer to the kingdom but to the church, and which if granted of God's grace may be found at any time while Christianity subsists, namely, wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, because Christ is there in the midst of them. This is no personal authority of any or all the members, but of an assembly because Christ is in their midst. The language of the passage is so plain that there would be no difficulty to any one, if habits of thought had not clothed it with a meaning which its language leaves no room for. If a brother should offend, the offended one was to seek to gain him; if that failed, he was to take one or two more, so that it might not rest on the injured one's statement alone, if it had to come into judgment. It that failed, he was to tell it to the assembly; if he refused to hear the assembly, he was to be counted as a heathen man. The Christian assembly took the place of the synagogue, and where the assembly had acted the judgment (till repentance) was final; the offender was held to be outside as a heathen. First, one was to go,- then he with others, then the assembly to be informed of it. It was the discipline of the gathered saints in any given place; and to make the matter precise we are told that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, Christ is in the midst of them. Nothing really can be simpler. There is not a word of clergy, nor ministers (however useful these latter may be by their gifts for service), nothing even of elders, though these had their local functions also. The point is, that where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, Christ is. This then 4 the abiding-seat of the exercise of that authority in its due sphere whose acts are sanctioned in heaven. The same authority given personally to Simon Barjonas was that authority conferred on the two or three gathered together in Christ's name, and exists wherever two or three are so gathered. This is a very important point. The perpetuity of the loosing and binding power is in two or three gathered together. It was personal in the chosen apostle and continued in none. It is a mistake to think that forgiveness alone is binding or loosing. What the apostle wrote was to be received as the commandments of the Lord.
A special case in connection with this is that of forgiving sins, only collaterally after all connected with the general authority of binding and loosing conferred on Simon. Forgiveness is much more directly connected with the communication of the Holy Ghost and the mission of the apostles in John 20 Matt. 16 has no direct reference to it. In Matt. 18 it comes as necessarily administratively involved in it, of which anon. John 20 was the general mission of the apostles which, as we have seen, had the forgiveness of sins for a principal object; indeed, as to the individual's state, repentance and remission of sins embraced the whole circle of its testimony, both of course in the name of Jesus. The apostles acted with the Lord's authority in this matter; Paul (as is fully declared by himself) coming in to partake of it from Christ Himself. But this forgiveness had a double character.
All Christians (as we have seen) were a forgiven people. They had redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. John would not have written to them but that they were all forgiven. " I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake." God has quickened us with Christ, having forgiven us all trespasses. We are personally forgiven and accepted, our sins remembered no more, perfected forever. Either that is true or Scripture is not. So true that there is no more offering for sin; if they are not forgiven completely and forever (as regards the imputing of sin to us, and just, divine wrath against the sinner as to judgment), they never can be, because there is no more offering for sin, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. I do not talk of sins past, present, and future, for I ought not to think of sinning in future; it is a misapprehension leading to a reference to the time of 'the fault and the then change of the state of the individual needed for forgiveness but shuns its meritorious cause, instead of seeing one perfect work accepted of God as its ground, a work perfect and complete as accomplished by Christ for believers before or believers after, before believed in a hoped for, now accomplished and believed in, righteousness, revealed and accomplished propitiation. If will speak of time, all my sins were future when Christ bore them. But the true way is to see a complete work accepted of God in the acceptance and sweet savor of which we always stand. God for Christ's sake (in Christ) has forgiven us. This was the grand testimony of Christianity. Called thereby to repentance, men had received the remission of their sins by faith in Christ and they were to be remembered no more. They were justified. But besides reconciliation with God and man by the precious blood of the cross, there is the government of God's children.
