Table of Contents

Considerations addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Clergy who signed the petition to the House of Commons for Protection.

MY LORD AND BRETHREN,

Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ.

The Notion of a Clergyman, dispensationally the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Thoughts on the Present Position of the Home Mission.

Christian Liberty of Preaching and Teaching the Lord Jesus Christ

Parochial Arrangement Destructive of God's Order in the Church

The Character of Office in the Present Dispensation

On the Apostasy - What is Succession a Succession of?

The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations

On Lay Preaching

On the Formation of Churches

Aim of this Essay

139 THE LORD'S PURPOSE IN THE GATHERING OF THE SAINTS ON EARTH

140 NATIONAL SYSTEMS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

141 POSITION OF DISSENT RELATIVELY TO THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

IN THE FALLEN CONDITION OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION, CAN MAN RESTORE IT?

146 IF THE DISPENSATION CANNOT BE RESTORED, WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE

DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THINGS

DOES THE WORD OF GOD AUTHORISE THE NAMING PRESIDENTS AND PASTORS?

149 THE CHILDREN OF GOD HAVE NOTHING TO DO BUT TO MEET TOGETHER IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

CONCLUSIONS

153 FINAL REMARKS

Some further development of the principles set forth in the pamphlet, entitled "On the Formation of Churches" and reply to some objections made to those principles.

Introduction

General Remarks

OF THE UNITY OF THE BODY OF CHRIST

ON THE NOMINATION OF PASTORS

169 OF THE RUIN OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS

REMARKS UPON THE "REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY OF GENEVA, FOR 1841"

200 APPENDIX

On Ministry: its nature, source, power, and responsibility.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL

SOURCE OF MINISTRY

ON THE POWER OF MINISTRY, AND ON ITS RESPONSIBILITY

POWER OF MINISTRY

ON ELECTION AND ON GIFTS, AS THE POWER OF MINISTRY

RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTRY

CONCLUSION

Remarks on the state of the Church in answer to the pamphlet of Mr. Rochat, entitled, "A Thread to Help the Simple to Find Their Way"

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL REMARKS

STATE OF THE DISCUSSION - ON THE FUTURE DISPENSATION - ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH - MILLENNIUM - FALLING AWAY OR APOSTASY - THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY.

OF THE CHURCH AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY - RUIN AND CUTTING OFF

262 OF GIFTS PLACED IN THE CHURCH

NOMINATION OF ELDERS

ROMANS 11 - THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA

272 CONCLUSION

Remarks on the pamphlet of Mr. F. Olivier entitled, "An Essay on the Kingdom of God; Followed by a Rapid Examination of the Views of Mr. John Darby."

Preface

Remarks

Thoughts on Romans 11, and on the responsibility of the Church in reference to a pamphlet of Mr. F. Olivier, entitled "Defence of the Principles Laid Down in the Pamphlet, 'Essay on the Kingdom of God,' etc."

On Discipline

A Letter on Separation

Separation from Evil - God's Principle of Unity

Grace, the Power of Unity and of Gathering

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL - VOL. 1]

A glance at various ecclesiastical principles and examination of the foundations on which the institutions of the church on earth are sought to be based. In reply to various writings.

Introduction

FIRST PART

PRESENT STATE OF OPINION ON THE SUBJECT OF MINISTRY.

SECOND PART

REFUTATION OF SOME ERRORS CONTAINED IN THE "EXAMINATION OF THE DARBYITE VIEWS ON SACRED MINISTRY."

CHAPTER 1

ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF GIFTS AND LOCAL CHARGES.

CHAPTER 2

ON THE RUIN OF THE CHURCH.

12 SECTION 1

THE "EXAMINATION" OUTDOES POPERY IN THE INVIOLABILITY WHICH IT ATTRIBUTES TO THE CLERGY.

14 SECTION 2

OUR DUTY TO JUDGE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE "EXAMINATION."

SECTION 3

FALSE IDEAS AS TO A PRETENDED DISMEMBERMENT OF THE APOSTOLATE.

SECTION 4

OBSERVATIONS IN DETAIL - WHO BREAKS THE BREAK - APOSTOLIC POSITION - MEDIATIZED GIFTS AND FREE GIFTS - PAUL AT CORINTH - THE MINISTRY OF PAUL OVERTURNS THE SYSTEM OF THE "EXAMINATION."

SECTION 5

GLANCE AT THE NATIONAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AS AT PRESENT ESTABLISHED.

23 SECTION 6

THE PRETENDED PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH

31 SECTION 7

VIEW OF THE CHURCH.

SECTION 8

PROOFS IN SUPPORT.

SECTION 9

OBSERVATIONS ON THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL.

A glance at various ecclesiastical principles and examination of the foundations on which the institutions of the church on earth are sought to be based. In reply to various writings.

THIRD PART

ON THE FREE CHURCHES.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

ON THE SCOTCH MOVEMENT AND THAT OF THE FREE CHURCH ON THE CONTINENT.

CHAPTER 2

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FREE CHURCH OF THE CANTON DE VAUD.

SECTION 1

THE CLERGY, THE FOUNDATION OF UNITY IN THE FREE CHURCH.

SECTION 2

ABSENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FREE CHURCH.

SECTION 3

THE DOCTRINE OF A FREE CHURCH.

FOURTH PART

REFUTATION OF THE REPROACHES OF THE JOURNAL, THE "REFORMATION," ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN ORDER AND EVANGELICAL LIBERTY.

CHAPTER 1

ECCLESIASTICAL RADICALISM.

CHAPTER 2

DUALISM.

CHAPTER 3

THE GOSPEL CODE.

71 CHAPTER 4

ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH.

75 CONCLUSION

Considerations on the character of the religious movement of the day and on the truths by which the Holy Ghost acts for the good of the church.

'The Church and its Friendly Subdivisions'

in reply to Mr. R. W. Monsell.

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3.

CHAPTER 4.

CHAPTER 5.

CHAPTER 6.

CHAPTER 7.

CHAPTER 8.

CHAPTER 9.

Scriptural views upon the subject of elders, in answer to a tract entitled "Are Elders to be Established?"

CHAPTER 1.

CHAPTER 2.

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4.

CHAPTER 5.

CHAPTER 6.

CHAPTER 7.

Examination of a few passages of Scripture, the force of which has been questioned in the discussion on the new churches; with remarks on certain principles alleged in support of their establishment.

Observations on a tract, entitled "Plymouthism in view of the Word of God."

What has been acknowledged?

Or, the state of the controversy about elders, followed by a short answer to an article of Mons. de Gasparin.

An appeal to the conscience of those who take the title of "Elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva"; and a reply to one of them.

A letter to Count de Gasparin in answer to a question which he puts to me in the "Archives du Christianisme."

J. N. Darby.

J. N. DARBY.

Reply to two fresh letters from Count de Gasparin, published in the "Archives du Christianisme," of December 3rd, 1854, and February 24th, 1855. Vevey, 1855.

A short answer to the last article by Count de Gasparin, published in the "Archives du Christianisme."

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL VOL. 2]

On Gifts and Offices in the Church.

The House of God; the Body of Christ; and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

What is the Church, as it was at the beginning?

and what is its present state?

The Church - the House and the Body

Matthew 16

Reply to the remarks in two leading articles of the Christian Journal entitled "Our Separating Brethren."

Address

"Our Separating Brethren"

The claims of the Church of England considered;

being the close of a correspondence between the Rev. James Kelly, of Stillogan, Ireland, and J. N. Darby.

Introduction

177 TO THE REV. J. DARBY.

My dear Sir,

JAMES KELLY.

178 THE LETTERS

TO THE REV. J. DARBY

MY DEAR SIR,

JAMES KELLY.

DEAR MR. KELLY,

THE REMAINDER OF MR. J. KELLY'S LETTER, DATED DUBLIN, MARCH 18TH, 1842, REFERRED TO IN THE INTRODUCTION, WITH SOME NOTES IN REPLY BY MR. J. N. DARBY.

James Kelly.

Review of a sermon preached by the Rev. G. M. Innes,

in the Quebec Cathedral, on Sunday, April 5th, 1868, and published in the Quebec Mercury, April 9

What the Christian has amid the ruin of the Church;

being a reply to certain articles in the

On Ecclesiastical Independency

304 2

Remarks upon "The British Churches in relation to the British people; by E. Miall."

Presbyterianism: a reply to "The Church and the Pulpit."

Extracts

325 [REPLY]

Letter to a Christian Friend, in reply to a Presbyterian Minister, on the subject of the Law, the Sabbath, Ministry, and the Sacraments.

Preface

350 LETTER

MY DEAR SIR,

REPLY

MY DEAR BROTHER,

Dr. Capadose and the Dutch Reformed Church

What is a Sect?

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL VOL. 3]

Narrative of the Facts, connected with the separation of the writer from the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street. [Plymouth]

INTRODUCTION

-----------------

Narrative of the Facts, connected with the separation of the writer from the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street. [Plymouth]

Letter to the saints meeting in Ebrington Street on the circumstances which have recently occurred there.

Account of the proceedings at Rawstorne Street, in November and December 1846, with an answer to the "Reasons" circulated in justification of the refusal of Mr. Newton to meet the brethren.

PART 1

Being the answer to the "Reasons."

PART 2

"J. N. DARBY."

The Principles Involved.

PART 3

Supplement: Notes on the "Correspondence" and "Remonstrance."

{*The date of this is omitted in the Table of Contents, where it would attract attention: it is the only one that is.}

What investigation has there been at Plymouth?

Summary of the meetings in London, February, 1847.

Introduction

Two letters as to Plymouth.

MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,

To the brethren at Rawstorne Street

Letter on the confession of error by some.

Letter of acknowledgment as to Plymouth

Indifference to Christ: or Bethesdaism - extracted from a private letter

The Church which is His body

A letter on A.R.D.'s few thoughts as to the position of saints gathered in the Name of the Lord.

God, not the Church,

The teacher by his word; being a letter on Dr. Manning's sermon.*

By a stranger passing through Hereford

God, not the Church,

The teacher by his word; being part two of Remarks on Dr. Manning's sermon at Belmont, Hereford.

Preface

--------------------

Discipline and Unity of the Assembly

Baptism - not the communication of life

A reply to defence of the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration by the Bishop of Ossory, Leighlin, and Ferns.

Preface

------------------

In reply to some questions on the Lord's Supper.

Extract from a letter,

Disendowment - Disestablishment:

A word to the Protestants of Ireland, in a letter to the Ven. Archdeacon Stopford

Remarks on a book entitled, "Is Modern Christianity a Civilised Heathenism?"

What is the Unity of the Church?

Episcopacy: What ground is there in Scripture or History for accounting it an Institution of God?

Churches and the Church

Ephesians

Thoughts on the Church

The Vaudois

Brief remarks on the Spirit and the Assembly

Remarks on 2 Timothy

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL - VOL. 4]

JND - Ecclesiastical

Ecclesiastical [1]

J. N. Darby

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)

Considerations addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Clergy who signed the petition to the House of Commons for Protection.

J. N. Darby.

Dublin, 1827; not published.

<01001E> 1

[The following paper, printed now more than eight-and-thirty years ago, speaks for itself. It was sent privately to the Archbishop and Clergy, having been written some time before it was printed, and withheld, from anxiety as to the justness of the step; the course of the Archbishop and Clergy, with which I had from circumstances nothing personally to do, having greatly tried my spirit, and I was about twenty-six years old at the utmost, when it was written. I may mention that just at that time the Roman Catholics were becoming Protestants at the rate of 600 to 800 a week. The Archbishop (Magee) imposed, within the limits of his jurisdiction, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and the work everywhere instantly ceased. I remember Mr. R. Daly, since a prelate of the Establishment, saying to me after receiving it, You ought to become a Dissenter. I said, No; you have got into the wrong, and you want to put me there - but that you will not do. I attach no importance to the paper, which I have never read since, but as the first germing of truth which has since developed itself in the Church of God. It is published therefore just as it was first printed. All the actors are passed, everything is changed, so that there is no indiscretion in publishing it now.]

MY LORD AND BRETHREN,

I submit to you the following thoughts, occasioned originally by the Metropolitan Charge and Clerical Petition; but suppressed hitherto, from anxiety to take no step which I could not maturely judge to be taken according to the will of God. I do not publish them, because my object was to bring before the minds of those concerned the view which pressed upon my own, and by no means to make the world a judge of the conduct of Christ's ministers, which it is not, unless they err from their principles; and if they do, it would be my part, while I might state my mind to them, to cover the fault as it regards the world, where I supposed there was a fault committed. This feeling has guided my conduct on the occasion, and I cannot but feel happy at the delay, as it has given the opportunity of bringing forward some other things, which will, I think, assist in determining the true character of the views from which they originate. If there should be anything harsh in the expression, I beseech your forgiveness, and that you the matter fully: and I send it to the Clergy, because, by their petition they seem to have recognised and taken advantage of the supposed support claimed in the Charge; and I earnestly commend it to their attention, not suggesting any particular thing (which I do not feel to be my part), but calling their minds to weigh the place they stand in themselves.

2 I have long felt deeply anxious on the subject, and it seems to me that a sincere and deep interest in the work of the Spirit of God which is going on in this country, and a consciousness that (while the Spirit of God distributes to every man severally as He will, and my prayers are offered up that He may do so freely and abundantly) the ministers of the Established Church have many of them been partakers of His energies, and acted in the furtherance of them, call for an inquiry into the principles contained in this Charge. No man whose mind has been informed on these subjects can doubt (and least of all those to whom I address myself, who have themselves borne witness to it by their heartfelt interest in its progress; nay, the world, which can know nothing of the real work, has been compelled to own in its effects) the manifestation of the power of the Divine Spirit which has begun a work in this country, which I fully hope will not end in it, and is of no country, but of the power of that kingdom which shall fill the whole earth. Under these circumstances all who enter into the work of God, as ministers in the power of the same Spirit, are urgently called upon to recognise their just place, to consider, as far at least as their own conduct is concerned, what the order of the operation is, that they may follow in simplicity, and unhindered by any inconsistency of personal or assumed character, the guidance and workings of the Eternal Spirit. They are bound to hold themselves (I speak this not as urging a claim, but expressing the assumed conviction of their own minds) as servants of Jesus Christ, and who therefore cannot consistently yet please men. They will feel it their faithful and zealous concern, therefore, as far as in them lies, in order that they may be the servants of all men to their eternal welfare, to be free from all men, not to be "the servants of men" as in the world, that one Master who has an undivided claim to their service, anything that would prejudice that claim and the consistency of their own conduct with the blessed work which in His grace He has committed them to do: and I do persuade myself, that they have too deep an interest in the work and reign of Him who redeemed them, not to consider with attention any suggestion which reaches them relative to the interests of His name, and the free course of His word to souls. These considerations weigh with me to induce the communication of the following thoughts. The Charge and Petition appear to the public, with the sanction of their names; and bound as I must be to suppose, that this must carry to the world a representation of their sentiments, which they might find difficulty in gainsaying, I am emboldened to bring these documents under the maturer consideration of those who are disposed to avow, however humbly as individuals yet openly as servants, their identification with the interests of the Son of God, who loved them and gave Himself for them. I do feel, if they assume such an office and character, they are bound to approve themselves in it throughout, in that world where they must have every motive and all their conduct canvassed, and where the honour of their Master's name, the name of the Lord, who gave Himself for the church, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, will be charged in their persons, with every even error of theirs, while they will be used as proofs against them, that they cannot be the ministers of God, seeing they are in such and such things contrary to the character imprinted on the ministry by their Master, and thus their ministry hindered as towards those who might receive it, and who, in fact for the most part, judge by such very means. I am indeed persuaded that it has pleased God too decidedly (and I have entire faith in the continuance of it) to manifest His power to shew forth the character of those who are His, to suffer the work itself to be countervailed by any particular act, though inconsistent. But I am equally persuaded that this work will be carried on by the maintenance of that same sincerity of service, ministering the truth in love, which the Lord has ever used for its promotion, and that those who look for a part in the heavenly work, who look to be owned as labourers with Him in that day, so that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together, must look for it in the consistency of their own labour with the spirit and judgment and actual work of Him with whom they seek to rejoice. Impossible that they can gather the fruit of His blessed suffering and divine labour, so as to be glorified with Him by the display of it as the fruit of the travail of His soul, but as His labourers as working in conformity with the spirit in which He wrought. I turn from this, which I speak as the undoubted sentiment of those who are engaged in the work and labour of love, to consider the consistency of certain views and acts with these acknowledged principles; if they be acknowledged, they are unquestionably paramount to all motives, and we are able and bound to judge all acts by them, so as to regulate our own conduct with certainty before God: itself a matter of solid comfort to those who find their exercise in proving what the good and acceptable and perfect will of God is. And surely it does become those who, under the influence of the sense of God's mercies of which they have been made partakers, are disposed to present their bodies a living sacrifice, and not to be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of their minds, if in anything they may have seemed to have acquiesced in conformity to that which crucified the Lord of glory, to let judgment have its free course in their own minds, lest they be further entangled in error, lest the clearness and decision of their moral judgment, on which under God their efficient service, to say the least, in the work of God so much depends, should be impaired.

4 To apply myself then to that which has given occasion to the expression of these thoughts. We have the following public acts - a Charge from the Metropolitan, stating the ground on which the Church stands, and then Petitions forwarded by the instrumentality of the hierarchy, seeking the exercise of civil authority for the protection of that Church as a body in this country. To these I beg attention. It is to be remarked that the Charge is stated to be published at the request of the Clergy, and the Petition is signed by a numerous body of them to say the least, and ostensibly is the act of them as a body interested in the cause of true religion in this country. As there are, thank God! many in the orders of the Church of Ireland who are zealous ministers of divine truth, and as they might seem included in the above general body, it is to them particularly that I address myself. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Archbishop's Charge at all. I purposely decline it. My business is with the principles contained and expounded in it. It amounts to a claim on behalf of the Established Church to protection from the civil Sovereign, founded on these two positions - that the civil Sovereign is bound and has accordingly the right to choose the best religion for his people, and that the Established Church has every character on which such a choice ought to depend; but, in doing this, the Charge gives a statement of the foundation, nature, and office of the Church, in the principles of which no clergyman zealous in his office as a minister of the Church of Christ, could, I submit, acquiesce.

5 What is the Church of Christ in its purpose and perfection? And our Lord has taught us to ascribe whatever is inconsistent with this to the hand of an enemy. It is a congregation of souls redeemed out of 'this naughty world' by God manifest in the flesh, a people purified to Himself by Christ, purified in the heart by faith, knit together, by the bond of this common faith in Him, to Him their Head sitting at the right hand of the Father, having consequently their conversation (commonwealth) in heaven, from whence they look for the Saviour, the Lord of glory; Phil. 3: 20. As a body, therefore, they belong to heaven; there is their portion in the restitution of all things, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. On earth they are, as a people, necessarily subordinate; they are nothing and nobody; their King is in heaven, their interests and constitution heavenly. "My kingdom is not of this world: if it were, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." As such, consequently, they have no power. The result is, that they are formed into a spiritual community; they are raised, by their Head and centre and source of hope and object of allegiance being in heaven, to be heavenly. They are delivered in spirit out of this present evil world, and become heavenly, spiritual, in their connections, interests, thoughts, and prospects; while their habits on earth are those, by necessary consequence, of pilgrims and strangers, adorning (by consistent humility, gentleness, patience, and kindness) the grace of which they have been made partakers, through faith which works by love, while they avow and are in their own persons witnesses of the divine dominion. Their personal and common delights are correspondent, and their activities flow from this spring and have their motive and their order in the interests of this kingdom of divine love and grace.

6 What is the Papacy? Satan's fiction to answer to all this. While men are kept down in the lowest desires of a depraved world, in the bondage of the corrupt affections of a nature alienated from the gift of God, it presents a head on earth, earthly in his interests and in his objects, knitting together in a body, not a people separated out of the world to spiritual objects, but one tied by the closest interests to maintain his earthly supremacy, and with it their own importance upon earth, and in an earthly way; and by this universal and astonishing scheme of antichristianity, which is antitheism, precluding the application of the divine word, the instrument of divine sovereignty, to the souls of men. In short, the system of Popery I look upon as an entire counterpart of the Christian scheme, set up by Satan on the decay of faith to hold its place, uniting men to an earthly head and to each other by those interests from which Christianity delivers, and keeping the world in bondage, instead of leading men to heavenly things out of those interests, to be humbled in the presence of the world's dominion. The members of the papal system will accordingly be found, in their interests, objects, and activities, such as would result from such a system. We know, blessed be God! that, in result, the kingdom of His Son will be glorified in the splendour of its great Head, and the destruction of that antichristian counterpart, by which Satan has deceived the nations under the pretence of Christianity.

Further, what is the ministry of the Church of Christ? They are as ambassadors in Christ's stead, beseeching men to be reconciled to God, and ministering that grace and truth of which the fulness is in Him, according to the wisdom given unto them, gathering that very congregation of souls of which I have spoken, and edifying them when gathered. They are even in the language of an office, which, in its main purport, looked to all being outwardly, at least, within its own cure, "on the one hand, to teach, premonish, to feed, and provide for the Lord's family; on the other, to seek for Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for His children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they might be saved through Christ for ever." Their ministry is coextensive with their Master's grace; their testimony with His claim of dominion over the souls of men. I am not now speaking of the order of its exercise, as between two or more working within their own rule; but as regards the nature of the duty of all, the place which they all occupy as ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, there is a solemn obligation on them as ministers of Christ; and if there be anything in their present position, or the exigency of the season, which would imprint a special, I do not say an exclusive character, on their office, it is the renewed manifestation of the gospel of Him, whose Spirit and word have commission to the ends of the earth This, while it constitutes their office, constitutes their obligation, gives a decided, formal principle of action, more or less developed, according to the measure of faith. In the execution of this office of ministering the word of grace and truth, they are met by the great system which Satan has raised to blind men's hearts, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine into them. They, therefore, find themselves in collision with the Papacy, as a system of darkness, in collision with its influence on the souls of men; and it becomes their business in consequence to contend against its delusion, and expose the artifices of Satan, by which souls are kept from coming to God by Jesus Christ; and in this they are the ministers of Christ, working in His spiritual strength to the fulfilment of the purposes of His grace.

7 What then does this Charge propose as the position of the Clergy? It views the Papacy, in its practical operation, exercising that intruding spirit, and proposing that claim, however modified or concealed for the sake of expediency, which necessarily flows from the character which it assumes as holding the authority of Christ, the Pope gerere personam Christi (seeking to impersonate Christ), while it is altogether earthly, and I cannot avoid saying, the instrument and plan of Satan, exercising dominion here by his delusions - here, the only place where by his delusions he can, under a false name, wear the robe of authority, which he once openly exercised in the plenitude of heathen mythology. It views the Papacy, I say, making inroads by this power in its earthly shape, and calling by seducing arts the kingdom which has been delivered from its direct authority, again to give his power to it. It views it in its results as affecting the State as proposing a dominion inconsistent with the supremacy of the civil Sovereign. To what does it lead the Clergy thereupon? It holds them up to public view in their relation to the State, as formed upon principles which make them useful to the State, subservient to its purposes, in resisting subjection to this renewed satanic dominion over the world. If counselling the State, this might be all well; if it were a speech in parliament, it might have its place; on temporal grounds its arguments might be strong, why the State should uphold the interests of the Established Church. With this I have nothing to do. It presents itself as specifically calling on the Clergy to recognise their own due position. It is on this ground I enter on the consideration of it. And what place does it give them? The result of the whole is this - they are harmonised with the State and subservient to its supremacy for the effectuation of its moral government in order to the happiness of the subject people; and it is its adequacy to this, as being loyal, social, Protestant, etc., which is proposed as its claim on the Sovereign for his support, while it is (being thus embodied with the State) harmless, as not affecting any independent authority. In result, in order to its claim of support, it must be subservient to the interests of the civil Sovereign, its movements and conduct must be governed by the interests of the Sovereign to this extent; in a word, the Clergy in their office become "instituted orders of the State," and the ecclesiastical supremacy is made to consist, not only in the Sovereign's duty, and therefore right, to choose what he deems a true religion for his people, and thereon be a judge of faith so far, but further, in having the ordering of the ministration under his control, and being the head of discipline. In one sense the former part of this may be true, but, on the principles of the Charge, is a mere substitution of the civil Sovereign for the Pope, such as Henry VIII introduced, and which made the German Protestants refuse to ally themselves with him. And in truth he is an illustration of the words of the Charge; he threw off the supremacy of the Pope in the assertion of his own supremacy as Sovereign, and chose what he deemed to be a true religion for his people.

8 I quote one passage: "The Sovereign cannot prescribe in favour of a system that maintains a spiritual supremacy independent of civil government," pp. 29, 30. There is a spiritual supremacy independent of civil government, the spiritual supremacy of Christ, of which the Clergy are ministers - not an earthly dominion, but the very contrary. But when our Lord was brought before Pilate and charged with being a king, He did not affirm the harmlessness of His religion, by stating its amalgamation of interests with the State, or that it was merely "another aspect of the same body," but unqualifiedly assented to the position, "witnessed a good confession," that it was a kingdom, but not of this world.

9 The statement of the Charge is in plain hostility to the view and judgment of our Lord, when Satan was endeavouring to bring Him into jeopardy by the very imputation.* But the Scripture is as plain as possible; it presents God claiming in the Person of the Son the homage of spiritual faith. So that, "he that believeth not should be damned," for he rejects divine authority claiming obedience to the faith. It presents civil Sovereigns instituted for the purpose of controlling outward evil, to use its own words, "for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well" - so that they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, for they resist the same divine authority. And thus viewed, there is no possibility of collision; for the ministers who claim obedience to the faith from all nations are the ministers of the same authority, and whose business is the claim of subjection to that authority from which the other flows. Neither God, I speak with reverence, nor His Spirit in His ministers, is divided against Himself, and he who denies the authority of the Sovereign in the things which belong to Caesar cannot be speaking by the Spirit of that God who gave the Sovereign that authority, or He would be divided against Himself. The truth is, the apprehension of the heavenly kingdom perfectly clears the whole matter - it has no right place in the world but tribulation and trial, or its casual rest is of the supreme mercy.

{*Wetstein mentions a hymn,

"Veteris Ecclesiae."

"Hosris Herodes impie

Christum venire quid times?

Non eripit mortalia

Qui regna dat coelestia."

Translation - Hymn of the early Church.

"O wicked Herod, impious foe,

Why dost thou fear Christ's coming here?

He snatches not at transient thrones

Who heavenly kingdoms can confer."}

10 But to give up the rightful dominion of the Son of God, in order to avoid the imputation of seeking civil power, or rather to preserve ourselves from the inroads of one who seeks it on apostate grounds, is surely inconsistent, I do not mean in intention but in fact, with fidelity to the glory of the great Head of the Church, humbled for our sakes, and resulting (where taken as a principle of conduct) either in opposition, however mitigated or modified, or at least in the dread of the spiritual energies by which that kingdom of eternal blessing is maintained and promoted. Does not the system of Christian faith "assume the inherent right to establish itself in every country?" Is it not, by authority more than human, "essentially supreme in spiritual matters over all?" Are not both "prince and people bound to submit to its mandates, as to the great Head of the Christian Church?" And are not "they who refuse to do so rebels against a rightful sovereignty?" Are not all in truth and reality the subjects of its sway, whether they will acknowledge it or not? And am I, because Satan has imitated this in an apostate earthly dominion carried on under its name, to give this up (could Satan wish better? and to dwindle Christianity into a system harmonised with a particular community, for the purposes of its moral happiness? Is not the great authority of Christian faith as much relinquished by this as by anything else? It is surely, for this is the result - a strange way of opposing Satan's wiles, to give up the claim and possession by which alone he can be overcome. The apostate dominion of the Papacy is not to be met therefore on the part of the Clergy, by calling the aid of the State to resist its temporal dominion, but by their overcoming the strong man armed as the active, forward ministers of Him who is stronger than he; not by waiting till they are attacked, as if their interests were the thing in question; but now that God has been pleased to shed* forth His Spirit, in their due places ministering the spiritual sword, by which they are called upon to deliver poor fellow-sinners from thraldom, going, and actively opening men's eyes, and turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive the remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in the Lord of glory. If this be not the place of the Clergy, what place have they? If they are not bound to establish Christianity wherever the Lord opens a door, what are they for? Or, are we to rest in that position which Dean Tillotson, on reflection, wept over, "that no man has a right to establish Christianity in any country, without the consent of the civil government, except he had miracles to support him?" This, I really think to be the genuine result of the principles of the Charge, and indeed to flow from the right of a Sovereign to choose the religion he deems best, in the sense the Charge gives it: in one sense I have said it is his duty. My meaning is this - where the divine authority promulgates the faith of Christ, i.e., reveals the Son of God, a submission to Him is an obligation resulting as necessarily as that of obedience to God generally revealed, and the Monarch, or civil Sovereign, is as much bound to recognise it as the dominion of God Himself; and thus, if this be called a duty to choose a religion, he certainly has his choice, being founded on a proposal of obedience to faith in God, similar to that on which the salvation of an individual depends; but all this is a consistent assertion of the dominion of Christ, not an escape from it. But I have said, that the placing the Church in this relinquishment of the high calling of God does practically tend to stop its active exertions; indeed, it has no pretence for it else. They may be ministers of moral order, as they have been too often degraded to; but their active, zealous exertions, as Christian ministers, would be intolerable, if Christ had not committed such a ministry to them. It is true, it is brought to soul as an offer of grace, because God is not only supreme, but supreme love; but while they, in their conduct, neither against the law of the Jews, nor the temple, nor yet against Caesar, offend anything at all, they bear a direct authoritative message from God, to every one who has a conscience by which he is subject to God. They may, in consequence, be brought to suffer from those who reject their Master, and the divine authority; they may shew their innocence when called to answer thereupon as troublers of the common peace; but this done, their proper vindication is, when He shall appear for whose name they have suffered: here they appear but as doing well and suffering for it.

