Table of Contents

1. The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus

1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18.

HAVING THE BLESSING, THEY LONGED TO SEE THE BLESSER.

HENCE ALL THIS AWAITS HIS PERSONAL RETURN.

"EVEN SO; COME, LORD JESUS"?

2. What is the Church

1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4.

NOT THE JEWISH NATION.

THE GENTILES WERE NOT THE CHURCH.

3. The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table

4. Christian Ministry

2. THE DIRECTION AND THE OBJECT OF MINISTRY.

3. THE IMMEDIATE DIRECTOR OF MINISTRY IS THE HOLY GHOST.

4. MINISTRY IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ASSEMBLY OF GOD AND TO THE WORLD.

5. OFFICES IN LOCAL GATHERINGS OF SAINTS.

APPENDIX.

WOMEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

6. Help for Enquirers

THE LAW AND GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.

THE SABBATH AND THE LORD'S DAY.

SANCTIFICATION.

CONFESSION OF SINS.

THE LORD'S PRAYER.

FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

THE CHURCH.

MINISTRY.

CONCLUSION.

6. Seven Hints to Young Believers

LONDON: ALFRED HOLNESS, 21 PATERNOSTER ROW.

GLASGOW: R. L. ALLAN, 73 SAUCHIEHALL STREET.

CJD - Aids to Believers.

C. J. Davis

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com) (2011)

1. The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

{Sections within arrow brackets <> in the following articles are from an older (first?) edition. — Ed. STEM.

Footnotes attributed to 'ED.' are presumed to be by Walter Scott.}

Contents

A. — The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus.

1. The Blessing and the Blesser.

2. "Every eye shall see Him."

3. His Personal Return.

4. "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus."

5. Summary.

B. — The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table.

1. Whom does the Lord invite as worthy Partakers?

2. Unbelievers cannot be Communicants.

3. The Object which Communicants have in coming together to break bread.

4. Summary.

C. — A Scriptural Inquiry as to what is the Church, or the Assembly of God.

1. An Essential Truth.

2. The Church NOT the Jewish Nation.

3. The Gentiles NOT the Church.

4. Persons Gathered on the Ground of God's Assembly, etc., etc.

D. — Christian Ministry: its Source, Object, Relationship, and Directorship, etc.

1. What is the Source of Ministry.

2. The Direction and Object of Ministry.

3. Ministry in relation to the Assembly and the World.

4. Offices in Local Gatherings.

5. Summary and Appendix.

E. — Help for Enquirers.

1. Introduction.

2. The Law and God's Righteousness.

3. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

4. Sanctification.

5. Confession of Sins.

6. The Lord's Prayer.

7. Faith and Repentance.

8. The Church.

9. Ministry.

10. Seven Hints to Young Believers.

Preface {to later edition}

Having been requested by the Publisher to carefully revise the valuable work of the late Dr. Davis, I have pleasure in doing so.

I know of no work of a similar kind. The subjects treated of cover a wide and interesting circle of truth, and are of commanding interest, while the gracious spirit, so characteristic of the author, pervades the whole book. Dr. Davis possessed in no ordinary degree the faculty of communicating his thoughts, whether in oral or written ministry, with remarkable clearness and unction; and the Christian reader may rest assured that Aids to Believers is a book which may be read with much profit to himself and others. Walter Scott.

The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18.

Preface

Desiring to be a servant of Jesus Christ to all who own a common Saviour, I dare not refuse to give in my feeble testimony to the truth respecting the coming of the Lord as that which should be the proximate hope of every believer.

To many of my readers the theme will be not only new, but contrary to former notions. Let me advise such just to "Search the Scriptures whether these things are so;" and if so, let the simplicity of faith accept them with gratitude to Him who has borne so long with our ignorance.

As regards many truths we have had to exclaim "Why did I not see them before!" So, if you avoid reasoning and argument — as children of faith should do — your proper hope will be made plain to you, and the name of the Lord magnified by you.

The question is one affecting the glory of the person of the Lord Jesus. To have His redeemed with Him in bodies of glory like His own — to rule this world now in rebellion — to gather Israel, now scattered and peeled — to execute judgment on rejectors of His grace — to swallow up death in victory — to bind Satan, our common foe — to judge the wicked dead — Scripture says HE must do all these. Into these secrets He has led His saints. Do we grudge Him His glory in those things?

Then let us turn from our own thoughts to things concerning Him. May He deign to use the following finger-posts as guides for my dear readers to His own truth!

May Himself be abundantly ministered to the souls of all that search His Word, in which to His saints He says, "Surely I come quickly."

C. J. Davis.

<I desire to bring this subject before you in connexion with these Gospel addresses, because no presentation of the Gospel is complete when it is excluded.>

The converts at Thessalonica to whom Paul preached "turned to God from idols to serve the living and the true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven" (1 Thess 1: 9, 10). They looked back at the past when they were against God; they believed at the time Paul wrote them that they were children of God; and they were looking forward to and hoping to see Himself in person who loved them and gave Himself for them.

HAVING THE BLESSING, THEY LONGED TO SEE THE BLESSER.

No truth could be more solemnly affecting than this — solemnly affecting to every one of you, beloved friends, that now listen to me.

If saved now, if sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty now, what can be more calculated to draw out worship, adoration, and praise than to be reminded that He who appeared once to put away sin, and who appears now before God for us, will once more come to take us soul and body, fashioned like His own, to be with Himself for ever! Do we not rejoice in the hope of seeing one we love? (Read Heb. 9: 24, 26, 28; and Phil. 3: 20, 21.) And this is our hope.

But if found rejecting Christ, whom God offers for your righteousness, let me ask you how shall you meet those eyes of fire? (Rev. 1: 14.) For soon after the saved ones are caught up to be with the Lord for ever, the Lord will then be revealed in flaming fire to take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 1: 7, 8). While I put this blessed theme forward to-night as the hope of believers, and that which should be effective in shaping our walk in the present scene, let us desire earnestly that the Holy Ghost may use it to allure to the blessed Lord some that are not saved; and to alarm from their supine condition of calm indifference such as are asleep — it may be just a moment before their execution. Each of us, every man from Adam to the last born in this world must — I say again, must — have to do with Jesus, as those that, knowing He has washed them from their sins in His own blood (Rev. 1: 5), can say to Him, "Come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22: 20); or must be connected with Him, like those that shall say to rocks and mountains, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb" (Rev. 6: 16), for the word is emphatic.

"EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM" (Rev. 1: 7).

You see, therefore, how differently the blessed Lord will stand related to men when He rises again from the throne. In the days of Noah eight persons were calm and peaceful before the flood came, and were so during all the time it lasted; but who can imagine the horror of the shut-out ones when the flood came! "Noah, Noah, open to us," many of the carpenters of the Ark, and others of Noah's neighbours, might cry. But he could not, for God had shut him in and them out. So if the Lord came now, some would know Him as Saviour, some as Judge! Those that are one with Christ in resurrection will go up in their order at His coming. God's plan is (1) Christ the first fruits — that is passed; (2) then they that are Christ's at His coming — of this, our hope, I am speaking now; and (3) then the end (1 Cor. 15: 23, 24, compare with v. 20). The saved living ones will be taken away with the raised "dead in Christ" (or the Christian dead), but the world will continue with its business; that wicked one* — Antichrist — will then be revealed. Judgments on living nations will be poured out, and so terrible indeed will they be that men will seek death, but death will flee from them (Rev. 9: 6). Men shall then be scorched with fire, and shall blaspheme the name of God (Rev. 16: 8-11). Shall any of you be among the number, beloved? God forbid! Do come to the Saviour now, ere He comes in judgment to you. The rest of the dead (i.e., the wicked dead) shall not be raised for 1000 years** (Rev. 20: 5), and when raised, it shall be to stand before the great white throne to receive sentence of eternal banishment. The book of life will be opened to show that their names are not in it (Rev. 20: 11-15). The saints of God are exhorted to be found "waiting" for the Lord — "looking for that blessed hope" (Titus 2: 13); but to the world, to the ungodly, to the rejectors, He will appear as a thief in the night. He will find them, as in the days of Noah, eating, drinking, marrying, and doing everything that men seek happiness from — who are not owning Christ, who are rejecting Him and His truth, "as in the days of Noah." I dare say that some of you think that we believers are the biggest fools in Christendom. So did the neighbours of Noah regard him as a madman for building such a huge ship on dry land, and his preaching was laughed at; but the flood overtook them notwithstanding. The fact is solemnly recorded, and I lift up my voice and warn you (Luke 17: 26, 27).

{* After the "falling away" or apostasy of Christendom from the faith has taken place (2 Thess. 2: 31). — ED.

**That is at the close of the kingdom or millennium, the righteous having been raised before its commencement. — ED.}

The heart of man has not been changed since Noah's time — men scoff now as men did then. I wish I could so show these truths as to alarm such as are at ease on the verge of the dispensation of grace. Think of a man being fast asleep at the bottom of a coal pit while the fire was approaching him! A friend wakes him up, and offers to lead him to the "lift," which is being quickly let down to carry up the poor miners in danger. He say, "Don't trouble me; leave me alone. I don't believe you moreover." His almost broken-hearted friend goes up himself on the "lift," and just reaches the top as the fumes, rushing up the shaft, declare that the whole of the pit is delivered to the flames which consume one who for the first time then believed — when it was too late.

What say you of such a man? "That he is a fool." Is this your calm and sober judgment? Thou art such a man. Yet I say to you the last gospel lift has not yet left you. You may be saved now by believing in Jesus. Another opportunity may never be afforded you. I do, in the stead of Christ, beseech you. "Turn and live," NOW (2 Cor. 5: 20-22).

The personal return of the Lord Jesus is necessary too for the bringing into blessing in this earth,  — Israel, the nation now scattered and peeled, and with them the nations. Such is God's counsel. Israel must be the first among the nations (Deut. 28: 1; Zech. 8; Isa. 2: 2; Mal. 3: 12), notwithstanding the unbelief of the boasting Gentiles. There shall come the Deliverer out of Zion, and all Israel shall then be blessed. (Compare Rom. 11: 20 with Isa. 59: 20; 60; 61, etc.) Jerusalem is to become a praise in the earth, and over Israel is to reign "the Lord God Omnipotent," to whose reign all nations shall bow. His kingdom shall be from sea to sea — from the river to the ends of the earth. Before His reign over the earth commences, those terrible judgments of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 6 to 19) are to be poured out, when, I judge, that ploughshares shall be turned into swords, and pruning-hooks into spears (Joel 3: 10).

Of course THE SAINTS SHALL ALREADY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT UP. In 1 Thess 4 we read of the catching up of the believers, and in the fifth chapter of the judgments coming upon Israel and upon the nations, as travail upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape.

Again, we find the Lord promising those that have an ear to hear, in Rev. 3: 10, that He will keep them (lit., take them away) from the hour of trial which shall come upon all the world. This sweet reminder of the blessed Lord is so very preciously given, in the last but one (Philadelphia) of the seven-fold view of the church for testimony in the earth, just before He spues the empty shell-like professing thing (Laodicea) out of His mouth. The word is to us to-day; may our ears be open to hear it. These are the Philadelphian days, and the shadow of Laodicea is already casting. May this word awaken us, and lead us, in much dependence, to Him who is holy, and Him who is true, who hath the key of David.

But again, see the order in the book of Revelation.

1. The Lord is presented as the Judge (chap. 1) in the midst of the seven churches; and, as such, He now graciously approves of what the individual members do in His name, and will manifest them at His coming. He also marks what has a name to live, but is dead, and what admits Balaam, Jezebel, etc.

2. In chapters 2 and 3 we see the history of Christendom — the outward testimony in this world, with the hims[?] "that have ears to hear," from the Apostolic (Ephesus) times to Laodicea, when it shall be wholly removed. In the midst, as I said before, the Lord is Judge.

3. In parenthesis, so to say, the Church is seen up in glory praising in chaps. 4 and 5, removed from the judgment which commences in chap. 6, and continues to chap. 19. These judgments occupy Daniel's seventieth week — this is prophecy, and not our hope.

4. Then the Lord is seen reigning a thousand years (Rev. 20).

5. The judgment of the wicked dead, before the white throne, is brought into view; and

6. Lastly, the eternal state.

Believers in the Lord Jesus, who will bow to the authority of His word, notwithstanding all that is taught to the contrary, will see that these terrible judgments are to be executed, after the rapture of His saints, by the LORD HIMSELF,* of whom the Jews said, "His blood be on us, and on our children;'' and these blessings to be introduced by Him whom men rejected, but whom the heavens received until — mark that adverb — until the times of the restitution of all things. For such restitution then He must leave the place He now occupies. And this is just what the Holy Ghost teaches. And would less than this be worthy of Him? Let such as love Him answer.

{*Providentially, of course. The Lord does not directly appear till (Rev. 19: 11) the seal judgments are connected with the Lamb; the trumpet judgments with the angels, while in the vials are filled up the wrath of God; but the judgments executed by the "LORD HIMSELF" of a distinct order and character from the foregoing. — ED.}

Let those that refuse to own these truths, and read the blessings in Isaiah, etc. — as "blessings to the CHURCH," — continue to covet their neighbour's goods; which (goods) are all for an earthly people; while believers in Christ are "blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ" (Eph. 1: 3). Believers in Christ, as children of Abraham, get the heavenly side of the promise — "stars of the heavens;" Israel (and with them the nations) get the earthly side — "sand of the seashore" (Heb. 11: 12).

Despite their foolish scepticisms, the Lord will accomplish His purposes, "as it is written."

How persons will be so bold as to spiritualize such a chapter, for example, as Isaiah 18, I cannot say. There we read of a people — the Jews — scattered and peeled, whose lands are trodden down. This people are to be carried as a present to the Lord of Hosts to Mount Zion. (Mount Zion is as literal in Isaiah, as Moab, Assyria, Babylon, etc. If you spiritualize one, you must ALL, and where will you stop?) Swift vessels of bulrushes (literally steamers, such a word the translators had not in 1604) are to be sent to pick them up, and the Jews now found in all climes are to be found in Canaan; and over them is to reign, on the throne of David, "The Lord our Righteousness." This is what the Holy Ghost declares, and faith need not pry into the how or the when. It adds its hearty "amen," and leaves the manner and the time to Him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth.

It was necessary, perhaps, that I should, in this introductory manner, help some to see the way in which the personal return of the Lord Jesus is connected (1) with His saints for whom He will descend into the air; (2) with rejectors of the Gospel, to whom He will come with His saints to execute judgments (Jude 14, 15); (3) with the nations generally, whom He shall rule with a rod of iron, and break in pieces as a potter's vessel (Psalm 2); (4) with Israel, over whom, the judgments being passed, He shall reign as king, when the opposite prophecy to that in Joel 3 shall be fulfilled — when the swords shall be beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks (Isa. 2: 4). And why? Because the Lord is reigning in His holy mountain. "The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth" (Rev. 19: 6).

This is the time of grace; now He beseeches, allures, and woos by the Spirit through the preached word; now He sympathizes with His loved and oppressed ones, walking with them in their furnaces of trouble and opposition for His name's sake. Because this — the true place of the believer now in the world — is not seen, we talk about "sending troops and men-of-war to protect our missionaries." Has the Lord changed the normal relationship of His saints to the world since He said, "If they have persecuted ME, they will persecute you?" And has the heart of man changed since Paul and other disciples were hunted for their lives, because they preached Jesus? Not a bit of it. Worldly Christians will not understand this. The true followers of the "despised Nazarene" have His sympathy now. "They that will live godly in Christ Jesus must suffer persecution." But, lo! "I am with you," is comforting. Then it will be to exert, to put forth His power, and make all feel it. But please note, "at His appearing."

Those that love Him must truly desire the exhibition of His glory, His power and strength in this scene where He was rejected — they will "love His appearing" (2 Tim. 4: 8). All said of Him in Isaiah 61: 1-3 — every iota of it — every jot — must be made true in Himself, by Himself.

Now, when we compare that Scripture with Luke 4: 18, 19, we see at once — at least those must see whom Satan hath not blinded — that the gospel is preached to the poor; Christ heals the broken-hearted; gives freedom to captive ones; sight to the blind; liberty to the bruised; and declares "the acceptable year of the Lord."

In a word, all that meets the need of the sinner and saint is brought out most blessedly. And then He closed the book, and said to His hearers, "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." Mark, beloved, "this Scripture." But is that all said of Him in the portion from which He quoted? Look back, and see — "And the day of vengeance of our God: to comfort them that mourn in Zion," etc.

In grace He permits a long space to intervene between this Scripture, so far as He quoted it, and that which remains to be fulfilled. But though heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of His word shall, till all be fulfilled.

HENCE ALL THIS AWAITS HIS PERSONAL RETURN.

Moreover, the earth itself is to be blessed by Him; groaning creation — the animals now subject to man's vanity — are to be brought into the liberty which the glory introduces. As another has said, "The creature has not part in the liberty of grace; it will in that which glory gives" (comp. Rom. 8: 19-24, and Isaiah 41: 1-9). But Himself must do this. I am just reminded of a Christian gentleman who saw once, for the first time after many years of fruitless attempts to spiritualize all the prophecies about Israel and the earth — that this Scripture was to be literally fulfilled when the Lord Himself reigned King over the earth. He said to me, "I hope that may happen in my time, for then it will be pleasant to live in this earth."

He may not be the only one with such language. Some of you, my beloved hearers, may, like him, wish to be alive when God does this.

But as saints your portion is heavenly; you will have already been caught away to be with the Lord, and you shall be with Him — not upon the earth — when He comes with you to do these things.*

{*Rather me with Him (Col. 3: 4). — ED.}

If not saved, I am pained at the recollection of the judgments through which you shall have to pass in your bodies. This may happen in your time. There is no prophecy to be fulfilled before the Lord come for His saints; and that coming may be NOW. Yes, before I finish this sentence the shout may be heard. His word is "quickly" — "a little while." (Rev. 22: 20, Heb. 10: 37). And soon after He comes to the air for His saints, He Himself will come with His saints; and the seven years of terrible judgments — the pouring out of the vials — will commence upon the nations, upon Israel, and upon the false, the spurious, empty, professing Christendom. O do not trifle, my dear hearers. The Lord Himself is a reality; His coming a divine fact soon to be accomplished. Your souls are immortal. Do not let this hour pass away, and another find you without the knowledge of Himself as "my Saviour, my Lord, my God, my all."

But the coming, as the hope of the believer, is what I desire specially to bring before you that love Him, and to this I now address myself. Let us look to Him that the truth may not be a subject merely to add to, or improve our stock of Scripture knowledge; but that which shall practically connect us in every thing we do, say, and plan, with the object with whom the truth deals. It is a truth of immense power when allowed to act. No lever so effective for raising us up out of "earthly things" as the knowledge that our commonwealth "is in heaven, whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile* bodies and make them like his own" (Phil. 3: 20, 21). No cure of care so mighty as the truth, "I come quickly."

{* Rather, body of humiliation; the bodies of the saints are not "vile" as 1 Cor. 6: 15, 19 clearly enough show. — ED.}

In the midst of sorrow, with these words, we are to comfort one another.

It must be evident, from all I said before, that there are various aspects of the coming, but there is only one coming referred to.

When the Lord comes, however, for His saints, He will halt so to say, in the air. From that halting place he will shout, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, and those of us that are alive at the time shall be changed, and they and we shall go up together and meet Him in the air to be ever with Him. This is evident from the 16th and 17th verses of the chapter (1 Thess 4).

This I shall, for simplicity sake, denominate the first or rapture aspect, called (in Titus 2: 13) "that blessed hope." This is for the saints. Of the other aspect, the appearing, with its numerous sub-divisions, I shall say no more just now, although it may come in occasionally. In Titus 2: 13, it is referred to in the words, "appearing of the glory." In Jude 14, it is referred to when we read, "The Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints (previously caught up) to execute judgment."

I am not ignorant of the existence of many who would rob God's people of this their proper HOPE. Hence they will twist and turn — at least they try to do so — all the Scriptures that teach it. But it is such an integral part of the whole plan of salvation, that the detraction of it is just like the removal of one of the stones of an arch. So interwoven is it with the wondrous fabric wrought by Christ, that the shape, colour, and beauty of the whole design are lost, and the adorable Architect robbed of much praise, — the enemy rejoicing that God's people are left to "mind earthly things," having nothing to look for but that which is common to men, death — should it be given up.

I shall endeavour, therefore, to be as simple as I can be, that the most illiterate may understand me.

Turn with me to John 14. Let us notice

(1) that it is a person speaking. "I go," says the Lord to the disciples, "to prepare a place for you" (verse 2). Can there be any so ignorant, or so presumptuous as to assert that any, beside the Lord in person, was addressing the disciples? Surely not. Then this very person, goes on to say

(2), "and if I go and prepare a place for you, I (not death) will come again (when He does not say) and receive you unto myself; that where I am, ye may be also." The practical truth, from this, the first announcement of the Lord's return after leaving this earth, is, or ought to be of the most profound moment to us that love Him. It reminds us of that love of Him which does not get its full satisfaction till every blood-bought one is sharing the place He has with the Father "in the Father's house." A place in the mansions is prepared for me, faith says, and no one shall have that place but me; for my Lord says so. But the place is with the FATHER. Quite new was this to Jews that never looked above Canaan. But so it is. Cast out by Israel, as the Lord is, grace triumphs, as it always does, and brings out a people for mansions with the FATHER — brings out a heavenly people. Oh, what heart can enter into the amazing love that links up believers thus with the Man at God's right hand, and with His Father!

I need hardly remind you that this is fruit of His death and resurrection. Incarnation has its place; for it was necessary that as a man He should live in this scene, and declare in it what a man should be for God; while at the same time He manifested God before and unto men, defeating Satan withal. But He Himself declared that He must stand alone if He died not (see ch. 12: 23, 24). The corn of wheat must go into the ground and die, that fruit (the ear) might be borne. Only as result of His death, and of course the inestimable worth God puts upon it, could He say, "Go and tell my BRETHREN, I ascend to my Father, and to your Father; my God, and your God" (comp. John 20: 17 with Ps. 22: 21 and 22).

You will, from these remarks, see the blessed connection of these latter chapters in John. In chap. 12 the Lord announces His death,* and shows how as a result believers should be united to the risen Man. In chapter 13 He keeps us clean; so that He might always see us without a spot. The word (water) applied by the Spirit should keep the feet clean of those that are bathed. In chap. 14, the saved ones, for whom the word is given and by which they are kept clean, are to wait for Himself. But while He tarries they are to be His witnesses in a world that cast Him out. They should be the branches of the vine (chap. 15) to bear fruit for His praise, such as would be of sweet savour to Himself, success for which depending on abiding in Him. The Holy Ghost should be the person here, whose very presence should be a reproof to the world for rejecting Jesus (chaps. 14 and 16), and the power by which we should be true witnesses to the Lord. And lastly, the desire for the manifest oneness of those who are saved is expressed in chap. 17.

{* Of course we know that as King of Israel He was already rejected. This Matthew brings out. For in chap. 16 we find Peter only, taught of the Father in heaven, owning Him to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God;" others placing Him on a level only with Jeremiah, John the Baptist, etc. Then we read (ver. 20) that the Lord himself lays by the Messiahship for the present. The disciples henceforth were not to teach that He was the Christ. But a new thing is brought out. The Church was to be built, and for it He must die (ver. 21).}

Now, when the Lord told the disciples not to be with troubled hearts, what did He mean? When persons are in sorrow, because of troubles of various kinds coming upon them, how apt are they to take the truth here, "Let not your heart be troubled," as that applicable to their case. Well, beloved, I would be the last to tell them not to get consolation from it. The Holy Ghost can use — for He is God — any portion of the Word for the child of faith. To the intelligent soul, however, there is a special word for every special need; but who can question that just a few portions, known to the simple ones, may be specifics for all their ailments? Souls in affliction or sorrow, therefore, may use this scripture as a cordial for their case, although such special truths as 1 Peter 5: 7 are not wanting.

Here, however, the Lord saw some who wept because their Lord was leaving them. They loved Him. Surely, beloved brethren, you and I shall be covered with shame at the contrast between the love of those poor disciples and our own. The Holy Ghost, as fruit of the glorification of Jesus, had not yet been given (John 7: 39), and hence the fulness of blessing into which you and I are now brought was not yet entered into by them. Indeed, as I said before, it could not be till the grain of wheat died and rose again. Yet see the affection for the person manifested by those dear disciples.

There is a great tendency among us to be engaged with our blessing, while Him who blessed us we forget. But, as I said on a previous occasion, ours is such a perfect emancipation, complete deliverance from sin, Satan, and SELF, that we are left quite free to enter into God's thoughts about the person of Jesus — to be, in fact, taken up absolutely with Himself. Bring hither the fatted calf, and let us eat. "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ: whom having not seen we love."

A most touching example of attachment to the person is seen in (John 20) Mary. "The disciples went away again to their own home" after the Lord was put into the sepulchre. Is loud boasting Peter among those that could find a home, while the Lord, whom men rejected, lay in the sepulchre? And is loving John, too, at home in the scene without the Lord? Let your cheeks be covered with blushes as you learn that "Mary (only) stood without (outside a home) at the sepulchre weeping." She is attached to the person. I would fain rebuke her ignorance (shown in her question); but I must first question my love. Are there any of us that can desire to be somebodies in this poor, Christ-rejecting world? Do we want a place here without? Then to us the portion (in John 14) has no application. But to such as long to see their once-rejected Lord taking His true place, asserting His supremacy, and rejoicing in having His Bride with Him — to such as for His name's sake are hated and cast out as the Master was — He says, "Let not your hearts* be troubled." My resurrection is the ground of your faith (1 Cor. 15:17), as it also is to be of your hope (v. 19), and of your hope you shall never be ashamed (Rom. 5: 5). He who by the Spirit leads us now to cry, Abba (Rom. 8: 15, 16), assures us that He Himself will "quickly" come, and take every blood-bought one and introduce them, in bodies like His own, to His Father and our Father.

{*"Heart," not hearts, the difference is not unimportant — ED.}

(3) Again, in this portion the Lord challenges our confidence in His truth: "Ye believe in God." You have not seen Him, and yet you cannot doubt Him. Even so, "believe also in Me." Soon I shall to you be invisible, as God is now. Nevertheless, take My word, as you do not doubt His, that I will come and take you unto Myself, that where I am ye may be also. This is present hope. Why will you be robbed of it?

(4) Again observe that the Lord does not put the thinnest partition between His coming and our faith. Tell me one passage in Scripture to hinder me expecting Him now. You will search in vain for one. Many there are who cannot doubt that the Lord is to come at some time, but they are expecting "the fulfilment of certain prophecies first," or, "the conversion of the world;" others expecting the millennium, or some other such thing first. If any of these were to be before our hope was realised, would the Lord have overlooked the present opportunity to put in such ideas? Surely not. Now, He is indeed wiser than all the learned of this earth put together, and faith prefers what He says to men's theories, be the men ever so learned. Prophecies will be fulfilled, as I said before, in God's time and nothing shall hinder them; and there shall be a millennium for this earth. But the efforts of men to bring about that which awaits the person of Christ will be as futile as are all the plans of Satan to rob the Lord Jesus of His glory. Meanwhile such believers, however, are losing the joy, and will miss the reward of those "that love His appearing" (2 Tim. 4: 8). I repeat, therefore, that our proper hope is the Lord's coming for us.* Let each of us ask ourselves, "Am I longing to see, in His glory, Him whom men — unrighteous men — rejected? Am I concerned about His absence, or am I so linked up with things in this scene, ay, even my service, that I should prefer Him to delay His coming to some indefinite period?" This is a solemn poser, beloved. But let us not shrink back from the closest scrutiny. Do I want the Lord and His glory, or am I preferring this world, with its short-lived pleasures and evanescent joys? Do I know I am for heavenly mansions and not for earth? The world prefers Him not — it would rather not have Him. What sayest thou, O my soul?

{*There will be no millennium without Him. He will introduce it after the rapture and after the seven years of judgment. It is, remember, for the earth; we with the Lord shall not be on the earth then; but shall reign over it (Rev. 5: 10; 20: 6).}

Respecting the Lord Himself, I may add, and surely this ought mostly to occupy us, He is waiting to display before this world, before heaven, and before everything, what He is as the exalted Son of Man. Fruit of the work on the cross, all power is given unto Him in heaven and earth (Matt. 28: 18); and all things ARE PUT in subjection to Him (Ps. 8; Col. 1: 18-20). But we see not yet all things SUBJECT to Him (Heb. 2: 8). Subjection is their normal condition according to God; for every knee shall bow to, and tongue confess the Lordship of Jesus (Phil. 2: 10, 11, with Isaiah 45: 23). But we do not see it yet, says the apostle. Then is it never to be? Let those that would keep out the Lord Himself answer it. In grace He tarries, for He is long-suffering; not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3: 9). O who can estimate the patience of Him whose desire is to have His Bride with Him in glory? Who has any idea of the long-suffering that can bear with a world whose judgment lingers till He comes? In the full knowledge of His infallible might He waits in grace. He "bides His time," as we say; for He knows what awaits His rejectors. So the Holy Ghost exhorts us to wait with Him (see 2 Thess 3: 5; read the margin, "patience of Christ"). But if any are tired of waiting, and thus exhibiting their unwillingness to have kindred thoughts with their Lord, they are not here rebuked by this loving One. No; He cheers and comforts their hearts by renewing the old promise, which He does not forget, and which quickly He will fulfil — "Let not your heart be troubled." O thrice happy are those to whom these words are applicable! Yea, blessed are those hearts which, in the unclouded communion which is theirs to enjoy with the Father and the Son, can even now have mansions within them for the abode of the Father and Son by the Spirit; till in soul and body they enter the mansion prepared for them above. And, indeed, beloved, such is unquestionably the portion to-day of those that love Him and keep His words. "If a man love me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him" — or make a mansion of him (John 14: 23). What words could be more salutary? In glory we cannot desire more than the communion of the Father and the Son. Of course, in glorified bodies we shall fully understand them and enjoy them. But, may I ask, what is it that is to occupy us at that time? The overpowering sight (I speak after the manner of men) of the millions of glorified saints? Will it be the gates of brass and streets of gold?* Will it be the holy angels, the ministers of His that do His pleasure? Will it be the crown worn by the Lamb who was slain? No, beloved, it will be Himself, none less than Himself. Can any need more?

{*Scripture speaks of gates of "pearl," not "brass," and "street" of gold, not streets. — ED.} "Not on the crown He weareth, but on His pierced hand:

The Lamb is all the glory in Emmanuel's land."

"Praise the Lamb," the chorus waking,

All in heaven together throng;

Loud and far each tongue partaking

Rolls around the endless song.

Grateful incense this, ascending

Ever to the Father's throne:

Ev'ry knee to Jesus bending,

All in mind in heaven is one.

All the father's counsels claiming

Equal honours to the Son,

All the Son's effulgence beaming,

Makes the Father's glory known.

By the Spirit all pervading,

Hosts unnumber'd round the Lamb,

Crown'd with light and joy unfading,

Hail Him as the great "I AM."

The person who shall engage us then, is the one that should be uppermost in our affections now. Is it so, beloved friends? Is His glory so concerning us as to lead us to desire His entering upon it? Into it all, I need hardly remind you, we shall be brought; for He graciously makes us His joint-heirs (Rom. 8: 17). That is, He will not assume that glory without us. Oh, how does the soul bend under such inimitable love! To Him now be praise, and for ever. Amen.

A view of the person of Jesus, in His glory, is given us in Matt. 17: 1-9. Let us glance at it for a minute or two. Note, that in the previous chapter the Lord was speaking of His rejection. He was to go to Jerusalem to suffer and to die for the Church which He would build on the rock (Himself), owned and confessed by Peter. Well, this is very precious; for it reminds me that He who can touch the Rock of Ages can shake the steadfastness of the soul that is perched thereon. But who can? Surely not the gates of Hades; nor all the powers of hell marshalled under Satan, their much experienced chief. I say no one can, in the least, damage your security, when for once, by faith, you entrust your all to Him who gave His all for you.

Thus seated, O, my dove, let thy chirps be the sweetest; thy songs the loudest; thy notes the earliest; thy tunes the latest; thy praises the most constant that heaven e'er could hear. It pleases Him who placed thee there to hear His blessed name sung. Indeed, for what did He nestle thee but to hear thy voice mingling with the millions that sing

"Jesus is worthy"

So much for what I get as the fruit of His sufferings.

But is the Blessed One not to have His full reward for glorifying God in this earth? Refuse to own His coming, beloved, and you deny Him that which you are persuaded He merits. Now, in this chapter we get a picture of the Son of Man in His glory. Moses is there representing the raised "dead in Christ," out from among the general dead. The living saints who, at His coming in the clouds, shall be changed in a moment without tasting death, are figured by Elijah; while Israel, and others with them, to be blessed on the earth, are represented in Peter, James, and John. But note, dear brethren, that the faces of all that occupy these concentric circles are turned towards the exalted centre. He only will attract. How soon? Quickly. All in the glory there shall shine, but with the light of the glorious sun; but for whom darkness — yea, the very blackness or eternal despair — would be the lot of all. The bride, His body, shall lead the praises, in which all the glorified shall join. Angels shall not withhold their song. Israel, on earth, shall magnify their King, and nations all shall own His sway; the earth, His inheritance, too, shall rejoice and be glad. Not one opposer shall be found in all His vast domain. But for all this He waits in patience, and much is His heart gladdened as you and I are, even in this scene, praising and adoring Him, in a measure, as then most fully, and perfectly, we shall. But more than this; He looks to see those that love His appearing. Owning these truths, beloved, can our hearts not say to Him —

"EVEN SO; COME, LORD JESUS"?

I shall now glance at other Scriptures that refer to this truth, either as the hope of the believer, or as the subject of prophecy.

After the Lord's resurrection, the truth of His personal return is again presented to the disciples, as we find in Acts 1.

The restoration of the kingdom still occupied the hearts of the disciples. Hence their question (v. 6). Well, we would be astonished at their ignorance, if we did not remember that in many things we do not exhibit more intelligence, although the Holy Ghost (v. 8), whom they had not yet, is now freely given to us (1 John 2: 20). Had not the Lord spoken of His going away to the Father, and of His coming again from thence to take them up to the Father? (John 14.) Yet we see where their thoughts are. The "earthly things," instead of Christ and the heavenly — Christ and His thoughts — are apt to occupy us too. And nothing delivers us from them but an entire engagement of the soul with CHRIST and HIS thoughts. To be somebodies in this scene; to be "great men" and "honourable" where the Lord was and is rejected, will be the insatiable longing of everyone, till "My will" and "My thoughts" are wholly swallowed up in "His will" and "His word." He and His must be first; I and mine nowhere. This is the secret of happiness and of successful testimony for Him. Only thus may we expect a "well done" at His coming. The Lord intimates without scolding — oh, what a patient teacher! — that the Holy Ghost would give them power to be martyrs — "witnesses" — for the rejected One in the very sphere where they preferred to rule with Him.

LET THE TRUTH BE DISTINCTLY LEARNT THAT THE REDEEMED OF THE LORD ARE NOW APPREHENDED BY THE HOLY GHOST, AND ENDUED WITH HIS POWER TO BE SUFFERERS IN, AND NOT THE RULERS OF, THE WORLD THAT CAST OUT THE TRUE KING. The reigning time with Him, not without Him — is future. Saints are to judge the world in future (1 Cor. 6: 1-8). Hence now they are to suffer wrong, but not to go to law. But while we are here for Him, He has His hands up in blessing, and is Himself before God for us — succouring us in our troubles. And this was the last look which the disciples had of Him (compare Luke 24: 50-53). Our highest privilege is to suffer here in the path of faithful witnessing to Himself. Those of us that prefer confederacy with His enemies, and for ease are in league with His foes, those, I say, that know not practically what it is to "go forth to Him without the camp bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13: 13), must lose the blessing of those uplifted hands. But need the Daniels shrink back from the lions that oppose their path of devotion? Shall the Shadrachs, Meshachs, and Abednegos be tempted for once to shun the furnace with the Son of God for the approbation of a world without Christ? These are trying questions. Let them cast us upon Him whose love, like His patience, tires not.

But are the days of trouble never to end? Is my Lord always to be rejected? Let the word in ver. 11 answer: "THIS SAME JESUS . . . . SHALL SO COME." He who went to the Father then, despite the ignorance of the disciples in A.D. 33, shall so come (the year He gives not, but "quickly"

is the word), the unbelief and selfishness of Christians of the 19th century notwithstanding. And blessed are they that wait for Him.

I must not dwell on every phase of this blessed truth as presented in the different epistles; but for the sake of any one that has lost sight of such a gem, covered up as it has been for 1700 years by not a few strata of men's rubbish, I must just point to the many spots over which it is scattered in rich profusion and for various purposes.

(Rom. 5: 3-5.) The partakers of grace shall share the glory; of their "hope" they shall not be disappointed, for the Holy Ghost, now shed abroad in their hearts, retains them for the day of glory.

And lest the hope should be dimmed — lest saints should settle down in this scene — they must go through the school of tribulation, which will work for them patience; and this endurance — will being broken — gives experience concerning Him whose grace is perfected in our weakness. Need I say that this school is practically unknown to those of us who are "Hail fellow, well met" with a world — pagan or religious — that hates HIM "who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." Well, such a path leads onwards to Him who trod it — to Him who now succours the travellers on it, and those on it are in fellowship with the despised One, who is coming for them. Cheer up, you that are scoffed for the name of Jesus. Don't forget that it was the most religious, the loudest professors, the most sanctimonious, who, once enemies, became friends, and formed a conspiracy for killing the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead. And think you that a distinct and clear, unmixed standing forth for HIM will not evoke to-day for the poor and feeble confessors of the despised Nazarene, the same hate from the same world! O, but what an exchange when He comes — a crown for a cross!

In Rom. 8: 18-25, groaning creation is to partake of the liberty which glory shall introduce.

(1 Cor. 15) The resurrection from among the dead of the bodies of those that are Christ's at His coming is here treated. This truths the gathering at Corinth had lost through the philosophy of some of their teachers, and the result was the evil ways which this epistle was sent to correct. Note that all are not to sleep (to die). People say all must die; the Holy Ghost says not. (Ver. 51.) We shall not all sleep, but be changed in a moment at the last trump. This is consistent with 1Thess 4, "We that are alive and remain." Paul puts himself among those in whose day such an event might have occurred. So does the Holy Ghost present the truth of Christ's coming now, that not the faintest shadow should intervene between our hope and its fulfilment. Yes, and if we sleep ere its accomplishment — I say, suppose that we do die — shall death cause us to relinquish our hope? I ask, shall anything hinder the Lord from having His redeemed with Him in the glory, and from occupying His rightful place in connection with Israel, the nations, and the earth, as I before showed? Certainly not. Then, should I be called away through death, I shall only have had my "waiting-room" exchanged. "Present with the Lord" though "absent from the body," I shall wait with Him for His glory, of which I am a co-heir — a joint-heir (Rom. 8: 17). He will not assume His without us. Paul, and others who were waiting 1800 years ago, are in the upper waiting-room, waiters still. But though He tarry, the truth remains, and shall soon be verified — "The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we who are alive shall be changed" (ver. 52). The thought about a "general resurrection" is not found in this chapter. Indeed, persons may go begging to every verse in the Bible, but will not succeed in obtaining one contribution to such a dogma of clever men. I may here remark that the expression "Resurrection of the dead" should in every case be "Resurrection out of, or from among, the dead." At His coming they that are Christ's "shall be raised," but the rest of the dead shall not be for 1000 years after.

(2 Cor. 4: 14.) Here the hope so occupies the Apostle, as in ver. 9 of chap. 1, that though persecutions should end in death, he fears not. He looks forward to resurrection by Jesus, and to being with the Corinthian saints when all are presented by the Lord, as God, to Himself (compare Gen. 2: 22, and Eph. 5: 37) as Son of Man. Was it not for this hope, to-day, beloved, many who are evil spoken of for the sake of Christ, and are treated as the off-scouring of all things, would be of all men the most miserable (1 Cor. 15: 19). Here, then, the hope cheers the martyrs (witnesses) for the rejected Jesus. They will take care of His honour here, assured that five minutes in the glory into which He will soon introduce them will more than repay "the sufferings of the little while." But to be in bodies of glory like unto His FOR EVER, yes, for ever, who with this prospect would shun the troubles for Him in the brief fleeting space of eighty years or so? To walk in the path He trod before us, to have Him in the path with us, who will have us to share His everlasting glories by and bye. Is this enough, beloved? It is more than enough. Then let us bid farewell to sloth; let ease seek devotees elsewhere; let the worldly have the world; but may the interests of Christ be our concern, as ours have been and are His still. To suffer, and even to die for Him, is truly nothing when contrasted with the glory that awaits us at His coming.

In the epistle to the Galatians nothing is written concerning this blessed truth. And why? Because the converts in Galatia had been removed through Judaising teachers from Him who had placed them in grace to a sort of law-gospel, which the Holy Ghost designates "another gospel." Law and grace are quite opposed; they never go together. The Law was given by Moses; but coming to Jesus Christ we get grace and truth (John 1: 17). Persons who put themselves under it would have no taste for the truth of the personal return of Jesus; and, indeed, it is so now. Look for the standing of such as refuse this "blessed hope," and you will find them at the base of Sinai, doing their best to keep the law, and just failing every moment. Of course the judgments for its breach they do not like. But can such be at peace? Certainly not. Hence the Holy Ghost cannot engage them with the PERSON coming; they must first learn the value of the WORK He accomplished. "If righteousness come by law, then Christ is dead in vain" (chap. 2: 21). This is plain enough for faith. Reasoning won't get it. If any of you, dear hearers, are in this position, you must wait for another Christ to die to bring you out of it, or you must look for the judgments awaiting transgressors. But, beloved, I am persuaded better things of you though I thus speak. If you know Him, who is full of grace, you may rejoice in hope of glory.

The Ephesians, on the other hand, needed not to be told this truth respecting the "coming," for they are viewed as seated in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2: 5-6). So instructed they must have been in that to which all saints in their time looked forward, that the Holy Ghost can occupy them with what their normal state before God is.

The hope, however, must have been very consoling to Paul while he was confined in the prison at Rome, whence he penned the Epistle to the Philippians. Nero, the emperor, might at any moment have given commandment concerning death. Truly Paul was dying daily. How can you account for such exhortations, then, as "Rejoice in the Lord," and "Rejoice in the Lord always?" What was it that placed Paul above his difficulties; that raised him superior to his afflictions? Just that, beloved, which should raise us, if we are not scared out of it by philosophy and vain deceit and tradition of men viz., the truth about the coming. Those "who mind earthly things," might well be miserable when their best plans are thwarted, and crosses lie in their way. But the language of such as know their union with a risen Christ, and look forward to being with Him is, "Our conversation — commonwealth or citizenship — is in heaven; whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our bodies of humiliation, and transform them to His body of glory, by the power through which He will also subdue all things unto Himself" (chap. 3).

The Colossians have a hope laid up for them in heaven (chap. 1: 5). Of they had been before instructed in the gospel preached to them. Being risen with Christ, they were to seek HEAVENLY things, and not be as earthly men. In their measure they were to be practically identified while on earth with a risen Christ in heaven, for when He comes again glory they shall co-appear with Him (chap. 3: 1-4).

The catching up or rapture is not brought out directly here; but the appearing in bodies of glory with Christ, our life, is. For He comes with, who has already come for, His saints. And that for which they were waiting was so to occupy them that their hearts should be where the treasure was. From the eyes of men Christ is hid. He is linked up with nothing of this vain world. So our life with Him is hid. This is not the time to seek to display ourselves. Soon He who is our life shall appear, and that will be the season for our manifestation too. What a truth, beloved! How weaning! Refuse to accept it, and as worldly as the most ungodly the saint will become. The ball, the theatre, the concert, or wealth on the one hand; or a worldly religion with all that pleases fancy, imagination, or human will, or that suits the progress of the day on the other, will command its admirers from the ranks of believers.* And such are they in this day whom Satan would keep in ignorance of this blessed theme, which, like the magnet, points always to the person of Christ, and consequently detracts from everything beside.

<*This is, indeed, the sad picture given by the Lord (Luke 12: 45-48) of the "wicked servant" who gives up this hope. He says in his heart, my Lord delayeth His coming. And how does he act? (1) He persecutes his fellow-servants. He is intolerant of those who keep the word of the Lord, and will not deny His name. (2) He is keeping the company of the lawless ones. Instead of bringing them from their evil ways to Christ, he mixes with the enemies of the Cross. Alas! that this should be too true a photograph of so many to-day. Is it yours, beloved?>

But it is in the first epistle to the Thessalonians that the Holy Ghost develops the truth respecting the COMING, and shows the difference between Christ's coming for His saints and His appearing for judgment to the world.

It is worthy of remark that this subject was placed before the young converts of Thessalonica as part of the glad tidings which Paul preached. So you see it is truth for the youngest. It is said of them (1 Thess. 1: 9-10) that "they turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son (not death) from heaven."

I find then that these late idol worshippers to whom Paul preached eighteen hundred years ago were far in advance of some of the "divines" of the nineteenth century.* Take it as a fact that now as ever these things are hidden from the wise and prudent — from the learned and self-willed — and revealed to babes; made known to such as, owning their ignorance, receive in all simplicity what God declares.

<*And unless such teachers are in advance of Paul, the tent-maker ― or shall I say unless they are wiser than the Holy Ghost? ― they should place this as the proper hope of the youngest convert to-day. But alas! some of them are too learned (?) to be taught. Then how can they teach? But, beloved, you have the BOOK; and thank God for the freedom in these days to read it for yourselves.>

{*"Remember ye not that when was I was yet with you I told you these things" (2 Thess. 2: 5). Much valuable instruction had been communicated by the Apostle upon prophetic and other truths bearing upon the Lord's second coming — truths now generally regarded as "advanced truths," but these beloved saints were taught them, within three weeks of their conversion (Acts 17: 2). — ED.}

To enter deeply into that which every chapter in both of these Epistles deals with, would be the work of many evenings. Indeed they are so plain that to argue on them would be to darken counsel by a multitude of words. See the plainness of speech as we run over a few passages. In chapter 2: 12, the saints are to walk worthy of the God who had called them to His kingdom and glory; v. 19, Paul hopes to see them "in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming," though Satan may hinder his visiting them in the body; and in that he "boasts." The desire of the apostle's heart for them is, that practical holiness may constantly characterise them — "unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints" (chap. 3: 13).

In chapter 4, the question is answered, "How shall all the saints — seeing that some die — be ever with the Lord?" Naturally enough the Thessalonians, who had been converted to wait for the Son "from heaven," were sorrowing for such saints as had fallen asleep; presuming that they would miss* the Lord at His coming, for which they were waiting. And was it not for ignorance, we would not be told how it is to brought about, as in this special revelation. But so it is. God uses every occasion of short-coming, whether of practice, at Corinth, or ignorance of doctrine, as among the Galatians and here, to unfold more of His mind to us.

{*Somewhat of the blessedness and glory. Not exactly "the Lord." — ED.}

A great fact is stated in verse 14. "If we believe that Jesus died and rose again; even so God will, with Him, bring those that fall asleep in Him" (compare 1 Cor. 15). And here faith reposes in God. He raised from the dead Him who gave His life for us; and He will also raise up those who are for ever linked up with Jesus. They shall have bodies of glory like His own (compare Phil. 3). And not only shall the living ones not hinder (prevent)* the departed; but as regards the order, "the dead in CHRIST shall rise first." "The LORD HIMSELF shall descend from heaven with a shout," etc. Note here,

1. THAT DEATH IS NOT THE COMING OF THE LORD. When Stephen was dying, he looked up and saw Jesus at the right hand of God in heaven (Acts 7). But for the saints — not for their spirits as at death, but themselves, bodies and spirits united — the LORD HIMSELF is to come from heaven. Since His ascension He has been — as the exalted Man, seated at God's right hand. There He lives to intercede for us, as we pass through this scene of failure. When He rises from the throne, it will be to descend to the air for us. 2. From that halting place will go forth "the shout." This expression — "shout" — is a military one, used for the sound that summonses not a few but ALL the troops. Understood only by the drilled ones, it suggests that none will hear the gathering call but the saints. The world will soon find that we are gone, and, as did the sons of the prophets in the days of Elijah, go searching for us; but alas for them! blessed for us!! 3. Only the "dead in Christ" are to rise when He comes for the saints. We wait not, you see, for "general resurrection;" but saints "in the body" and "out of the body" wait for their LORD; who, having first subdued all things to Himself — His Saints being with Him in the regeneration — then the wicked dead are called forth to be judged at the white throne (Rev. 20).

{*Rather anticipate or go before; that is, the living changed will not take precedence of the raised dead, for the latter will rise before the living are changed, but all "together" will go to meet the Lord. — Ed.}

To return. The dead in Christ rise first; then we who are alive, and remain that event, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet, in the halting-place, the LORD in the air.

Note here particularly the expression, "we who are alive," and tell me can any of us be sure of a grave? Is death the subject here set before us? Indeed I may challenge any — Where is it ever put as that for which the saint to wait? In Matt. 25 the virgins wait for the Bridegroom. Here let me remark, 1, That after Pentecost all converts looked for the Lord from heaven. "Went forth to meet the Bridegroom." For more than 1600 years the truth was lost sight of — "all (wise and foolish) slumbered and slept." And do all of you know that for more than 1000 years the truth of "justification by faith" was given up, till Luther, 1517, preached? Well, it is not more than forty years since the truth of coming of the Lord (with other precious Church truths, as the oneness of the body, etc.) was revived by a living servant of God. Notice, 2, That soon after the midnight cry went forth the Bridegroom did come. And so the fact of the revival of this truth reminds us that now the coming of our Lord is nigh (cp. Rom. 13: 11, 12). As a fact we are in the night. How can it be otherwise while He who is the light is absent from the earth? But we expect bright morning. Indeed, faith looks up and sees the twilight of the coming sun. O may the Holy Ghost cause the hope of seeing soon the Lord Himself to be very bright before us all. What a meeting will that be when parent and child, brother and sister, preacher and convert, all in Christ, shall see in glorified bodies, and be with Him for ever!

