There are several subjects of general interest to Christians, which it might be well to examine carefully. Two more especially present themselves at this time; the one is the existence of the Church on earth, and the sense in which it may be said to be responsible for the state in which it now is, though others have been the chief means of bringing it to that state. The other is the explanation and application of the eleventh of Romans.
Before, however, entering on the subjects themselves, I would call the attention of my reader to one point, viz., that these are subjects neither of secondary importance nor of slight differences of opinion, as some would have us to believe; but subjects of the utmost moment; subjects which involve the questions of the character of our relationship with Christ, and of the responsibility of Christians with regard to our actual state; questions, I repeat it, of the most solemn nature, and which ought to interest every soul and involve the glory of Christ himself.
It has, indeed, been objected by some, that we had better not waste our time upon such questions, as being but questions of second-rate importance. But let us not be deceived. These are not secondary questions: I repeat it again. Is-the existence of the Church upon earth, and our responsibility, in relationship with its existence, a matter of second-rate importance? if we must have controversy, I bless God that we have so fundamental a question to consider, and also that that which sometimes produces painful separations among Christians is by no means a slight difference of opinion;-but the denial of the existence, and the responsibility of the Church of God upon earth. That the source of divisions will be found to be there, I have the most profound conviction. God will not have the truth upon this subject set aside. Is the existence and the responsibility of the Church upon earth a nice distinction-an opinion? Is it not clear, that if any one have a clear conviction on these points, it ought to be a motive in the presence of God, the motive which will affect the whole conduct of a Christian as such; and his entire manner of seeing things. Nay, the Christian's entire conduct and mode of seeing things will be molded. upon the existence of such a relationship. Could it be a matter of opinion to a woman, to know whether she was the wife of such or such a one or not? And if she is, how will she regard her responsibility? As a matter of second-rate importance? Is not the question one of morality, when relationships established by God exist? And is it not morality of the very highest kind possible, the morality which is based upon the relationship which God has established between his Son and the Church which he has given to him? Morality, I admit, which is not within the limits of man's natural responsibility, on which one could not insist when addressing the natural conscience, but which one may say forms the very life of a Christian in the most exalted part of his conduct. It is a responsibility which governs all others, and which is even the spring of them.
I would remark also, that if any one recognizes the existence of the Church for if it does not exist, there can be no question as to responsibility from connection with it-but if it exists] there is nothing uncertain or vague in our responsibility, when such a relationship exists as that which subsists between Christ and the Church. There is no need of proofs and analogies to demonstrate that the Church is responsible if she exists. Is it needful to prove the responsibility of a woman towards her husband? What, indeed, would one say of the wife who raised such a question (and towards such a husband), and who, when one had forced oneself (spite of one's shame to be obliged to do such a thing) to recall to her her duty, spoke of the responsibility as something vague and uncertain? Is responsibility a mode.-of thought? Is not responsibility the very basis of all morality, and is it not, along with grace, also that of even every doctrine which has to do with the relationships of God with man? If it be said-" Yes, individual responsibility, every one recognizes and insists upon that." If the corporate responsibility in which each individual is involved, is that which is meant, it is well; but let care be taken lest we use this and such equivocal expressions from a desire to avoid that responsibility which refers to the state of the Church, which ought to glorify the Lord as such, according to the position in which God has placed it and its duty towards God in such position. Now I believe that to insist upon this at the present time, is the subject the most important and necessary which there can be for the Christian, and the most affecting for those who love Christ. It is a subject which brings with it consequences of the most solemn nature; I earnestly beseech my readers to pay attention to it; I speak of a testimony on the part of God. Time will show if I am mistaken, or if the testimony be of God. If it be, the culpability of those who oppose the truth on this point is in proportion to the blessing which there is in. the relationship of which that truth speaks-to its claim upon the soul. To withdraw the heart and conscience from under the influence of a relationship founded upon grace the most precious and astonishing-a relationship which should bear sway and mold every other, which it does not destroy, especially since that relationship is one known to faith only in such sort, that to enfeeble faith is to enfeeble the perception of this relation, and to call in question the responsibility which flows thence. I hold, I say, that it would hard to designate such an attempt by an epithet too strong.
But the doctrines of the presence of the Holy Spirit here below, in. the Church, and of the return of Christ, are identified with its unity upon earth, with the position of Bride, or rather of her who here below is espoused to be presented as a chaste virgin unto Christ, and with the desire of his coming, which detaches us from all that is not of Him, and attaches us entirely, exclusively, to Himself.
It is easy to understand how those who are in national establishments feel themselves troubled by such a truth; they have quite another sort of unity, and with them division is that which separates from what is really union with the world, and subjection to another than Christ. That dissenters-who, faithful in separating from that which is contrary to the precepts of the gospel, have made Churches, though they have never apprehended, but contrariwise have rejected, the idea of the Church upon earth- should be opposed to it, this also is intelligible enough; but it ought not to enfeeble the power of these two great truths upon our hearts, nor alienate us from them. Division in the latter case, is sometimes in appearance less reasonable, because the evil among them is less gross than elsewhere, but they have not accepted, and still do refuse to accept these truths. They have no influence upon their manner of acting. That there should be patience there can be no doubt; but that these two immense truths should not produce effects, that they should leave those who oppose them in tranquility-will never be the case. It is well for brethren, and even for those who oppose, to understand what really is in question. Hitherto the unity and the responsibility of the Church have been denied; the return of Christ has had no practical effect upon the opponents of these doctrines; scarcely are they even now recognized as being strongly probable-which is not such a conviction as can furnish a motive for conduct; while all the affections of the Church ought to be formed upon, and her walk regulated by these doctrines while awaiting Christ's return.
I find two things presented in the word as the great means of judging of the state of the people of God:-1St. The comparing it with the state in which God placed them at the first. 2nd. With the glory of Christ who is about to return. Compare Isa. 5 for the first, and 6 for the second,)
The two truths with which this question connects itself are: the return of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church; for the Holy Spirit is come down to earth, and this it is which gives to the.. Church its unity and corporate responsibility upon earth. It is with the, Church as with a human body, all the component elements of which are said to be entirely renewed in a very short period of time; yet the individual remains the same man: the spirit of man which is in him attaches vitally to itself, and appropriates successively new heterogeneous elements, and the unity and the person changes not.
There are three great truths which are connected with Christ, the center of all truth, or, if you please, three different positions, in which he is seen. Dead and risen;-then in heaven (with this corresponds, as its proof, the presence of the Holy Spirit upon earth, John 16); and lastly, returned to earth. Dead and risen-thus is the Church, his body, justified, risen with him. Such is the doctrine of justification; and although it is evidently true as to the whole Church, considered as a body, yet in its application day by day, and for each conscience, it is an individual matter for each. The Holy Spirit dwells, as the seal of this doctrine, in the body of the individual as in a temple. Then, in heaven Jesus is hid in God, yet crowned with honor and glory: the doctrine which thence flows, is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church upon earth, in his body; of the Holy Spirit who gives to this body its unity, and makes the terms " body of Christ. Bride of Christ-Church of Christ"-to be applicable to those who, upon earth, are united to Him who is in heaven, and who thus form a unity upon earth; the dead in Christ being for the moment out of sight. If this is understood (for one may be converted and not understand it),, one desires, as bride of Christ, the return of the Bridegroom. Justification is connected with his death and resurrection; for 'we know that his work has been accepted on high. The unity of the Church, and her waiting for Christ as is becoming for a faithful bride, this it is which is connected with the glory of Christ on high, and the presence of the Holy Spirit down here. These are the two great truths which have been specially put forward, which,, as I believe, God himself has put forward at the present moment, and which have produced so much disquietude' in those who desire to remain without the sphere of their influence-whether in the national churches or in dissent.