{*I do not alter anything, though the expression is incorrect.}

11 But what is the result of such a position as to the Clergy? They confine themselves within the bounds of social order whose interests they support. They protest against the encroachments of the adverse powers, which would upset the system to which they are attached, and themselves along with it, if it had its way; but there they stop. They cannot honestly attack Satan's kingdom; for to do that, and then cry out because they are abused by his agents, seems to me unworthy conduct, inconsistent with the honour of, and their integrity to, Him (an integrity manifested by conformity flowing from the influence of His Spirit) who was hated, persecuted, spoken all manner of evil against, for the very same reason. It may be the interest of a body who are maintaining worldly order to keep up their worldly credit, in order to that general influence which will cement society, and which is exactly the office which the Charge proposes to the Clergy. But, with this in view, it is manifest they must let Satan alone; for do they expect to attack him, and him to hold his tongue, and leave them in credit, if he can help it, and suffer the prey to be snatched out of his hands? It is therefore expressly the business of a minister of God the Saviour to approve himself such, in honour and dishonour, evil report and good report, whether Christ, or they, for His sake, be blasphemed on the enemy's part, or on the believer's part be glorified; and it seems to be a direct flight from following Christ in this, to claim a refuge from the persecution and dishonour which attend His name; and this is the result (O consider it! brethren) of attaching yourselves to a system, to which worldly credit is necessary, in order to maintain its influence, or whose members at least identify themselves with the honour and security of the world. A civil Sovereign may indeed afford a refuge in such a case, but it can be only by the desertion of that reproach which will ever attend the name of Christ when it is brought into the trial of the enemy. I cast no reproach on those who look for it, who do not (let me be forgiven for so speaking) see it with the eye of faith: ill would it become me, and most far from my feeling to do so. I only entreat those who believe, who in principle do judge with me, who esteem the reproach of Christ, who look to the ministry of His kingdom, and speak the words of His blessed grace, or those who may be willing to weigh them, to weigh these things. I write for them. I have, I trust under the guidance of the Spirit, discussed these principles merely as they affect their conduct; but I say, it does suppose (I mean, recourse to the civil Sovereign for protection as a body; for remonstrance against the unjust exercise of the magistratorial power is another thing), that they confine themselves to a ministry of moral order, which will be found never to go beyond this world, or to be of faith, of real subjection to Christ; as contrasted to seeking a people for Christ from the dominion of Satan, as Christ's servants.

13 And here I am led to the Petition, which, as well as the Charge, bears me out; the latter calling it "manly protests," which is exactly the limits of self-defence as a national, and therefore earthly constituted body; the former, by suggesting, as the very ground of the application for protection, their "confining themselves to the quiet discharge of their proper duties." The language of the Petition bears out, in a way I had not myself previously adverted to, the view I had taken of the principles of the Charge to be accurate. It shews that the petitioning Clergy, "influenced by a love of peace, and by a desire of avoiding even the appearance of political discussion, have been hitherto withheld from approaching your Honourable House, against the hostility and calumny with which they and their religion have been, for a length of time, systematically assailed, under the pretence of seeking civil and religious liberty, but with the real design of obtaining powers subversive of both, and with the hope of overturning the established religion, by the defamation of its Clergy, and the misrepresentation of their faith. While any doubt could remain that such designs and such hopes existed, your Petitioners were desirous, though exposed to daily vexations, and insults, and injuries, to submit in silence, and endeavour, by the quiet discharge of their proper duties, to soften the violence of their enemies, although they had but too good reason to be convinced, that these their enemies were such from being enemies to their Church."

This is clearly a Petition for protection against defamation of the Clergy, as tending to destroy the Establishment; laying as a ground for it their having confined themselves to the quiet discharge of their proper duties. Either this means their duties as members of the Establishment, which in fact it does mean, and then the result, especially when we join it with the Charge, is to confine the whole energy of the Clergy by the measure of its consistency with their relation to the State; or else leaving it open to the Clergy to use their utmost endeavours for the conversion of souls to God from blindness and error, and then, when interfered with, which we may admit, it appeals for protection from this, on this ground, that they were only quietly discharging their proper duties in their volunteer efforts in the cause of delivering men from antichristian darkness. Surely they ought to count the cost before they engage in such an enterprise, and not, when they begin to feel the brunt of the enemies' violence, to apply to extrinsic aid, alleging they were only quietly discharging their proper duties. I entreat those who value the representation which God gives in the scripture, of the state, refuge, and resources of His Church and people, as owned by Him, to compare that (I could not bring myself to do it) with the position here given them. I do own, when I consider this whole matter, and the bearing of scripture upon it, connected with circumstances on which I will not venture to touch, I could weep at men whom I love and respect, having unwittingly put their hands to this Petition.

14 In short, I do feel that ministers of God are called upon to entertain the question - is it our duty or calling, according to the gift bestowed upon us, to enter into conflict with the power of darkness? or do we believe that the Roman Catholic system in this country is a manifestation of it? If they do, let them fairly look to it; and count whether with ten thousand they are able to meet him that cometh against them with twenty thousand; or else let them send embassies of peace: if not, let them hold themselves to their own flocks, and instruct them as well as they can, if they are allowed by God to do so; but the fact is, that they have come forward - rather let us say, that God has manifested His light in the world, and I do feel something of the applicability of that sentence, "He that is not with me is against me." But if this be so, surely their place is the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ - their business, to endure hardness as good soldiers of His. This patience is one of the characteristics of His servants, a necessary one in the conflict with darkness. One peculiar snare stands in their way in the present times, by which Satan would mix and so destroy the proper character of this work, one which his own subtlety has provided - this is that, having mixed Roman Catholic interests with this world and so given other men an interest in this world against them in preserving their freedom, he has added a political question to the religious one: from this snare in its broad lines the Clergy have kept themselves free. I propose to them, whether in a weaker shape apparently, though in my mind a worse one, as affirming themselves as a body acting on their own interests, and claiming alliance with the State to support them, such a claim of protection be not the same; that is, whether it leave them at perfect liberty to pursue, according to the wisdom of God, the guidance of the Spirit, in the energies that are mercifully exhibiting in this now highly favoured country. As far as my recollection goes, they will find nothing scriptural to bear them out. The ministers of Christ go on steadily then in their own course, as bearing God's commission, and suffer with Him, whom they have no reason to expect to be above finding their solace in sympathy with Him and one another, and the consciousness that herein they were partakers of the sufferings of Christ, and workers together even with God. Why should my beloved and honoured brethren (actuated, I fear not to say, by the same spirit) choose a lower place, choose not to have the fellowship of His sufferings? I know they would not - I persuade myself, at least, they will listen with candour to a very obscure brother, in suggesting the inconsistency of the principles I have been considering with this willingness, and the simplicity of faith in Him. The instances of remonstrance in Scripture are where one commissioned with the civil sword has exceeded his power by injustice against an innocent person, who bore the spiritual commission of the same master - a marked confirmation of, and not an exception to, the principles I have suggested.

15 Let me be permitted to recur to the general grounds on which I have gone - that the Papacy is the organised system of Satan for keeping men's souls, where the light of Christianity had entered, as far as he possibly can, under the same bondage in which he held them under heathenism. I shall not enlarge upon this view, though full of interest, as I feel at liberty to use it as true - that it is a part of this scheme to hold nations in subjection to it. There may be therefore a twofold opposition to it; one, of the civil Sovereigns to the claim of supremacy in any shape; the other, the ministration of the word, which is God's instrument in pulling down the strongholds of Satan; but it is impossible for the minister of the latter to claim the protection of the former, on the ground of his interest in supporting him, and remain the unshackled servant of Jesus Christ.

I respectfully suggest, therefore, the double ground of the present wisdom of faith, and the consideration of the principles on which these things rest, as both leading to the conclusion, that those who have the cause of God at heart should, while they fulfil the duty in which God has cast them, unless called specially to any peculiar work, keep themselves unequivocally free to minister His grace, according as God shall give them opportunity and strength. Surely God calls them to it, calls them by the work that He has wrought, to be exceedingly wise, lest they should in any way put a hindrance to themselves. They may be sure that Satan will try every method to divert the matter from the application of that word, which goes forth with power to the very foundation and heart of his kingdom. I do earnestly and affectionately call upon the servants of God, trusting they will not count me presumptuous, that whenever they are not simply ministering the word, under the guidance of the Spirit of wisdom, they should, as specially bound by His peculiar grace to us at present, weigh the bearings of every act with patience and wisdom. That they have done so in many instances, I doubt not. It becomes members of the Establishment, to whom Christ and the interests of His people are the centre and rule of affection and judgment, to exercise discerning wisdom on this side as well as others; because on this side, however advantageous to the Church as against evil, under divine Providence, they are in connection with, or at least brought where there may a claim on them be made by, what has no common principle of action. And especially now that so many who so long sat in darkness are coming forward to see what these new doctrines are, is it incumbent on them to present themselves as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. I have stated the principles on which my views of the whole case are founded, to which, though I believe them just, I attach no great importance; and I have ventured - what is much nearer to my heart - to urge the present work of faith, not as though I were an adviser (for I know how many are every way before me in the Lord), but as one, however unworthy, who has obtained like precious faith with them, and therefore enters into all the interests which they are desirous of promoting. If I have erred in any matter of judgment, I am willing to be corrected; and I can only trust, that as I have undertaken it with the single desire of ministering to the strength of those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, if it conduce to this end, I shall feel deeply the gainer: to their love I beg to commend myself, perfectly, as I trust, united with them, striving together for the faith of that blessed Gospel which has been committed to us.

17 After all, what am I contending for? That those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, the desire of whose heart is to fulfil the ministry which they have received, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God, and who will feel that conformity to their Master will be the order in which this testimony will be effectual, should not be precluded from such little share of the fellowship of His sufferings as may reach them in their present circumstances, and may stamp them with the Christian character. To my mind, and I suppose to theirs on consideration, the judgment of faith is clear on the subject; and I would solemnly and anxiously urge upon them, that the adoption of the principles contained in the Charge and Petition (for they will be found one thing on consideration of them together) will preclude them from coming forward on Christian ground, and having their proper share in using this blessed opportunity for the delivering souls - I might justly say the world - from the power of darkness, and setting up the kingdom of the Son of God, as far as it is permitted to us to do it before His appearing, on its own stable and sure foundation of faith in the Lord of glory.

I will conclude with one remark. I think it will be found that practically a right faith mainly consists in seeing the glory of Christ in His humiliation - I mean, that by which a redeemed soul lives in the flesh. The Church has its being and character in this faith - "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." he formed it that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing - not to the world. Glory in the world is essentially contrary to faith. This latter character of glory in the world is the character stamped on the Papacy: they even avow and affirm it: their glorying is in their shame, minding earthly things: they evidence themselves in consequence to be Satan's church, whose theatre is the world. The very essence of the grounds they take is setting aside faith. They make the Church, make faith, unnecessary. They will have the inheritance, like their elder brethren, the Jews, after the flesh, which is not God's way - now more deeply culpable in it, for that the nature of the inheritance is declared. But with what comfort or consistency can we, in the sight of God, when we have been delivered from this terrible delusion, oppose its progress, or pretend to deliver others from it, while we in another shape are seeking, in the least degree, the objects which are not of faith, which give the character we reprobate in them, or seek refuge from the accompaniments of faith? Our reliance, then, brethren, must be on the promises; and the consistent exhortation from God to us is, "Thou standest by faith: be not high-minded, but fear." There is a constant tendency to depart from this principle: it is not a principle of ease till the time of our rest comes, when the hope of faith shall appear. If the kings of the earth shall take us up, we may thank God for the goodness of His providence; but let us not attach ourselves to them, or fall into their principles, but let us be peculiarly watchful that it leave us what it found us-an humble, holy, self-denying people, trusting in the name of the Lord; still (while we own and accept the present blessing, as honouring our Master's name as well as comforting us) living on what is our sole strength, the faith of the Son of God.

18 Affectionate confidence, mixed with fear, has made me bold to offer these thoughts to my brethren. I remain their affectionate brother and servant in the Lord.

POSTSCRIPT. - The following circumstances seem to me connected with the above considerations, and will assist in conveying my views.

The oath of supremacy is proposed by the Archbishop to the converts, which, instead of opening the door of Christ to the soul in bondage, makes the admission into the Establishment a necessary condition: and I would suggest, that such a measure is exceedingly analogous to the conduct which created such difficulty at Antioch, on the admission of the Gentiles, and puts a stumbling-block in the way of a weak believer. I own myself unable to understand the fitness and still less the necessity of such a step. It is a closing of the door of Christ against weak souls; and is, on the principles of the Charge, a pledge on the part of the convert to the religion which the civil Sovereign may choose for his people. While it is on the part of the Clergy a natural consequence of the Charge and Petition; for if they propose themselves as candidates for the favour of the civil government, in order to obtain its protection, and then seek for its aid in the character in which they have proposed themselves, it is at once their interest, and I must add, their obligation to support its interests in their ministry, and bind others to the same system: but how will this consist with their duty to Christ, and the souls which He has purchased with His own blood, and gathering them for Him? Further, the admission is "into the true Catholic Church, established in these realms." This ends in the same thing; for, instead of bringing them to graft them into the vine, the liberty and security of Christ, to pledge their souls to that which (if the civil Sovereign should choose wrong) would be Popery, and is in fact a denial of union with Christ being the vital principle and bond of the true Church, that general assembly and Church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven, which is the true Church, the fulness of Him, that filleth all in all. Here is true catholicity, and to affirm it of anything else is Popery, however modified: and Protestantism is the manifestation of faith in the word, when Satan has hidden the true Church, the assembly of believers, in a system of this world; and such a system, in a modified shape, is that maintained in the Charge.

19 The sermon of the Archbishop, as reported, speaks of "the scriptures as rightly interpreted": this, I conceive, is an unperceived acquiescence in Popery; for if there be an interpreter, he must, if anything, be an authorised one; which is Popery. The assertion of an interpreter is exactly contrary to the testimony of the Spirit, manifested in scripture and asserted by Protestantism, that the Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation through faith; and to give light and understanding to the simple; so that men thereby become wiser than their teachers. But it will be said, You discard a ministry. God forbid. I look upon it as so much as is committed by the Holy Ghost of the offices of the Redeemer to men; but the system against which I remonstrate puts them in the wrong place. That of which they have a portion is all revealed to faith by the same Spirit in the Scriptures. Their order is, therefore, whether in their evangelical or episcopal characters, the representatives of the Apostle of our profession and Bishop of our souls, to preach the truth of Christ, according to their proportion of faith; and then those who have the Scriptures, and receive the word, will search whether these things are so, and become wise unto salvation. In their episcopal character they will guide the conduct of believers, who will again find their assurance and security in the Scriptures, which make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ.

J. N. Darby.

Dublin, 1828.

<01002E> 20

"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." - John 17: 21.

"And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord," Luke 12: 36.

The writer of these pages (he trusts, not the author of them) would add whatever God might afford him in ministering to the progress of the Church through the various exercises to which its faith is exposed. He cannot doubt that much of the moral truth on which the following considerations depend has been realised in the minds of believers, of students of the divine word; but he has felt in the little communion, though great intercourse, which such have with each other, that the expression of these thoughts might, by the blessing of God, direct the attention of believers to, and more explicitly manifest to the Church from the divine word, its just objects; and consequently, by their reception, determine its character and conduct; ensuring, under God's blessing, more consistency of operation; stablish, strengthen, settle it in its own hopes, and make it exhibit with more clearness and power the grace of God to the world; lead believers to more explicit reliance on the operations of the divine Spirit, and to look less to the plans of men and human co-operations, or what will be found in the end to be human interests. While the aims and purposes of believers are very mixed in their nature, and fall far below the standard for which God has gathered them, and which He proposes as the influential object of their faith and consequently motive of their conduct, division, and sectarianism are, even in the mercy of God's providence, the necessary result, whether it assume the character of Establishment or of Dissent. I am supposing here, of course, that the great truths of the gospel are the professed faith of the churches, as they are in all the genuine Protestant churches. For the just consequence of the reception of gospel facts by faith and its end in man is the purification of the desires in love - a life to Him who died for us and rose again, a life of hope in His glory. To suppose therefore unity where the life of the Church falls entirely short of the just consequences of its faith, is to suppose that the Spirit of God would acquiesce in the moral inconsistency of degenerate man, and that God would be satisfied that His Church should sink below the glory of its great Head, without even a testimony that He was dishonoured by it. In truth it has never been so: judgments from without for a good while marked His displeasure while it was sinking, and when it was utterly sunk in apostasy, He raised His witnesses, who should sigh and cry for the abominations that were done in it; who, in much darkness of spiritual understanding, bore testimony against the moral corruption that had overwhelmed the Church; and who, in the acknowledgment of the redemption by the Lord Jesus out of this present evil world, testified the apostasy of the professing church. When it pleased God to raise this testimony into the place of public sanction, while doctrinal truth (we may believe) was fully developed for the foundation and edification of the faith of believers, it by no means followed that the Church thereupon emerged wholly in spirit and power from the depression, and assumed the character which it has in the purpose of its Author, and became an adequate and distinctive witness of His thoughts to the world. Such indeed, however blessed, as we are all bound most thankfully to acknowledge the Reformation to have been, was not the case: it was much and manifestly mixed with human agency. And though the exhibition of the word, as that on which the soul could rest itself, was graciously afforded, still there was much of the old system which remained in the constitution of the churches, and which was in no way the result of the development of the mind of Christ, by setting up the light and authority of the word. This gave to the state and practice of the Church (whatever the excellence of individuals may have been) a character which many discerned to be short of that which was acceptable to God: and the authority of the word having been recognised as the basis of the Reformation, many sought to follow it, as they supposed, more perfectly. Hence arose all the branches of Nonconformity and Dissent, which prevailed when the Spirit of God was poured out, in proportion to the secularity or alienation from God of the body publicly recognised as the Church. For it must be observed that, since the time when Popery prevailed over the nations till lately, among those who have taken a share in the revival of religion, that has in general been called the Church which has been received as such by the rulers of this world, not those who were delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son; who were come to the "general assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven." These observations are in some measure applicable to all the great national Protestant bodies since the outward form and constitution became so prominent a matter, which was not the case originally while deliverance from Babylon was in question.

22 From all this has flowed an anomalous and trying consequence; namely, that the true Church of God has no avowed communion at all. There are, I suppose, none of its members who would not now acknowledge, that individuals of the children of God are to be found in all the different denominations, who profess the same pure faith; but where is their bond of union? It is not that unbelieving professors are mixed with the people of God in their communion, but that the bond of communion is not the unity of the people of God, but really (in point of fact) their differences.

The bonds of nominal union are such as separate the children of God from each other; so that, instead of (itself an imperfect state) unbelievers being found mixed up with them, the people of God are found as individuals, among bodies of professing Christians, joined in communion upon other and different grounds; not in fact as the people of God at all. The truth of this, I think, cannot be denied, and surely it is a very extraordinary state for the Church to be in. I think the study of the history of the Church (bearing in mind what the true Church of God is) will enable us to account for it. Such is not my present purpose, as writing merely on the principle of that inquiring, strengthening character, in which they that feared the Lord spake often one to another. But it must surely form a practical matter of great importance to the judgment of those who, loving Jerusalem - "it pitieth them to see her in the dust" - those who "wait for the consolation of Israel." I do believe, indeed, that there will be a gradual development of the people of God, by a separation from the world of which many of them perhaps now think little. The Lord will be present with His people in the hour of their temptation, and hide them secretly in the tabernacle of His presence; but it is not my purpose to follow presumptuously my own thoughts about this. We may remark that the people of God have found, since the increased outpouring of His Spirit,* a sort of remedy for this disunion (manifestly an imperfect, though not an untrue one), in the Bible Society, and in Missionary exertions; which gave - the one, a sort of vague unity in the common acknowledgment of the word, which, if investigated, will be found to have partially inherent in it, though not recognised in its power, the germ of true unity - the other, an unity of desire and action, which tended in thought towards that kingdom, the want of the power of which was felt. And in this they found some relief for that sense of want, which the workings of the divine Spirit had produced in them.

{*I leave this and other incorrect expressions unchanged.}

23 From the state of things of which I have spoken have resulted other efforts, either of the energies of knowledge, or the desires of spiritual life, exercising themselves, often to the peril of the individual, in (as it is conceived) mistaken efforts at producing a separation or reunion of believers, by taking a ground of their separation quite distinct from ordinary dissent as much as from Establishment. The spirit and desire in which much of this was carried on, was, doubtless, in many instances the genuine cravings of a mind actuated by the Spirit of God; but it has often been defective, in not practically waiting upon His will; and though doubtless affording a part of that testimony to what the Church was, which was consistent with the infirmity of our nature and the actual position of the Church, yet, even when of the highest order, it has failed for the reason mentioned, as in fact it ran before the general progress of the divine counsels. But those strivings of the Spirit in us (for such I believe them to be) are surely deserving of the serious attention of the people of God. This painful sense of our immense distance from that genuine exhibition of the purpose of God in His church, this looking after His power and glory, ought to lead us to thankfulness that He still thus deals with us, and to receive it as a pledge of that faithfulness which shall make the people of God, in due time, shine in the glory of the Lord. It should lead us also assiduously to seek what is the mind of Christ as to the path of believers in the present day; that it may be, though not exactly according to their own desires, yet perfectly according to what His present will concerning them is. We know that it was the purpose of God in Christ to gather in one all things in heaven and on earth; reconciled unto Himself in Him; and that the church should be, though necessarily imperfect in His absence, yet by the energy of the Spirit the witness of this on earth, by gathering the children of God which were scattered abroad. Believers know that all who are born of the Spirit have substantial unity of mind, so as to know each other, and love each other, as brethren. But this is not all, even if it were fulfilled in practice, which it is not; for they were so to be all one, as that the world might know that Jesus was sent of God: in this we must all confess our sad failure. I shall not attempt so much to propose measures here for the children of God, as to establish healthful principles: for it is manifest to me, that it must flow from the growing influence of the Spirit of God and His unseen teaching; but we may observe what are positive hindrances, and in what that union consisted.

24 In the first place, it is not a formal union of the outward professing bodies that is desirable; indeed it is surprising that reflecting Protestants should desire it: far from doing good, I conceive it would be impossible that such a body could be at all recognised as the church of God. It would be a counterpart to Romish unity; we should have the life of the church and the power of the word lost, and the unity of spiritual life utterly excluded. Whatever plans may be in the order of Providence, we can only act upon the principles of grace; and true unity is the unity of the Spirit, and it must be wrought by the operation of the Spirit. In the great darkness of the Church hitherto, outward division has been a main support, not only of zeal (as is very generally admitted), but also of the authority of the word, which is instrumentally the life of the church; and the Reformation consisted not, as has been commonly said, in the institution of a pure form of church, but in setting up the word, and the great Christian foundation and corner stone of "Justification by faith," in which believers might find life. But further, if the view that has been taken of the state of the church be correct, we may adjudge that he is an enemy to the work of the Spirit of God who seeks the interests of any particular denomination; and that those who believe in "the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ" ought carefully to keep from such a spirit; for it is drawing back the church to a state occasioned by ignorance and non-subjection to the word, and making a duty of its worst and antichristian results. This is a most subtle and prevailing mental disease, "he followeth not us," even when men are really Christians. Let the people of God see if they be not hindering the manifestation of the 'church by this spirit. I believe there is scarcely a public act of Christian men (at any rate of the higher orders, or of those who are active in the nominal churches), which is not infected with this; but its tendency is manifestly hostile to the spiritual interests of the people of God, and the manifestation of the glory of Christ. Christians are little aware how this prevails in their minds; how they seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ; and how it dries up the springs of grace and spiritual communion; how it precludes that order to which blessing is attached-the gathering together in the Lord's name. No meeting, which is not framed to embrace all the children of God in the full basis of the kingdom of the Son, can find the fulness of blessing, because it does not contemplate it - because its faith does not embrace it.

25 Where two or three are gathered together in His name, His name is recorded there for blessing; because they are met in the fulness of the power of the unchangeable interests of that everlasting kingdom in which it has pleased the glorious Jehovah to glorify Himself, and to make His name and saving health known in the Person of the Son, by the power of the Spirit. In the name of Christ, therefore, they enter (in whatever measure of faith) into the full counsels of God, and are "fellow-workers under God." Thus whatever they ask is done, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. But the very foundation on which these promises rest is broken up, and its consistency destroyed, by bonds of communion not formed on the scope of the purposes of God in Christ. I say not, indeed, that they may not find a feeble measure of spiritual food; which, though generally partial in its character, may be suited to strengthen their personal hope of eternal life. But the glory of the Lord is very near the believing soul, and, in proportion as we seek it, will personal blessing be found. It puts me in mind indeed (as all doubtless have some separate portion of the form of the church) of those who parted the Saviour's garments among them; while that inner vest, which could not be rended, which was inseparably one in its nature, was cast lots for whose it should be; but in the meanwhile, the name of Him, the presence of the power of whose life would unite them all in appropriate order, is left exposed and dishonoured. Indeed, I fear that these have fallen too much into the hands of those who care not for Him, and that the Lord will never clothe Himself with them again, viewed in their present state. Indeed, it could not be when He appears in His glory. I say it not in presumption or dislike (for the reproach of it is a grievous burden, it is an humbling, most afflicting thought): but that second temple, which had been raised by the mercy of God after the long Babylonish captivity, we have learned to trust in too much as "the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these"; we have been haughty because of the Lord's holy mountain; we have looked at it as adorned with goodly stones and gifts; and have ceased to look to the Lord of the temple - have ceased almost to walk by faith, or to have communion in the hope of the return of the messenger of the covenant to be the glory of this latter house. The unclean spirit of idolatry may have been purged out; but the great question still remains, Is there the effectual presence of the Spirit of the Lord, or is it merely empty, swept and garnished? If we have been at all blessed, are we not disregarding Him from whom it came, by pride, and self-complacency, and seeking to turn it to our own, instead of going on to His, glory? Let us then pass, brethren beloved of the Lord - ye who love Him in sincerity, and would rejoice in His voice - to the practical exigency of our present situation. Let us weigh His mind concerning us. The Lord has made known His purposes in Him, and how those purposes are effected. "He hath made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he should gather together in one all things in Christ, whether they be things in heaven, or things on earth, even in him, in whom we also have received an inheritance" - in one and in Christ. In Him alone therefore can we find this unity; but the blessed word (who can be thankful enough for it? will inform us further. It is as to its earthly members "gathering together in one, the children of God who are scattered abroad." And how is this? "That one man should die for them." As our Lord in the vision of the fruit of the travail of His soul declares, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will drawn all men unto me: this he said signifying what death he should die." It is then Christ who will draw - will draw to Himself (and nothing short of or less than this can produce unity, "He that gathereth not with him, scattereth"); and draw to Himself by being lifted up from the earth. In a word, we find His death is the centre of communion till His coming again, and in this rests the whole power of truth. Accordingly, the outward symbol and instrument of unity is the partaking of the Lord's supper - for we being many are one "bread, one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread." And what does Paul declare to be the true intent and testimony of that rite? That whensoever "ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." Here then are found the character and life of the church, that into which it is called, that in which the truth of its existence subsists, and in which alone is true unity. It is showing forth the Lord's death, by the efficiency of which they were gathered, and which is the fruitful seed of the Lord's own glory; which is indeed the gathering of His body, "the fulness of him that filleth all in all"; and shewing it forth in the assurance of His coming, "when he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe." Accordingly the essence and substance of unity, which will appear in glory at His coming, is conformity to His death, by which that glory was all wrought. And it will be found in result, that conformity to His death will be our frame for glory with Him at His appearing; as the apostle desires, "that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Have we faith in these things? How shall we shew it? By acting on these directions of our Lord, which are founded on His divine knowledge of the objects of faith. What follows upon our Lord's declaration, in the view of His glory, that it must be by His death?" He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life in this world, shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me let him follow me, and where I am, there shall also my servant be; if any man serve me, him will my Father honour." The servant is he who is to be honoured. If we would be servants, we must be so in following Him who died for us. And in following Him, our honour will be to be with Him in "his glory, and the glory of his Father, and of the holy angels."

27 It is matter of great thankfulness that, notwithstanding the scattering of the church, by its becoming of this world as a body, and its most imperfect revival by the discovery of the free hope of glory, believers have a way before them marked in the word; that, if we are not given to see as yet the glory of the children of God, the path of that glory in the wilderness should be revealed to us. We are assured, in doctrine, that the death of the Lord, in whom the free gift came, is the sole foundation on which a soul is built for eternal glory. In truth it is only to believers in this that I address myself. Our duty as believers is to be witnesses of what we believe. "Ye," says the God of the Jews by the prophet Isaiah, "are my witnesses," in His challenge to the false gods; and as Christ is the faithful and true Witness, such ought the church to be. "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye may shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." Of what then is the church to be a witness - against the idolatrous glory of the world? Even of that glory into which Christ has risen, by their practical conformity to His death; of their true belief in the cross, by their being crucified to the world, and the world to them. Unity, the unity of the church, to which "the Lord added daily such as should be saved" (the saved*), was when none said anything was his own, and "their conversation was in heaven"; for they could not be divided in the common hope of that. It knit men's hearts together by necessity. The Spirit of God has left it upon record, that division began about the goods of the church, even in their best use, on the part of those interested in them; for there could be division, there could be selfish interests. Am I desiring believers to correct the churches? I am beseeching them to correct themselves, by living up, in some measure, to the hope of their calling. I beseech them to shew their faith in the death of the Lord Jesus, and their boast in the glorious assurance which they have obtained by it, by conformity to it - to shew their faith in His coming, and practically to look for it by a life suitable to desires fixed upon it. Let them testify against the secularity and blindness of the church; but let them be consistent in their own conduct. "Let your moderation be known to all men."

{*I believe the Authorised Version right; Acts 2: 47.}

28 While the spirit of the world prevails (and how much it prevails, I am persuaded few believers are at all aware) spiritual union cannot subsist. Few believers are at all aware how the spirit which gradually opened the door to the dominion of apostasy, still sheds its wasting and baneful influence over the professing church. They think, because they were delivered from its secular dominion, that they are free from the practical spirit which gave rise to it; and because God has wrought much deliverance, therefore they are to be content. Nothing could be a testimony of a greater alienation of the mind from the Spirit of promise, which, having the prize of the high calling of God set before it, ever presses towards it, ever seeks conformity to death, that it may attain to the resurrection of the dead. It waits for the Lord, and, beholding His glory in unveiled face, is "changed into the same image, from glory to glory." For, let us ask, is the church of God as believers would have it? Do we not believe that it was, as a body, utterly departed from Him? Is it restored so that He would be glorified in it at His appearing? Is the union of believers such as He marks to be their peculiar characteristic? Are there not unremoved hindrances? Is there not a practical spirit of worldliness in essential variance with the true termini of the gospel - the death and coming again of the Lord Jesus as Saviour? Can believers say they act on the precept of their moderation being known unto all men? I do believe that God is working, by means and in ways little thought of, in preparing the way of the Lord, and making His paths straight - doing by a mixture of providence and testimony the work of Elias. I am persuaded that He will put men to shame exactly in the things in which they have boasted. I am persuaded that He will stain the pride of human glory, "and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man shall be brought low, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day; for the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low; and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan, and upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills that are lifted up, and upon every high tower, and upon every fenced wall, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon all pleasant pictures. And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man shall be made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, and the idols he shall utterly abolish; and they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth."