O how it cheers the heart to know, when parting from the friends we love,

'Tis yet a little while below, and then we meet in clouds above,

E'en as we weep and think them gone, before the tear drop from the eye,

Before the heart has time to mourn, the loving breast to heave a sigh,

The Lord Himself may yet descend, and all our grief at once be o'er,

When mother, brother, sister, friend, shall meet again to part no more.

This moment we may feel bereaved, the next together with them rise;

This moment by their absence grieved, and then behold them with our eyes.

O Christian, weep as though the tear might never from thine eyelid fall;

Each moment watch intent to hear the welcome "shout," the gathering call.

To know the Lord Himself shall come, what cheering hope does this afford;

And "we in Him," "with them," "all one," SO shall be ever with the Lord.

The Thessalonians had been instructed in the truth, moreover, respecting "day of the Lord." (Read carefully Isaiah 2: 12, 13; Joel 2: 31, Joel 2: 31; 3: 10-16; Rev. 6, 19.) At the time the second Epistle was written they were greatly persecuted, and false teachers led them to suppose that that "day" was come. (The expression in chap. 2: 2, "at hand," should be "was come," or "was present." See the Greek.)

The day of the Lord will surely be a time of terrible trouble (compare Matt. 24). But the Holy Ghost here unfolds two other wonderful facts, viz., that before that day —1, The Holy Ghost, with the Church, shall have been removed, according to the 1st Epistle; and 2, Antichrist, the Wilful, or Lawless One, should be known, whom Christ should destroy, not at the shout for saints, but at the manifestation of His glory to this world. — "the brightness of His coming."

The mystery of lawlessness (ch. 2: 7) works now, but the personification of it, in the one who, exalting himself above God, will claim and get worship from such as refusing the truth shall be given over to believe a lie — this I say cannot be as long as the Church, with the Holy Ghost in it, is on the earth. The presence of the Holy Ghost hinders his development. We are now dealing with most startling yet comforting revelations of God in this Scripture. Startling to know that the time will come when rejectors of the Gospel, given over to a strong delusion (ver. 10-12), will be found at the feet of Antichrist! Comforting to be told that the catching-up will precede this (comp. 1 John; Rev. 3: 10).

Lastly, the prayer of the Apostle is, that their hearts may be directed into the love of God (ch. 3: 5), which surely would keep them from the thought of their having to be in the judgments on the world; — and "into the patience of Christ." Rest from suffering for His sake, and glory with Him are ours. He will then display us; but trouble our troublers (2 Thess 1). But none more desires His Bride to be with Him than the Lord Himself. Yet, patiently waits in grace to this poor world. We are to wait with Him.

See how the truth is referred to in 1 Tim. 1: 11; "Gospel of the glory," 6: 14; 2 Tim. 2: 10, 4: 1-8, "Love His appearing," etc., etc.

So in the Epistle to Titus (2: 11-14), the grace of God that brings salvation to all men hath appeared, and teaches us how to behave ourselves now among men. But that is not all. It puts before us (1), "the blessed hope," and (2), the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

I have only to remind you, that in this pithy sentence you get both aspects of the theme I have been endeavouring to develop, viz. (1), the coming of the Lord (to the air) for His saints; and (2), the appearing or Epiphany of the Lord in glory to this earth with His saints.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Paul writes to converts to Christianity who had once settled down in a religion — Jewish — which God had sanctioned; but which, upon the rejection of Messiah, was laid aside, and a "heavenly calling" (ch. 3: 1) revealed in its stead by the very God who had previously spoken by the prophets (chap. 1).

Hence they are told to pass through this scene now as pilgrims, looking forward to a better country, a heavenly (chap. 11). Quite startling this would be to Jews who had been hoping to settle down in Palestine. Well, as a nation, so they will, for God's word remaineth ever sure. But Christianity, distinct from Judaism, teaches that now the Lord is gathering out from Jews and Gentiles "a people for his name." Note this. (See Acts 15: 14; Eph. 2: 11-16.) Afterwards He will return, and build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down. The Holy Ghost speaks of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God (1 Cor. 10: 32).

Here let me remark, beloved, that till you distinguish between Israel as a (literally) earthly nation, once great, now scattered, to be again gathered, and the Church of God, composed of believers from both Jew and Gentile, and elected for heavenly glory, you can never clearly enter into and enjoy the truth about the coming. So these saints from among the Hebrews were to wait now, not for a kingdom of Canaan, but for Christ Himself. Hence we are told (chap. 9: 28) "that to them that look for" Christ [when these words were written all saints were taught to "look for Him;" hence it is the normal aspect in which all are viewed. It is not here to be inferred that such as deny the truth of the Coming will be left behind] He shall appear, having nothing to do with sin — for salvation." That is, He will bring in that which is included in the idea of salvation, viz. — "the redemption of our BODIES" (comp. Rom. 8: 23-25; Phil. 3: 21). Lastly, notice how this "blessed hope" is placed before the soul as that which should encourage it in the midst of reproaches and affliction for confessing the name of Jesus (chap. 10: 35-38). "Cast not away, therefore, your confidence, which has great recompense. For you have need of endurance, in order that, having done the will of God, you may receive the promise. "YET A LITTLE WHILE, AND HE THAT SHALL COME WILL COME, will not tarry. But just shall live by faith." Yes, this truth, like every other, is one for faith. The simplicity of the child of God receives argument or a question, for "thus saith the Holy Ghost," is, or ought to be, enough. It is for a child.

James, addressing believers among the tribes of Israel, brings in the coming to rebuke the rich, who were laying up their stores as if they belonged to this world, and to encourage the poor who were oppressed by them. "Be ye also patient, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" (James 5).

The Apostle Peter has this blessed truth running like a vein of metal all through his Epistles. (See 1 Peter 1: 3-8, 13; 5: 10, etc.) I wish, however, just to call your attention to two points of immense importance in the present day. 1. That the hope of the believer of which I have been treating is not prophecy. Prophecy does point to the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, but as that to be on earth. The truth revealed to us in the New Testament confirms all that the prophets wrote respecting it, but is to be distinguished from prophecy, in that this deals with what prophecy does not touch. (See 2 Peter 1: 16-21.) The sufferings of Christ the prophets do teach (Isaiah 53); the glories of His Kingdom are developed in the law, prophets, and the Psalms (Gen. 49; Numbers, 24; Isaiah to Malachi; and all the Psalms, specially 2, 8, 9, 19, 45, 48, 68, 72, 76, 93, 100.) but the coming for the saints, like the truth about the Church, was reserved for the apostles — Paul especially — and prophets of the New Testament after the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the glorification of Jesus. It is of the last moment to see this difference. Hence the Apostle says that people should give heed to prophecy as those who would be guided by a lamp in a dark place, until — when? The day-dawn arise in our hearts. But, he says, "WE HAVE the word made more sure."* We have what the prophets pointed to, and much more beside. The word "I come quickly," we have heard. The midnight cry we have heeded, and the watchers for the person are anticipating His coming, just as night watchers who see the morning star expect the brilliant sun.

{*That is, the prophetic word was confirmed by the vision of the glory and kingdom vouchsafed to the favoured three on the holy mount. — ED.}

Now, you may weigh this suggestion and avoid the confounding of the hope of the believer to-day, with the word of prophecy for the Jew. With all that concerns Christ you and are deeply concerned, inasmuch as He associates us with Himself; but we are rightly to divide, or portion out, the word of truth. Let two examples suffice to illustrate my thought —

(a) God speaks by Ezekiel (Ezek. 37: 19-28) that the divided tribes now scattered are to be united, and are to dwell in the land of Canaan. This is the truth, brought out also in the "Vision of the dry bones," as in all the prophets, in Rom. 11, etc. But what is our position who now believe in Jesus? Our treasure is in heaven, whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 3; Col. 3). Meanwhile we are to be hated by the world, and treated as the offscouring of all things. To be great in the world, and rulers over it now, is not our lot. It is now the portion of the Gentiles, "till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." But as the members of Christ we lose nationality, and are neither Jews nor Gentiles (Col. 3: 11). Of course our Father knows our need, and will feed us as He does the ravens, and clothe us as He does the lilies. Which do you prefer, beloved? Rejection now with Jesus and hope of glory soon, or a great place in the world without Him? A thick border line, an unmistakable landmark separates the two portions. You must absolutely have the one or the other.

(b) Another striking illustration between the hope of the believer now and the word of prophecy, is seen in the fact that the "morning star" or "day star" of the New Testament is Christ Himself as the person we wait for. To our affections He now shines forth. The watchers in the night see Him and enjoy Him by faith in their hearts, till He is seen by their eyes. But the day or morning star (Lucifer) of prophecy (Isa. 14) is the king of Assyria* to be destroyed by Jehovah. (2) Observe farther that I am not to be surprised at the scoffers at this truth in this day. The Holy Ghost says there would be such (2 Peter 3). But that the Lord has not yet come, is not because He is slack concerning His promise. No, rather He is long-suffering to a poor world whose day of grace will close with His coming. O, how gracious are His ways and perfect withal!

{*This is not correct. "Lucifer, Son of the Morning," applied to the King of Babylon, whose representative in the coming days will be the head of the revived ten-kingdomed Empire of Rome. "The Assyrian," also named in chapter 14 of Isaiah, is a distinct personage. The representatives of Babylon and Assyria will be opposed and opposing Powers in the future. — ED.}

Three thoughts from 1 John 3: 1-3, I must refer to.

1. All believers can say positively we are the sons of now. As in Rom. 5 we begin with justification, we start with the knowledge of "peace with God," we go on in grace, and we look forward to glory — for very precious portions.

2. As to what we shall be, we do not know, nor are we careful. We leave that with Him who will not do without us; but we do know that when He shall appear (with His saints) we shall be like HIM, and that is enough. Some clever (?) Grecians used to ask, How can these things be? and because they could not analyse the mode of their accomplishment they denied the truth altogether. Like the clever (?) little boy who denounced the theory of the revolution of the earth round the sun as being "stupid," because, said he, "I see the sun rise, but I do not see the earth go round the sun," the Holy Ghost calls similar reasoners "FOOLS," reminding them that the whole thing is in the hands of Him who gives a shape to the corn of wheat AS it hath pleased Him. "So also is the resurrection out from among the dead" (1 Cor. 15).

3. Although we are by believing in Jesus made "clean every whit," yet we are passing through a scene of defilement. But see how the hope affects us (verse 3). We tuck up the garments and glide onwards most warily, lest the smallest speck be found on us at His coming. Call you this only an "advanced idea for a few?" God is wiser than men, and has put the truth before us as that which should practically sanctify us momently.

Jude, who wrote, like John, for the last time, exhorts believers to contend earnestly for the faith (here it is the thing itself believed, not the belief) once delivered to the saints. Losing such an integral portion of it as the coming, called forth the three woes which the godly can see running in parallel lines in the present day. (Verse 11.) Then Enoch's prophecy is quoted. (Verse 14.) Here the Lord comes with the saints to judgment on the living wicked and ungodly.

We come now to the last portion of Divine revelation. In the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John is pre-eminently the one whose ministry should go on till Christ comes (John 21: 22-23).

Hence the person of Christ is constantly kept before the soul in the book.

In chapter 1 He is the judge, and the One who shall be the administrator of all things. Now, He is hidden from the eyes of the world. But, "Behold! He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see HIM."

A general sketch of the book, so far as it regards the subject before us, I gave at the commencement. I would now only remind you — 1. All the judgments under the seven seals (chap. 6 — 19) are future, and await the appearing of the Lord Himself. This is prophecy — not our proper hope. 2. They will be judgments on living nations (comp. Matt. 24, Luke 17). 3. The Lord will first have come for His saints to keep them out of the hour of trial which is about to come upon the whole HABITABLE WORLD to try them that DWELL UPON THE EARTH. If Aberdeen should unfortunately be in rebellion against the Queen, she might say to us loyal ones, "I am coming from Balmoral to shell the city; but just before that event I will send a telegram for you to meet me at Banchory." The message received, we await such telegram. Meanwhile we get as many of our friends as we can to lay down their arms, and to side with us for our Queen. Her Majesty hears that our fellow-citizens are killing us loyal ones, and away she starts to fire the city. Think you she would not keep her word, and send first for us? Having met her at Banchory, we then come with her in her train. And this is just picture of what our Lord says to us. (Ch. 3: 10, in Greek.) Hence the redeemed are seen in glory worshipping (4, 5.), being previously caught up before the seals are opened in ch. 6, etc. 4. The last sentence uttered by the Lord to John was, "Surely I come quickly." Ascending to heaven from the Mount of Olives, the truth enunciated, was "This same Jesus which is taken from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven;" and now you and I hear the words from His own blessed lips — "Surely come quickly." The moral condition of the watcher (in Luke 12: 36) is such that he knows the "knock," and opens immediately." (Luke deals with the moral application of the truth, but does not deal with it in the order of time.) Who would have thought that "quickly" would extend to 1800 years? Yet such is His grace. But who would be so bold as to assert that the shout may not be heard before another sun rises upon this guilty world? Of times and seasons we have nothing to do. We ARE made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; and thus ready, ours is to wait and watch. To the unprepared and to the careless, the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. When they shall say "Peace and safety," then sudden destruction shall overtake them.

Shall any of you be taken by surprise, beloved hearers? Are any sceptics among you? Are any of you going on still in rebellion against God, and refusing to own His Son? Now, tell me honestly, can you think of death, which you know you cannot escape — can you think of God and be happy? I know, and so do you, that you cannot. Then why will you resist God? He is gracious to you, and now bids me offer a free pardon to each rebel, on one condition only — viz., owning, like the thief on the cross, that the Son of God, the Lord from heaven, has satisfied God respecting the question of sin. But, to your everlasting shame and misery, you SHALL be condemned by Him whom now you will not allow to save you. O may it please God to awaken you, even though it be by crippling that body of yours, that your soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

And now, dear brethren, let us in the presence of Him whom we love, of Him who bore all our sins away and made us meet companions for Himself, of Him whose Father we address as "our Father," and who has left us here as His witnesses, let us in His presence apply this blessed truth in a practical way.

I presume that each of us sees —

1. That the coming of the Lord for His saints is the proper hope put before every believer by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament.

2. That the Scriptures distinctly teach that He will come with His saints to judge Christendom; to punish the nations generally, and the Jews particularly; to establish the nation of the Jews in Palestine, thus fulfilling the prophecies; to introduce universal blessing for the earth — "the millennium" so called; to raise and judge the wicked dead, bind Satan, and then deliver up the kingdom — all things having been subdued to Himself — to God the Father, that GOD may be all in all (Rev. 20: 21; 1 Cor. 15).

3. That respecting our hope (the subject of this address) — the believer's proximate expectation — no dates are ever given; but the word to the simple is "quickly," and there faith rests.

Then, 1, Am I indulging anything in which He would not like to find me? A bride expecting her bridegroom does not wait till he comes to adjust her garments.

To go on in any looseness which does not suit my coming Lord, with the knowledge that when He comes "He will put things right," only betrays the most untoward condition of heart. He can bear with ignorance, and provides a sacrifice for it (Lev. 5: 27-32), but can He tolerate INDIFFERANCE?

2. Am I so engaged now and every moment that a "well-done" from His lips will be mine for my last act in this scene?

3. To each of us He has committed some talent, telling us to occupy till He come; and now He adds, "I come QUICKLY." Are we using such as those should, who cannot hope for another moment?

4. When He comes the gospel door shall be shut, and then our unconverted relatives and friends shall be left behind! Are we now so putting Christ before them, and praying for their conversion, as those that hold the coming practically; or are we stumbling them by our walk and untoward ways?

5. Are we minding earthly things, and hoarding up the "corruptible things," the silver and gold of this world; or are we using them to-day if the Lord gives us an opportunity, as those that expect to be called away quickly, with those for whom we are laying up? Are there no poor around us to feed? No distressed one to relieve? No cell of gloom to lighten up by the sunbeam of our presence? Are there no heathen here and abroad, to whom we may carry or send a free Bible, or a gospel book or tract? If there can be regret in glory will not be for losing such opportunities of reproducing our Lord in the earth?

But again, 6. If I believe this truth which the Holy Ghost has given me, why am I so anxious about what shall I eat, drink, or do to-morrow. May I not hear the shout before "to-morrow?" And why may I not drink of my cup of joy, while to me is given a sip of one of sorrow? Why is my heart broken at the recollection of the dear departed one? Can I not commit him with myself to my Lord who will bring all of us with Him?

Lastly, am I so weaned from everything here — do I hold them all so loosely, that at any moment of my existence I could joyfully look up and say to Jesus, as the Spirit prompts the Bride, "Come?" (Rev. 22: 17.)

And now unto Him that is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and majesty, might and authority, both now and ever. Amen.

2. What is the Church

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

A Scriptural Inquiry as to what is the Church, or the Assembly of God.

1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4.

An Essential Truth.

I do not believe, beloved friends, that only some portions of God's word are "essential," and that others are "non-essential." Such terms are of man's introducing. I believe that every portion of God's word is essential for a Christian to know. More than that — that every portion has its bearing on a Christian's practice. And, therefore, when I find a Christian talking to me about non-essential truth, a Christian who does not believe God's word as that which is given to us to profit withal. And again, if I find a Christian using the expression "non-essential" about any part of God's word, I should like to ask this question, "Non-essential to what?" He might say "Non-essential to my salvation." True, I reply but have you got no farther than that? If you go to God as a poor sinner and simply accept the truth in the sixteenth verse of the third chapter of John's Gospel, that would be enough for your salvation. (I use term salvation in the limited sense of deliverance from wrath. Of course it means more than that.) As far as salvation is concerned, God has fixed unalterably what is necessary, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." So that, if you speak about what is non-essential to salvation, you are taking out two or three Scriptures simply as essential — a small portion only of the Word — and laying all the rest aside. I do not admit the term non-essential at all. Every portion is deeply essential for you and me to know and practise. Hence Paul, writing to Timothy, says, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3: 16). So you see, in order that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, he must have all Scripture. He cannot afford to yield one tittle of all the Scriptures. That is the expression used by Paul. It is of the deepest moment to-day.

Now with reference to the Church, which is our subject to-night, I need not tell you that it is deeply essential that we should know God's whole revealed mind about it; and for the following among many reasons: —

(1) We should know all that God has revealed, because He has been pleased to give us the nearness of children. And so near are we that God has been pleased to speak into our ears and make known to us His counsels. Was it "essential '' that the Prodigal Son should know that he was to sit at his father's table and eat the fatted calf? Was it essential that he should eat it? It was not essential that he should eat the fatted calf to be a son; but it was essential that he should eat it in order to have fellowship with his father. So it is between us and God. It is essential that we should know what He has revealed about His Church to enter into fellowship with Him. And we must know what He has said about the glory of His beloved Son, even as to the near position, which by grace He has afforded us in Christ, and so on. In the first Epistle of John I read, "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ." We must know all these things in order to enter into God's fellowship — to have His estimate about His Son, our Saviour and Lord.

(2) I should know these things that I may act according to my relationships. I cannot serve my master unless I believe that he is my master. Again, I cannot have my affections flowing out to a man whom I see, unless I know and believe that he is my father. When I have been told that he is my father, my affections flow out upon my believing the truth — as the affections of a child to its father should.

(3) But further, ignorance of the truth of what God says about His Church has led many a Christian to act in any way but that which is in accordance with his relationships as a member of THE Church of God.* For instance, I find Christians mixing up the Old Testament teaching with the teaching about the Church of God. They go for directions about the Church of God to the Old Testament. I do not wish to be misunderstood here, beloved brethren. There are truths in the Old Testament deeply practical to us all, and that we should all learn from; there are examples of moral standing that should all seek to copy. But when we wish to know the specific teaching of the word of God about our relationships in the Church, we do not go to the Old Testament for it — we get it from the New Testament. And I must know all that the New Testament teaches about the Church, in order that I may be able to fulfil my duties in that relationship in which I am placed. When a man is over a house as its head, how is he related to the people in that house? To some he stands in the relation of master, to others in the relation of father, to one in the relation of husband. Although he is the same one man, he stands in a different relationship to the people in his house. The directions he gives to the servants are certainly not the directions by which the children are to be guided; nor will it do for the servants to intrude into the position of the children; and neither can take the nearness of the wife. Each stands in a different relationship to the same man. So it is necessary that we should be instructed as to our individual and corporate relationships to God, and to each other, in the Church, in order to fulfil our responsibilities in those relationships. Having made these introductory remarks bearing on the importance of having correct ideas regarding the Church of God, and regarding our position in it, I now come to the question, What is the Church? To make the subject more clear, I shall try and divide it into various headings.

{* Membership in a church, or even the Church, is not Scripture accuracy; membership is applied to the Church viewed as the body of Christ." — Ed.}

NOT THE JEWISH NATION.

1. And first let me say, the CHURCH REVEALED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — AND SPECIALLY TO PAUL — WAS NOT THE JEWISH NATION. It may seem almost preposterous to make this statement, but it is needed by way of removing obstacles out of our path of research. The Church, then, was not the Jewish nation. When I turn to 1 Cor. 10: 32, I find three distinct classes of persons before God's mind. They are not to be confounded — each is distinct, and they should not be jumbled together. These three classes are respectively the JEWS, the GENTILES, and the CHURCH OF GOD. When we go to other Scriptures we find explanations as to what each class is.

Who, then, were the JEWS? Turn to Romans 9: 3, 4, and 5, "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law (note this), and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." This is a brief description of what the JEWS were. They were a separated people — a distinct nation set apart to God. But an earthly nation they were. Hence you will find God, speaking of them through the prophets, says — "Jehovah hath chosen Jacob unto Himself, and ISRAEL for His peculiar treasure" (Ps. 135: 4). And, again, "For JACOB my servant's sake, and ISRAEL mine elect, I have called thee by name, though thou hast not known me" (Isaiah 45: 4).* The Lord had set barriers, if I may so say, around them, separating them from all other nations.

{*And their blessings were earthly (cp. Gen. 13; Deut. 26, etc.); not heavenly as ours are (Eph. 1).}

Hence, in reading the Old Testament, we must be struck with this, that God told His people that they were not to go in and out amongst other nations. Such a thing as intermarrying was out of the question. (But this separation was soon abused. Pride got into the heart of that nation, and they soon began to look down upon the Gentiles as dogs. The distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles was God's; but the looking down upon the Gentiles was their failure, was an abuse of God's sovereign grace.) You will now be enabled to understand why the Lord Jesus told the apostles when He sent them out, as you read in the tenth chapter of Matthew, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL." God had made Israel a distinct nation, and the Lord Jesus, when He came to the world, would not interfere with such a distinction, until the barrier was pulled down in His own death. God had separated them, and the Lord Jesus owned it. This will also help us to see why, in John 4: 9, the woman of Samaria, speaking to the Lord Jesus, whom she perceived to be a Jew, said, "How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me who am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." That is to say, there never was any mingling: Jew and Gentile, or Jew and Samaritan could never come in contact. She deemed this a very condescending act in a Jew; and so it was. God had separated them off, and no one could interfere to break that separation but GOD Himself. This will further help us to understand the conduct of Peter in the 10th of Acts. You will find that Peter, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16), had to go to open the door to the Gentiles. Cornelius had to be let in — but before Peter would go to Cornelius (remember that Peter was a Jew), the Lord Jesus had to show him, in a vision, that He, having pulled down the barrier in the cross, in His death, had let the Gentiles in. The scene is now changed. "God putteth down one and setteth up another." Peerless wisdom! Hence we have that beautiful vision of the sheet let down by the four corners, full of all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice saying, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." But he was told not to call that common which God had cleansed. The result was that Peter had to go to Cornelius. But you will observe how warily, cautiously (and, shall I add? scornfully) Peter proceeds. He thought it a most degrading thing for him, a Jew, to come in contact with a Gentile; because the Jewish nation until that time had been, according to God, a separated nation; and he had not learnt that the barrier was pulled down by the cross. Hence, further, in the 11th of Acts, the brethren who had been Jews called upon Peter to give an account of his conduct in going to the Gentiles. The brethren "pulled him up," as we say, for it. They had not understood that GOD had broken down the middle wall of partition; hence they accused Peter. And this is his answer in the 16th verse — "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then, as GOD gave them the like gifts as He did unto us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could withstand? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also (mark the word also) to the GENTILES granted repentance unto life." I think from these scriptures I have said sufficient to show you that the Church of God, of which I am speaking, was not the Jewish nation.

<Here let me just remind you of that verse in 1 Cor. 12: 13, "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." This is quite a new thing, then, which is here introduced. Again, in Galatians, Paul speaks about there being neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, in Christ Jesus. Now, how can you reconcile all these different passages together? On the one hand, the Lord Jesus telling His disciples not to go to the Gentiles (the woman of Samaria saying that the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans); and this teaching, on the other hand, that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the Church of God? The only explanation is this, that the Church of God is a perfectly new thing which had no existence before Pentecost, but which has been formed since the cross ― of believers out of Jews and Gentiles. Therefore THE JEWISH NATION IS NOT THE ASSEMBLY OF GOD ― the body of Christ ― (Eph. 1: 23).

Look, again, at the 26th chap. of Deut. Let that have been taken to a Gentile. Supposing a Gentile had been asked, Have you taken the basket of first fruits and offered to the Lord your God? He would have stared at such a question; he could not have understood you. Supposing I had seen a Gentile woman in the time of Moses wearing fringes on the borders of her garment, and supposing I had said to her, You should not wear fringes, would she understand me? And why not? Simply because she knew nothing about it: the teaching about not wearing fringes (Num. 15: 38) was for Israel, not for the Gentiles. Again, if I had met a Gentile, and asked if he had gone and offered burnt-offerings to the Lord, he would have told me that he knew nothing about them. Such directions were for the Jews, not for the Gentiles, and of course there was then no church. Indeed, they are also in their principles unsuited to the BRIDE, of heavenly origin, with heavenly hopes, and with a heavenly destiny, although for a while she be, like a meteor, flashing across the earthly scene.

In the 9th chap. of Romans, which I have read, the Holy Ghost tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called." We learn from that, and from other sources, that there were some of the Jewish nation who were believers, as Elijah, Daniel, etc., just as amongst the Gentiles, who were separated off, there were some saints ― Job among the men and Rahab amongst the women.>

The Jews were a separated people, but they were not the church.

THE GENTILES WERE NOT THE CHURCH.

The Gentiles were outside altogether. In Ephesians 2: 11 we read, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Hence the Gentiles were outside Israel's blessings. "But NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition" — what I called the barrier. That barrier was not pulled down until Christ did it — "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain" — (that is, the Jew and the Gentile) — "one new man, so making peace" — not forming the Jewish nation into the Church, nor constituting the Gentiles His assembly, but taking out of both some parts, and forming them into one new man. The Jews and the Gentiles were not reconciled before. Hence Peter's slowness to go to Cornelius. "And that he might reconcile both unto God in ONE BODY by the cross." When we speak of the cross of the Lord Jesus, we speak then not only of that by which God declared his righteousness in remitting the sins of those that lived before the cross — Abraham, David, etc., through the forbearance of God; nor that by which God declares at this time His righteousness in being the just one, while He justifies all that believe in Jesus (Rom. 3: 24, 26). But we speak also of the cross as that by which the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is broken down; by which Jew and Gentile, in one body, baptized into such by the Holy Ghost, rejoice in one common Saviour and Lord! How truly numerous and soul-stirring are the contemplations, as we sit in the shadow of the cross!* The cross is not only that by which we get peace to-day, but that by which the sins of those who lived before Christ were remitted, and it is also that which has pulled down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, so that now there is no barrier. The Jew and Gentile both meet God at the same altar of burnt-offering; both present the same one sacrifice, even Christ; and both are there, articulated members of the "one body." Well may we exclaim, What hath God wrought!

{*I hope no one will imagine that I uphold the idea of the Christian's place "being at the foot of the cross." He has to learn, or rather accept the truth — that he is in Christ (Rom. 8: 1; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Eph. 1: 3-7); that God accepts him according to the value of Christ. Indeed, I do not believe that any soul gets real, lasting peace till it accepts God's word as to the value of Christ — His person and His work. And I would say once for all, that those only can contemplate what "Christ and the Church is," who have solid peace in their own souls. To many the subject is most uninteresting — and why? Because they do not know their personal standing before God. They cannot run over in praise as does the Apostle in Eph. 1: 3. May every one of my readers know what it is say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Christ, who hath blessed us."}

I hope you have seen, then, that the Church is a perfectly new thing — in fact, so new, that the Epistle to the Ephesians tells us that before union with the Head — and therefore with the members — could be effected, Christ had to die and be raised from the dead, and with Him we are raised up and made to sit together in heavenly places in Him. Before there could be a body the head must be raised up* to sit at God's right hand. In John 11 you find Caiaphas speaking thus: "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 spake he 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 death of the Lord Jesus then was necessary in order that the children of God scattered abroad should be gathered together in one. So we may see how THE CHURCH IS FORMED UPON THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION AND SESSION AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND OF THE LORD JESUS. May our hearts enter more deeply into the merits of His divine Person and work!

{*Scripture does not speak of the "Head" being raised up, but Christ as man being risen and glorified is the Church's glorious Head. — ED.}

Disowning the one body is dishonouring Him who died to "gather in one," etc. In 1 Cor. 12 you are told that it is not the hands and the feet standing separate and unconnected. "The body is not one but many members;" and by the Holy Ghost coming down, all the separate members were brought together and articulated into one body, so that there is no such thing as isolated or independent membership. The word of God authorises no such thing as "an independent member" — one which is not mutually dependent upon the other. I want my finger to clear the dust from my eye, and also my eye to see for my feet; my feet to carry my trunk along, and so on. It is one body, and all the members are mutually dependent upon one another; so dependent, indeed, that if one member suffers the whole body suffers. "But now are they many members but ONE BODY" (v. 20). It is indeed a beautiful picture — comparing the Church to the human body. If I have an abscess on one finger, the whole body sympathises by a fever; if one part gets diseased, it affects all the rest. So, on the other hand, so long as I can manage to keep all the members in good health and free from injury, the whole body is in a healthy state. You find in 1 Cor. 12 that what affects one member acts upon the whole. There is no such thing as independent membership; there is articulation; the members are mutually dependent one upon another. So says the Holy Ghost; and this is what the cross of Christ has done. It has pulled down the middle wall of partition; and it has done more, it has gathered into one the children of God that were scattered abroad. "And other sheep I have (Gentiles) which are not of this (the Jewish fold, aule), them also I must bring; and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be ONE FLOCK (poimne) one Shepherd (poimen). Blessed oneness! Our entering into His thoughts in this is quite another thing. Oh, may none of us be another day out of fellowship Him about HIS BODY — HIS CHURCH — His BRIDE, of which each believer is a constituent part, draining or feeding the whole. The Church of God, then, was not the Jewish nation, nor the Gentiles, but formed out of both.

2. THE CHURCH OF GOD IS THAT WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AT PENTECOST BY THE BAPTISM OF THE BELIEVERS INTO ONE BODY BY THE HOLY GHOST. I shall show you this presently; but I may say in passing, that although this body, the Church, was not developed till Pentecost, yet at the same time it was in God's mind from all eternity. You will get beautiful figures of it occasionally in the Old Testament. The first one you will find in Genesis 2, before the fall. God there put Adam into a deep sleep, and took one of his ribs, and of that rib made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman (Isha), she was taken out of man (Ish)." God gave Adam that which was part of himself. It is a very remarkable thing, that in Ephesians 5 the Holy Ghost uses the figure for illustrating what the Church is. After speaking about the duty of man and wife, the apostle bursts out in very peculiar language. He says he is not speaking about man and wife merely, but about the great mystery. "I speak concerning Christ and the Church." (The mystery is not the Church, but "Christ and the Church.") God, bringing Eve to Adam, drew from the lips of the man the sentence, "Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Answering to this is the language of the Holy Ghost respecting the Church — the Eve — of Christ. "For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" (Eph. 5: 29, 30). Faith receives this without reasoning, and the child of faith bows and worships. He leaves reasoning on this sacred truth, which can only be received by the spiritual, to the domain of materialism and sophistry; on the borders of which, alas! not a few saints are drifting. Is it not beautiful to go back and see that, before sin came into the world, Abba's purpose was to have the Church for His own beloved Son — that "Abba chose the Church in Jesus long before the world began?"* This is what we get in Eph. 1: 3, 4. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before HIM in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." God, in order that we might be without blame before Him in love, chose us in Christ; and if I go to God as a poor sinner, God does not see me at all in my filthy rags. He sees me clothed in His robe of righteousness. And what is that robe? It is Christ Jesus — Christ is our righteousness. "This is the name by which he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness." What depth of wisdom! What breadth and height of grace divine!

{*The choosing and predestinating referred to in Eph. 1 is of saints individually; the Church as such is first named in the last two verses of the chapter. — ED.}

The Church is not something which to-day God has thought of and brought out for the first time. That is not the thought. It was in His mind before the world was, but in His matchless grace He now and again let out in olden times some of the secrets hid in Himself. Suppose any of us to have a plan in our minds: it would be premature to let it out until it was time to execute it; it might not be understood; but sometimes you drop a hint of the secret which may not be observed at the time; but which is understood afterwards. If I mean to adopt a child, for instance, I do not go and tell everybody that that is my intention until I am ready to execute it; but I can indicate my purpose by making frequent references to that child, and showing my affection for it; and it is seen what all this meant when I have taken the child into my adoption. God thus occasionally gave glimpses of His secret in the Old Testament, although the manifestation of it was not till Pentecost, nor the explanations of its detail till Paul developed it. This is clearly shown in Ephesians and Colossians. Previously the mystery — the secret — was hid in GOD. Mark, it does not say in the word of God; but it was hid in GOD Himself (Eph. 3: 9; Col. 1: 26, et passim). Made known it was by Paul. Ignorance of these simple truths sends men searching into the Old Testament for the Church; and leaves them neither good JEWS (being, of course, uncircumcised) nor decided PAGANS, as they read their Bibles. Clearly, then, the specific truth respecting God's assembly was committed to Paul.*

{* 1. In the Old Testament figures of the Church are given (Gen. 2; 24).

2. In the Gospels the Lord declared that the time was come for its development (Matt. 16; John 11; 12).

3. In the Acts of the Apostles the expression of the one body is seen.

4. In the Epistles it is addressed as one body, and its positions, relationships, responsibilities, and hopes are fully developed by PAUL.

5. In Revelation a prophetic view is given (Rev. 4; 5; 21.) of it as having entered upon its glorified and eternal state with the Lord.}

If I had time I would dwell upon the position of Eliezer sent to choose a wife for Isaac. This is another of the types. The Holy Ghost is the heavenly — the divine — Eliezer gathering the bride of Christ out of this world to present her to Christ, who is the heavenly Isaac. It is beautiful to notice some of these symbols. Eliezer tells Rebekah that there is abundance of everything in his master's house, but he only gives her some jewels and precious things, and points to the camels — earnests such were of what she was to inherit. The Holy Ghost is the "earnest" of what we are to inherit with Christ. And what is He doing now? He is leading the bride across the wilderness world. And to whom is He conducting her? To the bridegroom. And just as Rebecca was lifted up and put upon the camel's back, and taken across the wilderness to the man whom she loved before she saw him; so each believer, in the power of the Holy Ghost, now journeys along in the hope of seeing soon One he now loves. And we shall soon see Him, beloved brethren, whom here we now love. That is our hope.*

<*For the proper and proximate hope  of the church, and therefore of the believer, the reader is referred to "The Personal Return of the Lord Jesus.">

These are then some of the pictures by which God let out the secret that was hid in His bosom, but which could not be fully understood till afterwards. If you look to Matt. 16, you will see how the Lord Jesus intimated this truth. You will find Him referring to the secret which was in the Father's bosom, and known to Him from all eternity. You will notice first, that Jesus made a declaration concerning what he was to do at the time when He was rejected by Israel. The Jews were God's chosen nation, and I may tell you they will be visibly His people yet. The Lord Jesus will bring them into blessing in the earth AFTER the Church is caught up (Rom. 11 and Isaiah). But when Christ came to His own, His own received Him not; and when He asked His disciples — "Whom do men say that I am?" the answer was, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets." What a chilling answer that was! But there was one in the midst who was divinely taught differently. The Lord Jesus asked His disciples — "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter, who was taught of the Father — for he did not know of it himself — said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This was the first time the Lord Jesus was owned by human lips to be the "Son of the living God." It is very striking. Cheered by that answer, the Lord Jesus utters for the first time that which was filling His breast from all eternity — "Thou art Peter (petros — a stone) and upon this rock (petra — rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."* Notice the circumstances under which the Lord Jesus spoke this — it was when He was rejected by Israel. When Israel gave Him up, He, so to speak, gave them up for the present. From that time forth you will observe that He turned His attention to something else. He wanted to have His bride — the Church. That is a beautiful title — the bride; it shows how near she is to His heart. Nothing is so dear to Him as His Church. What does He say to Peter? — "Feed my sheep," "Feed my lambs," — members of His bride (viewed in this instance, however, as His flock). Either title declares how dearly He regards His own. As the flock, the sheep are fed. Indeed they are made to "lie down in green pastures" (Ps. 23). Sheep lie down when they are satisfied. But green pastures surround them, and not far off are the waters of comfort. What a provident Shepherd! Why are not all found with overflowing cups of praise?

{*Note, that even at that time the Assembly was not yet formed. It was yet to be built. Hence the Lord says I will build. Now, after Pentecost, Paul, speaking of the Assembly as built by the Lord and indwelt by the Holy Ghost, says, "and are built" (Eph. 2: 20). He says, I will build; in the Acts we see it built; in Ephesians Paul says it is built.}

But who can estimate the nearness given to the bride! Who knows of the tender love? And, may I add, beloved — Who should be indifferent to His jealousy? What condescension to be jealous? But so it is? There is not a dearer object in this world to Him than His sheep — His lambs: there is nothing that can rival His beloved bride. Oh! that every one of us might have hearts responding to such love! You will find it stated in Ephesians 5 that "Christ also loved the CHURCH, and gave Himself for it."

I have traced so far that the secret was in God's heart before the world began, and I arrived further to the letting of it out by the Lord Jesus; and I remarked that in order that Christ should purchase the Church He must die. In John 12 you find that, before there could be union between the head and the members — between the children of Adam and Christ, the "second man," He must fall into the ground and die. That is the figure which He uses in verse 24, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but, if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." When did the Lord Jesus utter this? It was at the time certain Greeks (outsiders, Eph. 2) had come to Philip and asked to be allowed to see Jesus. The Lord Jesus, willing to die for His Church, said, "The hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified." As if He said, "I can wait no longer, I must have my bride, I must die to gather together in one," etc. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Of course there is far deeper teaching involved in our Lord's statement here. As "Son of Man," He shall be glorified, not only in His Church; but as  results of His death — glory shall be His, in blessings which He shall bring to the Jews and to the Gentiles at a future day.

<Having died therefore and purchased His Church, as you see from John 12 and Ephesians 5, He goes to heaven and takes his seat at God's right hand; and thence He sends down the heavenly Eliezer, the Holy Ghost, to gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad. The Lord Jesus (who was determined to have a perfectly articulated body, the members all brought together and baptized into one body) had told the disciples to wait at Jerusalem for the promise of the Father. Accordingly the disciples waited in an upper room for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them. The account of this is given in Acts 2. Before passing on to the development of the one body, let me make a remark about the Holy Ghost. Is it too much for me to announce to-day that the Holy Ghost, given at Pentecost, was given to abide with us for ever? Is it true that each believer is himself and herself the temple of the Holy Ghost? Have you not read in Cor. 6, that "your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?" Again, do you know that the Holy Ghost was given to remain with the Church till the Lord Jesus comes, and hence the expression in John 14, "That He may abide with you for ever?" Once again, I say He is to abide till the Lord Jesus comes, and I think it necessary to make this remark, because I frequently find Christians praying to God to send down the Holy Ghost, just as if the Jews had prayed to God to send down the Messiah when he was actually in their midst. Would that not be a downright insult Him? Would it not be the denial of His identity? That is just what Christians do when they pray to God to send down the Holy Ghost; for they have the Holy Ghost with them ― He has been given to dwell with us and in us for ever. If they were to pray that the power of the Holy Ghost should be manifest in any particular way, this would be a different thing; or if they prayed that they might yield to the guidance of the Holy Ghost. But when they pray to have the Holy Ghost sent down, it savours of an ignorance which the word of God does not permit ― if it does not of refusing to recognise His presence. It is the submission of the soul to the power of these truths that must act upon and influence the lives of individuals. When I know that my body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 6: 19), how careful should I be in every thought, word, and action! So when saints gathered by the Holy Ghost assemble in the name of the Lord Jesus, how much need there is to leave the Holy Ghost free to lead them as He will, lest they quench Him! (1 Thess. 5: 9, 1 Cor. 12.)

But for this the saints must accept the truth that, corporately, they are the temple of Holy Ghost. (1 Cor. 3: 16, 17.) >

It is important to keep both these truths before the soul.

(1.) As an individual believer, I am indwelt by the Holy Ghost; who seals me, as God's, till the day of redemption (Eph. 1: 14).

(2.) All believers are together built for "an habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2: 21, 22). This, however, was subsequent to the work of redemption.

It is well to remember that God's action in creation was by the Spirit — in that act, indeed, all the persons of the Trinity are active (the Elohim). So the prophets of the Old Testament wrote and spoke by the Holy Ghost; so every godly saint of Old Testament times was operated on by the Holy Ghost. Moreover, the Jewish remnant in the last days after the rapture of the Church will be brought to accept Messiah by the Holy Ghost. But it must be apparent to every diligent student of the New Testament, especially of the Acts and the Epistles, that a new line of action was begun by the Spirit at Pentecost, such as was suited to be an expression of the value God placed upon the work of the Lord Jesus. Believers began then to be, as they are now, indwelt by the Holy Ghost, by Him also united into "one body."

You will get a figure of this in the 15th of Exodus. After the children of Israel got beyond the Red Sea, God put it into the mouths of some of them to speak of His habitation. There was no word of God's habitation while Israel was in the land of Egypt; but after the redemption had been accomplished, seen in the blood-besprinkled door-posts, then it was that God could put it into their mouths, to speak about preparing for Him a habitation. So the Holy Ghost could not come and dwell in believers until the Lord Jesus had been glorified, redemption by blood being fully accomplished. Hence John 7: 38, "He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive; for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." At Pentecost the Holy Ghost did descend, and according to 1 Cor. 12 He baptized all believers "into one body." Therefore you get that expression in Acts 2: 47 — an expression which could not be true unless there was this baptism into one body. "And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved." I read that 500 disciples saw the Lord after His resurrection at one time; again 120 are referred to in Acts, and at Peter's preaching 3000 were converted; but until the Holy Ghost baptized them into one body and constituted that body, there was not the assembly to add them to. But after the believers had been made into one body, then the Lord added to that body such as should be saved.

I would here make a remark about the word Church — "the Lord added to the Church daily." Now, I am incapable of being a classical critic, I do not know enough of the Greek. But I do know enough to see that there is no reason why the word Church should be so translated. The word is the Greek, ekklesia. The same word is translated Church in the 7th of Acts. Thus, "He who was with the church in the wilderness;" it should be Congregation there.* The same word is correctly translated Assembly in the last verse of Acts 19. There was an Ephesian mob which the Town-Clerk dismissed, but it is the same word, ekklesia. (Why not translate it church?) Then, in the 2nd of Acts, it was the assembly of God. In other words, Ephesians 1 makes the matter very simple — "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church (ekklesia) which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

{* Of ISRAEL, of course. We have already seen that the nation of the Israelites was not the "body of Christ," the Assembly of God (1 Cor. 1: 2; Eph. 1: 22, 23), which we are inquiring into.}

And such an assembly was known in Pauline days, and recognised as that of God. Outside of it were Judaism and Paganism.

3. The third statement about the Church which I make is, THAT THE CHURCH WAS THEN, AS IT IS NOW, ONE BODY. This you will get in Eph. 4. Paul, writing there, says, "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, there is one body." And please note in connection with this, that the Holy Ghost is not exhorting to keep the unity of the Church, but the unity of the Spirit: "for there is one body" (or one Assembly). There are here two distinct things — the unity of the Spirit, which we are to endeavour to keep, and the oneness of the body, which faith must own. This is a truth which, when laid hold of, gives immense freedom to souls. To-day what do we find?  ROMAN CATHOLICISM — full of the most deadly errors conceivable — attempting to bring about the oneness of the Church. Hence letters have been issued to different parts of Christendom seeking to unite the so-called churches together, and thus endeavour to secure and maintain oneness of the Church. (Of course its idea of the Church is not God's.) But it is another thing that is spoken of in Eph. 4. We are to endeavour to keep the unity of the SPIRIT. To keep the unity of the Spirit means walking in the Spirit's mind. Suppose I endeavour to get the Church together — suppose I drew up certain regulations and endeavoured to get Christians to conform to them, with a view of securing the oneness of the Church; in such case, I would be disowning that it is one already; and I would be adopting a human expediency instead of having faith in God's oneness; it would be refusing to be led by the Holy Ghost according to the WORD of God. Now the very first step in the way of the Spirit towards maintaining His unity, is to "Cease to do evil;" secondly, "Learn to do well." If I do this, I am in the Spirit's unity.

An army is one army, whether the soldiers own it or not; but to keep the unity of the army each must obey ONE Commander. Again, if the army should mutiny and be divided, as it should not be, under various usurping colonels, what is the path open to the loyal? "Cease to do evil." Refuse to be identified with any, however great or gallant he may be. "Learn to do well." Find out what the Commander's regulations are; seek for the flag and rally around it. If only ten men of the army did this, they would be acting in the unity of the Commander, they would be on the ground of the one army, while all the others would be plainly wrong — rebellious indeed.

Now, the Church of God is one body. Nevertheless we find to-day 1300 sects and parties. Which am I to join? But surely it must be evil to be a fellow-worker in supporting parties. Then I will join NONE: for God says there is ONE body. And if I was in one of the sects, I must straightway "go out," "go forth," "separate," "depart." And do what? "Endeavour to keep the unity of the SPIRIT." He gathers to the name of the Lord Jesus, and to none other. He gathers believers and none other. He ministers truth and not error. I walk in His unity then, if I am thus gathered, and if I thus walk. Immense truth this! Difficulties vanish, and my path is then as the just, shining brighter and brighter to the perfect day; whereas, outside such leading, the very opposite obtains.

The way of the Holy Ghost to gather, then, is to the name of the Lord Jesus — His way to keep them is by the name of the Lord Jesus. And is there not immense power in that name? Can any need more? Should any have less? The Holy Ghost makes a statement, not that there will be, nor that there was, but "there is one body." But if I look around in any place, shall I see it, or if I go to any part the world, shall I discover it? If I were to go to Perth and ask, Will you show me where the Church is? people would stare at me. The Church, as God reveals it, is not seen by us now. The Scriptures tell me of only one Church — the Holy Ghost speaks of one body, and every believer is a member of it. Membership of a Church the Holy Ghost never sanctions. Such is man's invention; but each believer is a member of the Church,* and wherever he goes he is a member of that Church. Look at Acts 2, before the Church-making system was known, and see how manifestly one the disciples were. See the nucleus in John 20, among whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection. O what an age then of golden days! But we must hang down our heads in shame when we see that things are so far from being in the state in which they were in Ephesus, Corinth, Troas, or Jerusalem, when there was one assembly of Christians, and one only. Outside that assembly everybody was in the world. In 1 Cor. 5: 12, we read, "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within?" We have there a contrast between them that are "without," and those "within." But when I compare things to-day with that statement, I find them perfectly at variance with it. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, there was a "within" and a “without;" if any one was put out of the assembly for moral or doctrinal evil, he was really without in the world. If any person should to-day be immoral, and should be put out of any assembly, is he "without" in the world? No; he goes away and joins himself to what he calls another Church, and says he is "within." When we look around at Christendom, we are — at least ought to be — humbled at the state of things which has been brought about. The Church, indeed, is now comparable to a great house, "in which there not only are vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour." The Apostle says to the godly to purge himself from these, and to be "a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work."

{*The human body, with its many parts yet constituting one whole, is the chosen figure to which membership is applied (1 Cor. 12). — ED.}

If we compare things now with things as they were in the time of the Apostle, we find that Satan has effected a perfect revolution. The believers then "had all things in common," "continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people."

<Hence the poet Wesley wrote: ―

"O what an age of golden days!

O what a choice peculiar race!

Washed in the Lamb's all-cleansing blood,

Anointed kings and priests to God.

With grace abundantly endued,

A pure believing multitude,

They all were of one heart and soul,

And only love inspired the whole.">

If you were then to enter a believer's house, he would have nothing to talk about but the glory of the Lord Jesus; he would never talk about being a member of Mr. So and-so's Church, or of this or that congregation. They were all members of the Church, and had all things in common. "O, what an age of golden days!" we may all well exclaim. But when we look around to-day, well we cry, O, how hath the fine gold become dim! how hath the enemy spoiled it!