Having shown of how solemn a nature the subject before us is, let us now turn to Rom. 11 This chapter contains, it is true, the proof of only one of the points involved in the subject; so that, if it is lacking in evidence, 'or if it were entirely left aside, still the great truth, to wit, our position before God, would in no wise be changed. Yet the passage is important, and the making of its meaning clear is interesting to the believer.
And first, let me notice a palpably erroneous view held by some. The words, "Hath God rejected his people?" they would have to be a question-the reply to which is, " God has rejected Israel as a nation, but not as individuals.; as Paul was witness."
Now that this view is entirely wide of the thought of the Apostle and of the Holy Spirit it clear; for how could the Church have entertained the question, if Israel had been rejected as individuals, since the Church was composed in great measure of Israelites. The supposed answer to the Apostle's question is absurd. For what answer to the question " Hath God rejected his people?" is there in, " Israel was rejected as nation and not as individuals?" If Israel was rejected as a nation, and not as individuals, yet the rejection of the people was equally sure. It was a palpable fact that individuals were received; but the Apostle applies it in proof that the people were not rejected, a question which the substitution of the Church raised. He cites his own case, not to show that he had been received as an individual, but in proof of the interest he took in his nation; he was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin; now what is the meaning of being of the tribe of Benjamin, if it is not the people, as people, whom God still loves? God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. What people? The people of whom He speaks in ver. 1-Israel! One cannot doubt it when one reads the end of the tenth chapter; and I ask, if the question was about the election of individuals, what ground could there be for proposing the question whether the people of God were rejected because the Church was called? No! but in that God had reserved an election from among the people of Israel, set aside for the moment on account of its sin, He had given proof that He still thought of that people; as the case of the seven thousand in the days of Elijah also showed; moreover, the verses 26-29 leave doubt upon the subject; for he affirms, while speaking of the future reception of Israel, that, although, as to the gospel, they are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, as to election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Who would say that they who are enemies as to the gospel, yet loved for the fathers' sakes, and who thus present the proof that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, are accepted as individuals? Could any one say that this is a proof the people is rejected as a nation, though not as individuals? Would any one say that the election of individuals as to the Church is for the fathers' sakes.
I assert then, that the view referred to is altogether wide of what was in the mind of the Apostle; and attributes to him a thought which the whole chapter contradicts, and which appears altogether erroneous, if one does but take the trouble to read it; for it is clear that Israel, loved for the fathers' sakes, yet enemies as to the gospel, is not Israel loved as individuals, but quite the contrary. Paul shows that the momentary rejection of the nation was by no means God's definitively rejecting his people; that they were yet beloved for the fathers' sakes, an elect people, the gifts and calling of God being without repentance, and he proceeds almost to state the very opposite of the view referred to; for he says, " If some of the branches were broken off;" that is, he forces himself to restrict the breaking off-to some 'branches. I conclude, then, that this view transgresses against the basis of the whole meaning of the chapter, and is entirely wide of that about which the Apostle speaks.
Some would make verse 13, and those which follow, individual warning; but they are distinct from that which we find lower down. Verse 13 and what follows are no warning, but doctrine.
Lower down in the chapter, there is a warning; but here also we must take up the subject from an earlier point. That every Christian may well find profit here, I doubt not; but the warning is addressed to us not as brethren, but as being of the Gentiles. My reader should remember, that if there had not been something peculiar, there would have been no need to speak of Gentiles. Nay, one could not have done it. A Christian, once a Jew, needed warning as much as another. The Apostle speaks no longer here of the Church, considered in the principles of her relationship to Christ; that subject closed with chapter 8. Nothing able to separate the believer from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; whom He did foreknow He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son: He called them, Jews as well as Gentiles, no matter which, and He justified them, and glorified. He speaks then here of the special administration of the work of the Church upon earth, and in reference to Israel, of its condition and circumstances down here; of its relation with the ancient people of God: he asks if that people had been rejected, and what the consequences of all this for the Gentiles and for the world.
In Jesus Christ, if the question be about Christian position, eternal life, or the Church considered in her essential relationship to Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile; the thoughts found in this chapter can THERE have no place. If the question be about the cutting off of an individual for sinful conduct, little matters it whether he be Jew or Gentile; that has nothing to do with it, and on the other hand, there would be no question about grafting in again of the Jews more than of any others, and neither Jews nor others could be grafted in, if God had cut them off in such a manner. And if it were a question about a warning from the Apostle to Christians at Rome, and so to others elsewhere, as being brethren, it would be almost nonsense to say, " And thou, O Gentile, take heed!" Why, thou, O Gentile? Had not Christians, Jews by birth, as much need to take heed? Or could the Spirit of God, in such a warning, have made the distinction, and thus denied the principle of, the Church of God in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile? If the question is about a divine administration upon earth, then God can well make the distinction and develop his ways towards the one and the other; and it is plain that from the commencement of the ninth chapter the Apostle is occupied with and pointedly contrasts the Jews and the Gentiles, presenting us with the administration of the divine ways upon the earth. First declaring his attachment to Israel, he points out an election in the election for the earth, and further, that if God according to his sovereignty had chosen Israel (and such was Israel's boast), He had not renounced His sovereignty; and consequently, He could call the Gentiles if he would. Then he recalls to mind that the prophets had shown that a little remnant only, of Israel, at such an epoch, would be saved, and that a stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion.