30 But there is a practical part for believers to act. They can lay their hand upon many things in themselves practically inconsistent with the power of that day - things which shew that their hope is not in it - conformity to the world, which shews that the cross has not its proper glory in their eyes. These things let them weigh. These are but desultory suggestions; but are they the testimony of the Spirit or not? Let them be tried by the word. Let the almighty doctrine of the cross be testified to all men, and let the eye of the believer be directed to the coming of the Lord. But let us not defraud our souls of all the glory which accompanied that hope, by setting our affections on things which will be proved to have had their origin in this world, and to end in it. Will they abide His coming?

Further, unity is the glory of the church; but unity to secure and promote our own interests is not the unity of the church, but confederacy and denial of the nature and hope of the church. Unity, that is of the church, is the unity of the Spirit, and can only be in the things of the Spirit, and therefore can only be perfected in spiritual persons. It is indeed the essential character of the church, and this strongly testifies to the believer its present state. But, I ask, if the professing church seeks worldly interests, and if the Spirit of God be amongst us, will it then be the minister of unity in such pursuits as these? If the various professing churches seek it, each for itself, no answer need be given. But if they unite in seeking a common interest, let us not be deceived; it is no better, if it be not the work of the Lord. There are two things which we have to consider. First, Are our objects in our work exclusively the Lord's objects, and no other? If they have not been such in bodies separate from each other, they will not be in any union of them together. Let the Lord's people weigh this. Secondly, let our conduct be the witness of our objects. If we are not living in the power of the Lord's kingdom, we certainly shall not be consistent in seeking its ends. Let it enter our minds, while we are all thinking what good thing we may do to inherit eternal life, to sell all that we have, take up our cross, and follow Christ. Does not this go very close to the hearts of many?

31 Let us bear in mind then strongly the following truths - that what are called communions are (as to the mind of the Lord about His church) disunion; and, in fact, a disavowal of Christ and the word. "Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" "Is Christ divided?" Is He not, as far as our disobedient hearts are concerned? I ask believers, "whereas there is among you envying and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

Yea, there is no professed unity among you at all. So far as men pride themselves on being Established, Presbyterian, Baptist, Independent, or anything else, they are antichristian. How then are we to be united? I answer, it must be the work of the Spirit of God. Do you follow the testimony of that Spirit in the word as is practically applicable to your consciences, lest that day take you unawares?" Whereunto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." "And if in anything ye be otherwise (that is, differently) minded, God shall reveal this also unto you," and shew us the right path. Let us rest on this promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the strong bear the infirmity of the weak, and not please themselves. Professed churches (especially those established) have sinned greatly in insisting on things indifferent and hindering the union of believers, and this charge rests heavily on the hierarchies of the several churches. Certainly order is necessary; but where they said, 'the things are indifferent and nothing in themselves: therefore you must use them for our pleasure's sake,' the word of the Spirit of Christ says, 'they are indifferent: therefore we will yield to your weakness, and not offend a brother for whom Christ died.' Paul would have eaten no meat while the world endured, if it had hurt the conscience of a weak brother, though the weak brother was in the wrong. And why insisted on? Because they gave distinction and place in the world. If the pride of authority and the pride of separation were dissolved (neither of which are of the Spirit of Christ), and the word of the Lord taken as the sole practical guide, and sought to be acted up to by believers, we shall be spared much judgment, though we shall not perhaps find altogether the glory of the Lord, and many a poor believer, on whom the eye of the Lord is set for blessing, would find comfort and rest. Yet to such I say, Fear not, you know in whom you have believed, and if judgments do come, dearest brethren, you may lift up your heads, "for your redemption draweth nigh." But for the churches (if yet the Lord might have mercy, for sanction them in their present state He cannot, as they must own), let them judge themselves by the word. Let believers remove the hindrances to the Lord's glory, which their own inconsistencies present, and by which they are joined to the world, and their judgments perverted. Let them commune one with another, seeking His will from the word, and see if a blessing do not attend it; at any rate it will attend themselves; they will meet the Lord as those that have waited for Him, and can rejoice unfeignedly in His salvation. Let them begin by studying the twelfth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, if they think they are partakers of the unspeakable redemption wrought by the cross.

32 Let me ask the professing churches, in all love, one question. They have often professed to the Roman Catholics, and truly too, their unity in doctrinal faith, why then is there not an actual unity? If they see error in each other, ought they not to be humbled for each other? Why not, as far as was attained, mind the same rule, speak the same thing; and if in anything there was diversity of mind (instead of disputing on the footing of ignorance), wait in prayer, that God might reveal this also unto them. Ought not those who love the Lord amongst them, to see if they could not discern a cause? Yet I well know that, till the spirit of the world be purged from amongst them, unity cannot be, nor believers find safe rest. I fear lest it should be by the "spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning." The children of God can but follow one thing - the glory of the Lord's name, and that according to the way marked in the word; if the professing church be proud of itself, and neglect this, they have nothing else left, but as He, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, "suffered without the gate, to go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach." It were well to weigh deeply the second and third chapters of Zephaniah. What is going on in England at this moment - a moment of anxiety and distress of judgment among her political and thinking men? Why, we see the Dissenting churches using the advocacy of actual unbelievers, and the Established church, of practical unbelievers (I say it in no scorn to them), to obtain a share in, or keep to themselves the secular advantages and honours of that world out of which the Lord came to redeem us. Is this like His peculiar people? What have I to do with these things? Nothing. But as there are brethren connected both with one and the other, every one who thinks of it has to testify with his whole strength, that somehow or other he may keep himself clear of it, that he be not ashamed in the day of the Lord's coming. And many whom the people of God have trusted in, and relied upon, as they that have understanding, go on in the train; and the simple, as they that followed Absalom, go after them, not knowing whither they are going.

33 We may well believe what this advocacy is. But what a substitute for leaning on the Lord Jehovah the Saviour for the spiritual prosperity of His own people, as their servants in prayer and ministry for His name's sake: while, as we might well suppose, their advocates use them but as the instruments of their own party purposes. But such alliances cannot prosper. But what are the people of the Lord to do? Let them wait upon the Lord, and wait according to the teaching of His Spirit, and in conformity to the image, by the life of the Spirit, of His Son. Let them go their way forth by the footsteps of the flock, if they would know where the good Shepherd feeds His flock at noon. Let them be followers of them who, through faith and patience inherit the promises, remembering the word: "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him." And if the way seem dark amongst them, let them recollect the word of Isaiah: "Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God."

If I be asked again what have I to do with them; I can only answer, that I earnestly care for them: for the Dissenters for their integrity of conscience, and often deep apprehensions of the mind of Christ; and for the church, if it were but for the memory of those men, who, however they may have been outwardly entangled with what was not of their own spirit and failed in freeing themselves from it, seem to have inwardly drunk more deeply of the Spirit of Him who called them, than any since the days of the apostles; men in whose communion I thankfully delight myself, whom I delight to honour. But are there none to call in mind the spirit they were of? We have many advantages which they had not. O that God may put the presence* of His Spirit in many to work the work while it is called to-day: that He may take away the spirit of slumber from them that sleep, and lead in His own path - the narrow but blessed path which leadeth unto life - the path in which the Lord of glory trod - those whom He has awakened, that they may walk in the light of the Lord.

{*More correctly power. Perhaps a misprint in the original.}

34 But if any one will say, if you see these things, what are you doing yourself? I can only deeply acknowledge the strange and infinite shortcomings, and sorrow and mourn over them; I acknowledge the weakness of my faith, but I earnestly seek for direction. And let me add, when so many who ought to guide go their own way, those who would have gladly followed are made slow and feeble lest they should in any wise err from the straight path, and hinder their service though their souls might be safe. But I would solemnly repeat what I said before - the unity of the church cannot possibly be found till the common object of those who are members of it is the glory of the Lord, who is the Author and finisher of its faith: a glory which is to be made known in its brightness at His appearing, when the fashion of this world shall pass away, and therefore acted up to and entered upon in spirit when we are planted together in the likeness of His death. Because unity can, in the nature of things, be there only; unless the Spirit of God who brings His people together, gather them for purposes not of God, and the counsels of God in Christ come to nought. The Lord Himself says, "That they all may be one; as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

Oh that the church would weigh this word, and see if their present state do not preclude necessarily their shining in the glory of the Lord, or of fulfilling that purpose for which they were called. And I ask them, do they at all look for or desire this? or are they content to sit down and say, that His promise is come utterly to an end for evermore? Surely if we cannot say, "Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee," we should say, "Awake, awake, put on thy strength, arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, as in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab and wounded the dragon?" Surely the eye hath not seen nor ear heard what He prepareth for him that waiteth for Him. Will He give His glory to one division or another? Or where will He find a place for it to rest upon amongst us? Or is it that finding the life of your hand, therefore you are not grieved? Yet will He surely gather His people and they shall be ashamed.

35 I have gone beyond my original intention in this paper; if I have in anything gone beyond the measure of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, I shall thankfully accept reproof, and pray God to make it forgotten.

The Notion of a Clergyman, dispensationally the sin against the Holy Ghost.

J. N. Darby.

<01003E> 36

[It is necessary to give a brief account of the following tract, which is now published for the first time. It was intended to be published at the time; but the printer and publisher shewed it privately to some of the influential clergy before it was published, and I was surrounded and entreated not to publish it (I cannot really, at this distance of time, say by whom), and gave way. We can all understand (at least, any who have had deep convictions on points which affect the whole standing of the church of God) how (however deep internal convictions of any such truths may be) a serious and conscientious mind may hesitate as to putting forth what may shock the feelings of many godly persons, and violates established order; and in such matters all ought to be not only conscientious but serious, have the fear of God, and not merely an opinion on that which may work deeply in the minds of any, and affect so sacred a thing, the only sacred thing in the world, as the church of God. It never therefore appeared. Nor do I, though it may appear to be weakness in myself, regret it at the hands of Him who makes all things work together for good to them that love Him. I have a deep, abiding conviction that the building up of good can alone give lasting blessing, not the attacking evil. I would press It on every one who seeks good. I had not the most distant feeling of enmity against any, nor against the Establishment; I loved it still, I looked at it as a barrier against Popery. When I left it, I published the tract on "The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ." Every one knows, and for myself it is a matter of profound sorrow, and a sign of approaching judgment, that it has ceased to be such a barrier, and, for many, has been the road into it, and that infidel principles have been judicially pronounced to be fully admissible in it. Christians are thrown (where Paul originally threw them when warning them of the perilous times of the last days) on the word of God, and knowing of whom they have learned anything; as to which we have this word of the Apostle John, "He that is of God heareth us" - not tradition, not the fathers in numberless folios, but "us" - not development nor decrees of violent and clashing councils, but "that which was from the beginning," and, I add, the infallible faithfulness of an ascended Lord. But we are thus cast on great principles, I mean scriptural principles and truth. Of thus the presence of the Holy Ghost is a cardinal one. I may add as that which led to this (I mean as to the truth itself in my own soul), that, after I had been converted six or seven years, I learned by divine teaching what the Lord says in John 14, "In that day ye shall know . . . that ye are in me, and I in you" - that I was one with Christ before God, and I found peace, and I have never, with many shortcomings, lost it since The same truth brought me out of the Establishment. I saw that the true church was composed of those who were thus united to Christ; I may add, it led me to wait for God's Son from heaven; for if I was sitting in heavenly places in Him, what was I waiting for but that He should come and take me there? The infinite love of God flowed early into my soul in this process which the Lord was carrying on. Previously I had had, from the first, the deepest possible convictions of sin, and had known and after some years taught that Christ alone could fill up that abyss, but not that He had. I had passed in the deepest way, fasting (a thing which, I believe, if spiritually used, may be most useful), but then in a legal spirit, and in an elaborate system of devotedness, sacraments, and church-going, through what is now called Puseyism; but had found that Christ and not that could give peace, but had not found it; I sought it, looked for the proofs of regeneration in myself, which can never give peace, rested in hope in Christ's work, but not in faith, till I found it, as I have stated, when laid by for some time by what is called accident, from outward labour. The presence of the Spirit of God, the promised Comforter, had then become a deep conviction of my soul from scripture. This soon after applied itself to ministry. I said to myself, if Paul came here, he could not preach, he has no letters of orders; if the bitterest opponent of his doctrine came who had, he would, according to the system, be entitled. It is not a wicked man slipping in (that may happen anywhere) - it is the system itself. The system is wrong. It substitutes man for God. True ministry is the gift and the power of God's Spirit, not man's appointment. I state merely the great principle. This principle, with a process and with a delay the details of which I cannot recall and which are immaterial, was under deep pressure of conscience, the source and origin, as a principle, of the following tract (printed, I suppose, now seven-and-thirty years ago). There will be found immaturity in it in expression. The sin against the Holy Ghost, though universally used, is not a scriptural expression. Every sin a Christian commits is a sin against the Holy Ghost; for the Holy Ghost dwells in him, and he grieves that Holy One by whom he is sealed to the day of redemption But the principle is one of deep importance, one on which the status of the church and the Christian depends - the security of the one, as well as that by which he is responsible and judged in his walk, and the ground of judgment of the other. I did not save myself in any way by not publishing it. It was soon bruited about, and of course held, that I charged each clergyman with the sin against the Holy Ghost, which the tract itself entirely disclaims. It is a question of the dispensational standing of the church in the world - a statement that that depends wholly on the power and presence of the Holy Ghost, and that the notion of a clergyman contradicts His title and power, on which the standing of the church down here depends. It is the habitation of God through the Spirit. Scripture is clear, that if the Gentiles do not abide in God's goodness, they will be cut off like the Jews. It equally predicts a falling away, which is not continuing in God's goodness. I believe these times are hasting greatly. I add, that there may be no mistake, that I have an absolute confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus, the great Head of the Church, that what He builds will endure and be translated to heaven, when God judges the corrupt and evil system (which He as certainly will do) which bears His name, and Christ Himself becomes in glory the blessed witness of His unchangeable faithfulness and love. The doctrine of the church as the house of God (Eph. 2, and 2 Tim.) became developed in my mind much later; and I add here, that I believe the confounding the church, as man built it, as committed to his responsibility (1 Cor. 3), resulting in the great house, with Christ's building (though the former be God's building responsibly in the world), and attributing the privileges of the body to all that are in the house, is the origin of the corruption, which has defiled, and for which God will judge the guilty, professing body With His sorest judgment. The tract is given as it was printed at first. As I have spoken of myself (always a hazardous thing), I add that at the same period in which I was brought to liberty and to believe, with divinely given faith, in the presence of the Holy Spirit, I passed through the deepest possible exercise as to the authority of the word: whether if the world and the Church (that is, as an external thing, for it yet had certain traditional power over me as such) disappeared and were annihilated, and the word of God alone remained as an invisible thread over the abyss, my soul would trust in it. After deep exercise of soul I was brought by grace to feel I could entirely. I never found it fail me since. I have often failed; but I never found it failed me. I have added this, not, I trust, to speak of myself - an unpleasant and unsatisfactory, a dangerous thing - nor do I speak of any vision, but because, having spoken of the presence of the Holy Ghost, if I had not brought in this as to the word, the statement would have been seriously incomplete. In these days especially. when the authority of His written word is called in question on every side, it became important to state this part also of the history.]

38 In the statement which I make here, I make no rash or hasty expression of feeling, but what I believe the Lord would press upon the minds of Christians, and that which they must receive: that, the converse of which He might bear with in practice, while it did not interfere with and oppose the purposes of His grace, winking at the ignorance, but cannot when it does.

<01003E:4>The statement which I make is this, that I believe the notion of a Clergyman to be the sin against the Holy Ghost in this dispensation. I am not talking of individuals wilfully committing it, but that the thing itself is such as regards this dispensation, and must result in its destruction: the substitution of something for the power and presence of that holy, blessed, and blessing Spirit, by which this dispensation is characterised, and by which the unrenewedness of man, and the authority of man, holds the place which alone that blessed Spirit has power and title to fill, as that other Comforter which should abide for ever.

<01003E:5>If the notion of a Clergyman has had the effect of the substitution of anything which is of man, and therefore subject to Satan, in the place and prerogative of that blessed Spirit exercising the vicarship of Christ in the world, it is clear, that however the providence of God may have overruled it, in the ignorance which He could wink at, it does, when stood upon and rested in against the presence and work of the Spirit, become direct sin against Him - pure, dreadful, and destructive evil - the very cause of destruction to the church. I must be observed here to say nothing whatever against offices in the church of Christ, and the exercise of authority in them, whether episcopal or evangelical in character. It were a vain and unnecessary work here to prove the recognition of that on which scripture is so plain. But they are spoken of in Scripture as gifts derived from on high: "He gave some apostles" (Eph. 4: 5, 7, 11); so in 1 Corinthians 12, they are known only as gifts. My objection to the notion of a Clergyman is, that it substitutes something in the place of all these, which cannot be said to be of God at all, and is not found in Scripture. Now, I believe the whole principle of this to be contained in this dispensation in the word clergyman, and that this is the necessary root of that denial of the Holy Ghost which must, from the nature of the dispensation, end in its dissolution.

39 I am quite aware that people will say, that this is not the sin against the Holy Ghost, that it may amount to resisting the Holy Ghost, but sin against the Holy Ghost is quite another thing. It is not so much another thing as people suppose. At any rate the cause of the destruction of the Jewish system was this very thing: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye." And I am perfectly satisfied, however this dispensation may be prolonged in order to the gathering of souls out of the world, of God's elect, it has sealed its destruction in the rejection and resistance of the Spirit of God. But I go a great deal farther, and I affirm, though that were sin enough, that the notion of a Clergyman puts the dispensation specifically in the position of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and that every Clergyman is contributing to this. The sin against the Holy Ghost was the ascribing to the power of evil that which came from the Holy Ghost: and such is the direct operation of the idea of a Clergyman. It charges the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, which the Spirit gives by the mouth of those whom He chooses,* whom they are pleased to call laymen, and the righteousness of conduct which flows from the reception of that testimony, with disorder and schism. Now, God is not the author of confusion or disorder, nor of schism, but the enemy of souls is; and to charge the plain testimony which the Holy Ghost gives concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, and the effects which it produces, with disorder and schism, is to charge the work of God with being evil, and from the evil one. But if clergymen have the exclusive privilege of preaching, teaching, and ministering communion, which they claim, and which is the very sense and meaning of their distinctive title, then must it be all evil. That is, the notion of a Clergyman necessarily involves the charge of evil on the work of the Holy Ghost, and therefore, I say, that the notion of a Clergyman involves the dispensation, where insisted upon, in the sin against the Holy Ghost.

{*I beg to say here, I do not allude to any modern assumption of the possession of extraordinary spiritual gifts.}

40 Sinners are converted to God, souls called out of darkness, the truth preached with energy and love to souls, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, in the constraint and constancy (in whatever weakness) of the Redeemer's love: men are gathered from evil and wickedness (for I will put the fullest case my adversaries could wish) into the communion of the Lord's love, to bear witness to their sole dependence on His dying love; and this is producing confusion and schism - of which God is not the author, but Satan - because they are not, nor are brought together by, clergymen! What is this but to charge the work of divine grace with proceeding from, and having the character of, the author of evil, which is blasphemy? and this is the immediate and direct effect, the necessary effect, of the notion - the exclusive notion of a Clergyman.

<01003E:8>And this is a thing of very common operation where a number of unconverted clergymen are; and how common this is, yea, how it is the case in a large majority of instances, is well known. There all the operations of God's Spirit are charged with confusion and schism; and therefore I affirm, that the idea of a Clergyman, that is, of a humanly appointed office, taking the place and assuming the authority of the Spirit of God, necessarily involves (in its condemnation of what the Holy Ghost does do) in the sin against the Holy Ghost: and I defy any one to shew how it can be otherwise. Those who would most oppose that which I am now writing, would admit, that not half a dozen, or possibly none, of the Bishops are of God's appointing; and this is the case with the highest churchman, in consequence of their being appointed simply by the King's Letters Patent.* And yet all those who charge the efforts of others with schism and confusion, derive all their authority and distinction from those who, they admit, are not appointed by God at all; and yet charge them with schism, because they act on the same notion, and do not, therefore, look to that authority, while the effect of the authority thus ungodlily recognised is necessarily to throw those whom God does appoint into the position of schism and disorder. The notion of a Clergyman consists in acknowledging that, as the source of authority, which, they admit, is not appointed by God at all.

{*This is the case in Ireland, where this tract was written.}

41 Let any layman ask a conscientious clergyman, who is converted to God, whether he believes the mass of the bishops are appointed by God? He must say, No; and yet he has no other authority whatever, as a clergyman; and condemns others solely by virtue of his possessing this assumed authority, which, he admits, is not of God, but by virtue of which he calls the Spirit's operations in and by others disorder and schism.

<01003E:10>But are there no clergymen Christians? Doubtless, there are. And they are all trying to do in spite of the Bishops what they condemn others for doing; and are forced into the position, by being clergymen, of resisting God or the bishops they derive their authority from.

<01003E:11>They cannot deny that the work going on in the country is from God, though it be not by clergymen; but they condemn it as evil, and therein sin against the Holy Ghost - and do so as clergymen: and their only ground of so charging it is this notion of a Clergyman. And now let us cast our eyes round every place, and see what is the position and character which this name occupies. I affirm that it comes from God in nowise An ungodly man, be he a very hater of God, can confer it the same as the most godly, were he in such an office; the most ungodly man can be it as well as the most godly; and the most ungodly man can receive it, honour it, and attach all its value to it as much as the godly. Can this be the case with anything spiritual which comes from God? I affirm that it cannot: that it is quite otherwise with spiritual authority, which it most assumes to be like.

<01003E:12>Nay, much more, you will find the value and estimation of a clergyman as such (I am not speaking of individual grace) to be precisely in proportion to the blindness, darkness, and ignorance of the person who may have it; I appeal to any one for the truth of this.

42 Now, the deference and obedience to a spiritual pastor will be just in proportion to the right feeling - to the holiness of mind of the Christian; but in the same proportion will his idea of a clergyman be weakened, and will he judge according to what they are, if they assume any office circumstantially connected with the name. The value attached to it is a purely worldly thing: a thing of this world, with the pretence of religion in its external character, which is just the destruction of the church - the essential characteristic of apostasy.

<01003E:14>Let us consider it in its actual operation. If we go to India, the difficulty to be got over, the persons to be soothed and won, so that the gospel should not be hindered, are the clergy; I speak of nominal Christianity in India, as on the Malabar Coast and their Catanars. Go to Armenia; the difficulty would arise from precisely the same quarter. Carry the gospel in its power, where would difficulty be anticipated? - from what quarter? From the clergy. At best, they must be conciliated. Go to Egypt amongst the Copts: the same thing just is true. Go to the churches in Palestine, and wherever the Armenian Church is spread, the facts are the same. I do not say, they may not in any case be conciliated; but that the opposition to the truth, when it exists, arises from them. Go to the Greek Church: it is precisely the same. Their Papas, or Priests, the ministers and sustainers of all the corruption and evil of the church, are the great hindrance to all missionary and spiritual exertion. Their churches are fallen; therefore they proportionately estimate the clergy, and they do not the gospel. But the opposers and hinderers, the persons whose influence is dreaded, are the clergy.

<01003E:15>Let us look now at the great western body, which is called the church, the Christendom of the world - the vine of the Christian profession. Whence is the difficulty in preaching the gospel? Where is the grand barrier of opposition to Christ in His gospel? It is at once known and felt. The word would be echoed by every one familiar with the subject. But surely we are not to identify the wilful resisters of the truth with those who preach and forward it. In this point they are identified, they are both clergy, they have both precisely the same title; if a Protestant clergyman has title to this, or whatever title to respect he has, the Roman Catholic priest has the same. I am not talking of mine or any one's estimation of it, but of facts. And this is so much the case that a priest joining the Established church, whatever his motive might be, acquaintance with or ignorance of the truth, would be at once a clergyman of the Establishment. His clerical character existed before and his person merely was transferred from one to the other. Nothing could more clearly mark the identity of the two characters. Their title the same confessedly, the same by the acknowledgment that the title which they insist on distinctively is the same as, and no other than as, it is derived from those whose apostasy and opposition to the truth is the ground of judgment on the vine of the earth, the nominal church of God. If I am bound to acknowledge the one, I am bound to acknowledge the other in the same title and office. They are their own witnesses that there is no difference between them in title as clergymen. Whether the ministry of the priests come from God "their mission" they may determine.

43 But, that we may let no part of the world escape our notice, turn to Protestant Germany. Who are the hindrances, the bars to the gospel - to truth there finding its way among the people? The clergy. Consult any missionary reports, or Continental reports, or Jewish reports, or a Home Mission Society: and the clergy will be universally found to be the hindrances to the propagation of the truth.

<01003E:17>But it will be said, do you mean to class the efforts of the clergy in Ireland with all this? Look at the Home Mission. My most sorrowful answer is, The Home Mission is the fullest and darkest evidence of the truth of what I argue. Of all things it has shewn the character of clergymen in the darkest colours. For I am not denying or questioning that there may be individual clergymen Christians, but pleading that the notion of a clergyman is great hindrance to truth. So far as the clergy, as individuals, have broken through the trammels of their character and done the things for which they are excommunicated by their own canons, they are blessed and have influence. But the evil clings to them with a tenacity which no circumstances remedy, and which shews the power of darkness working in it, and herein shews so darkly the force of this notion.

<01003E:18>A clergyman began, from circumstances it is not necessary here to mention, what is called the Home Mission. The Bishops and other clergy opposed it, as naturally they must, on the principles of the Established Church, though it is hard to say what that is now. The consequence was that, though crowds went to hear the gospel (which I believe they preached very faithfully) at their lips, they stopped.

44 As clergymen they acquiesced in the barrier which as clergymen others put to the gospel of salvation. Subsequently it was carried on by the instrumentality of laymen, chiefly under the direction of one clergyman who disregarded all the ties which were imposed on him as such. The laymen, of course, were under none. The consequence was, the system became established in spite of the weak resources from which it was, humanly speaking, supplied. But the Lord did not allow it to fail, but the clergy would not work with them. Why? They were clergymen: though they owned them Christians, thought they preached the truth, and most of them thought they ought to preach - but they were not clergymen. However, being established - in fact as it touched their importance as clergymen that the work of evangelising the country should be carried on entirely by others - the clergy took it up. Would they work with the laymen? No, they were clergymen. They turned them all out to labour alone, to give up God's work, or be stamped with schism where they might. They cared for none of these things so that they preserved their character as clergy; and to such a length was this carried, that on one of the Missions, having sent out two clergymen unfit for the purpose - not consistent men, so that the hearers complained - and foreseeing of course that failure one time would occasion non-attendance the next, they agreed to send an empty car to dismiss the congregations when they could not get a clergyman, rather than associate themselves with godly laymen or allow them even to supply their place as deputies on such a work, counting an empty car a better instrument for God's work than a man full of the Holy Ghost, provided he were not a clergyman. These are the reasons, without enlarging further on them as affecting the general principle, which make me feel that the Home Mission puts the character of clergymen in darker instead of brighter characters. They broke every solemn obligation of diocesan control, and excluded every one else because they were clergymen, simply to preserve their own importance as such, just as they had given up the work of the Mission before on the same account till forced into it. Now if the notion of a clergyman can have such power over godly men, we do but see, in a far stronger light than anything else could put it, the horrible nature of the thing itself, and its influence over the mind. The evil it has produced in forcing schism by rejecting laymen is incalculable, while its influence in blinding the conscience is almost unintelligible to those who are not involved in it. But the evil seems to me hopeless but in the full recognition that the title and the acknowledgment is a great and horrid sin - the substituting something in the place of God's Spirit which accredits a man, an ungodly man, with the title of rejecting and denying the Holy Ghost, and which therefore impliedly does so, whether in authority or not - not an office, but an order of worldly respect and on which every false religion is founded and its influence proportionate to the darkness in which those subject to it are laying. Any one may see that it is not office, for a man may have no office at all and yet be a clergyman just as much all the time. He may spend all his time shooting or hunting or farming, have no service in the church and yet be just a clergyman, and this is constantly the case. I believe the notion of a clergyman has been the great hindrance to truth in the country. But the effects can, I believe, only be met by the conviction and perception that it is in this dispensation the sin against the Holy Ghost.

45 One question may remain, why press such a point now? I answer; first, because it is truth. God's truth is always profitable, and the testimony kept up by it in the world. But further, because these things have been brought to such a pass by the prevalency of this very notion that nothing remains but to rescue the saints out of its effects before the tide of Papal power which is founded on it, set in its full and subduing strength. Men must rest on the Lord or sink into it. If the notion of a clergyman be anything but evil, dissociation from it is but schism and evil. But if the work of the Holy Ghost be not evil, then is that which assumes to condemn it, and charge evil upon it, most evil of all things; and that is the position in which every clergyman stands by virtue of his title, and which is involved in the very notion of a clergyman: the essence of its name, the sign and distinctive name of apostasy and rebellion against God. I fully believe, if the clergy of this country had acquiesced in laymen's acting with them, or if they would have acted with laymen, all the successional respect which is connected with the name they would have preserved, and prevented any division and difficulty; but they declined this, and declined it because they were laymen, and threw the whole matter, whether men would or not, into the question what is a clergyman? Was the Holy Ghost confined to them? If not, were they doing right in prescribing their own narrow channel to the fulness of refreshing which flowed from Him? And, if not, what are they? in what position are they? and in what putting the dispensation, by thus opposing and vilifying with the name of schism the operations of the Holy Ghost Himself? I believe the name has brought hopeless destruction on the whole dispensation. What is the complaint of a well-known signature, H., in the "Christian Journal"? In seeking the assistance of clergy for the Home Mission the answer continually was - admission of the necessity and evil, but that they were not accountable for it! Why? They were in their post as clergymen. God might have given them the gifts of evangelists. Souls might be, as far as means went, perishing, but they were not accountable, not their brother's keeper, and why? They were established clergymen in their parishes, and they were not accountable for it.

46 What is the answer of a poor Papist to the efforts of a godly layman (though God I believe is blessing laymen far more amongst them than clergy now)? The clergy of the two religions is enough: what business have these to speak? Who really encourage and sanction this as far as they can? The clergy - thus being the grand barrier to God's truth. Turn which way you will, this is the notion that meets you, as the barrier to God's truth and work, by whomsoever carried on.