But you ask me whether there were not different churches when Paul wrote? Yes, say, there might have been as many assemblies as there were cities; but not different kinds assemblies. Let this truth lay hold of each one of you; you will never know what it is to be settled before God ecclesiastically, until you lay hold of these divine facts. To give you an example. If a man went from the assembly at Jerusalem to Ephesus, he was as a matter of fact a member of the assembly at Ephesus; and if he went to Troas, he was also de facto a member of the assembly at Troas. And to put an extreme case, if all the Christians at Cenchrea started off and visited Ephesus, there would be no church at Cenchrea at all while they were absent.* They would all sit down with the brethren at Ephesus. They would not need to ask a question, such as where is Mr. So-and-so's church, but where is THE assembly? and having found it, they would be in it at once. This is plain enough. To deny this from the Scriptures will, I avow, be impossible for any. To admit reasoning I refuse — to give expediency a hearing, will be beneath the exalted dignity of any who know what it is to bow to the authority of the Lord Jesus. To continue with men-made Christ-dishonouring sects — to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers — to refuse to obey the command, "Come out from among them and be separate," will be a sin for which each believer must account to Him who will deal with every man "according to his works." Such then is the scriptural idea of the "one body." Such was it at Pentecost, it was seen and known when Paul wrote to the assembly of God at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. Intimated in the Gospels (Matt. 16, etc.), developed at Pentecost (Acts 2, 1 Cor. 12: 13), written to in the Epistles, it was manifestly — all saw it to be — one assembly. And the child of faith owns still that "there is one body." By the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, all believers everywhere formed the one body, while, in each place where they were gathered, they represented the same "one body." They were the facsimile of it.**

{<*There might have been Jewish Synagogue services, in which unconverted pagans might be found also; but God's assembly would, in such a case, be away in Ephesus.>

**We speak to-day of the British nation. There is no other nation of that name. And every one who owns the authority of the Queen forms a unit of that one nation. So every believer in the Lord Jesus forms a member of the one body.

<Again, in China we speak of the British in China. By that we mean every one who answers to the above description. Not that they are ALL the British nation; but they are the representatives of that nation. So a gathering of saints in Philippi or Ephesus would not be the Body, but the representatives thereof. Further, suppose that some of the British yield their British customs and manners to conform to Chinese customs and manners, that is no reason why all should do so. But then such would decidedly cease to be our true representatives in China: whereas the few that remained true to British customs would then be the representatives of the British. >

Likewise in these days, when many saints have proved faithless to the original and all-abiding principle of the one body, they that cleave energetically to it are the feeble expression of the Assembly. "EXPRESSION," I say, of — but they are not THE BODY — nor, thank God, THE Assembly of God in any place. They are on the ground — they are gathered on the principle of it — but are not it. We cannot be too explicit on such differences, and in having clear ideas about them.}

At what period, then, did things begin to get wrong? In the very days of Paul. What has God ever entrusted to man that man has not spoiled? The Israelites received the pure worship of God, and every privilege of God's chosen people, but they were down before the golden calf worshipping it before very long. The Church began almost immediately after Pentecost to leave her first love.

Paul, writing in 2 Tim. 1: 15, says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia, be turned away from me." And he says, "The time will come when will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears." They will not bear the truth; grievous wolves will come in and spoil the flock; there will arise perverse men, speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them. The Apostle has to write to Corinth to this effect, "For while one saith I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every one? "The evil was begun at that time. Even in our day what do we get to our shame? Instead of the manifestation of that blessed thing — the one body — I find 1300 sects covering the face of the earth! The Lord Jesus, in John 17, says to His Father that He wills His disciples to be one, so manifestly one indeed that all "the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

It is a solemn thing that in every place to-day the saints should be cut up into so many sects. It was never the mind of the Lord Jesus that they should be so.

Here the question may be raised, What are we to do in such days of confusion? The answer is plain, "I commend you to God and the word of His grace." You see that it is God's mind that there should be no sects; you see that it is an evil; and that is the answer to the faithful. Wesley asked Whitfield why a man of his power and popularity did not found a sect. What was that dear man's answer? It is an answer which I desire that the godly should give from their hearts now.

"Let sects, and names, and parties fall,

And Christ alone be Lord of all."

It will not do to-day to seek to reform things; we cannot do it. The Holy Ghost tells us they will get worse and worse. In all simplicity then, owning our weakness, let us take what God gives us. We have a blessed resource in Matthew 18: "Where two or three are gathered together in MY name, there AM I in the midst." That is a wonderful resource. It is not reformation that we are to try; nor to set up a new sect. We must not do that; we must go back to what is the oldest of everything — God's principle of gathering His saints. The ground the disciples took is the ground for believers to take in all ages. And will he not sustain His own feeble ones, who, Elijah-like, stand apart from all that is not of God, and own what is of Himself? I ask, Has not the saint all he needs in the name of the Lord Jesus? "Are gathered in MY NAME." What a name!

Alas! very few will trust that name. They are afraid of the scorn of the high and mighty; they shrink from the contumely of the religious; they fear to lose a worldly position. May such as see what the unity of the Spirit is endeavour energetically to maintain it! The Lord for your encouragement says, "Fear not, LITTLE FLOCK;" again, "You have little strength." But what are we to do, if we see that it is contrary to God's mind to go on with these sects and parties — if we see that there is one body, one Church — that the members are articulated into one body, mutually dependent on each other? Surely for the honour of the Lord Jesus, our blessed Head, we are to CEASE to do evil, and then learn to do well. I trust, beloved brethren, I have said enough to lead you to go and search the word of God respecting these things. If you are willing to be taught, the Holy Ghost is willing and able to guide you into all truth, for the glory of the name of our once rejected, now risen, Lord.

PERSONS GATHERED ON THE GROUND OF GOD'S ASSEMBLY

1. Consist of believers only (1 Cor. 1: 2);*

2. Permit the free action of the Holy Ghost when gathered as an assembly (1 Cor. 14). This would certainly be impossible if an individual or any number of individuals presided there;

3. Are gathered on the Lord's day to break bread, showing "the Lord's death till He come;" remembering Him and manifesting the ONENESS of the body in the one unbroken loaf (1 Cor. 11: 23-26, 10: 16, 17; Acts 20: 7; John 20: 19; Luke 24);

4. Are guided by the word of God only;

5. Are gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, as they would be to His person if He were in the world (Matt. 18: 20);

6. They exclude most carefully moral evil (as 1 Cor. 5), and doctrinal evils (as 1 Cor. 12: 3; 1 John 4; 2 John). They own God's "within and without," but they never imagine themselves to be THE body to the exclusion of other believers;

7. Mourn over the present ruinous condition of the Church's testimony, with large-heartedness towards all Christians, but stand apart from what the word condemns.

8. Own God's ministry (in evangelists, pastors, and teachers) raised up by GOD, and approving themselves as such (Eph. 4; Acts 20: 28).

{*To refer to the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13), as some do, as an excuse for receiving unbelievers, is to set aside altogether the teachings in the Epistles, which are addressed to believers only. Moreover, the Lord, explaining the parable, said distinctly that the field was the world — not the Church. Now, neither the "world," nor the kingdom of heaven, through which believers are passing, is the Church in which they are set.}

As a synopsis of what is gone before, I have added the foregoing table, which contains the gist of some of the leading points in the "Inquiry." Placing things in this clear light, I trust I shall give offence to none of the Lord's dear saints, while I earnestly hope it will help every godly one to detect his true ecclesiastical position in the light of the Scriptures.

<ADDENDA.

The language of faith, to-day, despite the evidence of sense, is, "There is ONE body." (Eph. 4: 4.)

The path of obedience to-day, despite the cost, is to "endeavour to keep the unity of the SPIRIT in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4: 3.)

The disciple who is guided by the word of God only can neither recognise a sect to be scriptural, nor can he be identified with it; he will neither entertain false doctrine respecting the person and the work of Christ, nor will he associate with those that do so, or that refuse to express judgment on it.

Elijah set up twelve stones for the twelve tribes of Israel, although at the time he stood apart from the false worship of the day. (1 Kings 18)

So the godly saint to-day grasps, in his large-heartedness, all God's saints whereever they are found; although in faithfulness to God he cannot walk with them in a Christ-dishonouring path; he loves every believer; is servant to all for Jesus' sake; prays for all saints, and is gathered on such divine ground as could contain all Christians if they departed from iniquity.

To be identified with such as purge themselves from the "vessels of dishonour," and "that call on the Lord out of a pure heart," is the exhortation of the HOLY GHOST (2 Tim. 2: 20, 22), and is therefore not sectarian.

The disciples, when the Lord was on the earth, owned no name but His. In Pauline days the disciples were gathered in the name of the Lord Jesus to break bread on the first day of the week. In glory no name will be known but that of Christ. Then why may not all the godly to-day, in simple dependence on the Lord himself, and owning the presence of the Holy Ghost, have fellowship with one another in God's thought about the one assembly, the one body? C. J. D.>

3. The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

A Scriptural Inquiry respecting the Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table.

A lecture addressed specially to young believers.

Read 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17; 1 Cor. 11: 23-34.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one loaf [it is translated bread, it should be loaf, 'one loaf'] and one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf."

Chap. 11: 23-34: "For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks he brake it and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation [it should not be 'damnation' but judgment — 'eateth and drinketh judgment'] to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

There is nothing in the whole range of scripture, there is nothing that has been revealed in the word of God, which is fraught with deeper or more important lessons — lessons which the Holy Ghost would have every child of God to learn, every believer to enter into, as the truth about the LORD'S Supper.

I said on a previous occasion, that there was no truth which Christians ought to seek more to understand, than the truth about the one body. But with that truth the Lord's Supper is intimately associated — so closely, indeed, that the Holy Ghost uses the bread, or rather the "one loaf" broken at the supper for the purpose of illustrating the oneness of the body. "For we being many are one loaf." When I understand that I am a member of that one body — a member of the church of which Christ is the head — then my affections must necessarily go out to Him, with whom I am linked. More than that, my love in Him must go out also to His (my fellow) members, with whom I am connected in Christ: so that my knowledge about the truth of the one body, of which I am a member, brings me into direct association with Christ the Head, and with every member.

And the Supper is the occasion when the family, all the members, get together (at least ought to be together, and would be together if they were subject to the Lord) and express their corporate communion with the Lord, and consequently with each other. Can you conceive, beloved, of richer love than this? Could any one desire a more effective plan for sustaining the due relationships between the exalted Head and the members? Such is wisdom, and such is love suited to HIM only. Alas! that so few of us enter into it at all. Like many other truths, that about the Lord's Supper as instituted by the Lord Himself, and observed in Pauline days, has been warped and distorted in no small degree. So much so, indeed, that it is now no easy matter for the godly saint to find that which corresponds to the scriptural idea of the Lord's Table and the Lord's Supper. Popery, that most perfect counterfeit of God's assembly ever issued by Satan, regards the Eucharist as a bloodless sacrifice for the sins of the living and of the dead. The Establishment again, lowering it to a "sacrament," and admits parishioners, not necessarily believers, as partakers. Dissent, not much better, makes its own human regulations for the "sacrament," and celebrates it according to human expediency. More than this; in nearly all the Churches, almost every kind of service has a higher rank afforded it than this blessed institution. Indeed, the general idea of most is, that the Lord's day is, pre-eminently, the day for sermonizing. A most suitable time it is, indeed, for going forth in service to the unconverted; or for seeking the edification of the saints; inasmuch, as, thank God, it is a day with us of rest. But in Pauline days the Christians' primary object on the Lord's day was to break bread. The Lord's Supper, with them, stood in the foreground of their movements on the Lord's day. A departure, then, from this is merely human, and to go on with it is surely beneath a godly saint, who sees what the mind of the Lord is. In the midst of such confusion, then, what are we to do? Some may reply, "Of all the evils choose the least." To this I rejoin, Through the Lord's mercy, I will choose neither. What! Choose the least evil? Certainly not. If it be evil, may grace be afforded, at all cost, to turn away from it. Another says, "Let us stir here and look there, or go anywhere;" while the advice of a third is, "Give it up altogether." Now, beloved in the Lord, some of such counsel might certainly suit, if our blessed Lord had vacated His seat on high, withdrawn the Holy Ghost from us, and left us, without His word, to seek our own ways of escaping out of the labyrinth of evils surrounding us. But, ever blessed be His name! His care for His saints to-day is as unchangeably the same as it was when He was upon the earth. His love towards us, and consideration for us, are now precisely what they were in the earliest days of the Church's history. The Holy Ghost, given to "abide with us for ever, to lead us into truth," is present still to direct the simple-hearted. The word, the truth, preserved in all its preciousness, under the special guardianship of the Holy Ghost, is in our hands to-day as ever. Is this enough for you, beloved? Need you resort to tradition, synods, conferences, creeds, or articles, in the face of incomparably richer mines? Will any of us grieve our dear Lord by questioning His sufficiency? Has it indeed come to pass that faith in the all-prevailing and the omnipotent name of the Lord Jesus is lost by the saints? What have we come to? Shall we remain then in such condition? Shall we not betake ourselves, in deep humility, but in all child-like dependence, to Him? May we not look to His word, in the consciousness that light from Himself will shine in upon it? Surely we can. In such condition of soul, then, let us pursue our inquiry into what is the Lord's Supper.

It may be helpful to arrange our thoughts under the following divisions: —

1. Whom does the Lord invite as worthy partakers of the Supper?

2. Whom does He exclude?

3. What was the Lord's intention respecting the Supper?

4. How often, and till what event, did He desire it to be celebrated?

1. WHOM DOES THE LORD INVITE AS WORTHY PARTAKERS?

The communicants are spoken in the 20th of Acts as being disciples of the Lord Jesus: — "On the first day of the week when the disciples were come together to break bread." Again, in Acts 2, when many souls were converted by the preaching of Peter, you will find that they, the converts, they who were believers, "continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in prayers." It very important to notice the four things in which these young believers continued. They continued stedfastly — first, in the Apostles' doctrine; that is the very foundation — nothing more nor less than the truth to stand upon. I know nothing more interesting than to observe God's order, even in the arrangement of details. It is not said that they continued stedfastly in prayer, breaking of bread, fellowship, and the Apostles' doctrine. No; saints must first know the teaching of the Word of God — "the doctrine." Other steps follow upon this.*

<*It cannot be too distinctly laid down that the specific teaching for post-Pentecostal saints ― i.e., for the Church of God ― is such as was specially given to the apostles and prophets; and, we may add, to Paul in particular. I do not mean to insinuate that we should neglect the Old Testament teaching. Far be the thought! I am sure we too much neglect it. Indeed, do we not allow business, and the greed to "get on in the world," so to absorb all, or most of our time, as to leave very little, or none, for quiet private, prayerful meditations? What spiritual mind can fail to derive a feast each time the Levitical types are considered? Who does not know how the sacred biographies of the Enochs, Noahs, Abrahams, Elijahs, Daniels, influence our lives to-day? I rather urge the reading of the Old Testament upon my younger brethren.

But the teaching as to the Church's calling, relationship, and destiny, is such as was given to the apostles and prophets, and Paul in particular. Those who question that the "prophets" spoken of in Eph. 2: 20, are New Testament prophets, such as Barnabas, Simeon, and Manaen (Acts 13), need only consult Eph. 3: 5, to have their question settled. "The mystery  ― which in other ages was NOT made known to the sons of men, as it is NOW revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." See also 1 Cor. 14: 28, "God hath set some in the Church: first, apostles; secondly, PROPHETS; thirdly, teachers," etc. Now no one pretends that apostles are any other than New Testament apostles. The prophets here alluded to are also New Testament prophets; and they come second in God's order of precedence, as we say.>

Second, and fellowship — "They all were of one heart soul." Why should it not be so now? The hindrance, I need hardly say, is not in God; it is in ourselves. Depend upon it that those early saints entered practically into the "doctrine" the oneness of the body, into which they were that day baptized by the Holy Ghost. Thus they "endeavoured with lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, etc., to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." I am convinced that an energetic adherence to "the doctrine" to-day — such as God the Holy Ghost gives (I do not say man's doctrines, but a cleaving to the word of God, respecting the mind of Christ, about the one body and the one Spirit), would induce most happy "fellowship" one with another: because all would in that way have "fellowship" with the exalted HEAD.

Thirdly, in breaking of bread; and fourthly, in prayers.

We see, then, from this scripture that those who broke bread who were, in Pentecostal times, partakers of the Lord's Supper, were those who, through the preaching of the word applied to their hearts and consciences by the Holy Ghost, were brought to know Christ as their Saviour and Lord.

Constituted worthy by Him whose grace invited them, they "kept the feast" — they were obedient to their Lord. They broke bread in remembrance of One they knew and loved.

And if we look back to the original institution (Matt. 26), whom do we find gathered to that supper? The disciples — those who were attached to their Lord. They were those whom He had gathered to Himself apart from Judaism and outside of Paganism. At the time Christ came into the world there were two classes of individuals — Pagans or Gentiles, and Jews. From among the Jews the Lord Jesus had been pleased to gather round Himself a handful whom He called His disciples. As to nature they were "children of wrath even as others;" but they were brought out of the position in which they stood naturally and religiously, and brought into connection with the Lord Jesus; and such were they whom He brought around Himself on that memorable night, and requested to eat bread and drink wine, then in His presence, and after He had left this world, in remembrance of Him.

Without referring to any other scriptures, I think you and I must see, that the communicants are saved souls; and only such can enter into God's thoughts about the value of Christ. We cannot be engaged with hearing and learning who He is, nor what the value of His work, till we have the knowledge in our souls — till faith is exercised His own word — as to our own security. Hence the disciples (assembled with closed doors for fear of the Jews, John 20) were allowed by the Lord to look at "His hands and His side." Very touching this! As if He had said, "See the everlasting marks, the unquestionable tokens of my love to you!" But when were they asked to remember the cross? After — mark this — after He had pronounced, "Peace be unto you." He had already done that, by which He could eternally link believers with Himself and with His God and Father.

If God, who had Himself dealt with sin, in all its phases, through the innocent One,* who was made sin, that we, the guilty, might become the righteousness of God in Him — I say if such was His God, so was He ours. "My God and your God." His Father now became our Father. "Go and tell my brethren, that I ascend to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God." Can one of you, beloved friends, listen to such gracious words from the lips of the risen Man, and not have the peace which, dying and rising, He secured? The fact is, that God, so to say, binds Himself now to glorify the Man, who was the only One that ever brought perpetual glory to Him, in the very scene in which man perpetually dishonoured Him.

{* "Holy One" would be a fuller statement of the truth. — ED.}

Hence, blessings "in Christ," "through Christ," and "with Christ," are such as God can now impart, "according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1), in a manner suited to what is due to Christ. Nothing is now too much to be done to Him, whom God delights to honour. God, before the cross, could bless a nation, "according to the promises made to Abraham." The same rebellious nation was saved from imminent judgment for Moses' sake. But now, God hath blessed us with all spiritual (not earthly) blessings; in the heavenlies (not in Canaan); in Christ (not in Abraham).

And will any say that the Lord Jesus is not far more worthy than an Abraham or a Moses? The question is not, Are we more worthy than Abraham? If that were so, I for one should answer, Certainly not. What a path of faith was his! what a path of failure ours! But CHRIST is now before God's eye, and we are blessed in Him, and by Him, and with Him.

Now, when the soul learns to look out of wretched, doubting self, and to look off unto Jesus, and to accept what God gives through Him, such a soul has peace; and such a person is a fit partaker of the Supper of the Lord. His blood, not our merits, gives the fitness.

In this day, when Christendom has done its worst to cover up this most blessed institution with all sorts of mysteries and superstition, it is well to see what is taught about it.

First of all, if the Supper were for the putting away of sins, how can it be called a "bloodless sacrifice," as the Church of Rome says it is? If it were a bloodless sacrifice, it would be a sacrifice worth nothing; for the Scriptures tell us that "without shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins." To put away sin, blood must be shed. Therefore this bloodless sacrifice of Popery cannot be a sacrifice for sin. Some who speak strongly against the Church of Rome — and we cannot speak too strongly against it, however much we love the saints in it — but some who speak strongly against it, are not much more enlightened about the Lord's Supper. In the Establishment it is called a "sacrament," and so also in many dissenting associations. Need I tell you that "sacrament" is immediately derived from a Latin word, which means a soldier's oath, and that the idea does not occur once in Scripture? Now, I maintain that the Lord Jesus never called upon His disciples to take any oath whatever. The Lord's Supper, of which I am speaking, is not a sacrament; indeed, the Lord never intended it to be. There are some outside the Church of Rome who have come out from her, who teach concerning this institution that it is "a means of grace" — that we go to the Lord's Supper in order to get blessing. Now, I do not say that it is not a place where God is pleased to bless His saints. On the contrary, there is nothing a saint may do, in faith and obedience, in which he does not get blessing. But this is not a prominent thought at all in the mind of the Lord Jesus in connection with this institution. Those who go to the Supper are really, distinctly, and absolutely, saved souls. In other words, those who have been blessed, and those who go to break bread and SHOW the Lord's death, are those that know the value of His death; those that go to remember the Lord are those that know Him. We are never asked to remember a person we never knew; yet at the institution of the Supper, the Lord Jesus said, "This do in remembrance of ME." If, then, it was for a remembrance, those who are to remember Him, surely must be those that have KNOWN Him. The idea, then, of going to the Lord's Table with the view of being blessed, in getting sins forgiven, or indeed to have anything to do with sin, is against the Scriptural idea of the family feast — the Lord's Supper. This cannot be laid down too strongly. The Lord's Supper is a supper for believers; the communicants are those who are absolutely saved souls; who have come to God through Jesus, and have accepted the gift of God, eternal life in Christ; those whose sins have been put away by the sacrifice of Christ, and who are indwelt by the Holy Ghost; those who can sing —

"Jesus has died, and I am clean;

Not a cloud above, not a spot within."

Those who know without any doubt that "my beloved is mine and I am His" — those who can say with the Apostle John in Revelation, "Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father be glory" — those who are in that position and condition are such as should take the Supper. They are those of whom God says, "I have cast thy sins behind my back;" and again, "I, even I, am He, that blotteth out thy transgressions, for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins." In other words, the communicants are members of the "one body." A believer might refuse to take his place as a member of that body, and go on in his own self-will; but he is a member for all that; and he is constituted a communicant, a worthy partaker in the Lord's mind; and should, as such, claim his place at the Lord's Table.

2. — UNBELIEVERS CANNOT BE COMMUNICANTS.

If the foregoing be the case, then, it must appear very clear to you that unbelievers cannot be communicants; and if not, then, that which admits them cannot be the Lord's Table: though some believers may join with them, they do not eat the Lord's Supper.

Don't you know of many who venture to approach outwardly into the place of worshippers, who never passed the altar of burnt-offering? Will it be denied that some are allowed to be in company of those whose privilege it is to eat the "fatted calf," who never received the pardoning kiss? Is it not known that these things are allowed? A few days ago, when remonstrating with a minister of the gospel about allowing unbelievers to go and take the "sacrament," his reply was, "How are we to know them?" My heart sank at such an answer as that; I was grieved to hear such a reply. I turned rather sharply, I fear, upon that dear man, and asked him, "When the Apostle wrote, 'Greet one another with an holy kiss,' who were to be greeted? Was the holy kiss to be given to any one?" "Certainly not," he replied; "it was to be given to the believers." Well, if so, must they not have been known? The Apostle John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." Must they not have known the brethren in order to love them? At the time we read of, in Acts 2, when the disciples went from house to house* breaking bread, and praising the Lord with one heart and one mind, did they not know one another? Surely they did! Such an answer as that, given by the Christian brother to whom I have alluded, shows what a perfect revolution has been brought about by Christendom, in its thoughts about this blessed institution of the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is not for unbelievers; it is for those who are the Lord's.**

{*Literally it is "breaking bread at home." Our version would imply that the Lord's Supper was shifted about from house to house. It is not so. It had then as now a settled character attached to it. — ED.

**Some have tried to prove that Judas ate the Lord's Supper with the other disciples, and hence other Judases should be tolerated.

I shall try to prove that Judas was not at the Supper.

Remember then that on the night the Supper was instituted the Paschal Lamb of the Passover was also eaten.

Look (1) at Mark 14. (In Mark, as in Matthew, we find more attention to the order of events.) Here, from verse 17 to 21, the Paschal meal is eaten; then the Lord's Supper in verse 22. Note here, that the conversation as to who should betray Him preceded the Eucharist.

(2) In Matthew 26: 17-25, we see again the Paschal feast; and then (verse 26) the Supper.

Notice here, also, that the question of the betrayer preceded the holy Eucharist, and neither here nor in Mark is it positively said that Judas was present.

(3) John 13 settles the question. Judas, who had eaten the Passover bread (ver. 18), and dipped in the dish (ver. 26), "Went out immediately." Although John does not add to the account of the Passover that of the Lord's Supper, yet he does tell us that the conversation was at the Passover, and that Judas went out immediately.

I conclude, therefore, from these Scriptures taken together, that Judas went out immediately after the Paschal feast, and before the Eucharist was partaken; that is, Judas did not eat the Lord's Supper at all.

Lest Luke 22 should present any difficulty, I may just add that Luke never adheres to chronological order in his gospel. He deals generally with moral events, arranging them with that idea rather than in regard to the order of their sequence; e.g. most accept the order of the temptations given by Matthew; but it must have occurred to all that although Luke mentions them, he does so in a different order. Again, as another remarks, Luke gives the Sermon on the Mount, but not in a connected manner (chaps. 6 and 9). Now in chap. 22 he gives the account of the Passover and of the Supper; but the order, as is his wont, is different. "The table" of verse 21 refers to that of the Passover.

I conclude, therefore, that Judas did not partake of the Lord's Supper; because —

(1) Neither of the Evangelists says that he did

(2) The conversation in which he joined, took part, was at the Paschal feast — before the Lord's Supper.

(3) John positively avers that after the sop (and therefore before the Supper) he "went out immediately."

[I would add that, in my judgment, it is not a point of real importance whether Judas ate the Lord's Supper or not. Did the disciples know the traitor? They did not (Matt. 26: 22). But the Lord knew. We act, however, upon our knowledge of persons and things, not upon the Lord's omniscient knowledge. Is it not so? — ED.]}

<It must be admitted that members of one family, who met perhaps for the first time at a family-gathering, should be free till next Supper to speak together of the things pertaining to the head of the house, at any time and in any place. Indeed, the head of the house is common property; and would his affection be right who had no response for the name of the head? Would it not be time to wonder whether he was not an intruder, when there never appeared any reciprocity of affection for the head of the house?>

Now for a greater reason (because the Holy Ghost is given to each member of the body, to kindle the intensest love to the Lord, and to each other), I should not be backward in speaking of the things of Christ to those I met at the Lord's Supper. But is it true that all who profess to eat it know the Lord? Alas, for the answer! Just follow some, and speak to them, on the next day about the Lord Jesus; and they will tell you, "This is not the place, this is not the time for such conversation; the church is the place, and Sunday is the time to speak about such things." In other words, they have no heart at all for the Person whom they said they went to remember on the day before. I should like to be shown one passage from the New Testament, which teaches or implies that any other than believers broke bread worthily or ate the Lord's Supper. We know, as a historical fact, that the persecution, which followed believers in early days, who identified themselves with a rejected Lord — persecution frequently unto death — deterred any but His own from "breaking bread in remembrance of Him."

The table of the Lord, then, is not for unbelievers; it is for believers only; the communicants are the members of "the body," baptized into such by the Holy Ghost. Those that go to remember Lord are such as know Him; and those who go to show His death are those that know the value of His death.

3. — THE OBJECT WHICH COMMUNICANTS HAVE IN COMING TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD.

This object is fourfold — (1) the showing or commemorating the Lord's death; (2) the remembrance of the Lord Himself; (3) worship; and (4) owning the oneness of the body.

1. Showing the Lord's death. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 11 says, — "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." I do not think that word DEATH is dwelt on enough. I would have put it in the largest letters I could find. Believers gathered to break bread are to show, to announce, to memorialize the Lord's death! And why His death? If you look back to the original institution of the Supper in the 26th of Matthew — for such a thing did not exist before the Lord instituted it there — you will find that it was instituted on a very solemn occasion. On what occasion? The apostle in 1 Cor. says it was "the same night." There is not an accidental word in Scripture, brethren; every word is essential; but why is it, that the Holy Ghost takes pains to say that it was the same night?" A thousand precious recollections hang round that night; precious to us now, although the occurrences were deeply sorrowful, and deeply harrowing, at the time, to Him who instituted the Supper. It was the night "in which He was betrayed;" when He was come to give up His soul unto death: when He was about to accomplish that of which He had before said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" He was about to do that which filled His soul from all eternity. On the night in question, the hour was come. Yes, that solemn hour — an hour to which the eternity that is past, if I may so speak, looked forward; and to which the one that is future will look back with the deepest interest. It was the hour when God was about to deal with sin, in the person of the sinless Substitute; when God was to be glorified, through Christ in man, who, in Adam and his posterity, had so thoroughly dishonoured God. Man, I say, in Adam and all his descendants had insulted God, and acted shamelessly in this earth. Man, in the person of the Son of Man, God manifest in flesh — blessed for ever! the Son of Man, I say, on that memorable night, had before His soul the immense barrier of separation between man and God, which He only could remove. Again, Satan was to be bruised; and, further, it was the hour when the Lord Jesus should die to purchase His bride. Christ dearly loved His Church, and gave Himself for it; but the hour in which He did so, was an hour, of all others, deeply sorrowful to Him, yet full of joy withal. He knew what was before Him — the deep sorrow and the full cup of joy; for He knew that He was doing the will of His Father. He looked forward to the time when He should have, through all eternity, a Church purchased by His blood. He knew, moreover, that the very nation at whose hands He was suffering, should need His sympathy in the hour of their calamity (Isa. 63). Further, as everything entrusted to man was spoiled in the using, so He knew that, for all things to be reconciled to God, it must be "by the blood of His cross" (Col. 1: 20). With all this before him, and ten thousand times more than our poor hearts can understand, the Lord Jesus, on the "same night," instituted this Supper.

He also saw His own dear disciples who would forsake Him and flee; and, indeed, with reference to one, He had distinctly warned him, "Simon (Peter), behold Satan hath desired to have you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not." (The Lord says He has prayed, not that Peter might not deny Him, but that He might not be given up to despair after be had denied Him.)

But further, the Lord Jesus looked forward, and knew what wrath awaited Him. Beloved, this is a solemn part of the subject. In the Garden of Gethsemane, under the very shadow of the cross, if I may so speak, the Lord Jesus, on that night, knew all that awaited Him; for although perfect man, He was also perfect God — wonderful mystery! There, in the shadow of the cross, He says, — "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." And, indeed, so great was His agony, that His sweat became as great drops of blood falling to the ground. You or I may put on a distressed expression of face, and appear to be in sorrow, although it be unreal; but when we read of the Lord Jesus being in an agony, we read what is true. He said what He meant; He meant what He said! He, indeed, was in an agony. "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!" What cup was that? The cup of the wrath of God — the cup which you and I filled to the very brim — which He, the innocent One, was to take for us the guilty ones, and drain to the dregs. He was perfectly innocent* — He was without sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. (I cannot lay too much stress upon these things, because there are persons, who take their filthy hands, and attempt to tarnish the Person of the spotless Lamb of God.) He it was who took the cup of the wrath of God, and drank it to the dregs. He knew all that He was to do and suffer. He knew that God was to hide His face from Him. He knew that before God could ever look with complacency upon His children, He must hide His face from Christ; that in order that we might be blessed, He must take the curse due unto us; that in order that we might be made righteous in Him, He must take the place of the sinner. In view of all this then the Lord Jesus called the disciples aside, and instituted the Supper.

{* Blessedly true; but He was more, as to His humanity, that "holy thing" (Luke 1: 35). — ED.}

It was instituted on the night of the Jews' Passover. In the 12th of Exodus it is called Jehovah's passover. In John 2 it is called the passover of the Jews, and in Matthew 26, the passover, the feast of the Jews. Why this difference? The difference is very great. That which Jehovah had instituted to be a very holy and solemn thing, had dwindled down to that which the Jews took into their own hands, lowered, tarnished, and spoiled. That which was to commemorate the deliverance out of Egypt, the Jews made into a feast of their own; they lost sight of its original design; God was shut out from it. So the Lord's Supper, the Lord's Table, has been lowered, in many instances, into man's supper and man's table. I cannot speak too plainly upon this subject. I do not say at all, that everything I see to-day around me is man's table; for who am I to judge? But I am grieved to say, that in many cases, what the Holy Ghost says (in 1 Cor. 10: 21, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the tables of devils") may be truly applied; substituting "tables of man" for tables of devils. Anything I spread, not on the ground of the one body, and which does not answer to the Lord's own institution, is not the Lord's Supper. If anything be the Lord's Supper, it must be that which answers to His own institution. I must embrace all believers, contemplate them all; take them all in; and we should be in fellowship with it; it must be that which shuts out all unbelievers. It must be that which contemplates all believers, and excludes every unbeliever, as having no part nor lot in the matter.

Now, beloved friends, it was His death He contemplated upon that night. The Jews, at Jehovah's Passover, were to remember the blood sprinkled upon the door-posts in Egypt, to save them from the destroying angel, when the Israelites were being delivered from Pharaoh. And what are we to show in the Lord's Supper? The death of the Lord by which we obtained eternal peace. Now, you and I ought to be deeply ashamed and grieved that that which is the remembrancer of the Lord's death has dwindled down to a mere "sacrament," or something else.

With whom are we linked up? We are linked up with a rejected Christ. It is not said that we are to show the Lord's resurrection. Surely we know He is risen from the dead, and is set down at God's right hand, to receive the reward of the work He has done. Every believer's life is safe, being as the apostle says, "Hid with Christ in God." Moreover, none can rightly remember Him in His death, who know not, in some degree, the power of His resurrection.

The death of the Lord Jesus is that which cuts us off from this world, and from all which is not of Himself. Hence we are called upon to remember it in connection with One who has been rejected — One whom the world will not own at all; and whose Lordship many, alas! of His own blood-bought ones refuse practically to admit. When we rightly understand, beloved, what it is to show His death, can our wills be allowed to dictate? We break the bread, and what does it whisper into the spiritual ear? The Lord's body once broken. For what? Ay, who can give a full answer? Was it not to gather together in one the children of God scattered abroad? Then at the Supper divisions cease; no sects are known; no rivals claim. Was not His death that by which all my sins were for ever washed away? Then my sins must have no place at His Table. Could greater proof of His love be afforded than in His death? Then what so calculated to draw out mine, as to be dwelling upon His in His death? But think of the manner of the love which could institute such a precious Supper, at such a time of sorrow to Himself! Yet again: the Apostle Paul, or rather the Holy Ghost, bids us while at the table not only to look back at the death of the Lord, but also to look forward to His coming — "Show ye the Lord's death till He come." Hence, at the table, we eat as those who may be in glory with Himself before next Lord's-day. How weaning, then, is the feast calculated to be when partaken intelligently!

We must not forget, however, that abundant blessings flow forth to them who, though they have very little intelligence as to these things, nevertheless eat bread and drink wine together in obedience to the word of our departed Lord — "This do remembrance of me."

I do not speak here of privilege, but of obedience. "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Is it because He is at present not seen by our eyes, that, therefore, there should be no loyalty of heart? It is amazing how little of true regard is paid by us to the word of our Lord. Truly may He ask us, Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say? Thousands of believers, with not a few excuses, but with no good reason whatever, absent themselves from the table of the Lord. The veriest trifle, which would have no influence in keeping them away from business, or even from pleasure so-called, is made excuse enough for their remaining "at home." The loving heart hails the first day of the week, and cheerfully the obedient feet move towards the assembly of saints, who are gathered unto the name of Him who says, "This do in remembrance of Me."

<Supposing that our Queen should be dethroned, which we all would be very sorry to see; and supposing the night before the usurper came to the throne, the Queen called together all her loyal subjects and said ―  "You know very well that the House of Hanover is the rightful house to reign over this kingdom; but you see these rebels are casting me off, these disloyal subjects have lifted up their heels against me. Will you, who are loyal, wear a black scarf once a year on a certain day, and let that be a token to everybody of your faithful attachment to the House of Hanover?" "Your Majesty, we will," would burst from every loyal lip. Now would such be afraid to put on that scarf as loyal subjects? Surely you know they would not; they would glory in it at all costs.>

In appearing at the table of the Lord once a week, the disciples of the Lord manifest, in His own appointed way and time, their loyalty to One whom the world cast out. In this, of which the religiousness of the world has been always ashamed, the followers of Jesus, as the despised Nazarite, glory. They remember Him, not in His resurrection, not in His glory, but in His death.* Hence, moreover, the supper of the Lord stands forth as a silent condemnation to all who are not found owning Him; and, of course, to such as are ashamed to be identified with those who show His death till He come.

{*The remembrance of Christ is not confined to His death. We are free as led of the Holy Ghost to remember the Blessed One at the Lord's table in all that He was and did in and preceding His death. "In or for a remembrance of Me," and "Ye do shew the Lord's death," are distinct, although vitally connected, truths. — ED.}

<Take another example. A man on his deathbed calls his wife, and says, "Now, my dear, there are some people in the habit of marrying again when their husbands die. Now, I do not wish to bind you to anything; but your attachment has been so great to me, and your love so unselfish, that it would gratify me very much to think that you would remain my widow for the rest of your life." The loving wife would surely respond to the wish. And when she goes out, after his departure, in the attire of a widow, she announces her attachment to the name of her departed husband. Now, brethren, that is just what the Lord Jesus, in His matchless love, wishes of us. He delights to see us put on the black scarf once a week ― to show the widow's weeds on the first day of the week during His absence. Is it too much? He does not ask it of those who cannot do it, but of those who are "His own;" not of those who would need to be forced to do it, but of those whom love to Him should prompt to do it; and such, too, He helps, by the Holy Ghost, to do it effectually.>

Now the Lord in His death cut Himself off from all that was of the old creation, and from all that was Jewish as to worship. Indeed, looking at His death as that in which man was the agent, we may say that natural men and religious men ("Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel") formed a confederacy for killing the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead. What depth of grace, beloved, do we behold in Him who has been pleased to call us out of the ranks of His enemies, to show His death! Of course nature and religiousness are opposed to Him still; consequently faithfulness in Him to-day will incur the hatred of His enemies. But what of that, my dear brethren? Would it not be our highest privilege even to die for such One? Surely it would. This, however, He does not ask. O may His grace be afforded us, that we may not be ashamed to confess Him fully; that we may not shrink from taking up our cross and following Him.

In announcing His death, therefore, we are reminded that we too have died out of our "old Adam" condition; that we are in no way linked up with a religiousness that is of man; but that we are one with the Lord, who is risen out of it all.

2. There is another thing that we do in the breaking of bread — we do it in remembrance of the Lord Himself. We not only show His death, but we remember HIMSELF. Could you have affection more strong and touching than His? A person says to a friend, "I will give you a ring to put on, and when you look at it, think of me." Many friends may be very dear to us, and we would almost worship them, so long as we could see them; but when they go away from us, we forget them. Now, the blessed Lord well knew the thousand things that might so attract our hearts as to cause us, in a measure, to forget Him. Hence He designed to institute this feast, as a remembrancer of Himself.

Looked at from this point of view, we see no superstitious mysteries attaching to the Lord's Supper; we see no need for any oath-taking (sacrament) process; we behold no barrier in the way of < of the simple-hearted disciple. The bread and the wine, unchanged in their character, are such as the Holy Ghost uses to be remembrancers of a Person to whom, and to whom exclusively, we are sincerely attached.

In coming together, then, to break bread, we not only express the oneness of the body, show the Lord's death, and together await His return, but we specially remember Him. Self with its failures, self with its blessings, and self with its service, is lost sight of; PERSONS, however much loved and honoured in their ministry, are ignored; circumstances the most pleasing, or cares the most depressing, are allowed no place; while the LORD  HIMSELF ― Lord as the One that died ― commands the heart and the mind of the saint. "This do in remembrance of ME." This makes the Supper beautifully simple, but unspeakably precious.

3. WORSHIP* is not an unimportant constituent of the meeting to break bread. Believers may be assembled for worship without breaking bread, but I think we shall find that the spirit of worship is the proper one at the Supper of the Lord.

{*Worship is the act of a believer approaching God as a "priest unto God," presenting Him whom God can accept. It is not stupid or ignorant wonder; but intelligent homage of one who is brought to God in Jesus Christ.

Such adoration may prompt praise, expressed in song or otherwise; praise to God Himself, or to the Lord Jesus, "The Lamb slain," and worthy to receive honour etc. And such praise should be, in the assembly of saints, such as all can have fellowship in. Worship may also incite to prayer ― as, for example, for deeper acquaintance with the person of Christ; grace to walk, when out from the meeting, worthy of Him. And such prayer, in the assembly, should embrace all saints, although only a handful ― "two or three" ― are present to say "amen."

Here Christendom fails. Here all of us should accept our share of the common shame. Worship is that which goes to God from man; just as in the ministry there is an outflow to man from God.

God condescending to receive in the one; God graciously giving the other. Ministry is called worship by people generally. But what does God receive from man? That which He himself gives ― the gift of God ― viz., Jesus Christ.

Do you remember one of the curses in Jude? It is for going "in the way of Cain." What did he? He offered the fruits of the ground to God. Now, God had no respect to it. Why? Because the ground had been cursed. Then suppose offer to God anything of this earth ― stones, bricks, wood, etc., nicely arranged in the latest style of architecture, is that Christ? No. Then the word is, "Woe unto you!" How solemn! May the Lord let it reach to the consciences of all of us!

Of course we see now why Abel's offering was accepted, because he offered the lamb to God. Christ was offered to God. He is the very essence of worship ― "the sweet incense."

But was God's refusal of Cain a reason why he should hate, and afterwards slay, Abel? No; It should have led him to repentance and to fellowship with Abel. "Marvel not, my brethren ― you who desire to present Christ only to God ― marvel not if the world hate you."

Come what may, let us accept GOD'S plan for worship. I do not say it is best. Oh, no; it is the right one. Everything beside is false.}

Christians might come together for prayer; and it were profitable if we did so oftener; and did so in the spirit of the assembly of God (that is, grasping all the saints everywhere, and by whatever name they may call themselves). Such a meeting the Holy Ghost may lead to praise and adoration ― to worship; but such is not ostensibly a meeting for worship. Again, the children of God may, as often as convenient to themselves, get together in each other's houses, or anywhere, for reading the word together (would that such meetings were more frequent; the Lord uses them for our mutual edification, and for fellowship with one another, and for comforting many a troubled and tossed-about saint in these last days). At such readings much may be said that evokes silent praise to God from many; but such is not a meeting gathered for worship.

Further, a teaching brother invites his brethren (I mean all Christians by this term) to meet him, as he deems that he has a word of edification for them. He "conducts the meeting;" in other words, before the Lord he stands responsible for that meeting. So much so, that he goes ready with the word for the time, and begins at the hour he fixed. This is not a worship meeting.

Yet, again. Numbers of believers ― knowing that in their midst (perhaps for a little while only) are many of God's ministers, with varieties of gift, and trusting to the subjection of all to the Lord, and to each other, in Him ― may gather as an assembly, in what one may term an open assembly meeting. No one amongst them has anything very definite; nothing as to the course of the meeting is fixed beforehand; all know something of the way in which the Holy Ghost directs subject hearts, and ministers, through whom He pleases, for the blessing of all; nay, more, for the glory of the name of Jesus. In such a spirit, then, of prayer, faith, and dependence they assemble. I believe that were all >

those present fully engaged in soul, mind, and conscience, with the Person of Christ, <and if so,> there would be abundance of worship;

<that where there was a deep sense of personal failures, or of the outward failure of the Church's testimony, there would be confession and prayer. However, the Holy Ghost may be pleased on such occasion to use the gifts present, for edification, exhortation, etc. Then such would not be worship. I need hardly add, that a meeting for preaching the Gospel, and conducted by an evangelist, is not a meeting for worship.>

I know that the word is applied to meetings such as preaching the gospel, etc.; and I know that the great majority of Christians do so; but, beloved brethren, it is a false humility that accepts ideas, because large numbers of our forefathers taught them, when the word of God explicitly teaches the contrary. (Martin Luther was right in mooting the long-lost truth of justification by faith. But do we not know that he stood alone with the word of God while hundreds of monks, with their traditions, opposed him?)

Now, worship is the spiritual act of believers, in which, by the power of the Holy Ghost, they offer to God spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to Him through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2).

Worship is the proper occupation of a saved soul with Christ, and supposes: —

(a) The reception of the "gift of God" (John 4: 10), "If thou knewest the gift of God." Here is no legality at all; no carnal preparations. No; the question is, Do you know the free-giving of God? Do you know Him as the one full of grace and mercy to a poor world, who, for the sake of His beloved Son, gives eternal life to all who believe? Have you peace in your own soul with Him? else you cannot worship.

(b) "And WHO it is that saith unto thee," etc. Before the Lord could talk to the woman about worship she needed to know God as a giver, and further, to know CHRIST.

The worshipper under the Jewish economy had this in type in the altar of burnt-offerings, which was the first object be encountered at the entrance to the holy place. We (Christians) have boldness to enter in as worshippers through the blood of Jesus. It is our security; His name our passport. Indeed, the apostle (in Heb. 10) exhorts us to "draw near," because we have "an high-priest over the house of God."

The Lord Jesus is that high-priest. And He is such over "the house of God" inhabited by the Holy Ghost, in contrast to Moses' house (Heb. 3) where God was never revealed as the "Father," who seeketh such (spiritual worshippers) to worship Him.

To be a spiritual worshipper, then, I must believe God as to my place and standing before God "in Christ" (Eph. 1); that I am "accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins." Being in Him, I am clean delivered from the law of sin and death (Romans 8). His preciousness (1 Peter 2) God counts to me. O may we learn more of what it is to be in Christ? I do not wonder that many believers, who are ignorant of the complete salvation wrought out for them by the death of the Lord Jesus, are still beset with doubts and misgivings, and, therefore, are not free to worship.

(c) There is a third qualification for a true worshipper. He must be indwelt by the Holy Ghost. To Him the Lord evidently referred in His conversation with the woman, when He told her about the living water which He would give her. (Compare John 4: 10; John 7: 38, 39.) We find in these three qualifications the diagnostic marks of a Christian. I do not say a saint — for such were all believers who lived before Pentecost — I say a Christian. I am aware that to many this is a strange bit of news; but if it be true, its strangeness must lie at our own doors, and not to vagueness of expression in the word of God.

A Christian, then, is one who knows God as the free-giving God; Christ as his peace; and is indwelt by the Holy Ghost; and such is sought by the Father as a worshipper.*

{*The word Christian occurs, as far as I can see, three times only in the bible, and they are all in the New Testament (Acts 11: 26; Acts 26: 28; 1 Peter 4: 16). Now-a-days, many assume the title without any conscience whatever as to union with, and standing in, Christ. In the early days of Christianity, i.e., soon after Pentecost, to be a Christian was to be exposed to reproach and shame: yea, even to death; for it expressed identification with Christ, whom the world hates.}

The worshippers are separated people, sanctified to God. They can truly say, "We know that we are of God, the whole world lies in the wicked one" (1 John 5: 19). It is God who in His rich grace has made the "difference between" that "we" and the "world" (see Exodus 11: 7).

A false humility, if not the veriest unbelief, will prefer "not to be quite sure." Faith's language is, "We know." And further, "we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him, that is true (even) in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (verse 20).

None can worship that cannot adopt such language; all should who can. I said before, that while worship may be the occupation of saints very frequently, although they only break bread once a week, yet that it was a very prominent feature of the feast of the Lord's Supper. When He instituted the Supper He "gave thanks" (Matt. 26: 26). It is not said that He blessed the bread, but He gave thanks (the margin is said to be right). (See Mark 14: 22, 23; Luke 20: 11, 19; 1 Cor. 11: 24.) Many, ignorant of the nature of the Supper, "bless the elements." But what have not tradition, superstition, and ignorance led to? The Lord is truly very gracious in bearing with us so long and tenderly. May the result of our "inquiry" be to find us in fellowship with Him about His Supper!

To return. The Lord's Table is a place for solemn, holy, spiritual joy. If the design were otherwise, sorrow would have filled the assembly on the night that the Lord instituted the Supper.

Who can fathom the depths of grief into which His soul was sunk on that memorable night? Who but Himself knew the bitterness of the cup of wrath which awaited Him?

Did He not know that Peter would deny Him? Think you that it cost Him no pang, when all the disciples forsook Him and fled? Was it nothing to the Son of God, that His own creatures should, as dogs howl at Him, and as bulls of Bashan beset Him round about? (Ps. 22.) As to Israel, the nation to whom He came, see how, in their chief priests and rulers, they cast Him out: and say, "Was there ever sorrow like unto His sorrow?"

Above all, He was soon to be forsaken of God (Matt. 27: 46).

Yet after the Passover with His disciples, on creating this new feast, "He gave thanks."* Yes; there were the unquenchable flames of love within His own bosom, which all the storms of Satan and the malice of wicked men failed to reach: they burned on that occasion without a flicker. High above these strata of sorrow were plateaus of verdure that delighted His heart. He rose superior to His griefs: He unselfishly (dear His name!) looked forward to the blessings to flow from His death. Hence, "for the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross, despising the shame." He could find a joy even in the sufferings which awaited Him: hence "He gave thanks."

{*It should be borne in mind that thanksgiving preceded taking of the cup; as well as the breaking of the bread.}

To bring, then, our sins, our failures, our sorrows, our cares to the table of the Lord, would be to dishonour Him: through Him the Father can say, "Let us make merry and be glad." Surely it is to Him that we should carry our sins, failures, etc.; but the time for them is not the Supper-time, nor the place the Lord's-table. It is the time and place for worship, adoration, giving of thanks, and praise.

Indeed, what circumstance is there more calculated to elicit our praises as the showing the Lord's death — remembering Him?

Are we then reminded that by His death we live? Then, at the Table, we praise the life-giver. Was it the Father — our Father — who gave Him to die? Then we bless "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Is it the Holy Ghost that brings to our souls a vivid remembrance of Him whose love was stronger than death? Then we ascribe praise for the Holy Ghost, who takes of the things of Christ and reveals them unto us.

Of course, much may be done to favour, to feed, worship, at the Supper. But all the meeting should tend that way. One brother present, for instance, may open the meeting with a portion of the Word or a hymn, etc., relating to the person or work of Christ. If he be subject to the Holy Ghost, it will be the key-note of the praises of the assembly; and will, therefore, commend itself to all the spiritual.

Another (or the same one) may engage in leading the expressions of praises; while another may read another portion, give out a hymn, and so on (1 Cor. 14); but the tendency, I say, is towards worship — giving of His own, to God and to the Lord Jesus, who supplied that, which hearts, bubbling over, return to Himself.