Then, chap. 10 (after having anew protested his ardent desires as to the welfare of Israel as such, notwithstanding all its ignorance) he introduces Christ the end of the law, faith, the testimony by preaching, and lastly, Israel provoked to jealousy by a foolish nation; God, found of those who sought him not; and Israel rebellious and gainsaying, God having in vain stretched forth His hands to them. Then he asks, "Is then this people rejected"? God forbid. God loves them still, and has reserved a remnant of them. The Apostle then shows that their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, and the riches of the Gentiles; at the same time he presents their fall to the Gentiles received into the place of the branches cut out, as a warning, lest they also should experience a like fate, and then he declares that Israel as a whole should be again restored when the Deliverer should come out of Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, its unbelief having ceased. Is it not perfectly evident here that the Apostle speaks not to brethren in a Church in the character of brethren? for in such case it imports little whether they be Jews or Gentiles, or rather they would he neither one nor the other; that in short he does not speak to them here simply as being brethren in Christ, but that he treats of the ways of God upon earth in reference to certain classes of persons, as of Jews and Gentiles, reckoned as such before God in the administration of his government and promises here below. It was well timed to introduce this in an epistle addressed to Christians at Rome (moreover not addressed as a church), capital of the Gentile world, in an epistle which treats of the whole judgment of God in his relations with men, Gentiles, Jews, in Adam, by means of Moses, without law and under law, believers in Christ, possessing the Spirit, objects of all the government of God; which treats in short of the specialties of the consequences of the Gospel with regard to his promises towards the earthly people, and shows how his faithfulness to them could be reconciled with the calling of the Church for the heavens; it may be by a Gospel which declared that there was no difference, for all were sinners, and God rich over all in grace, which, however, left the Church still upon earth, and introduced into the enjoyment of the promises made to Abraham, till then exclusively the lot of the earthly people. This, in fact, needed an explanation; and the Lord, by the Spirit, gave it, in his goodness, at the same time explaining the effect produced upon the world by the temporary rejection of Israel, and warning the Gentiles received into the place of the branches which had been cut out, of the position in which they really were found as such; Gentiles, I say-remark it—and not the Church; that could not be, the elect Jews forming part of it, and they are not warned at all. In the Church for the heavens, that distinction was not known. " But thou, O Gentile," not " but thou, O professor;" but " thou, O Gentile, I speak to thee only." But why does he so speak, if it was only a solemn warning against pride, for the profit of their souls? A converted Jew or a Christian-had not he need of it? The Jew-did not he also stand by faith? This passage is found at the close of a development of the ways of God, contained, as we have just seen, in this epistle: and to make of it a simple warning, is to misapprehend all the thought of God in it, and thus to forget, that when the Church as such is spoken of, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, we are all one in Jesus Christ.
To turn the passage, as some have done, into a warning to Gentile believers really standing by faith, as such-that is to say, the election from among the Gentiles-is reallv to turn the cutting off of Israel and the wonderful fidelity of God in sparing an election from among that people, into a warning to the election from among the Gentiles, that they should fear to be cut off: which is mere nonsense.
Some may be assisted, by observing that there are two elections spoken of, and not merely one; and that they are contrasted-the election from among the Jews, and the election of the people, as such, beloved for the fathers' sakes, the reader will do well to weigh about what this apostle speaks; and also the importance of the subject, the effect of the ways of God in cutting of Israel and introducing the gospel-upon the world-upon the professing people of God-and upon believers. Also that " standing by faith," "grafted into the olive," and " in the goodness of God" are not expressions signifying one and the same thing. They may here apply in a general way to the same persons, though even this is not, accurately speaking, true; but they do not signify the same thing. The Jews who 'believed, for instance, were indeed in the goodness of God, according to the order of things introduced by Christ; but they were not grafted into the good olive-tree in the sense in which this is said of the Gentile. He speaks of their olive-tree, which is another proof that he speaks of the administration of things here below, and not of salvation no of the cutting off in the simple sense of loss of salvation. If the question were about the promises of life eternal in Christ risen, in contrast with the death of the soul, there would be no difference; it would be no more their olive-tree than that of the Gentiles. "Goodness unto thee" is not the state in which an individual finds himself, but the relationship in which God presents himself as being towards those who, according to the principles of the economy, are the objects of that goodness. Consequently he speaks not of goodness towards the Jewish believers, although they were in the same goodness of God as the rest, because the Jews were there as branches by nature, although cut off, for the greater part, this time, for their unbelief. So true is this, that the Apostle speaks of graffing them in again. If it is simply an individual warning, could he that had been cut off (according to Heb. 6 which may contain an allusion to the fate of this dispensation) be graffed in again? And if the Apostle speaks of individuals only, why says he that they can be graffed in again. Is it not evident that he speaks of Jews as Jews, and that this would be accomplished if the Jews were admitted to the enjoyment of the promises at the end of the ages, although the Apostle says they (that is to say, of quite other individuals than those of that day, but yet Jews) can be grafted in again? Is it not further evident that although they partake not in the enjoyment of the heavenly blessings, that would still be true, because they will be upon their own olive-tree, enjoying the promises made to Abraham? They will be grafted therein again.
Moreover, although an individual stands by faith when he believes, such nevertheless is not all the Apostle means; it is the principle upon which he stands, and not the possession of the thing which is in question. He who possesses faith will never be cut off. In the Epistle to the Galatians, it is said, " After that faith came," that is, after the establishment of that principle of relationship with God, in place of law. Now we stand by faith, that is the principle of our relationship, the goodness of God exercises itself towards those who find themselves there. -I do not see that it is said that the grafting in is by real faith of the heart, although there be naught solid save that which is such. The sixth of Hebrews supposes the participation of all the privileges of the Christian economy without real faith of the heart, and without fruit being borne to God, and 1 know not who would say that Simon the magician was not grafted in, although so soon cut off. It may be said, He believed; yes. Yet just as all the professors of to-day believe, that is to say, like the Christian world. In short, I find here in the eleventh chapter, the principles of the administration of the economy, and not the state of individuals, although these principles, doubtless, are realized in the individuals who really believe in the Gospel. He speaks not of faithful Gentiles, save in the sense in which one can call professors "faithful."
The cutting off of Israel has been the reconciliation of the world. All the baptized are under the responsibility, in general, of the privileges of the economy, and will be judged accordingly; believers find their enjoyment therein, according to their faith. I add, that it is a great error to suppose that the world can lose nothing. It is true that the world will enjoy other advantages during the Millennium, far greater it may be; but the world now has the enjoyment of great advantages, which will be taken from it when the judgment takes place-when the Master of the house rises up and shuts-to the door. If, by an act of Divine judgment, the gospel can no longer be preached in any country, that country has lost a privilege; so it will be with the world. The world has not been grafted in, but the world has been placed in a new relationship towards God. Farther on, I will return to this point; in the meanwhile, I will cite a remarkable passage which applies to this subject (Luke 2:32)-Christ has been a light to lighten the Gentiles, that is, that they should be brought to light (or, literally, for the revelation of the Gentiles). They were before so entirely in obscurity, that they were as if not in existence in the sight of God, not as to the judgment of the secrets of the heart, but as to the government of the world on the part of God. " The times of this ignorance," says the apostle (Acts 17), " God winked at; but now He calls all men everywhere to repent: because He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He has given a testimony, worthy of the faith of all, in raising Him from the dead." Is not this to change the position of the world before God? And if God has proposed to use His church as an instrument for this, and that she has failed, that will bring with it its result, even as to the world in reference to the government of God, although each one shall bear his own burden as to the eternal judgment (Comp. Ezek. 33).
That God will be justified, when He shall judge and condemn the world, I cannot doubt; that He will send the gospel of the kingdom at the end, the church having failed in its duty, I believe; but this changes naught as to that which God has revealed concerning His relationship to the world, as we have seen in Acts 17:30,31.