God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous, says Elihu to Job, and then enlarges upon the ways of God in chastening the righteous, and their restoration to blessing on their humiliation under His hand. Just the lesson Job had to learn, and which is taught us in that book. The three friends insisted that this world was an adequate witness of the dealings of God with man as to good and evil, and, hence, that Job was a hypocrite; but we learn in it that it is when a man is righteous in God's sight, then it is that the dealings of God have their place for his practical profit and the acquirement of self-knowledge; that whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives. This connects the idea of forgiveness or the contrary (not at all with imputation of sin as guilt, and condemnation as the consequence), but with the present infliction of chastisement, in displeasure doubtless, wrath if you please, in the righteous. If we judge ourselves we should not-be judged of the Lord, but when we (Christians) are judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we might not be condemned with the world. When this chastening, or the forgiveness which is connected with relieving any one from it, is confounded with the forgiveness by which we are accepted and reconciled to God, redemption is not known at all. I do not say intentionally denied, but not known at all. A conscience purged by the blood of Christ has no more to do with guilt, or with the question of salvation. If he is not cleansed, forgiven, justified completely and forever he never can be, for Christ cannot die again, and as the apostle reasons, were it not so, he must suffer often, for that only puts away sin. He suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust. Christ is his righteousness, and he is in Christ before God. But for that very reason God will not allow any evil in him. He chastens for our profit that we may be partakers of His holiness.
Let us see what Scripture says of forgiveness in respect of these dealings of God with the righteous, whether using the word forgiveness, or practically referring to the thing. The whole book of Job is a history of it. I quote particularly chap. 33, " He openeth the ears of men and sealeth their instruction, that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, etc., He is chastened with pain upon his bed.... If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand to show unto man his uprightness, then He is gracious to him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. He shall pray unto God, and He will be favorable unto him, and he shall see His face with joy." Here the man is not spoken of as righteous; but the dealings are in grace for correction; and when set right, the hand of God is removed from upon him. In chap. 36 it is expressly the righteous man who is dealt with. Again then He opens their ear to discipline, and if they obey and serve Him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, if they obey not, they shall perish with the sword and die without knowledge. The Psalms are full—of this principle; it is; so to speak, their-main subject, though founded on atonement. " Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest out of thy law; that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity (94) The Lord has chastened me sore, but he path not given me over unto death (118) Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions. In the New Testament we have a positive intelligent intervention of the saints in the administration of this forgiveness. First, indeed, men are called upon to judge themselves that they may not come under chastisement (1 Cor. 11:31,32). But we have two cases where other saints have to say to it besides apostolic power: discipline, and the supplication of brethren, or the elders' prayer of faith. And, first, in respect of discipline. The wicked man had been put out from the midst of the assembly. This, while purifying the assembly from evil, had brought the offender to his senses, and he was profoundly humbled about his sin. The apostle directs the assembly to forgive him; the punishment had been sufficient, and they were again to show their love to him. ft was no question of His being the righteousness of God, or of his part in it, but of the government of the Church, and the maintenance of its holiness here below. The wicked man could not enjoy in his wickedness the blessed privileges that belonged to it. He was excluded; now, humbled and penitent, he was to be forgiven. It was the present administration and government of the Church down here, and sanctioned of. heaven. At the same time, the apostle uses his apostolic authority; and as he had judged the case himself, so now he forgives (2 Cor. 2:7,10). He had the same authority as that given to the apostles in John 20, and the assembly at Corinth was to exercise concurrently its own in dealing with the case. The apostle was careful there should be no jar between the two. This is the force of verses 10, IL The intervention of any Christian, in favor of a sinning brother, we find in 1 John 5 A sin may bring death on a Christian, bodily death in this world, and that in a twofold way irremediably, so that he cannot be prayed for because of the character of the sin; such was Ananias and Sapphira; or, it may result in death, if he be not humbled. As we and in Job, " because there is wrath beware, lest He take thee away with a stroke." If they obey not they shall perish. That is, when he opens their ear to discipline. The Christian is expected here to discern where the sin has a character which draws out terror and indignation, not intercession. But if it is a sin not to death, though unrepented of, it may lead to the sinning brother's bane-t' cut off, taken away with a stroke; then prayer is to be made, and the life of the sinning brother will be spared. He is in this sense forgiven. The threatened result of his sin is turned aside by the intercession. So, in Job 42:8, the effect