Here let me venture a remark on Ex. 12: 8 — "unleavened bread" and the "bitter herbs."

The paschal lamb, "roasted with fire" — type of the wrath endured by our Lord — caused joy to every Israelite; but when eaten, it was to be with "unleavened bread and with bitter herbs."

So at the Lord's Supper, no leaven (evil) is to be allowed; there is not to be found the least degree of unholiness. Indeed, how could it be, in the presence of that which reminds us of God's righteous judgment on sin? "For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us." I believe, too, that while a holy, consistent, spiritual walk is essential to the partaking worthily of the Lord's Supper, the believer who thus partakes is strengthened for practical holiness. The two are made to react upon each other.

The "unleavened bread," then, suggests moral fitness in the believer, and supposes self-judgment. An Israelite ate the Passover, and every believer may partake of the Supper; but leaven was to be excluded by the one, and every impurity of mind and life is to be judged by the other.

But what do we learn about the "bitter herbs"? — A very solemn truth.

Herbs with meat are not food; but they impart their savour to the food. Those taken at the paschal feast were to be "bitter."

Are our spirits subdued as we meditate at the table upon the sufferings of Christ?

Do we seek to realize anything of the cost to the Lord of our place of blessing?

Do not tell me about the shedding of tears on such an occasion; I ask whether the soul lingers at the scene of suffering, while we remember the Lord as the One that died. If not, do meditate upon the significance of the "bitter herbs."

It only when these two things are strictly observed, viz., practical holiness daily, and a broken, chastened spirit at the table, that the soul can truly contemplate Christ, and so truly worship Him. Many beautiful examples of worship are given in the Word of God: —

(a) In Deut. 26, a man in the land of Canaan is to carry his basket full of first-fruits to God, and worship before the Lord his God (v. 2, 10).

Then we learn respecting worship — (1) It is by one in Canaan, not in Egypt. Answering to this is the heavenly position now before God in Christ of every true believer (Eph. 1). A Christian worshipper to-day must be a believer.

2. Every one in the land was to present his basket of firstfruits. Every believer to-day should be a spiritual worshipper.

3. He went as a giver; and his was to be a basket full. The Lord is pleased to say, "Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me" (Ps. 50: 23). How condescending to place us in the position of givers! Such is His grace.

4. The basket was to be a full one. For this, I judge, there was a constant gathering up. How blessed it would be if, all the week through, we were so dwelling in the presence of God, so delighting in Himself, so learning of Him from His Word, as to have a full (how large?) heart of praise and worship, to offer to God on the first day of the week, as we are gathered to break bread in remembrance of Him.*

{*The Lord. — ED.}

5. It was, moreover, a basket full of first-fruits. The youngest believer should be an instantaneous worshipper.

(b) Look at the leper (Luke 17: 17). When he found that he was healed, he turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God. Gratitude filled his heart. He "gave thanks."

(c) From John 12 we may learn how much beyond service the Lord estimates the adoration of His person. Many of us to-day, alas! reverse this, and indulge the vanity of Judas, rather than the humble, quiet worship of the woman. Am I, by this remark, to be accused of finding fault with service? Nothing is farther from my thoughts. Would to God that all of His dear saints could be less busy with each other's failures, and with plans of self-indulgence, so as to be freer for His use in various departments! But the fact is that even our service may revolve around our insignificant selves, and be in the Lord's sight worthless. (I have frequently wondered, if we could carry our memoranda of service with us to the judgment-seat (2 Cor. 5), how many of our jottings would stand.) On the other hand true worship leaves the mind with such an exalted sense of God's majesty that abhorrence of self is the result; and such is just the condition of vessel the Lord can use (Judges 7: 16; 2 Cor. 4: 7). The woman was endeavouring to show her admiration of the Lord's blessed person; and when Judas found fault, the Lord said, "Let her alone." So, beloved, we may also see here, that when by illness we are laid aside and cannot serve actively, we may worship and adore One, who observes the simplest outflow of affection for Himself. Is there any one in heaven or earth so precious as He?

(d) Have you never been struck with John's conduct in the Isle of Patmos? Just observe him. Turn to Rev. 1. From v. 1 to the middle of v. 5 he is narrating — "And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth."

Properly speaking, the narrative continues in v. 7, "Behold He cometh with clouds," etc. Intermediately there is a parenthesis. Then why the sudden halt in v. 5? We notice the eye turned away from the "seven assemblies" (ekkesiais) towards "Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood."

Why, have you never suddenly stopped on your way, to admire an attractive object, which unexpectedly presented itself to your gaze? Yes, you have.

Well, the most lovely object of Heaven presented Himself to John's mind at the mention of His name; and straightway he uttered his "Selah." He halted and worshipped — "To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." He could not help himself.

Numerous similar examples are found scattered in Paul's writings (Romans 11: 33-36; Eph. 1: 3; 1 Tim. 6: 16; Jude 24, 25).

(e) I will cite just one more passage (Rev. 5: 12-14) for it is very suggestive. (I may say that the best critics omit the last seven words of v. 14.) Now, we gather from this Scripture that worship may either be attended with utterance of the lips, as in v. 12, where the crowned elders said, with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb," etc.; or worship may be silent, as in v. 14, where, after the "Amen" by the "living creatures," the elders merely "fell down and worshipped."

I have frequently wondered why saints at worship meetings sing as if they were afraid to let their voices be heard. The elders say with a loud voice. But I prefer to judge myself, for the very little silent, quiet worship paid by my soul, at such meetings. The quiet pauses at worship meetings are delightful opportunities for discharging the full baskets. I think I should say that nothing is more indicative of the paucity of worship as when brethren are seen turning over leaves of books, staring about, and acting as if there was no divine power for contemplating the glories of the person of Christ.

Is it not because we are in His presence so little? Is it not because we do not fill our baskets during the week? We must not wait till the Lord's-day to fill our baskets. That must be a poor, barren meeting, as far as worship is concerned, when we do so.

There needs, therefore, much self-judgment while we sit at the table. It may be nothing but nature desiring to be heard that leads me to announce my favourite hymn or chapter, or to indulge "a speech" in public praise. A natural disposition, I say, may prompt this. Such is not spiritual worship; self is unbridled.

On the other hand, a natural timidity, or nervousness, or fear of being found fault with, may keep me silent, when the mind of the Holy Ghost was towards my utterance. This, too, is unjudged nature. Yet, again, a false notion to please lookers-on may induce me to break the solemn silence of the worshippers, and so to keep up a sort of excitement. I need to be at Gilgal. I require the "bitter herbs." Thus we need to be very much in the presence of God where alone self is displaced, ere we can be true spiritual worshippers. (How gracious of our Lord to bear with our failures in this respect.)

Let us not forget that, although He who seeks worshippers is our "Father," yet that "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Falseness may escape detection by our brethren; but He looks for "truth in the inward parts;" and however much we estimate our own acts, He who is sole judge values them according to His estimate.

If the worship be in Christ, such as the Spirit of God prompts, well; else it is only so much shadow to Him; and utterly void of substance, is regarded as worthless. (If these suggestions be Scriptural I need hardly say that they stand in wide contrast to much that is called "worship" among the Ritualists, etc., now-a-days.) May nothing short of spiritual worship be yielded henceforth by every one of us, beloved brethren. If any are found identified with what the Word condemns, may grace be afforded us to quit it instantly whatever the cost.*

<*Spiritual worship is not connected with this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem. The Lord most distinctly showed, in His conversation with the woman, how the end was come of worship in "temples made with hands." In the most solemn manner He said, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.">

What Christian, who is subject to the Lord, can, in the face of such Divine truth, uttered by God Himself in the person of Christ, sanction by his presence that which is neither purely Jewish nor purely Christian? I desire every Christian reader to weigh this question with all humility in the presence of God.

4. Besides celebrating the death of the Lord, remembering Himself, and worshipping; do we not find another object in the Supper? Is it not to manifest the oneness of the body? I think so. Let us see. In 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17, this idea seems to be fairly deduced, as we read, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread (or one loaf) and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread (or loaf). We saw on a previous occasion that the Lord always contemplated "one body," "one assembly." And this should be expressed in the one unbroken loaf set upon the table, afterwards broken and divided among the gathered saints.*

<{* 1. If, when at the table, I announce a chapter or a hymn, or attempt to express the praises of the assembly, when it was only self-acting throughout, and not the Spirit of God, in the assembly, using whom He will, I act out of communion with "the body of Christ." On the other hand, when the "one body" is recognised, and all the members are subject to the "ONE SPIRIT," there will be most harmonious music throughout; not an instrument will be out of concert: the praises, the songs, the chapters, the exhortations, and everything will so accord, that all who know nothing of the "one Spirit," present to conduct the choir, will go away declaring that all was pre-arranged by the actors.

2. In 1 Cor. 11 another thing altogether is alluded to. There, a person eating and drinking unworthily, eats and drinks judgment (or that which merits censure from the Lord), not discerning the "Lord's body."

In 1 Cor. 10, the Church, as one assembly, is the thought. Here a much more serious idea presents itself.

The Corinthians seem to have been living in a most carnal way: and instead of recognising the divine presence of the Lord, they partook of His Supper as they would a common meal; hence one was hungry and another was drunk. They did not discern the "Lord's body." This the Apostle sharply corrects; and, inasmuch as they did not judge themselves, the Lord judged them. Many were weak and sickly, and others died (slept).

This leads me to remark that there is a wide difference between a worthy partaker and the partaking worthily.

The blood of Christ renders the believer a worthy partaker, but the manner in which he should partake ― the worthily ― respects the condition of soul in which the believer approaches the table.

Wherefore, "let a man examine himself; and so (in a worthy manner) let him eat," etc. The examining of oneself is essential to the giving up of a practice, which, in an unjudged condition, was indulged.

Now the Lord had said of the bread, "This is my body broken for you." The bread, unchanged as such, pictures to the simple soul the body of the Lord broken. We need to be walking in the Spirit to "discern the Lord's body."}

Despite those who sing of buildings ―

"These temples of His grace,

How beautiful they stand;

The honours of our native place,

And bulwarks of our land;"

the truth remains, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

And again, "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a SPIRIT, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4: 23, 24.)

At this late hour of the night, we must be content just to offer a few practical suggestions on this point, and specially may we do so, as in the "inquiry as to what is the assembly," the subject is developed.>

(1.) A table spread on any other basis than that of God's assembly is sectarian, and therefore has no claims on the godly.

To be more explicit, let us suppose that all of us in this room now, who are believers, should agree to break bread to-night, and should spread the table for ourselves only, without providing, according to the Scriptures, for all the "approved" saints. Then we might "break bread;" but it would be our own, and not the Lord's supper; for the Lord's Supper contemplates all the members of the "one body."

Again, contemplate any society of Christians meeting as a society, subject to regulations arranged among themselves, and to which all the members are agreed. Let such meet as a society to break bread. Then, I say, from 1 Cor. 10 and 11, they eat a Society's supper, and not the Lord's, although they attach, with the most pious motives, His name to their feast.

Differently constituted, as our several minds are, we cannot be unanimous in accepting plans suggested by each other. Hence, when such plans are forced there must be divisions. And this is just what the apostle tells us in the portion before us. "There must be heresies (a heretic is one with an unsubdued will; this, indulged, leads to schism), that they which are approved may be made manifest" (1 Cor. 11: 18, 19).

But let all, with broken wills ("spirit of meekness") be subject to the same Lord, be directed by the same Spirit, from the same divine book, and can you expect schism in such a case?

However, in this day of abundant heresy (self-will which leads to false doctrines and divisions), we need to search diligently for our path.

Beloved brethren, I hesitate not to say that such a search is not very easy. But the very difficulty of it should lead us in all meekness and self-abnegation to Him who can conduct us along "a way which no fowl knoweth, which the vulture's eye hath not seen: the lion's whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed by it" (Job 28: 7, 8; Ps. 107: 7).

I say nothing here of societies that knowingly admit unbelievers to their communion. I confess to be no little surprised at any godly saint being in fellowship with such. The difficulty we have to encounter is with companies of Christians, real believers, who themselves endeavour to exclude, as far as they can judge, unconverted persons. One of the tests is given in the Scripture before us. I should therefore inquire, Are you gathered on the principle of the one body? That is, could every true believer, every godly saint, be gathered with you according to the Word of God? Or are you gathered around a minister, a doctrine, or a few doctrines?

(2.) Again, to be an expression of the "one body," for there to be communion of the body of Christ, there needs a oneness of judgment as to the Divine and spotless person of Christ the Head.

"No man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed" (1 Cor. 12: 3). Therefore that cannot answer to the manifestation of the "one body," which allows of evil teaching respecting the Lord Jesus: for it must not be forgotten that it is the presence of the Holy Ghost which constitutes the one Body; and He never sanctions anything derogatory to the Lord. But some may ask, Who are to be the judges of the doctrine? To such I reply, Take heed of the spirit which prompted the question. Am I to infer that any teaching may be allowed in an assembly without being challenged? The Holy Ghost gives a standard in the text I last quoted, and the godly must compare with it. Has it come to pass that saints of God are to be less careful of what is taught about the person of Christ than they are about doctrines, which, in their opinion, more directly concern their safety? How quickly, for instance, would the statement be challenged that if a believer died without partaking of this Holy Eucharist he would be lost. Yet many pass heedlessly on, as if they were perfectly indifferent to any heresy respecting the person of the Lord. I say, therefore, that that cannot be the expression of the "one body" of Christ, where evil doctrines as to His Divine person are persistently held and taught.

It is perhaps necessary that I should call special attention to these remarks, for there are not a few assemblies that at first sight seem to be the very "beau ideal" of what answers to an expression of the "one body," and saints unwittingly have fellowship with them.

<I certainly think that in every case Christians should inquire (of such as can inform them, and in whose veracity they have confidence) into the history of a gathering which presents itself to them for communion with it. If it consists of believers only, own the presence of the Holy Ghost, and no human presidency; if it exclude those holding doctrinal evils, or walking in an immoral way; and further, if it recognises such as are similarly gathered, then it seems to me that my place should be with it for the Lord's Supper.>

But other difficulties present themselves. In the same place there may be two or three assemblies, ostensibly gathered on the same ground, and yet not in fellowship with each other. What then! (May the Lord Himself teach us, in all our difficulties, to lean on His unerring wisdom.) Am I to choose that at which there is most teaching? Shall that in which most love is attract me, or shall I rather identify myself with that which receives every and any one on his own testimony? Respecting the last, let us bear in mind that even Paul the Apostle was not received into the fellowship of the Jerusalem brethren till Barnabas took him by the hand, till he was introduced (Acts 9: 26). If godly care is not thus exercised, who then might not sit at the table? I should certainly refuse on this principle to break bread with such a gathering.

As to a second having "very loving and dear saints at it," I rejoice before the Lord when saints love one another. Would that we dwelt more in company of Him whose name is Love, that so we might love each other more! But alas! that that external appearance, very pleasing to nature, should attract so many. In dealing with the things of God, I need an exercised conscience, besides a loving heart. Now, CHRIST, and not "loving saints," is God's Divine centre for rallying His saints. Hence, if He be not implicitly submitted to, such a gathering has no claims on me, though there were never so much love.

True love must be "in the Spirit," not in the flesh. However, at love I am not to look, nor must I be discouraged if I do not find it. This I believe, that those who love most are least loved (2 Cor. 12: 15).

Lastly, beautiful teaching is obtained "at a third gathering." Granted. But I repeat that CHRIST and not doctrines is the centre of gathering.

Better be in fellowship with a "feeble folk," who are gathered on divine principles, than be where there is "much teaching" with much human will. Alas! that not a few are merely attached by teaching.

<But to return. I should get the history of the gatherings, and exercise my judgment, in much dependence on divine guidance, as to which (or neither) to be in fellowship with.

I will assume a case for illustration. A believer sees from God's word that he should cease his connection with religious sects. I do not say with saints, but with systems of human arrangement. He remains at home. Like the seven thousand in Elijah's time who had not the energy to challenge evil, but had grace to refuse to mingle with the false worshippers, he quietly waits on the Lord; he betakes himself in much prayer to the word, and he waits for direction.

He hears of a gathering which propagates false doctrines respecting the person and work of Christ. He investigates it patiently and quietly, and finds the charge to be alas! a true one. With such he cannot break bread.

A second will not receive the teachers of evil doctrines, but will not refuse such as go in and out with such teachers. Now God charged the sin of Achan upon "all Israel" (Joshua 7: 11); the "leaven" of one man's sin (1 Cor. 5) upon the "whole lump." Such was His divine estimate of the unity of Israel, and such His idea of the oneness of His Church. Again, the Holy Ghost distinctly says that a receiver of a person teaching anything than the true doctrine as to the person of Christ, "is a partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 2). Hence, if persons will act in such independence of the mind of the Lord, I must, although with a broken heart, refuse identity with them. I have to please the Lord, not my tastes; I must seek His approval, not my brethren's; although thankful to get both.>

Supposing I find some who are gathered in the unity of the Spirit, refusing in every way association with moral and doctrinal evil: then let us thank God for such; and follow righteousness, faith, love, peace with them (2 Tim. 2). With such I would break bread by all means. Indeed I would claim my place at the Lord's Table with them; and if the saints are godly they would not refuse me — if my confession and walk be for Christ.

Judging from the case of Paul, already referred to, it would seem to be the more godly way that two or more at the table, who know any godly believer desiring to have communion with them at the Lord's Supper, and in whose judgment their brethren had confidence; I say that it seems a happy way for such to commend the believer to the gathering. No test seems Scriptural but the one confession of the Christ of God. The gathering, on such recommendation of two or three witnesses, should "receive him to the glory of God."*

{*A person going from one place to another should seek "letters of commendation" to the gathering whither he is going (2 Cor. 3: 1; Acts 28: 21). This saves very much unpleasantness, both to himself and to those who may not know him.

<I may here add, that there is no scriptural reason why a saint walking in the Spirit should not partake of the Lord's supper on every first day of the week if he be not prevented by unavoidable circumstances; and, in such case, of course the Lord sees him in fellowship still with His own thoughts. Some stay away, conscious of failure in walk. If a man be living in sin, I wonder that the Table is not the most miserable situation he could occupy. If a saint, on the other hand, grieves the Holy Ghost in any way, the remedy is confession (1 John 1), with a view to forgiveness and restoration of joy in God; then seeking divine grace to forsake the evil (for that confession is not real, not true, which has to be daily repeated), the word is, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him" (stay away? no), "so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11: 28).

Observe further, that he is to examine himself; not only the sin, but also, and chiefly, the self, the nature, that caused it. And why? Because it is the Supper of the LORD.>}

If he be ignorant, the Holy Ghost can instruct him, and hence his ignorance should be no barrier to his reception; on the contrary, those who commended him should feel a special care for him, helping him on in divine things in the name of the Lord. In fact, I am not aware of anything, but immoral walk, or a tenacious adherence to heretical doctrines, that should exclude any believer from the Lord's table;* do you? Then why are you all not at it? If He graciously invite you is it humility to refuse? The contrary is the fact. Let us take care that pride, or selfishness, or a shrinking from the cross, is not the hindrance.

{*Soundness in the faith and a corresponding godly walk are essential in all who would eat the Lord's Supper. — ED.}

THE LORD'S TABLE, THEN, IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR ALL HIS SAINTS, AND IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE ONE BODY; BUT AT ITS NARROW ENTRANCE IS WRITTEN IN LARGE LETTERS, "HOLINESS BECOMETH THINE HOUSE, O LORD, FOR EVER" (Ps. 93: 5).

May our spiritual condition correspond daily with our ecclesiastical position.

It may be asked, why be so very particular? The reason is on the surface — IT IS THE TABLE OF THE LORD. "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I" (Matt. 18: 20). Of course I see no occasion with Rome for deducing transsubstantiation, nor with Luther for consubstantiation, from this. I reason not on the statement. It is enough for faith that the Lord is to be owned, as present with His gathered saints, according to His word. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, too, sweet communion — "a blessed antepast of heaven" is enjoyed by the soul in His presence in a very special way. May we know still more of this; and may large numbers of our dear brethren, who deny themselves the privilege, be drawn to share the joy of such as revel in "fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."

4. Having endeavoured to show who are the partakers of the Lord's Supper, and who are excluded, and what is the design of the feast; let us notice, and very briefly, how often, and till what event, the feast should be commemorated.

Consistently with the principle of law, Jehovah enjoined on Israel the keeping of the Passover once a year. In keeping with the dealings of God in grace with us now, the Lord fixes no definite periods by an enactment in so many words. But let me say, once for all, that a distinct intimation of His mind is, or ought to be, quite enough for a child of grace; and respecting the Supper such intimation is not lacking.

There were "yet many things" which the Lord would have said to His disciples, if they could bear them (John 16: 12). Howbeit the Spirit of truth, given after His ascension, was to guide them into all truth.

It is our wisdom, therefore, to see His will where it is expressed in the Gospels; then to look in the Acts of the Apostles for the way it was carried out, as in the Epistles for the interpretation of the Acts.

(a) HOW OFTEN?

1. Before the Lord's crucifixion, He said to His disciples, "Do this as often . . . in remembrance of Me." The point there, I judge, is, not the time but the object of the Supper is contemplated.

Yet it would appear, that those who are willing to think of HIM in His death would, from this Scripture, see their privilege of celebrating the Supper frequently. I say privilege, and a blessed privilege it is. And doubtless, we would see this the more were we less engaged with ourselves. To be looking in at self, enshrouded with doubts as to our acceptance "in the Beloved," is a fruitful source of legality respecting the Lord's Supper. So, again, when we habitually permit worldliness, bad tempers, evil thoughts, etc., it becomes us to own them to God. In such case it is occupation with our doubts, or with our failures; and hence we are not free to be engaged with Christ. I repeat, therefore, that were we less engaged with self, we would be freer to eat the Lord's Supper more often.

The Lord, then, before His death did not say how often, but intimated freedom to eat the Supper as frequently as the disciples could have communion in spirit with Himself.

(2) Consistently with this, we find the disciples, after the Lord's ascension, and after the descent of the Holy Ghost, "continuing daily (or every day) with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house" (or rather in the house, at home, not in the temple), etc.

It appears, from this Scripture, that the disciples soon after Pentecost broke bread daily.

(3) The Lord's-day, or first day of the week (our Sunday) seems to have been specially honoured by the Lord Jesus, as His resurrection-day. It is called (Rev. 1) "the Lord's-day (kuriake hemera. The same word, kuriakon, 1 Cor. 11: 20, is used for the Lord's supper. It is not a common day in the one case, nor a common meal in the other, but the LORD's-day and the LORD's Supper), a very distinct and different day from the seventh day or the Sabbath (our Saturday), observed by the Jews.* Now it was on this day, the first day of the week, the LORD's-day (our Sunday) that the Lord appeared to the assembled disciples, spoke peace to them, and showed them His hands and His side (John 20). More than this. The day was not only thus honoured as the Lord's, and therefore full of privilege for His saints, but He positively "broke bread" with two of His disciples (Luke 24: 30) on the "first day of the week."

<*Christians who do not see the pre-eminent claims of the Lord's-day upon them, and confound it with the Sabbath, need only read Matt. 28: 1 in its connection.

It is universally admitted that the sixth day of the week ("the Jews' preparation day," Luke 23: 54) was that on which our Lord was crucified. Hence the superstitious introduction of "Good Friday."

Hence the day on which the Lord lay in the grave was the seventh day, "the Sabbath" (Saturday). "That Sabbath day was an high day" (John 19: 31). Think of the heartlessness of a people, that could have an high day while the Lord of the Sabbath lay low in the grave.

To return. Paley says, and many believe him, that the Sabbath day was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. Where is it said so in Scripture? And will saints have what the Word of God gives not? Now I prefer to believe what the Holy Ghost has declared. Not only does He not say the day was altered, but He records in more places than one the difference between the two days. Hence the Scripture in Matthew: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." (See also Mark 16: 1, 2; Luke 23: 56; Luke 24: 1; John 19: 42; John 20: 1). If persons will still persist in calling the Lord's day the "Sabbath," notwithstanding these Scriptures ― "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.">

Lastly, we find the special vessel of the Church's testimony — I mean the Apostle Paul — in the midst with the disciples, who "came together to break bread" upon the first day of the week (Acts 20: 7).

I conclude, therefore, that the proper time for celebrating the Lord's Supper is every first day of the week — not once a month nor once a year, but once a week, and that on the Lord's-day.

I should like to add a remark or two in this place. (1.) The chief aim of saints, when assembled on the Lord's-day, should be to break bread. If this be lost sight of, then many will go away disappointed, if no word of edification or exhortation be spoken.

I believe that when the object of the meeting is held prominently before the soul there will not be the delaying to break the bread; it will be done at an early portion of the meeting. Of course the laying down of plans might reduce this blessed feast to the merest routine, and quench the action of the Spirit of God. On the other hand, if the mind be not correctly instructed, the merest superstition will be interpreted as the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Spiritual walk and much self-abnegation are needed for recognising what is of the Holy Ghost and what is of nature.

(2.) There may be, however, if there be present any whom the Holy Ghost can use, a word of edification or exhortation, etc., spoken, as in the case referred to. Paul, a servant of God, present with the disciples, discoursed to them.* But the disciples, remember, did not assemble to hear Paul preach. The word is distinct enough — "Came together to break (or with the object of breaking) bread." It seems also, from this passage cited, that the discourse was subsequent to the Supper.

<*Lest any should use this scripture for supposing that some gathered to break bread were unconverted, and that Paul was announcing the truth by which they should be saved, I venture to remark that the verb translated preached is dielegeto (hence dialeknos ― a discourse, a conversation), discoursed or conversed. This is quite consistent with a teacher teaching, or an exhorter exhorting. But if persons will contend that it is preaching, then it is necessary to bear in mind that Paul's gospel included more than the knowledge of forgiveness ― which many, alas! are satisfied to hear from week to week, and no more. Paul's gospel comprehended the knowledge of forgiveness; standing in Christ (Eph. and Col.); the possession of the body by God through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost; baptism of believers into one body by the Holy Ghost; the coming of the Lord in the air for His Church, etc. (1 Thess.)>

Sometimes we have to regret that some intrude their speeches upon us, whom a little more modesty might suggest to be silent; and many are silent whom a little fear hinders from being used; and we ourselves are prejudiced for or against, and thus may be losers. But such are our failures and do not touch the Divine principles which we have been seeking to enunciate.

Let them cast us upon Him, who values the motives of honest and sincere hearts, even when our actions are truly humbling. Better go on, however, in the most abject weakness, ay, even with failures, than resort to human expediency, which would be rebellion (read Ex. 32: 1; 1 Sam. 8: 5).

(b) TILL WHAT EVENT?

How cheering to the loving heart it is to be reminded at the Supper, that another first day of the week may find all the saints of God together in glory with the Lord! Do you not observe that, in 1 Cor. 11: 26, not a shadow is allowed to obstruct our proper and proximate hope? Shall we make plans for carrying on our cause? No; the Lord is coming. Shall we remain away from the Table on the slightest pretences for another week? No; for the "Lord is at hand." Need we allow the present ruinous appearance (to us) of the Church, to cause faint-heartedness, and thus relax our testimony to His grace? Certainly not; for the same Lord who permits us to look back at the cross, while we eat of the bread and drink of the cup, bids us look forward to His coming, — "Behold, I come quickly."

Here saints are shy of each other; here they misunderstand one another; here they are so divided that very few indeed in any one place are gathered together at the Supper. Frequently the godly mourn over it, knowing that they will never in the earth meet in any place all the saints. But is there no cheering beam of comfort? Shall we all never meet together? Oh yes! we shall. And not only we of this generation, but all the saints from Adam. And we shall see, too, the holy apostles, prophets, martyrs, and others who ate of the same Supper 1800 years ago, of which we now partake. Paul will be there, and "the woman of the city," and the Samaritan woman, and John, and all whom now we know, and yet so little love. Oh, what a meeting will that be! (I wonder whether one of my hearers shall be absent. God forbid! At any rate, I declare unto you that Christ receiveth sinners still)

But, beloved brethren, we shall see in brightest glory the One who condescends to invite you and me to show His death, till He come." "The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout . . . the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain (till the coming) shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we be ever with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words."

How vast is the field for contemplation, as we, from God's Divine stand-point, gaze upon the Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table

I trust it will be borne in mind that it is a search for truth from the Scriptures which has been engaging us, and not a review of men's thoughts nor of men's acts. I have been endeavouring not to deduce a system of thoughts from the practice of saints, but, on the contrary, to see that our conduct should be according to the Divine standard.

I trust the Lord will graciously help us to reject whatever I have said that is not of Himself; supply to us all which in this inquiry is deficient; and grant special grace to all of us, to live out practically, at all costs, to ourselves, whatever we discover to be His mind, for His own glory. Amen.

SYNOPSIS.

1. The Lord's Supper is for all saints. Every believer, spiritual in walk and doctrine, is constituted a worthy partaker by the LORD HIMSELF:

2. That is not the Lord's Table which admits persons who are not of the family; known and recognised as such by the godly; nor has that any claim on the Spiritual which is in fellowship, directly or indirectly, with anything derogatory to the spotless person of Christ; or which, as an independent meeting, disowns the "one body:"

3. Where there is the Table of the Lord in any place, there all the godly should be assembled to eat the Lord's Supper; each should claim his place at the Table:

4. The design of the Supper is for the saints —

(a) To celebrate the Lord's death,

(b) To remember Himself,

(c) To worship (as priests),

(d) To manifest the "one body:"

5. Scriptural warrant respecting the frequency of the meeting for breaking bread is ONCE A WEEK at least, and that on the Lord's-day — the resurrection day:

6. It being a fact that the Holy Ghost is now in the assembly to conduct its meeting at the Lord's Supper, saints should, in subjection to Him, and in much self-judgment, assemble for the Supper, however feeble they may be, without any reference whatever to human presidency or carnal arrangements:

7. The Assembly is to eat the Supper, as waiting the return of the Lord — "till He come."

4. Christian Ministry

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

Christian Ministry: Its Source, Object, Relationship, and Directorship.

Read Ephesians 4: 1-16.

God is a God of order; and that saint is unwise who refuses it. If we attempt to substitute our own it simply amounts to disorder.  If we refuse His, it is rebellion. Now, in this fourth of Ephesians, you will find the order in which God brings truth before us. In the 1st verse the apostle beseeches the saints at Ephesus (and is it not for us also?) to walk worthy of the calling wherewith they are called (vocation means calling).

The calling is given in the earlier part of the epistle. Let us glance at it. (1) In the first chapter, for instance, you will see the individual standing of every believer intimated; and hence the apostle, in the 3rd verse, blesses "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in CHRIST." Mark that; it is not only the thought that God is willing to bless, neither is it God meeting man's need merely. God, as meeting man's need is shown us in the epistle to the Romans, but in Ephesians God meets His own need, if with reverence I may so say. That need of God is to have a people for the praise and glory of His grace; and this is what He has done. Now, in order thereto, He takes up poor, ruined, undone ones, and sets them in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus. The apostle Paul knows no questioning as to who every believer is. From each of such goes the language, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed," etc. So in this portion you see that the individual standing of every believer is in the new creation in Christ Jesus. Indeed, how could the God of divine holiness look upon such vile good-for-nothings as we, and speak of us as being "holy and without blame before Him," if He had not "chosen us IN CHRIST?"

Just leave out the expression "in Christ," and you charge God with unholiness in speaking thus of us. Let the mind grasp the fulness of the value of Christ, and let faith accept God's statements, that HE sees the believer according to God's estimate of the BLESSED ONE, and at once the soul has peace with, and joy in God; and only from such can God the Father derive worship and praise. We, then, are the object of God's choice; and we have been chosen in Christ, in order that God — His eyes on Christ — might see us holy and without blame before Him. Such is our standing. Let me remind you that we are not here represented as blameless in ourselves. The contrary is the case, as shown in the word. Whatever my blessing may be; my bad nature remains unchangeably the same. Nevertheless, by the death of Christ not only were our sins put away, but ourselves also from before God; as truly the stock as the branches. God condemned sin in the flesh. Hence Paul declares, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2: 20). "Our old man is crucified with Him" (Rom. 6: 6). Now, if God must have sons adopted unto Himself, such sons must be in His sight "without blame." Hence, He wisely and graciously chooses us in Christ.* "There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus"** (Rom. 8: 1).

{<*This portion has been the great platform whence many have unwisely sounded forth to the unconverted the doctrine of election, thus causing no small degree of stumbling. I do not hesitate to say that such a course is unwise. For (1) the Lord Himself and the apostles acted differently; (2) It is truth for the converted, and we should endeavour to give to each his portion in due season. No wise man would think of giving meat to a new-born babe; but it is very cheering to a grown-up son to be told that his father has abundance of meat wherewith to supply him. There are abc's and xyz's of Scripture, and a true teacher will never advance the latter till the former are known. And the blessed truth respecting God's purpose in choosing us in Christ is certainly beyond the ability of an unconverted man to enter into. Indeed it seems that no doctrine, apart from Christ, however precious it may be, is that which gives peace to a soul. It must be Christ ministered in some of His varied characters that purges the conscience and settles the heart.

For a peasant to be told that the soldiery guarding around the palace, from day to day, are to defend him ― whom the Queen has adopted ― from his enemies, may be a hard lesson at first, for one who has been a rebel, to learn; but few pieces of news would be more welcome to him when it has been intelligently received. But before the Queen's pleasure was made known, the sight of the very troops would be sufficient to cause the unfortunate man to despair. So the doctrine of election. It is most consoling truth for insiders; but when presented to poor, broken-hearted, anxious sinners (especially in the hard barebones-fashion, in which it is usually put) it is, like the household guards, an impassable hedge.

I would remark, however, that the object of election, and not the election itself, is in the mind of the writer, in Ephesians 1: 4. If I ventured to paraphrase the verse, it might be helpful to some. In order that God may see us holy and without blame before Him in love, He, before the foundation of the world, chose us in Christ.

So for the truth that follows, viz,, predestination. God predetermined that the glory of His grace should be praised (by us). Hence, in order to our being constantly in His favour, His children, adopted unto Himself, He sees us in the Beloved.

But lest the knowledge of security should induce antinomianism, the exhortation must be constantly kept before the mind, "Walk worthy of your vocation." Indeed our life is thus made sure to us "in Christ," in order that we might be left free to live for Him.>

**The Sinaitic and Vatican MSS omit the remainder of the verse; it is an interpolation. — Tischendorf.}

How long, dear brethren, would our peace last if it depended on what we were in our own sight? How would it be with the most devout if feelings were criteria of our acceptance with God? Ever blessed be His name! He has placed us in a higher atmosphere than doubts can touch — encircled us with defences, through which no enemy can break. He sees us in Christ. We are "accepted in the beloved." There may our faith rest; responsive to such a position, may our walk and deportment be. The first constituent in my vocation, then, is to know, by the Holy Ghost, my personal or individual relationship to God. He is my Father, He is my God (John 20: 17). This knowledge, accepted by the soul as a divine fact, must precede every inquiry respecting ministry, for such is GOD'S order.

(2) But although such personal standing be owned, a believer might act very independently, as we say, if he were still ignorant of another item in the revelation regarding his vocation.

Now, I am deeply convinced that either unbelief as to this, or self-will in not acting upon the divine fact, is a very important element in the Church's failure to-day. Has nothing new happened since Pentecost? Is there nothing that specially marks God's honour for His beloved Son? Most decidedly. "The church, which is His (Christ's) body," has been formed by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and we being in it, and of it, are mutually related to each other in a way never previously known.

If a body has been formed, then (a) there must be a head; and such Christ became in His resurrection* (chap. 1: 19-23); (b) There needs provision for its unity, and this is just what the presence in it of the HOLY GHOST implies (1 Cor. 12: 13); (c) It will require nutritive organs for the growth and maintenance of its several members; and ministry for this has been provided; (d) One body will have only one system of organs for the whole; then the members suffer where the oneness is not acted upon practically; moreover, the ministers belong to the "one body;" (e) But unless all such organs (the ministers) are responsive to impressions from one centre, one head, there must be necessarily much in-coordination of movements and no little confusion. Hence the necessity of knowing the corporate relationship in which we stand to each other; that thus, by the power of the Holy Ghost, we might honestly endeavour to "walk worthy of our vocation." And it is futile to engage the thoughts with ministry until such divine facts — I do not say doctrines — are acknowledged by the saints.

{*Rather as glorified at God's right hand. — ED.}

It is perfectly true that the servant is responsible to Christ as his Lord and Master; and hence he is not to be trammelled in any way by the church. This we shall see by and by. But I do think that he is to be pitied who cannot observe, in God's order, in developing the truth, the mutual relationships of the members of the body, the gifts included.

(3) Observe, further, that the truth about the body, as God's habitation through the Spirit (chap. 2: 22), precedes the teaching as to ministry. If the Spirit dwells in the body (here it is not the individual, but the whole church, the "holy temple"), (a) The saints should accept it as a FACT, as much so as when the Lord Himself was upon earth; as truly so as if they saw the Holy Ghost, and they should depend upon Him for all they need.

Can He not (as God) qualify any member to whom the Lord gives the grace? Can He not use whom He will for edifying the assembly? Many wonder, what are we to do if there be no ministry in any one place? Here is the answer — Depend upon the presence of the Holy Ghost. Is He certainly in the temple? Then He is sufficient for ordering it. Of course the truth regarding ministry comes out afterwards; but the Holy Ghost, at the very threshold, challenges our reliance on Himself before permitting us to see the ministers. Splendid order this is, beloved friends! Do you admire it?Can your souls worship God for it? Or would you prefer to have the ministers first, the Holy Ghost supplying their deficiencies? Let us be honest and truthful to God. We cannot deceive Him. Is the presence of the Holy Ghost enough?

(b) Let the soul be well instructed regarding the directorship of the Holy Ghost, and then the ministers will exercise their gift "unto edification" in absolute subjection to Him. But He directs for the good of the whole body, therefore every minister acting in subjection to the Holy Ghost is a servant of Christ to ALL. He knows nothing of sectarianism. Our pattern man, Paul, knew well the "one body" and the "one Spirit," and his conduct respected the one as his service was in subjection to the other.

(4) In chap. 3, also we find another preliminary to the disclosure of the truth respecting the ministry. I allude to the prayer of the apostle, that we may know the love of Christ which surpasseth knowledge. Mark well, it is not to know love to, but the love of Christ; it is to understand His love. Now, do you remember one prominent characteristic of His love, one which no one else before, nor since, has evinced? It was unselfishness. You see it in ten thousand shades if you possess the divine power for perceiving it. He is disturbed in His repose by the fearful unbelief of His disciples, and is taunted with not caring for them (Mark 4: 37-40). Does He chide? Oh no; "He arose and rebuked the wind and the sea," which was enough to prick tender consciences, but He did not chide with the disciples. He sits by the well of Sychar, and is wearied after a long journey, and fatigued by a scorching tropical sun. Will He command a quiet resting-place and retire from service? Not as long as there was a poor despised Samaritan woman to bless. "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." O may every servant of His imitate such a master! But what shall we say of the love which could lead Him to set aside His glory, to come to earth at all, and then to go to the cross? To serve others during His brief sojourn on earth, and to give His life a ransom for many — "To serve and to give" were the objects of His life. Was ever love like His?

I suppose it will be admitted that we learn more by imitation than by reading, and in a most insensible manner too. A child speaks what it hears its preceptors say, and applies terms to certain objects as it finds its parents use them. Now, the custom of many now-a-days is, to say to every new-born soul in Christ, "Go and work for the Lord." Hence, we hear no small amount of "preaching," but we may well say, in innumerable cases, "They desire to be teachers, . . . understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (1 Tim. 1: 7). The fact is that the Holy Ghost detains every one in the ante-room, so to say, and engages Him with the person of Christ.

To talk about Him from what others say is to misrepresent Him, and to damage the soul of the speaker; to trade with what others write is dishonesty; to take the place of an "ambassador," without being long in HIS company, is to be false to the One you assume to represent.

I would, beloved brethren, that the field of harvest to our blessed Lord were filled with reapers. Does He not deserve every soul in this country? Is He not worthy of ten thousand times ten thousand more than such as now His grace receive? He is indeed! But has He given up His right to use what and whom He will? Does He not bless His own truth read even in the midst of the most revolting superstition? Who can say that, even in the Vatican, souls are not led to Himself by so much of His word as is read? But the end of an act does not justify the wrong motive which prompted it, nor the bad manner in which it was done. God is sovereign, and can use what is of Himself for blessing to others. He speaks well of Rahab's faith, but did He approve her lie? He overruled the wrath of the sons of Jacob, and preserved to them a saviour for a time of dearth, but who will be bold enough to excuse the envy of Joseph's brethren? I say, therefore, that the Lord as Sovereign does overrule much ignorance and self-will, and get praise to Himself in His own gracious way; but this is no mitigation of the rashness of any who intrude themselves into so sacred a place as the ministry, who have not known Christ's love, which passeth knowledge — to be filled into the fulness of God. Is this part of the vocation? Certainly it is. We are not only called to know where God has been pleased to set us; but our spiritual capacity has to be enlarged to learn Christ. Hence, in the previous part of the prayer, the apostle desires for us that we may be able to comprehend, with all saints, lengths, depths, breadths, and heights; — of what? He does not say. The fact is that, in Ephesians, we get a vast expanse of God's grace put before us, to scan which is our privilege, but for which we need something far beyond mere intellect. The Holy Ghost must expand the mind and enlarge the heart.

Now, before one word is said respecting ministry, these soul-stirring truths are given for our acceptance. They are truths, you perceive, that concern the glory of the Lord Jesus — of far higher moment to each believer than the doctrine as to ministry. Not that I would derogate the latter, beloved; God forbid! But I would press on you all, as on myself, the divine fact that the person of Christ, as a living man in heaven (of course, God withal, blessed for ever!) for saints to love, to learn, and to be obedient unto — is of far greater moment than the mere learning of doctrines as "articles of our belief." Moreover, the submission to Christ as LORD is considerably more precious to God than all the service performed without reference to His glory. Until God's order is observed — until believers can speak of the "excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord" (Phil. 3: 8), as Paul could — it is vain to deal with the doctrine of ministry; it is "running before they are sent" to assume the position of ministers of Christ. We must, therefore, know the calling in order to walk worthy of it.

(5) There is another idea which I would suggest as preliminary to the development of ministry. I allude to the manner in which we should walk. It should be "with all lowliness, and meekness, and long-suffering;" qualifications these are, not the less needed by the ministers than by those ministered unto.

This exhortation comes to us with no small degree of force from "Paul the aged" — "the prisoner of the Lord." It is said that from the same prison (at Rome) he penned the epistle to the Philippians and to Philemon, in which such exquisite exemplifications of the attributes here alluded to shine out. It is one thing to talk about these things, or to preach them; but do we live them? Placed in the trying circumstances for their test, do they manifest themselves?

Let it be our sincere desire, beloved, to aim high, though lower we may shoot. The knowledge of our high calling may excite spiritual pride in any believer; much more in one that ministers from such a height. What is the antidote? Lowliness. Does that mean that we are to take the low place? No; but to own that naturally we are in it. This supposes death as to the "old man" (Rom. 6), and a walking "in the Spirit" (Gal. 5).

"He that is down needs fear no fall;

He that is low no pride."

The first Adam sought to attain to a higher place than God put him into; and he fell. Born of him, we are in ourselves low good-for-nothings, despite what the devil teaches us to the contrary; we are to walk "with all lowliness."

"But how can I put up with the eccentricities of this brother and of that? Do what I may, he opposes me." Well, you must seek divine grace, which will leave nothing of "me" to be grieved. Dead men don't feel blows. It is your unbroken will — the opposite of meekness — that makes you feel the uncouth conduct of your brother. Thus Moses (remarkable usually for his meekness) lost his temper at Meribah. Let self be narrowly judged, and walk "with all meekness."

"I can bear with that for a day or two; but such persistent naughtiness on the part of those among whom I live, and to whom I minister, exhausts my patience." Indeed? Are you sure you are not the naughty one? Nevertheless, you are to walk with all long-suffering. But again, you are not so much to expect from, as to give to, another. Each is to forbear (or yield to) another in love. The servant of the Lord, above all others, needs this exhortation. His fervent zeal for the glory of the Lord Jesus may begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh. Lowliness, practical humility, not thinking of self at all, are some results of the operation of the Holy Ghost in us; and will effectually displace proud self. If in personal, quiet communion with Christ, the soul feeds upon Himself, zeal will surely be tempered by lowliness. Mere doctrine, as to position and gift, away from Christ, will only inflate a naturally vain nature, and so render the most fervent zeal a fruitful source of dishonour to the name of Christ. Again; the very knowledge of personal responsibility to the Lord, and to no one else — as we hope to see by and by — may induce an over-bearing and naughtiness which would not only damage the spirit of the servant himself, but also render him repulsive to others, and this may creep on very insidiously; the spirit of meekness and gentleness is therefore to be cultivated. "The servant of God must not strive; but be gentle towards all." In that way he will be "apt to teach," being also "patient" (2 Tim. 2: 24).

Further; the servant, in his place of responsibility, cannot tolerate what he believes to be evil, according to the word of God. He deals with it; and, in doing so, he is assailed by his brethren, and is evil spoken of. Then he needs — in addition to lowliness and meekness — long-suffering and forbearance in love.

All these divine traits (yes, divine, because they are such as are only produced by the Holy Ghost in us) were most perfectly exhibited in the Lord Jesus. Hence, to have Him always before us, as our pattern, is the sure way, and only true way, of success in walking worthy of our vocation.

Looking to the Lord for guidance, and for simplicity in the understanding of His truth, let us, for a while, seek to lay aside all our former notions of ministry; and let us endeavour to see "what saith the Lord" respecting it. In this way, perhaps, we shall the better be enabled to reject whatever we find the truth condemns, and to lay hold of what is of God.

I think it may be more easy for our minds to dispose of what we receive from the Scriptures on the subject before us, under a few propositions. I shall suggest the following plan: —

1. — WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF MINISTRY?

The answer to this is in the 11th verse of this 4th of Ephesians, "He gave." Who is the He? — The person who ascended and took His seat at God's right hand. And the Holy Ghost, before telling us that He gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, turns aside to tell us who this person is — "He who ascended is the same also that descended into the lower parts of the earth, that he might fill all things." Before touching the question of ministry, our eyes are led to rest upon this person in some of the aspects of His divine, of His moral, glory. He must fill all things.

If anything among men is valued according to our estimate of the giver, may we not turn aside for a little while to see who "He" is from whom the "gifts unto men" proceed'?

You must have observed, in reading the epistle to the Hebrews, how you are pleasingly detained at the very first page of the letter, with a sketch of the "Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." The very God who had been speaking before by the prophets, now speaks through (i.e. in or by) the Son; and lest you should despise the teaching, your mind must be impressed with the majesty of the Teacher; for He is the brightness of glory, the express image of God's person, the upholder of all things by the word of His power.

So in Ephesians in connection with ministry. Lest any should make light of the gifts He imparts, or others should mimic so sacred a calling; or lest any one, or company of persons, should dare to meddle with a function which is His only, we are reminded of His superlative excellence, and of His transcendent glory.

God has determined that all things shall be put in subjection under His feet. Things in heaven, things in the earth, and things under the earth, must, by Jehovah's decree, be subject to Him who came down and became a man in this world.

But, beloved friends, who are they that can come down? Persons can come down who were previously up. In other words, it were presumptuous in us to speak of going down, because as a matter of fact we are down already as men. The Lord Jesus, who was God from all eternity, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, He alone could come down, and this He did. You will get this statement in the 9th and 10th verses, in which the various spheres of the glory of the Lord Jesus are alluded to — heavenly, filling all things above; down on the earth, filling all things below. Wherever He is, He fills all things, and under His feet all things are put in subjection. Less than this would not become a holy and righteous God, whose glory was the sole aim of the Son of Man.

Adam the first sought his good; in so doing he dishonoured God. The second Adam — the Lord from heaven — came not to do His own, but the will of Him that sent Him. Adam the first had therefore to be humbled; the Lord Jesus has been exalted; a name has been given Him above every name; to (or in virtue of) it every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess His Lordship to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2: 1-11).

After rising from the grave, the Lord, just before His ascension, declares, "All power is given to me, in heaven and in earth" (Matt. 28: 18). In Eph. 1 He is spoken of as raised from the dead, and set far above all principalities, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and all things are put under His feet, and He is made Lord over all things. Again, in Col. 1, He is referred to as "the first-born of every creature," the head of the body, the church — among all He has the pre-eminence. He is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6: 15). Quoting the eighth Psalm, the Holy Ghost tells us (Heb. 2) that He is as a Man set over the works of God's hands; and, lastly, all who have read the book of the Revelation must have paused to do homage to "the Son of Man" (Rev. 1: 13), who is supreme all through the book, whether "the things that are, or the things that shall be after these" (ver. 19) are considered.

In a word, then, the Lord Jesus, who, as a man, glorified God, has been entrusted with absolute authority over everything, and therefore over the church.* We do not yet see Him exercising His power in all these spheres; He bides His time, but He shall reign. Nevertheless such a position is His, accorded Him by God the Father, and shortly He will manifest it. Now He exercises His Lordship in the church, and supplies ministers for its edification, which all who own His Lordship will recognise.

{*As Man, Jesus has been set over all things to the church (Eph. 1: 22). God (1 Cor. 15: 27) and the church (Eph. 1: 22) are the manifest exceptions to the universal subjection of all — persons and things — to the Son of Man. — ED.}

Such is the person who gave "gifts unto men." He, therefore, that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God. Indeed, I may say that the special care of God respects the honour of the One, who stooped so low to glorify God. God's command is that "All men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father" (John 5: 23). Now in the chapter I have just quoted, we find that the Father has given to the Son to have life in Himself, and to quicken (or to give life to) whom He will. What would you think of any human being, or of any organisation, that arrogated such a right to give life — eternal life — to a sinner? You would simply pronounce the conduct blasphemous, inasmuch as to the Son of Man only — the Lord Jesus — has the right been given.