It is the government of God which is the subject of these chapters in the epistle to the Romans, and not the salvation of the individual, properly so called. In the second chapter, the apostle speaks of that of perishing without law, of being judged by the law, etc.; but to say that a sovereign disposition by God imposes no responsibility upon those to whom it is not known, is to misconceive the whole subject, although such a thought may have to the natural heart an air of great justice. Men sometimes find themselves, without excuse, under the effect of a judgment of God, occasioned by the fault of their fathers, themselves persevering in the moral consequences of the fault, though they may not have individually committed the very fault itself. See, for example, the judgment of the Spirit upon the state of the Gentiles (Rom. 1)-Having known God, they glorified Him not as God, etc. The Gentiles, of whom he speaks, had never known Him; their fathers, Noah, etc., had known Him. If fresh light came which made manifest that state, they are held responsible to quit it according to that light, and guilty, also, according to the light, of all which they do as individuals afterward; but there is then another thing: the light enables us, I say us, to see where they are who are without the light which we enjoy, and they are without excuse. On the other hand, if great privileges have been granted to a people, and they have lost the knowledge thereof, they will yet be responsible (see what Josiah said when he found the book of the law), because, according to the government of God, one is responsible according to the place in which one is found, and not according to our capability of fulfilling it. If it be not to the world that Paul addressed himself; that is not the question. Even if it were true that Paul spake only to believers, still, equally, since it is to a special class of believers which he supposes (a distinction which is impossible, if the question were about the fundamental idea of the church), he can speak to that class under a peculiar aspect, all the while that he calls them brethren (and he does that), and gives them instructions upon all that which concerned the subject on which he treats, and that is what he does. He can, at the same time, include other persons who are found in the same position without true faith, and he suggests this; he can also speak of the consequences of his doctrine on the world, as also he does. To suppose, as some have, that because he speaks to brethren he speaks only of brethren, and concerning those that are really such, seems futile; and one can see, indeed, that to verse 25 he reasons in an abstract manner, according to the train of thought which the Spirit suggests to him; and having explained all the consequences of the ways of God, using the expression, " I say, then," he then declares, addressing himself to his brethren, that he does so because he would not have them ignorant of this mystery. But he had previously developed the great principles and thought of God as to the mystery, its effect upon the world, upon the Gentiles, etc. To me it is evident, that as to the practical bearing and application of these words-" you Gentiles," though all Gentiles be liable to their application, those who are referred to in the words of Simeon (Luke 2) are the only ones who are the object of them; the rest, as the inhabitants of Central Africa, for instance, exist not for the application of the reasoning of God in this chapter. When God will apply them so, He will take care, by the preaching of the everlasting gospel, that all the Gentiles should be the objects of the judgment which will show the justice of his government; but we cannot exactly address to them these warnings; we should be right in applying to them the doctrine which Paul applies (Acts 17); there he preaches to the world, here he speaks to professor& It is not exactly the inhabitants of the countries in which the gospel has been preached who are the Gentiles " brought to light," only the light is come there to bring them into light; but it is the countries of the baptized, where Christianity is professed. In theory, all the Gentiles have been brought into light. God takes knowledge of it. It is therefore the apostle can say to the Colossians-" The gospel is come into all the world, and brings forth fruit; but as to the position of responsibility as a body, that is realized there where they have been Christianized.
To me it is clear enough, that if the faith spoken of were the faith of an individual, there could be no cutting off; but the apostle points out the principle upon which the standing is, and that by which a falling may take place, in order to show that, as the Jews, enjoying certain privileges, lost them through unbelief, a similar thing would befall the Gentiles, as to their privileges, if they should be found in the same position of unbelief; the Apostle speaks not of those " standing by faith" in order to show that those who were would be cut off; but to show the principle upon which they stood, and that if, on the contrary, that failed, they would be cut off. Now, as to a true believer that could not ever be; but for him who was in the enjoyment of privileges, who was in the goodness of God as to his position, but who had not faith, the same thing which had happened to the Jews in similar circumstances might happen to him. It is in such persons that these warnings ever find their fulfillment.
I repeat, the question is not about reception but about cutting off; there are three cases distinct, and in a measure contrasted, which are involved in three questions, and which we must distinguish in speaking of them: the World, Christendom or profession, and Believers. In repeating that man is responsible for the privileges he enjoys, I add to Acts 17 and Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:5-7 (an abstraction well-known to the Apostle) and John 1:11 and 15. He was in the world, but the world knew him not-the light shined in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not. In order to confirm the principle, I would press also what I have said, that the world, the Gentiles, are placed in a new relationship toward God, and that there are privileges for which the Gentiles will be held responsible, as the Jews have been for theirs. They who have enjoyed these privileges will be beaten with many stripes, if they have not profited from them, whilst they who professed them not will be punished with few stripes. I speak of the world as in a new relationship to God, of the Gentiles who enjoy certain privileges, and of those who have not had that advantage. Can it be denied that the world or any given part is responsible for the privileges which it possesses? I do not speak now of the responsibility of those called of God, but of a universal principle, of any privilege men may enjoy, and even when the called are spoken of, the question would not be of those "standing by faith" in the sense of true believers. Is not the Christian professing body called? This is the essential point at issue; only to say more of it here would be needful to enter upon the second subject proposed. Further, it is no question about Gentiles who have had the gospel preached to them, but about that which is called the Church of baptized Gentiles, and consequently the conduct of true Christians from the commencement.
In fine, this is the substance of the eleventh chapter Up to the end of chap. 8 the Apostle sets forth the state of man, whether Jew or Gentile; the efficacy of the blood and the power of the resurrection of Christ, as well as the sweet and precious privileges of which the believer is rendered partaker in Christ, and he shows us the source and security of these privileges, God being for us and we partaking of these privileges, not only according to the eternal counsel of love, but according to the power of the eternal life, which was in Christ before the foundation of the world, and which has been communicated to us. After this full opening out of truth, the thought of Israel suggesting itself immediately to his heart, he turns to the administration of the promises here below; then he explains, in chaps. 9 and 10 that what seemed inexplicable in the substitution of the church for Israel was in perfect accordance with all that God has said and done, with His imperscriptible rights on which depended the title of Israel itself; that, moreover, what had just come to pass had been predicted; that they had stumbled upon the stone of stumbling. He asks-Has God; then, rejected his people? God forbid I, says he, am a Jew; but there is, as there was of old, an election in the midst of this very people, and that which God now does, does but put a little more forward his perfect ways and his unfailing grace. For have they stumbled that they should fall? By no means! It is but a means of introducing the Gentiles as such into the enjoyment of the promises, and thus, as he says, to excite them to jealousy (to excite, note, those who are, says he, of my flesh); for that rejection has placed God in relationship with the world, and caused the wild olive, the Gentile, to be grafted into the heritage of promise in the midst of the branches which, by nature, were of the good olive; speaking here evidently of the administration of the promises here below, for they were by nature children of wrath even as others. He calls even the unbelievers branches according to nature; but these having been cut off on account of their unbelief, there had been grafted in the midst of the Jewish believers (these also inheriting the promises equally according to the election of grace) some new branches, taken out of the wild olive, in order that they might also enjoy the promises; but let them take heed, even these branches, to recognize the grace which grafted them in. Otherwise, according to the same perfect administration of the promises here below, God could cast them off in like manner. And on the other hand, the Jews abandoning their unbelief would be grafted in again. The Gentile had reason to fear; he stands by faith; if faith fails, certainly he is no better than a Jew. The Apostle not only shows what there is to be feared, which is addressed to the conscience, and consequently, in that sense, in order that one may apply it individually; but after that, he comes to something positive. Such, then, is the thought of God; Israel is blinded for the moment, in part, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and then Israel, as a whole, as a nation, shall be saved. God will not repent of His gifts and calling. Enemies, for the Gentiles' sake, as to the gospel,-they are yet beloved for the fathers' sakes. One can see the characteristic manner in which the Gentile is taken; for he is called the wild olive: " Thou wild olive." Also he, the Gentile, is placed upon the root, not upon the trunk, nor upon the branches. He became neither Jew, nor of Israel; and for this reason, as it seems to me, he says, Thou, O Gentile, in the singular, because the question was, as to the Gentile, one of principle. As to the Jew, it was an accomplished fact that the branches had been cut off: the Church, properly so called, regarded as the corporate body of believers, could not be; and it is thus that the Apostle then presented them; and it is thus also what they really were; and the threat was so much the more inapplicable under this point of view, because there were Jews as well as Gentiles, and as to the latter it was the election from among the Gentiles which had just been brought in. In that point of view, then, I could not speak of cutting off. The election from among the Jews,-an idea found, indeed, it is true, in the prophets, but new in the history of the people, remained upon the trunk, and the threat of cutting off could not be addressed to the election newly grafted in, except as to the individual, as being a Gentile, if he persevered not in that position. The explanation of the mystery is, that there was a partial blinding of Israel until the election from among the Gentiles should prove their real fullness; for the Church began with a remnant. Israel ended with the separation of a remnant; but that fullness once accomplished, that which was not of faith among the Gentiles, which might be found there, would be cut off.