<01003E:22>And let us for a moment look at what the word means, and we shall very remarkably find the same great characteristic mark of apostasy upon it: the substitution of a privileged order whom man owned for the Church which God owned, and the consequent depression of the Church and the despisal of the Holy Ghost in it, or blasphemy against it. What does clergy mean? It means in scripture the elect body, or rather bodies, of believers, as God's heritage, as contrasted with those who were instructors, or had spiritual oversight over them; and it is used in the place where the apostle warns such against ever assuming the place in which - in much worse than which - the ministers have now put themselves; for they are not merely lords over, but the whole cleroi themselves. The present use of the word is precisely the sign of the substitution of ministers in the place of the Church of God: as men are accustomed to speak of "going into the church." Now, all this is of the essence of apostasy: power attached to ministry, and its becoming the church in the eye of the world, so that the world can save itself the trouble of being religious by throwing it on the clergy, and so the church and the world be all one thing, and irreligious people do for the church as laity, because religion is the clergy's business, and, if theirs, nobody's (for they do not want it for irreligious laymen); and thus that which has the name of the church, being really the world, serves to exclude and set aside the operations of the Spirit of God in His children as schism and evil; and who is to decide? The church; but they are the world: and will the world ever receive the Spirit of God? It cannot. What then? They hold themselves, of course, the church; they have the clergy, which is God's church in their estimation; and the Spirit of God and His work is voted schismatic. Such is the real and simple meaning of the word clergy so used. But to produce the passage in Scripture - "Be not lords," says Peter, "over God's heritage," to the elders or instructors. That is, over God's Clergy - to give it in its English form of letters, cleroi. The bodies of Christian believers were called God's "lots" (the meaning of the original word cleros) answering to Deuteronomy 9: 29. Now the clergy have assumed to themselves to be God's lot only, but the only use of clergy in Scripture is, as applied to the laity if you please, contrasted with ministers: charging these to assume no lordship. Now, the substitution of the clergy for the church is the very moral power of apostasy. But this is contained, indelibly contained, in the very word in its present use, be they Roman Catholics or Protestants: that is, we find the assumption of clericalism, the secret love of many a fair-held name, to be really, in its character and operation, the sin against the Holy Ghost, and the formal character of the apostasy. How often have we heard from the mouth of a minister or clergyman - "My flock," as if it were a virtue, so to think: while it is a shocking blasphemy in fact - I do not say wilfully so - which an apostle would never for a moment have thought of daring to utter or assuming to himself. It was God's flock which they might be given to oversee - Christ's sheep which they might be entrusted with a portion of, a (cleros) lot, to feed and guide. To call them their sheep, or their flock, was to put themselves in the place of God or His Christ; but they do so because they are clergy: they count it their title as clergy-they would be as gods. Will they say that they are God in the face of them that slay them?

48 I have the utmost affection and value for many of the individuals among the body designated as clergy; and many doubtless there are unknown to me. But this is not an individual question, but one affecting the divine glory and the whole order of the church; one which is the necessary result of its departure from God, and the form into which that departure was matured and has developed itself; and its present practical result is, that the things by which the Spirit of God would bless the world or them in it is charged, by virtue of this name, with being that of which Satan is the immediate author; and thus the name and title of the body become the concentration of that which, by its denial of the Holy Ghost and gratuitous blasphemy against Him, brings destruction, necessary destruction, on all to which it is attached.

<01003E:24>How this came to be so is plain enough, without wearying any one with a parade of learning. The Church had confessedly apostatised, and the structure of the apostasy, that wherein it consisted, remained precisely what it was when the truth came in, with this single difference - that the king took the place of the Pope in the appointment of persons to offices in the church, and the control of its arrangements. The church, originally, sunk gradually into worldliness, until it embraced the world, and the world became its head. The world could not manage spiritual office: it could manage formal, local authority; it arranged these authorities, and did so. For a length of time, in the prevalence of ignorance and superstition, the nominal offices of the church had more power than secular strength; when this ceased to be the case, civil power reassumed the supremacy, but the structure remained the same: governing, contending, or governed, the same thing remained. The world, in authority, arranged geographical secular power - leaving its influence over superstitious feelings to be what it might - so that it might be an available instrument in its hand to manage the world in its mass, not in Christ's to minister to and guide the church. Whether the Establishment has sufficient of this influence to be of any use to the State, is exactly the question agitated at this moment. But what has the church of God to do with this? I cannot see. It is merely a compound of secular influence and remaining superstition, by virtue of which the church is bound up with the world, and all its real energies cramped. This system, or structure, goes by the name of clergy, whether it be the Pope, or from the Pope down to the lowest curate, who may be entitled, by virtue of it, to hold a place in the world which otherwise he may not have had; or if a Christian, to labour in some field where his labours may be ill-employed, and his usefulness thrown away; but the church is lost in it. I admit, as fully as any one can do, that many of the clergy are most valuable men. They may have eminent gifts for various offices, which the exigency of the times may require; but the effect of this system, by which they form part of this great worldly structure, is to deprive them of the opportunity to stir up, or to bar the exercise of, whatever gifts God may have made them partakers of.

49 The operation of the Reformation was to introduce a statement of individual faith, and to break off, generally, all without the limits of the Roman Empire, from the immediate power of Rome and Popery. It in no way separated the church from the world, but the contrary; and, while it changed the relations, left the principle of the structure just where it was. The King's Arms took the place, in the rood-loft, of the image of Christ. Christ and His Spirit ruled in neither case, save in honour. I verily believe, that the principle of a clergyman, as it is part and parcel of the structure of Popery, will reintroduce the power of Popery as far as the name of religion remains; for as it hangs on the doctrine and principle of succession, not on the presence of the Spirit, there is no ground on which a Protestant minister, as a clergyman, can prove his title, which does not validate the title of the Pope and his followers more even than his own. His happening to have right doctrine does not make him a clergyman; his having false doctrine does not make him not one. The layman or dissenting minister, who holds the same doctrinal truth, is not a clergyman. The popish priest, who conforms to the Church of England, is not ordained to become so: he has that already which makes him a clergyman. Nay, in point of fact, the truth was not preached in the Church of England for the greater period of its distinct existence; and in the vast majority of instances the clergy still do not preach the truth; and the rest of the body would not allow them to be Christians at all.

<01003E:26>Is it not manifest that the term clergyman, of such amazing influence on the minds of men, is the distinctive title of that association which has grown up from the decay of the church, and now forms the common though varied ground of its association with the world, and a hindrance to cramp the operation of God's Spirit; the cementing title of that vine of the earth, which is cast into the wine-press of the wrath of God; and which charges evil upon the operations of the Spirit of God, as rebellion to its authority, not acting within its limits, or in conformity to its secular arrangements and appropriations of service, appropriations of territory formed neither by, nor with reference to, the Church of God at all; and when the Spirit of God operates by individuals within its limits (for God chooses whom He chooses), making them at once schismatics from their brethren, who do not comply with their geography, or acknowledge authority which they pretend to reverence (because it is of the system) but really despise, and violate at the same time all the arrangements, for the sake of which they are rejecting their godly and faithful brethren? If it were not for this term clergy, the link and bond of the great evil of the earth, and of pernicious influence over the minds of men, where would be the occasion of schism, save in that which is ever to be subdued? Or where would be the opportunity to charge the fruits of God's Spirit upon the author of confusion? Or what else is it that consummates the occasion of judgment to the system (of which it has taken the place of the energy and spirit), and always opposed the blessing? Has there, I will ask, ever been an opposition to, and hindrance of, the truths of God, of which the clergy have not been the human authors, and in which they have not been the real and active agents?

50 The clergy, then, is the specific title which identifies the church and the world, not God and the Church; and as the world necessarily denies, rejects, and will blaspheme the Holy Ghost, because it is the world, and cannot receive it, the tendency of this name is solely to involve the church, corporately, in the same thing, and is to be viewed as the grand evil, the destroying evil, of the day. What is the remedy? The recognition of God's Spirit where it is - personally seeking for that holiness and subjection of spirit which will discern, own, and bow to its guidance and direction, and hail its blessing as the hand of God, wherever it operates, in the measure and way it does so - that other Comforter sent to abide with us, whatever else did, for ever; and working in obedience, that we may possess its joy - boldness, as against all that grieves it, against joining the world, which cannot own or receive it, or denying the truth, of which it is the witness. The Lord give us to discern things that differ, and to separate the precious from the vile.

Thoughts on the Present Position of the Home Mission.

J. N. Darby.

<01004E> 52

Dublin, 1833

God is accustomed to act, in His government of mankind, often by ordinary principles, though He be independent of them; that is, He acts upon men by that which ordinarily influences them, the springs of which are in His power. No person can be insensible to the extremely important crisis in which we are now placed in Ireland, and that there are most important agencies at work in the country. The old system is broken up. The demand for the testimony of the gospel is manifest, and, while it is to an extent which surprises even those most accustomed to desultory labour, has forced itself on the consciences of the most reluctant, upon those who have for years resisted anything out of the established track. That which is to be remarked in it, and which shews the hand of God, is the anxiety, on the part of unconverted people, for ministry of the word and opportunities of religious information. It is manifest this must be from God; and I think experience will shew that it is a common accompanying sign of a work of God; as its suitableness is obvious.

It appears to my mind, that the position and worldliness of the church (i.e. the establishment), when the crisis for that purpose came, disqualified it for being an agent of the gospel in the country, and converting it to the faith of God; and in that crisis they, in point of fact, failed. This is matter of history. Further, the system on which it was established disqualified it for such exertions as were alone competent to meet such a crisis. The system was episcopal and parochial; but the energy which would carry a powerful principle into operation, which forms its agents and cannot find them in the passions of men, cannot be, and never was, parochial. The energy which is competent to work, and because it is competent to work, necessarily overpasses the prescribed limits, and trespasses upon the limits of others, and the system is violated, In the circumstances in which the work of God is placed in this country, this might be proved with stronger reason; but I have purposely confined myself to the general principle. Episcopal and parochial labour, in its sound state, is the supervision of those who have already been brought within the pale of Christian care, as having Christian principles, though it may be accompanied by doing "the work of an evangelist." Missionary work, in its ordinary sense, assumes a contrary state; that is, the necessity of a general preaching of the gospel, because men are not as yet brought under the influence of Christian principles, and in order, under grace, to their being so brought. The recognition of local episcopal and parochial authority, as such, on the part of the Home Mission, is simply denying its first principle, and destroying itself. It assumes that its objects are not really the subjects of that. It assumes a great deal more; but I am content to rest here for the present.

53 It has never been carried on, as it never could be, on this principle of episcopal and parochial arrangement. In the detail of practice (which, however, is comparatively immaterial), it would be absolutely prevented from operation in the places where, and, in one sense, where alone, it was really wanted.

I will suppose a diocese where the Home Mission is refused admittance. What is the assumption of the Home Mission? that the state of the diocese is perfect, and does not need its care? Is it not rather, at bottom, that there is the special want of the energy of Christian principle, connected with the sense of the deep necessity of the people, which missionary zeal supposes; that is, a state of things which specially calls for the agency which they are assuming to themselves. If they acknowledge the episcopal and parochial system, it is the only place where they cannot act. In a word, the Home Mission its existence because the episcopal and parochial system, at present established, fails for the Christian purposes of the country. It acts, and must act, in defiance of the system which confines the labour of the minister within an allotted sphere, and subjects him to the authority of the bishop of the diocese, within which that sphere is situated. It is, in a word, a set of individuals acting on their own authority, if they be right, in undoubted obedience to God - but their own as regards men - in going or sending others to preach and admonish, without reference to the authority of the nominal system into which the country is divided.

Their duty to God in this is admitted; and the admission of the episcopal and parochial system in such a work becomes a dereliction of their duty to God in subservience to men. I do not mean the territorial division, though that will be found to fall before it, but the principle of the system.

54 Another most important principle developed by the Home Mission is this, that men have their place and agency in the system and the country by virtue, not of their official situations, but of the gifts which God has given them. This is a most important principle in the difference between Babylon and the divine economy. The vehicle of the office may be used as at present, but the principle on which the Missions proceed, and by which, as thus volunteering, they will be judged, is the competency of the individuals, the gifts of God's Spirit which they may have.

There is another point at present of importance. The clergy have taken up the Missions at present. They have taken them up to the exclusion of laymen: their conduct has been marked in this respect. The Missions had been carried on, and were established, through the labours of laymen, while the clergy in a great measure refused to act because it was irregular. I believe those most conversant in them will admit that they could not, in point of fact, have been carried on without. The effect of this exclusion I am not concerned to state now; for I believe the results of what is going on are but in their infancy: but it has this immediate effect. During the working of the laymen, it was merely an unofficial preaching of the Gospel, as God gave men ability where there was necessity and God gave opportunity; and, clergymen being engaged in it too, it merely became a common work of necessity and love. Now that the clergy have excluded them, it becomes a deliberate rejection by them, the clergy, in their official character, of the control of the diocesan over his own diocese; its management in the spiritual energies of Christianity is assumed by other hands. The clergy themselves are setting aside the episcopal constitution, as at present subsisting, and acting not only in independence but in defiance of it. The fact is, the system, as it stands at present, is extinct. I do not mean by this that episcopacy is therefore extinct; but that the authority and control of the present system is gone. The clergy have taken upon themselves the exclusive responsibility of acting in defiance of it. They cannot go back. They have been thrust forward, by the demand which has been raised of God for efficient ministry, to act in defiance of that system. They are now thrown upon this: either to work on in spite of the episcopal parochial system, though using it where it may favour them, and to treat it as non-existent or hostile; or to throw up the character of being the ministry of the country. I regret that there was not sufficient of God's Spirit among them to own the labours of the laymen, who had in many instances gone before them. I sorrow for it for their own sakes; but I rejoice that they have made themselves the practical actors, in defiance of an authority whose sanction for so acting they would have others seek.

55 That laymen, as they are called, should have been recognised by the churches as devoted to the work, may be in given instances unobjectionable or desirable; but why they should seek the sanction of an authority in order to preach in defiance or violation of that authority, and for the purpose of doing so, the clergy may but I cannot explain. If they do not purpose to violate it, they are subjecting themselves to the restraint of an authority, the operation of which has been the occasion of the necessity of their so preaching at all; and this, if the responsibility is on them to preach, it is wickedness to do. The clergy, as if they had the residue of the Spirit, are acting themselves in defiance of the authority of the bishops - honourably, no doubt, if they have hindered the preaching of the gospel. That is, they have determined to carry, or are carrying, the Mission through the various parts of Ireland, without reference to, or in spite of, the prohibition of various bishops. But they will not hear of a person, not ordained by those bishops, preaching, or being allowed to go on the Mission. Now I do not see the consistency of receiving authority, or licence to preach, from a bishop, with the view of exercising that privilege in defiance of the authority which gave it. I trust there are many laymen too honest to act so: but one cannot be insensible to the effects, that the clergy, while thus excluding them (unless they can claim for themselves the whole residue of the Spirit), are necessarily raising up a system of dissent - the greatest evil which, I believe, could now affect Ireland. I do not mean dissent from a set of formularies, but the schism, or dissent, in result, of one part of the Christians in the country from the other at a time when God is strongly working in the country. This is the guilt which will be on the heads of the clergy, if they are not careful in their conduct.

If on the other hand, this anomalous body of the Home Mission refrain from those places where the ordinary authorities forbid them, it is plain their assumption of the evangelisation of the country is in result an idle pretence, and schism is yet more sure. It is quite clear that laymen whom God may call to the office of preaching, as they will not be permitted so, cannot righteously act with such a system; nor will men easily understand the righteousness of a self-instituted body, which, while it assumes to be everything, fails in the most important part of its work, whilst it discredits everything else which God accredits. In fact, I can conceive of nothing more wicked than discrediting, as far as they can, the preaching of laymen and then stopping short from the work of God for fear they should be discredited themselves. Nor can laymen, if they be either righteous or wise, fill up such a gap; that is, with any set purpose. They must do it, either as sanctioning the unrighteousness of the clergy, who perhaps might wish to be done by others what they would not do themselves, or else it must be done in the spirit of an opposition system, which, if the wilfulness of the clergy leave it possible, is altogether to be deprecated. I do trust, as at present constituted, the laymen will hold themselves altogether aloof from the Home Mission. If it act in despite of the bishops, it is acting unrighteously as being made up exclusively of clergy; if it desist wherever the bishops or clergy oppose, it is disgraceful to assume the authority it does. And it becomes clear that the laymen had better employ themselves distinctly without those trammels; and let the clergy of the Home Mission employ themselves in their local circles, building again the things they destroy. In any case, the essential character which the Home Mission has assumed in its clerical shape is schism - acting independently of the bishops, whom it professes to recognise, when they let it pass; and respecting them only when they are doing wrong, in their judgment; and despising and excluding the laity, who may be led of God's Spirit, where they think they are doing right.

56 But further, it is beyond all controversy that the Bishops have been opposing and oppose the preaching of the gospel out of the system of parochial arrangements. It is equally clear that the efficient agency of the testimony of the word is now carried on on a system independent of, and consequently acting in opposition to, or neglect of, their authority. Of this the clergy have made themselves the exclusive instruments - how righteously others must judge. It is equally clear that, assuming this ministry to be successful, where sufficient local pastorship does not exist, or where the enquiries and spiritual anxieties raised by the reception of the word have cultivated the sense of a necessity for communion which is not met by any existing local provision, the necessity of pastoral care provided by the Mission, and the probable formation of local bodies in whatever shape, at once arises. Hence, we have, either the pastoral care of the Mission districts assumed by the Mission as a necessary obligation, or else the formation of local bodies on principles not contemplated by it at all. The assumption of this pastoral care, further, definitely shews the importance of the position assumed by the members of the Home Mission, and at once shews the total impossibility of its being carried on in subservience to, or consideration of, the subsisting episcopal and parochial arrangements. It is possible that some of its members may think it right to have the sheep of Christ under those who are not really pastors. They may think so; but, to say the least, they will find few to agree with them. But if not, being clergymen tied to a system, they must be as insufficient for the pastoral care as for the evangelical work, if obedient to the system they profess to maintain; or else, while they have rejected the laymen as irregular, prove that it was merely to be more irregular themselves, and assume all the power into their own hands. And, the fact is, very abundant signs have been afforded of such a design on the part of those who call themselves by the odd name of the Subordinate Clergy. I cannot believe this, or anything of the kind, to be of God. That the bishops should stop the course of this testimony is impossible; that they should do it no Christian, who feels the present necessity, could wish. The utmost they could do would be to throw it into others hands in the shape of opposition to the Church, and probably to drive many godly men out of their system. The duty of faithful ministers of the gospel to undertake it, and carry it on, is an obligation which directly flows from their being ministers of the gospel. "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin" - a duty which may be strengthened, but never can be weakened by the fact of an ungodly man hindering, so that that hindrance should be reckoned a reason for not attempting it. If men were honest they would see the incompatibility of avowedly maintaining an existing system, and assuming a part which, if carried into effect, must make a breach, and in point of fact, does make a breach in that system every step that is effectually taken. But their present position is that they have preferred associations with ungodly pastors who oppose them to associations with godly laymen, the members of Christ, though these laymen were to act simply the part they were acting themselves, and that, indeed, in subservience to them, and unobjectionably as regards their superiors.

58 I will add, the desire for preaching is by no means the only characteristic of the present day. There are two others equally marked. And they are the desire, the appetite for scriptural information; and the desire amongst Christians for that which is little or not at all found in existing systems, and that is, communion with one another. The extent of the latter is, of course more confined, but not less decided; and, perhaps, its operation more remarkable. Further, I might add, that the necessity for discipline is growingly felt amongst all those who are exercised in Christian service, whether clergy or laity. In scriptural information the laity, and those who sit loose to the system, are by no means behind the clergy. If I were to draw a comparison, I should say they were rather before them in it. It is by no means the whole of Christianity to have extensive scriptural information. But the desire for it exists, and, I repeat, those conversant with the state of things in Ireland will by no means find the clergy the most informed in Scripture. In saying this, I beg most anxiously to be understood not to desire (God forbid that I should) to depreciate what God's Spirit has done in, and given to, the clergy. I believe God has in many instances much blessed them, looking at them individually. But, in point of fact, it is apparent to many that their extent of scriptural information is by no means such as to make them exclusively the instructors of the laity (if they force the line to be drawn, though I trust the laymen would ever recognise whatever God's Spirit had given to any, and be ready to learn from any), nor to meet the demand for scriptural information which exists, and which, though liable to abuse, like everything else, is surely of God, and the abuse of which can only be met by greater scriptural depth and knowledge.

As to the other point, less extensively and openly developed, scarcely less so indeed now, but equally really existing, and a more powerful principle than any by far, and that is, the desire of the saints for communion, it is obvious that the clergy must be greatly hindered in meeting any such desire. The position in which the laity stand with them is merely as recipients, that is, as clergy and laity. It is obvious that this position, which may have its value in its place, does not meet the desire for communion. These things, moreover, are recognised in the Scriptures, and those scriptures form a warrant in which the mind may rest, perhaps not always wisely in looking for them; and God, having left the record of them there, has proved His will that they should be the order of blessing.

59 But the clergy have excluded the laity from the office of preaching, that is, they will not preach with them. In the claim of communion and fellowship, which will be found to militate strongly against their official position, the laity, of course, will bear the largest though not the exclusive share; for it is a desire and a principle felt or recognised by many of the clergy. In acquaintance with the Scriptures, as we have said, there is as great an appetite, and, as I have remarked, I believe as much progress, at the least, made by them as by the clergy. As to preaching, the laity have long been occupied with it, and in many instances as successfully at least as any of the clergy. I despise no solemn designation, if the church be competent to it, to any office. But I hold that the Scriptures recognise the laity, if they are to be so called, preaching, and that the Lord was with them in it. And I think the clergy would have very great difficulty in shewing from Scripture any appointment or ordination to such preaching as is contemplated in missionary labour.

"They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word"; and those who were scattered abroad were all except the apostles. "And the hand of the Lord," we are told, "was with them, and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord." I am not, here, one way or other, discussing the value of episcopal ordination; but I regret the unseasonable effort of many to exclude those whose labours Scripture distinctly recognises, and necessarily thereby to induce schism in the church.

One great evil hitherto has been the dissociation of nominal office from the power of the Spirit. This is denied by no spiritual person. The Spirit has been poured out* in efficient service on many not officially employed. The clergy are setting themselves to exclude these: they are standing on office against the title and competency to act of those who have the Spirit without office; and this in a service in which they are acting in defiance or disregard of the office and authority of those from whom all their own official distinction flows. For, if not so acting, the official distinction is simply a direct hindrance, so far disqualifying them or the office they have exclusively assumed to themselves. And in thus standing on office against the operation of the Spirit, where there is not nominal office, they identify themselves with ungodliness, refusing to associate themselves with godly men in works, which the majority of them think they are entitled to undertake with godly men, who are working with God's Spirit. This is an ominous position in which to put the name and character of the clergy.

{*This expression I should not now use; but I prefer leaving the tract as it is, as a memorial of what was passing more than thirty years ago, and has so much stronger an application now. Certainly moderation was not wanting.}

60 Let us put a case: here is a parish, in which a person, not sent of God, is, in office, pastor or clergyman; a person whom God has qualified for the service, and called, is there, or goes there, and he works. He cannot be in the office owned by man, because he, who has been put in by those men whom the Home Mission recognise as having authority there, is already in the office. He whom God has sent is irregular: he who, deriving from human authority, excludes the person whom God has sent, is regular. The business of the Home Mission, in its present form, is to meet the case of this ungodly man; but they own him, giving up the place, and disown the layman, who is excluded from office by virtue of the system they uphold, but is acting in the energy of the Spirit virtually in it, to meet the difficulty which the ungodliness of the system has raised. The question has been raised; they have raised it between office and energy; that is, between the most ungodly thing in the world, and the rejected and grieved Spirit; and, as far as they can go in this act, they have associated with the ungodly pastor and rejected the Spirit. If they say, Why not take office? he cannot; first, because some one is in it already; and next, because they have so vitiated the source, that many conscientious men cannot, whatever the clergy may do, identify themselves with it. Under these circumstances, they forcibly draw the question into light; by discrediting the layman as much as possible, who is doing the work of God by His Spirit as well as he can - the work they are doing themselves - and by accrediting the office in the ungodly shape in which it thus presents itself.

61 We put another case, one not so uncommon. A large tract of country is destitute of the gospel. A layman goes, preaches there, and is blessed - gathers out of darkness into light many souls. The district is already full of clergy, who are not shepherds. What is the layman to do? leave them for Socinians or enthusiasts to catch, or unheeded altogether? There is no godly righteousness in this. But the man is made, if he be faithful, a schismatic in spite of himself by a system which sanctions, or has sanctioned, the idle shepherds by whom he is surrounded. Which would the Home Mission recognise? It would recognise those idle shepherds, and it would not recognise the faithful man of God. But it has placed itself in a position in which it must be wrong either way; for if it did not own those shepherds, it would be acting in dereliction of its own responsibilities as churchmen; and the truth is, that, while they assume to be lords over God's heritage, or, as the original is, over God's clergy, they are in a position in which, though individually blessed in preaching, they must act unrighteously. They have assumed evangelism, and, obeying the prohibitions of the bishops and clergy, they turn aside from the most important points of their duty. They are clergy, and, persisting against these prohibitions, they are acting unrighteously, and in disobedience, in inconsistency with the character they are specifically assuming to maintain; while they reject the laymen, who, if it was right for them to preach at all, were violating no authority, breaking through no prescribed limits. Own the Spirit, and there was no unrighteousness, but blessing. Hold by the office distinctively, and they are inconsistent and irregular, or inefficient. Personal duty they might have pleaded: official regularity it is monstrous to allege.

There is in nothing human such a concatenation of liberty and authority, as the work of God exhibits - by individual competency and general subjection, all flowing from the presence and work of the Spirit. The contrast of these things, which God had so harmonisedly blended - of the office and the Spirit - has made the office dead and imperious (a missionary acts by the Spirit, not by office), and puts the actings of the Spirit out of the association of subjection, unless by individual wisdom, and has done more to disunite than any other possible step. But there are those, I trust, of larger hearts and more anxious thoughts, than those who would exclude others by their official dignity; and who will recognise that which is of God, though despising* themselves, with more liberty and faithfulness than some who would pull down the restraint of offices in their own estimation higher, that they might have liberty for themselves, but hold to the importance of their own, and deny that liberty to those they count below them. But we are told that the Church will be reformed. But what is that reform they ostentatiously speak of? Simply human arrangements - the assumption of power of the visible Church into their own hands. It is not a reference to the Spirit; it is not a call to prayer; it is not a looking to the Holy Ghost, however we may have grieved it, to set Christ's house in order; but a petition to the State, that it may throw them off, confessing they are controlled by and under its authority, and still dependent upon its choice whether they should be or not; not as a question of their sin and righteousness: declaring the evil, but sanctioning in principle its continuance. If they are bound to Christ, why look to the State to free them, unless they love it still? Why not act on the principle of separation, as responsible to Him?

{*That is, I apprehend, owning the Mission-work of the clergy though these, by reason of their official position, despise them.}

62 Proposing next that they should have the election of bishops themselves, willing, perhaps, some of them, to divide it with the Crown, by naming three, that the Crown may choose one, thereby thrusting out the principle of the Spirit's guidance, while they assume control to themselves. Proposing that each diocese should meet, arrange each its own plans, and then bring them together to a common meeting, to settle how it should be. Settle for whom? The Crown, laity, Christians, and all: the holding of the present bishops made untenable, and their own created ones uncertain! Such would be the result of their plans differing in various circumstances, but all having this character of throwing the elective power into their own hands, as those capable of managing it, and excluding others, save as coalescing with them, but none of them referring or looking to the presence, power, and operation of the Spirit of God. Let any one only examine the plans of church reform, which have been circulated from time to time latterly, in Cork in the "Christian Journal," in Dublin, and see if they are not all of the character I have stated; if they are not all based upon the proposed competency of those who are included in them, and, not caring for others, not referring it to the Holy Ghost as the only competent Spirit of energy to the church; and, in fact, resulting in the assumption of power, by those who hold the middle offices of the Established church, and nothing else: a mere human plan and arrangement.

63 And the clergy and Home Mission are greatly mistaken if they think that it is only laymen or disinterested persons who feel these things. Many of the most spiritual and upright of the clergy, as well as some of those called high churchmen, are just as decided on the point. They may be individually better than their superiors; but I do not see what great liberty of the Spirit or comfort of the faith there would be. I do not see the righteousness of the effort on the part of the "subordinate clergy."

The Spirit of God is at work in the country. The clergy feel that there has been long a hindrance in the higher offices the established system, and in the lower in association with them.

This Spirit shews itself, as so working, in three great channels: the necessity of preaching, the desire for scriptural information, and the desire for fellowship and communion.

The attempt to confine it to the middle officers of the church, who yet throw aside the upper, is futile, a resisting of the Spirit of God, a Babel work. It is working in other channels; and those who hold the middle offices are acting by virtue of those principles which would throw down their own exclusiveness system. Pride is shewn in non-subjection to the Spirit, which is God acting whether in office or in testimony.

It is a comfort, at any rate, to laymen that, while their ministry was simply of willing unpretending service, of spiritual vice in either case, the missionary ministry of the clergy is despite of the authority of those whom they recognise as having it; and the trying and odious though necessary office resisting that authority has been assumed by those who have been so long strenuously maintaining it, and the laity are free.

While the clergy were content, the laymen acted (I rejoice that they did) as willing and unpretending assistants to those who had the service for them to do, as well as preached by themselves. There was no jealousy of the clergy. They owned the gift that was in them, men from habit disposed to count them their superiors, more practised, and those around them accustomed for the most part to honour the office, so that they came in but as assistants; though the opportunity was given for the exercise of their gifts, so that there should be no schism in the body. The work would have been one. The clergy have thought right to reject them and disown their gifts. In them the evil that results must now rest.

64 I will add here a very few remarks on a subject connected with this, though not nominally yet immediately in the practical question, as all who are conversant in the working of principles in the country must know. Attention has been frequently drawn to changes in the liturgy. The effort, I am convinced, is a mistake. Any objection to the liturgy is not, in the mass of Christian people who feel it, from cavils at particular objectionable circumstances in it. It is, though there are many things doubtless which offend the knowledge or distress the consciences of many children of God, a much deeper principle; the desire of communion - not objecting to the liturgy, but the want of a communion in something flowing from the Spirit of God present and acting among those engaged in such common service.