Do we read anywhere in the Scriptures of the church, or of any ecclesiastic, except the Apostles (Acts 8: 19; 2 Timothy 1: 6), having been entrusted with the imposition of gifts in the ministry? I am sure not. The only source is God; or, speaking more strictly, God through Christ. He who led captive the former captor of fallen men, received gifts for men, and He gives according to the measure of His grace.* All who own Him as Saviour are His saints, whom He loves, and all are set by Him in the "one body," and are indwelt by the "same Spirit;" and further, all such are to show forth His praises, are left here as His witnesses. But above and beyond all this, He imparts gifts according to His own will. He takes up some of His own, and qualifies them in a special way for service in the ministry of the word. All are alike the members of His body; but every member is not a "gift," a minister. On the contrary, He bestows gifts (or ministers, if you please), for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, etc. But the thought I wished to press was that the only proper channel of ministry is the Lord Jesus, the ascended Man — the One in whom manhood is joined to Deity.

<*Note the grace divine in this. As a man Christ received gifts for men. He has conquered Satan ― had led captivity captive. He now imparts gifts to men, whom He uses in His grace, as means here upon earth for going out to declare the perfect victory which He achieved over Satan. The knowledge of this, viz. ― of the victory over Satan, and the design of the Lord in propagating the truth as to His exaltation and glory, should give immense power to the servant of God in his mission to the world, which still owns Satan's yoke. The very fact of men being used to announce the Gospel is a witness to the exaltation of Christ; for without the latter man could not have been delivered from the thraldom of Satan, much less could they have entered his stronghold to bring out any of their fellowmen. But so effective has been the conquest by the Captain of Salvation, that He can now use the very ones who were captives of Satan to engage under His command in a glorious war against His enemy and theirs!

Note further, that the gifts are unto men ― not unto the church (the latter idea may be Romish but not divine.) And each man is responsible to the Lord for the godly exercise of the gift. Should he attempt to exceed his measure it will be profitless; should he not use what he has he will be as one burying his Lord's talents in the earth. The very spirit, however, which directs him will lead the saints to own him ― if all are subject to the Holy Ghost.>

I may say that there could not be Christian ministry without this exaltation of Christ. Ministry flows from Him, from that place of exaltation, it is a fruit of it. I do not say that the Lord did not send forth ministers before His exaltation to the right hand of God, for we know that twelve apostles and seventy disciples were by Him commissioned to go forth to preach, etc. But by a reference to the portions narrating it (Matt. 10, Luke 10), you will observe that the aspect is Jewish, and is a picture of what will be fully developed when He shall reign from the river to the ends of the earth — Israel established in blessing on the earth, and made the conveyers of it to others — when the church, of course, shall be with the Lord reigning over (not upon) the earth. In the charge to the twelve (Matt. 10) the Lord distinctly charged them not to go in the way of the Gentiles, but to Israel only; whereas, after He comes from the dead, He removes the barrier to their ministry, and sends them to make disciples of (or from among) all nations (Matt. 28); Christian (not Jewish) ministry then commenced. In the passage before us, it is said (and "it is written," should be sufficient for faith), that He ascended and received gifts for men. Hence, I repeat, that ministry flows from Christ as the exalted Head in heaven.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12) it may appear, at a superficial glance, that the Holy Ghost was referred to as the source of ministry; and specially would this conclusion be drawn, if Heb. 2: 4 — "gifts of the Spirit" — be taken in connection. Well, if this were so, it would still teach that God, the Holy Ghost, imparted gifts, thus, at any rate, excluding pretentious man, whether in a king, a prelate, or a Presbytery, from so sacred a function. But, as another remarks, by a careful investigation of the subject, it will be very evident that the Lord Jesus is the source of ministry. In 1st Corinthians 12, the Holy Ghost is looked at as the alone distributor, not the giver of the gifts. So in Heb. 2 (see margin) "God (is) bearing witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost." The Holy Ghost always guards the glory of the Lord Jesus, who once humbled Himself in this world. "He shall glorify Me," said the Lord; and so He does. Hence He tells us that there are differences of ministries, but they are from one source — "the same LORD." So there are diversities of gifts seen in operation; but one Spirit so directs them — the Holy Ghost, actually on the earth, so works in them that there should be no schism in the body. Such is the normal view of things; such they were when Paul wrote. Alas! for what we see now.

<Of the special relation of the Holy Ghost to ministry, we hope to inquire at our next meeting; but, meanwhile, let our hearts be found in praise to the Lord for his goodness to us in supplying a channel for the knowledge of Himself, of God, yea, and of ourselves in Christian ministry, flowing from Himself.>

The Lord Jesus, then, fits, qualifies, and sends forth the ministers; their source is divine, their mission divine, strength for it divine, their object divine, but all have to do with Christ.

This is the place, I think, to answer a question —

Should not persons be "trained for the ministry" Certainly; but by whom? Certainly not by the church; for, as we shall see presently, the church is to be edified by the ministers — "for the perfecting of the saints . . . for the edifying of the body of Christ." The Lord, and not man, fits His chosen vessel, and in His own time He puts the grace (or gift) in him and sends him forth. Hence Paul says, "When it pleased GOD, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" (Gal. 1: 15, 16). Here it is evident that this great apostle was not only not trained by men, but positively avoided men. GOD had separated him, and called him to preach. This was enough; his qualification was complete; he did not even go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him. Indeed, we know from the Acts of the Apostles , that he preached in Damascus three years (Acts 9: 22, with Gal. 1: 18) before he went to Jerusalem. Whom the Lord fits is fully qualified, and hence the church sins in attempting to add to what He does, and in refusing to own what, being from the Lord, must be perfect.

The training, or rather the fitness, is shown us in 2 Cor. 4: 1-13 —

(a) Moral fitness — "We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness. nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (ver. 2).

(b) Divine intelligence — "God . . . hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (ver. 6).

(c) Divine strength — "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of GOD" (ver. 7).

(d) Secret of success — "Always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." So then death worketh in us (that is, the practical walking through this scene as men dead to it), and life in you (ministers in whom "the flesh" is not allowed to rule, are those who are most used for the developing of spiritual life in those to whom they minister). (Ver. 10-12.)

(e) Such do not trade in unfelt truth — "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak" (ver. 13).

And just for a moment look at Rev. 1. John in that book ministers Christ as the Judge — now judging in the midst of the assemblies, and as the One soon to judge Israel, the Gentiles, etc. Hence the judicial robes of Christ in this chapter — His all-searching eye of fire — His unbending, unyielding feet of brass, and His thundering, majestic voice! The sight of this puts John at His feet as dead (ver. 17). Yes, John, who could lean on His bosom in the days of His flesh (John 13) falls at His feet as dead. Such, beloved, is the condition of soul that the Lord can use — "a broken vessel." True His love cheers His servant with "Fear not;" but I do ask, is a soul "trained for the ministry" that can be unbroken in the presence of the Lord's august majesty?

Have you not further observed that John is a worshipper (ver. 5, 6) before he ministers (ver. 7)? So it is. And this leads me also to remind you that the truth about the Lord's Supper is given (1 Cor. 11) before that about ministry (1 Cor. 12 and 14). The fact is, that the believer cannot properly appreciate ministry who does not recognise the Lordship of Jesus in the showing of His death, once a week, according to His will. If it were otherwise, chapter 12 would be 11, and 11 would be 12. You see there is no reason why saints may not break bread every Lord's-day, if their walk be godly; all may then be worshippers; but although gifts are on the earth for all the church, yet it may please the Lord to withhold them for a time from any one place. Is it necessary to add that in Paul's dealing with the Corinthians for their ungodly way of eating the Lord's Supper, he says not a word to any minister? I am not aware that even elders are ever mentioned as being in that gathering. The loaf at the table may be broken by one, who, on behalf of the assembly, gives thanks, and so the cup is passed, after the giving of thanks, also; but this needs not a "gift" — it may be done by any brother at the table, it is not ministry.

Suffer me, beloved, to enforce this on you, and so examine yourselves, whether you are gathered to ministry or to CHRIST. Suppose that you had no ministry for weeks, months, or years, could you still go on with the Holy Ghost in a quiet witnessing for Christ in these last days? O, may all of us learn more and more of the value of His sufficiency! Then, in the absence of gifts, we can lean more fully on Him whose Spirit will guide us into all truth; and such as are gifts will exercise themselves in the spirit of self-renunciation that Christ may be magnified in us.

In many associations of Christians it is our privilege to know some who show unmistakable signs of divine fitness for ministering. God uses them in His sovereign grace; souls are blessed by their ministry; and the Lord will reward them in His grace according as they serve Him in what they do. Nevertheless, they have erred in having failed to see the LORD alone in their preparation, ordination, and service.

It suffices to know, and to own practically, that the Lord is sovereign in ministry; and any attempt to interfere with His rights in training, calling, or appointing, is gross usurpation. We will revert to this again.

2. THE DIRECTION AND THE OBJECT OF MINISTRY.

Like the truth about the church, most of us for many centuries regarded that respected ministry as hidden behind such veils of mystery as none dared to pry into except a privileged few and; and, profiting by such superstition, "the laity" were never indoctrinated into the teaching of the Scriptures on the subject, if even "the clergy" were capable of telling out the mind of God in the matter.

There is nothing, however, which has been revealed in the word of God that is placed beyond the ken of the simplest child of faith. I deny that certain truths are for the learned only. All who are spiritual should discern spiritual things; for the normal attainment of those indwelt by the Holy Ghost is that they "know all things"* (1 John 2: 20).

{*Not actually, for then there would be no need of teaching; but as having the Holy Ghost they possess the power, and in the mind of Christ the capacity (1 Cor. 2: 16) to "know all things." — ED.}

<The fact is that for ages ― and is it not so now, to a very great extent? ― saints of God looked rather to men than to God, more to articles framed by men than to what the Holy Ghost has written. Now, far from the saints having to wait for the exposition of the Churches, "he that hath an ear to hear" is distinctly invoked to hear what the Spirit saith to the churches (Rev. 2, 3): that is, the saint is responsible to act upon what the Holy Ghost says, but not what the churches teach. Moreover, I hope to show presently that the church is the class to be taught, and not the teacher to teach. The Lord tells us that the word which He spake shall judge in the last day (John 12: 48). Which of you will tell Him that you acted in this or that way, because your church or your Minister so instructed you? You have His word, beloved friends; and, believe me, you and I need to treat it with more importance than we do, because it is the word of the LORD.>

Now, He has not left us to grope in the dark about ministry; He speaks out plainly; and it is due to His honour that we search for what He has revealed. We have already seen that Christian ministry is a fruit of the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God, like the formation of the church and the descent of the Holy Ghost. Now, God had instructed His people Israel by the prophets (I mean here Old Testament prophets); as we may see by comparing such Scriptures as Heb. 1, Ex. 24: 7, Joshua 8: 34, Neh. 8: 3, Jer. 25: 4, etc.; and that parents were charged with teaching their children is also deducible (Deut. 4: 10). Is there any agreement between that principle and Christian ministry? (1) In their origin, both were from God to man; (2) man had no share in its arrangements then; man should not meddle with it now.

Wherein do they differ? (1) Ministry, in prophets, was to Israel only; the Christian ministry goes out to "all the world." God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Cor. 5). (2) We are told by Paul (2 Cor. 3: 10), that, in contrast with the Gospel, it was a ministration of death; inasmuch as Israel only obtained life by keeping the law, which was found to be impossible; the Gospel ministry ministers righteousness, not as that which God exacts, but which He gives to faith (Rom. 1; 3). (3) God was pleased to raise up prophets, from time to time, to send to Israel; but the ministry was not constant: the Christian ministry is constant, because the Holy Ghost, on the earth with the saints, has charge of it; and He will remain with the Assembly till it is removed from the earth. So we see, that although ministry to Israel had certain things in common with Christian ministry, yet the contrast is so great, that we must not go to the Old Testament for our information respecting Christian ministry.

PRIESTHOOD differs from MINISTRY.— There is another very popular notion, that ministry is the same thing as priesthood. And so far is this indulged, that in the Establishment, as in Popery, there is a distinct and exclusive party of men known as priests; and so much are they acknowledged, that they are asked to approach God on behalf of others, as though none had the privilege but themselves. It would be well, therefore, for us to see at once the difference between ministry and priesthood; for the two things are as separable and separate as going and coming. Under the law, none could approach God but a caste of men whom He appointed as priests. These offered sacrifices for the people, who were not themselves permitted to draw near to God; the veil was a barrier between God and them. (Read Heb. 9 with Lev. 2:, 4.) Their relationship with Him could be sustained only by the priesthood, which was vested in the family of Aaron. But such priests approached God for man; the direction of priesthood is to God. Over the priests the High Priest was set, and he only could go into the "holiest" once a year, on the day of atonement.

Our great High Priest is the Lord Jesus; and He has entered into the very presence of God, because of His blood-shedding, which has perfected for ever them that are sanctified; and His presence before God gives us boldness to draw near with purged consciences into the presence of God also, in the light where He is. And to every one of you, my beloved brethren, who own Him as your Saviour, is this grace given (Heb. 10).

Yes; redemption has been accomplished, the veil has been rent from heaven to earth, and access to God is granted now to the feeblest believer: not one spot remains to disturb the conscience. Hence, by the Holy Ghost given, every one, whose faith is in God, can now draw near within the holiest of all, and see God in the face of Jesus Christ — can gaze upon Him and adore Him without the least thing to hinder. O, what boundless grace! Could we not now sing together: —

"Within the holiest of all,

Cleansed by His precious blood;

Before the throne we prostrate fall,

And worship Thee, O God"?

Let no man rob you of your privilege; every one of you is a Priest unto God.

In 1 Peter 2 we read of a spiritual house, and a holy priesthood, composed of "lively stones," who have come to Christ "the living stone;" and their office is to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Will any dare to argue you into the belief that this privilege is not one common to all believers? And when such a priesthood is assembled for worship (homage and adoration paid to God, inciting praise, etc.),

<as we saw in our last meeting>

it may please the Holy Ghost to use anyone present to address God, on behalf of the assembly; or to lead its praises in a hymn. Such praise, or prayer, will be the expression of all the spiritual, of the whole assembly if it be spiritual; but this, I repeat, is toward God: whereas if a gifted person, a minister, addresses the saints, he utters the mind of God to them; and such utterance may tend to elevate the spiritual condition of saints; it may be much above their actual state; but such is toward man. Again, I say, any of the priesthood except women, may express to God the praises of the assembly; but only such may teach or exhort, in whom the grace to minister has been deposited by Christ. So that it is possible for an assembly in one place, to worship God most happily; and yet to have no gift, no minister, in its midst. Do let me beseech you to ponder these differences between priesthood and ministry.

The Lord has been pleased to make known to you something of the value of Himself as your Saviour; and while it is your highest privilege to go forth to Himself, and to have fellowship with such as desire to worship in spirit and in truth, it would be very despicable to go out to ministry; in this you may soon be disappointed; but to fail in the other, the High Priest, that is Christ, and the "place of worship," even "heaven itself," must be displaced; and you know that such is impossible. The priesthood then, according to the Scriptures, is composed of saints, believers in Christ, who are such because they are Christians. Each of you is a priest, but all of you are not ministers.

Again, it is the privilege of all saints, as priests with God, to make intercession for all men; for kings and for those in authority, etc. (1 Tim. 1). But all believers may do this, and all will, who are free to get God's thoughts; that is, who are walking in the Spirit, and have not so frequently to halt to be occupied with their own failings and shortcomings. I say that in order for us to be at liberty to pray for others we must ourselves be in communion with God; and proper as it is to be examining ourselves, or confessing our failings to God, yet they are not communion, but rather the evidence of loss of communion. But interceding for others is not ministry: it is the act of a priest; it is the approach to God for man. But is this to be left to an exclusive ministry only, and to be done merely at certain fixed times? The Scriptures do not say so. If we were all more simple and child-like before our Father, we would frequently go to Him on behalf of others; and there our own souls would be blessed, because none can be in His presence without being blessed.

If these ideas be according to the truth, what about the "gift of prayer"? Will you tell me, if a son requires the gift of begging in order to fit him to speak to his father about some thing on his mind? Certainly not. And does not God read my thoughts, and know what I need before I ask Him? Further, is it not the Holy Ghost who puts it in us to desire what He knows God will hear? (Rom. 8) The word of God does allude to several gifts; but that of prayer is not one, thank God; if it were so, we would need human priests to go to God for us. But we have already seen that all of us have access to Himself through Christ. The direction of priesthood, therefore, is God-ward; priests go from man to God.

Let us now, with our way thus far cleared, search for the direction and the object of ministry.

To testify of Christ, as the exalted One, has been the great mission of the Holy Ghost to this earth. His presence here is a witness that the Person whom God sent into the world, but whom men cast out, has been seated in glory, all things being put in subjection to Him. Hence Peter announces at Jerusalem, "Therefore" (because of the exaltation of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost) "let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2: 36). By this announcement* 3000 souls received the word, owned Him, were baptized unto His name, and broke bread in remembrance of Him.

{*Consequent upon the exaltation of Christ we have the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, and repentance and forgiveness of sins declared in the first Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2). — Ed.}

In the next chapter the same truth is enunciated (ver. 13). The people wondered at seeing a lame man leaping, whom Peter, "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," had healed. Peter tells them that they should not marvel, for the cure was one of the many ways which God took for manifesting that He had "glorified His Son Jesus, whom the Jews had denied in the presence of Pilate."

Accordingly, the same hatred of man which led to the crucifixion of Christ is stirred up by Satan; and in the next chapter we find a triumvirate of assailants attacking the men that preached Jesus. "The priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead:" and for such a grave offence "they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day." But God had put His seal upon their ministry; and "many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand."

In this most interesting chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (or we should say of the Holy Ghost, for it was really He who acted through the ministers, and acts through them still, whom the LORD appoints) in this portion, I say, the ministry was from God to man, and its object was God's glory in Christ. This Satan knew very well; and therefore he stirred up such dire opposition to what was done. (You must bear in mind that the Scriptures always present a trinity of opposition to God: the world is in opposition to the Father; Satan to Christ, and the flesh to the Spirit.) Without controversy it may be said that if Peter had preached anything but Christ and His glory, he would have been applauded as "great" and "learned:" but Satan hates his Captor too much not to come out in ambush occasionally to give battle. Of his devices the servants of the Lord were not ignorant: they traced effects to the proper cause; and, crying to God, they owned that it was not against them, but against God's Christ (ver. 24-27, with Ps. 11) that the opposition was raised.

By seven signs, which the Holy Ghost records, God again set His seal to a ministry which had for its object the glory of Christ: —

(1) the place was shaken where they were assembled;

(2) they were all filled with the Holy Ghost;

(3) they became bold in speaking the word;

(4) fellowship in heart and soul was enjoyed by the multitude that believed, leading even to caring for each other's temporal needs;

(5) the apostles, with great power, gave witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus;

(6) great grace was upon them all; and

(7) hearts being enlarged, purses were opened, and means were laid at the disposal of the Lord's servants.

In Acts 5 a man and his wife, who could act as hypocrites in the presence of such manifested grace, are visited instantaneously with judgment. In the meanwhile believers, in multitudes, both of men and women, were the more added to the LORD. Another persecution breaks out, and the servants are cast into the common prison. The Lord by an angel lets them out, and forthwith they are found preaching again.

Summoned before the council, they are examined for speaking about Christ. If they had merely read the law, or delivered a thesis on some religious notion (so fashionable now-a-days!), they would doubtless have had the patronage of the great among the people; but the name of Jesus, the glory of Christ, was more than could be borne; hence the apostles who served Him faithfully were beaten, and commanded not to "speak in the name of Jesus."

So far the direction of the ministry was to Israel — its object the glory of Christ.

In Acts 8, the circle of ministry enlarges; its diameter extends to Samaria. Philip preached in that city the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ; many believed and were baptized, both men and women, unto (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus (ver. 12). The Ethiopian eunuch is met in the desert; to him Philip preaches Jesus (ver. 35), to whose Name he baptized him.

But, besides Philip, other servants of Christ "that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word;" and inasmuch as it bore witness to Christ, in whom is life, it was used by God in ministering peace to all who believed — first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. But let it be remembered that the source was heavenly. Fit vessels, as we have seen in those at Jerusalem and at Samaria, were sent forth to preach of His exaltation and glory, and of salvation through Him.*

<*Much is said and written about "regular" and "lay" preachers. To which of the two classes do the preachers in Acts 11: 19-21, belong? That they were gifts of the Lord is evident, and, it is distinctly recorded that "the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed and turned unto the Lord."

If the authority to preach the word be rendered valid only by the imposition of hands, then it must follow that those servants of God ran before they were sent. Will any one assert this? Then, if they were not ordained by men, why the need to-day?  The fact is, that whom the Lord sends forth are regular (or rightly sent) preachers.

Young men whose hearts are true to Lord, and to whom He has been pleased to commit any gift, should ponder ere they question the perfection of His work; they require no human ordination to the Christian ministry.>

But lest this should be forgotten, what do we find in Acts 9. That the Lord speaks directly and immediately from heaven; and Saul of Tarsus, afterwards Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ (i.e., one sent by Jesus Christ), is converted. Here the Lord accomplishes His object without the channel of any of the apostles or evangelists; He acts directly from His place in glory on one who, in persecuting the disciples, was persecuting Him. Now, the conversion of Saul, in this way, is full of interest in connection with our subject. The enmity of the Jews showed itself in a remarkable way in their persecution of such as owned the name of Jesus; but Saul outrivalled them all: for, by his own account of himself, he "was exceedingly mad" against confessors of Christ. Nevertheless, such was the character of the ministry that by it this mighty opposer of the truth is at once arrested at the very zenith of his bitterness, and is heard to say "LORD" to Jesus. It is true that Ananias was sent to him to confirm his faith, but in this unique case we see most distinctly where ministry starts from, and what it has to accomplish; its direction, is from the Lord to man, and its object is His glory. Unless these lessons are received into our minds from the Lord, through His word, ministry will be associated, in our minds, with very different ideas; its direction will be only to a corporation or an association — a Church; and its object making proselytes to such, or providing a "living" for an individual in one of "the learned professions!" Even the "conversion of souls" may be so uppermost in the mind as to obscure the great object of Christian ministry, viz., the glory of the Lord Jesus; whereas, if the latter were prominently sought by us, evangelists would be used in conversions, teachers in instructing the converts, etc., or we would know sometimes the joy of "standing still," and just seeing God's salvation wrought, as in Saul's case, without us. Do we not know of persons brought to Christ without any human instrumentality whatever — by just reading the word of God which the Holy Ghost applied to their hearts and consciences? Indeed we do know some; and thousands more will meet us in glory to praise Him, of whose very existence, as well as their conversion, no believer had any knowledge upon earth.

But is the opposite not mourned over? Are there not many who, regardless of what is due to the Lord, say, Peace, peace, when there is no peace?

We see, further, in Saul's case, that the LORD had made him a chosen vessel to bear His name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

(1) The choice was the LORD'S; and this must be so with every true minister of God; (2) The chosen vessel was to preach Christ, to tell of His glory, to declare His name; (3) The direction of his mission should be to the Gentiles, to Kings, and to the Children of Israel. In Acts 2, the circle was restricted to Jerusalem; in Acts 8 we noticed that it extended to Samaria; and now we find it become world-wide.

As was pointed out by another, the very first mention of Paul's preaching contains the nucleus of what he afterwards fully declared. He was the first to preach that the crucified One was the Son of God — "straightway (or immediately), he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God" (ver. 20). Peter had declared that He was "Lord and Christ:" now, Paul announces His personal glory as the "Son of God" — a truth which is calculated to give very high tone to the ministry of any servant of Christ. Preachers of the law, as that by which man may get peace, or may please God, are ignorant of the gospel of the glory of Christ, which Paul preached; and souls who never learn the latter, know nothing of deliverance in their souls, although they may have life.

It would be, perhaps, foreign to our subject, to search into the meaning of Paul's expression, "my gospel" (2 Tim. 2: 8); but, let us bear in mind that, although the testimony to Christ, borne by Peter and others before Paul, forms part of the ministry which respects the glory of Christ, yet the special revelation made to Paul respecting the mystery — Christ and the Church — is that which gives peculiar character to the Christian ministry which we are investigating. None can doubt this statement who reads Col. 1: 23-26.

Before quitting Acts 9, let us observe another example of the object of ministry; or rather, a way in which the object is met. The Lord told Ananias, that Paul was to suffer many things for His name's sake. "Suffer?" one asks; "I thought the ministry was a very respectable position, which immuned persons from suffering; a situation which rather gave opportunity for ruling — at any rate, for taking things very easily."

Indeed! Let us go back to Acts 7, and read ver. 59 — "And they stoned Stephen." Go on to Acts 12, and read of Herod killing James, and proceeding to take Peter also (because he saw it pleased the Jews), cast him into prison. See the Jews (in Acts 13), stirring up devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raising a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, expelled them from their coasts. In Acts 14, ver. 19, we see Paul stoned, and dragged out of Lystra as dead. Will you search all through the Scriptures, and show me one example of a faithful witness for Christ finding his path an easy one? The idea may prompt some, now-a-days, to intrude themselves into a place, into which the Lord never called them; but Paul, at the very outset, was to suffer many things for the name of Christ. Accordingly we find him and Silas, with their feet fast in the stocks, sitting in the jail at Philippi (Acts 16), singing praises to God, and used to loose stronger fetters with which Satan had bound their keeper.

Beloved brethren, I am fully persuaded that every true and faithful minister of Jesus Christ (I do not say of churches, but of the LORD — such as He calls, and such as serve Him, and not man) will, like all who live godly in Christ Jesus, suffer persecution. True, a blind fanaticism may impel such lawlessness as evokes the punishment of criminal law. I do not speak of this: I mean that faithfulness to the Lord on the part of a truly godly spiritual servant of God will now, as ever, expose him who practises it to the scorn, and derision, and persecution, too, in some shape, of those who, being carnal, are enemies of God. — I say more, that a worldly religion will take the lead in such opposition. Who "killed the Prince of life"? Did not the religious Jews? By whom was Stephen stoned? Was not Saul of Tarsus, the "Pharisee," an abettor to the crime? I do not wish to leave the Scripture history, or I would ask who lighted the fires of Smithfield, and who persecuted the Puritans? I may add that he will know nothing of suffering for the name of CHRIST who becomes the minister of a religion which the world patronises; but all who serve the Lord after the fashion of Paul (Gal. 1: 10) must wait patiently for His approval. "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

We see, then, that to suffer for Christ is an element of the Christian ministry: to glorify Christ, "whether by life or by death" (Phil. 1: 20), was Paul's only aim; and such was his utterance in his prison at Rome.*

{* (1) The CIRCUMSTANCES in which God's servants are to commend themselves are the very opposite of ease.

They are exhorted to follow the example of Paul, whose highest gift made him, in the eyes of the world, to be one of the meanest and most contemptible. However, he endeavoured to approve himself — "in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tossings to and fro, in labours, in watchings, in fastings" (2 Cor. 6: 1-5).

(2) The MANNER in which the servant of God is to approve himself, in the circumstances, is "by pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report" (v. 6-8).

(3) But being always misunderstood by the world and by the worldly, he refers everything to God: hence in His sight he is true, although regarded as a deceiver, etc. (v. 9-10).}

It is remarkable that many in these days aim at being popular preachers, and with most pious motives at conversion of souls; and not a little effort is made in "revival meetings" to extort a confession from many. Surely every feeder upon the "fatted calf" should have a heart to make merry with the father when returning prodigals receive His welcome; but I would seek to press the inquiry upon myself, on every minister of the gospel now listening to me, and on every saint — What is the motive? Is it that Christ be magnified? or is it not that you may be well spoken of as being used in conversions?

Let us learn a lesson from Stephen. He began his ministry "full of the Holy Ghost"

< (Acts 6: 5); and at it's close he was still “full of the Holy Ghost” >

(Acts 7: 55); his address is recorded, but not one word is said as to the results to any but himself, whom wicked hands sent to heaven. I say that not a conversion is referred to. Yet persons talk so much about conversions, as if they formed the highest object of ministry. What, was Stephen's ministry without an object? Well, let who will merely aim at men's approval: may we learn to have our eye fixed on CHRIST, for His divine approbation.

It suffices to learn that the Lord's notice of His faithful servant is specially chronicled. He, whom Paul assures us took His seat after having purged our sins (Heb. 1: 3), showed Himself, through the opened heavens, to His faithful martyr, as the One whom the very religious world had killed, but who was then standing (or placed) at God's right hand!

The great object of ministry, therefore, is to magnify CHRIST; and this God accomplishes through His servants, whether by their preaching or by their suffering, or by both. Of course souls are brought to God by it, and saints are edified through it.

3. THE IMMEDIATE DIRECTOR OF MINISTRY IS THE HOLY GHOST.

Arriving at Acts 13, we find the Holy Ghost particularly mentioned as selecting "whom He will" for special work. It is well to remember that His action is recorded in this book, in which we get an insight into His operations as long as the Church is on the earth; and that is questionable wisdom which does not own His presence and directorship now, as in apostolic times.

Saints forget this — if ever they knew it — who sanction men, when the Holy Ghost should be free to call and appoint to the ministry.

Let us see how He acted in the case before us. At Antioch there was an assembly of saints. All, however, were not ministers; for it is distinctly said "there were in the church (or assembly) certain prophets and teachers." Two extremes of error are to be avoided in this day of confusion: (1) it is not true that there should be only a minister to an assembly of Christians; (2) it is equally false that all saints in an assembly are necessarily ministers.

There are four specified as being in the gathering at Antioch: this excludes the idea, at once, of a one man ministry; again, if all present were gifted men, the Holy Ghost would not have said "there were in the assembly prophets and teachers." Indeed, I say without hesitation, that the word of God sanctions no such notion as being the minister of a church. We will see this more transparently as we proceed.

From among the prophets and teachers at Antioch, then, the Holy Ghost directed the separation of Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto He had called them.

<Some tell us that this was the commencement of the work of these servants, called from "the college of ministers at Antioch." There are two fatal objections to this ― (1) the Scriptures tell us nothing of colleges for the ministry, and some of us know pretty well that such institutions had their origin in comparatively later days. (I trust that I will not be charged with finding fault with training institutions; for I fully admit that if persons will have their own churches, then they must have their own ministers, which should be trained according to their regulations, at their respective colleges. We are, however, inquiring into the Christian ministry, and we desire to find an "It is written" for what we believe and practise. Persons fitted by the Lord and sent forth by the Holy Ghost are trained and are fully qualified, and therefore need nothing else from man; while I admit that men's ministers require human training.) (2) The second fatal objection to the assertion that Paul and Barnabas now began their mission lies in the fact that each had been previously travelling and preaching, as we saw before (ch. 9, 10).

What trouble some are the expressions ― (1) "the work whereunto I have called them," and (2) the fact that hands were laid upon them.>

Now, "the work" was a special tour for preaching the word in the western regions; and the laying on of hands was a sign of fellowship and blessing expressed by the assembly (or by their fellow-labourers merely) at Antioch.

I do not apprehend any difficulty to simple souls, who have traced the action of the Holy Ghost in Ministry so far. It is as monstrous to conceive of two directorships, at the same time, as to think of two heads ordering one body. It was not the assembly of saints, nor a college of officials, that called and sent forth these men on their mission; the Holy Ghost selected them (ver. 2); and the Holy Ghost sent them forth (ver. 4).*

<*I need not dwell upon the ungodliness of owning the sovereignty of the Chief Magistrate over the Church of God, and of allowing the directorship of the ministry to be vested in him (or her), or in such as the Prime Minister may delegate. It may help some to be told that the constitution of England was not framed for many centuries after the formation of God's assembly at Pentecost; and the assumption by the king of the title of "Head of the Church" (!) dates no farther back than about 330 years, and was first taken by one of the most immoral men that ever held the sceptre of these realms. The Lord has some of His saints in the Establishment; He dearly loves them, and I trust that we do also: I am not judging them; and it would be straying from my subject to say anything of a system, about whose distance from the truth all the godly must be agreed: but saints should seek to distinguish between things that differ.

There are some devoted men in the Establishment, as in Dissent, about whose ministry two things always grieve me: ―

1) The loss of their ministry sustained by saints, who cannot, with a good conscience, and a mind instructed by the word of God, go where the authority of the Lord and the presence of the Holy Ghost are practically denied. Not only do saints thus suffer loss when such ministers are teachers, but the world ― the unconverted ― are not reached by decided evangelists of the system; because they are restricted to a routine of service, for the accurate performance of which they are duly paid.

2) The more serious grievance arises from their denial of the true source of ministry, and of the directorship of the Holy Ghost. Hence, amongst other results of this, they dare not labour till they "receive an appointment;" and at their own option, or forced by an expulsion, "they retire from the ministry!"

I would, for the Lord's sake, implore my dear brethren found in such position to ponder before proceeding another step. Think not of difficulties; they will be removed like the great stone which loving Mary (John 20) thought insuperable. Have we less confidence in our Lord for food and raiment than we have for eternal life?

Do you say that your "field of usefulness" is larger where you are? Don't be deceived; that idea is delusive. At present you are necessarily encircled and narrowed by such restrictions as are put upon you by the association you serve: as the LORD'S servant, you could serve Him in a far wider circle. The difference I would state in this way: ― As a servant of men, you can wait only upon such as men give you  ― you can minister to such only as come to you: whereas, in the case of the servants of the LORD, whose ministry we have been reviewing (Acts), they were free to go to every and to any person, as the Lord appointed them; their field, so to say, was world-wide.

But again, do you not perceive that instead of God's glory in Christ, you are occupying your mind with your usefulness? Saul of Tarsus, occupied with his usefulness, was all the time persecuting Jesus of Nazareth! After his sight of Christ in the glory, he counted everything of Paul as dung for ― (service to Christ? no, for) ― "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord." (Philip. 3).

How gracious is the Lord, who could bear with the conceits which lost sight of Him and His authority, for vain self with its usefulness!

Permit one, whose deceitful heart is equally fruitful of such self-importance, to remind you of Samuel's word from Jehovah to Saul of Israel, who allowed his service to hide GOD'S authority from his heart: "Hath the Lord delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in OBEYING the voice of the Lord? Behold, to OBEY is better than sacrifices, and to HEARKEN than the fat of rams."

"For rebellion is the sin of divination, and stubbornness is iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the WORD of the Lord, He also hath rejected thee" (1 Sam. 15).>

The laying on of hands was not for ordination; they had been already ordained by the Holy Ghost, and saints were then more subject to Him than to impeach His sufficiency or try to supplement what He had completed. I say nothing of the folly of supposing an inferior order of ministers — "prophets and teachers" — ordaining such as God had set first in the church, viz., apostles.*

{*It greatly simplifies this question, by observing, that the only persons who ordained Elders or Bishops (substantially the same as see Acts 20: 17-18; 1 Tim. 3 etc.), were Paul and Barnabas, who did so as commissioned by the Holy Ghost and sent by Him (Acts 13) and Titus who was delegated by the Apostle for that purpose. The authority and terms on which Titus acted were full and precise: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city as I had appointed thee" (Titus 1: 5). Were you challenging the ecclesiastical appointment of the day, could definite apostolic authority be produced such as that which Titus could appeal to? It has been contended from 1 Tim. 5: 22, "lay hands suddenly on no man," that Timothy too ordained; it may have been so, but of this nothing is certain. "Hands" were laid on persons for various purposes. — ED.}

The act of the imposition of hands seems to have been practised from very early times, as we see, right through the Scriptures. Thus, "Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraim's head . . . and he blessed them" (Gen. 48: 14-20). Again, the Lord took children into His arms, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them (Mark 10: 16). Further, hands were imposed as an external sign of countenance, approval, or fellowship, as is our manner of greeting each other in this country. And, lastly, hands were imposed as an expression of conveyance, as in Leviticus, where we read of the offerer transferring or conveying, ceremonially, his sins to the head of the sacrificed lamb; and also in 1 Tim. 1: 6, and Acts 8 etc., where we read of the Holy Ghost being communicated mediately to the Samaritan converts by the laying on of hands. I should remark here that Timothy, who was specially indicated before by prophecy, received his gift for ministry mediately by the laying on of Paul's hands. At the same time, however, the Presbytery (the elders) associated or had fellowship with Paul. In 2 Tim. 1-6, dia, through, or by means of, is the particle used; whereas, in 1 Tim. 4: 14, meta, which implies community or participation, is the word employed. I do not remember another similar instance, in which the Lord employed one of His servants as the honoured channel through whom He conveyed a gift; and, of course, it were absurd of any not thus specially commissioned to pretend to the position. The Queen may charge one of her ministers to confer a title in her name, and the act would be valid; but without such royal commission the ceremony would be just child's play.

So, now that we have neither prophecy to indicate, nor apostolic authority to convey a gift, the act of imposing hands with that object would be mockery. Therefore, to impose hands to-day on any one, and by any one, with a view to the conferring of a gift as for ministry, is sinful mimicry of apostolic power.

I conclude that the assembly at Antioch expressed their participation in the work of the apostles — Barnabas and Saul — by laying their hands upon them. It was not ordination. Similarly, I presume that saints might now meet together and commend in prayer to the Lord beloved brethren going forth to service; and why may they not also lay their hands upon them on such occasions? Their doing so, would of course, impart nothing to them, neither would the omission entail any loss. Yet I suppose that if they were simple, and in full fellowship with what the Holy Ghost was doing, they would unceremoniously express the same, and they would be gainers.

I suggest these thoughts to you, not to arraign any of my dear brethren before your bar for your judgment on them; God is my witness. But I deem it needful to call your attention to Scripture on these points, which have been so distorted in Christendom, lest you should refuse to own those whom the Lord has gifted, and whom the Holy Ghost uses

<;but who refuse to allow their brethren (or the king) to meddle with what before God is perfect >

I say, therefore, that the SERVANT OF GOD NEEDS NO DIRECTORSHIP, BUT THAT OF THE HOLY GHOST; and THE INTERFERENCE OF MAN IS AS SINFUL AS THE SUBMISSION TO IT IS DISHONOURING TO GOD.*

{*I would here refer my reader to 1 Cor. 16: 12. Even an apostle's desire for Apollos to visit Corinth is refused. Paul greatly desired him to go to the Corinthians with the brethren; but his will was not at all to go at that time. Paul finds no fault with him; on the contrary, he hopes that he will go at some convenient time. How marvellously gracious of God to chronicle this! Apollos had, no doubt, great respect for the apostle's feelings, and must have weighed the suggestion with all becoming gravity; but his personal responsibility to the Lord, and his freedom to act according to what he believed to be the direction of the Holy Ghost, led him to decline.}

4. MINISTRY IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ASSEMBLY OF GOD AND TO THE WORLD.

This proposition might have been considered in connection with our first, but I thought it deserving a separate place, inasmuch as great confusion exists in the minds of men about the Church and the world, and consequently the ministers suited to each. We saw that the Assembly of God was composed of believers in Christ, indwelt, individually and corporately, by the Holy Ghost outside it were Jews and Gentiles; but as the "middle wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles has been removed, let us speak now of those outside the Church as forming the world. The apostle Paul designates the position of those with the Holy Ghost "within," and he uses the term "without" for those not in the assembly (1 Cor. 5: 12).

I would therefore say that a caste of ministry is specially fitted for service "without," and others labour "within." Now all of them are set in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues (1 Cor. 12: 28).

Looking at the scripture we read tonight (Eph. 4) we find a list differing a little from this, "He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers."

<He (Christ) gave to some the gift to be apostles, to some He gave the gift to be evangelists, etc. >

The fact is that a formal category of gifts is found nowhere; the Holy Ghost, in His grace, supplies in each case, that which suits the particular subject He is elucidating. In 1st Corinthians, therefore, we find not only a list, but care is also taken to give the order of the gifts, and what the Corinthians prized most highly, "gifts of tongues," are given last. What poor, foolish beings we are! Like children, we are so fond of playthings to the neglect of that by which we should profit for God's glory. Tongues were for a sign to the world — those "without" — at the commencement of the church's existence; these the poor Corinthians desired; they did not earnestly covet the best gifts; least of all did they rise to what God is in His nature as the One in whom alone true joy was to be found. They rejoiced in the manifestation of His power, but they did not joy in God Himself (Rom. 5: 11).

I may here remark that the gifts are to last as long as there is the "body" upon the earth; hence Eph. 4, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." At any rate those given in this portion shall remain.

Respecting the APOSTLES and the PROPHETS we have them in their writings not in persons — they have had no successors. We are told (Eph. 2: 20) that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the holy temple built by the Lord.

Viewed as a building, indwelt by the Holy Ghost, its corner stone is Christ indeed. Paul speaking of the same thing (1 Cor. 3), as "God's building," in which Paul is a responsible builder, speaks of Christ as the foundation.

You will observe that the apostles and prophets, Paul in particular, had authority for laying the basis of the building; in other words, through what they wrote and spoke, we learn what the building is. If Paul, "a wise master builder," builds, he puts in that material which corresponds with the foundation; he puts in no wood, hay, stubble, but gold, silver, and precious stones; and he says to us who follow him, "Take care what you build." So much for 1 Cor. 3. Again, the Holy Ghost in Eph. 2 sanctions the principles laid down by the apostles and prophets, and by a figure of speech speaks of them instead of their teachings, as the broad but limited basis of the "holy temple."

This should be pondered in a day like this, when some would impeach the completeness of the scriptures by introducing "new ideas" apart from the word.

Now, when these two passages are considered, it must be evident that there could be no apostles and prophets after the close of the sacred canon, except some would start another building, which indeed would be "another," or we should have to think of more than one foundation to a building.

It would appear, then, that the apostles were the authoritative agents used by the Holy Ghost, not only for teaching, but for governing the assembly; and their teaching and conduct are given us in the New Testament, while the prophets were the mediate communicators of the mind of God to the assembly, at a time when the epistles, as we now have them, were not together. The apostles, in that sense, were prophets, but the prophets were not apostles. The assembly could appoint neither, but on the contrary was to be subject to, and was to profit by, them.

The assembly in its relationship to the prophets is seen in 1 Cor. 14. That portion, by the by, is not so much given us for showing how the gifts acted as that we might learn how the HOLY GHOST directed such as were present. This principle is all-important, because although we might not have the same number of gifts to-day, yet we have the same Spirit to direct such as remain to the church.

<This we hope to see at our next meeting, if it please God.>

Is it necessary to remind you that the "prophets" of Eph. 4 are post-Pentecostal gifts? To those that doubt the statement I remark (1) That the order in which they are mentioned here, as in 1 Corinthians 12, should be sufficient to show that they are prophets of a new order of things, gifts "set in the assembly," which, of course, did not exist before Pentecost; they are placed second to the "apostles," and I have never heard any one who asserted that the apostolate ever existed before the Lord Jesus created it. (2) The Apostle Paul tells us that "the mystery, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, . . . is now revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph. 3: 2-5). He speaks of preceding dispensations as being in "other ages;" while what is peculiar to this — viz., the dispensation of the church is "NOW revealed;" and such revelation is made unto such as God has "set in the church" — to apostles and prophets, whom we have still in their writings.

The apostles and prophets, therefore, were gifts of the Lord for the Church; they accomplished their ministry in the deposition of truths respecting "Christ and the Church," and they have passed off, leaving no successors.

Every class of gift now existing should profit by the example of the apostles, in whom, in some measure, all the gifts were deposited; while all saints need to profit by their TEACHING, sanctioned as it is by the Holy Ghost as forming part of the "Holy Scriptures."*

<*I wish I could impress my Christian reader with the importance of studying the word of God by himself (or herself), and of depending less upon man. Let each of us make it the habit of our life to be for a while daily alone with God and His word. Many alas! are satisfied with hearing a few sermons; and profitable as some of them may be for helping on believers, they are not more than the nurse helping the child to walk.

If the limbs are to be developed, they must be used without such props. I would suggest to my junior readers to take a portion, say a gospel or an epistle, or a book of the Old Testament, and go through it carefully, prayerfully, and dependently on the Holy Ghost. And after each such musing ask yourself "How much more do I know of Christ? How much more do I love Him? Am I more obedient and true to Him?>

EVANGELISTS are next referred to. They are the ministers of the gospel preached to every creature under heaven, while the teacher is a minister of the church to fulfil the word of God (Col. 1: 23-25). Is the thought of rank, as men say, suggested in this order? Beloved brethren, how can persons indulge such carnal thoughts, who, being once dead in trespasses and sins, have by sovereign grace been delivered from wrath? Would that be walking worthy of our calling, with all lowliness and meekness? Surely not. The fact is that, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the order is not a prominent design at all, as in 1st Corinthians, where there was carnality; and I should think that it was time to profit by the admonition given (1 Cor. 12: 1-3; 1 John 4: 1) respecting the spirits in men, when I found any one professing to be a servant of God contending for position, or for his "rank in the ministry."

The evangelist seems pre-eminently to be one whose ministry lies chiefly without in the world. We saw before that the church of God was viewed as a building composed of "lively stones." To use the figure, then, I would say that the evangelist's work is to dig in the quarry for the stone, which he turns over to the teacher for polishing and arranging in its proper place; while the pastor sees that no efforts of tempests outside, nor the schemes of the many enemies — Satan being the chief — who hate its founder, should in anywise toss it about.

But no one can be an evangelist to whom the Lord has not committed the gift. As Sovereign, He may bless the word read even by a Mormonite, which would not, therefore, stamp the reader as an evangelist. I repeat that the Lord trains the man, from the child, for his work; reveals the knowledge of Himself to the individual; puts the grace into him; and, providing an open door for his ministry, the Holy Ghost sends him forth, and uses him for bringing souls to God.

<His heart burns with tender divine love for the unconverted; he knows that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses; and, as an ambassador for Christ, he beseeches men to be reconciled to God. The divine sovereign grace of God, which, concluding all mankind under sin, expects nothing from them, but offers eternal life to all that believe, impels him to persuade men. His heart speaks to hearts; and his words, pure and divine, are placed in such a manner as to convince the sinner and win souls for Christ. With his gift is power to convince souls by the preaching of Christ through the word, energized by the Holy Ghost. He starts from an exalted Christ; his message is divine; he knows that no hindrance is in God; he is aware of the strength of Satan's ties, but he never doubts the grace which is superior to them; he makes up his mind for difficulties and opposition, as well from saints as from the world; but with all lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, and forbearance, he maintains his position, because his resources are in God; his joy is that Christ is glorified by him; and cheerfully, hopefully, and unostentatiously he awaits his Lord's "well-done." In private as in public, in season (fixed time) and "out of season" (at all times) he is instant (or ready) with a word for the unsaved. "The love of Christ constrains him," not only love to Christ; but Christ's love ― that which loves the unloveable, that which loves His enemies, that which was not checked by death ― the love of Christ constrains him. Starting with the thought that the Lord is worthy of every soul around him, the evangelist tells of GOD'S righteousness by faith of Jesus Christ, whose direction is unto all; whose application is upon SUCH AS BELIEVE (Rom. 3: 22).>

In connection with what we saw of Philip (Acts 8), who was an evangelist (Acts 21: 8), I would suggest a few thoughts respecting this gift of Christ, and then proceed to the teachers.

(a) The Holy Ghost, and not the assembly, nor any other individual, directs the movements of the evangelist (ver. 39).

(b) His is not an office, as we shall soon see, which necessarily supposes residence in the place with the assembly; the evangelist is a gift who may (indeed he should) reside in a place for some time and evangelize it, and may also start from it to evangelize other places, as did Philip; but his gift supposes travelling, for which he in every way is fitted by the Lord.

(c) It is not said that Philip received salary for preaching, nor any pay whatever; indeed, he could not expect it from the church, for he was not its servant but the LORD'S, who supplies His servants bountifully. Paul — than whom, I suppose, none worked more hard for the Lord — worked with his own hands (Acts 20: 33-35) as a tent-maker; Luke as a physician; and even our blessed Lord, to set an example, was not ashamed to be a carpenter (Mark 6: 3). So much for the positive evidence against a paid-ministry. For negative testimony, I may say that I do not find one example in all the New Testament to support the practice. We must, however, bear in mind that it is the privilege of saints who are competent to help forward anything that is for the glory of the Lord, and to encourage those — whether evangelists, pastors, or teachers — whom He permits to labour in His word. The principle is plain enough in the word — "They that preach the gospel should live of the gospel;" thus the Apostle Paul assured the Corinthians.* But he never used that power: he would be free from all men; and as to the Corinthians, they were too carnal to be permitted to have fellowship with so holy a work. However, when he was in need, the offering of the Philippians was "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God;'' and he regarded it less as that which he desired, than as that which was "fruit abounding to their account" (Phil. 4: 14-19).

{* Paul pleads, and that right earnestly too, on behalf of his fellow-labourers; he presses and insists upon the right of the servant for material support (1 Cor. 9), although, on the other hand, he would rather die than accept temporal aid from the carnal Corinthians (verse 15), more shame to them! It is important to insist upon the principle of the labourer to support, while he should be free before the Lord to concede right in the interest of grace. Paul owned the principle by receiving from the Philippians, and waived his right in the case of the Corinthians. We need the sanctuary balances to hold things with an even hand. — ED.}

There are other examples of fellowship in the gospel expressed by lodging and boarding God's servants, who took nothing of the Gentiles (3 John 6-8; Rom. 16, etc.).

So to-day the evangelist, directed by the Holy Ghost, goes uninvited* to a place where perhaps he knows no one, and announces the gospel. Some saint of God — a Gaius (Rom. 16: 23) — recognising the gift of God in him, or possibly one of the converts, like Lydia (Acts 16), offers the hospitality of his, or her, house. Another saint of God offers the use of his house, or defrays the expenses of a room to preach in; while another or the same busies himself in inviting people to the preaching. In all these ways he is helped and encouraged, while those who have fellowship with him, "after a godly sort," have fruit which abounds to their account.**

{* Invited or. — ED.