Paul was entrusted with the revelation of the Church in its highest character of union with Christ and in its unity. The subject on which we have spoken, this eleventh chapter, was with him an episode; whilst with Peter, this subject was his ministry; he had the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and it is this which constitutes the difference in ministry of these two blessed servants of God. If their discourses and writings are studied, this will soon be seen; we need only compare Acts 3:25 and Gal. 3:16.
If I have spoken of responsibility in connection with the church, it is because the activity of the love of God, the ministry of reconciliation was entrusted to her; and the application of this doctrine of responsibility to her is practical, and goes home to our consciences; but that changes nothing in the government of God, as we have already seen in the word.
It must be borne in mind what the mystery revealed, to Paul was. It was not merely the blessing of the Gentiles; the blessing of all the families upon the earth, that had not been at all concealed. The hidden mystery was, that they, Jews and Gentiles, should be one body in Christ, enjoying spiritual blessings in heavenly places, co-heirs with Christ. This can easily be seen in the perusal of Eph. 3, compared with Col. 1:26,27, where it is Christ not come in displayed glory, but dwelling in them, the hope of glory, that is, of heavenly glory. But God was in Christ here below, in the anointed One, according- to the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh. When God acted according to law, He imputed iniquity. As to the Gentiles, he passed by the times of ignorance, sin not being imputed where there was no law (Acts 17, Rom. 5) But God was in Christ reconciling the world; such was one chief thing which He was doing in Christ; a second was, not imputing their sins; a third, committing the ministry of reconciliation to others, when the Savior must needs return up on high, after having been made sin for us.
The word of God says, that the rejection of the Jews was the reconciliation of the world. The question is, not whether those who heard the gospel were responsible for what they heard, but what is the responsibility of Christendom, and of true Christians, who find themselves therein. That concerns us; and this it is which is too often a subject carefully avoided.
To suppose, as a general principle, that a body can-hot exist as such, because there are yet other persons to be graffed into it, is mere self-deception. The Apostle calls the assembly a body; that was the principle of the institution; nevertheless, it was augmented every day by means of the joints and bands which minister nourishment (Eph. 4). The Apostle had no idea that a body could not increase, and finally arrive at the point that the fullness of the Gentiles should be come in. An army can recruit itself, and be always the army. I do not say that the Gentiles were graffed in by the act of an altogether exterior dispensation. That which God had established pure, Satan, availing himself of the sleep of man, had spoiled. Those who had been grafted in did not abide faithful; Christendom is the result, and we must not confound all this with the reconciliation of the world, which is only in a special manner connected with it. Let me also recall to mind, that in setting up the kingdom of heaven, the sower recognized no other field than the world; it may be, all was not sown; but it is the object of his attention, the field of his toil, and the scene of his judgments. The Lord speaks of it as a whole. That may be an abstraction: but it is the abstraction of the Spirit of God, received and understood by those who are spiritual; for the Spirit of God makes His thoughts to enter into those who are humble of heart; he conceals these things from the wise and prudent, and reveals them unto babes.
Some find it is a contradiction, to make, on the one hand, of these ways of God in the world, that with which the failure of the dispensation is connected; and on the other hand, to attach it to the failure of the Church erroneously taken, as- an existing body of Christ. But the wisdom of man is not worth much. I speak thus of a body of Christ, because in the fourth chapter of Ephesians, the Spirit of God speaks of a body upon earth, increasing by that which joints and bands administer; and because I find in Jude also the point of departure, from which we come to a state which brings the judgments of God upon the wicked and rebellious, to be in this, that some have glided in among the children of God. It is of no use to question their responsibility-the fact is there. The ways of God in the world, form the point of departure in Matt. 13, and in Jude it is found in persons who have crept in among the faithful. One may consider the ways of God in the field of the sower, or one may consider, in a more detailed manner, and, so to speak, closer to the eye, the responsibility and the faults of those who were sown by the Lord in the field; the two things are equally true and important in their several places, instead of being contradictory.
I have but one word to say, in passing, upon the Kingdom of Heaven and the Church, as to the place each may have in this responsibility. If those who compose the Church and the Kingdom were the same persons, and that they have sinned-it, matters little whether they sinned as bearing the character of. the Kingdom or of the Church; they have brought in all the disorder. Christians, at least, are culpable, even if the Church be not; and if the churches, and not the Church, as some allege, still true Christians, in the churches, are culpable. Thus, it is true Christians who were responsible for these things; and that is the great question for us-if there be unity and mutual responsibility in the Church, the true body of Christ, which is composed of true Christians. True Christians allowed persons that were not so, and did not give evidence of being so, to creep in; thus was their failure; and by virtue of the unity of the body, and the mutual responsibility of its members, the body and its members are all involved in the blame of this.
There are, in the word of God, certain truths connected with the Kingdom, about which there is much confusion of thought in the minds of many. Some of these are points of great interest, which have been but slightly examined, and which are yet capable of affording real profit, if followed out.
For myself, I have learned much, while searching the Scriptures, on the subject of the kingdom of heaven. I find that the true idea presented in this expression, is-the reign of the heavens in the person of the Son of man. John the Baptist put this forward in his testimony as " at hand." The Lord did the same; yet still in the character of prophet. All this being rejected, it is the violent only who take it by force; so that it was not set up, and the Lord could say (though Himself actually present) " Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come" (Matt. 10:23). After that rejection was made manifest, and the Lord had pronounced judgment upon Israel, in the close of chap. 12, the kingdom is preached as a mystery. After this it is established in mystery, but administered by Peter, who had the keys of it, when the king was ascended up into heaven; and, lastly, it will be made good, according to the power of its king, when Satan will be driven out of the heavenly places, and when Christ will receive the kingdom, and establish blessedness on the earth thereby.