<01004E:28>It is a mistake in the origin of distaste for the liturgy, in the great body of those who throw it up now, to suppose that it would be in the slightest degree affected by any particular changes in its structure. I do confess that I doubt whether there be in the church a competency to make any beneficial change. I believe the notion of what a church is to be very much lower than at the time the present prayer-book was compiled. I doubt that there is equal piety in the church; and I am sure too, it would be opening the door to alterations whose sole object was to pander to the infidelity of the day. But that which is now working is the desire of something else, a desire shewing itself in other ways than that. Men who do not feel this are mostly content with the liturgy as it is. They like it. They are used to it. A few of the clergy may be glad of change in services which affect them particularly, but the change will be unperceived by the mass of churchgoers, while their reverence for it will be gone. As to the others it will merely come to the mind as evidence that those who have made the change do not understand the real thing they seek. Such a change will be wholly short of the principle which is at work upon the subject. On the whole the great point is that the Spirit of God is at work. It is the presence and power of the Spirit which will have power: and the only wisdom of the believer is such a recognition of the Spirit - wherever and however it is working in the service of God and the gospel, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and evidencing therein love to Him, His gospel, God and His grace, more than to anything else, shall not raise questions which all the wisdom of the clergy Ireland never could answer, but, on the contrary, will enable them to resist (and be borne out by God in it, because integrity of purpose they shall be enabled to detect and be justified in resisting) that which is the will of the flesh, and not the unity of grace and the Spirit. The clergy have refused so recognise it in the laity. Let the layman, as I would beseech them in the Lord's name - no man ever lost in God's work anything by humbling himself, or dealing gently with a brother - be wiser. Let them own whatever of God's Spirit there is in the clergy, and let the rest pass. The clergy may feel assured that these are times in which he who acts with the simplest purpose, and with most of the Spirit, will in result carry the work of God with him; for it is a day in which God is separating realities from forms, as that which can alone stand the universal dislocation which every institution is undergoing, and which the Spirit of God shall and can alone go through unscathed, and those that are led by it unmarred and unhurt.

65 To resume the whole. The Spirit of God is poured out* on laymen and on the clergy. The clergy, by virtue of their office, exclude laymen from any portion of the work which they are carrying on, while their work at the same time sets aside episcopal control. What can we think of this? It is not the first time that the clergy have sought to confine, to their own narrow channels, the working of the Spirit of God, and so grieved and hindered the work. And, since they have thus raised the question, What is a clergyman? there are fifty-six persons ordained at once, as we have known instances. For what? Elders? No, not one probably of the number having any one qualification for the office. Indeed, though God may raise them up, in the arrangements of the church (that is, the Establishment), there could not be any such thing as ordinary elders, nor is there indeed of deacons, in the scriptural sense of the word. No. What then? All alike are ordained. Some, perhaps, ungodly men, it may be, without any call into the church of God at all, not Christians - whose only office is to make it wrong for any one who has the Spirit to work where they are at all; some godly men, and so to be honoured, but who have no gift for any special office; others who, we will suppose, may be eminently gifted as evangelists, but who, very likely, are sent where there is no opportunity for the exercise of their gift at all, or subject to one who would restrain it. but all are alike and equally clergymen. And what is that, then? What office is it in the church? The great secret of wisdom, in such a time as this, nay, always, is to recognise the spirit, by its moral evidence, wherever it is found - office, practically when you can. This will set aside the semblance of the flesh, take away its false claim of liberty, and give might to the controlling power of the Spirit, as well as liberty to its energy.

{*I again notice this traditional expression which is incorrect. The spirit of God works especially in given times and places; it was poured out at Pentecost.}

66 The spiritual clergy are conscious that resistance of nominal office to the Spirit of God is a sin; that it is their duty to act in spite of it. They act by their spirituality, not by their official character. Ought not laymen to do the same? If they say, Let them; then are they the willing authors of schism, maintaining, within a certain limit, their own importance. this is the thing to be dreaded. The authority of the bishops they cannot set up; they neglect it. They know that they are a hindrance; their estimate of them is that they are a difficulty to be got over. And what do we see? A minister of state, a layman - God forbid that I should justify the act - saying that he has anxiously considered the necessities of the Irish Church, and he thinks that it can spare twelve bishops. Is it not ridiculous to talk after this of the importance and necessity, the heavenly-derived character of episcopal control? I speak of it as it at present exists. If the Irish bishops had immediately consecrated bishops to the vacant sees, then one might have marvelled at the coolness of the wrong, but the system would have been, so far, however inconsistent, morally if not secularly independent. But they have not done so: and what can we think? I cannot say what I think. They are not in power and strength; and if God has laid His hand upon them, I will not now lay mine. This fact is the evidence, not the principle, of their system; and if they are in sorrow by it, one need not meddle with them there. The clergy may take occasion, by their depression, to set themselves up, perhaps to coin new rivals, and discredit their old masters; but do they think there are none who can judge them in this? I speak not of them all. but I repeat it, I rejoice that the conflict with authority is exclusively assumed by the clergy. Be it the laymen's part to keep clear, to obey what they own, and to act for the Lord as God shall give them opportunity.

67 Let the clergy do their duty in the work of the Mission, if the Lord lead them to it; but certainly they are doing it in the way most obnoxious to the authority set over them on one side, and carefully rejecting the work of the Spirit in others, upon the assumption of their office, whereby alone they can act effectually the part they are assuming exclusively to themselves. I pray God they may not so grieve the Spirit as to drive Him away, as they have often done before. I persuade myself fully they cannot now; yea, they shall not. There is one only remedy for their conduct, that I know; and that is not minding it. While, as I trust, every layman will fully honour whatever the Lord has given them of His Spirit, be it pastoral or evangelical, in practical authority, or in witness of the truth; for surely shall His offices for the church be brought out in substance for the profit of the church. I could add much more, as to the special circumstances of the country, both of present good, and probable evil; but I refrain. May the lord pour down His Spirit* abundantly in this country, to bring out the good in the holy order, that shall give all His people just refreshing, and perfect them for that which it is his portion to give them, and give it them for His name and glory's sake, with their blessing; and to Him shall be all the glory.

{*See previous notes.}

[I have been struck with this paper as applicable to the present time, as many an one will see. The result of the course the clergy took at that time, through the intervention of Mr. Frederick Fitzwilliam Trench, was that the Home mission came to an end. When I recently answered his pamphlet, I had totally forgotten the existence of this paper. Thirty-three years have not altered the principles it contains, though it has ripened many an one then at work, and I may detect some inaccuracies of expression. I have not altered a word in the tract, save two which were merely grammatical errors or errors of the press.]

Christian Liberty of Preaching and Teaching the Lord Jesus Christ

J. N. Darby.

<01005E> 68

"They that were scattered abroad went everywhere, preaching the word." Acts 8: 4.

That "the word of the Lord may have free course," is a matter which few will deny to be of ultimate concern to the glory of God, though it be one which has in many ways been let and hindered by human perverseness: and in nothing more than by confining the preaching of the gospel within arbitrary limits of place and person, prescribed by man, but sanctioned in no way by Scripture. To a single mind which has known the value of God's love, and which views things in the light in which they are put by that blessed knowledge, it would not seem that, in the midst of a world lying under condemnation, yet visited by this love, aught beyond spiritual qualification was needed for any one to declare, to those whom he sees around him ready to perish, the remedy, namely, that Jesus has died for sinners. Man has been pleased to set up restrictions; but the point with the disciple is to know whether the Lord has done so, and what is the warrant for precluding any from full liberty of preaching to whom He has given His spirit for the purpose: seeing that, if it has been so given, there is infinite loss in the hindrance, and the Spirit of God is grieved. The same faithfulness to Christ, which will yield unqualified obedience to every jot and every tittle of His commands, will also lead us to search out every hindrance to his service, in order to its removal from ourselves or others. The present question is one of deep importance; for it is evident that, if the restrictions be not verily and indeed ordered by the Lord Himself or by His apostles, it comes to this, that in upholding them, on the one hand, there is a loss of much comfort and edification to the church by confining to the ministry of the one that which should flow from the Spirit in many; and, on the other, the gospel which was "to be preached to every creature" under heaven, is bound and fettered, and multitudes are shut out from the springs of life for want of the invitation which should be upon the lips of all, who themselves have drunk of the living waters.

The point to be proved, by those who were opposed to the unrestricted preaching of the word, is this - either, that none who are not in prescribed office have the Spirit of God in testimony, or that, having it, the sanction of man is necessary for its exercise. I do not purpose here a general investigation of the principles of the subject, but merely to inquire whether any of the church of God are not entitled to preach if the Lord give them opportunity, or whether there be any human sanction needful for their doing so. The following considerations are intended, by the Lord's help, to maintain that it is not needed; and that no such sanction can be proved to be necessary from Scripture; and that no such sanction was therein afforded. The question is, not whether all Christians are individually qualified, but whether they are disqualified unless they are - what is commonly called - ordained.* I say commonly, because the word as used in Scripture, does not in the original convey what it does to an English ear at present. I affirm that no such ordination was a qualification to preach in the days of scriptural statement. I do not despise order; I to not despise pastoral care, but love it where it really exists, as that which savours, in its place, of the sweetest of God's services: seeing that, though it may be exercised sometimes in a manner not to our present taste or thought, a good shepherd will seek the scattered sheep. But I confine myself to a simple question - the assertion that none of the Lord's people ought to preach without episcopal or other analogous appointment. the thing here maintained in few words is, that they are entitled. The scripture proves that they did so; that they were justified in doing so, God blessing them therein; and that the principles of Scripture require it, assuming, of course, here that they are qualified by God. For the question here is not competency to act, but title to act if competent. Neither do I despise herein (God forbid that I should do so) the holy setting apart, according to godliness, to any office, such as are competent, by those who have authority to do so. But this is entirely another question.

{*The modern distinction between laity and clergy is not acknowledged here in any way whatever, as being totally unwarranted by scripture, and productive of the most disastrous effects in setting up a division between office and energy: that is, in accrediting an ungodly minister because ordained, and rejecting the man who has the Spirit of God, because of his not having passed through a system of human requirement.}

69 Let us then try the question by the light which the word affords upon the subject. There are only two cases upon which the question can arise - namely, as to speaking in the church, or out of the church: amongst the "congregation of faithful men" for their common profit and building up in the faith; or as evangelists declaring to the world, wheresoever God may direct them, the message of that "grace which has appeared unto all men." If these are admitted, all anomalous cases will be readily agreed in.

70 First, then, as to the speaking of Christians in the church. and here I remark that the directions in 1 Corinthians 14 are entirely inconsistent with the necessity of ordination to speak. there is a line drawn there, but it is not between ordained or unordained. "Let your women keep silence in the churches"; a direction which never could have place, were the speaking confined to a definitely ordained person, but takes quite another ground; and which implies directly, not that it is right for every man to speak, but that there is preclusion of none, because of their not being in any stated office. Women were the precluded class; there the line was drawn. If men had not the gift of speaking, of course they would be silent, if they followed the directions there given. The apostle says, "every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." Does he then say none ought to speak but one ordained? No. "Let all things be done unto edifying." That is the grand secret, the grand rule: in a tongue, by two or at the most by three, and by course, and interpret; prophets, let them speak two or three, etc. "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted . . ." "for God . . ." etc. "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience." We have, then, distinction, not of ordained and unordained, but of those, who from their character - women - are not permitted to speak, and the rest are; being also directed in what order to do so, and the ground of distinction stated. and this is God's plan of decency and order.

For the rest, they were all to speak, that all might learn, and all be comforted. Not all to speak at once, not all to speak every day, but all as God led them, according to the order there laid down, and as God was pleased to give them ability for the edifying of the church. I apply all this simply and exclusively to the question of Christians in general, having God's Spirit, using their respective gifts; and I assert that there was no such principle recognised as that they should not, but the contrary.

71 It may and will be said by many, that these were the times of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But the Spirit of God does not justify breaking through His own order by systematic rules: it would be most mischievous to say that He did. But the case, let it be observed, was not one of the prerogative of spiritual gifts, but of order; for women had spiritual gifts, as we read elsewhere, and directions are given for their exercise; but they were not to use them in the church, because it was out of order - not comely. At the same time there was no hint that any or all the men were not, but the contrary, because it was not out of order. Aptness to teach may be a very important qualification for a bishop, but it cannot be said, from scripture, to be disorderly for any member of the body to speak in the church, if God had given him ability. Besides, though these extraordinary gifts may have ceased, I by no means admit that the ordinary gifts of believers, for the edification of the church, have ceased. On the contrary, I believe they are the instruments, the only real instruments of edification; nor do I see why, on principle, they should not be exercised in the church, or why the church has not a title to the edification derived from them. If the presence of the indwelling Spirit be in the church, it has that which renders it substantially competent to its own edification, and to worship God "in spirit and in truth." If it be not there, nothing else can be recognised, and is a church no longer; for no makeshift is warranted by scripture in default of the original constitutive character and endowments of a dispensation.

But in thus upholding the common title of the saints, it may be supposed by some that the argument will be at once met by referring to the orderly way in which Christ originally gave in his church, "some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, pastors and teachers," etc. Now, unless one man centres all these offices in one person, by virtue of ordination, the objection will not apply, but on the contrary brings its own refutation. for we read, some had one service, some another - the head, Christ, "from whom the whole body, fitly framed together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." We read also that the members are set in the body, one the eye, the other the foot, the other the ear, that there "might be no schism in the body."

72 And it is a thought which might well commend itself to our minds, that if we have indeed lost many and ornamental members, it is no reason why we should summarily cut off the rest - the word of wisdom or the word of knowledge, and the like, of which there is assuredly some measure yet remaining in the church. But if the attempt should be made to close the enquiry, by silencing all discussion with the startling assertion that it is useless, for the Spirit of God is utterly and altogether gone out of the Church; it at once brings on the question, If so, what are we, and where are we? The church of God without the Spirit? Verily, if He be not there, all union between Christ and His members is cut off, and the promise, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," is of none effect.* But the word of God shall stand. "The world indeed cannot receive the Spirit of truth, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him," but let the disciples of Jesus know that He is with them; and that "wheresoever two or three are gathered together in his name," He is in their midst, His Spirit is with them for instruction and blessing. is this correct?

{*Let the following words of the apostle be considered by those who, in common with the Roman Catholics, maintain this promise to be verified in what they term "apostolic succession"; "For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," Acts 20. Such was Paul's view of apostolic succession, and one which, in principle, applied to the whole church, as it sank down together, after the decease of the apostles.}

Thus far then, as to the first case of speaking in the church. I advocate no system. I mourn over the departure of many of the comely parts or part, however, on which God set comeliness. These passages of the word I take as scriptural evidence that the confining of the edification of the church to nominal office alone has not the Scriptures to rest upon. I speak not here of elders, or their value, or the contrary; observing only that grace and scriptural qualities alone should be our standard of valuation; and that, in the arrangements of the Holy Ghost, it is only the gift of God which gives any title to service in the church, or to its claims; nominal office merely, as such, having no claim upon any one. I speak merely of the one point - the wrongness of a Christian speaking in the church as such. One point, and that a most important one, in this part of the subject remains to be noticed. If we are reminded of the dangers arising from all teaching, it is admitted at once; for it is evident that here, if anywhere, mischief would spring up. But looking to Scripture, we are warned against it, not upon the ground of its bang wrong as regards office, not because of its effect merely on others, but warning against it is given, as being one of the things in which, as evil will more or less have a tendency to shew itself, so the remedy is applied to the spirit from whence it flows. "My brethren, be not many teachers, for so shall ye heap to yourselves greater condemnation." But again, the warning itself shews that there was no such restriction of office as is now supposed, for thus it would have been - you have no business to preach at all, for you are not ordained. But no, the correction was turned to moral profit, not to formal distinction of pre-eminent office.

73 But the question becomes more important when considered in the second case, namely, as to speaking out of the church, because it forbids the preaching of the gospel by a vast number of persons who may have faithfully borne it to others. Let us inquire into the scriptural facts. In the first place, then, all the Christians preached. "They that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8: 4); and those who were scattered were all, except the apostles. Some critics have endeavoured to elude this plain passage, by saying that it is only speaking, which one not in office may do. But a reference to the original at once disproves the assertion. It is "evangelising the word": and we read elsewhere that "the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord," Acts 11: 19-21. Now, unless all the church were ordained (I think they are, to preach as far they have ability), here is the simplest case possible, the case in point. The first general preaching of the gospel which the Lord blest beyond the walls of Jerusalem knew no distinction between ordained and unordained. It had not entered into their minds then, that they who knew the glory of Christ were not to speak of it, where and how God enabled them. "And the hand of the Lord was with them." Paul preached without any other mission than seeing the glory of the Lord and His word - in a synagogue, too - and boasts of it.* And he gives his reason for Christians preaching elsewhere - "as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak," 2 Cor. 4. Apollos preached; "he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord; and of him it is said that, when Paul would have sent him from Ephesus to Corinth, he would not go. Yet, so far from being ordained before beginning to preach, he knew only the baptism of John. And Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." And then, continuing his labours as before, "he helped them much which had believed"; and "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." Again, at Rome, many of the brethren, waxing bold by Paul's bonds, preached the word without fear. And here let it be added, for the sake of those who have doubts, respecting the passage, that the Greek word is 'heralds'; which shews the character of the work. The same habits of wandering preaching we find in the second and third epistles of John guarded, not by ordination, but by doctrine. Nor in truth, is there such a thing mentioned in Scripture, as ordaining to preach the gospel. We have seen that Paul preached before he went out on his work from Antioch. Now if any plead his being set apart there, still the question is not met; for, as before stated, I reason not against such setting apart, if done as there by the Holy Ghost, but against the assertion that Christians, as such, are incompetent to preach. But the case alleged, if it prove anything as to the question at issue, proves that the power of ordaining, as well as of preaching, was not specially connected with office - and nothing more. The only other passage (which, though not commonly quoted, seems to me nearer the purpose) is the apostle's command, "the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. 2: 2. But the thing committed here was the doctrine, and proved tradition, if anything - not ordination, for it does not appear that they were ordained for the purpose.

{*It is instructive to observe, that even in the Jewish worship there was far greater liberty of speech permitted than in the straitened systems of the present day. "Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." There was an expectation and practice of mutual edification in their congregations, of which, in the present day, little or nothing is known.}

75 I have now produced ample evidence from Scripture to a fair mind. My object has been simply to shew the general liberty of Christian men to speak, whether in or out of the church, according to the several gifts which God may bestow upon than, without having need of the seal of human authority; and I say that the contrary assertion is a novelty in Christianity. I have abstained from diffusive discussions upon what has led to it, or the principles which are involved in it. I put the scriptural fact to any one's conscience; and I call upon any one to produce any scripture, positively, or on principle, forbidding to Christians the liberty of preaching, or requiring episcopal or other analogous ordination for the purpose.

And here I will advert to that which is commonly adduced upon the subject - the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. It is remarkable that those who rest upon it should pass by a case immediately preceding, bearing upon this immediate subject; that of Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp, though they had not come up to the door of the tabernacle, because the Spirit rested upon them. "Would God," said the meek man of God, "that all the Lord's people were Prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them." That which was here typically proposed, the pouring out of the Spirit upon all, was in principle fulfilled in the Christian dispensation. Then, subsequently, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram acted not under the influence and energy of the Spirit in testifying to the people, but would have assumed authority - the kingship of Moses, and the priesthood of Aaron. This was their fault, which very outrage is committed by those who attempt to defend themselves by urging the case before us: seeing that they are taking to themselves that kingship and priesthood which are Christ's alone, and setting up themselves as the only legitimate channels of blessing; and usurping His authority again on the other hand by excluding those who have the Spirit of God from exercising that which they have by the authority of God Himself.* These things here spoken of were typical of our dispensation, as also the apostle states; and the conclusion is, that they make universal preaching desirable, and the assumption of priesthood a sin. To the same purpose is the argument of the apostle applied (Heb. 5), the exclusion from the office of priesthood, save by such call as Christ had; in which, in one sense, all believers are partakers - in another sense, He is alone, unaccompanied in the holy place. In a word, the claim of unrestricted liberty of preaching by Christians is right. The assumption of priesthood by any, save as all believers are priests, is wrong. This is the dispensation of the out-pouring of the Spirit here, qualifying, for preaching, any who can do so; in a word - for speaking of Jesus (for the distinction made between speaking and preaching is quite unsustainable by Scripture, as any one may see if he takes the trouble), and that in which Christ alone exercises the priesthood within the veil in the presence of God for us.

{*Above all, is the exclusion of any who have the Spirit a grievous inconsistency in those who profess to own its influence, and to be guided by it; whatever excuse there may be for those who, being practically ignorant of its teaching, do throughout uniformly acknowledge the form without the power; for such are at least consistent.}

76 This, then, is the force of these passages. The type of the pouring out of the Spirit in the camp with the gracious wish of Moses is the characteristic, the essential distinction of Christianity. Accordingly we find its primary presentation in the world, to be the Spirit poured out on the hundred and twenty who were assembled together, who therefore began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance. And Peter, standing up, explains to the Jews that they were not drunk, but it was the thing spoken of by Joel - the undistinguished pouring out of the Spirit upon men of all classes - servants and handmaidens, their sons and their daughters prophesying - the pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh. This was the characteristic of its agency, and this we have seen acted upon in the subsequent history; to deny this, is to mistake the power of the dispensation, and, I will add, to lose it. And what is the consequence? Irregular action goes on, and cannot be restrained, for kingly power cannot be assumed to such purpose, or they are taking the part of Dathan and Abiram; but the power of the Spirit, in which God would give competency to restrain evil, has been slighted; and nominal office, which has been relied on, affords no remedy, unless the rights which the Roman Catholic system has assumed be attached to it, which is the assumption of power not given to the church at all. It is not for me to assert what is the evil of the present day; I am sure it is not the overflowing boldness of testimony against evil; and if evil exist, the remedy is not in seeking to hinder or to reject (for hindered, it surely will not, and cannot be) the title of preaching the word which the Spirit of the Lord gives to whomsoever He listeth, but the cordial co-operation of those who hold the truth, by which the common energy (and common energy is infinite energy in this matter) may be exercised against all who do not hold the truth, and for the "seeking out of Christ's sheep in the midst of this naughty world."

One important advantage flowing from taking God's order instead of man's is at once seen; men will have their place and agency, whether within or without the assembly of the faithful, by virtue, not of nominal official situations formerly set up, but of the gifts which God has given them: a most important principle in the difference between Babylon and the divine economy. In truth, there are few things more important to remember, and especially in the present state of things, when human prescription regulates everything in matters of religion, that for anything but grace to be our criterion of station in the church (save in the awful responsibility of the individual, "these sinners against their own soul") - must be wrong. In the last dispensation there was externally appointed order independent of qualification; in the present, the manifold grace and gifts of God in His church are the only means of adjusting and blending in true harmony the various parts and offices of the body of Christ.

77 With regard to one part of the work - evangelising, it is clear that a large portion of those who preach officially are incapacitated for it by their own act, as being shut up within restricted limits, and universally without any reference whatever to their individual qualifications, whether teachers, pastors, or evangelists, etc., or the particular necessities of the station in which they are to labour. To such it must be obvious, that the deficiency cannot be otherwise supplied than by those who may be willing to allow God to appoint the field of their operations, and to do the work of the Lord wheresoever they shall be led by Him to labour for His name's sake (3 John 7), and who will be owned by Him, though a Diotrephes may reject them. Nothing argues greater want of submission to Christ - greater proof of preference of man's authority to the Lord's, than for any to discredit the free and unrestrained bearing forth of the gospel of the grace of God, who have placed themselves in circumstances where they are obliged to stop short of the work, for fear they should be discredited themselves; a work which they cannot do - which they have themselves put it out of their power to do, at least, without utter inconsistency; for in so doing, they would be acting in defiance of the authority which has placed them in their prescribed position. Such is their situation that, in following the leading of the Spirit of God in their work, they would in most cases, act unrighteously, for it would be against the authority which they recognise and act under.

78 Take a case, by no means uncommon, which illustrates the dilemma in which they place themselves. A large tract of the country is destitute of the gospel. One, in whose heart God has put the desire and whose mouth He has opened to speak of His love, goes, preaches there, and is blessed; gathers, out of darkness into light, many souls. The district is already full of persons professing to hold office in the church of Christ, but who are not shepherds. What is the labourer to do? - leave them for Socinians or enthusiasts to catch, or unheeded altogether? There is no godly righteousness in this. But it becomes a matter of faithfulness to Christ that he should preach to those who are ready to perish; yea, it is a necessity occasioned by the systems which sanction or have sanctioned the idle shepherds by whom he is surrounded. Now, which must an authorised minister, even though a Christian, recognise? He must recognise those idle shepherds, and he cannot recognise the faithful man of God; that is, he must associate himself with ungodliness because it is in nominal office, and not with the Spirit of God because out of it. But he has placed himself in a position in which he must be wrong either way; for if he did not own those shepherds, he would be acting in dereliction of his own responsibilities to the system to whose authority he has voluntarily submitted himself. Hence, also, the answer to the question, "Why not take the nominal office?" Because the source is so vitiated, that many conscientious men cannot identify themselves with it; and (a consideration which, to one who habitually waits on the Lord, is of no small moment) that the work and the scene of his operations are not regulated by the Lord's guidance, and the varied exigencies of His service, exigencies which can be met only by entire and unfettered looking to the Spirit of the Lord, which is the Spirit of true order, for doing the Lord's work according to His own time, place, and purpose - considerations without which His servants are but busy-bodies (busy out of place, Thess. 3: 11) whatever may be the apparent result of their labours, and which in many instances amount to the acquirement of a positive disability to fulfil the office to which God may have appointed the individual, as in the case of an evangelist.

79 I would make one further observation, suggested by the present question. In observing the infinity of contending interests with which the church is now filled, "the wars and fightings" amongst brethren - the restlessness of those who are spending their power and spirituality in defending one human system against another - the inquiry solemnly forces itself upon us whilst witnessing the surrounding scene of excitement, For what are we to contend? The apostle has answered the question, "Contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." Let the inquiry then be calmly proposed to all our minds, For what are we contending? If it be for anything of secondary derivation, God cannot own it: the contention is for our own, and not for the things of Christ: for nothing since delivered is of His Spirit.

The preceding considerations tend to shew that opinions, supported by ever so fair an appearance of antiquity, are worthless - are deeply injurious to the glory of God, unless based upon His word. The end in view will have been fully answered if but one servant of Christ should be added to that field of labour; or the doubts removed from the mind of but one brother who hesitates to acknowledge, as his fellow-workers, those who have been called by the same Spirit. And let it be observed that in this, as in all things, the liberty of the believer is not the spirit of insubordination, but of entire subjection to the Spirit and the church of God, wheresoever they may be found; not the spirit of enthusiasm, but of a sound mind - of a mind at one with God, which alone gives righteous judgment. And let the people of God be waiting upon Him for His guidance. It is a time in which those who act with the simplest purpose will carry the work with them (for it is a day in which God is separating realities from forms), as that which can alone stand the universal dislocation which every institution is undergoing, and which the Spirit of God shall, and can, alone go through unscathed, and they that are led by Him unmarred and unhurt.

May God work abundantly by His Spirit, and fill His labourers with it! "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest."

Parochial Arrangement Destructive of God's Order in the Church

J. N. Darby.

<01006E> 80

"God is not the author of confusion," 1 Cor. 14.

To treat with apparent lightness of spirit anything that concerns the church of God I hold to be a great sin; and though there are a few occasions, very few, and those not connected with the humiliation of Jesus, in which the folly of evil may be brought before the eyes of the many,* yet my present subject, although absurd to the moral mind, leads me to no such feelings, nor do I desire to treat it in any such spirit. Looking upon it as a matter wherein the Holy Ghost is grieved and dishonoured, if I speak under the influence of that Spirit, I shall feel grieved also: and such is my feeling whilst observing how much of that which wears the fairest appearance, and ranks highest in ordinary estimation - nay, which is considered as the very triumph of Christian skill, and perfection of ecclesiastical arrangement, is actually at utter variance with the mind of God, and consequently with essential beauty and truth, which are only expressions of that mind.

{*Of which we have instances in Elijah's contention with the priests of Baal; and the more deliberate reproof of Isaiah in his comparison (of which man had forced the institution) of Jehovah the everlasting God, and the stock of a tree; and again in the exposure of popish false miracles and pretensions at the time of the Reformation, analogous in character.}

It is often thought that the complaint of the present state of the church is a wild feeling, taking the dissatisfaction of self-will for the freedom of God's Spirit, and seeking licentiousness under the name of liberty and in defiance of order. But where principles are not assumed (which is often the unsuspected foundation of many a pile of well-connected reasoning), it would not be difficult to prove that such a complaint is not necessarily fanatical or visionary, and that the plain and practical path of obedience is marked out on the other hand by nothing more than common spiritual discernment, and common honesty of heart towards God. Now it appears to me that the present circumstances of the church have destroyed order, as well as liberty, which two things, at any rate while man is a sinner, must go together; and this is shortly proved. Take, the existing state of things in its broad lines: it is not order, that all, or the majority of those called pastors, should be, instead of pastors, unconverted men. Yet this is admitted - even by many who acquiesce in the circumstances which have of necessity produced this fruit. It cannot be called order, that they should be appointed by man (men perhaps not members of God's church) and not by God; this is not order, nor does it produce order, but dissent and schism and confusion. But this is a fact, not only in its results, but in its principles - namely, that in what is called order, the appointment of the pastors flows from men not members of God's church at all. Succession, in whatsoever degree it may be rested upon, comes, not from Christ the minister of God's power, but from the Prime Minister. In days of infidelity or indifference it must be immediately evident to any one into what danger this at once throws the church, as far as it depends on this succession. Nor is this a speculative apprehension; for this danger is even now in full operation, and by no means a mere probability, but in fact working in its worst possible form, namely - in shewing itself as the instrument of evil principles, not of good. Where such a fact is evident, and that on all sides, it may seem superfluous to reason on the principle of the succession itself, for we have its legitimate results before us; but as many who are children of God hold by it, and seek to defend it, it may be of some service to the truth to state it on their own principles.