** Similarly in these days of printing, an evangelist writes, and would, if he were rich in gold and silver, scatter far and wide where he cannot minister in person. It is the privilege of those who discern, in what is written, the gospel of Christ, to aid him in the scattering of the books or tracts. He writes on his responsibility to the Lord; and so do others publish, while some open depots, etc., and all who have ability give away the books. In the same way many others who cannot buy receive freely of such as can, and assist in the spreading of them; thus we are co-workers together. I think it would be doing service to the Lord to remind any Christians to whom the Lord has entrusted some of this world's goods of a privilege which, if they indulged, as unto Him, they would be less burdened with "the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches;" while they would be trading with what the Lord has committed to them for His praise here and their reward hereafter, if done unto HIM. (Matt. 25).}

More than this; if the servant of the Lord be so wholly engaged in His service as not to have time to support himself, it is the will of the Lord that saints who know him should, in all simplicity, see to it that he has his needs supplied. It may now be asked, "What then is the difference, as to support, between such as you have described and a paid evangelist?" This — the one is entirely dependent upon God, and exercises faith in Him for all he needs: the other cannot exercise faith, for he knows and sees the source of his supply in man.* I would ask — Does the Lord send forth His servant and neglect to provide for his maintenance? Why He could even use ravens to feed one once (1 Kings 17: 4, 6).

<*It is sad to reflect upon the dishonour done to the Lord, when his servant, with a view to evangelizing, becomes the servant to a society. Of course he must be obedient to his employers, (1) in preaching as they bid him, (2) in going where they appoint him, (3) in resigning when they discharge him.

If the principle be admitted that an evangelist might allow a congregation to whom he preaches to choose him as their minister, then, in addition to above evils ― (1) he promotes schism by forming a Church, (2) he damages the unconverted in the congregation by owning them in a place that only saints should take ― I mean in contributing to the furtherance of the gospel (for unsaved people should always be kept in their place of receivers, never givers); (3) he starves saints in the congregation who need more than he is gifted to minister; (4) encouragement is given to any ungodly youth, whose eloquence or other natural or acquired attainments might give him "a congregation," to assume outwardly the place of a minister to the dishonour of the testimony due to the Lord, before the world's malignant eye.>

The evangelist, then, is such a gift as the Lord fits, calls, and sends forth, and whom the Holy Ghost directs and uses in the bringing of souls to CHRIST; the world is his field, to the unsaved is chiefly his mission; he is, himself in Christ, and starting from Him, he rests not till souls are with Him in Christ. In other words, the work of the evangelist is not complete even when a person finds peace in believing; he must be "perfect in Christ Jesus." Christ suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, to do more than to save from hell — it was to bring us to God (1 Peter 3: 18); and to drop the convert short of this is bad workmanship: the stone is not only to be quarried out, but to be brought up and set in its true place in the "holy temple."* And the evangelist labours with this end in view.

<*I am persuaded more and more of the solemn responsibility of an evangelist before the Lord. A good start in everything, whether it be in a young plant or in a young animal, deeply affects after-growth and development. How necessary it must be, therefore, for a full gospel to be declared, a glorified Christ to be preached, complete deliverance proclaimed! Weakly, stunted, dwarfish, and undeveloped must souls be who are not converted under the vivifying life-and-light-producing rays of a Christ-exalted ministry.

Of course we are to tell of the blood which made atonement. Surely the dead sinner is to be told of death and judgment awaiting rejectors of grace; but unless the heart of the preacher knows personal communion with One in the glory, the tone of his ministry must be low; and more than this, converts will be left content with the knowledge of deliverance from wrath. Blessed as this may be to the young believer, yet he will not be vigorous enough even to desire his place among the worshippers. He will be satisfied with his doubts and misgivings, being partly for God and partly for the world (which really amounts to all for the world; for God never shares with the god of this world); in short, such a person does not know in his own soul what it is to be "in CHRIST" (Rom. 8: 1, with 7: 24, 25; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 4: 4-7; Eph. 1: 3, 4, 6; Col. 2: 9, 10).

To borrow the happy figure of another, I would compare an evangelist (in the Scripture sense of the word) to a diver, who is let down by his chief from the ship into an ungenial element to search his master's property. Then (1) his Master supplies Him with air, etc., from above; (2) by certain apparatus he is in direct communication with the top; (3) he takes nothing for his nourishment from the scene in which he is, but ceases work frequently for personal intercourse with his Master and his fellows in the ship; and (4) lastly he takes to his employer all that he finds; he carries the goods to the place where he dwells.

I pray the Lord to use these imperfect suggestions for the helping of such of my beloved brethren whose zeal for souls would be covetable were it more used in subjection to the word. May they learn their own proper place "in Christ," according the Scriptures, and so lead the fruits of their ministry into the same position before God!>

The "PASTORS and TEACHERS" differ from the evangelist in being more used to those "within." The heart of the evangelist addresses itself chiefly to the hearts of the lost, anxious, and unsettled; the teacher, on the other hand, instructs and leads on the saints. At Samaria, for instance, Philip the Evangelist preached, and many believed on the Lord and were baptized. Soon Philip leaves them — he is transported to the desert; but teachers come down to Samaria from Jerusalem and minister Christ to the converts.

In this way the teacher is a higher order of gift, so to say, than the evangelist; he engages the soul with the perfections and the glories of Christ, who is the only source of real nourishment for the spiritual life of a believer. The teacher knows where the treasures are, for he himself is in the enjoyment of them, and he has the ability to demonstrate them. In this he differs from his brethren in whom the grace to teach has not been deposited; they may know the fulness that is in Christ, and they may be filled with it; but they cannot so tell of it as that the spiritual can profit; while such is the teacher's gift that he can speak for his neighbour's good unto edification (Rom. 15: 2; 1 Cor. 14: 3). He speaks, moreover, with conscious authority — in fact, he is exhorted to speak as the "oracles of God;" he must know the mind of God, and, assured of it, he is to disclose it (1 Peter 4: 11). Of course, if he is not prepared thus to teach, he should not, I gather, teach at all. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that even the teaching of a Paul, apostolic as it was, was measured by the Scriptures, which the Bereans searched, and for which act they were, in comparison with the Thessalonians, "MORE NOBLE" (Acts 17: 11).

<Let us behold ― and that to admire ― the wisdom of the Lord seen in the arrangement of the gifts! How various are they; and yet, when subject to the "One Spirit," how perfectly harmonious are they in their actions and results! We speak of "progress" in these days, and we appreciate the "division of labour" which sets one man to make the wire, another to straighten it, a third to point it, a fourth to make the head, a fifth to put it on, a sixth to make the polish, and a seventh to put it on ― and all this for the production of one pin! And can we not pause to do homage to God, who "hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him?" (1 Cor. 12).>

The evangelist leads the soul to Christ; the teacher detains it, and ministers to it of Christ; the pastor's godly care is, that it does not wander away from Christ. The evangelist and pastor are engaged for Christ's glory with the individual; the teacher with truth for it.

There is just one thought which I would offer you from Acts 15: — You remember our noticing four teachers in the assembly at Antioch (Acts 13), and we said that if the assembly was gathered for edification, one or more of these four would be such as the Holy Ghost would use to give a suited word at the time.*

{*Not necessarily so. We have an edification meeting opened to view in 1 Cor. 14, with quite a variety of gifts in exercise, and by persons not necessarily teachers. — ED.}

Now we find Judas and Silas — not mentioned among the four — going to Antioch. If there was exclusiveness, or rather if all the teachers were not the common property of the assembly at Antioch, as of all the assemblies, then it would have been "irregular" for Judas and Silas to speak in that gathering. But they did exhort, comfort, and confirm the brethren. And such should be the attitude which all the gifts of the Lord should maintain to-day, and the saints to them. However, it is not so; and, indeed, will never be again! But in the midst of the ruin, let us be thankful for any whom the Lord gives us; and if we have none at all, let us adore Him for His word, and for the divine teacher, the Holy Ghost, who ever remains with us to take of the things of Christ and reveal them unto us.

HOW ARE WE TO KNOW THESE GIFTS? for even the youthful gathering at Thessalonica was exhorted to "know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and esteem them very highly in love, for their works' sake" (1 Thess. 5: 12, 13). I reply by asking, how do you recognise a believer in Christ? Is it simply by what he says? No; there is divine intelligence given you, by which you discern Christ in him; so also, the spiritual will discern the gifts by their works; and esteem them for their works' sake.

If the individual be spiritual, he will be occupied with Christ and not with his gift, and thus commend himself to the godly; and so, if saints be walking "in the Spirit," they will see the gift in the individual, and will profit by it. I remember hearing a servant of God express the idea thus — "It will not be the blind leading the blind, — nor the seeing leading the blind, but the seeing leading the seeing." There are four evils on this score which prevail in the present day — (1) Unsent men assume the place of the Lord's servants; (2) Saints slavishly follow, and thus encourage them; (3) Saints, failing to recognise true gifts, are losers; and (4) Real gifts, discouraged by the ruinous aspect of things, hide themselves, and thus exhibit lack of confidence in the Lord.*

<*Let me remark here that all the gifts are for "the body of Christ." "All are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas" (1 Cor. 3: 22). In Eph. 4 this is the order: (1) "For the perfecting of the saints." Here individuals are contemplated, and this is always so in Ephesians ― personal growth, then the corporate. (2) "For the work of the ministry," and (3) "For the edifying of the body of Christ;" and each member is to grow up into a full man in Christ. The gifts, therefore, are for ALL saints. The word of God sanctions no minister of a church. Wherever an evangelist goes, he is an evangelist, and the world is his field; wherever a teacher or a pastor may be, he is a teacher or a pastor, and all believers are the subjects of his mission. He seeks the perfecting of the saints; he desires to edify. The evangelist invites persons to listen to the gospel, and he alone is responsible to the Lord for such a meeting. He begins it at the time he fixed, and conducts it according to the measure of his ability. A teacher similarly gets saints together and enforces on them truth which he himself knows and enjoys; and for such a meeting he is responsible before the Lord; or if he be present with assembled saints, the Holy Ghost may direct him to a word suited to their need at the time, which he communicates; but I wish to enforce the thought that the teacher is a servant, not to a few, but to all Christians. So a pastor, wherever he goes, knows how, and longs, to help saints who may be in any difficulty. A pastor of a church is unknown to Scripture.

Let me further say that in these days of such evident ruin and confusion, the same Lord who gave 1800 years ago gives still; and as sovereign we see Him using the same person ― whose ministry evidently lies chiefly in teaching ― as an evangelist sometimes, and vice versa.

Endeavouring through the Lord's mercy to avoid anything controversial, although I am fully aware of having said much which many dear brethren will not endorse, because it clashes with early training and the like; yet I have not attempted to develop the evils of PATRONAGE in the king, the bishop, the presbytery, a conference, or a congregation. The fact is that the whole thing must await the Laodicean judgment of the Lord! O that His dear saints, my beloved brethren, would let His authority influence them! Would that they would see their duty to Him to "purge themselves from the vessels of dishonour" (2 Tim. 2). Let me seek indulgence, however, in offering a word or two: (1) The word of God condemns sectarianism: hence in this my brethren should, by the power of the Holy Ghost and in obedience to the Lord, "cease to do evil;"

(2) As to saints who are in a "mixed congregation" with a minister ―  (a) If his gift be that of an evangelist, the saints get no teaching; (b) If it be teaching, even the saints are losers; for others in the same congregation may be also gifted by the Lord to teach, whose mouths are closed by the exclusive ministry.

(3) As to the unconverted in the congregation, if the minister's gift be that of a teacher, they will simply go on in a dry lifeless formality till death and then judgment overtake them, as far as the minister is concerned. (Of course God can send the word to them and by whom He pleases.) This is very solemn!

(4) With regard to the minister, ― how can he be sure that he is where the Lord would have him, when there is the influence of a "better pay" or a "more influential congregation," or "a more genial climate," etc.? If he had a congregation, and an invitation from another reached him, would he even entertain the offer, if he had to depend absolutely by faith only upon the Lord for his maintenance ― the new place being too poor to pay a minister, and there being no known source of supply?

What I ask, my dear brethren, to whom the Lord has committed gifts, is, Has He resigned His authority over you? Will you seek your own and not God's glory in Christ? Is the church yours or God's? Why limit yourselves to just a few, while all the saints need all the gifts? "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, consider your ways. . .  He that earneth wages, earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, consider your ways. . . . Ye looked for much, and lo, it came to little; and when ye brought it home I blew it away. Why? saith the Lord of hosts. Because of MINE HOUSE THAT IS WASTE, and you run every man unto his own house!" (Hag. 1: 2-9).>

I find other gifts referred to in Rom. 12, the gift of exhorting (verse 8). The style of the apostle then changes, "He that giveth," and he introduces the liberal giver and the diligent ruler. To the last we shall refer directly.

So far as we have gone we see

(1) That all these gifts — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, and exhorters, proceed from the Lord — were never appointed by men.

(2) The children of God are simply to know them, to own them, to profit by them, and to help them in carnal things where they need it.

(3) We have not such authoritative persons now as apostles and prophets, the others are still supplied by the Lord; and

(4) Even the apostles never appointed the evangelists, pastors, etc., the Lord only gives them. This I must press, for we are coming now to see another order of ministry of a very different character whom the apostles or their delegates did appoint.

5. OFFICES IN LOCAL GATHERINGS OF SAINTS.

On this part we must be very brief lest we tire you. There are three sets of ministers pointed out in the Acts and the Epistles, who differ from those we have been reviewing in a few important particulars, which we may learn by referring to the scriptures which speak of them.

1. And first, "THE SEVEN" (those chosen in Acts 6, and called in Acts 21: 8 "the seven,") have been long known in ecclesiastical history as "deacons." Although they are not so named in the Acts, yet it is generally supposed that they are the same class spoken of in Phil. 1: 1; 1 Tim. 3. In the portion last quoted the diaconate is an "office"* and he who holds it is to be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a good conscience; his wife is to be grave and faithful, and he is to rule his own house well, etc.

{*In 1 Tim. 3: 10 it reads, literally," serve as a deacon;" "office" should be deleted. — ED.}

Now, what was this "office?" This we learn from Acts 6. Many poor and needy saints were soon found in the assembly at Jerusalem, and it would appear that the apostles not only ministered the word, but attended also to the temporal necessities of the saints in their midst, to meet which the richer brethren had placed money at their disposal (ch. 4). What a reality is Christianity! Jealousy of nationalities still existing, the Grecians murmured against the Hebrews because Grecian widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. The occasion was used for appointing fit persons to attend to that business, viz., taking charge of the collections for the poor saints, and judiciously and discreetly apportioning them. In the case before us the apostles permitted the gathering at Jerusalem to select such as they thought fit for "this business," and seven being chosen, the apostles appointed them.

A very valuable office is this; and when exercised in subjection to the Lord, who always cares for His own, much may be done to rebuke idleness on the one hand, and to comfort and help the needy on the other.

The wife and children of the deacon are, I judge, associated with him in many ways, in the carrying out of details. Hence their qualifications are so strictly laid down (1 Tim.). They live in the place; move in and out among the saints, so as to find out in the gentlest ways where need is on the one hand, and who are those that may be asked to meet it on the other. Hence he is not to be a money-lover; nor his wife a slanderer! O that we knew many of such men to-day! It would be our place to own them where we find them, and to thank God for them: but not having apostolic authority, we cannot appoint them.

A deacon, then, is one that "serves tables" — attending to the bodily needs of the poor saints at the local gathering in which he meets, and he ministers (or serves) in temporal things. (In this way, I suppose, Phoebe was a deaconess, Rom. 16: 1.) The deacon may be, besides, a person gifted by the Lord to minister the word, as Stephen and Philip were; in this he would be responsible to the Lord, and to none other; in his office as deacon he is servant of the local assembly. If he removed to another place, he would be "out of office." An evangelist, or a pastor, or a teacher is a gift everywhere; a deacon is in office —and that for temporal things — in his city or town only.

2. BISHOPS AND ELDERS. — The Apostles Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every assembly (Acts 14: 23). They had travelled about Asia Minor, had visited cities in Lycaonia, and in each city where there was an assembly of saints they appointed elders.*

<*As the term "ordained" presents some difficulties to many, I venture to give a few passages, which taken together will, I trust, help the least learned to see that much of the existing superstition respecting "ordination" must vanish as a cloud when the true and honest rendering of the Greek is offered.

Let a few suffice; I give them as quoted in the "Englishman's Greek Concordance": —

(1) etheeka in John 15: 16 is translated "ordained,"

in Acts 20: 28, "hath made,"

in 1 Thess. 5: 9, "appointed."

In each of these it is clear that no voters are concerned; for the Lord Jesus in the first, the Holy Ghost in the next, and God in the third, acts alone.

So (2) kathisteemi is variously rendered, as ―

in Acts 6: 3 it is, in our E. Bibles, "appoint" (over this business)

in Titus 1: 5, "ordain" (elders)

in Heb. 7: 28, "maketh" ("the law maketh.")

Can any one discern the idea of "setting apart to preaching" in any of these? I cannot.

(3) Thus also poyeo ― has many meanings:

in Mark 3: 14 we have it translated "ordained" (twelve).

in John 5: 27 we have it translated "execute" (judgment).

in Luke 12: 33 we have it translated "provide" (yourselves).

Is any notion of laying on of hands suggested here? Not at all.

(4) Lastly take kirotoneo

in Acts 10: 41 it is rendered by "chosen," and GOD is the chooser.

in Acts 14: 23 "chosen," and Paul and Barnabas are the choosers.

in 2 Cor. 8: 19 it is rendered by "chosen." ― Here the assemblies appointed brethren to convey their liberality to the suffering saints. ― Nowhere, however, can the faintest idea be fairly deduced of laying of hands for the ministry, voting by the apostles, or the collecting of votes by the apostles (as moderators) from the people.

In short then, God, in Christ, appoints the gifts; the choosing of elders or bishops was purely apostolic; while, in the case of the seven deacons at Jerusalem, the assembly chose and the apostles appointed them.>

Again, in Titus 1: 5, we find Titus left in the island of Crete to ordain elders in every city.

From these two scriptures we learn (1) That the appointment of elders was a purely apostolic function, accomplished by the Apostles themselves or by their delegates; (2) Not one elder, but elders, were appointed; and not to a diocese or district, but to the gathering (we saw on a previous occasion that in apostolic times there was only one assembly of Christians in any given place, which was an expression of the one Assembly or church of God); and such men would be specially guided by the Holy Ghost to walk before the infant assemblies as "patterns to the flock."

From 1 Tim. 5: 7 it appears that some of the elders had gift to "labour in the word and doctrine;" but their essential function seems to have been to rule, direct, advise, guide. I dare say that their judgment was instructed by the Holy Ghost, so as to detect improprieties among the saints — as, for instance, in late attendance at or absence from meetings, in dress, and in other matters of detail in daily life.

Further, the very persons called elders, whom the Apostle Paul summoned from Ephesus to meet him at Miletus (Acts 20: 17) are exhorted as overseers (ver. 28). Now the word "overseers" is translated from episkopous, which occurs also in Phil. 1: 1; 1 Timothy 3: 1; Titus 1: 7, where it is rendered "Bishop." Clearly, then, the elders were bishops.

We see, therefore, that the elders (presbuteroi, literally elderly persons) were the Bishops (episkopoi), or overseers, in the various assemblies. Neither these nor the deacons should be confounded with gifts; inasmuch as they required apostolic appointment which the gifts needed not; they were located; the gifts were not.

You will now question the meaning of the subscription at the end of the Epistle to Titus in our English version — "It was written to Titus, ordained first bishop of the Church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia." Well, it just means nothing, for it does not occur in the Greek text.*

<*The Sinaitic gives "To Titus," and the Alexandrian "To Titus was written from Nicopolis.">

The fact is simple enough. Titus was authorised by the apostle to go through Crete and accomplish a work — appointing bishops — which Paul only or his substitute could do; and far from Titus being the resident bishop of the Cretians, he was directed by Paul to meet him at Nicopolis (Titus 3: 12).

For us, therefore, to appoint elders to-day, we need, for each city, two things which where can we find? (1) Apostles whom the HOLY GHOST used authoritatively for making overseers; and (2) THE flock — one assembly of all the saints in the place over whom to appoint them. Will any dare to say we have either? There are, thank God, holy men among us, who by their jealous care for the spiritual growth and Christian walk of the saints, commend themselves to the godly. And are we not to submit to such in the Lord? Surely. Should we not thankfully seek their counsel, refer to their sober judgment, and imitate their Christ-like walk? May the Lord, in His grace, help us to do so, and may the number of such examples to believers be greatly increased

And let me urge my younger brethren, who are gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, and gathered according to His word (where meaningless modes of appointment are avoided) let me admonish you to esteem such grave, elderly, godly men very highly for their work's sake. Had we apostolic power, there are some who would doubtless be appointed, and then be titled "elders." But are we not to profit by such, because they are not thus inducted into office and thus made to possess a title? It is as much ours to submit as it is theirs to rule; but both need something beyond a blind acquiescence on the one hand, and official interference on the other; each requires to act towards the other as for the LORD.

Let us bear in mind, beloved brethren, that ministry was never intended to bestow importance before men upon them in whom God deposited gifts. His aim has been His glory in Christ. And indeed, when we remember that we carry along "the flesh" in us, which the Holy Ghost can never use, how much need there is for walking softly? The apostle Paul exhorts (Rom. 12), "I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think (of himself or of others) more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." We are all brethren, and members one of another, although having gifts differing. In short, if instead of his gift, the servant of God is occupied with Christ, he will see much to abhor himself, and repent in dust and ashes; and far from asserting his gift he would just consider the glory of Christ in the well-being of his brethren. Indeed, every servant of God should bear in mind that, unless the living God comes in and owns his ministry, it is profitless. The sower puts the seed into the ground, and it dies: GOD must quicken it, or there it remains. How this should take the importance out of those of us who think something of ourselves because God uses us! And so, if we walk in the Spirit we will learn to value what God gives us through His servants, encourage them in their services, and would seek never to puff them up by false adulation. Further, our quiet secret prayer to God would be for their own growth in divine things; we would watch their walk with godly jealousy, remembering how Satan aims specially at those whom his Captor, our Captain of Salvation, has placed in the front rank of His aggressive army.

What a precious theme is ministry! How it takes us into the very presence of God, who hath reconciled; of Christ, who maintains His body in the earth; of the Holy Ghost, who is here below directing according to His will!

The Lord Himself will soon descend from heaven for us, beloved brethren; while He leaves us here, He graciously provides for our spiritual growth, and He strengthens us to be His living witnesses, each in our own sphere; but in all we have been considering there is nothing to clash in the least with His own blessed promise, "I come quickly."

"And now, little children, abide in him; that when he shall appear, we (His poor, unworthy servants) may have confidence, and ashamed before him at his coming" (1 John 2: 28).

SUMMARY.

1. The way of the Holy Ghost is to instruct souls respecting their personal standing in Christ; their corporate relationships to each other; and the presence, as a divine FACT, of the Spirit of God in the assembly upon the earth, before developing ministry.

2. The source of Christian ministry is in God, through Christ the exalted head over all things, and hence the sin of interference on the part of man.

3. All believers form a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices unto God: but ministry proceeds from God to man; and its object is the magnifying of the person of Christ, and God in Him.

4. The directorship of ministry, as well as power for its efficiency, is vested in the HOLY GHOST.

5. Pastors and teachers are gifts for the whole church everywhere, and not for a church only; the field for the exercise of the gift of the evangelist is the world, and all should seek to establish saints in CHRIST.

6. Bishops (or elders) were located (not travelling) functionaries, who, being divinely qualified to rule in, and to be ensamples to, the flock, were appointed by the apostles, or by their commissioned substitutes. Such, if known now, should be submitted to; but, without apostolic authority, cannot be formally appointed.

7. Deacons (and probably deaconesses) were chosen by the assemblies, and appointed by the apostles, to be servants of the gatherings, seeing to the temporal need of the saints, etc.

<A FEW REFERENCES TO THE WORD MINISTRY.

With the help of the "Englishman's Greek Concordance," I give the following scriptures, with the words in the original referring to ministry. In this way the reader will, I hope, see how much more extensive the idea is than is commonly supposed. I put the English rendering in italics:

1. ― The verb diakoneo=to serve or to minister, etc.

Matt. 20: 28. Not to be ministered unto, but to minister.

Mark 1: 13. Angels ministered unto him.

Luke 4. She arose and ministered.

Luke 10: 40. My sister hath left me to serve alone.

John 12: 2. Martha served.

1 Tim. 3: 10. Let them use the office of a deacon.

Philem. 13. He might have ministered unto me.

To minister, therefore, is to serve; to minister in the word is only one part of the act.

2.  ― The noun diakonia=the act serving=the service.

Luke 10: 40. Martha was cumbered about much serving

Acts 1: 25. He may take part of this ministry.

Acts 6: 4. To prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Rom. 11: 13. I magnify mine office.

Rom. 15: 31. That my service which (I have).

2 Cor. 5: 18. The ministry of reconciliation.

2 Cor. 16: 15. Addicted (or ordained) themselves to ministry of the saints.

3. The substantive ― diakonos = the person serving, a servant, a minister.

Matt. 22: 13. Then said the king to the servants.

Mark 10: 43. Among you shall be your minister.

John 2: 9. The servants which drew the water.

Rom. 13: 4. For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to thee.

Rom. 16: 1. Phoebe our sister, a servant.

2 Cor. 2: 15. If his (Satan's) ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.

Phil. 1: 1. With the bishops and deacons.

1 Tim. 3: 12. Deacons be husbands of one wife.

4. ― So the noun hupeeretees=servant, minister, officer.

Mark 14: 65. And the servants did strike him.

Luke 1: 2. Eyewitnesses and ministers of the word

John 7: 46. The officers answered, Never man spake

Acts 13: 5. And they (Barnabas and Paul) had also John to (their) minister.

(Their servant, of course, to prepare their lodgings, invite to the preaching,etc.; for surely Barnabas and Paul did not require John Mark to preach to them. At any rate he soon left them.  ―  Verse 13.)>

APPENDIX.

WOMEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

There is not the smallest matter of detail in our every-day walk for which the word of God does not afford light and guidance; and if we be entirely led by it we need not deviate from the straight line in the least degree.

Masters and servants, parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and taught have, each and all, their several lines of conduct laid down for them by GOD; and if we are His children we should certainly discover His will, and we should do IT. Obedience and a will, not our own but His, should practically characterise the saints of God. We are not our own, but bought with a price, therefore we are to glorify GOD in our bodies, which are His (1 Cor. 6: 19, 20). We delight to sing of the grace of God in Christ, by which we are saved; but do we remember that being thus saved we are not to please ourselves but God? But to please another we need to consult his will, for if not we may, with our best motives, and most industrious efforts, be doing the very opposite which he desired. So to please GOD we should honestly set aside our notions — from whatever source they might have been derived — and endeavour to discover His mind from His word, and then, by the power of the Holy Ghost, do it.

I believe that if such a course of absolute subjection to God were pursued, Christian women would never dare to leave the place God has allotted to them, and intrude into men's; neither would Christian men, to whom the Lord has committed any gift leave their niche unoccupied for women to fill. And lastly, if subjection to God were practised by all the saints, then those Christian women who so recklessly assume a place, which even common modesty — not to say the word of the Lord — forbids, would soon retire into becoming shamefacedness, receiving no countenance from the saints.

Of course I need say nothing of a worldly woman taking such a place, for just as with worldly men who intrude themselves into "the ministry" for the sake of a "living," the world will be sure to give its patronage! And for what reason? Because such conduct is opposed to God the Father. Yes; I repeat, that whatever is opposed to the mind of God will be sure to receive the world's patronage, and vice versa.

Now, those of my readers who took pains to notice the conduct of the Holy Ghost regarding ministry, as it is shown in the Acts and in the Epistles, must have observed that not one instance is recorded of a woman having been either an evangelist, a pastor, or a teacher. Such an omission is certainly very significant, and I do wonder that Christian women are not more careful in avoiding, in the nineteenth century, what the Holy Ghost did not introduce in the first! Should this word meet their eye, may they ponder it. The Lord will not tolerate lawlessness.

But there is not only negative evidence against the ungodliness of women assuming the place of God's gifts for the church (pastors and teachers) or for the world (evangelists), but positive testimony is also against it.

The idea of a minister (or servant) of Christ always carries with it, to my mind, one of authority. Hence the expression, "ambassadors of Christ" (2 Cor. 5), suggests the thought of one sent by Christ, to speak for Christ, to act in the stead of Christ. What a position! How careful, prayerful, and self-renunciating should the ambassador be! The result is that such in the name of the Lord should have a hearing; the church receiving with meekness the word through the teacher; and the evangelist must be faithful in his message to the world, "whether they will hear or whether they will forbear." I say the true servant of Jesus Christ is, in a very important though divine sense, one in authority.

Now, the positive teaching of Scripture regarding the woman is that "she is to be in subjection," to "learn in silence with all subjection;" "not to speak in the assembly." "For I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (compare 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35; 1 Tim. 2: 11).

From these Scriptures, then, it is very evident that (1) If the assembly be gathered as an assembly, in which teachers may teach, or exhorters may exhort, women are NOT to speak; (2) Whereas a teacher may invite saints to a meeting over which he may assume responsibility, and may instruct them as an authoritative teacher — the woman is not allowed to take such a place; and (3) It is equally contrary to the mind of the Lord for the woman to appear before the world as an authoritative evangelist.

THEN, HAS THE WOMAN NO PLACE IN THIS BLESSED WORK? O yes, she has.

The Lord did not find fault with one who went into her city and invited the men to come and see the man who told her all things that ever she did — Jesus the Christ (John 4). After His resurrection, He sent Mary to His disciples with a message of His resurrection (John 20); Dorcas made clothes for the poor (Acts 9); Priscilla (with her husband, Aquila) took Apollos and instructed him more perfectly in the way of God (Acts 18: 2); before the canon of Scripture was complete God was pleased to make known His mind by prophets, as we have seen (pp. 34, 35); and it seems from Acts 21 that the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist prophesied. Now we must not forget that PHILIP was the evangelist — the daughters were not evangelists. It is said that they prophesied; and, taken in connection with the revealed mind of the Lord respecting the non-publicity and the unassuming mode in which women should conduct themselves, I see no reason for deducing the highly improper, yea ungodly, conduct of women taking a place which the Lord in His sovereignty did not apportion to them. But to prophesy did not necessarily need a prominent place; for Agabus the prophet told of Paul's imminent suffering and thus prophesied; but could he not have uttered his prediction in private? And so I judge could Philip's daughters. At any rate, we have neither prophets nor prophetesses now. But further, Paul speaks of certain women in Rom. 16 connected with his ministry: Phoebe was a servant (deaconess) of the gathering at Cenchrea; Priscilla was a helper (v. 3); Mary bestowed much labour on the servants of Christ (v. 5), etc.

I conclude, from the above references (1) That where the grace and the time are afforded by the Lord, godly women may be of immense service in going about and inviting people to preachings, lectures, etc., thus being "helpers" to evangelists and teachers; and if such were active, much expense might be avoided in the use of printed bills, etc.; (2) Such women as have the time and grace will find abundance to do in visiting and helping on young converts, comforting the sick, finding out real cases of need among such as do not tell it to the public, and — securing means from those who delight to use their money for the Lord — such godly women may relieve the poor needy ones; (3) Further, they may have Bible classes at their houses, or in Sunday Schools, for instructing females or children. But I would seek to impress upon my sisters who would be evangelists or teachers, and my brethren who encourage them, that the authority of the LORD JESUS has never been given for such conduct.

To say that it must be right, because souls get blessing by it, is bad reasoning, and dangerous; for in the same way a Roman Catholic might argue — for we know that God as Sovereign uses His word preached even by Papists. Oh that the glory of Christ may be the sole object of every dear sister and also of every brother! for then His will will be submitted to; His mind obtained upon every point; His word will be the only guide. If the Lord intended to do without women in His service He would take them away immediately after they were converted; but no, He graciously leaves them here to perform their functions in "the body." But, as in the natural body, certain delicate organs, unobtrusively, unheard, and unfelt (till they become diseased), perform their functions for the good of the whole structure, in submission to the nervous centres presiding over them, so in "the body — the church," Christ, the LORD, has plenty for subject women to do (or to suffer), but they must be subject to Him; and there is something seriously wrong — there is decidedly some spiritual disease — when she whom the Lord would have to be remarkable for her modesty arrogates to herself a position of authority.

Aberdeen, March, 1870.

6. Help for Enquirers

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

Help for Enquirers

<Preface to the second edition.

Another edition of this little tract has been called for. From press of work, the author, being unable to bring it out himself, has given it into my hand, with full permission to alter and add to it as I thought fit. Having served its local purpose, as a reply to the Elder, in its recast, I have both altered the title, and endeavoured to give it a character, which would render it more suitable for general circulation. Published, as it was, against time, it called for emendations and additions so various, that it was impossible to enclose them all within brackets. This will account for the fact of the omission of any Editorial notice, where a change or addition has been made.

To the subjects originally treated of in the tract, are now added a few pages on the Lord's Prayer, and on Faith and Repentance; called for by the gravity and importance of the subjects, and the many false statements which have been recklessly made and circulated, as to what the Author and many of his brethren teach regarding these matters.

The order of the subjects is also changed.

To the reader I would say, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." "Buy the truth, and sell it not."

May the good Lord, who loves to bless His children, deign still to use this little tract in arousing many to search for themselves in His own word, whether these things be so; and having learned His mind, seek grace to do, unflinchingly and untiringly, His will, at all cost, till He comes, who will reward every man according as his work shall be.

Editor.

Edinburgh, May, 1870.

Preface to the first edition.

When the Elder's tract was sent me when I was away in London, by one troubled by it, I replied, "It is like its congeners, a very innocent thing; it can do no harm." But when I learnt, on my return to Aberdeen, that its author was one in whom many had confidence, and, that it had led to much confusion in the minds of many, who have recently been brought to the Lord through the preaching of the word ― moreover, as silence was interpreted as concession to its truthfulness ― I was obliged to admit with hundreds, that the time was come to speak out.

I own ― how far right I say not, but I candidly own ― that I would prefer a quiet going along with the simple Gospel to the unconverted and to the anxious, as the Lord may enable me, on Lord's Days, etc. Hence, if it had pleased Him to direct any one else to notice the tract, I should have rejoiced. Desiring, however, to serve Him, in helping others, I determined just to speak what I know, and nothing else; and this is what I have sought to do in the following pages.

The lecture was taken down by a short-hand writer, and I may just say, that it goes forth almost word for word, except with foot-notes here and there. Those who are willing to be critical of style, will find ample opportunity; for the very hindrance to my writing a tract ― viz., want of time ― hindered my "studying" for the lecture. I simply spoke what I had from time to time gathered from the word. With no small degree of fear and trembling I now issue it, trusting that He, who can overrule all for His praise, will use what of it is of Himself to help every reader. The points referred to by 'An Elder' respect Ministry, the Sabbath, the Law, Confession of Sins, and Sanctification. But, inasmuch as I judged that very confused ideas of what God's Church was, pervaded the tract, I have also referred to a few points respecting it. The order I have adopted is the following: ―

1 What is the Church as taught in the Scripture?

2 What is the Ministry as taught in the Scripture?

3 What is taught respecting the Law in the Scripture?

4 What is taught respecting the Sabbath and the Lord's Day?

5 What is taught regarding Sanctification?

6 What is taught respecting Confession of Sins?*

{*This was the order of the subjects in the First Edition.}

From five accredited authors I have also given extracts, sufficient to refute the charges which "An Elder" has, unfortunately for himself ― and indeed, as to public testimony, shameful to us all ― so recklessly made. As to his assertion about the kind of Gospel which Evangelists among the so-called Brethren preach, I have said nothing. Hundreds of thousands have read the "C.S." and other tracts; and thousands here know, that to the anxious, convicted sinner, we tell of the work of Jesus on the cross, which is made true to those only whom the Holy Ghost, that begins the work in the soul, leads to rest in God's word.

Many, who know nothing of the Evangelist's work, expect to hear one expound the mode in which the work is done, on every occasion that the Gospel is preached. This only reminds one of a physician who has crammed in some knowledge into his head, without the taste and natural gift for his profession. He goes about telling his patients about his knowledge of diseases, and about the size of his prescription-book (Pharmacopeia), BUT NEVER CURES ONE case. The fact is, that if an Evangelist is going on with the Lord in His service, he will always find that souls had been made ready by the Holy Ghost for the truth of the Gospel, and at the time he preaches, just so much as the Holy Ghost sees needful for needy souls at the time, is given out. In dealing with an individual soul, discernment is afforded for the special case. If for instance, the conscience has not been touched, he tells of righteousness and judgment; when the heart is broken, as in the case of the jailer of Philippi, he simply declares the name of Jesus, and speaks of the cleansing blood; or, if the soul be a backsliding one, he exhorts to confession of sins, and speaks of a Father, ready to heal the backsliding, etc., etc.

Perhaps I should here notice "An Elder's" reference to my conduct at Foot Dee ― of local interest. I suppose that I should use this occasion to break my silence, and so remove false impressions from the honest-hearted.

In anything that was of the Lord at the Square, I greatly rejoiced, and do still rejoice.

But the assertion that there was intrusion into the work there, is, I regret to say, most unfounded. No one who understands what the Church and the Ministry are, would use such expressions as the Elder indulges in. Apart from this, however, let me say ― 1. That on my first visit to Fisher's Square, I simply spoke to a few individuals, who, in the freshness of their joy, desired me to preach to them. This I did, and greatly enjoyed it, as their responses were indeed abundant. 2. They pressed me to return, and I did so, at a time when no other meeting was held in the Square. 3. Some, who knew nothing about me, went and warned the fishers against listening to my preaching; and thus misgivings arose with some, and, at the close of my third meeting, I was questioned about "peculiar views." The truth about the proper and proximate hope of the believer as taught in John 14, 1 Cor. 15, Thess.4, etc., was branded by some of the dear people's advisers, "as dangerous error;" and, on the whole, there was a tendency to discussion. An "opposition meeting," (similar to such as were attempted on Lord's Day evenings, near the Free Church College, after I began to preach there), was at once got up. I immediately withdrew. To many that looked for me, I wrote and explained my reason for not preaching there any longer. Defence is not my object; but I do not wish by silence to stumble any. Hence I go into these things FOR ALL. After this, those who are contentious can indulge by themselves, without me. If I had not gone to Foot Dee, I would have been "exclusive," and because I went, I was "obtrusive." So it has always been. But I have said enough on that.

I would impress on my readers ― 1. These things concern believers only. 2. That this lecture is the produce of individual service, for which no one is responsible but myself before the Lord, WHOSE ALONE I am. 3. That it is intended to incite persons to search the Scriptures for themselves; but it is not designed only as a reply to "An Elder's" tract, although in this, I trust it has not failed; and if it lead to the imitation of the more noble Bereans in this respect, then one's labours will not have been in vain.

C. J. Davis. 83 Bon Accord Street, Aberdeen, 20th Nov., 1869.>

Help for Enquirers

"And now, brethren, I commend you to GOD, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." — Acts 20: 32.

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the WORD with all readiness of mind, and searched the SCRIPTURES daily, whether those things were so." — Acts 17: 11.

I have read these two Scriptures, beloved brethren — I address you who are brethren, saved ones, believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, for only such can be really interested in what is now before us — I have read these Scriptures, which refer to God's word and His authority, because I am sure that all who are godly must feel that there never was a time when the authority of the word of God had more need to be pressed on the hearts and consciences of His people than at the present. Disregard to it is given as one of the signs of the last times. Paul, speaking of the last days, says — "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim. 4: 3, 4). That is to say, one of the signs of the last days would be that Christians would have itching ears, and instead of accepting GOD'S teachers — for I shall show you presently that all real teachers are GOD'S gifts — instead of taking the teachers God gives, they, having itching ears, would heap to themselves teachers. Moreover, the apostle says in this epistle, they would not endure SOUND DOCTRINE; that they would turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned to fables. What I want you to see is, that the standard for Christians is not fables — not men's books, however able men may be — not catechisms, however ably they may be got up; but the standard is GOD'S truth — nothing more, nothing less. The apostle speaks of the Bereans being more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, comparing all they heard therewith. By the law (that is the writings) and the testimony, they measured everything. If I read anything professing to be instruction for me, I examine it by the word, and thank God for it, if it stands the test, else to me it is so much waste paper. Now, brethren, if that were the case, if this rule were adhered to, the occasion of this meeting would never have been. I am persuaded if my brother, as I trust he is — I do not know the gentleman — had read the Scriptures, and had compared the (so-called) "brethren's" books with them, he would never have produced this little book I hold in my hand. ["A few Counsels regarding some prevalent Errors." By an Elder, Aberdeen, 1869.] I have never in my life seen anything pretending to teach which so fails of its object. The writer does not keep to the word of God, as I shall show you presently. But there is another thing I should like you to notice, viz., the solemnity of a meeting like this, because it is another evidence of the last days, that instead of Christians helping on each other, building each other up, and forwarding the work of God, they are found attacking what they know nothing about; not error, for this must be attacked, but truth. Brethren, this is a grievous matter. If tonight I had to stand up and speak against infidelity, against those who openly hate the truth, my path would be as clear and easy as possible. But I have to deal with those who love the Lord Jesus — with a child of God, as I trust the "Elder" is.

In attempting to criticise anything, there are two qualifications necessary to the critic; two principles which we should hold by. The first is — THAT THE TRUTH, WHICH is the STANDARD, should be fully known. The second is — THAT THE THING CRITICISED, or the PERSONS JUDGED, should be equally well known. I hope to show you before I have done, that the "Elder" has neither of these qualifications. He neither knows the truth with which to compare — at least so far as the six subjects he touches are concerned, nor does he know what are the so-called errors that he pretends to warn against. I shall not only be able to show you that the little book is absolutely untrue, but I hope to go farther, and show you something of what God's word teaches on these points; and also show you, from five witnesses which I have brought here, that the people whom this dear brother has attacked, are not the people which he thinks they are.

First, then, as to

THE LAW AND GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS.

This is a large subject, and therefore I can but give you just a hasty sketch of it. The charge against us is, that we say the Law is abrogated. Now it is very remarkable that, about four years ago, a great discussion occurred in Glasgow between some of our brethren of the Scotch Church. Dr. Norman Macleod and some others led the discussion. Dr. Macleod, and not the so-called brethren, asserted that "the Law was buried in the sepulchre of Christ." Others opposed Dr. Macleod, and went to the other extreme, saying that Christians are under the Law. It is remarkable that the only answer to these, that I am aware of, has been given by Mr. Darby. [The Sabbath; is the law dead, or am I?]<Allan, Glasgow> So that, far from the brethren asserting that the Law is buried and abrogated, they stand up for it — they hold its authority. But what they say is, that through the death of Christ, whereby its authority was maintained, WE are dead to it (Rom. 7: 4). What does Paul say in this chapter? The pith of it is this — You cannot have two husbands; you must be subject to one husband, not to two. Not that the Law, he says, is dead, but "ye are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ." The two husbands set before us are the Law on the one hand, and a risen Christ on the other. Now, says the Apostle, the Law is not dead, but you, by the body of Christ, are dead to that state to which the Law applies, i.e., to man in his natural state, for the Law applies to man in the flesh to restrain the evil that is in him; but it only produces lust, by prohibiting that which the natural man lusts after, thus only showing what man in the flesh is. It manifests, like a plumb-line, the crookedness of your wall; but its province was never to straighten. "By the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3: 20). It is holy, just, and good. It makes certain exactions; and if you do not come up to them, it condemns you. But through the body of Christ, believers are dead to it and married to another, even "to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." That is, in newness of life with Christ which every believer has, fruit to God is borne which could not be in the flesh under Law. That is the pith of the argument. Just as in the 6th chapter the Apostle says — "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid, how shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Not that sin is dead; for sin would be very active indeed, if allowed; but you are dead to it, and no longer its servant. Once you served it; but now, being alive unto God in Christ Jesus, you are no longer under its dominion. [The proper rendering of Romans 6: 11, is, "So also ye, reckon yourselves dead to sin, and alive to God in Christ Jesus."] And if the Apostle dismisses sin in the 6th chapter, with a bad character, he dismisses Law in the 7th with a good character. But he dismisses both; though they are NOT dead, you are become dead to them.

But some one will say, I quite admit that we are not under the Law for justification; but we are under it as a "rule of life." Well, not under the Law for justification — so far we agree. But we are under the Law as a rule of life, you say. What are we taught by the Lord Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? He puts in contrast what was given by Moses with the grace which He Himself now brings in. There have been attempts made to show that the Lord Jesus spiritualises the Law in that discourse. On the contrary, in that sermon, He puts what Moses said in contrast with that which He Himself teaches. He says that it had been said of old — "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Ex. 21: 24) — "but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; . . . and if any man will sue thee at the Law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Matt. 5: 38, 40). The Law says — "Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy." The Lord says — "Love your enemies," "Bless them that curse you," etc., so that this sermon is not a spiritualising of the Law, but a putting of the Lord's own standard in grace and truth in contrast with it. In other words, the standard of the Sermon on the Mount was very much higher than anything that Moses ever said. The Law was given to the Jews, and is a divine standard for men, as men, before God; but here, as was just, when the Son came, we have a standard immeasurably higher for those who are to be introduced, in the knowledge of the Father's name, into the kingdom He came to set up — the kingdom of heaven. The fact is, they have different motives, because they have different relationships.

Hitherto, God was not revealed as a Father; there is one God, and His name one was the burden of Old Testament teaching — "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," in contrast with the idols of the heathen. But the presence of the Son revealed the Father, as it is said, "The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared Him" (John 1: 18); and with this new privilege and relationship come new responsibilities and moral obligations. Therefore it is said in Matt. 5: 48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." The child must be pitied which needs his Father's "Thou shalt not" which is applicable to the servant only. Hear the word of God in Gal. 4: 1, 9: "Now I say, That the heir as long as he is a child, differed nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" As children with a father our relationships are different, and our "rule of life" is correspondingly higher; it is "to walk even as he walked" (1 John 2: 6, and 1 Peter 2: 21).

But as this is of fundamental importance, we will look a little more closely into it, and in point of fact the whole question will be found to turn on this, whether I am "in Christ," or "in the flesh." If in the flesh under law, I am condemned: if in Christ, then He is my righteousness, and my life, and my example. I have not lost my responsibility; but it is after a new order. For "law" is not identical with "responsibility." Law is a pressure on an unrighteous man (1 Tim. 1: 9), to restrict lust: it is the perfect measure of what the creature ought to be; condemning him if he does not come up to the mark. Responsibility and moral obligation to God is the due relationship of the creature, man, in every condition to God as sovereign and supreme. Responsibility never ceases from Gen. 2 to Rev. 22. But the law is limited of necessity to the trial of fallen man, (Gal. 3: 19), and to man in his fallen state ( 1 Tim. 1: 9). It was not in Eden, though responsibility to obedience was there: hence it is written, "The Lord God commanded the man" (Gen. 2: 16). But this commandment was not a prohibition against what was in itself wrong, as "Thou shalt do no murder," but a simple test of obedience. It is commonly said he was put under the law, and it is even tried to be shown how he broke all the commandments, but it is mere nonsense — the warping of the mind by tradition, to suppose, for example, that he could be told not to covet his neighbour's wife! He was under responsibility to obey God, and failed in it, and with his sin got the knowledge of good and evil; and thus being turned out of the garden, was without law (anomos) (Rom. 2: 12-15), and his posterity, though not without responsibility, having a knowledge of good and evil, and the work of the law written on their hearts, their consciences meanwhile accusing or excusing them.

The law itself was not given till Sinai to a particular people. It is said to have been given to the world; but how could it have been given to the Egyptians, seeing it begins with this address to Israel "I am the Lord thy God, that brought thee out of the land of Egypt"? And in Ps. 147: 20, we read, ''He hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgments they have not known them." Cain was not under it, yet sin was there (Gen. 4: 7). Nor do we read of it during the whole book of Genesis. Yet responsibility was there, and sin, and God's judgment.

When given to Israel, it was the perfect measure of God's requirements from man in the flesh, a rule of life to him suitable to God's holiness, justice, and goodness; but to man in the flesh this must necessarily be a "ministration of death and condemnation," even though mixed with such provisional mercy and grace as God reveals in Ex. 34: 6, 7, to which the apostle refers in 2 Cor. 3: 7, 13.

And now when we come to Romans 3: 19, we find the whole world guilty before God, after a résumé of God's previous ways in government, on the ground of man's responsibility, ever since creation, Rom. 1: 20, and none found righteous, good, nor holy, Rom. 3: 10-18. Responsibility has not ceased, and for that reason man is guilty, and his mouth stopped before God; and of human righteousness there is none. But now, apart from law, as a principle of dealing with man in the flesh, God's righteousness — another kind of righteousness altogether — divine righteousness, is manifested through the blood of Jesus. Not that there was anything new in it, save its manifestation; for the principles on which God dealt with man must ever have been in accordance with His own nature, and by this I understand His righteousness, though the circumstances under which He dealt with man were different at different times: it was witnessed by the law and the prophets — that apart from all requirements at the hand of man, or the fulfilments of his responsibilities, God could be just, and yet justify, on the principle of faith in Jesus (Rom. 3: 21-26).

Then in Abraham's case, when he had no righteousness, God could reckon his faith for righteousness — thereby without works, justifying the ungodly, and making sure the promise to him, before the law was introduced at all (Gal. 3: 19). Nor did it change matters after it was introduced; for David, under it, has but to speak of the blessedness of the man to whom "the Lord imputeth righteousness without works." And as Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness (Rom. 4: 9), so shall it be to us also, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from among the dead, who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification (Rom. 4: 24, 25); so that being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, access into the grace, the true grace of God in which we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but, if reconciled when enemies, we shall now be saved, or preserved by this risen life of the Lord Jesus, for future glory (Rom. 5: 1-10).