Such is the summary of that which I have found, and present to my brethren as such. The Church, such as it is presented by Paul, does not come into mention here; in his writings it is presented as the body, the Bride of Christ, identified with Him in life, as He is in heaven, in His nature, position, and glory. The administration of the kingdom is quite another thought. Paul may speak of the gathering together of the saints here below, as a body, as the Bride, etc., because such was the extent of their privilege; of this we will speak shortly; but the thought which he attaches to the Church, is its identification with Christ. At the death of Stephen, the administration, by the Spirit, of the kingdom of which Peter had the keys, was rejected at Jerusalem, as the announcement of the kingdom, in the testimony both of John the Baptist and of the Son of man, had already been. From that time it ceased to be presented to the Jews as a people. Up to that time, the Holy Spirit acted upon the ground of the intercession of Jesus upon the cross in their favor (comp. Luke 23:34, and Acts 3:17) and as if the debt of ten thousand talents, incurred by the death of Jesus, had been remitted. The love of God still delayed to withdraw; and it is only in the 28th of Acts, that He renounces his efforts towards that people, over the smallest remnant of which He ceased not to hover. Nevertheless, the Jews, ever setting themselves in opposition to the truth preached by Paul, and withstanding the preaching to the Gentiles according to the grace of God, filled up the measure of their sin, and wrath came upon them to the uttermost: they were sold, with all that they possessed until payment should be made. From that point of time, the Gentiles are the subject of divine history. The Gentiles appear in the foreground, either as rejecting from attachment to their idols, or as receiving the testimony of grace which was proposed to them. Jerusalem, trodden under foot by them, entirely disappears from the scene; and the iniquity and conduct of the Gentiles, such as it was, becomes the object of the judgment and actions of God; meanwhile, the Jews are as if buried (see Psa. 26 Ezek. 36) yet preserved, even as the Gentiles had previously been, as if not in being. It is evident that the Gentiles professing Christianity, and the Gentiles of the four monarchies, subjected to the Beast, are the special, though not sole, objects of the ways of God, in His government; but it is on the occasion of the destruction and judgment of these in particular, that the Son of man will establish his kingdom in power, although He will subject and judge all the others afterward. Of this, the prophecies of the Old and New Testament speak plainly enough.
I have now a remark to make with regard to a view (common enough) as to the corruption of the kingdom. It is connected with a system which appears to me altogether inadmissible—a system which tends to confound Babylon and the Church together, and the kingdom with both.
I admit that Babylon took for a time the form of Christianity; but this is not, in my judgment, its sole or its exclusive form. Perhaps in the sixteenth century the reformers might be justified in speaking of it thus, because it was then the form that it took; but I think that there are other elements, and other principles in Babylon. That is not the leading idea of Babylon in Scripture, although that might be an important element of it. But, alas! it is but too true that the Church, during the absence of Christ, might be unfaithful in her conduct, though espoused to Christ, but placed under responsibility until the marriage of the Lamb. If any one cannot reconcile the thought of responsibility here below with the accomplishment of the promises of God on high, he has much yet to learn as to the ways of God in reference to man; for the same thing is true of every Christian: evil is wrought before the Church or the Christian is on high come to perfection. Christ does not therefore cease to be the future Husband of the Church; and it is precisely when one ceases to recognize that relationship of bride of Christ, that the evil begins. Hence we have not to quit the Church, but the Church has to purify herself, because it ceases not to be the Church because it has ceased to be faithful. But there is no question about purifying Babylon, it will be destroyed. If saints find themselves there, they must come out of it. Again, if it is the kingdom they cannot come out of it. There is in this evidently often much confusion of mind. There can be no question about coming out of the Church. Nor again is Babylon in the Church, although one might, in a sense, speak of the Church in Babylon. If any one says that in its captivity the members of the Church are in Babylon, then it is plain that the members must come out. The idea that the Church may have been unfaithful, is quite intelligible, but that Christ should be king of Babylon is unintelligible. I admit that we may have to show that the Church has been unfaithful, if the heart feels it not, but in that there is nothing unintelligible, nothing contradictory; whilst the system which makes Christ king of Babylon is mere nonsense.
I must here, to make all this clear, briefly return to one point. If it be said, the practical sense in which the Scriptures speak to us of the Church upon earth, is rather the Church as it appears to man, than that which in the sight of God is the Church-I say, be it so: but then what door is opened here for uncertainty, after that which has occurred in the history of Christianity. But I ask, "Appears to whom?" To Mahommedans, to the Heathen, it is Christendom which appears to be the Church. If any one says that is not it, but the judgment must be of spiritual persons-I say, "Stop a moment! Do you deny that the Church was set up as a testimony to the world, that it ought to have been the epistle of Christ, and also ONE in order that the world might believe. That then which to the world appears to be the Church, has then a very great importance in the sight of God. He is jealous of the glory of His Son; and if that which bears His name upon earth, that which appears to be the Church in the sight of the heathen world, dishonors Him and belies all that He is, instead of preaching Him, and that this is no where remedied, it is a fact of the most solemn moment in respect of that which appears to be the Church, and which presents the name of the Son to the world in the sight of God. And such in the sight of God in the world is the fact; that which appears to be the Church is an abomination, is not the Church; it is, if you will, the work of the enemy; nevertheless it is the testimony rendered to the Son of God. Some will not have it that that which presents itself thus should be called the Church. It is quite right to undeceive men's minds upon that point, I admit it fully; yet in the sense which is perhaps the most important, and certainly the most important as to judgment, and the judgment of God, such it is which appears to be the Church. God may, for the sake of some righteous, still spare, at least until the tares be ripe: but the vintage of God will not be of the fruits of his grace; it is the winepress of his wrath.
But let us consider now the judgment of the spiritual, which has been appealed to as to what appears to be the Church. Whom shall I consult? Christians in national establishments? What appears to the most enlightened among them to be the Church? They will tell me that the Epistle to the Corinthians is a proof that dissenters and all of us together are entirely deceived on the subject of the Church. Of dissenters, one class would take it quite in another way from a second, and this second be greatly disconcerted to be identified with the first, as if having one view about the Church. I believe, indeed, that the remark is perfectly just, that the word of God calls that the Church which appears as the Church; but this it is which causes that now there is nothing in exterior appearance which corresponds to that which is inward, to the true Church, to the assembly of the elect. We can use the word Church according to that which appears as being the Church, and there will be nothing which is accurately true, because, alas the Church is not at all manifest, unless we call that the Church, of which an unbeliever could say that its annals were the annals of Hell; which I, at least, would avoid doing: yet this appeal to the spiritual shows us where we are in this respect; and the children of God, have they no burden upon their hearts, on account of this? No, I will not, say upon their consciences; I will make no appeal on this subject to the conscience. " Where is the flock that was given thee, saith the Lord, thy beautiful flock"- (See Jer. 13.20, 21.) Are the Christian flock the flock of God now? Is it less precious to him? Will the Bride of Christ have no concern for the glory of her Bridegroom?