of God's displeasure is to be averted by the intercession of Job. In James it is the elders' prayer of faith. A Christian was sick, he was to send for the elders of the assembly, and they were, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, to pray for him, and the prayer of faith would restore the sick to health, the Lord would raise him up, and if he had committed sins they would be forgiven him; evidently implying that if those sins had been the occasion of his sickness, it would not hinder the efficacy of the prayer, but the sins would be forgiven, and the man restored to health. We have thus the various phases of administrative forgiveness. God, in His government, no longer held the offender liable to judgment according to that government exercised here below, not as a question of acceptance in Christ, but the government of His children. It might be chastening from himself, or it might be also the assembly's discipline. It does not refer to final judgment: the believer has boldness for the day of judgment, because as Christ is, so is he in this world; but he is, as calling on the Father, and knowing he is redeemed by the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without spot and without blemish, to pass the time of his sojourning here in fear, for the Father judges every man according to his works. Now, as regards the final judgment, the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son, but there is the judgment of our ways in the path towards the glory obtained by Christ for us. There is a judgment of the ways of all. The unrepentant are heaping up wrath against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, but God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous, and it is our God who is a consuming fire. Where true gold is it purges away the dross. There may be tribulation for good, in which we can glory; there may be chastening for actual transgression, under which we have to humble ourselves; there may be discipline which applies correctively to our state, and even, as in the case of Paul, anticipates the evil for our blessing. We have to distinguish the obsolete forgiveness and acceptance of the believer from the forgiveness which applies to Divine discipline, or even Church discipline when we are accepted, the effect of the eyes of God being on the righteous. The denial of the fullness—of the former is the great plague of modern Christianity. It will be resisted and calumniated as every important truth will; but if the word of God be true, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, and are purged, have no more conscience of sins, by one offering are perfected forever. This the Old Testament saints did not know. Christianity is the revelation of the righteousness of God. It is that that made the apostle boast of it (Rom. 1 in. It was then that righteousness was declared. God's discipline, and the assembly's judgment (for it judges those within), forgiveness, as to present displeasure with the conduct of the children, come in when acceptance is perfect and apply to the righteous and accepted children. In the Old Testament these were not distinguished with the same clearness, because the full remission of sins was not yet revealed, nor Divine righteousness, so that this distinction could not be brought out, for it depended on that remission and standing in righteousness our entrance into the holiest through the rent, veil. Hence, even Protestants who have not the consciousness of this standing are at a loss as to forgiveness. Some remarks may have their just place here. First-It may be remarked that all the chastening is from God's hand, even when wicked men are the instruments urged on by Satan. God it is who has set Satan at work as an instrument, as we see in the book of Job. The interpreter, the man-of prayer, may be the means of removing the evil, but no human authority imposes any. Chastening discipline is the judgment of the Lord, a Father's hand upon His child; it has nothing to do with the Church, nor the Church with it. The Church or assembly only acts on proof of evil, by putting out from itself, and so clearing itself, and bringing back when the person is humbled. It judges those within, and forgives when there is just ground for it. The Lord chastens in love to make us partakers of His holiness. He forgives and removes the chastening, when there is just occasion for that. An individual's prayer may avert death when wrath is there, or the prayer of the elders of the Church, if the prayer of faith may restore to health when sickness is discipline, and forgiveness be granted. God may see occasion to inflict permanent chastisement, as Jacob halted all his life. Full remission of sins was not known under the Old Testament; its announcement is of the essence of Christianity, and peace with God through justification. An unjustified believer is a contradiction in terms, all that believe are justified; but justification if it be more, is certainly imputing no sin. Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is pardoned; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin; but to him that believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed to Him for righteousness.
Let me add that delivering to Satan is an act of power -putting out a wicked person a duty attached to the faithfulness of the assembly. No doubt exclusion from the assembly of God is a very serious thing, and leaves us exposed to sorrow and just trouble of heart, and that from the enemy: but direct delivering to Satan is the act of positive power. It was done in Job's case for his good. It was done by Paul in 1 Cor. 5, though acting in the gathered assembly, for the destruction of the flesh. And again, without reference to the assembly, in 1 Tim. 1, as to Hymenmus and Alexander, that they might learn not to blaspheme. All discipline is for the correction of the individual, though to maintain withal the holiness of the house of—God, and clear the _consciences of the saints themselves.