Have we then no responsibilities? God forbid! How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? In this chapter we are taken back to Adam (Rom. 5: 12, etc. ), to unfold the state of our nature (i.e. sin), as up to this point Paul has treated of its fruits, our sins. What then are our responsibilities, and under what moral obligations to God are we? Responsibility and moral obligation exist independently of law. Angels have them and fulfil them (except fallen angels) in their own sphere. The Son of God owned them (not that He had them after the fashion of the creature), when "above," in heaven, He said (Heb. 10: 8, 9), "I come to do thy will, O God," and on earth, in answer to those who understood not His relationship to the Father, He said, "As my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; the Father had not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him" (John 8: 27-29). Adam had them in the garden of Eden, and in breaking them, brought in sin, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. For until the law, sin was in the world, though not transgression,* which is the breaking of a given law (Rom. 4: 15). But though existing, and equally hateful to God, it is not imputed (compare 2 Cor. 5: 19), where law is not — (i.e. God was dealing graciously). Nevertheless it existed, as death — its awful judgment — proved, from Adam till Moses. But now as by one ["One offence," not Adam's life work of disobedience — ED.] offence, death came upon all, so by one ["One act of righteousness," not Christ's life work of obedience — ED.] accomplished obedience

<—including the obedience in life and death as one moral whole—>

of the Lord Jesus, the free gift came upon all unto justification of life, and, with this new life, our new responsibilities and moral obligations. For, as by one man's disobedience, the many were constituted sinners — not in act, though after acts proved its truth but in fact, in condition, in state — so by the obedience of one shall the many be constituted righteous, not in act, though after acts will prove it, but in fact, in condition, in state.

{*I would call attention to the fact that the translation of 1 John 3: 4 in our Bible — "Sin is the transgression of the law" — is wholly false: no doubt the effect of traditional education. It is in the original, "Sin is lawlessness" — referring to a state, not an act. It is anomia not parabasis nomon as in Rom. 4: 15.

<This was doubtless the foundation of John Wesley's definition of sin ― viz., that it was the wilful transgression of a known law; which led again to his doctrine of perfection in the flesh. For the Christian does not wilfully do what he knows to be wrong. He condemns the member that commits the sin, and would willingly have it cut off, that he might sin no more, if that would put an end to the sin.>}

What had the law to do with this? Nothing, "It came in by the way (pareiselthen Rom. 5: 20), that the offence might abound." But where sin abounded, grace super-abounded. Thus, where death hath reigned, its reign is over; now grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. And it is as possessing this "eternal life" that was with the Father, far above all law or creature rule, in its own absolute, perfect existence, of light and love, that we find our relationship to God even the Father, and our consequent responsibilities and moral obligations. What relation then have we, as Christians, to law? Let the word of God say: "I through law am dead to law;" (not that I might be lawless, but) "that I might live to God. I am crucified with Christ: Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2: 19, 20). Therefore, the same apostle elsewhere says, "For me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 20). The question then is this: Am I a Jew in the flesh, under law, to live as a Jew, or, am I in Christ, and Christ in me, livingly operating by the Spirit of life which has set me free from the law of sin and death, to live Christ here below?

The law is just, and holy, and good, but by it is the knowledge of sin, and as many as are of its works are under the curse (Gal. 3: 10). But "God is light" and "God is love," perfectly displayed in the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom salvation came; so that, as believers, sin shall not have dominion over us, because we are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6: 14); and we are delivered from under law by his death, that we might bring forth fruit to God (Rom. 7: 4). The spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death; and sin has been condemned in His cross, that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh (to which law applies), but after the Spirit (Rom. 8: 4); and "if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are NOT UNDER LAW" (Gal. 5: 18). May the Lord give you to know the new relationship we are brought into "in Christ," and the responsibilities flowing therefrom, and the power — viz., the Holy Spirit — whereby these relationships are maintained intact.

We have then the following, viz.:

1st. All alike being guilty — God's righteousness in the passing over of sins in former times; in this present time, in His being just and justifying the believer in Jesus [i.e., believing in Jesus — ED.] (Rom. 3.)

2nd. Faith, counted for righteousness to the man who has no righteousness to boast of (Rom. 4).

3rd. Peace with God, access into the grace wherein we stand, and rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God; and not only so, but salvation for that glory, in the risen life of the Lord Jesus Christ; and further, "justification of life through Him" (Rom. 5).

4th. Deliverance from the dominion of sin — having been crucified with Christ — and not being under law, but under grace ( Rom. 6).

5th. Deliverance from under law, that married to Christ risen from the dead, as Christians, we should bring forth fruit to God (Rom. 7).

6th. The presence of the Holy Ghost, the power by which these relationships are maintained, so that we are no longer debtors to the flesh to live after the flesh; but after the Spirit (Rom. 8).

But does not David say, "Thy law is my delight" (Ps. 119: 77)? Reference to a Hebrew concordance will show that there are six words translated "law" in the Hebrew. In Deut. 33: 2, where the "fiery law" is spoken of, the word dahth, is used. But another word, tohr-ah, is used 25 times in Ps. 119 (dahth not at all), and translated "doctrine" in the margin of Ps. 19: 7. The same word is used in Prov. 6: 20, "Forsake not the law," i.e., doctrine, "of thy mother"; and in Isaiah 42: 24, where if others were not obedient to His doctrine, He at least would magnify it, and make it honourable, though others might despise it. "Law" here embraces, no doubt, the whole teaching of Jehovah to His people, whether contained in the Ten Commandments or elsewhere. For the Christian, he is in Christ, and he is "to walk as he walked." That is the standard.

But some say, that if the law is set aside, persons will do what is forbidden in it, and what state of things will that lead to? Persons? Whom do you mean? For if you mean the ungodly, they are disobedient, with or without the law. They are not subject to the law of God; neither, indeed, can be. Moreover, I did not say that the law is put aside. As to the world, God in His government, restrains the passions of men, in a measure, by the laws of the country, governed by the Gentiles, to whom He has committed rule. But does any natural man accept and reach the standard of the law?

As regards the believer "subject to Christ" (1 Cor. 9: 21) [The translation of this passage, so often misquoted from the false rendering in our version, is as follows (1 Cor. 9: 20, 21): "To them that are under law, as under law, not being myself under law, that I might gain them that are under law. To them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but duly subject to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law." Thus in verse 20, he on the one hand disclaims being under law (although this is left out of the copy from which our version was translated, all good authorities agree in restoring it to the text. Gb. Sch. La. Tisch. Alf. W. K., J.N.D., vide Textual Criticism for English students. Bagster), while on the other, he is as far from being lawless, but "duly subject to Christ." Neither hupo nomon nor anomos but distinctly hennomos Christoi], is he lawless? No, brethren; on the contrary, he has the spirit of Christ and the nature of Him who was the obedient One, and he is sanctified unto the obedience of Christ (1 Peter 1: 2), i.e. in the spirit of a son, to obey as Christ obeyed. He has a much higher standard than "thou shalt," or "thou shalt not," as is distinctly taught in 1 John 2: 6, where it says, "He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as HE walked." That is the standard. But let me ask those who say they are still under the law, how is it that you break the law with such impunity? The law tells you, for example, to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Suppose I allow that the Lord's-day is the Sabbath. It is not, as I shall soon show: but say that it is. — Then, in Exodus 20, you are told, "In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." Now, supposing that the Lord's-day is the Sabbath, let me ask you — "Do you do any work on that day? Do your servants work? Do you take cold instead of hot food, so as to let the servants rest? Do you use the cattle or the stranger within your gates? Do you light a fire? (Ex. 35: 3.) If so, you break the law, and if under it you should be stoned. Where is your conscience as to this? There was a man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath day, and the command was given to stone him (Num. 15: 32, etc.). People say they are under the law, but they do not keep it. As a matter of fact you do not, and you could not keep it though you were to try. But Christ redeemed those under it, from the curse of it (Gal. 3: 13). And for Christians, "sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are NOT under law, but under grace." Is that the same as being lawless? Certainly not — they are to be subject to Christ in everything; and the law is not abrogated, but they are not under it.

I will now give you the following extract: —

"If I speak of moral law (which Scripture does not), I make it, by the very expression, a fatal thing to be delivered from it. Yet Paul says, the Christian is delivered from the law. If I make of the law a moral law, including therein the precepts of the New Testament, and all morality in heart and life — to say a Christian is delivered from it is nonsense, or utterly monstrous wickedness. Certainly it is not Christianity. Conformity to the divine will, and that, as obedience to commandments, is alike the joy and the duty of the renewed mind. I say obedience to commandments. Some are afraid of the word, as if it would weaken love and the idea of a new creation. Scripture is not. Obedience and keeping the commandments of one we love, is the proof of that love, and the delight of the new nature."

"Law has its own proper effect. This leads me to the text constantly quoted: 'Yea, we establish the law.' And here I would pray you to weigh what I say. I declare, according to Scripture, that law must always have its effect as declared in the Word of God, always necessarily upon whoever is under it; but that that effect is always, according to Scripture, condemnation and death, and nothing else, upon a being who has in him a lust or a fault. That it knows no mercy, but that it pronounces a curse upon every one who does not continue in all things written in it; and that whosoever is of the works of the law is under a curse. Now, in fact, the Christian has sin in him as a human being, and, alas fails; and if law applies to him, he is under the curse; for it brings a curse on everyone who sins. Do I enfeeble its authority? I maintain it, and establish it in the fullest way. I ask: Have you to say to the law? Then you are under a curse. No escaping, no exemption. Its authority and claim must be maintained, — its righteous exactions made good. Have you failed? Yes, you have. You are under the curse. No, you say, but I am a Christian; the law is still binding upon me, but I am not under a curse. Has not the law pronounced a curse on one who fails? Yes. You are under it. You have failed, and are not cursed after all! Its authority is not maintained; for you are under it; it has cursed you, and you are not cursed. If you had said, I was under it and failed, and Christ died and bore its curse; and now, as redeemed, I am on another footing, and not under law, but under grace, its authority is maintained. But if you are put back again under law, after Christ has died and risen again, and you are in Christ, and you fail and come under no curse, its authority is destroyed; for it pronounces a curse, and you are not cursed at all. The man who puts a Christian under law destroys the authority of the law, or puts a Christian under the curse, for in many things we all offend. He fancies he establishes law. He destroys its authority. He only establishes the full immutable authority of law, who declares that a Christian is not under it at all; and therefore cannot be cursed by its just and holy curse. . .

"No Christian supposes he is at liberty to kill or steal. That is not the question. But does he refrain from killing or stealing, because it is forbidden in the law? Every true Christian, I am persuaded, will answer, No; though he recognizes the prohibition as quite right. The man who refrained from killing, simply because it was forbidden in the law, would be no Christian at all. I have only to add, that the apostles do not refer to the law as the great standard, nor do all the duties they enjoin form part or parcel of it; for they enjoin duties which flow from grace. And grace is not law. We must not, then, confound the law with duties to God and our neighbour, imperfectly given in the law, and perfectly given in Christianity, along with the duties which the knowledge of God's love in Christ added to the others, the duty to be an imitator of God as manifested in grace in Christ. Being under the law gave sin dominion over me. The grace of God — is that law? — hath appeared, and teaches me to live soberly and righteously and godly. But that is just the reason why I do not want law, because I am better taught by grace, which gives me power as well as rule. Under grace we are taught of God to love one another in the very nature and spirit we have. Hence, loving my neighbour as myself, I fulfil the law; not by having it, but by having love wrought in me by grace, and not being under law." . . . .

"But I have a yet happier aspect of the subject to touch on before I close: the positive side of it. What is the rule of life? I answer, Christ. Christ is our life, rule, pattern, example, and everything. The Spirit our living quickener, and power to follow Him. The Word of God, that in which we find Him revealed, and His mind unfolded in detail. But, while all Scripture, rightly divided, is our light as the inspired word of God, at least to those who have an unction from the Holy One, Christ and the Spirit are set before us as Pattern, Life, and Guide, in contrast with law; and Christ is exclusively everything. And power accompanies this (see 2 Cor 3), we are 'declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us; written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. . . . But we all, with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.' I ask, is not Christ here in contrast with law; and if this be not exactly what I am to be, an epistle of Christ; and if there be not power in looking at Christ to produce it, which cannot be in a law? So Gal. 2: 20; Gal. 5: 16, where, in contrast with law, Paul shows the Spirit to be the power of godliness; that if led of it, we are not under law, and that against the fruits it produces there is no law. So Rom 13, 'But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to fulfil it in the lusts thereof.' It is an object governing the heart, which is life, and at the same time the object of life: — One to whom we are promised to be conformed, and one to whom we are earnestly desirous of being as conformed as possible now — One who absorbs our attention, fixes it to the exclusion of all else. We are predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. My delight in Him is the spring of action and motive which governs me." ["Law," J.N.D.]

THE SABBATH AND THE LORD'S DAY.

The next subject I come to is the Sabbath, and a very important subject it is. "An Elder," in this book tells us what the Plymouth Brethren say. Who are these "Plymouth Brethren"? I do not own the name. I am a brother of every believer in the Lord Jesus, and if I lived in Plymouth the Elder might call me a "Plymouth Brother" [No, not even then, for we are a heavenly people, passing through, although not of it; hence I may be sojourning for a season in Plymouth or elsewhere, but that would not make me a "Plymouth Brother;" it is not a place on earth that characterises me, but heaven and Christ are what characterises me — ED.]; but I do not live there, hence I do not own the name. People say now that every Christian must have a distinctive name. This the Scriptures deny. What "distinctive name" had Paul, Philip, Lydia, etc.? "One is your Master, even Christ; and ALL ye are brethren" (Matt. 23: 8). Saints, Christians, believers, little children, brethren," etc., are the family names of ALL. For my own part, I refuse to marry to any of the made-up parties, and so take their names. Such as are given me in the Scriptures are enough.

"Let names, and sects, and parties fall,

And only Christ be all in all."

So said George Whitfield. Once sects and parties had no existence. In heaven they cannot be. Here they are, and will be, till lapsing into open apostacy (2 Thess. 2: 3),* they will be spued out of the mouth, as nauseous to the Lord (Rev. 3: 16). Outside He stands knocking, with an offer to go in and sup with him that opens to Him.

<*It may be well to note that the proper rendering of this verse (2 Thess. 2: 3) is, "except there come the apostacy first," etc.; referring not to "a falling away," of which there have been many, but to the final total abandonment of Christian profession of this present dispensation. Compare Jer. 44 for a similar one in the history of Israel.>

Well, the "Elder" says that these brethren hold "that every day is a Sabbath, and every day is to be held alike as a holy day." He does not tell you what the teachings are, but simply says we hold every day alike holy. It is well to observe that the "Elder" did not quote one accredited author among the Brethren. The pith of his statements is, that we refuse to admit the distinctive place of the Lord's day. I shall endeavour to show you the difference between the "Sabbath" and the "Lord's day"; for ignorance respecting these two very distinct days, has led to much confusion in Britain and other places. The Sabbath is a divine institution, as mentioned in the second chapter of Genesis. You read that after the work of six days, God rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it. Carefully note that it was GOD'S rest, not man's. God rested after He had finished His work. It was not that He rested from labour, as man needs to do, for none of us would say that; but "He rested on the seventh day" with a certain measure of complacency no doubt, in what He had done, "from all His work, which He had made" (Gen. 2: 2). It is not said God rested in His work, as He assuredly will one day, in divine complacency, founded on the atoning value of the work of Christ in redemption (Compare Zeph. 3: 17; Heb. 4; Rev. 21). But it is expressly stated, "He rested on the seventh day from all His work," etc. That which was capable of being spoilt could neither be a sufficient satisfaction to God, nor a permanent blessing to man. It served as a sign of a rest that remains, and in which man, through redemption, will participate with Him (Heb. 4). And this was the meaning of the Sabbath in Ex. 16, founded on a redemption typically accomplished (Ex. 12 — 15); the shadow and earnest of better things to come, as we are told in Col. 2: 17; though as Christians, we have now, for faith, the body or substance in Christ.

And into this scene of goodness and rest Adam was introduced [But it is not said into God's rest. Both the work and the rest were peculiar to God, and man had no direct part in either, into the fruit of the one He entered, into the other believers will enter (Heb 4) — ED.]; as it is written: "The Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it" (Gen. 2: 15). Sin had not yet entered to disturb the scene of rest; nor had the curse yet been passed upon the ground, that sentenced it to bring forth thorns and thistles, so that henceforth, in labour and toil — in the sweat of his face — man must eat bread. The same word that before bid it bring forth every tree pleasant to the sight, and good for food — the tree of life also, and the tree of responsibility — and put Adam to enjoy all this goodness, in dressing and keeping it, in a manner we can have no experimental conception of, because the whole scene has long since passed away (Gen. 2) — bid it now (Gen. 3), because of Adam' s sin, bring forth thorns and thistles, and fixed on Adam the sentence we are all familiar with, "in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread." That is to say, labour and toil began with sin — the keeping and dressing of the garden was neither labour nor toil, in the language of Scripture — and that, so far as we read anything to the contrary, upon the first Sabbath that dawned upon the world (Compare Ecc. 2: 22, etc.). That is why we find God, who in Genesis 2: 2 had rested, here in Genesis 3: 21 again at work to make coats of skin for Adam and his wife, who had found out their nakedness by their sin. Similarly the Lord said, in John 5: 17, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." That is to say, the introduction of sin had broken in on God's rest. Nor could He rest again, until sin was put out. The types and shadows of the law could not do this, but the Son of God came and did it (1 John 3: 8);

"And now the shadows of the law

Are all fulfilled, and all withdraw."

But the Sabbath was God's rest, not man's. Passing over a lapse of 2500 years, we find the Sabbath again mentioned in Ex. 16; and that after redemption was typically accomplished. In the 20th chapter the commandment is given to keep it holy, with the word "remember" prefixed to the commandment to keep it holy, referring to their having before got it in chap. 16, where we also read that it was broken the first time it came round. He now recalls it to their remembrance, with a fresh injunction to keep it holy, to which was attached a curse in case of disobedience (Num. 15: 35). But the people did not keep the covenant, and in Ezekiel (Ezek. 20: 12, etc.), we read that they were sent into Babylon, because, among other things, they did not keep the Sabbath. God gave the Sabbath to Israel after the exodus; mark that. For in the book of Genesis no mention is made of the Sabbath having been given to man, even to Abraham. The first mention of it, as given to man, is in Exodus 16, where God gives it as a sign between Him and an earthly people. That Sabbath they broke. And do not forget, that God never yet entrusted any mercy to man, that man has not abused. Even at the present time man abuses the grace of God. The children of Israel broke the Sabbath, and were sent into Babylon.

Coming to Luke 6: 10, we find the disciples going into the corn fields on the Sabbath day, and plucking the ears of corn. The Pharisees contended that the disciples broke the Sabbath. What said the Lord Jesus? He, in plain terms, told them they were simply hypocrites, for they only adhered to the outward sign without keeping the thing in its integrity. But, more then that, He showed them that One was present, who was superior to the Sabbath. He said the Son of Man was Lord also of the Sabbath. What does that mean? Why, the authority of the Son of Man, the Lord of the Sabbath, over the Sabbath itself; and with Him, though now the rejected One, the introduction of a new principle — grace — which, acting above the limits of the Law, would give rest and blessing to those who believe on Him, in contrast with the curse that attached to Israel as under the law and having broken it. And what do you find in John 19, 20? That the Son of man spent the Sabbath in the grave. It was a solemn teaching to the Jew, who could go on with shadows, to the refusal of Him, who was the substance! Do you wish to side with blind Pharisaism against our rejected Lord? Beware! But, practically, they do, who refuse the plain teaching from the two Scriptures (Luke 6, John 19) that I refer to: for the fact that the Lord was in the grave on the Sabbath day is, of all others, the clearest evidence that the old order of things had now come to a close, with His rejection and death; and "the first day of the week" (John 20: 1) begins, with His resurrection, a new era, What is the fact? That which had been given by God to man, as a sign between Him and His people, HE sets aside for a while, until they will be restored to their land (Isa. 66: 23, and Ezek. 46: 1). He is in the grave on the Sabbath day. The Lord Jesus showed that the sign had failed, and He gave it up with that nation for the present (Comp. Rom. 11).

In the 17th of Matt. we find Moses introduced, as the type of the raised-up dead, and Elijah as the type of those who shall not taste death at all. The Lord Jesus is represented as "coming in His kingdom" (2 Peter 1: 16, etc.). But besides this we learn something else. Till that vision has its fulfilment, Moses passes off from the scene, and Elijah, too, withdraws, and a voice is now heard saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him." We are no longer subject to Moses the law-giver, nor to Elijah, the reformer, but to the Lord Jesus who is Lord also of the Sabbath.* I suppose all will agree in this; but this is the question raised — Did not the Lord Jesus change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first? Let the 19th and 20th of John answer it. The seventh day was passed by the Lord Jesus in the grave, and on the first day of the week, he rose. Compare also Matt. 28: 1 — "In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene," etc. Now, if ever, was the time to change the day; but not a word is found to that effect. "The seventh day is the Sabbath." The first day of the week is another matter. As a matter of history, we know that the early disciples never confounded the two days.

<*Let none infer from this that I mean to refuse the teaching from the Old Testament. Nothing can be farther from my mind, and I trust also from my practice. Mines of wealth are obtainable from that portion of God's revelation, especially when the New Testament is used as a light to it, guided of course by the Holy Ghost, who directs the simple, prayerful child of faith. But we are rightly to divide the word of truth. And the specific doctrines for Christians are in the New Testament, abundant illustrations for practice being found, with numerous principles, in the Old.>

The Sabbath and the First Day were distinct, and were always kept separate. The Seventh day was kept by the Jews; on the first, the Christians met to break bread, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. The early fathers, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and others, and the historian Josephus show, that until the third century, the Christians kept the two days as distinct as possible. The Sabbath was not observed by the Christians who adhered to the Word of God, neither did the Jews observe the Lord's day. I remember reading, when at school, of a correspondence between Trajan and Pliny. In it, Christians (as separate from Jews and from Romans) were reported as specially observing the Lord's day — first day of the week — in meeting to break bread. This shocked all outside the church at that time; but the godly Christians were unmoved. One of them said to his persecutor — "Christianus sum; intermittere non possum." The Jews on the other hand, hated the Christians because they would not observe the Seventh day — which, I repeat, is the Sabbath.

But let the question be asked — Do you hold the Lord's day equal with the others? and we answer, Certainly not. The Lord's day is to Christians — those who know it — the most blessed of all the days of the week. It is asserted that we would do any work on the Lord's day; but the very contrary is the case. Let those who know us point to our practice. We pretend to no infallibility; by grace we stand. We do not labour — except in the word — on the Lord's day. And conduct of an opposite kind, if known, would assuredly meet with the censure it deserves. The accusation is false, and Christians should know better than to lend themselves to such slander.

I will now give you an extract from "Lectures on the Book of Revelation," by William Kelly, pp. 30, 31: —

"'I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.' The 'Lord's day' is not at all the same thing as 'the day of the Lord.' The same expression (kuriakos) was used with regard to the Lord's Supper, because it was not a common meal, but a holy and divinely-instituted memorial of the Lord. So the Lord's day is not a common day, but one specially set apart, not as a command, but as the expression of the highest privilege, for the worship of the Lord. The Sabbath was the last day which Jehovah claimed out of man's week; the Lord's day is the first day of God's week, and, in a sense, we may say, of His eternity.

"The Christian begins with the Lord's day, that this may, as it were, give a character to all the days of the week. In spirit the Christian is risen, and every day belongs to the Lord. Therefore is he to bring up the standard of each day that follows in the week to that blessed beginning, the Lord's day. To bring down the Lord's day to the level of another day, only shows how gladly the heart drinks in anything that takes away somewhat from Christ. The man who only obeys Christ because he must do so has not got the spirit of obedience at all. We are sanctified, not only to the blood of sprinkling, but to the obedience of Jesus Christ — to the obedience of sons under grace, not that of mere servants under law. The lawlessness that despises the Lord's day is hateful; but that is no reason why Christians should destroy its character by confounding the Lord's day, the new creation day, with the Sabbath of nature or of the law."

Read also the following from "Notes on Luke," chap. 6, by J.N.D., and say whether we give, or not, due place to the Lord's day: —

"The Sabbath, in any real sense, man had entirely lost; indeed, he had never entered into God's thoughts of rest. It was His rest, and had not sin spoiled all, man should have enjoyed that which was the result, not of his own, but of God's labour. This is the proper character of that rest which belongs to man distinctively; but sin having come in, the necessity has arisen that God should work afresh, if man is ever to share the rest of God (See Heb. 4). Meanwhile, Christ has appeared and finished the work which God gave Him to do. Hence, we who believe, find rest in Christ, as does God Himself. In Him, by virtue of the accomplished and accepted work of redemption, we have our Sabbath spiritually.

<"The day was set apart and hallowed from the beginning (Gen. 2.) Afterwards it came in, first in grace to Israel, marked by the cessation of the manna and a double portion to provide for that holy day; (Ex. 16) and, secondly, as a part of the law of Sinai, and incorporated with every new and special dealing of Jehovah. (Chap. 20; see also 31: 13, 14; 33: 14; 34: 21; and 35: 2). It was a memorial thenceforward of the deliverance out of Egypt. (Deut. 5: 15). Accordingly the prophets expressly treat it as a sign of Israel's separation from all other nations unto God, and of God's covenant with them. (Ezek. 20: 12-20; 22: 8; 23: 38; 44: 24; Isa. 56, 58; Jer. 17: 4.) But then, in the past, Israel, a sinful people, had the sabbath as a legal ordinance, and consequently are condemned by it as by all else.

"Where is this covenant with Israel? All gone, because of their iniquity. Hence they were thrown into the hands of the Gentiles, and became slaves. 'Behold we are servants this day; and for the land that thou gavest unto our fathers to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof, behold, we are servants in it: and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom thou hast set over us, because of our sins: also they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle at their pleasure, and we are in great distress' (Neh. 9: 36, 37). If they had a temple after the captivity, it was only at the mercy of their Persian masters. The outward emblem lingered on no doubt, and was especially made much to dishonour Him, of whom and whose work it was so significant; but where was its reality when Jesus was on earth? Alas! He lies in the grave all the day which his murderers kept as a day holy to Jehovah ('for that sabbath was an high day!') awful testimony to the Jews of their position. Their own Messiah slain by His own people: such was the truth which that sabbath day uttered to him who had ears to hear. Israel never had the rest of God. If Joshua had given them rest, etc. (Heb. 4). There remaineth therefore a rest. They must own Jesus first.

But the rejected Jesus was Son of man, and the Son of man was Lord of the sabbath (ver. 5) ― a truth of the utmost gravity, to be asserted with all strength. Those who confound the Lord's day with the sabbath are in danger of forgetting this. It was the very point here in controversy with the Jews who maintained that the sabbath was superior to the Lord. But He shows that another new principle had come in, which wholly over-leaped the old, and that to remain in the old was to have no deliverance. For there is no possibility for a lustful creature to be under a commandment that condemns lust, without being condemned. Grace, however, has entered through a rejected Christ, and now there is rest for us who believe ― not for those who are on the ground of law.>

"This is the reason why Christians keep the first day of the week, and not the seventh or the Sabbath day. The rest was acquired by the power of Christ's redemption, and the first day, when He arose from the dead, was that which proclaimed it to faith, spite of man's guilt and ruin. The seventh day will be the rest of man on earth; the first day celebrates Christ's taking us in Him to heaven. Then was life from the dead, life more abundantly, liberty from the law and every consequence of sin — in a word, the victory of grace. The Christian, therefore, has the first day distinctively, because it belongs to and witnesses of the perfected work of Christ, and consequently introduces heavenly rest. The first day is in contrast with the seventh, which appertained to the round of man's labour in nature, and of the Jews under the law, in which Adam and Israel utterly broke down. It is the Lord's day emphatically, and thus testifies of the triumph of Christ's word and the glory of His person — not the day which guilty unbelief would have perverted into the proof and means of His inferiority. It is positive direct blessing to Him who owns and honours it — not because it is the close of legal toil, but the commencement of Christian hope — the resurrection-day when we begin our spiritual life; and look on for what will crown so precious a pledge."

SANCTIFICATION.

The next point is sanctification. The Elder tells us in this little book, that the brethren teach some "dangerous error" as to the question of sanctification. Unfortunately, he does not tell us what sanctification is; but states that "it is a great and dangerous error to say that the believer has his sanctification in Christ, precisely as he has justification." He confounds "sanctification in Christ," which is complete, with sanctification through the application of the word of God, by the Spirit, which is progressive; a very common but ruinous mistake.

Now, what is sanctification?

In 1 Cor. 1: 30, we read, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and SANCTIFICATION, and redemption." With Christ we get everything — wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption — the casket with all the contained jewels.

<I read somewhere that sanctification means meetness for Heaven, and that it must be a progressive work, if a man would see God; meaning that man's nature has to be improved, before he gets to Heaven! All this is absolutely contradictory to God's word. "In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." It cannot be improved; it is always as bad as ever.>

But born of the Holy Spirit, I have a new nature — a divine nature (2 Peter 2: 4), and I read in Rom. 6: 11, "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in (en) Christ Jesus." That is, death, and not the improvement of the old nature, is the door of escape from the old state I was in — viz., sin, into the new state I am in, viz., "alive unto God in Christ Jesus." If tempted to sin, I resist by the power of the Holy Spirit within me. That is the power by which I mortify the deeds of the body. But, improve the old nature? Impossible! So that the doctrine about man's nature becoming sanctified, will not stand the test of the word of God. It is false. But what is the teaching in the word of God? That as a believer in Christ, I am thereby, irrespective of time, there and then fit for Heaven. In Col. 1: 12, you read — "Giving thanks unto the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:" and again in Acts 26: 18, where Paul was sent to the Gentiles, "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith that is in me." To give you an example: The thief on the cross, the moment he believed on the Lord Jesus, was meet for Heaven — "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Yet if he had lived, there would have been room for progress in holiness and conformity more and more to the spirit of Christ.

That is what the apostle says in Philippians: "That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death." He is aiming to be made more and more in his walk like unto Christ. Hence there is progress. I do not say "progressive meetness," for all that would impeach the meetness of Col. 1. If in 1869 I become a believer in the Lord Jesus, there are many things that I may go on with; but, as I grow and learn, I give up this, that, and the other thing, which I see not to be such as the Lord approves of. You may find many believers meet for heaven going to concerts, etc., thinking nothing wrong about it. But as they see more and more what it is to be "set apart" from such things, and to walk with One who sanctified — separated Himself, in heavenly glory, from such things for their sakes, that they might be sanctified in truth (John 17: 19) — they give them up. As far as standing in Christ is concerned, the believer is perfect; as to his moral state and condition, he has to grow in grace (not into grace) and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3: 18). As to the flesh; it is and always will be bad. But the believer seeks day by day to "grow up into Him in all things, who is the Head." In this sense the Scriptures teach progressive sanctification. [Sanctification is both absolute and progressive. In the former I am set apart to God from the very first movement of the divine life in the soul, and that according to all the value of the person and work of Jesus (Heb. 10: 14, etc.); in this view there can be no improvement; but on the other hand there is abundant scope for daily practical sanctifying walk and ways. The point should be to bring up the walk to the position. — ED.] For it, the apostle prayed for the Thessalonians (1 Thess 5: 23); and the same burden lies upon the heart of every godly Christian. I will now give you a short extract from a tract on "Sanctification," by C. H. M.: —

"It is of the utmost importance to apprehend, with clearness, the distinction between a truth and the practical application and result of a truth. This distinction is ever maintained in the word of God. 'Ye are sanctified.' Here is the absolute truth as to the believer, as viewed in Christ, and as the fruit of an eternally perfect work. 'Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it' (Eph. 5: 25, 26). 'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly' (1 Thess. 5: 23). Here we have the practical application of the truth to the believer, and its results in the believer.

"But how is this application made, and this result reached? By the Holy Ghost, through the written word. Hence we read, 'Sanctify them through Thy truth' (John 17). And again, 'God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ' (2 Thess. 2: 13). So, also, in Peter: 'Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit' (1 Peter 1: 2). The Holy Ghost carries on the believer's practical sanctification on the ground of Christ's accomplished work; and the mode in which He does so is by applying to the heart and conscience the truth as it is in Jesus. He unfolds the truth as to our perfect standing before God in Christ, and, by energizing the new man in us, He enables us to put away everything incompatible with that perfect standing. A man who is washed, sanctified, and justified ought not to indulge in any unhallowed temper, lust, or passion. He should 'cleanse himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit.' It is his holy and happy privilege to breathe after the very loftiest heights of personal sanctity.

"His heart and his habits should be brought and held under the power of that grand truth that he is perfectly 'washed, sanctified, and justified.' This is true practical sanctification. It is not any attempt at the improvement of our old nature. It is not a vain effort to reconstruct an irretrievable ruin. No; it is simply the Holy Ghost, by the powerful application of 'the truth,' enabling the new man to live and move, having his being in the sphere to which he belongs. Here, there will undoubtedly be progress. There will be growth in the moral power of this precious truth — growth in spiritual ability to subdue and keep under all that pertains to nature — a growing power of separation from the evil around us — a growing capacity for the enjoyment of holy exercises. All this there will be, through the gracious ministry of the Holy Ghost, who uses the word of God to unfold to our souls the truth as to our standing in Christ, and as to the walk which comports with that standing. But let it be clearly understood that the work of the Holy Ghost, in practical sanctification day by day, is founded upon the fact that believers 'are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once ' (Heb. 10: 10). The object of the Holy Ghost is to lead us into the knowledge, the experience, and the practical exhibition of that which was true of us in Christ, the very moment we believed. As regards this, there is progress, but our standing in Christ is eternally complete.

"'Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth' (John 17: 17). And again — 'The very God of peace sanctify you wholly' (1 Thess. 5: 23). In these passages we have the grand practical side of this question. Here we see sanctification presented, not merely as something absolutely and eternally true of us in Christ, but also as wrought out in us, daily and hourly by the Holy Ghost, through the Word. Looked at from this point of view, sanctification is obviously a progressive thing. I should be more advanced in personal holiness in the year 1861 than I was in the year 1860. I should, through grace, be advancing day by day in practical holiness. But what, let me ask, is this? What, but the working out in me, of that which was true of me in Christ, the very moment I believed? The basis on which the Holy Ghost carries on the subjective work in the believer is the objective truth of his eternal completeness in Christ."

<"Again, 'Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord' (Heb. 12: 14). Here, holiness is presented as a thing to be 'followed after' ― to be attained by earnest pursuit ― a thing which every true believer will long to cultivate,

"May the Lord lead us into the power of these things. May they not dwell as doctrines and dogmas in the region of our intellect, but enter into, and abide in the heart as sacred and powerfully influential realities. May we know the sanctifying power of the truth (John 17: 17); the sanctifying power of faith (Acts 26: 18); the sanctifying power of the name of Jesus (1 Cor. 1: 30 and 6: 11); the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1: 2); the sanctifying grace of the Father (Jude 1).">

CONFESSION OF SINS.

This dear brother [The "Elder." — ED.] says we deny the truth about confession of sins. Some of the thousands of persons who have heard the preaching here during the last six months, could have told that dear man otherwise, if he had taken the trouble to inquire. And, brethren, let us have no other feeling than that of thorough shame, that God's children should be found thus speaking of one another. It is my shame, it is your shame, it is his shame! We should be found loving one another, speaking well of one another. To accuse our brethren should be no act of rashness. The greatest soberness and careful examination of every statement should be exercised, specially so, when others are guided by our judgment, as I learn is the case with my brother, the Elder. Now, if "An Elder" had asked those who have heard me, they could have told him that there is scarcely one address during the last six months, which I have delivered, in which I have not brought out in some way the truth about confession of sins. Those of you who have heard me know that it is so. You see now how unsafe it is to decide upon mere hearsay evidence, or upon the judgment of prejudiced persons.

The sum and substance of what I have taught is this: In the 1st Epistle of John you read — "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. But, if we confess our sins (to God) He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Who here confess sins? God's children — we. And those of us who know what confession is, know what a relief it is. If I have anything lying on my conscience, I cannot have joy in my soul; and you that are believers, all know, that you cannot have rest, until you go and unburden yourselves to God. Like a child that has got a clean apron soiled with ink; if it has any sense of cleanliness about it, it will be greatly troubled till it gets the soil removed. So with the child of God; he cannot keep the soil on his conscience. He confesses his sins, and gets forgiveness and cleansing: and thus his communion with God is restored.

But it must be kept clearly in view that the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing (1 John 1: 9), with which the Father ever greets the confession of His child, are quite distinct from that forgiveness once granted, and for that reason never to be repeated, which is spoken of in Col. 2: 13 — "You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you ALL trespasses." Here we learn our present connection with Christ risen from the dead, in the new standing into which we are introduced, as quickened together with Him, from out of that state of alienation and enmity by wicked works, in which we were in the flesh. And this is of necessity connected with a plenary pardon of ALL trespasses attaching to that state, out of which the Christian is delivered by the death and resurrection of Christ, because connected with Christ, who has left behind Him on the cross the sin and the judgment attaching thereto. Compare also Eph. 1: 7, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." The confounding of these two things is the real question at issue: and that they are so confounded is evident from the burden of such a form of prayer as "Accept us in Christ, and forgive us our sins" — thereby, so far as words go, giving up Christ and Christianity. "Acceptance in Christ and forgiveness of sins," as in Ephesians and Colossians, is the present portion and privilege of every true Christian: "forgiveness of sins and cleansing," as in 1 John 1: 9, is the needed provision for every child of God during his sojourn here below. And it was in view of this necessity, that our Lord taught His disciples to pray, "Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us." And 1 John 1: 9 assures us that "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Another point in connection with this is — Is confession of sins a thing for the public congregation? I admit that a public transgression may demand a public confession. But we are dealing here with individual sins — such, perhaps, as are known to God only; and I ask you — Is the public assembly the place for such a confession? It is not. It is a question between my soul and God; and if I have sinned in thought, word, or deed, I am to confess that sin to God of which I am conscious, and His word assures me that He is faithful and just to forgive me. God wishes me to confide in Him, and when I sin, I confess my sins to Him, having the judgment of it according to the light against which I sinned in my soul: not as to One who hates me, but as to One who loves me — not to One who is against me, but to One who is for me — not to One who is a stranger, but to One who is my Father. The Scriptures then are very distinct as to the confession of sins being the duty of every believer, as a personal question between him and the Lord, before he can go on again in the sunshine of God's favour, desiring and striving to live to Him, and to please Him. Of course, if it is a question between man and man, we must "confess (our) faults one to another" (James 5: 16).

But "An Elder" might say to me, "Ah, but I do not say you do not hold confession of sins. What I do say is, that 'it is a sad perversion of the truth to say that it is not necessary.'" Well, though he does not say that we do not hold it, I know that is what he means in his tract; and I say we do hold it. His insinuation thereof is false.

The following is an extract from the April number for 1869, of "A Voice to the Faithful:" —

"In the case of the saint, confession is at once the most gracious provision and most blessed exercise to meet his need down here. . . . Who that knows anything of his own heart, and of the defiling influences around, does not also know the relief and rest in which a true spirit of confession maintains his soul. But the confession of a saint must be true. . . . Self judgment and confession must be something more than skin-deep, if we are to dwell in fellowship with Him in whom is no darkness at all, for He knows just where we are in our souls, and what He looks for is truth in our inward parts. . . . There is a wide difference between confession in order to forgiveness and the evasion of punishment, which is really Popery; and confession in view to the restoration of communion with the Father, in whose love our hearts have learned to find their only rest. We have hitherto spoken only of confession towards God, but it has also its bearing towards man. . . . Wherein it has touched our standing and relationship towards God, it will be first judged; but wherein it has also touched our relations to men, it will not be neglected; and this latter point demands the deepest exercise and self-examination, and self-emptiness also, on our part, for the tendency of our heart is to evade, if possible, that which may lower us in the eyes of our fellows, whether men as men, or our fellow-Christians. How commonly do we hear one who has failed, and in a way has owned it too, saying, 'I have confessed to God, and there is no need to confess to man.' . . . 'Confess your faults one to another ' is the pith and marrow of much that is detailed at length under the law. The necessity for restitution, and for the acknowledgment of wrong done, both natural conscience and law most plainly teach; and does the Gospel teach a lesson of less self-denial? Surely not, but rather a deeper one, as in it we learn how self is judged and mortified, and Christ alone to live and act in us. . . . May the Lord teach us self-emptiness, and so enable us always to maintain a good conscience before God and before man. We ought to walk before men as before God, always able to look each one in the face with the confidence that we are keeping back nothing which is their due, that we are hiding nothing even in our hearts, which in confession we ought to make known."

THE LORD'S PRAYER.

[The Lord's prayer — His thoughts for us as in Spirit ascended — are recorded in John 17. The Disciples' prayer, perfectly adapted to the circumstances preceding the accomplishment of Atonement and the Ascension of Jesus, is given us in Matt. 6 — ED.]

As to this I have no quarrel with any. I leave every one perfectly free to use it or not to use it. There is no Christian in his senses, but thinks that whatever the Lord did or said was absolutely perfect in its place. The question is, What is the place He gave it?

The argument against its use, drawn by some, from asking forgiveness is weak. But for all that, the demand of it is generally a proof that true forgiveness is not known (Col. 2: 13); but this is a question of spiritual perception and judgment.

The truth is, that Brethren, though often assailed on the point, have never given any judgment, or prescribed any rule whatsoever about it. Individuals may have done so. Its habitual use has dropped out, as it has amongst many other Christians, just as we never find it in the prayers of the New Testament, after Pentecost, because the Holy Ghost led saints on each occasion according to the particular wants of the moment, — all surely consistent with the summary so beautifully given in this prayer, but in the freedom given by the Spirit to express every want as it arose. [See "The Bible Treasury," vol. 7 p. 175.]

There are three important features in the nature of this prayer which have been overlooked by many: —

1st. It was intended for believers, but for whom redemption was yet prospective, and for whom the way into the holiest was not yet opened by the blood of Jesus.

2nd. The Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father (see Luke 24: 49 John 7: 39; Acts 2: 33) had not yet been given. Contrasted with this, we have our position unfolded in Eph. 2: 18, "For through Him we both have access, by one Spirit, unto the Father" (Compare also Eph. 6: 18; Jude 20, etc.).

3rd. This prayer was not, and could not then be, in Christ's name. The Lord's own statement is distinct on this point, "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name" (John 16: 24). Now that Christ has accomplished redemption, and gone up on high as the Saviour, who has finished His work, our great High Priest, the essential character of true prayer is, that it is in Christ's name; the 'Lord's prayer', as decidedly, was not <because it was perfect> (Idem, p. 175).

That it contains moral principles of essential value to believers, now as well as then, every Christian will own; yet the habitual use of it argues that the spiritual intelligence of those who use it, is not beyond that of the disciples to whom it was given before the accomplishment of redemption; and hence they are doing unconscious disrespect to the will of God the Father, to the finished work of Christ, and to the present witness of the Holy Spirit (Compare Heb 10.). Sympathize as we may with those who continue to use the Lord's Prayer now as a formula, we and they also ought to understand His word and will, besides having upright intentions. And manifestly, the redemption of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost have wrought a total revolution as to the conscience, communion, worship, and walk of the saint. They have brought us out of bondage into liberty, and consequently put our prayers on a different footing from what would have been right and comely before our deliverance. This is a question of great importance for those who desire to know their full standing in Christ, since the Holy Ghost has been given. I need scarcely add, that we all believe that the Lord's prayer was divinely suited to the (then) actual state of the disciples; hence it could not fully express their subsequent relations, nor the outgoing of affection proper to them afterwards. [See "Thoughts on the Lord's Prayer." W. Kelly.]

FAITH AND REPENTANCE.

These subjects being of great importance, I would take this opportunity of referring to them, as there are various errors afloat concerning them, and I cannot do better than give a few extracts from the published writings of well-known Brethren. I trust they may serve to clear the minds of any who have been troubled on these points, either as to what they are in themselves, or as to what Brethren have taught on them.

"True faith is the work of the Holy Ghost in the soul, revealing the object of faith in divine power; so that the heart receives it on divine testimony, as divine truth, and a divine fact. . . . It is really identical with the communication of a new life by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the word. Hence, we are said to be the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; to be born of the Spirit, and to be begotten by the word of truth. Faith is the divinely-given perception of things not seen, wrought through the word of God by the Spirit. . . . If the word reveals a divine person in grace, He becomes the object of trust; if a work, its efficacy becomes the ground of confidence. But the trust and the confidence is not the faith. Faith is then the real vivid perception of what cannot be known by sight: — God — Christ — anything revealed of God being the object. If there is merely a mental conclusion, as in the end of John 2, or assent to a proposition, it is worthless. If it is the revelation of the object of faith to the soul, by the Holy Ghost, it is real and living; and this only is true faith. Further, though all rightly preached together, we must not confound faith in the person, and faith in the work of Christ. The latter alone can give peace to the conscience (unless the direct revelation of God as by Nathan to David, or Christ to the woman that was a sinner); but the former is always held out as the first proper object of faith; while Scripture declares, that whosoever believes on Him, is under the benefit of His work. Faith in Him is quickening and saving. Peace of conscience according to God's declaration, belongs to those who do believe in virtue of His work. The difference connects itself with the question of repentance. . . . All who know what grace is, believe that faith precedes repentance, and everything else that is good and right in man. Otherwise he would have what is good, before he believed the truth at all; he would have it without God. And as to repentance, substantially, the whole moral change, the essence and substance of his return to God would have been effected without any truth at all. For if he repents through the truth, he must believe the truth in order to repent. . . . I judge repentance to be a much deeper thing than is thought. It is the judgment of the new man in divine light and grace, on all that he who repents, has been, or done in flesh. . . . . Hence, repentance will in one sense deepen all one's life, as the knowledge of God grows." ["Further Remarks upon Righteousness and Law" pp. 39-45. J. N. D.]

"There is that which is an invariable accompaniment of the new birth, which troubles many an earnest soul who is looking for peace. I speak of repentance. . . . . There is never a real effectual work of God in the soul apart from true repentance. . . . . . all scripture where the work of repentance is spoken of as a doctrine, or the fruits of it spoken of in a soul, it invariably follows faith. I do not say but that it has gone before peace. Peace with God may not be known for many a day, but the work of repentance has always followed faith, and consequently accompanied the new birth in every instance. Many have thought that repentance is sorrow for sin, and that a certain amount of it is necessary before the reception of the Gospel. Others have got into the other extreme, and have thought that it is a change of mind about God. Now, these thoughts are both wrong. . . . . Repentance is the true judgment I form of myself, and all in myself, in view of what God has revealed and testified to me, whatever may have been the subject He has used. . . . . When a soul is born again, and has thereby a new nature which it had not before, it begins to discover the workings of the old. Sometimes the work is very deep and long, and often the most wretched experiences are gone through, ere the soul learns peace with God. . . . All this terrible experience is but learning what your old nature is in God's sight; it is a true work of repentance in a soul. ["The New Birth," by F. G. P., in pp. 13-20.]

I now proceed to the consideration of

THE CHURCH.

What is the Church? for the "Elder" does not know what the Church is. In the first place, he talks about there being in it "the dead" and the "living." Such a thing as a dead member being in God's Church, is not contemplated in Scripture, for of the members of the Church, which is the body of Christ, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all, the Holy Spirit says, "You hath he quickened (or caused to live) who were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2: 1). And in verse 5, "Even when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ." The members of the body, are members of Christ, and livingly secured in Him. [There is another aspect in which the Church is viewed in Scripture, viz., as God's responsible witness on earth, and as such, committed to the responsibility of man; and in that character it has failed — become like a great house full of vessels of honour and dishonour, and, as an unfaithful witness, will be spued out of Christ's mouth as nauseous — Rev. 3: 16 — similarly to His manner of dealing with Israel of old, as we learn from Rom. 11, and elsewhere.]

The Church of God, which is the Body of Christ, is composed of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, Jew and Gentile, blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ, children by adoption, being accepted in the Beloved, their sins forgiven, admitted into the knowledge of God's counsels, sealed by the Holy Spirit individually, and baptized by the Holy Spirit collectively, into one Body, of which Christ is the Head, they the members, united by the Holy Spirit to Him, and by the same uniting bond to one another; it being emphatically stated that they are co-quickened with the Christ, who were once dead in trespasses and sins; co-raised and co-seated in the heavenlies in Jesus Christ — being saved by grace through faith — and that they are God's workmanship (and His work can never fail, being independent of man's responsibility), created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Eph. 1-10). Thus it is composed of living members of Christ, united to Him by the power of God, and the effectual presence of the Holy Spirit, sent down from heaven, while He is sitting at the right hand of God; and they are sitting in Him.

<Thus much, we learn from Ephesians down to chap. 2: 10, from which point to the end of the chapter, other truths concerning the Church are unfolded, in connection with which man's responsibility comes into view, and new relationships, the fruit of divine power, are entered into; and, although not looked at here as in failure, we know from other Scriptures, it is in these relationships the Church has failed. As to the body, it is composed of living indefectible members ― livingly secured in Christ, being quickened out of death, and united to Him by the Holy Spirit; only here, it is not the body, as such, we have; but the Church, as formed on earth, taking the place of Israel, as the dwelling-place and habitation of God, now, by the Spirit ― a position involving man's responsibility, and, alas! his failure, though failure be not here contemplated.>

Of the different names in Scripture by which the Church is called, I will now give you a brief sketch, that you may the better understand the matter.

The Church is called "the Body of Christ." By this name it is called in 1 Cor. 12, and I beg you will search the Scriptures to which I shall refer you. In that chapter the Holy Ghost develops the Church as "the Body," and hence the word "members" is there used over and over again. The members of the body are spoken of as the eye, the ear, hands, feet, and so on. We read (1 Cor. 12: 13) — "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. FOR THE BODY is not one member but many." It is again referred to in Eph. 4: 4 — "There is ONE BODY;" not many bodies. I lay stress upon this, because people speak about "different bodies of Christians," and persons talk of "my church," and "I belong to Mr. So-and-So's church," with no sense of the dishonour and shame, in God's sight, thereto attaching. Let me tell you that the Holy Ghost countenances no such thing as bodies, sects, etc. When He alludes to them, it is only to condemn them (1 Cor. 1: 10, 13). There is one BODY absolutely, and ONE BODY only. There is one Church, and one Church only; and, as I said before, this Church gets the name of the BODY. Every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ east, west, north, south — man, woman, or child, saved by grace and sealed by the Holy Spirit, is a member of this one BODY. Blessed union!