But can one-has one reason to speak thus when speaking of a body upon earth, or when we say this pretended body? for many deny one body on the earth jointly responsible. This is an important point as to responsibility. Can we speak of responsibility? First, let us bear in mind that there is such a thing as a unity reacting through all ages-the unity of a body involved down here in the results of its responsibility as a whole in all times. This is evidently of all importance. Farther, in the practical sense, the Word of God calls that the Church, which appears as such in the sight of man, to be so. I take the ground taken by others, and admit it as valid. We can speak then, with the Word as our warrant, of the church in this sense, admitting, at the same time, that there may be therein hypocrites who will never be in heaven; still the passages I have already cited speak distinctly of the Church upon earth. Timothy had need to know how to conduct himself in the Church of the living God. The Lord added to the Church-The Lord " hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues" (1 Cor. 12). He gave them as joints and bands, which might serve for the edification of the body " until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;" and by their means the body receives from the Head its increase (Eph. 4). An effort is sometimes made to invalidate the force of these express declarations of the Word by means of a comparison. The Church is spoken of, it is said, as detachments of an army, of which one might say, there is the army; but this is not correct. It is an army which recruits itself, but which is not thereby the less constantly, the army as a body. Some think the idea ridiculous of a body to which one adds; but Eph. 4 expressly speaks of a body which increases according to the vigor of each part, so that that which is found fault with is really the idea and expression of the Word itself; and when John said, " The Spirit and the Bride say, Come"- certainly this is not when the church is in heaven with her Bridegroom-was that man of God right? Can one go further than to call the Church that which was upon the earth at the commencement, the Bride of Christ? If any one says-" I do not recognize one body, it is ridiculous; I know no such thing as the church, there is but a pretended church;" with much more reason might he have said-" How, the Bride? it was but a little portion of the Bride!" Nevertheless, the Word of God calls that which was then found upon the earth a body, Church, Bride; and the children of God would do better to speak according to the Word than to follow the reasoning of the human mind, however wise they may seem to be. The inconsistencies of the Word of God are more true than the most palpable deductions made by the intelligence of man, because the Word is truth, and has no need of deductions. When we read it we need faith; but here I admit one thing, viz., that when the Word of God uses these expressions (and this remark has some importance), it speaks always of the privileges and blessings of the Church, because, while placing in that position the mass of living believers, it speaks in view of the final result; but this by no means prevents this glory, in so far as manifested by the Holy Spirit, being confided to these believers, and that Christians should be responsible for it. And here it may be well to strip this word " responsible" of much of the mist with which men like to envelop it. It has been said, we are not responsible for the acts of our fathers. Let us not forget the unity and one common responsibility of the Church, however. But further, the question is not only about the acts of such or such an individual. I confide my house to some one, forbidding him to admit to it any save my servants; he, a lover of society, in the very act of entering upon the responsibility of this charge, admits all sorts of persons, and the house is thereby altogether injured, and its appearance spoiled. He will say that he is not responsible for their acts, but he is responsible for the state of the house which I entrusted to him. It may be he has wished to prevent others, when they were doing what spoiled the house: this won't satisfy me, my house is spoiled, my confidence has been abused; and he, to whose care I left it, is responsible for that which I entrusted to him. It is very important to seize this thought. The glory of the name of Christ, the results of His victory over Satan and over the effects of his power, such were the blessings trusted as a precious deposit to the church: she was by her very position the witness of this. You are the letter of Christ, says the Apostle; not the letters, but the letter. There is no need of discussing the particular acts of which the Church may have been guilty; she ought to have guarded that which was committed to her. She was the pillar and ground of the truth; in a word, the glory of Christ was confided to her here below. Has she been faithful?
Here I must say a word on the subject of responsibility, and on the difference of that responsibility according as it is viewed in connection with eternal judgment, or with the government of God here below. I say, we inherit the acts of sin of those who went before us, and also, that we are responsible for the state in which we find ourselves. I know, indeed, that man would not that we should have responsibility as to an evil which existed before we were born. It is true as to the final judgment of the individual, each shall bear his own burden; but the government of God in the world does not proceed thus. I will explain myself on this, because it is important that all Christians should understand it. That each is individually responsible for his conduct, and that each shall give an account of himself to God, is a principle upon this subject generally recognized, and I need not enlarge upon it. "Each of us," says the apostle, "shall give account for himself to God" (Rom. 14:12) -" Each shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6:5)-"God will render to each according to his works," etc. (Rom. 2:6, 16,); but that is not the government of God in the world. In this God acts often towards masses, on the general result which the whole presents in His sight, and even in the sight of the world, if it is His people who should render a testimony for Him; for without this God would be identified with the evil, and His very character would be compromised. He can sustain while chastening; but, as He said of Israel, the nations shall know that Israel is gone into captivity, because of their sins. Sometimes the sin of a chief person, who draws others after him, but who himself is the most culpable, brings judgment upon his posterity and upon his people. " Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked Him withal" (2 Kings, 23, 26). On the other hand, one sees the world suffering the consequences of the sins of their fathers; the heathen are living witnesses of it. God gave them up to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:27). Thus we may easily see that we ought accurately to distinguish between the eternal judgment of God and His judicial government of the world; for in reference to His eternal judgment, it is said of the Gentiles-" those who have sinned without law shall perish without law.... in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom. 2:12, 16)-the gospel which Paul preached. As to the government of the world, it is said, as to the same Gentiles, "The times of this ignorance God winked at;" for, in truth, sin is not reckoned where there is no law. Nevertheless, death and sin reigned. Here man inherited the guilt of his fathers. While in present government they were not held responsible for their own acts; God passed all by. They were so, indeed, as to eternity, according to the light they had neglected. When God puts Himself in relationship with any people, and places a testimony in the midst of them, in such sort that the light of the testimony is cast upon the sin they commit, and in which they continue to walk in spite of the testimony, then God brings, according to His government here below, judgment of all that sin upon the generation which fills up the measure of the evil, so that there is no more room for patience. As witnesses of this, see the Jews who rejected Christ and the testimony of the Holy Spirit: all the blood which had been shed since the blood of righteous Abel had to be required of that generation. God had not required it before; He had enlightened them by His law, stirred them up by His prophets, warned them by judgments, had made an appeal to their whole moral being by the mission of His Son. The very sins of the fathers ought to have been a warning to their children to avoid the same offenses, because, after the sins of the fathers, their offenses were committed in the light. But they persisted therein, and thus heaped up wrath for the day of judgment; and they had to submit to the consequences of all this, according to the just judgment of God. This in no wise prevents each of their fathers being subject to the judgment of the dead, to the consequences of his own individual sin; but the nation, the system as a whole, the public object of the government of God in the world has been judged. If there were among the faithful those that bemoaned the evil, they were transferred into another system; in like manner, the just of preceding ages will enjoy the effects of their faithfulness in the world to come. And, as a matter of fact, the sin of a son who sins after his father is greater than that of his father, because, if there is light in my heart, as it shines in the system in the midst of which I live, the sight of the sin will act powerfully on my conscience will produce a horror of the sin thus committed in the sight of God, and I shall avoid it, astonished that any one can act thus, as a man does who sees another walk in the mire or fall over a precipice. If it does not act, I am hardening myself against the light, in the midst of which I live; but if I persevere in the sin of my father, I am more culpable than he, in that his sin was a warning to me; my sin is double, is morally augmented by the entire effect which his sin ought to have produced to deter me, that is to say, by the amount of what his sin was in the sight of God; for we suppose the case of those who have light and the testimony of God. And all have it in some measure, which measure is that of the sin's particular amount. My sin is augmented by the very amount of his, although he will be equally responsible for what he has done; also, it is evident that my heart in this case is hardened by reason of the sin of my father, whom I have seen, or whom I ought to have seen, in the light of God granted to me (Ezek. 23:11, 2 Chron. 34:19, etc., Jer. 11.15).