We must not confound what the Church binds, being bound in heaven, with the Church being able to bind and loose all that heaven can. What the Church, (that is, two or three gathered in Christ's name), binds in the sphere committed to them according to the word, that is sanctioned by heaven. But the Church has nothing to do with forgiving sins, in the sense of not imputing guilt, or making a person righteous; that heaven (that is God Himself) has done as regards the believer; and the Church can neither bind nor loose it. It has no power or jurisdiction in this sense at all. It has a sphere of discipline in which it forgives or judges, and its righteous acts in that sphere are sanctioned on high. And it is important to remark, that the binding and loosing is, in Matt. 16, conferred on Simon Barjonas in the administration of the kingdom of heaven. He has nothing to do with the Church there. That Christ builds. When the Church forgives, it is an assembly, it may be of two or three gathered together in Christ's name. The apostles could administer forgiveness, and did, in receiving into the Church of God, persons called in by grace (John 20). Paul acts in the same power, and owns it in the assembly then in respect of discipline; the distinction of which, from not imputing guilt, I have already noticed. Simon Barjonas binding and loosing had nothing to do with the Church. Two or three gathered in the Lord's name do it in Church matters. It has nothing to do with any supposed authority of the Church as a whole.

My Gospel

In order to be able clearly to apprehend what the Apostle Paul calls " My Gospel," it is necessary for us: to understand what preceded it. Judgment, which is se great a quality of the spiritual mind, is the power of nicely distinguishing between two points in which, there is the -least difference; and where there is a spiritual mind, its aim is ever to distinguish things that differ.; and whenever this distinction is not made, and in proportion as this is lost sight of, there is not only ignorance, but defect in the exercise of the spiritual mind, which would have grappled with it, and through grace have counteracted it. The Word is given us to guide and instruct the spiritual mind, and to lead it to that judgment which would set the truth in its due place and order. I propose, therefore, to examine the Gospel which was proclaimed and taught before there was any revelation unto Paul; and having done so, to present as clearly and fully as I can, the Gospel entrusted to Paul as to its nature, characteristics, etc. I know and feel that I undertake a task which, though so interesting, is so little known, that if I had not the assurance of the Lord's mercy in helping and encouraging every little effort of His people, to clear His truth of any mixture which leavens it, I could not attempt it. But with this conviction, I assure myself that any, however feeble, tracing out and presentation of the truth as it has been revealed, will be helpful and useful.
First, then, I would examine the nature and scope of the Gospel preached during our Lord's walk on the earth; and then, the Gospel preached after His resurrection, until the revelation given to the Apostle Paul. I trust that every student of Scripture will admit that there is some difference, at least, in the Gospel preached in each of these three periods. It must surely need but few words to convince a Christian that the Gospel which was preached before the death of Christ, could not be the same, as to fullness, as that preached after His resurrection. It is true that when Mark commences the narrative of our blessed Lord's ministry (Chapter 1:1) he calls it " the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God;" but this passage indicates the nature of the narrative which he was about to give; that is, good tidings relating to Him as the Son of God, rather than the nature or subject-matter of the Gospel preached. This last (the Gospel preached) is definitely stated in verse 14 of the same chapter, where it is said, " Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." Now, what was that Gospel? Surely not the same as that preached by the Apostles after the resurrection, or as that revealed to Paul. It was the Gospel of the kingdom of God, as Mark plainly tells us; and that was, that God's kingdom was now offered to the Jew in the person of the Heir. Now the effect of repenting and believing this Gospel is set forth in the prayer which our Lord taught His disciples, who, as the faithful of that day, had accepted this Gospel. It was good tidings that God was offering to man His kingdom in His Son, the Heir of all. The disciples believed this and hence our Lord teaches them a prayer expressive of the state of soul which they, as believing in this Gospel, should have; that is to say, they, through grace, were bound to have the sentiments which that prayer comprised. Prayer when true properly expresses the relation in which the soul stands with God. You cannot, if you pray truly, take higher relation than that in which you are set. When you pray to God you present yourself in that relation which you feel is alone justifiable before Him; that which you can truly assume. If I pray to God assuming a false relation, I must, on the face of it, feel in my conscience that I disown the nature of God; that I lose the sense of His being God. Even ordinarily, if I make a petition: to one who knows my condition, I am careful not to represent it in a false light, not to presume on my claim and relation beyond what I think will be acceptable. We find in Luke 8:1 That the Lord " went throughout every city and village preaching and showing the glad tidings (or Gospel) of the kingdom of God, and the twelve were with Him." And then in Chapter 11 when " He had ceased praying, one of His disciples said unto him, Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray say, Our Father which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." In this prayer the Lord teaches His disciples to address God as their Father, because He had been exhibited here on earth in His Son, who could say, " he that bath seen m