81 The ordinary arguments against all objections are usually these: that in theory the appointers are members of the church of God, that in this view only they can look at it, and that the actual evil is no ground to go upon. But, as will be seen, Christians will often find themselves in strange situations who disregard actual evil on the assumption that the system which produces it is theoretically correct; for in this manner there may be no limit to the measure of practical wickedness which will be tolerated, while conscience satisfies itself on the plea of an abstract excellence which may turn out to be a mere shadow, or worse. Such, however, is not the path of sound and Christian principle, which at once pronounces that the actual evil is the ground to go upon. God acts upon it, even though the system may be His own, as in the case of the Jews: "thee only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your iniquities": and the church is bound to act upon it, having the intelligence of God's Spirit to discern the evil. The distinctive character of the church - of the individual informed by the Holy Ghost, is this, "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity"; but the argument used admits the actual evil, yet, whilst avowing the name of Christ, does not depart from it. I ask high churchmen in particular, is it not iniquity that pastors, chief pastors, should be appointed, not by the church, by Christ, but by men, be they what they may? Is not this the fact? And if so, do they then depart from it? Is it the church that appoints them? If the predicament into which they are forced by this question is sought to be evaded upon the plea that the Congé d'Elire saves them (a drowning man will catch at a straw), the answer does but further prove the iniquity of this system, from which men should not, it is said, depart; for it assumes that the persons in ecclesiastical office have the power to elect, or the argument is null, and consequently shews only the uniform betrayal of the interests of Christ by them into other hands than those of the church they are thus driven to an extremity, where choice is to be had only between two conclusions; the last of which, that is, the surrender of the power if possessed, exhibits the constant iniquity of the church: whilst, on the other hand, if not possessed, the church is proved no longer to exist in the exercise of its habitual and necessary functions. Indeed, practically, it seems most honest and simple to say that the sovereign appoints to the bishopric. In Ireland even the poor excuse of the Congé d'Elire is taken away, for the bishops are appointed by letters patent openly by the crown. I have touched on this ground, because refuge is sought in it by some who feel conscientiously upon the subject. Let us return to the plain facts of the case. The Minister of the crown appoints the pastors to the flock of Christ, but churchmen defend themselves on the plea that it is still the church that does it. the simple answer is this - It is not so now, even in theory. No religion is necessary to the Prime Minister, nor does it practically constitute part of the theory of the state at all.* but even on the supposition that it did, and that all the persons appointing were churchmen and Christians, it is not as such that they have to act in the capacity of appointers. But supposing it still further to be so, what at best is the state of things? We have Christians and laymen (I speak upon the church theory) appointing to the highest ecclesiastical offices, the superior pastorships of the church, because they have secular office which the church, save in civil subjection, knows nothing about. Now I say, this is disorder and not order - the real bishops of the Established Church are the king and ministers of the day - for there cannot be a more important function of the church in its order, than the appointment of fit persons to feed the flock.

{*"No head of any college, nay, no three colleges possess half the ecclesiastical patronage of which I have the disposal. I have from 800 to 900 livings in my gift, and from 18 to 20 stalls in cathedrals; still I am not bound to subscribe the 39 articles - I have never done so; I am not called upon. No test, sacramental or subscriptory, was demanded before or after my admission into office." - Extract from Lord Brougham's speech in the House of Lords, in April, 1834.}

83 I can see nothing which seems to me Christian order in such appointments of bishops or chief pastors of God's flock; it presents nothing but immense disorder. I cannot recognise the hand of the church in the Bishop of Exeter, or the Archbishop of Armagh, though I do the church's responsibility. he may, through God's mercy, be a very good man, nay, he may have eminent qualities for the pastoral or episcopal office; but there is no order of God's church in it, but the order of the prime Minister of England, or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who are not God's constituted officers for the appointment of the bishops of His flock in any church order. In point of fact, the necessary consequences have resulted in confusion and discord in the church of God; for while there was nominal order to which holy minds might desire to be subject, there was, at the same time, the complete amalgamation of the church and the world, which the Spirit of God loudly testified against, and holy men must separate from, and the professed church become the great author of schism.

And here we must note what is a great fallacy in the notion which the church of England desires to give respecting her own constitution. It carries a falsehood on the face of it. we are referred to the articles, or canons, and prayer-book for her constitution and order; but she has not said a word there about her constitution and order, or what she has said is false. the constitution and order of the church of England and Ireland is, that the king and his ministers, or other analogous persons, appoint to all the pastoral offices in the country. where is this stated in these fair-spoken documents? Would churchmen who hold fast by these documents state and avow this, that laymen, it may be ungodly men, should appoint to all the pastoral offices in the country? Is this what they mean to plead as order - church order? Yet church order it is. they state, indeed, that they only ascribe to their princes to rule with the civil sword all the estates of the realm, but they ascribe a great deal more. This was a most godly ascription; but if they have only ascribed this, their princes have ascribed a great deal more to themselves (and they have acquiesced in it, though they have not put it in the book - though it constitutes the special difference of the system, and makes it the church, or, as some may say, not the church of England), and that is, that these individuals, who might be in excommunication, appoint nearly all the pastors in the country. I would ask if there is any order in all this? We have had an eminent instance of this system in principle and practice, when, with one fell swoop, a minister, and not the king at all, but a House of commons (and who are they in the church? struck off ten or twelve of the bishops of a country: that is, he not only is the appointer of the persons, but orders the whole internal arrangement of their superintendence, saying how much is a proper extent of episcopal care, and who shall exercise it. But the great point which strikes at the root of all the church order, and of which the documents state nothing and therefore are a false witness for the church, is, that the pastoral appointments have no connection at all with the church. The succession is from the crown, from the world and its power, not from God at all; so that the great distinctive difference of the church of England would not be found on the face of her own account of herself at all. But that distinctive difference destroys the principle of a church.

84 But while the church does not honestly state its character, the principle of disorder goes a great deal farther, and all real order is destroyed by the system. By virtue of this system, a number of persons are appointed as clergy or ministers of parishes. There is no reference whatever to the various offices flowing from specific gifts. The scripture indeed speaketh on this wise, "When he ascended up on high, he . . . gave gifts unto men . . . and he 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": the beautifully ordered and united means by which the body is perfected and built up. but this is trampled under foot for a fancied succession which is denominated clergy, a body of men not appointed to offices in the church, but to the exclusive government of a geographic district. That is, the offices of the church, the legitimate channels for the exercise of the combined gifts by which Christ ministers to its edification and the perfecting of the saints, are thrown to the winds; so that even when the clergyman happens to be a godly man, the saints, if there be such in the place, are deprived of the ministration of their offices, by which Christ has provided for their edification, by virtue of the system which calls itself order, but the principle of which is to throw the appointment of even nominal pastors out of all order into the hands of secular men. The same individual must be pastor, evangelist, teacher, and every other office necessary for the perfecting of the saints and edifying the body of Christ, or the ministry must be crippled and maimed, and the results accordant. And this is the principle of the system. Christ has ordained certain gifts for the edifying of the saints; men have ordered the placing of certain persons, who may not even be Christians, in a given place, with the sole ordering of the church in that place. The argument then is brought to this point - either the system must assume the possession of every gift by all the individuals it pleases to appoint, and exclude all others from them, or it is proved that their system is at variance in principle with the right order of Christ's church. But they can assume no such thing, for the Spirit distributes to every man severally as He will. This is His prerogative.

85 The system is proved, therefore, to be at variance with the order of Christ, and that in its vital object, "the perfecting of the saints." It is at variance with the actual order in which he declares that He ministers it; for He gave some evangelists; some pastors, and teachers. But no; we must make all of them everything, or the system violates Christ's order in its very objects; and this the apostle controverts (how much more may we in these days? "Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers?" But, no; Christ gives gifts as he pleases, and man gives authority as he pleases, and then calls this order. It is the devil's order, a turning of things upside down, and exhibits a state of things justly calling forth the expression of righteous indignation no less than of godly sorrow. Surely "it is yet a little while." So that on the whole, the principle of the system is not only at variance with the derivation of grace and knowledge (seeing that the selection is made by the crown and its ministers, not by the church of God), but also necessarily with all office in the church, by which the body should be ministered to, according to the gift which Christ had given to every man for the effectual purpose of that ministry. I speak now of the theory, passing by all charges on the state of facts in parochial ministrations, and I affirm that the theory precludes the exercise of the offices which Christ has instituted for the perfecting of the saints. a man is appointed a deacon for the purpose, perhaps, of being an evangelist, and would justly, perhaps, refuse to attend to tables. God may have called out, by the ministry of this individual, another, eminently qualified to be an elder in the church of God, for which, though gifted as an evangelist, the former may be eminently disqualified; nevertheless the same person (now translated to the order of a presbyter or priest), without the least change of gift, becomes elder there with no qualification, to the exclusion of one who is qualified, having, it may be, his usefulness as an evangelist quite destroyed by his being put in an office for which God never qualified him; but it must be so because he is the clergyman. Thus, again, we find in principle, that the offices of Christ's church, by which its order is kept, are altogether avoided by this system which is called order; yea, that the offices and the system are incompatible; for the notion of the individual who was called to it being presbyter, or of any being presbyter whom God has qualified for it, is precluded, for some one is called the clergyman of the place. Again, reverse the case: a godly man well qualified to be the pastor and edifier, it may be, of saints, a terror of the ungodly, and healer of them that are wounded, a warrior against Satan's entrance into the fold, is set in a place where, from neglect, there is scarcely any practical knowledge of Christ. God has not gifted the man as an evangelist - what is the consequence? He has no saints to edify, and his heart is discouraged at his utter uselessness; he might have been a signal blessing to the church of God somewhere, if such a system had never existed.

86 But let us look a little further. One whom God has gifted as an evangelist comes in and exercises his gift in the same locality (it must not be a clergyman - that would be disorderly, nor is evangelising properly a parochial ministration); but he is irregular. The godly pastor without any flock is a bar, on the system of the church of England, to any of God's ministry being carried on; and if he be consistent with the system, he opposes God's ministry in the place, and while, perhaps, a real saint himself, has none of the church of God around him to which he might be useful. Thus a schism is created; or it may be, the other, qualified to be an evangelist, is constituted by the people to be a pastor, to which God never called him at all; and he who would have been a blessing to them, is despised and neglected, because of the system of the church of England, which necessarily involves the subversion of all the offices of the church of Christ. Indeed it does not proceed on the recognition of them. The country has been secularly divided into districts, and the clergy appointed, without reference to the state of the people at all, in their respective districts; the effect of which is only to place any one besides, who exercises the office which is necessary there, in the position of a schismatic. It is quite clear too, that in a vast number of instances, the appointment, being a secular interest, is made by those who have no church principles at all, for temporal reasons and motives. And if we are then told "the church is not to blame," and the question is asked, "How can the bishops help it?" I answer, not at all, and therefore the church is fundamentally wrong in principle: it avows it cannot help evil, and how could it, since the heads of it are appointed on the same principle? But supposing the bishops godly pastors of Christ's flock, and to appoint to offices, according to Christ's institution, evangelists and teachers and pastors, or to recognise any other office in the Church, they would at once be in schism as to the whole present constitution of parochial arrangement. That is, the system, if recognised, is irretrievably at variance with the admission of offices in the church of God, by which the saints are perfected, and the body edified; and the effect of it is to give the character of schism to all those who exercise the office to which God has ordained them. And this is called order (it is the most heinous and wicked disorder) in God's church. Let me be ever such an evangelist, gifted like an apostle, I am disorderly in exercising it; nor would ordination in any way mend the matter, for my exercise of the gift would be disorderly, because of a nominal pastor in a given place: all is pre occupied, and evangelising has no place, and becomes irregular.

87 The conclusion therefore which is forced upon our minds is, that the system is evil, not only in the disastrous results of so many being called pastors who have no pastoral qualifications (a consequence flowing from the principle of appointment), and mischievous, not only as restraining the exercise of liberty in the people of God (a restraint indeed which is often very right if done according to godliness), but as being destructive of all offices in the church of Christ and subversive of the principle on which they rest. And, moreover, that under the parochial or rather the clerical system the offices of the church of Christ cannot be exercised, at least in order. Nor does the system of Dissenters appear in this respect at all different: they equally confound the order of the church, with the difference only of having no local limits, which so far prevents the notion of schism (a system of local limits having by the way no possible consistency or warrant from scriptural order of churches). I am not entering now on the question of diocesan episcopacy; but it is quite clear that in its origin it went by churches, not by geographical limits. That is, a bishop governed the churches in such a limit (that is, those who might be gathered out from heathenism), but that was all; and within such district all the offices above mentioned might be exercised with gladness of heart and profit to those who were gathered: but parochial clericalism cannot in any way combine with this. It is absolutely without consistency with any order in the church. An individual is appointed, at three or four and twenty, to a curacy or parish, and he alone may be the elder (an office for which it is clear he is seldom qualified), teacher, pastor, evangelist, if needed. He is the shut-door to the exercise of any office in the church, whether he himself have any gift or the contrary. If God's Spirit is to work at all, then it must be a schismatic; and this is the hateful evil and disorder of such a system - it makes a schismatic of the Spirit of God.

88 The office of an evangelist is not a parochial office. It may, in given instances, be exercised within the limits of a parish, but the office knows no such limits, nor does the exercise of such an office imply qualification for being a pastor; nay, in its ordinary exercise it necessarily disqualifies for being an elder. But the notion of a clergyman, which is wholly unsupported by Scripture, summarily settles the whole question, and removes all the offices at once. For it assumes all within the limit to be Christians, and decides that the person (having the sphere of his service prescribed by men, though his ostensible commission is from the laying on of the bishop's hands) who is thus considered as being over his flock, is to have the title to exclude the exercise of every office which he may not happen to possess; though it is evident that, even if a good man (most frequently not the case), he may be gifted for no office at all, and clearly cannot be assumed in every instance to possess them all. And now suppose the Spirit, thus grieved and dishonoured, should begin to work in sovereign mercy, will it be exclusively confined to the system which has dishonoured it, and haughtily domineered over all its order and grace? It cannot be so; it works where it may work, blowing where it lists. Some of those who, unconscious of the evil, are in the system, may be quickened into energy by its influence; and though in extreme irregularity and disorder (an evangelist exercising the office of a pastor here, and a pastor exercising the office of an evangelist there, and both unprofitably), yet in some measure they may work within their respective limits. The system however itself is unmended. Some of those who are without may be raised up into energy; they at once see that the system is essentially wrong; they wish not to be schismatics in any sort: labour they must, yea, exercise pastoral care if God has committed it to them; but these individuals with the very same class of gifts, are stamped at once Dissenters and schismatics. And what is the meaning of this, but that the system which gives the name of schism is such as to preclude the exercise of God's gifts as far as it can?

89 Let us suppose, for further exemplification of our argument, a large district without the gospel preached in it: an individual is raised up of God, a stranger to the place, who preaches there; a thousand souls are converted - what is to be done? Of the number thus awakened, five are specifically gifted of God for the office of pastor, or teacher, or elder. The question at once arises, are these thousand souls to be left shepherdless, because men have chosen to appoint persons called clergymen, who turn out not to be Christians at all - nay, who, it may be, belie the gospel of Christ? I will suppose, that to prevent heresies and confusion (a point surely of material import in these days) some or all of these five practically act as pastors. Ordained for it according to the church system they cannot be, for the clergy are there already; but the love of Christ constrains them to do the best they can for the sheep. They are at once set down as causers of division; that is, the whole church of God, as far as that place is concerned, is denounced as schismatic. In a word, the effect of the church of England system, instead of being godly order, throws into schism, in reputation, nearly the whole church of God. And this is anything rather than an imaginary case. Afterwards it may be, a saint becomes a clergyman in the district; he draws some back to church, or is the instrument of converting others: and two systems are formed, in which saints within one and the other are thrown into opposition; and of the whole of this part of the evil the church of England system is the original cause; however it may be perpetuated by the other system which its evil may have generated. The mischievous results are endless; but while these are abundantly sufficient to act upon, the truth is that the principle of the system is irreconcilably at variance with the order, the discipline, or the efficiency of the church of God; while it excludes the recognition of all offices in the church, and infallibly perpetuates schism. And such has been its effect.

90 The point to which I now specifically allude is, that it has been the author of, or has at least perpetuated, the destruction of all offices in the church of God, by which the saints are to be perfected, and the body edified; which are absolutely incompatible with the notion of that scripturally unrecognised and actually undefined office - a clergyman. By casualty, it may have happened that one gifted for office may have had a limited opportunity of its exercise; but in no case can it have been exercised according to the order of the church of God. It does not appear to me that the dissenting body has at all emerged from this snare - office with them being equally confused.

I will now give its effects even within the system, where there are godly ministers, under circumstances in which it is practically reduced to the limit of dissent as a system - the private choice of ministry, which is the common practice in large towns. I give it in the words of one who, being a godly high churchman, forms an unexceptionable witness to its practical effects.

"It is one of the sad consequences of our divisions and disunions, and the neglect of pastoral superintendence, that the oneness of interest, which ought to prevail among the members of one church, and especially of one flock, is very much weakened, if not lost sight of. Each man looks to his own things, his own edification, his own comfort, his own progress, so that a kind of selfishness has sprung up in our religion itself. The injury which this has done in the church is incalculable. It leads to endless divisions. Each man is tempted to seek a ministry adapted to his own state. If he be only a little way advanced in his perception of divine truth, he will go where he can hear taught the early lessons of the school of Christ. If he be further advanced, he will go where he can hear deeper things; and the temptation arising from this to the ministry is, that it should be ever accommodated to the state of the hearer, thus checking all growth in grace, and destroying all symmetry in the body of Christ. Hence it arises that we have some congregations who are only babes in Christ, and content to remain so; and others more exclusively strong men in Christ, who, forgetting their own former weakness, are apt to be filled with self-sufficiency and pride."*

{*"General Redemption and Limited Salvation," by W. Dodsworth, M.A. Mr. Dodsworth subsequently seceded to Rome. It may be remarked, that the word 'office' is used in this paper with reference to the habitual exercise of gifts, as evangelists, pastors, etc. It may be more convenient to call elders and deacons 'offices,' as distinct from gifts. Elders were locally appointed "in every city," whereas gifts were given of Christ and set in the church as members of the one body. But, as in preceding papers, I have left this as it was.}

91 The statements I have made are neither an exposition of abuses, though abundant room might have been afforded for it, nor indefinite, though I have reasoned on the principle, because the soundness of this is alleged when abuse is admitted. I say abundant room for exposing abuse, for the computation of the most sanguine evangelical ministers is, that two-thirds of the pastors so-called of the church, are not merely without specific gifts for given office, but do not preach the gospel at all - surely, a strange state of things, and one which flows from the system they are anxious to vindicate; whilst the perpetual use of this criterion of "preaching the gospel" shews the want of any apprehension of the difference of offices in the church, which the habits of their system have generated - a system, I repeat it, subversive of all specific office in the church of God.

The Character of Office in the Present Dispensation

J. N. Darby.

<01007E> 92

It is remarkable how the Lord, when He has led us a little way, by faith, in simplicity of dependence on Him, provides, by the intervention of His gracious loving-kindness and guidance, for the exigency of circumstances, which the failings of men produce around us; thereby teaching us to depend on Him for circumstances, as well as for ourselves; and keeping us (the great position of truth) in continual dependence, that we may, in our feebleness, learn the fulness of His resources and the faithfulness of His love. His watchful care thus keeps us leaning on it, as our only security from the power of selfishness and evil. Men, in all circumstances, shrink from the sense of dependence - dependence upon God: it requires faith. They are willing to trust upon man present, not upon God to their eyes absent; though a thing to be learned (this is the great lesson of the Christian dispensation), the character of all sanctity; it is true of righteousness in the Christian dispensation, and of course, therefore, ever in truth; and it is true in every circumstance of individual life, and of the necessities of the church. The book of Numbers, the history of the Israelites, is a lesson of this - a lesson of faith. We get out of Egypt, not knowing perhaps how, whither, or where we are going, only that we are leaving Egypt: but when Canaan is our constant hope, the wilderness is our constant way: whether our journey be long or short, of vigour of attainment, or of self-earned weariness of unbelief, it is still through the wilderness; and God is there with us teaching us faith, teaching us to depend upon God, where there is nothing else to depend upon. There may be green spots from Him who gives rivers in the wilderness: yea, from our own souls rivers may flow, fed from the Rock that never fails. At the commandment of the Lord we may journey; at the commandment of the Lord we may rest awhile. Manna may daily surround our camp, surely fed every morning's early dawn; but we are still in the wilderness, in entire dependence upon God, learning to enjoy, in the well taught lesson of whence the enjoyment really comes. The losing the sense of this was the very mark of guilt in the Israelites in the land. "A Syrian ready to perish" was their constant confession in their faith, when they brought the first fruits of that good land - a land of valleys, and watered with the dew of heaven, a land where the Lord's eyes continually were. This is our continual failing in the service of the church, failing in the sense of entire dependence. There is nothing so hard to the human heart as constant dependence. When faith fails, we constantly find out where we are: it is the wilderness or God. Nothing is so foolish as self-dependence; for, in very deed, it is God or the wilderness. Thus it is in the righteous position of the church's exigence - apt to loathe the light food, but conducted ever of God.

93 But there is another state of things far worse than this, when Babylon has carried the body of the people away, that is, the reluctance of the residue to stay in dependence of faith, and their determination to go down into Egypt for help, where judgment would surely overtake them. Such is the continual tendency of the human heart: such help is the church therefore continually seeking. But the church is not of this world, even as Christ is not of this world. And how is Christ not of this world? Surely in spirit and in character He is not of it, as it is an evil world, unholy, opposite to God. When His spotless excellency passed through, it was unscathed, though passing through every scene that wearies and bows down our frail and feeble hearts. But it was with other thoughts also that Jesus was not of this world, and so said He of His disciples. He was not of it, but of heaven - the Lord from heaven; and we are not of it, but from thence, associated with Him who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and who is now separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens, now in manifested association (that is, to faith, as the object of it there), in the accomplishment of what forms the dispensation in the heavens. The founding of the dispensation upon the accomplishment of the exaltation of its Head is of the greatest importance, because it is the ground of ascertained righteousness and its extent, and the seal of the character of the whole dispensation. It belongs, as being rejected in its Head from the world, to the heavenlies. But it is not merely as the result of the treatment of the Lord and His being glorified, that the dispensation had such a character, and held such a place: in the purpose of God it had no other place. It was the secret of God hidden from ages and generations, and formed an extraordinary break in the dispensations, to the rejection, for their unbelief, of the proper earthly people of God; a forming out of the earth, but not for it, a body for Christ - a heavenly people associated with Him in the glory in which He should be and should reign, when the full time was come, over the earth, in those times of restitution which should come from the presence of the Lord; a system forming no part of the earthly system, though carried on through the death of Christ in the forming of its members in it, but that, when all things are gathered together in one in Christ, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, these should be associates of His glory, in whom it and the riches of His grace should be shewn, given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, according to the gift of the Father; a purpose formed for Christ's especial and personal glory before the worlds, and kept secret till the time of His sending down the Spirit after the actual glory was accomplished, after He had entered, in risen manhood, into the glory which He had with the Father before the world was.

94 The church has sought to settle itself here; but it has no place on the earth. It may shew forth heavenly glory here according to that given to it; but it has no place here, but in glory with Christ in heavenly places at His appearing. We, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

This subject, as to the special distinctness of the dispensation, has been treated of elsewhere, and therefore I do not enter into it at large here. I believe it to be the most important point for the church to consider now. Looked at as an earthly dispensation, it merely fills up, in detailed exercise of grace, the gap in the regular earthly order of God's counsels, made by the rejection of the Jews on the covenant of legal prescribed righteousness, in the refusal of the Messiah, till their reception again under the new covenant in the way of grace on their repentance; but, though making a most instructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character . and meaning to them. As to the thing introduced, we are called to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not the place or time of His glory: our calling therefore is not at all here; but when Christ who is our life shall appear, we also shall appear with Him in glory. Ministration upon earth is merely to this purpose. The moment there is a minding of earthly things, there is enmity to the cross of Christ; for "our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things to himself." The Jewish system was a system of derived earthly authority; and while the church was simply among them, it never lost its earthly character entirely; it was open at any time to the return of the Lord, and was formed upon the order of derivative authority from Him when He had not yet ascended into glory, though it was accompanied by the Spirit, which enabled them to testify to His ascended glory. But they were Jews; and they maintained the character of the earthly system so far as it was associated with the risen Saviour, the hope of Israel: for that which was identified with the resurrection of Christ was the "sure mercies of David."

95 Thus we find the Lord telling them, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: and ye also shall bear witness of me, because ye have been with me from the beginning." Accordingly, we find the eleven choosing Jewishly by lot (before the descent of the Holy Ghost from heaven, the witness of the glory) one to be a witness with them of the resurrection, one who had companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them. So, in the sermon to those who came together on hearing of the tongues, we read, "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses": and then he uses the descent of the Holy Ghost as the witness of His exaltation. Again, in the sermon in Solomon's porch. "Whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses," and then goes on with a sermon purely Jewish. In Acts 5: 32, the double witness is directly referred to, and distinguished. So the Lord breathed the Spirit of God into His disciples, after the resurrection, saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost": "whose soever sins ye remit," etc. Subsequently they received the Holy Ghost, the witness of exalted glory.

Thus, the apostles became the heads of derivative power apparently (at any rate the existing depositaries of authority; for derivative commission was never conferred upon them), and stood before the world the founders of the church among the Jews, with commission to extend it to all nations. But the Lord, save in the testimony of apostasy by the apostle John in the Revelation, gives us no authentic account of any such transmission of it through the world. It formed no part of the record - nothing on which the church of God had to rest for its direction. It is remarkable, too, that the prayer of our Lord in John 17 was literally fulfilled in the Jewish church, in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in them who were one together in the unity of those who believed on Him through their word, their separation out of the world, even to the surrender of their goods, and the witness thus afforded to it, praising God and having favour with all the people, great grace being upon them all. Here the scene all but closes; such we see not elsewhere at all. This was the church of those connected with Christ in the flesh, who had seen Him in the resurrection, and derived their authority from Him in earthly association, though endued with power from on high; ignorant of the times when the kingdom should be restored to Israel, but knowing that the heavens had received Him who was able, and was to do it; and looking for the repentance of the people that He might return.

96 But that people did not repent. Another witness was raised up, when this witness of His resurrection was refused and the power of the Holy Ghost in it rejected, to declare Jesus at the right hand of God; and to shew demonstratively in His power, that they were doing as their fathers had ever done - resisting the Holy Ghost; but this was, in fact, a testimony against them for their previous rejection of the apostolic word and power recorded in the previous chapters, and it is closed by the testimony of seeing heaven now opened, launching the church into a new scene, a scene of death to itself, but into which it entered by the perception of heaven open, and Jesus seen there. With this, accordingly, Jewish testimony to it as a church closed. Jesus was not seen sitting as we see Him in spirit, but standing at once to receive His suffering church. Here the Jewish scene finally closed till they should say, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," accomplishing this word of the Lord, and the view of Him in heaven thus opened to the church. Individuals might be converted and doubtless were; but the order of Jewish ministry ceased.

Heretofore it had been confined to Jerusalem, and in regular witness by the apostles, eye-witnesses of His resurrection to the Jews, and filling up and arranging the necessary offices, as we read in the Acts. But death and the heavenlies were now the portion of the church of God; its earthly order and continuance gone: and (though Peter preached among the Jews, and the rest we know not from Scripture where) succession and order as to them we find not in Scripture at all. There is no authentic statement as to where any of them went, no scriptural statement at all, save that Peter continued his labours as apostle of the circumcision (the only place he holds in Scripture) and that the apostles continued at Jerusalem, as we find in the Acts and other parts of the apostolic writings. But another scene now opened. The heavenlies we have now seen as the positive known and only portion of the church; for earthlies were Jewish, and they had rejected the testimony of Christ risen and exalted by the Holy Ghost, from the apostles and Stephen. Stephen's ministry was suited to this: chosen among the Hellenists, he formed the link, having purchased to himself a good degree and great boldness to bear witness, not as an eye-witness, but by the Holy Ghost, of Christ. Accordingly this is entirely his charge, not "We cannot but speak of the things which we have seen and heard," as Peter says to the rulers, but the witness of the rejection of the Holy Ghost; of which being full, he saw Jesus in the heavenlies. Thus he formed the link between Jewish rejection and the position and state of the church which followed. And what succeeds? Not Jewish order, but sovereign grace approving itself by the energy of the Spirit.

97 They were all scattered abroad except the apostles, lest it should seem derived from them, "and they that were scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching the word." Who sent them? Persecution. Who enabled them? The grace and Spirit of God. And it reached the Gentiles. There was no Gentile church but by what in these days is called irregularity - what is really the sovereignty of the grace by which any Gentile is called in the extraordinary and seemingly irregular act of God. For salvation is of the Jews: a Jewish Jesus is not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but a glorified Jesus doth what seemeth good unto the glory of the grace of which He is now the indiscriminate (as to men), but sure distributer. But the character of the change which took place is at once shewn by this dispersion and universal preaching wherever they went. The ordinary Christians preceded the apostles, that it might be plainly not derived from them. The whole matter then, to justify anything, was "the hand of the Lord was with them, and many believed": a very irregular and out-of-the-way thing for human nature, but which God has ordered as the way of salvation. Thus we find, in the Jewish rejection of the apostles, the instantaneous cessation of derivative arrangement, and the whole dispensation, as carried on upon earth, assuming a new character. This was the actual breaking of the earthly order, as the former scene with Stephen was the closing of the Jewish possibility of the dispensation.

98 But a new scene now opens - the regular Gentile form and order of the dispensation in the hands of the apostle Paul, the apostle of the uncircumcision, the apostle of the Gentiles. Did he then derive it from the apostles? or was he indeed a successor to our Lord by earthly appointment and derivation? No; in no wise. It was his continual boast that it was not so - his continual conflict with Judaising teachers, what was often charged on him, as though he needed it, with which they pressed his spirit, but which he as sternly and steadily refused, withstanding them who had such authority to the face. He is the type of the dispensation. Every dispensation has its character, from the manner in which Christ is manifested and introduced in it; and its order from Him under whom it takes its rise as to ministration. God, not yet known to the church in covenant, but the same God revealed as Almighty, was the dispensation to Abraham called out to trust in Him, and gave its character to the path in which he had to walk in hope.

Christ (for now it was in covenant, revealed as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was that under which Moses the leader in the wilderness, and Joshua in the land, led in succession the children of Israel under the order of successional priesthood for ever.

Christ as Messiah, God manifested in the flesh, closing the age of the law, and bringing in everlasting righteousness, the head of Jewish order, was He whom they should have received; and He could give and did give His derived authority to the apostles whom He had chosen - Christ risen, still a Jewish hope, the securer of the sure mercies of David, was He whom they had rejected, in spite of the testimony of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Christ glorified and supreme, the hope to every Jew scattered abroad and every Gentile sinner, the witness of sovereign grace, whatever the failure in evil. Those in whom the revelation was deposited, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, were characteristic of the time in which the Spirit wrought by them. So of the twelve: Christ was the true Vine, not the nominal Israel, and they the branches, deriving their authority from Him as the patriarchs from Israel; the dispensation thus far taking its entire and orderly character from them. It was a Jewish, though a Christian thing. That is, it was Jewish in its present order: it began at Jerusalem; but this ceased as a line when the risen Christ was rejected. The grace of God flowed in through the sandy desert and wilderness of the world, to make green, where it flowed, what it found buried in evil in it, when no watering of the tree which He had planted could cause it to bring forth good fruit to His glory and its own profit and acceptance.