Again, in Matt. 16, the Lord Jesus brings out most blessed teaching respecting the Church. There you will find the first intimation of it by the Lord Himself. I shall not dwell upon it; but there are one or two thoughts I must suggest to you in reading that chapter. The Lord did not speak about building His Church until He was rejected by Israel. Hence it was, after people had said, Thou art John the Baptist, or Elias, or Jeremias, or one of the Prophets, that the Lord asked his disciples whom they said He was? Peter, taught of the Father owned — "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus then said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock" — the Son of God Himself — "I will build my Church." The first thought, then, is that the Lord Himself is the builder — "I will build;" the second, that He is going to build something that had not existed before. "I will build." Israel was not it — it had not been before. It was a future thing He was to build — " I will build my Church."

There is one text in Scripture which men have made a good deal of, fancying that this Church existed during the Old Testament times. That Scripture is in Acts 7: 38 — "He who was in the Church in the wilderness." It is not the simple hearts that are troubled by that; it is the clever people, and it is very curious that clever men who know Greek, do not observe that the word used is ekklesia, which means an assembly, a congregation, or a gathering.*  It is very simple, therefore — "He who was in the congregation in the wilderness" — that is of Israel. But Scripture does not confound Israel with the Church.

[*The word translated "Church" would better be "assembly." The town clerk dismissed the assembly (ekklesia). Here it is not the Church, yet it is the same word precisely (Acts 19: 41). The expression "Church (assembly) of God" and the Church (the assembly), which is "His body" (Eph. 1: 22, 23), defines THE assembly or church of which we speak. The "assembly in the wilderness" was of Israel; while the assembly of Acts 19: 41 was an Ephesian mob. The Church of God is, moreover, called the "House of God," "Bride of Christ," "The Lamb's wife," etc., applying to it, and to nothing else. Lastly, in 1 Cor. 10: 32 we read of "the Jews, the Gentiles, AND the Church of God." Here it is evident that the assembly (church) of God was not the Jewish assembly in the wilderness (Acts 7), nor the Ephesian or Gentile mob (Acts 19: 41); but is the "Body of Christ," a perfectly new and distinct thing since the cross — gathered out of Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2): composed of both, distinct from each, and occupying a position before God of blessedness in Christ, which could not have been known till Christ had died, risen and ascended to, and the Holy Spirit had come down from, heaven, as the witness of Christ's exaltation on the one hand, and the bond that unites believers to Him there, on the other.]

In 1 Cor. 10: 32, three classes of persons are mentioned: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the CHURCH of GOD." These are very distinct. The Jews were not the Church; the Gentiles were not the Church; it was a distinct thing, composed, I say, of believers from both Jews and Gentiles. In Eph. 2: 11, 12, Paul speaks of those who were "in time past Gentiles in the flesh," "being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." And in verse 14, etc., "Christ is our peace, who hath made both one," that is, Jew and Gentile, "and hath broken down the middle wall of partition" that parted them asunder, "having abolished in his flesh the enmity" between them, i.e. "the law of commandments in ordinances; for to make in himself of the twain, one new man" — i.e. a new kind of man, Himself the pattern, — "So making peace" between them, who were before at enmity with one another. And not only that, but "that He might reconcile both unto God," with whom they were both at enmity, "in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

<Thus, it is not at all that Gentiles were now to be admitted into blessing with the Jews, (a thing abundantly spoken of in the Old Testament, in such passages, as "Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people," Deut. 32: 43; Ps. 18: 49; Ps. 117: 1; Isaiah 11: 1, 10, etc., for the accomplishment of which promises, we must evidently wait till the Jews get their own blessings, in the enjoyment of which the Gentiles are to be associated with them, as will be fully realized in the millennium), but that both were to be taken from off the ground on which they naturally were ― the Jews as a special people, near to God on earth, and in earthly privileges, the Gentiles as afar off, ― and both made the subjects of Divine grace, shining out through the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, and reconciled unto God in one body by that cross, and brought, ― not as an earthly people into earthly privileges, which are reserved for restored Israel, but ― as a heavenly people into heavenly relationships and privileges, to find their consummation in heaven, though entered into now on earth and enjoyed, by the Spirit.

This, be it noted, is according to God's eternal purpose, and is not the subject of prophecy, and not to be found in Old Testament Scriptures. It was "hidden in God" (chap. 3: 9), not in the Scriptures, mark, so that you cannot find it there, however diligently you may search for it, and that, too, "from the beginning of the world;" before ever there was a Jewish nation, to whom promises could be made. The apostle distinctly tells us, verse 3, etc., it was "by revelation," not by Scripture, the mystery was made known to him, "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is NOW" (at this present time), "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promises in Christ," not as through the law, but "by the Gospel." And mark, it is not prophets and apostles, as though the prophets were of Israel, but apostles and prophets of the Church, for which compare 1 Cor, 12: 28.*

{*"And hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets," etc. 1 Cor. 12: 28.}

Moreover, it does not say, "revealed by His holy apostles and prophets," but "unto;" for verses 7-9, tell us that Paul was specially chosen as the instrument of communicating the administration of this mystery, and that "to all," so that there is no one who understands it, that is not indebted to the Apostle Paul, through God's grace, for his knowledge, whether it be the other apostles, or whether it be ourselves. And in point of fact, not only is it not found in the Old Testament, but it is not even found, save in Paul's writings, in the New. In a few Old Testament figures we have dimly shadowed forth the relationship of Christ and the Church, under the figure of a bride, as in Eve and Rebecca, with the adjunct of the family tie brought out in Asenath and her two children (Gen. 41). But now, here, is there revealed the formation of Jew and Gentile into one body by the Holy Spirit, sent down from heaven as the witness of an earth-rejected but heaven-honoured Christ, risen from among the dead, and set above every name named, whether in this age or the coming one, and given to be head over all things to the Church, His Body, "the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." That was reserved in the good pleasure and wisdom of God, for its revelation, in due time, by the mouth of His servant Paul. That is to say, out of Jews and Gentiles, the Lord Jesus has called out a people for His name. Yes, for His name, mark, (Acts 15: 14) He has formed His Church out of both. The Church of God is not the Jews, nor the Gentiles, but is taken out of both.>

THE CHURCH, THEN — THE BODY OF CHRIST — DID NOT EXIST BEFORE PENTECOST.

In Matt. 16 it is said expressly to be built by Christ, on the foundation of Peter's confession, that He was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" — and having been at this time rejected by the Jews, was in contrast with His being presented to them as their Messiah, on the ground of their own promises in the old Testament, as the seed of David according to the flesh. Now, it was not till His resurrection, that He was declared to be the Son of God with power (Rom. 1: 4), and accordingly, after this announcement of His intention to build His church, He goes on to speak of the necessity of death and resurrection — a thing that Peter did not understand the need of at the time (Matt. 16: 22).

But, while the Lord speaks of Himself as the builder — and what He builds, the gates of Hades will not prevail against, — there is also another thing in Scripture — men are builders too — and the assembly is formed on earth, under the responsibility and by the activity of man. Paul himself was a wise master builder as we read in 1 Cor. 3: 9, — "For we are labourers together with God; ye are God's husbandry; ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but, he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

In this case men are the builders, and are responsible for their work. I shall not dwell upon this, but give you three thoughts. (1) When such builders build correct materials, gold, silver, precious stones, these will stand the test of the scrutinising eye of Him, who, in the judgment shall say to them, "Well done!" (2) There are others that build wood, hay, stubble, which cannot stand the same test. (3) There are others who defile or destroy God's temple, and God will destroy them. Now, brethren, this a solemn thing. Look round on Christendom to-day. I exclude no sect. I take in all — Established Church, Wesleyans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. — I take them all, and the question asked of each is — What are you building? You say you have got a church. Then, of what is it composed? Have you got gold, silver, precious stones there, such as will stand the test at the judgment seat? Or, on the other hand, have you not got some who are not believers at all to build up your "cause," to carry it on, to keep up your numbers? Beloved, this is a solemn question. Now, such are wood, hay, stubble, which cannot stand the test; that is man building, but he is building with wrong materials.

Thus the Church of God is looked at as a building; Christ the builder in the one case, and His work can never fail; nothing can touch his "living stones;" on the other hand, men are the builders; some, building gold, silver, precious stones, and are thus co-workers with Him; others, wood, hay, stubble, to be burnt; others, again, defiling God's temple — they will be destroyed.

Further, the Church of God in another aspect is called the "House of God" (1 Tim. 3: 15). "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." It is the house of God pure and holy, and nothing should defile it. This is His estimate of His own. Let me say, that the first Epistle to Timothy is written with a view of maintaining the Church in its primitive beauty and order; when we get to the second Epistle, it supposes it is in a state of ruin; the first love is left, and hence what is called the "House of God" in the first, gets another title altogether. Evil had got in, and it is now compared to "a great house," full of vessels of honour and dishonour. In Chap. 2: 20, the apostle says, "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour."

Now, I have shown you what the Church, the body of Christ is, in God's sight — a perfect thing, composed of living indefectible members — true believers; these the Lord Jesus will come to take to be with Himself, when His voice shall be heard in the air shouting for His saints. I have also shown you that which looks like it, but is not it; and which shall be left behind, when the saints are taken away.

There is what the Lord Jesus builds, and also what they build, who build according to His mind — living stones (1 Peter 2: 5). There is also what man, away from God's mind, builds, with which God cannot be satisfied. That which God builds, though often invisible now, was never designed to be invisible. It is our shame that it is so: for, in John 17, the Lord, referring to the principle of the oneness and separateness here spoken of, desires it, "that the world might believe," etc. The other, that which man builds, we can look upon. It is the professing mass; but its testimony is not for the truth. The saints are in it, but mixed up with unbelievers, so that as a witness for God, it is a ruin; to our common shame, for we are all guilty in this matter.

I know that missionary reports boast of the "numerous sects in the Christian world;" but such "glory in their shame," in OUR shame; for none of us is exempted. But, in view of such a state of things, does the Lord leave us without resource? No, no; He is too tender and gracious. What does He give in 2 Tim. 2: 19, etc.? "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." Further, "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood, and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour. If a man, therefore, purge himself from these, (the vessels unto dishonour) he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work." God's principle in dealing with us now, is not the reparation, or reformation of the ruin; but distinctly — "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work;" and that is what is referred to in Hebrews 13: 13, where the comparison is made to the camp of Israel, i.e. the great professing body of the people, where the worship of God was degraded. "Let us go forth, therefore, unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach" (v. 13).* In this day of ruin God calls upon us not to reform the Church, nor to repair the ruin; but He calls upon the faithful to purge themselves from the vessels of dishonour. And this is the ground which every faithful Christian must take in obedience to God's Word; owning one body, nothing else, and meeting on that large ground — "one body," "one Spirit," etc. (Eph. 4: 4, 6), where every believer in the Lord Jesus may be gathered, if subject to the truth. Of course the Holy Ghost warns us against doctrinal evil (2 John); such as hold it are not to be received. It is a broad ground on the one hand, admitting all believers in the Lord Jesus; on the other, it is narrow, shutting out evil — moral and doctrinal. Was it a small thing for Elijah to stand apart from the evil of his day? He could not boast of numbers; but, he was a witness for the truth and the rights of God.

<Any acting on that principle to-day are called "robbers of churches," or "exclusives," etc. Amazing! Why will Christians not compare with the standard of the WORD? It is a curious thing that ministers who are independent of their congregations for maintenance ― of the English Establishment, for instance ― exhibit less rancorous feeling than others; and not only so, but profit by the teaching the Lord has been imparting, during the last few years, by the so called Brethren.>

[*By referring to Ex. 33: 7, you will notice (1) that idolatry had got into the midst of what had been before of God; (2) that God did not say to purge the camp in this case — the faithful were to GO FORTH outside. Separation from evil, not patching, is always the Divine principle; (3) those left were Israelites; but they did not seek the Lord. It says distinctly "Every one which sought the Lord, went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp." "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear."]

And what is the blessed promise of the Lord Himself? — "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there AM I in the midst of them." What did the early believers do in the time of Paul? They were gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. And, when they were so gathered, they publicly manifested their unity in partaking of the one loaf. The Lord's Supper was the external sign of their unity; the presence of the Holy Spirit the power of it. This we get in 1 Cor. 10. They thus manifested the oneness of the body, while, at the same time, they carried out the injunction of the Lord — "This do for a remembrance of Me." When the Apostle Paul addressed a letter to the Church at Ephesus, there could be no mistake that it would go to the assembly at Ephesus. It was not a time when there were sects and parties. There was one gathering of Christians at Ephesus, and one only. So if Paul had addressed a letter to the Church at Corinth, it would go to the assembly in Corinth only. But, if to-day, any one addressed a letter to the Church in London, it would go to the dead-letter office, for there is no gathering there that could rightly claim it, as being THE Assembly of God in London. There is no such thing now to be seen.

<Some say, "Oh, but there were churches in Paul's time." Yes, there were. But I ask, were there different kinds of churches? That is, in any one city or place were there more kinds of gatherings (ekklesiai) than one? I go further, and assert that in any one city there was one assembly of saints only; and I challenge any one to show the contrary. Hence Paul wrote to THE church (assembly) in Corinth, Philippi, etc. Moreover, a member of the assembly at one place was a member of all others also. I will give an extreme example for illustration. If there were six fishermen living at Athens, and they were all the believers in the place, they would constitute "the assembly of God" in Athens. Outside them was the world, and perhaps Judaism. Let those six remove to Cenchrea, and then there would be no Church of God in Athens, although the religious Jews were ever so busy in their synagogue services. But such six fishermen would be bona fide identified with the saints gathered at Cenchrea. And yet, again, if all these went to Ephesus, and a place large enough could be obtained, they would all be gathered in this one place, on the Lord's Day, to break bread with the assembly in Ephesus. I say, therefore, that there might have been as many gatherings in Paul's time as there were cities, but, morally and practically, they were all one. No names, sects, and parties separated them then. If such be God's truth, everything is false which does not answer to it.>

May lowliness and godliness of walk, as well as zeal for the truth and steadfastness in the faith, characterise the few gathered together in the faith of the "one body," the abiding relationship into which Christians are formed by the presence of the Spirit. They are not THE assembly, though in faithfulness to Christ, spite of their feebleness, and much and often-confessed failure, they seek to own practically the truth concerning it. The saints now are scattered about in various sects, and under various names, to our common shame. There were times when there were no sects or parties, but when all were of one heart and soul, and love to Christ inspired the whole. At the present all are split up into more than a thousand sects and parties, and we cannot put our hands upon what is the Church of God. It is all scattered, and we don't know where it is. "But the Lord knoweth them that are His."

<A clergyman asked me, not long ago, "How can we tell who are the Lord's?" To this I reply, How do I know my own brother (after the flesh) from a stranger? Surely, in Paul's time, believers knew each other, else how could he exhort them to greet one another with a holy kiss? When John said, "Because we love the brethren," they must have known each other to love each other. Alas! that filthy lucre and honour among men, a love of ease and distrust of a Father's care for His own, should lead believers so to blunt their consciences, and deceive the unconverted, by owning those as members who are not! Alas, that many saints should know the mind of the Lord and not do it!>

MINISTRY.

The next thing we come to is MINISTRY. "An Elder," in his book says, that the "brethren" deny ministry. His own words are these — That we hold "that a standing ministry in the Church, is not an ordinance of God." If by that, he means, that they refuse God's ministry, it is untrue, as I shall show presently. But, in this book, he not only makes that charge, which is false, but he does not tell you what ministry is. The Elder mixes up the ministry and the priesthood, and a greater blunder he could never have made.* Ministry and priesthood are very different things. Every believer is a priest to God; as we read in 1 Peter 2: 5, "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Now, PRIESTHOOD IS THAT WHICH CARRIES UP WORSHIP TO GOD FROM MAN; MINISTRY IS THAT WHICH BRINGS DOWN GRACE FROM GOD TO MAN. In this sense every believer — all Christians — are priests to God; can go and worship God, offer up spiritual sacrifices, and can intercede with God for others. They are a holy priesthood. We are agreed, in that we do not own those whom men call priests, as such. Every believer is a priest; but every believer is not a minister, in the sense in which ministry is spoken of in Eph. 4: 12.

<*In his "Reply" he disavows this, "for," he says, "it is a long time now since we learned that there was no priest on earth, and but one in the whole universe of God, the man Christ Jesus;" though in the next sentence he calls the minister ― referring to the pastor  ― the "minister of the sanctuary," a word only applied to the Lord Jesus (Heb. 8: 2).>

What, then, about ministry, to come to the matter more closely? The Apostle Paul gives the answer in 2 Cor. 5: 18 — "God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the MINISTRY Of RECONCILIATION; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the WORD of RECONCILIATION." So you see that the ministry spoken of here, is that which has the word of reconciliation committed to it. But it is MINISTRY from GOD. Note this: "Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech by us: we pray in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." (Leave out the word "you" in reading the last verse.) The word translated Ministry, [diakonia] in the first part of the passage, is the same word as is elsewhere translated service and waiting; and the word minister is from a Greek word [diakonos] which means a servant, a doer, a waiter, an officer. So that you must not confine it to one particular character of service. In Eph. 4 we not only get a list of ministers, but we get their source. The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, is the giver as Head of the Church, His body; who having received gifts, provides for the establishment, growth, and development of His Church, through means of apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Let us look at it. The 11th verse says, "And He" — that is, the ascended One — "gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till 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 fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine," etc. From this Scripture I want to show you one or two things: — (1) The immediate source of the ministry is the LORD JESUS CHRIST Himself. He ascended, and He gave gifts unto men.* If this be so, then men cannot be choosers; the Lord Jesus in this case is the Giver. It is said, on the one hand, that the Queen, or her advisers, can choose ministers for the Church. This the word of God absolutely denies. It is said, on the other hand, that the people can choose their own minister. This has no foundation in Scripture. The 4th of Ephesians tells me that the Lord Jesus gave gifts, and He only; and in 1 Cor. 12: 18 we read, "But now hath God (not man) set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

<*Note, unto MEN; not unto the CHURCH. The men are set in the Church; but men, and not the Church, are responsible for the godly exercise of the gifts committed to them. This is deeply important. Think, then, of such gifts awaiting men's appointment, ordination, sanction, etc.! Think of such gifts being hindered by men! "He gave gifts unto men," and every one so gifted is responsible for the exercise of his gift, to the Lord; the Church is responsible to own it; not to appoint, govern, or control it.>

It is important to note that we nowhere get a complete list of these gifts — God would have us search His word to discover His mind. Hence, if you will refer to Rom. 12 and 1 Cor. 12, you will find gifts mentioned which are not found in Eph. 4, but which have their function in the one body, as much as the five specified in this latter chapter. Rom. 12 and 1 Peter 4: 10, 11, show God in His grace, the spring of all gifts: Eph. 4 presents to us Christ as the giver: while 1 Cor. 12 gives us to understand that the Holy Spirit distributes them to every member of the body, to profit withal, ver. 7; and, "all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will," ver. 11. This distinction is, moreover, recognised in the same chapter, 1 Cor. 12: 4, 5, 6.

To this I may add, that if 1 Cor. 12 thus shows the Holy Spirit communicating these gifts, 1 Cor. 13 tells us the atmosphere (love) in which they must dwell, to be of use for edification in 1 Cor. 14, which displays the assembly as the sphere of their exercise. [I would add that in chap. 12 the principles, source, and power of gift are fully unfolded, while chap. 14 shews the gifts in exercise, and regulates them according to divine order and comeliness, while chap. 13 coming in between binds up in love gift and its exercise in ministry. — ED.]

With the apostles and prophets we have to do in their writings; in the nature of things, as being the foundation, they could not exist now. They have no successors in men. There is no such thing in Scripture as "Apostolical succession," except it be "the grievous wolves" whom Paul alludes to, as successors to himself (Acts 20: 29); or those who said they were apostles, and were not, and were found liars, in Rev. 2: 2.

Before the Canon of Scripture was completed, there were prophets; and when the assembly of God was gathered together, the prophets could speak two or three, by course (1 Cor. 14). And why were the prophets given? Because the Canon of Scripture was not completed. Now that it is completed, we have not such gifts. The apostles and prophets are at the bottom of the building. The foundation stones of your buildings are not put in the middle; they are put at the bottom. The apostles and prophets are the foundation — the Church began with them — Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. I mention these things because there are some calling themselves Christians, who tell us they have the power to appoint apostles. They must be false apostles, for you do not get the apostles at the top of the building; they are at the bottom. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers we have still in this day. Is the Church always to have them? Most positively, while it is on earth. Ephesians tells me we are to have them till — mark that word, till — "we all come unto a perfect man;" that is, while there is the need of them in the Church, there will be evangelists, pastors, and teachers. In Ephesians 4 and in 1 Cor. 12, not a word is said about bishops, elders, or deacons, but the evangelists, pastors, and teachers go on till, etc. The next question is — Were these men ordained to their offices? Here you must draw the line between a gift and an office. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers are all GIFTS of the Lord Jesus — the evangelist's labours being in the world, and the others confined expressly to the Church. An office does not necessarily suppose gift; and while evangelists, pastors, and teachers are spoken of as gifts, bishops, or elders and deacons, are local officers in the Church.

The question is raised whether the evangelists, pastors, and teachers were ordained by the Church. Let Acts answer it. I read that there was a persecution after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8 and 9), and what do you find? "They that were scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching the word." In the 11th chapter, we find God honouring their preaching, for by it "a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." But not a word about human ordination in it all. In other words, these men were gifted by the Lord Jesus; they were responsible to Him, and to Him only. Out they went upon their ministry, asking questions of no one. The Church owned them, but could not appoint them, for they were already appointed to the work by the Lord. In the case of Matthias, who was numbered among the apostles, people say the apostles appointed him. Nothing of the kind. Those present cast lots according to Jewish custom, and the lot fell upon him; so he was numbered amongst them. There was no ordination; no laying on of hands.*

[*It may be well to remark here, that in Acts 1: 22, the words "ordained to be" have been gratuitously interpolated — there is nothing corresponding to them in the original, which reads simply, "must one be a witness with us of his resurrection."]

Then, as to Paul. Was Paul ordained? We read that the brethren laid their hands upon Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13: 2-5). But was it for the purpose of ordaining or appointing them? Just think of such a thing — the lesser appointing the greater. What is the fact? Barnabas and Saul had been already used by God in a very marvelous way, long before anything was heard of the brethren laying their hands on them. They had gone into Asia and other places preaching and teaching, and the Lord had used them abundantly. In the 13th of Acts it is stated that there was a special work to be done; and hence the Holy Ghost says when the disciples were gathered together, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." [It was because of this special work that Barnabas is called an "apostle." — ED]. It was a special work which they were at this time called to do. And the brethren then gathered together, having fellowship with the work of Barnabas and Saul, fasted and prayed, and then laid their hands upon them as a sign of fellowship simply. Just as in 2 Tim. 1: 6, Paul writes telling Timothy, "Stir up the gift of God that is in thee, by (dia the particle signifying the instrumental means), the putting on of my hands," and in 1 Tim. 4: 14, "neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with (meta the particle signifying association), the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." The Presbytery had fellowship with Paul, and laid their hands upon Timothy, although the gift was an apostolic impartation. Not that the Presbytery conferred a gift or ordained him to anything, but simply showed fellowship with Paul as he imparted it. And so in Acts 13, the brethren expressed, by the imposition of hands, their association or fellowship with what the Holy Ghost was doing through Barnabas and Paul. (For Paul's separation and appointment to the ministry, see Acts 9, 22; 2 Cor. 4; Gal. 1, etc.). As I have said, the evangelists, pastors, and teachers are the gifts of the Lord Jesus, specially given by Him. They are sent forth by Him who says, "Occupy till I come;" and the gifts are responsible to Him, and to Him only.

But what about bishops, elders, and deacons? In the 6th of Acts the word deacon is not used at all. However, I suppose the persons chosen there answered to deacons. But for what were they chosen? The apostles wanted to give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word, and not to serve tables, and they therefore said, "Look you out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business." The business was taking care of the money contributed for the poor saints. The apostles and teachers did not want to have anything to do with the money matters, saying, "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables, but we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word." The men chosen were not necessarily men with gifts; they were men selected to hold the office of deacons — to take care of the money and distribute it to the poor. [Stephen and Philip were beyond these men with gifts. The former was stoned for exercising his, and Philip went away preaching the gospel. In other words, as an evangelist, the Lord gifted Philip with it — the apostle had nothing to do but to own it. But the Church chose the deacons, Philip among them; the apostles appointed them.] Hence the qualification mentioned in 1 Timothy for them, that they must be grave, not given to much wine, nor greedy of gain; but pure in walk, having sober wives, not slanderers, but faithful in everything, and ruling their children and their own houses well, etc. These were the men who, being "of honest report and full of the Spirit and wisdom," (Acts 6: 3) the apostles appointed over the business of distributing, among the poor saints, the contributions that were made on their behalf.

They were selected by the church, because by the grace of the Holy Spirit, those who gave their money were permitted to choose the men who were to distribute it — but always, be it noted, subject to the apostles' appointment: as it is written, "whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6: 3).

And what about elders? The word elder is from a Greek word that means an elderly person, an elder — presbuteros. But the very same persons are called in Acts 20: 17, 28, — "overseers," or "bishops." "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which" [The true rendering of the original here is "in which," not "over which." Translated by King James' divines, we can easily understand how the word "over" was introduced. 1 Peter 5: 2 is a co-relative passage worthy of note, "Feed the flock of God which is among you." Here the translation is correct, the original word (en) is the same in both passages] "the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" — (episkopous). But who were these that are called overseers? The very persons who, in an earlier verse, are called elders — "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church." Moreover, "overseer" is translated "bishop" in 1 Tim. and in Phil. 1: 1. So that bishop, overseer, and elder are words applied to the same person. Now, the translators of our, generally speaking, very excellent version of the Bible, in the time of James I. are chargeable with intentional departure from a plain translation in some cases, swayed no doubt by their own ecclesiastical ideas of things. Mind, I am not finding fault with the translation — I am not capable of that; but I cannot help seeing that in Acts 20: 28, it should have been "in which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." But that would not have accorded with their idea of only one bishop. Now, the Church at Ephesus had many bishops, or overseers, or elders. But who chose those elders? Did the Church? Nothing of the kind. The Church never chose them. How, then, were they chosen? Paul and Barnabas visited every Church in the circuit here mentioned in Acts 13 and 14, and "chose for them elders" (Acts 14: 23). The elders were never chosen by the Church; they were chosen by the apostles; they were either chosen directly by the apostles themselves according to the true meaning of this Scripture, "they chose* for them elders in every Church," (Acts 14: 23) not, the Churches chose for themselves, and the apostles ratified their choice, but distinctly, "the apostles chose for them," or they were chosen by the apostles' delegates. Here Paul and Barnabas chose them directly, so that there was no Church here whose elders were not appointed directly by apostolic authority. It is not said they laid their hands on them, either here or elsewhere: though possibly they did, judging by analogy. For this cause was Titus left in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as Paul had appointed him (Titus 1: 5). But there is not a word here about another's continuing the task; nor even that Titus was to continue it after the apostle's death. Nor was he to appoint where he pleased, but definitely at Crete, where he had this special duty to perform; and, when required, to be diligent to return to the apostle at Nicopolis (Titus 3: 12), and not stay at Crete. Timothy no doubt had a similar authority to exercise, probably in a more general way, inasmuch as he is so fully instructed as to the necessary qualifications of those who were to hold these distinctly "local charges." It is strange that people never notice these things, and yet here they are in the word of God. And this is why I say that we cannot appoint elders: because we have no authority to do it. The Church has no authority to do it. The appointment was apostolical; and, as I said before, we have no apostles now.

<{*It is maintained by some that the word translated ordained here, Acts 14: 23 (keirotoneo) points to Churches choosing by "stretching out their hands to vote." But, 1st, if any did this, it was the apostles; not the Churches. 2nd, A comparison of the same word, by the same writer, in Acts 10: 41, "Unto witnesses chosen before of God (prokeiroteneo): and again, as used by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 8: 19, "Who was also chosen of the Churches," will show that such is not the use of the word in Scripture. Neither God in Acts 10, nor the assemblies in 2 Cor. 8, called upon others to vote, to collect their suffrages. Neither did Paul and Barnabas collect the votes of the assemblies in Acts 14. It simply says, "They chose for them elders in every Church."}>

But the apostle says — "Know them which labour among you, and are over you, in the Lord, and admonish you." Know them and respect them, and bow to them, when they act IN the Lord. The next verse, at the same time, giving the common responsibility of all the saints, "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men" (1 Thess 5: 14, 15). If you ask me — Do you own them in the Church? — I say that if in any gathering, however small, I find any person, a sober, faithful man, who goes out leading and helping the saints of God, I respect that man's judgment, I bow to it as to one in authority; but mark, I cannot appoint him. If I see anyone that acts like an elder described in Timothy, I own him; but I cannot appoint him. And on this point also Heb. 13 gives clear light. There they are told to "remember them which have the rule over you (or "guide you," in the margin), who have spoken unto you the word of God." This is authority indeed. It is one thing to assume "rule," another to "speak the word of God," which is what characterises a sure "guide." By him, the present mind of God for his saints is communicated. These were doubtless now departed; hence the word "remember." But, in the Lord's faithfulness, others filled their place; hence, in ver. 17, the word "obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves;" and in ver. 24, "Salute them, etc.'"

The word translated "have the rule," and in the margin "guide," is the same as is used in Acts 15: 22, of Judas and Silas, "chief men among the brethren." This is noteworthy.

1 Cor. 16: 15, 16, also shows us how Christians, without losing their proper responsibility, are still to be subject to those who are specially engaged in the work of the ministry. "I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves unto the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such" (mark the word), "and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth."

<Moreover, can you show me, in any city, THE flock of which the Holy Ghost speaks in Acts 20? Do you know where the flock of God is? Can you point to it? You will get it referred to in John 10: 16 ― "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock (poimen) and one shepherd." The word is translated fold; but it should not be fold (aule), it should be flock, as all who know the Greek will admit. Now that one flock is made up of all believers. Can you show me that one flock? Gladly would I go and identify myself with it immediately, if such were the case. You cannot show me that one flock, and therefore you cannot show me THE flock in which the Holy Ghost appoints overseers. You must, moreover, get the apostles' commission before you can appoint these elders.>

There are two clear reasons for not appointing elders and deacons now:― 1st. Not being either an apostle, or an apostle's delegate, as Timothy or Titus, no one has the requisite authority; 2nd. "All the flock," in which they were appointed, in any given place, is now, alas! outwardly broken up into sects and heresies; and hence the appointment could not take place, even were there the requisite power, till all the present sad divisions had ceased, and the saints had come together again, owning their common union by the Holy Spirit, as members of One Body. This is a simple reply to the constant query, "But why did the Lord at the first order such appointments, if they were not to continue?" It shows His wisdom and love. He foresaw the divisions, and wisely forbore perpetuating an appointment which would practically be null and void through the wilfulness of men more intent on the success of "a cause," than careful for His glory. Be it remembered, Scripture recognizes but One Church, the Body of Christ (Churches, of course, locally), and speaks but of sects and heresies to condemn them (1 Cor. 3, 11, etc. ). Now, on the contrary, there are numerous rival systems, calling themselves "Churches," and each of these will proceed to elect its own deacons and elders. I asked a deacon of a company of Baptists how far his deaconry extended? "Not beyond those who meet with us in —,'' was his reply; and this was in a town of over 150,000 souls, among whom one rejoices to know there are thousands of God's saints. "Can this be of God?" I said to him. He saw his error, and gave up the office to which, without the warrant of Scripture, he had been appointed. In the anarchy that prevails, through man's sin, in the house of God, which normally is "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," but has become "a great house, full of vessels of honour and dishonour," the perpetuation of appointments to the office, would be an empty form. God foresaw the anarchy which has crept into the Church, and hence, in matchless wisdom, forebore to continue an office, which only helps, as now imitated, to perpetuate division amongst those He called in oneness, to walk in subjection to His word. To rightly recognise elders or deacons in any one sect, would be, either on the one hand, to unchristianize all outside that sect, according to the principle contained in those words, "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and unto ALL THE FLOCK, in which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (Acts 20: 28); and again, "The elders I exhort . . . Feed the flock of God, which is among you," etc. (1 Peter 5: 1-2); or it would be, on the other hand, to sanction and countenance those divisions so emphatically condemned by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 1, 3, 11, 13).

<I would again refer you to 1st Cor., 14th chap., where the apostle Paul finds that there was disorder at the meetings. And how does he correct that disorder? Does he say to appoint a president? Not at all. But he says, "Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." At their meetings for worship, edification, etc., they are subject one to the other in the Lord. A one-man ministry in the assembly gets no countenance from the Word. Of course this does not in any way interfere with the individual responsibility of an evangelist preaching the gospel to the world, or of a teacher calling saints together for edification. In neither of these cases can we speak of the assembly gathered, as such; but the evangelist's, or the teacher's meeting.

If one man was recognised as being over the Church of God, what is the use of this 19th chapter, in which the apostle says, "Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the other judge. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14: 29-33)? This is God's order; anything contrary to it, though man may call it order, is but disorder. But, for this is wanted, practically, faith in the presence of the Holy Spirit, and subjection to the lordship of Christ. Or, why does he say, "Let your women," as in contrast to the men, "keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak?" Why, these things would be absolutely needless, if one person were appointed to preside over the whole assembly. No; but God Himself is there present by the Spirit. And such a thing as a human president the Word of God does not own at all. And, mark how this chapter ends: ― "What! came the Word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." And if God chose to revive the gift among his people, who could forbid them? "Let all things be done decently and in order."

The disciples were gathered together on the first day of the week, not to hear Paul preach, but "to break bread" (Acts 20: 7). And this, not as on a particular occasion, because of his presence amongst them on that day, but as the abiding object of the Church's gathering; as is evident from 1 Cor. 11: 20, where the principle is laid down, and the Corinthians' abuse of it, the subject of the apostle's reproof in this passage. But Paul being in their midst (Acts 20: 7) discoursed (dialegeto) to them; not preached, which would be ekerussen, (Mark 16: 15); or some such word, kateggelle (Acts 13: 38). He exhorted or taught them. There is no thought there of his acting as evangelist. All gathered on that occasion were saints, "disciples," to remember One they all knew ― the Lord Jesus. If Paul were not there, they would still have broken bread. Paul was in nowise their president.>

Such, then, is something of what I believe the Scriptures teach about ministry: —

1. It is not priesthood.

2. The ascended LORD is the source of ministry.

3. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers will be afforded, as long as the Church is on the earth.

4. Neither the apostles nor the Church ever ordained any of these.

5. That bishops, or elders, and deacons were not necessarily gifts, but were officers in local assemblies. A teacher, evangelist, or pastor was such wherever he went. Elders, or bishops, and deacons were attached to local assemblies.

6. The appointment of elder and deacon was strictly apostolic, and hence there is no Scriptural authority to-day for their appointment; although if persons answering to them exist, they are to be owned.

7. The evangelist is responsible to the Lord for his services to the world; the pastor for caring for the saints; and the teacher for teaching them, and they for receiving his instructions and for walking in the truth thus taught; but over the assembly, as such, gathered for example, to break bread, the word of God owns no human president, God Himself being present by His Spirit. I shall conclude this part of the subject by the following extracts: —

"We are charged with rejecting Christian ministry. To this the short reply is, that we reject nothing but un-Christian ministry. I do not believe that persons appointed by the Sovereign, or chosen by the people, are therefore ministers. This is the point in question. I disclaim the title of either to choose or appoint them, or of any but God. But I believe Christian ministry to be as essential to this dispensation as the fact of Christ's coming. So far am I from setting it aside, I believe it to be essentially from God, and object to the perversion of it, or the mere will of king or people (though both are to be respected in their place) interfering with so holy a thing. I read that when Christ ascended up on high, 'He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.' This is the only source of ministry; not the appointment of a king, nor the choice of a people. I see it, on the one side, asserted that authorities have a right to appoint, and, on the other, that the people have a right to choose. I do not believe either. Christ gives when and how He pleases: woe to them who do not own it! In a little tract called the 'Protestant Dissenters' Manual' it is stated that a man has as much right to choose his own minister as his own lawyer or physician. This seems to shut out God altogether, just as much as what is objected to. If Christ has given a gift, the saint is bound to own its use, and Christ's word by it.

"Where is the proof of an evangelist's gift? In the converted souls whom God blesses through his means. The Church may own and recognise him in it; they must do so if they are spiritual — if the gift, and therefore, the appointment of God, be there. They sin against Christ, who has sent him, if they do not. The consequence of these human appointments or choosings has been the fixing of a person who pleased the patron or people, fit or unfit, as the one only person in whom every gift must be concentrated, or the Church loses part of its inheritance and portion. And the whole service has been turned habitually into a preacher.

"We do not object to ministry, but to the assumption of the whole of it by one individual, who may or may not be sent; and if he have one qualification, yet not all. A man may be eminently qualified for an evangelist, and he is made pastor, for which he is in no way fitted. He is qualified to teach, perhaps, but not to rule, and he is put to guide the flock. It is the substitution of a minister, good or bad, for the whole work of the ministry, of which we complain." ["On Christian Ministry: What is to be Received and What to be Rejected." By J. N. Darby.] Again,

"In the ministry of the Spirit there are two distinct departments that which is within the Church, and that without. It is, indeed, true that the same individual may be (but it is not necessary) qualified for both; but the ministry of the pastor would not be required in the world, nor that of the evangelist in the Church. The command is, 'Go and preach the Gospel to every creature;' here is the evangelist sent forth into the world: 'not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together;' here is the Church, 'come together in one place.' The first and necessary qualification of the evangelist is, for himself to have been reconciled to God, and to have had put into him 'the ministry of reconciliation' (2 Cor. 5) — 'We believe, and therefore do we speak.' 'Let him that heareth say, come.' The office itself would legitimately lead from place to place, it would require one to endure hardships, to be instant in season and out of season — continually pressing God's message on unwilling hearers; 'whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.' Its end is answered in the ministry of an individual, though it was the Lord's grace to send His disciples out by two and two, and the apostles' practice to follow, in this respect, His example. The evangelist sent into the world must necessarily need support, 'for the labourer is worthy of his hire;' but this he is not to expect from the world, but from those who are worthy (Matt. 10: 11). He is necessarily much cut off from a worldly occupation, in going from city to city and place to place; and, therefore, it would be matter of wisdom to determine how far he should be employed in the things of this life. . . . .

"With respect to the ministry in the Church, it is not, as that of the evangelist, migratory, but stationary. It does not necessarily prevent a man from exercising a worldly calling because, in fact, it does not depend upon the energy of an individual, but brethren meet together to edify one another according to the power of the Spirit among them.

"Among the evils which have arisen to the Church from the attempt to unite the two departments of the ministry in one man, may be noticed, first of all, the undervaluing of the pastoral office. Almost all systems that have been formed by men have been looked upon as more or less extensive spheres for preaching the gospel; and hence almost all stated ministry has become properly that of the evangelist. The Church is not fed; believers are not built upon their most holy faith, because the heart of a minister is more called forth in its sympathy to those who are dead in trespasses and sins than to those who are converted. If, indeed, there be a heart burning with love for souls, and God has given him wisdom to win them, let him take the large sphere that is set before him — 'Go ye into all, the world and preach the Gospel.'" [Bible Subjects "for the Household of Faith." Vol. 1, p. 114.]

<Let any candid person now decide whether we deny ministry or not. For the Elder's sake I regret that he did not make himself acquainted with these things before he produced the little tract. The truth will not, I trust, have suffered by it; on the contrary, it has given occasion for bringing out the truth. I dare say that, like Mr Crosskery, the editor of the "Sword and Trowel," and others, the Elder took his ideas of Brethren from some second-hand channel.* Now is this honest? Acknowledged and accredited authors exist in numbers; why then not quote directly from their writings? I cannot excuse his ignorance as to these things, for ample opportunity was at his disposal for acquainting himself with facts. I have nothing personally against him. I repeat, and I speak honestly, I love him. But as it was in the beginning, so it is now ― let the blind man (John 9) stand up for the synagogues and for religion without Christ ― and so long it is all well, no matter what he believes; but let him practically confess Him, Whom the religious world hated, and then the blind beggar is immediately excommunicated. "They cast him out." Let all weigh this, and think long, before they lend themselves to the denial of, and opposition to those things, which are so plainly written in the word of God.

{*This the Elder owns in his "Reply" (see page 36). He says, "We (the Elder) took too readily upon trust what is told by others." I may say that while he must regret that he "spoke unadvisedly;" and I must own that I replied ungraciously, both should give glory to Him who overrules everything for His praise; large numbers have received the truth, and not a few have been led to act upon it.}

CONCLUSION.

In parting, beloved brethren, let me remind you that the prating about "prevailing errors" is, alas! only an unholy excuse, to divert the minds of others from the consideration of divine truth, which, because it is divine, testifies against the easy going religiousness of the day. A young gentleman in one of the sects, preached for many years the truths which he learned from the word of God, by the help of the so-called "brethren." Crowds listened to him, and he was applauded on every hand, as one who "preached most blessed truths for the edification of us all." Well, he saw the truth about the "One Body," and the going forth "outside the Camp," and the following "righteousness, faith, charity, peace, WITH THOSE that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart." He identified himself with Brethren, and continued to preach the same truth ― nothing more nor less. I assure you that he was very soon treated as a heretic! Why so? Judge for yourselves. In this city is a gentleman, who said, not long ago ― "They (meaning the "brethren") preach nothing that I do not." He is much petted by all the sects. Let him leave, and the story will soon change. I use this opportunity to express my conviction, that one reason for the strong feeling entertained against the so-called Brethren, lies in their practical testimony against a humanly-appointed and a humanly-sustained ministry.

Certain principles of action on the part of critics I have been endeavouring to suggest, while positive truth from the word of God, and as held by such believers as the Lord has been pleased to instruct respecting His Church, I have been trying to enunciate. I trust that in future all that attempt to sit as judges, will be "swift to hear and slow to speak." To be hasty in utterance, without competent knowledge, is unworthy of any saint of God. At the same time, persons who hang upon the mere words of men, ought to see, in this instance, how unsafe they are. "Prove all things" is the apostolic injunction, and it is as needful in this day of confusion, as it was when the "one body;" and the "one spirit" actuating all was manifest.

Let us not forget that the days will get darker still. "Evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse;" "Perilous times will come;" and not less now than ever, "They that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Sad it is that His own should be in alliance with His enemies  ―  "unequally yoked with unbelievers" ― against those with whom they ought to be standing shoulder to shoulder (1 Chr. 12: 33-38), against their common foe.

May those who desire to walk in separation from evil be kept from spiritual pride. In this way Satan takes advantage, and makes us get beside ourselves, because we are persecuted. May we be thankful that we are counted worthy. Let purity of walk characterise us day by day, as we trust we aim at purity in doctrine.

Depend upon it, that if their hearts are true, however feeble they are, if saints walk in the truth, they have the Lord's presence. The Lord knows them that are His, although we may not. When we find them, we do own them as our brethren. Let me say again that the term "Brethren" is not a sectarian one ― it is not a distinctive title assumed by certain Christians. You all have it, only you disown it practically, and prefer to be called U.P.'s, or Baptists, or Episcopalians, or Congregationalists ― names you never got from God at all ― names that have been tacked on, since the time of the Reformation, three hundred years ago ― names that will be left on earth. It is our privilege to gather on the ground of the "one body," but owning that the external thing is now in ruin, and that it cannot be repaired, but desiring to take what God gives to the simple child of faith; not mimicking things, not aping apostolical work, but taking what God gives. So far, taking such a stand, God's stand, on which every one subject to the word might assemble ― we have a little strength ― not strength enough to turn the tide, but strength enough at least, while that place is maintained in faith, not to float down with it. Let our hearts go out to all who love the Lord Jesus. And let us look to Him that the result of this meeting may be to advance the glory of the beloved name of Him, who is our Saviour and Lord. May this be the privilege of all ― by whatever name they are called ― to seek more to establish each other in Him, that so we may all be indeed the epistles of Christ, known and read of all men ― to His praise and glory.

Possibly the best motives, only wrongly directed, induced the "Elder" to write the unfortunate tract, and others, perhaps godly people, to aid in its circulation. After reading my Lecture, I am sure that all whose consciences are not hardened, will be grieved for their false conduct to their brethren, members of the "one body," beloved by the same Lord, and of whom they will never be able to rid themselves through all Eternity! Well, beloved, let one, whose affections go out towards every believer, and whose arms could embrace every one whom the Lord excludes not, let me assure you that "you have not injured us at all" (Gal. 4: 12). Our genuine feeling towards you, is that of fervent love in the Lord, which we would gladly exhibit more practically, if you allowed us. Sects, being contrary to God, and being as practically opposed to the "One Church of God," we most positively refuse to own. But the SAINTS in them we truly love. One's heart bleeds as one sees how sundered one's dear brethren are. Under the juniper tree one could fain sit and weep. "The Lord knoweth them that are His," but "hidden in the stuff," how few know each other! And O! what little love is manifested! What distrustfulness of each other! What evil-speaking! One would, with a heart broken over it, gladly cry, "Come, Lord Jesus, and remove all Thine own to the scene, where in the light of Thy presence, all will be joy and peace and love!"

But to such as determine to persist in a blind opposition, let me advise ― "Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5: 38, 39).

"Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, LIVE IN PEACE; and the God of love and peace shall be with you" (2 Cor. 13: 11).

Affly. yours,

Now to serve and ever to love,

C. J. Davis.

6. Seven Hints to Young Believers

Aids to Believers

Dr. C. J. Davis.

Seven Hints to Young Believers,

Beloved in the Lord,

If you have been led by the Holy Ghost to own the Lord Jesus as your Saviour — to know that, for His sake, your sins have been forgiven — allow me to exhort you on one or two particulars.

1. Let HIM, not the instrument used for your blessing, have all the praise; for He alone is worthy; and His servants would be "carnal" indeed (1 Cor. 3: 1-9) if they allowed you to think of them, when the praise and adoration belong only to HIM.

2. You have been led to see at least, that you know very little of God's word: so all of us should candidly admit (1 Cor. 8: 2). Then search daily to find in the Scriptures a deeper acquaintance with the PERSON to whom you are brought. You know what the work has done for your conscience; now learn about the Divine Object for your heart. In this day of confusion and lawlessness the saint of God needs, as ever, to be commended "to God and to the word of His grace" (Acts 20: 32).

3. Loud talking and much disputing ill become followers of Jesus in this day. A quiet consistent walk, in whatever relationship of life we are found, will weigh much more heavily (1 Peter 2: 12).

4. Make it a habit, when you meet together, to avoid the gossip-tendency of the day. The PERSON of the Christ, as shown to faith, by the Holy Ghost, in the word, should be the only theme. This will exclude slander on the one hand and creature-worship on the other.

5. Next to thus living consistently before your relations, persevere in prayer to God (Eph. 6: 18) for them, and watch a favourable opportunity to speak to them. This needs wisdom (Isa. 50: 4; Prov. 15: 23).

6. Wait on the Lord to enlarge your hearts towards unconverted persons. To such as you know, watch your opportunity to commend a good Gospel tract or book. Respecting this, you should feel it your privilege to lay by, as the Lord prospers you, for the scattering of what you believe, according to God's word, is the truth to help souls. So also, instead of wasting money on needless things, look after the poor — especially those who are the Lord's (1 Tim. 6: 17-19).

7. I would lastly add, that you should most earnestly find out what is the mind of the Lord respecting you in these last days. To gather round men — to aid in schism, would be simply to go counter to the truth in John 17, Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 12, etc. If you are willing to do what is right, the Lord will make plain your path (Phil. 3: 13-21). But surely every saint of God should feel that the present condition of the Church — God's Church on the earth, is anything but what it was when

All were of one heart and soul,

And love to Christ inspired the whole;

when no names, and sects, and parties, severed practically, as to outward testimony, the "One Body."

When the Lord was here His disciples gathered round HIM. Soon after His ascension the HOLY GHOST baptized the believers into One Body (1 Cor. 12: 13), and all then, "with one accord," owned no other name but HIS. And when He comes again it will be to gather all the saints, from Adam's time to the moment He comes — to whom? — HIMSELF.

Where were names and parties at Pentecost? Where do you find them in the early times of the Church's history in the Acts? What will become of them in the glory? I speak to BELIEVERS only. (The unconverted cannot understand this.) Wilful MEN sectioned off the Church of God into sects and parties. The LORD JESUS, the HEAD, never did. And the HOLY GHOST positively condemns such an act. (1 Cor. 1: 11-13. "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear."

One is your Master, even CHRIST, and ye all ARE BRETHREN (Matt. 23: 8).

May He who is coming "quickly" (1 Thess 4; Heb. 10: 37) — stir up the hearts of all His own to learn from THE Shepherd's voice. May Divine wisdom be afforded such as are gathered to His name (Matt. 18: 20); and who endeavour, in much feebleness, and before many dear saints who do not understand us — to keep the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace:" who in obedience to the Lord (2 Tim. 2: 20-22; Heb. 13: 13 — desire to keep His word and not deny His name — May we gladly welcome whom He receives — May we positively, for His honour, refuse whom He rejects.

May our true love, in Him, be manifested by us to all whom He loves and who love Him. May abundant grace, mercy, and peace be yours, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yours truly in Him, C. J. Davis.

LONDON: ALFRED HOLNESS, 21 PATERNOSTER ROW.

GLASGOW: R. L. ALLAN, 73 SAUCHIEHALL STREET.