This is what we see of the judgment of God in Israel. Only we may add that God, in his goodness, has constantly renewed His testimony, and that, in His patience, He has sent his prophets, rising up early, as it is said, to send them until there was no remedy (see also Jer. 7); and lastly His own Son. The consequence has been, as we have already said, that all the righteous blood, from Abel to Zacharias, came upon the generation which filled up the measure of the iniquity of their fathers in rejecting the last witness of God (Matt. 23:34). We see here sin inherited and the people held, as to the government of God, responsible for the sins of their fathers, for their sins were morally the accumulation of all those that went before, and which God had borne with, according to the patience which they had despised, and of which they availed themselves in order to plunge more deeply into evil (see also Dan. 5:18-23). It is clear that this consideration may augment the sin of an individual; but this prevents not the other great principle of the government of God as to those who bear his name or who enjoy the light He gives, or who are found (in consequence, perhaps, of their own pride and the blinding of Satan), in the position, or pretending to enjoy the position, in which God has placed His own (see, for instance, Jer. 23, Matt. 24:48, etc.)
We may add that the judgment of God is according to the iniquity of the people; He brings upon them their iniquity (comp. Jer. 5:21, and. Isa. 6:9, and other passages as 2 Thess. 2:10,11). Now the spirit of God applies this general principle to Babylon in the Revelations. In her is found all the blood which has been shed upon the earth. The judgment of God renders her responsible for all that which has been done from the beginning, and the Apostles and Prophets are called to rejoice at the vengeance God takes upon her.
These Apostles and Prophets had no relationship with her; but the Babylon of the last day will inherit and will be responsible for the evil under which the Apostles suffered. Yet each one shall answer for his own sin committed at the beginning or at the end of the ages, although (as we have already said) the individual sin may be aggravated by the perseverance in the same sin, or may be, on the other hand, less grave from defect of light. That the culpability of Babylon is real, no one who knows and honors God, will call in question.
Such and so clear examples have we of this principle in the government of God, of holding a system responsible for all the evil which has been wrought during its whole existence, and even during the whole existence of that which preceded it, of which it inherited the privileges or greater ones. We inherit the guilt of those who went before us, and we are judged responsible for the whole. As to the individual, he will have to bear the judgment of that which he has done.
I now close: I thought a few words on the Eleventh of Romans, and upon the government of God, distinguishing it from the responsibility of the individual, might aid my brethren; my remarks embrace many points and details which are common difficulties. I hope for a blessing on the development of the subject, and on the thoughts as to the position of the church, the difference between the life of Christ (the eternal life which was with the Father), and the inheritance of promise which he has taken as seed of Abraham, and on the relation of the Church with the Father, on the one hand, and with the administration of his promises on the other. These thoughts are, it seems to me, more important aids to the progress of the children of God, even than the leading subjects which have called them out. Though I am perfectly assured, that if any one come to recognize the unity of the Church upon earth and its responsibility in that unity, that that will make a marked distinction between those, who receive that truth and those who, I will not say, are still ignorant of it, but who reject it. I believe that God is at this time acting upon the Church by these truths; that it is these truths which, in the sight of Christ, bring out the faithfulness of heart which He desires. I am sure that neither nationalism, nor dissent can bear with them; and the more they are discussed, the more do I feel that they are, as to faithfulness, the great truths for the days in which we live. I do not doubt that those who reject them will still seek to represent them as secondary truths; but all that I see in that is a snare of Satan, from which I hope many souls will be delivered. These truths are connected with the presence of the Holy Spirit upon earth, who gives unity to the body here below. It is because they are truths that the Church can, as espoused to Christ, say to her bridegroom-Come! and he who denies them, denies at the same time the special privileges which link the Church to Christ, as well as the responsibility which flows thence, and to which the heart will adhere, in order not to renounce so precious a tie. Only let those who enjoy these things remember that the task laid upon us in our ministry of love, according to that which is entrusted to us, is to give meat in due season. That is charity-to think not of one's own ideas, but of the needs of the souls we meet with.
Ever guard, brethren beloved, according to this charity, the doctrine which is connected with the cross and resurrection of Jesus-the justification of the believer and of the Church-and seek to awaken the Church from her torpor, by the doctrine of her position, the beloved and only Bride of the Lamb. Take, as banner, this testimony of the Spirit- " The Spirit and the Bride say-Come!" such is our desire, which comes out of the fullness of the heart. Encourage in grace (for this is all in grace) those who hear, but who have not the persuasion of being the Bride of Christ, to come and join their cry to yours and to say with you-Come! And certainly if the heart has tasted the love of Christ in secret, the same Spirit which has made you to taste the joy of that love, will make you turn toward the world, and say, in the consciousness of that joy and of the possession of those living waters, " And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
The same Spirit which makes us enjoy Christ and desire His coming, urges us to call others to the same enjoyment. In truth, this verse (Rev. 22:17) is the expression of the position of the Church and of the presence of the Holy Spirit; and it has been left to her as a last testimony, on the part of the Lord, in order to define that position. The thought of the coming of Christ and the persuasion of our obligations to Him, as Bridegroom, give to our souls and to our testimony an energy which naught else could give. He who recognizes the Holy Spirit down here, soul of the unity of the Church, which is the body and Bride of Christ, witness of His glory on high, and consequently ardently desiring His return will not cease on this account (yet ardently), to taste that third great truth which is the foundation of the others:-Christ delivered on account of our transgressions, and raised again from the dead for our justification. On the contrary, he will enjoy it the more, he will understand it the better. But to avail oneself of the last-named truth in order to deny the others, is at least to provoke God to take from us the strength even of that which we desire to retain.
May Christians, then, plainly understand what is in question, viz., the existence, unity, and responsibility of the Church of God, of the Bride of Christ upon earth; and may those who believe these things use them not as a means of judging others, but of encouraging them in grace, as being those who hear, to come and hasten by their sighs the return of the Bridegroom.
As to him who opposes these things, after having heard the cry of the Spirit and of the Bride, whosoever he be, he will bear his own burden.