99 And as the Spirit went, like the wind, where it listed, every one that was born of it was, according to the measure of the grace, the witness of the grace that he had received: for God had not lit candles to put them under bushels. Paul became the head and characterising agent of the dispensation among the Gentiles, not derivative but efficient. Hence God made him so powerful and so tried against derivative mission. "I received it," says he, "not of man nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead." So of the gospel which he preached: he certifies them, he was jealous of this point; he neither received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ: and he gives this general character of himself, "Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time," as an abortion (ektroma); and this character attaches to the whole dispensation, an extraordinary arrangement and provision, something born out of due time - ektromatal - for the time present, till the earthly system is just ready to be restored, but belonging entirely to the heavenlies, having no earthly derivation or connection in its power with the succession of that order which was first outwardly established. It derived its stream higher up from the same source, though recognising it in its place. (See Galatians 2) If it had such connection, what was all Paul's reasoning about? or why did he take such pains to prove it did not so derive itself - or why the Spirit of God refute the notion of Paul's derivative character, when he preached the same doctrine, and held the same truths? It was the grand testimony to the break of successional authority, which was Jewish: the church, as a separate thing for glory, being now set on this unearthly footing on its own basis of apprehension of it by the Spirit.

100 Accordingly, the evidence which the apostle affords of his apostolate is never derivative, or that he had authority from others; but, "If I am not an apostle unto others, doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord": "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." "Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, . . . examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." So his argument, as to the dispensation, is "When he ascended up on high, . . . he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets," etc.

Now the twelve were apostles, and had the express name from our Lord's commission, before He ascended up on high at all. Yet they do not come into the apostle's contemplation in spirit at all - that is, in any such character, because they did not, in that state, constitute a part of the dispensation of gift, and authority by gift, of which he was the minister and expounder. This was associated with the ascended glory of Christ - "When he ascended up on high, he gave." Accordingly, when the apostle was called, he was called not as knowing Christ after the flesh (if he had, he would know Him no more); but as one, who as a Jew, in ignorance indeed, had consented to that very act against Stephen which shewed the rejection of the Jews; and was a killing apostle of the Sanhedrim who had been so guilty, to find any of those who called upon His name. He was identified, not with the believing, but with the unbelieving portion of the Jews, when the question was between them; and he was not a Christian at all while the church had this character. He was the witness of the calling of grace, and the perception of supreme glory. The manner of his call was declarative of both. He was in the career of opposition to Christ, and was arrested to be the witness of His glory, and of whatever should be revealed to him - not of His earthly career; to that he had been a spiritual stranger - not of His fellowship when risen with His brethren; from that he had been a careless outcast, or a bitter opposer to it - but of His ascended glory.

It was not, as with the twelve, the patient tracing with slow understanding the unfolding glory of the Man Jesus conversant among them, till they followed Him, through the apparent death of all their hopes, by the resurrection, "being seen of them forty days," into the known certainty of His exaltation to the clouds in which He should one day appear again so coming, and the witness of where He was because the Spirit had been sent down, from the Father; but the sudden and unlooked-for perception of the heavenly glory of the Lord, above the brightness of the sun, and finding that this was Jesus. That is, beginning at the glory, the heavenly glory, and aware that he saw and heard the Lord speaking from heaven, he asks and finds that this glorified One, this glorious Lord, was Jesus whom he was persecuting. Hence his mission was wholly of the glory in its source, not a witness of the suffering and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, but a witness of the glory and a partaker of the sufferings; and so ever preaching this mystery among the Gentiles "Christ in you the hope of glory."

101 This, then, was the calling of Paul, a sovereign calling by grace, revealing the Son in him - one born out of due time; and this when the church was entirely heavenly, entirely underived, and necessarily rejecting derivation, or he would have denied the character of his calling, and lost the authority of his mission; for the Jewish things would have remained. It was heavenly, underivative, of grace, and by revelation, and that of the glory, and drew all its character and all its evidence from this; and this is carefully insisted on by him, and urged by the Spirit of God. The ordination of the apostle stamped the seal on the same truth. First, it was secured by the divine counsels that he should preach and testify within and without synagogues and congregations concerning the Lord Jesus. Without anything further than the calling spoken of, he preached the faith which he had once destroyed, as he himself expresses it, "As it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe and therefore speak"; as the other apostles, "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard"

And so is the energy of the Holy Ghost ever; whether it be the sure resurrection of Jesus, the revealed glory of the Lord; or with Jeremiah, in derision daily because of his words to the people - it "is in his heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones; he was weary with forbearing and could not." If in liberty, there was the rejoicing as being counted worthy to suffer shame; if reluctant and tried by the iniquity in a state ready to be judged, the word of the Lord was more powerful than the fears: though on every side - "he believed and therefore spake." The glory of the Lord must be vindicated; and it becomes a positive responsibility. Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel or under a bed, and not to be set upon a candlestick? "For there is nothing hid which shall not be manifested; neither was anything kept secret but that it shall come abroad": and it is our business to manifest it in the truth and energy of the Spirit. Therefore "if any man have ears to hear, let him hear": and "Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you; and to you that hear shall more be given."

102 Hence we also find the apostle declaring, "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, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days; but other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Fourteen years after, he went up, but it was by revelation; and in conference he found that those who seemed to be somewhat added nothing to him: and this was the point with him. It was no haughtiness of spirit, and he was willing to try his word by theirs; but he found they could add nothing; and they owned the grace that was in him, though he derived no authority from them, the appointed apostles of the Lord, and recognised none in them save in the sphere which God had allotted to them; and they owned the grace of God which was in him. When need was, he withstood them to the face, because they were to be blamed who were insisting upon the old ordinances. To such things he would give subjection, no, not for an hour.

And what then was his career, because of the glory revealed to him, his ordination as men speak, if he did not go up to those who were apostles before him? The energy of the Spirit, consequent on the revelation of the Lord, still held its character in securing the breaking through the apostolic succession. There was no derivative link from the Lord; there was the revelation of the Lord and mission by Him, but no human ordination; and in this he worked long, and not only in preaching or teaching strangers, but Barnabas, having gone to Tarsus to find him, brings him to Antioch; and it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church and taught much people. Who settled this? Who appointed them here? Who, Paul? Who, Barnabas? The grace of the Spirit of God wrought effectually in them; and so the apostles, as we have seen, had to judge: they perceived the grace of God that was given to them, and they gave them the right hand of fellowship. But still in public mission had they no derivative authority from some human ordination? Or was not abstract apostolic mission the ground on which it rested? Long it had been so; for God was securing in every way, that human dependence, human derivation should be broken in upon; for its place was gone in the earth.

103 The dispensation was one born out of due time; it must prove itself by its energy from on high: so it had been proved both in preaching Christ and teaching the church. But now Barnabas and Paul were to be sent out on a definite mission, and, of course, they had derived authority now. Whence? Everything was still made to depend on the energy and calling of God. "As certain prophets and teachers were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." Did the apostle derive his authority, his apostolic authority, from his ordination? That would be a strange assertion; and he says he had it neither of nor by man. If this had been his first going forth to preach, it would have been almost impossible to have hindered the conclusion that it had its source in this, and the apostolate would merely have been from the church at Antioch.

Therefore the Lord, to maintain the character of the dispensation, makes the apostle not confer with flesh and blood, but immediately preach on his calling, and afterwards separates him merely to the particular work to which he was called, thus securing its underivative character, and that by the direct action of the Spirit. Its value was the energy of the Spirit of God, because of the glory to be revealed, and the heavenly character of the dispensation which had its place in the glory, not here at all, and so ordered of God; otherwise apostolic authority is derived from laymen (in modern theory, self-ordained men), and the apostle's assertion of his apostolate falsified. But it was not; it was the Holy Ghost's separation of him to Himself for the work to which the Lord had called him, not the conferring a gift, as if his apostolate depended on that mission; for this the apostle denies at large in the Epistle to the Galatians, and passes by this going forth from Antioch entirely in the account of his mission which he gives to them, and it was not the derivation of authority; for this he is equally earnest to deny.

104 In Paul, then, we have the founding of the service of this dispensation, resting on the fully recognised apostleship, but caused, in the way it is founded, to be entirely of a heavenly character, springing from the Lord known then in the glory, having its working and energy in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, and breaking in upon the derivative character of the apostolate in the Jews by every careful arrangement of God; and the laying on of hands made little of as regards the apostolate, and coming not from superior derivative authority, but entirely collaterally, that every link of the sort should be broken; and, we may add, failing as to its earthly position, the moment the energy of the Spirit failed, the moment the unstained godliness which kept out evil, and left the operations of the given Spirit free, failed. Because the witness of the glory among the Gentiles was not to take the place of the glory, any more than the witness of the resurrection among the Jews was to take the place of the resurrection-glory. And it was only a witness, and therefore shewn only to the apostles and teachers among the Jews, and Paul for the Gentiles, and having been witnessed to, fails as regards holding any place here, though effectual by the Spirit to them that believe, that, abounding in hope through it, they might have an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour, when He shall be manifested as the risen and glorified One, and sorrow and trial pass away. And though the filling up, as it were, was in the ascended glory, of which Paul was the special witness (and therefore he laboured more abundantly than they all, as the full testimony was to be given to the world in him, the continuous Gentile dispensation), yet though he sustained it by the energy of the Spirit during his life, he knew well that it would end then, that is, as thus corporately held together: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them."

105 It was not that God, in the word of His grace to which he commended them as able to build them up, would not both gather out, and sanctify souls; but he felt and well knew that Ichabod was written on the dispensation, as on every other, till He comes who could sustain it enduringly in the present power of a manifested life, Satan being bound from before Him. So it was among the Jews; the resurrection-denying Sadducees being raised against the testimony of that, as the self-righteous Pharisees against the ministry of the righteous One. So it was among the Gentiles, false teachers bringing into disrepute the energies of the Spirit of God, and thus devouring the flock, because of the feebleness of the shepherds. Oh how little does the church know the service of crying and tears, the humility of mind which accompanies the watching the fold of Christ against the inroads of the enemy - of Satan. But it is gone. Yet there is One that is ever faithful, who, be the shepherds ever so cowardly, does not let His scattered sheep be plucked out of His hand.

To return to the subject. Let us turn to what we have afterwards, of the maintenance for a little season of the order of the church of God before the re-assertion of the human derivative claim came to take the place of the Spirit of God. Let us take a glance at another part of scripture connected with this - laying on of hands. The priesthood of Christ is the great characteristic of this dispensation,* hereafter in glory manifested for joy and praise, now for the intercession and gifts of grace, still the same in person. It is ministering by the Spirit below, that the saints might be a witness to the world of what the power of it is in Christ, to the Father of what He was: they are in His place before the Father and before the world. And this is what is brought out in John 17, not the thing itself till the glory comes, and Christ appears, and we appear; but a witness of it by a supply of grace from Him who will appear, the fulness of both our place before the Father, and our place before the world, being in Christ.

{*Not of the church properly so-called - that is His body, one with Him, perfect in Him; but as a system set up on earth.}

Hence it is Paul (the Spirit as in his ministry) who addresses the Hebrews - not the ministry of circumcision, as speaking to them in their place, but one calling them out of that into the consciousness of the heavenly calling, speaking to them from the glory of the Son, sustaining them in the present failure of the dispensation in them, by the security of an enduring Melchisedec priesthood. "Wherefore," says he, "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider Christ Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our profession." Such an High Priest, as was not only harmless, undefiled, but separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, became such as these. "If he were on earth he should not be a priest." He is gone, not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. But this was not all; for, as we have seen, when teaching the understanding of the mystery among the Gentiles, we find this ascending up on high was leading captivity captive, and receiving gifts for men; and "He gave," etc. So we find many of the worthies said to act by faith, in Hebrews 11 (the great point then of trial to the Christian Hebrews) testified of, as led by the Spirit, in their history in the Old Testament.

106 But this is not the point I rest on here, but the comparative use he makes of the priesthood in his Melchisedec character with the very circumstances here spoken of. "Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ; let us," he says, "go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, and of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment; and this we will do, if God permit." He then, from the fourth to the sixth, speaks of the things which are the proper portion of the church emerged out of Judaism, which was the word of the beginning of Christ - and that failure from this new portion is irremediable after such patience of God; and in the rest speaks therefore not of the blessings of the given Spirit, save as to the danger of apostasy, but indeed, while Aaronical intercession meanwhile subsisted, of what their portion under the Melchisedec priesthood would be according to the word of the new covenant. Of this the Holy Ghost was present witness. It is not my purpose to open out this now; I refer to it to shew the contrast of what were the first principles, or the word of the beginning of Christ, and the going on to perfection - that is, the knowledge of the priesthood of Christ, the heavenly priesthood now witnessed to us by the presence of the Spirit. This is given in this epistle, on account of its object, merely in parenthesis, as the full Christian character of the dispensation and its danger of apostasy in chapter 6: 4-6.

107 But we find thereby the way in which the Jewish elements are treated, not as though they had not their place, but the place they had explained; and they are Jewish elements. These they are: the dead, we admit, will be raised; eternal judgment, or guilt, more properly, will be; repentance from dead works is acknowledged to be needful; baptisms and laying on of hands we have heard of as existing; but they constitute not the glory and power of the dispensation. The exercise of the church's mind about them proves its return to Judaizing principles. The notion of derivative authority is a positive lapse into the order of the dispensation broken in upon by God, in its losing its Jewish character, and becoming the spiritual witness of the heavenly glory and fulness of Christ. Who is Paul's successor? I have heard of the successors of Peter, the direct and remarkable witness to the character of the association with derivative authority. It is all identified in the Gentile church with Peter, who was not the apostle of the Gentiles at all. It is the Judaizing of Gentilism, and the whole structure and fabric of the professing church rests upon this. Paul, as the apostle of the uncircumcision, held the witness of the character of this dispensation. Where is his successor? Of what See was he head? Was it Rome, the source of the present derived authority? And of what character then is all this derived authority? Where is it in Scripture?

Let us see the facts a little further. It is not to be denied that Paul and the presbytery laid their hands on Timothy; and a gift was in Timothy by the laying on of Paul's hands. The same does not appear in Titus at all, neither was he circumcised, which Timothy was; and Timothy, it appears, also laid hands upon others, for he is desired to do it suddenly on no man. They were thus special temporary deputies of Paul for setting the churches in order in the things wanting, and appointing elders. That they were not permanent episcopal superintendents is clear, because when Paul passed by Ephesus, he addresses the elders or bishops there so as to demonstrate them not to be under the care of Timothy as from apostolic derived authority; and in the second epistle charges him to come to him, as he does also Titus, to come to him at Nicopolis, wanting them to be with him. They were his chosen assistants in ordering the churches, not his successors in them, unless he himself was bishop of both. We find John subsequently exercising the care under Christ, apostolically, of the Ephesian and other churches in those parts - quite inconsistent with the notion of Timothy's episcopacy, derived from Paul. The energy of the Spirit then, using whom it thought fit in an authority of office, we find, in the conception of the church - derivative authority and jurisdiction nowhere. There was the conferring of gift; there was the ordering by those enabled to order; there was the appointment of elders in every city by those enabled to do so; and the committal of doctrine to faithful men; there was every care of the church; but no apostolical derivative authority, except the false derivation of Peter, who was the apostle of the circumcision, not of the uncircumcision, and whom the Scriptures only so recognise.

108 I would only add a few words as to the term "ordain." There is no such word in the Scriptures in the modern sense of the term. Laying on of hands, to have been used in given instances, I do not at all deny. We have seen an apostle ordained by laymen, afterwards conferring a gift by the same ordinance, and Timothy charged not to do it suddenly: but as we find the whole energy of the church continually and long carried on without reference to it, so the word translated "ordain" has never, in Scripture, any connection with laying on of hands. Used or not used, it does not so state it, fore seeing, I am persuaded, the apostasy of the latter day. In Acts 1: 22, the expression is merely an insertion of the translators: see the original, where it merely is "must one of them be a witness of the resurrection." The other passages are in Acts 14: 23; Titus 1: 5. In the one "chose" or "selected elders"; in the latter, "appoint."

There is no evidence that Timothy was left for such purpose. The apostle states it to have been to guard doctrine, not for the purpose of appointing elders. It is a general instruction as to his conduct in the church, and it does not appear that laying on of hands was peculiar to any such office. It may have been used in it: they are never so connected in Scripture. When elders are spoken of, laying on of hands is not; when this is spoken of, they are not. It may have been used: there was no scriptural identification. Probably it had a much wider scope. It was clearly used among the Jewish Christians for sickness and miracles, and by the apostle for conferring gifts.

109 Further, I would remark, that while the present care of the church was exactly what would be consistent with the looking for the coming of the Lord, which possessed the mind of the apostle, the arrangement of prospective provision by derivative authority for future ages was wholly inconsistent with it. When he was passing by Ephesus, in the consciousness that his personal care was closed, he warns the elders himself on their own responsibility, although, long before, Timothy had been left to watch the place (though it would appear he did not stay there long). But the charge to Timothy was doctrine.

All present care was as to the way in which they would wait for the Lord, and committal of trust to those called and gifted, where needed. But the arrangement of derivative authority would have been positive unbelief. Accordingly we find it broken among the Jews, where it had this character, never attempted among the Gentiles where the glory was manifested; now taken nominally from Peter, when he was gone who withstood these things to the face. Our present duty is every possible care of the church as far as gathered, and of the saints, which God by His Spirit may enable us to take; using (with all diligence, humility, and energy, with crying and tears, in which we may expect to use it) whatever He gives us, to keep out Satan and feed the flock of God, where we may be, or He send us; but to lean in constant dependence on Him for the constant supply of the Spirit of His grace, as our only ground of strength; and when we fail, commend them to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build them up, and give them an inheritance among them that are sanctified. He who knows this in spirit, will well know its sorrow, and how near it draws one to God. But all this is God's provision, not for the wickedness of man, but for that failure, which in man's foolishness shall cause all to centre in the glory of the Lord.

But there is one further point, with which we must close. To the mere laying on of hands, if done spiritually, I know of no objection; but reference of the heart to derivative authority has quite another character. It is Judaizing. It is, if insisted on, the principle of apostasy, as denying the power and calling of the Holy Ghost, or His competency to send, bless, and sanctify. Wherever we return to Jewish practice as an imposed necessity, we return to the idolatry of the world. There was a special sanction of worldly elements to a given purpose; and worldly elements, and glory, and honour had their place, while it was so ordered. The principles of the human heart which sought them were dealt with on their own ground and terms, though in God's way; because, till the rejection of Christ, man and the world were not treated with as dead in trespasses and sins, as lying in wickedness, as at enmity with God; and riches, and honours, and worldly things accompanied the love of wisdom, and human principles were dealt with. But in the rejection of Christ, the truth was brought fully out to light: the system of the world was set aside as to all its elements, as evil; God's sanction to it in any form or sort ceased. Its friendship was enmity with God. It was convinced of sin, and righteousness, set up not there but in the heavens, hid with God, revealed to faith. Judaism had been the place of righteousness, but iniquity was found in it; and, being set aside, its principles became merely the simple worldly elements, without any sanction of God at all, and with merely their own worldly character; and the return to them became apostasy, return to the mere evil world.

110 This is the apostle's statement, the force of which is by no means in general sufficiently estimated. Writing to the Galatians, he says, "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service to 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? Ye observe," etc. That is, Gentiles become Christians, and looking to Jewish principles, were returning to their own old Gentile state: for what else was Judaizing now? It was simply joining the world, the ungodly world, which had not the Spirit of God in it, ending in the flesh. So the apostle argues in Colossians 2: 19-23, especially verse 20. Wherever, then, we turn to what is Jewish (a right thing while God's work was of this world), we have the principle of apostasy in us (these things have the rudiments of the world in them), and we shall more or less join the world, which has not the Spirit, which is at enmity with God.

And when, I would ask, has the church looked to this derivative character as essential and necessary that it has not joined the world? Receiving the principle of the world into its bosom, it soon fell into its practice; and this is the character, the form of apostasy. And the absence or subversion of justification by faith, and maintaining the doctrine of works for salvation, derived authority, and the church in the world, have astonishingly gone together. However this may be - I refer to it here merely as a fact - certainly the church so fell, at first gradually. Of this we may be sure, wherever we join any Jewish principle of ordinance now, as that which is our order, or obligatory on us, we join the world in its rejected state; for these are now demonstrated the profitless elements of the world, and nothing else; and the apostasy of the church is involved in principle. With whatever patience we may bear with those subject to them while they are under them, their imposition, as though needful, is the snare of Satan leading us back whence we are delivered; for our conversation is in heaven. History will prove it as to facts, to be the apostasy of the church, though the Spirit of God can alone prove or shew the principle. I do not reject conferred authority from God where it can be shewn in the grace of its exercise: derived authority from man I believe to be most evil, and to have apostasy in its character and principles.

111 The preceding observations may seem protracted; yet I think the importance of the principles warrants the deepest consideration of the subject. My own mind is very clear on it in principle, though I may have much to learn in detail. I have endeavoured, under the Lord's mercy, to confine myself to the principles, to hurt no one, the matter being not of controversy, but of deep and everlasting truth. It is a remark able thing that - while almost all the churches more or less hang on derivative authority - where it is settled as a system, we may note, first, human derivation is its first basis as a principle; secondly, it is connected entirely with Peter, and succession from him; and in conferring the authority, it uses the words used by the Lord in conferring it on His Jewish apostles, previous to His ascension.

On the Apostasy - What is Succession a Succession of?

J. N. Darby.

<01008E> 112

I propose saying a few words on the very solemn subject of the apostasy of the dispensation, suggesting the scriptural statements concerning it, rather than making any comment.

This subject has been touched upon connected with the calling of Paul, with the raising up of an extraordinary messenger of grace upon Israel's rejection of the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the exalted Jesus. I purpose to advert now to the positive scriptural evidence of the apostasy; and I will merely retrace, with some additional circumstances, the previous point, which declared its apostasy in its first or Jewish organisation. The scriptures I would now refer to are in evidence of the plain fact of direct ecclesiastical apostasy, the revealed existence of that which determined the fate of the dispensation.

The rejection of the Lord Jesus really crowned the sin of the Jewish people - of man; but on the cross the Lord interposed by intercession, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"; and to this expression of the gracious and blessed mind of the Lord the Holy Ghost replies, when by the mouth of Peter He says, "and now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers; repent ye therefore." That is, the Holy Ghost now bore testimony to the exaltation of Jesus to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Hence all the testimony of Peter is to God's exaltation of the rejected Messiah, the Son of man. This testimony, as has been long since observed, was finally rejected in the martyrdom of Stephen; and at this point the Jewish central successional order closed, and Paul, the chief volunteer and agent in carrying the active hatred of, and opposition to the testimony, into effect, is raised up to be a witness of the grace, which in long-suffering overruled it all and surpassed it all. Thus he was at once a messenger to the Gentiles of sovereign grace, and of the union of the church with Christ; and the type of the calling of a remnant of the Jews, by this sovereign grace, in the latter day: in respect of one, designating himself the chief of sinners; as regards the second, first called - or all long-suffering in him first shewn forth. He was taken into a solitary place of sovereign grace, to shew the glory of it to others - the place of the union withal of the church now with Christ.

113 To his testimony the Jews scattered everywhere opposed themselves. They not only refused the testimony themselves, but opposed its being carried to others. Of this Bar-jesus is the remarkable expression and therefore grace here ceases, and judicial blindness is put on him for a season. As the apostle expresses it in his meet judgment on them, "forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."* This manifestly closed the scene, and many were the sorrowful consequences.

{*The final testimony of this judgment is Acts 28. I allude to Bar-jesus merely as the revealed expression of the ultimate ratio or occasion of it.}

The actings of Satan, by the instrumentality of Jewish principles now passed away, in corrupting the church, must be familiar to any one acquainted with the perfect word of God. Human righteousness, ordinances, succession, and ceremonial observance of times, connecting spiritual religion with human imagination, form the marked characteristics of this corruption of the truth - perverting, even in the apostle's days, whole houses. Not the only characteristics, but the chief in principle. Of other formal ones I might mention tradition and the centralisation of religion upon earth, instead of the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, now associating all with heaven, Jesus bang only known there by the power of a mission not of man nor by man. But upon this I cannot enlarge here.

But while I have thus cursorily referred to the order and progress of the entire subversion of the first and earliest organisation, or proposed organisation, of the church, by the rejection of the testimony on which it was founded, I purpose going a great deal farther as to the extent of statement on this point. And while my references will be very simple, they seem to me to involve a principle of the last possible importance; and while directing the judgment through a deep sense of our present condition; to guide it into freedom, and security from the apostate snare, now widely spreading its evil force, of successional ordinances: for if the Scriptures plainly testify the apostasy of the dispensation, that which professes to provide for and secure its successional continuance must be a lie of the enemy. This is the point now before us. My evidences of it will be few and simple.

114 I would clear the point by a few brief explanations of what I mean; endeavouring, though it be connected with many most interesting subjects, to keep it as simple as possible. In the first place, I would remark, that the responsibility of man, or any set of men under any dispensation of God, is quite distinct from the salvation of any individuals of that dispensation. The confounding of these things renders the apprehension of the dealings of God with man impossible: either the security of the Lord's faithfulness, or the responsibility of man in and by any given economy, is lost. Adam was responsible in innocence. His individual salvation stood clearly on other ground. Noah was responsible for the ordering of his house and family (we may say, then, the world) in holy government. The failure of this, though producing most important results, has nothing to do with Noah's salvation. In a word, if God deals in a process of government here for the manifestation of His character, this and the salvation of individuals, while that process is going on, are quite distinct; though the conduct of the saved may be guided and formed by the dispensation here below.

Nay, so decided is this distinction, it is just where the dispensation entirely fails, that the faithfulness of the saved remnant is most conspicuously manifest. What judge was like Samuel, when Israel failed under that ordering of God's people and God gave them a king in His anger? Thus Israel as a whole, under the law, were put as a dispensation under the responsibility of its observance, and nationally failed, though a remnant all through were of God and saved.

Every dispensation has some special deposit, so to speak, entrusted to it, by which its fidelity is tried. And, as it seems to me, every one of them will be made good, and God glorified in them, in Jesus, on the proved failure of man in each. Thus, not to go to other examples, the law - Israel made the golden calf. The law will be written in their hearts hereafter. The dispensation of the Holy Ghost's power, or the manifestation of Christ glorified by the Holy Ghost the Comforter, as against the world which rejected Him, has its responsibility too. It is true, effectual salvation and the grounds of it have been more plainly brought out, so that we can more easily appropriate real and eternal privileges to those who are heirs of them; because the Holy Ghost does manifest them, and acting in power, gathers them for Christ for heavenly glory; and this was not true of what preceded it. The proper manifestation, if everything had been exactly as it ought to be, was of an elect nation, all of whom in any case were not necessarily saved; not of a church chosen in Jesus from any and every nation. That was formal and by descent, this by power. But though this be so, it does not take away from the dispensation itself (as a given sphere of the operations of God, in which all was to keep its first estate) a place of responsibility, and a deposit given to it. The greatest strength and very essence of an apostasy is to affirm of its apostate condition, in which it is; the special object of judgment, the security which belongs to the elect congregation of God. It was just the ruin of Israel: it is easier, if not more fatal, in Christianity.

115 Further, I would remark, that the dispensation is judged on its responsibility, while individuals may be saved by grace. I have further to add, that, however great the patience, the first departure is fatal and the ground of judgment, whatever the growth of wickedness into ripeness may be; and, lastly, that the dispensation of the profession of Christianity, or the name of Christ, stands in this condition; and that the scripture never recognises a recovering from such a state, whatever through mercy the "lengthening of tranquillity" may be; for the first failure is departure from God, and proves the existence of evil in the flesh, and the manifestation that man is in question, and that all is gone in principle. As a corroborative fact, it is solemnly interesting to see that the failure has in every instance been immediate on the responsibility's existing.

Christianity not being a system of formal enactment, and its requirements and powers only of spiritual perception, the evidence of its departure is less palpable and itself also the object of only spiritual perception. But Israel itself could say, "Wherein have we despised the Lord," and Wherein should we return? and "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these": and even disciples say, "Master, behold what goodly stones and buildings are here"; though Israel had broken the covenant and gone away backwards, and that from the beginning, and was filling up the measure of her iniquity, that all righteous blood should come upon her. I shall very briefly trace this just now.

116 This dealing of God being on responsibility and in justice, it is according to the professing mass (the body at large or their leaders) that the judgment takes place; the security of the saints being untouched by it. Moreover, the refuge of the saints is out of the system judged, because an untoward generation; and their place of blessing, the dispensation which supervenes on the judgment of that from which they have been delivered. I will add, that knowledge of impending judgments is always adequately afforded to the saints to flee from the wrath to come.

Let us remember that the Lord is "slow to anger"; and that in the midst of outrageous provocations, and himself the subject of much of them - the reproaches of the Lord falling upon him - poor Jeremiah could appeal to God how he had stood in the gap to turn away the indignation from them; till the Lord said to him, "Pray not for this people," and the indignation took its course. For intercession is always the place for him who has the mind of God to make a way for God's love, till the place for intercession is closed.

If some, attaching everything to the final salvation of the elect, say, if this be not affected by it all the rest is immaterial and curious, and they do not know anything about dispensations; I answer, that the salvation of the elect is not the great end of any Christian's thoughts, but the divine glory; and that God has been pleased to glorify Himself and display His character in these dispensations for the instruction of the church; and that if the church casts it aside, they are casting aside the instruction which God has afforded of His ways. They are making themselves wise without God, and wiser than He, for He has thought fit for His glory to instruct us in these things. I will take only one example (though there are other remarkable ones, as Noah), because we are morally set on the very same ground by Scripture, the history of Israel as the elect nation.

Israel was set at Sinai on the condition of their obedience to the law. This the apostle assures us did not touch the promise made to Abraham, etc., and that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance as to them nationally. But God glorified Himself, for all that, in all His dealings with them, and they happened to them for ensamples to us on whom the ends of the ages are come. Obedience to God according to the law was the ground they were set on. They made the golden calf. Their apostasy was complete. Long was the patience of God - various His dealings with them in perfect mercy; but the irremediable evil of human nature was there, and displayed itself the rather through it all until they both rejected the Son in humiliation and refused the testimony of the Holy Ghost to His exultation at the right hand of power. But then God, having thus dealt in vain by these external dealings of testimony on man, recurs to the original sin in which the apostasy was first shewn (just indeed as all the sins of the human heart, aggravated as they are, are but the evidence of its first and total departure from God). "Have ye served me, O ye house of Israel," says the Spirit in Stephen, quoting and applying a more ancient testimony, "by the space of forty years in the wilderness? yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, the star of your god Remphan, images which ye made to worship them, and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." They had consummated it towards Jesus, proving themselves irreconcilable, but the apostasy was complete in the wilderness, however "long suffering" God may have been.

117 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off," says the apostle to the Gentiles, as taking the place of the branches cut off. That is, the church, as a subject of dispensation here, is subject to the same responsibility as Israel of old: and would be cut off on its failure.

Now I shall proceed to shew from Scripture, that it is revealed that it would fail; and revealed that it has failed. It is perfectly clear that the doctrine of succession, and the maintenance of grace by succession, if this be so, is an awful departure from the truth of God, founded in falsehood and available only to prop up the character of what God judges as the worst form of evil, departure from what is good.

It is not for me to say what patience God may have, or how He may use the intercession of His people for the protracting the time of mercy; certainly He is perfect in wisdom in this.

It alters, it is manifest, the whole position of the soul to recognise that we live in an apostasy hastening to its final consummation, instead of a church or dispensation which God is sustaining by His faithfulness of grace.

118 First, then, it is evident that the condition of apostasy is supposed as to this dispensation in the passage cited from Romans 11, and made to depend on continuing in God's goodness. There is no promise of revival. It is purely on continuance in God's goodness; making failure, as I have said, ruinous without hope of recovery. God's goodness, in which they were placed, being departed from by man's evil, God never departs from His own goodness. It might suffice to say, that professing Christendom is anything but a continuance in the goodness in which the church was planted; nay, the true people of God have not continued in it, for had they, such a state of things never would have been; but when it comes, they suffer and are involved in it, though they began it not. God's people are scattered and worldly and divided. Compare their state with John 17 and Acts 2 and 4; and the saint that loves Jesus and the church will soon recognise the sad difference.

But the testimonies are far more precise than this. First, generally, "as it was in the days of Noe and the days of Lot, so should it be in the day when the Son of man should be revealed." Clearly then there was to be an awful apostasy before the close, and the state of the apostasy was the state of the dispensation at the close. Again, "that day shall not come except there be a falling away - the apostasy - first." I say not yet when, but before the day come, the apostasy comes. This leaves little room for a day of blessedness between. This, to the apostle's mind, was to precede the day of the Lord, an apostasy, not a period of blessedness. If men say, "It has come," I dispute not, but I say then cutting off is the consequence, not restoration,* as we have seen from Romans 11. And the promise of blessing and revival is unfounded, though the remnant may be revived and gathered from an evil day.

{*And what is succession a succession of?}

But there is more than this. "In the last days perilous times shall come, men shall be lovers of their ownselves," etc. If this passage be examined, it is a very solemn and express testimony of the Spirit of God, of the return of professed Christendom to a state such as heathenism was, as described by the Spirit in Romans 1. Here the Spirit speaks not of the heathen world, that in the last days it would be so; the Spirit had already proved it was so; but in the last days it would be so of those who had the form of godliness, but denied the power. From such they were to turn away.

119 Again, "ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." And this, note, not by the moral evil of the world, but by apostasy: "they went out from us," whereby it was proved they were not of us. This proves that in John's time the apostasy had set in, whereby the Christians knew, said he, that it was the last time; not by infidelity (that might condemn individually, and believers he what they ought); but by apostasy (that proved the last time should come) - not wicked people, but antichrists. For the Spirit spoke expressly, that in the latter times some were to depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Not only so. The mystery of iniquity already worked. There was a hindrance to the manifestation of the man of sin, but the principles and mystery of iniquity already worked: and it was only a hindrance which impeded the awful result, which when removed, the great agent and instrument of this crowning iniquity, everywhere manifested, was to be revealed, whom the Epiphany of the Lord's presence was to destroy.

The passages I have hitherto cited prove: -

First, the liability of the dispensation to apostasy, as Romans 11,  itself sufficient to teach the result to those acquainted with human nature. Others, as 1 John 2, shew that antichrists were already come; whereby Christians knew that it was then the last time, because evil was found to have its worst form and source from the bosom of Christianity itself.

The evil itself is characterised in the two epistles to Timothy: first, as departing from the faith, but this, it must be observed, chiefly in practical points; and secondly, in the general result of a character analogous to heathenism in its moral evils, but, though the power was denied, maintaining the form of godliness. Besides these, we have the testimony from the Thessalonians, that the day of the Lord would not come without the apostasy coming first; and that the mystery of iniquity was already then at work. To these we may add the testimony of the Spirit by Peter, that scorn of the expectation of the Lord's second coming would be characteristic of the scoffers of these perilous days.

All these passages concur to shew that the result of the dispensation would be "apostasy," "perilous times," "departure from the faith"; and that the mystery of iniquity, the principles of evil which produced this, were already at work The present effects then were different: partly a hidden spirit at work, hindered as yet, in its great public manifestation in Satanic power; partly an open apostasy, and going out from the saints - too pure then, too assiduously watched over by apostolic vigilance and spiritual power to allow, when assuming an open form of evil, its continuance among the saints; partly, as we shall see, not by going out, but by the creeping in of corrupt men. But, however manifested in present effects, these are but the signs of a principle at work which should be consummated in the man of sin - of a principle which involved the dispensation in apostasy and excision, whatever the gracious patience of God: a principle then operating, and thereby affording an opportunity to the apostles to forewarn the church; and by their authority enabling us to say, that the last times were then come, though there might be a prolonging of mercy.

120 This assertion, that the last times were then come, is of all possible importance. There was a moral departure from God in the bosom of Christianity. The effects of this might be stayed by the hand of the apostle, but forced the apostle to say the last times were come. Theologians may comment on such an expression, and say that the last times mean the times of Messiah. But then the presence of Messiah would prove that; but the proof of the last times here is that, after that, antichrists are come: they were characteristically and really the last times of the dispensation. Men had slept; the enemy had sowed tares; and it must be left as it was till judgment, as regards the place it held in the world.

It is admitted that the present effects and manifestations of the apostasy were then different in form and extent from what they will assume when judged. The apostolic energy, and spiritual life in the body of the church itself on which that energy acted, either cast out the evil or suppressed it; just as the zeal of an untainted Moses rescued Israel from the present effects of the golden calf, and destroyed the present exhibition of the apostasy. But it was not the less really come in, though the patience of God was not yet exhausted by the rejection of His Son. And the apostle was well aware, and the Holy Ghost gives us the expression of His assurance, that it was the presence of the apostolic energy which arrested its display. "I know that after my decease," is the sorrowful testimony of the parting apostle; as Peter also warned them that false teachers would arise among them. Even in the life time of the devoted apostle, he had to say, "All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's": a state leaving easy room for the evil and mischief to introduce itself. While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares.

121 There remains yet one passage which I have not hitherto quoted, which (as the passage of John has shewn us that the last times - whatever their prolongation - were already come) identifies the objects of the revelation as then existing with those who are objects of judgment at the close, on the Lord's return.

The book of Jude may be taken as the history or revelation of apostasy. The very commencement of the epistle marks the necessity which attracted the testimony of the Spirit of God. "Beloved," says the apostle, "when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you, that ye should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints; for there are certain men crept in unawares, who were of old ordained unto this condemnation."

This is most distinct. The evil anticipated by the counsels of God had crept in by the neglect of man already in the days of the apostles. While men slept, the enemy had come and sown tares. This infected the susceptibility of the church's conscience; "though ye once knew this," says the apostle, refers to the excision of the whole body save two, in warning to them; and likens the resulting condition of the church to the angels which kept not their first estate, and to Sodom and Gomorrah. He then intimates to them the different (and, I would add, in some respects progressive) characters of the apostasy (though the entrance of the succeeding ones does not neutralise the former): natural evil and enmity, religious corruption for gain, and open hostility to the priesthood and royalty of Christ, on the part of the religious teachers of the people - Cain, Balaam, and Core. Having thus traced the Forms and characters of the apostasy from beginning to end, the apostle gives us the all-important truth, that what had then already found its way into the church was the direct object of the judgment of Christ at His coming, as it had been prophesied from the beginning - the consummation of iniquity, in the apostasy of the last form of God's goodness, previous to the coming of the Son of man in glory. Enoch, we are taught by the Holy Ghost, prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with myriads of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them - Enoch prophesied of these. Those then, to whom the prophecy of the Lord's coming to judgment applied, were already manifest. As we have said, the patience of God might be long, and has been not slack concerning His promise, but long-suffering to us-ward; but the apostasy was complete in the eye of God; Christianity had not kept its first estate.

122 There is another feature remarkable in this, that it was the coming in of these, not the going out, which marked the judicial object of wrath and excision. They were spots in their feasts of charity, feasting with the Christians. They exalted themselves especially (Jude 19), distinguished themselves, as the Pharisees among the Jews, but did not leave the body; they were in danger and certain ruin by being in it.

The judgment of excision then was only in prophecy; but the condition to be judged was actually in existence, so that the apostle could say Enoch prophesied of these. Their number might be different, the church might have more completely forgotten how the great body of Israel were cut off in the wilderness; but the evil was there, and the judgment already pronounced. The apostles had even told before "that there should be mockers in the last time."

The scriptures we have already cited shew, first, the warning  of the possibility of failure and excision; secondly, the prophetic declaration that there would be an apostasy: and thirdly, that those positively designated from the earliest stages as the objects of judgment, as such apostasy, were, if not matured in their effects, already there; so that the ever watchful Spirit of God could descry, designate, and describe them; and evince that the mystery was already at work - the evil to be judged already there in existence.

That which remains of God's word is the warning or the immediate threatening of excision, and the account of a far different scene. Not the Father's intercourse with His children to instruct, warn, and comfort but the revelation of subsequent evil, and the arranging government of the world in the hands of the Lamb on the throne; when the church was gone from the scene below, and could no longer be the subject of His judgment or His care.

123 If the testimony of the texts we have cited be such, there cannot be a more solemn consideration for God's children - the failure from the outset, through man's folly and evil, of the economy of the church in the world. Further, the whole organisation of succession and its co-ordinate ordinances of church-maintenance take their true place. Instruments of blessing in power have become the lever of apostasy against the children of God. The doctrine of succession, and all its accompaniments, becomes the stamp and mark of recognised and sanctioned, because perpetuated, apostasy; for if the church has failed, as these texts declare, the provision of its perpetuation becomes the provision for the perpetuation of the failure, and the maintenance of the object of the Lord's sure judgment.

I press the testimony of the epistle of Jude to this point. My object here is not to shew the degree of maturity to which the apostasy may be generally or locally arrived, but the fact of its existence from the commencement in the judgment and by the revelation of God, applicable to the entire course and condition of the dispensation as a whole; and instructing us in the true character of pretension to succession and continuance.

May the Lord give eyes and ears to His children, that they may see what concerns His church as He sees it.

The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations

J. N. Darby.

<01009E> 124

Communion with God - communion with God in a new nature, being made, as the apostle teaches us, partakers of a divine nature, is both that in which eternal blessedness must have its spring, and the source of all true knowledge. Here God, through grace, can communicate with us in the intelligence of the same delights, and the communication of the same interests. The ultimate provision made for this is the incarnation; and the Lord instructs in grace (renewed in knowledge after the image of Him who created us) in all those elements of the knowledge of good and evil, by which the value and excellence and the divine provision of the Lord Jesus are apprehended and adequately esteemed, at least in principle and desire. We learn it humbly by the necessity of evil in us: but we learn it holily, because we know the extent of the evil only by the infiniteness of the good: so only indeed can it be known; so has God blessedly provided for the knowledge of it for good. Thus He knows it. Thus those that are made partakers of the divine nature know it in their measure. This, however, we have to learn in its details, in the various dispensations which led to or have followed the revelation of the incarnate Son in whom all the fulness was pleased to dwell - the obedient man, God manifested, the suffering Saviour, the exalted Righteous One; many, many principles brought out in the exhibition of weakness and apparent exhibitions of divine power, having no settled rule, but all finding their solution in the sufferings and revelation of God in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The detail of the history connected with these dispensations brings out many most interesting displays, both of the principles and patience of God's dealings with the evil and failure of man; and of the workings by which He formed faith on His own thus developed perfections. But the dispensations themselves all declare some leading principle or interference of God, some condition in which He has placed man, principles which in themselves are everlastingly sanctioned of God, but in the course of those dispensations placed responsibly in the hands of man for the display and discovery of what he was, and the bringing in their infallible establishment in Him to whom the glory of them all rightly belonged. It is not my intention to enter into any great detail, but to shew simply how, in every instance, there was total and immediate failure as regarded man, however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on by grace the dispensation in which man has thus failed in the outset; and further, that there is no instance of the restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there might be partial revivals of it through faith.

125 The paradisaical state cannot properly perhaps be called a dispensation in this sense of the word; but as regards the universal failure of man, it is a most important instance. It is too plain, too sadly known, to require much proof in detail, important as shewing that no condition of man set him free from the prevailing art of the great adversary. When he was innocent and untainted, surrounded by every mercy, and at the head of all blessing, he fell immediately. The man not deceived but led astray, the woman deceived and in the transgression, and, though this has doubtless a higher reference, yet, describes the fact and the double character of error. As it was to be shewn here in principle, that man in nature could not stand, the first thing we read is of his fall, the first act consequent upon the responsibility in which he was placed, after his being set at the head of creation, and his wife given to him; in a word, after responsibilities were established, and his glory and blessing full. Corruption, disorder, violence, were the consequences of this, until the Lord destroyed the first world created (during the time of His patience an elect seed having been preserved in testimony and patience).

Here dispensations, properly speaking, begin. On the first, Noah, I shall be very brief: restraint and godliness should have characterised it - the government which would have repressed corruption and violence. But the first thing here found is the saved patriarch drunk, and his son shamefully mocking him, for which the curse justly descends upon him. This issued in idolatry; Joshua 24.

The first account after his call we have of faithful Abraham, which as a minuter circumstance I also pass briefly over, is Genesis 12: 13, "Say, I pray thee: thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee"; and plagues because of him in whom the families of the earth were to be blessed. As regards man, under the calling of grace, we find shameful failure.

126 The history of the children of Israel is one scene of "a stiffnecked and rebellious people." But to take up the point of the dispensation - obedience under the law by which life was to be: this obedience they undertook; and Moses returned to receive the various orderings of divine appointment as under it, and the two tables of testimony. But this dispensation, which met the failure of the world, which had gods many and lords many, and in form was to bring righteousness in the flesh, came to nothing in man's hand, before the order of it was brought down from the mount, or they had received in detail the record of what they had undertaken. They made, while Moses was in the mount, a golden calf, and said, "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt." The spring and foundation-stone of all the commandments and ordinances was gone. They had turned their glory into the similitude of a calf which eateth hay. The ordinance or dispensation of priesthood failed in like manner. Before Aaron and his sons had gone out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, because the anointing oil of the Lord was upon them, Nadab and Abihu had already offered strange fire and been consumed before the Lord. The sons had not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, and the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place, as was commanded. The Lord spared them, but the service had failed in its very outset. And the Lord also spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the Lord and died; and the Lord said unto Moses, speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil. The consequence was, that the garments of glory and beauty were never worn by the high priest save at his consecration. For he was to wear them only on going into the holy place within the veil, and his going in being now only on the day of atonement, he was desired withal on that day to come in other though holy garments. Thus failed the law - thus failed the priesthood, as all else, however God might carry it on in patience and mercy for a time, "till there was no remedy."*

{*Prophecy was in fact evidence of the failure of the dispensation as well as of God's patience under it. Blessed to a remnant, it recalled to Moses and prophesied of Messiah. (See the last verses of Malachi.)}

The kingly dispensation failed in the same way as did the nation under the previous ordering which made way for the king (see Judges 2), the Lord having failed in nothing; Joshua 23: 14. David and Solomon having exhibited the royalty in victory and peace, Rehoboam and Jeroboam are but the witnesses of its utter failure, patience and mercy still going on, till the provocations of Manasseh set aside all hope of recovery or way of mercy in that dispensation. The same is true of universal rule transferred to the Gentiles: Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head, sets up the golden image, persecutes the faithful, and is turned into the image of a beast for his pride.

127 The rejection of our blessed Lord proved that no present mercy and grace, no present interference of God in goodness here, would meet the wilful and persevering enmity of the human heart, but only shewed it in its true light. But this, never being set up as a dispensation, but only the manifestation of His Person (to faith), I pass by. The last we have to notice, in a humbled sense of sin in us, is the present, where we are apt to take our ease in the world, as necessarily secure, but which, and the sin of which, the Lord sees and recognises, takes as much notice of, though not openly, as of others - the dispensation of the Spirit. Much has been said, with strong objection to it, as to the apostasy or failure of this dispensation.

The results are but too plain. If we believe that the exhibitions of the Spirit's power and presence, in the second and fourth chapters of Acts, were gladsome and well-pleasing to the Lord, if the blessed Spirit was right in these effects - and who blasphemingly and in the darkness of his own soul dare to say He was not? - then is the present picture of Christendom just as opposite as one thing well can be from another. They have not kept their first estate. The patience and mercy, and sure grace of God has still kept up a witness to Himself through the mediation of Christ, it is true. So it was in every dispensation;  but this did not alter or prevent the result of the apostasy. And the facts shew us that it was ever at the outset the failure or apostasy took place; and that it was patience and grace, which bore with and carried it on, but never undid the result of the first failure. So to our shame has it been in Christianity. The state of the seven churches, I think, would shew this sufficiently to have been the case, and the way in which John was left at the close, to awaken the threats of judgment against a declining church. Where was Paul to hold all in vigour and beauty for the coming of the Lord, presenting every man perfect in Christ Jesus? He had to confess at the close of his career, "I have none likeminded who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

128 Such was the result of apostolic labour; and the history of the book of Revelation, the testimonies of Peter and Jude, as well as the warnings of John and Paul, also shew that this would be the result of Christianity, according to the solemn sentence of the apostle, "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; on thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." But we may trace the immediateness of this failure more actually and definitely in circumstances to which the attention of the church seems little directed. When the Lord was parting from the disciples, He gives them the commandment, "Go ye and disciple all nations." Where is the fulfilment of this by the apostles whom He had chosen? This was their special commission from Him, as risen and having all power in heaven and earth. The principle and value of the dispensation could not be altered. But where is the fulfilment by the twelve apostles? Scripture affords it not. There is no account of the twelve in Scripture going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature: nothing which Scripture recognises as the accomplishment of this command. This in itself would be sufficient to show that the command on which the dispensation hung was, in the revealed testimony of God, unfulfilled by those to whom it was committed.

But I further find (contrary to the word, "when they persecute you in one city, flee ye to the next") that on the persecution which arose about the matter of Stephen, they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. But the testimony is not merely negative, for I find, in extraordinary grace, a new arrangement entirely made - an apostle of the Gentiles raised up, entirely distinct: "one born out of due time"; "not of man, nor by man"; who was neither apostle with them, nor from them, but asserts, as he proved, his own independent qualifications. And the Acts of the Apostles, as to ministry, are the acts of Peter, as one in whom God was mighty to the circumcision, and it was agreed that he should go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles; and so the acts of Paul, as one in whom the same God was mighty towards the uncircumcision. That is, we find an express special office of apostle to the Gentiles, and whatever work was done of the commission, "Go ye into all nations" (Gentiles) was done, as presented to us in Scripture, actually by somebody else specially and extraordinarily raised up for the purpose. Thus, whatever grace and power from Him that was glorified might effect, this dispensation as well as any other failed and broke off in the very outset; and in point of fact the gospel has never been preached in all the world, nor all nations discipled to this day, but the church which was gathered has departed from the faith of the gospel, and gone away backward, so as to be as bad or worse than the heathen.

129 But the point which is proved in this is not merely that it is in a bad state now, but that like all others it broke down in the commencement - no sooner fully established than it proved a failure. This does not touch upon the faithfulness of God, but exalts it, as in the case of the Jews, where their lie abounded to the glory of God. The remnant have been preserved all through, and according to the measure of grace and faith have prospered, or have been raised up from depression according to the counsels of God; but the dispensation was gone. We belong to a better glory. Nor, this being brought in as the object of desire, can the believer seek other or old things and earthly arrangements. And as he cannot desire, so neither does Scripture present the restoration of a dispensation; it never justifies its actual condition; and though grace and faith may, as I have said, effect revivals during the long-suffering of God, the dispensation, as such, is actually gone, that the glory of the principle contained in it may shine forth in the hands of. Messiah. The attempt to set this dispensation on another footing, as to its continuance, than those dispensations which have failed already, not only shews ignorance of the principles of God's dealings, for the calling of God was always by grace true (and if it were it never could make way for that which is to come under Messiah), but it is actually negatived by the assertion, that it stands on the same ground as to this with the Jewish - "if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off."

When He is come who can bind Satan himself, so that his power in the world shall be set aside, and not merely the testimony of the Lord's power maintained there, then shall there be continuance, until, for the accomplishment of the purposes of God, and the final separation of evil and good, he be let loose again for a little season. And the close of all dispensation, and the end of all question and title of authority shall come, and, all being finished, God shall be all in all without question and without failure. How the glory of God and our consequent blessing in these things is increased and enhanced might be very plainly shewn, as it is indeed just declared by the apostle; but if the fact be recognised and its truth established as before the Lord, it may suffice now.

130 Reference to the second chapter of Galatians will confirm and establish the point historically as to the present dispensation, where not only is the fact stated of Paul having the ministry of the Gentiles, as Peter of the circumcision; but it was actually agreed on their conference, consequent upon the grace given, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the uncircumcision; and James, and Cephas, and John should go to the circumcision. And so far was the apostle's mind under Judaising influence, that it required a positive fresh revelation to induce him to go into company with a Gentile at all, and even after this he would not eat when certain came from James. In fact the Gentile dispensation, as a distinct thing, took its rise on the death of Stephen, the witness that the Jews resisted the Holy Ghost: as their fathers did, so did they.

On Lay Preaching

J. N. Darby.

<01010E>131

The question of lay preaching is one of the greatest importance, and one in which, it is obvious, the interests of the church are deeply concerned; because, if God give His Spirit to laymen for the purpose, there is positive loss in the hindrance, and the Spirit of God is grieved. The point to be proved by those who are opposed to it is this, either that no laymen have the Spirit of God in testimony; or that, having it, the sanction of man is necessary for its exercise. I do not purpose here a general investigation of the principles of the subject, but merely to inquire whether laymen are entitled to preach, if the Lord give them opportunity; or, whether there be any human sanction needful for their doing so. I affirm that there is not; and that no such sanction can be proved to be necessary from Scripture; and that no such sanction was therein afforded.

The question is not, whether all laymen are individually qualified; but, whether as laymen they are disqualified, unless they are what is commonly called ordained. I say, commonly called, because the word, used in Scripture, does not in the original convey what it does to an English ear at present. I affirm that no such ordination was a qualification to preach in the days of scriptural statement. I do not despise order; I do not despise pastoral care - I love it where it really exists, as that which savours in its place of the sweetest of God's services. Though it may be exercised sometimes in a manner not to our present taste or thought, a good shepherd will seek the scattered sheep. But I confine myself to a simple question - the assertion that laymen ought not to preach without episcopal or other analogous appointment. My assertion is, that they are entitled; that they did so in Scripture; were justified in doing so, God blessing them therein; and that the principles of Scripture require it, assuming of course here that they are qualified of God; for the question here is not competency to act, but title to act if competent. Neither do I despise herein (God forbid that I should do so*) the holy setting apart, according to godliness, to any office such as are competent by those that have authority to do so.

{*I leave the passage as originally published. My thoughts on ordination will be found elsewhere; as well as on appointment to office, which is the subject in this sentence - though I think. the distinction of office and place of service by gift was not originally clear in my mind. Gift is in the member of the whole body, and so in the whole body. Office, properly speaking, was local - as elder, deacon.}

132 Let us see what Scripture says upon the subject. The question can only arise as to their speaking in the church, or out of the church. These admitted, all anomalous cases will readily be agreed in. And first, in the church. And here I remark that the directions in 1 Corinthians 14 are entirely inconsistent with the necessity of ordination to speak. There is a line drawn there, but it is not "if ordained or unordained." "Let your women keep silence in the churches" - a direction which never could have had place, were the speaking confined to a definitely ordained person, but takes quite another ground; and which implies directly, not that it is right for every man to speak, but that there was preclusion of none because of their character as laymen. Women were the precluded class: there the line was drawn. If men had not the gift of speaking, of course they would be silent, if they followed the directions there given. The apostle says, "Every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." Does he say none ought to speak but one ordained? No; "Let all things be done unto edifying." That is the grand secret, the grand rule - "in a tongue by two, or at the most by three, and by course, and interpret." Prophets two or three, etc. "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." "For God," etc. "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience."

We have then a distinction, not of ordained and unordained, but of those who from their character - women - are not permitted to speak, and the rest are; and directed in what order to do so, and the ground of distinction stated. And this is God's plan of decency and order. For the rest they were all to speak, that all might learn, and all be comforted; not all to speak at once, not all to speak every day, but all as God led them, according to the order there laid down, and as God was pleased to give them ability, for the edifying of the church. I apply all this simply and exclusively to the question of laymen speaking; and I assert that there was no such principle recognised as that they should not, but the contrary.

It will be said, I know, that these were the times of extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; but this is a false view of the case. Do they mean to argue that ordination did not begin as a distinctive title till after the departure of the Spirit of God? Moreover, the Spirit of God does not justify, by systematic rules, breaking through His own order: it would be most mischievous to say He did. But the case was not one of the prerogative of spiritual gifts, but of order; for women had spiritual gifts, as we read elsewhere, and directions are given for their exercise; but they were not to use them in the church, because it was out of order - not comely. But there was no hint that any of the men were not, but the contrary, because it was not out of order. Aptness to teach may be a very important qualification for a bishop; but it cannot be said from Scripture to be disorderly for a layman to speak in the church, if God have given him ability. Besides, though these extraordinary gifts may have ceased, I by no means admit that the ordinary gifts for the edification of the church, of believers, have ceased.

133 On the contrary, I believe they are the instrument, the only real instrument of edification; nor do I see why, on principle, they should not be exercised in the church, or why the church has not a title to the edification derived from them. If I were to speak of lay preaching, I should be referred to the orderly way in which Christ had given, in His church, some apostles, etc. Now, unless one man centres all these in one person by virtue of ordination, I do not see how it applies. I read, Some one; some, another - "the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying of itself in love." And I read, that there are given, one the eye, the other the foot, the other the ear, that there might be no schism in the body. And if we have lost many and ornamental members, it is no reason why we should cut off the rest; the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or the like. If the Spirit of God be clean gone out of the church how came that about? Was it when laymen spoke, or office was maintained?

It will then be said, they may do it out of, but not in, the church, Why not? Thus far, then, for speaking in the church. I advocate no system. I mourn over the departure of many of the comely parts, on which God set comeliness. I take these scriptures as scriptural evidence, that the notion of laymen speaking in the church being wrong, has not the Scriptures to rest on. I speak not here of elders, or appointed teachers - their value or not. I speak merely of the one point, the wrongness of a layman speaking in the church as such. If we are told of the danger arising from all teaching, I admit it at once. But we are warned against it, not by wrongness as regards office, or its effect merely on others; but as one of the things in which, as evil will come out, so the remedy is applied to the spirit from which it flows: "My brethren, be not many teachers, for so shall ye heap to yourselves greater condemnation." But the warning still again shews, that there was no such restriction of office as is now supposed, for it would have been, 'You have no business to teach at all, you are not ordained.' But, no; the correction was turned to moral profit, not to formal distinction of pre-eminent office.

134 But it comes to be more important out of the church; because it precludes the testimony of the gospel by a vast number of persons, who may have faithfully borne it to others Let us inquire the scriptural facts. In the first place, then, all the Christians preached - went everywhere preaching the word; Acts 8: 4. Some critics have endeavoured to elude this plain passage by saying, that this is speaking, which a layman may do. The short answer is - it is not. It is "evangelising the word." And we read elsewhere, that "the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord." Now, unless all the church were ordained - I think they are, to preach, as far as they have ability - here is the simplest case possible, the case in point. The first general preaching of the gospel which the Lord blessed beyond the walls of Jerusalem, was by laymen; or, however, it knew no such distinction. It had not entered into their minds then, that they who knew the glory of Christ were not to speak of it, where and how God enabled them. And the hand of the Lord was with them. Paul preached without any other mission than seeing the glory of the Lord and His word - in a synagogue, too, and boasts of it. And he gives his reasons for Christians preaching elsewhere - "as it is written: I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe and therefore speak." Apollos preached; and when Paul would have sent him from Ephesus to Corinth, he would not go. Yet, so far from being ordained before beginning to preach, he knew only the baptism of John. And Aquila and Priscilla took him to them, and expounded to him the way of God more perfectly. At Rome many of the brethren, waxing bold by Paul's bonds, preached the word without fear. And here I must add, as critics vex themselves about this too, the word is 'heralds.' The same habits of wandering preaching we find in the second and third epistles of John, guarded not by ordination, but by doctrine. Nor is there such a thing mentioned in Scripture as ordaining to preach the gospel. Paul preached before he went out on his work from Antioch. And if they will plead his being set apart there, they are quite welcome; for I reason not against such setting apart, but against the assertion that laymen are incompetent to preach. But the case, if it proves anything for them, proves that laymen can ordain as well as preach, that is all. The only other passage not commonly quoted, but which seems to me nearer the purpose is, "The same commit thou to faithful men, able to teach others also." But the thing committed here was the doctrine, and proves tradition, if anything, not ordination; for it does not appear that they were ordained for the purpose.

135 I have now produced ample evidence from Scripture, to a simple mind. I am not attacking ordination, nor anything that may, in the eyes of others, appear valuable, but simply the assertion, that laymen ought not to speak in or preach out of the church; and I say that this assertion is a novelty in Christianity, for that scripture recognises their doing so. I have abstained from diffusive discussions upon what has led to it, or the principles which are involved in it; I put the scriptural fact to anybody's conscience. And I call upon any one to produce any scripture positively, or on principle, forbidding laymen to preach, or requiring episcopal, or other analogous ordination for the purpose.

And here I will advert to what is commonly adduced upon the subject, the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. It is remarkable that those who do so should pass by a case immediately preceding, bearing upon this immediate subject: Eldad and Medad prophesying in the camp, though they had not come up to the door of the tabernacle, because the Spirit rested upon them. "Would God," said the meek man of God, "that all the Lord's people were prophets!" What was here typically proposed - the pouring out the Spirit on all - was, in principle, fulfilled in the Christian dispensation. Then, subsequently, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram acted not under the influence and energy of the Spirit in testifying to the people, but would have assumed authority - the kingship of Moses and the priesthood of Aaron. This was their fault These things were typical of our dispensation. So the apostle states. They make universal preaching desirable and the assumption of priesthood a sin. If this be not the force of these passages, let those who object to the explanation explain what is. To the same end is the argument of the apostle applied, the exclusion from the office of priesthood save by such call as Christ had; in which, in one sense, all believers are partakers; in another sense He is alone, unaccompanied into the holy place. In a word, the assumption of preaching by laymen is right. The assumption of priesthood by any, save as all believers are priests, is wrong. This is the dispensation of the outpouring of the Spirit here, qualifying for preaching any here who could do so - in a word, speaking of Jesus (for the distinction between speaking and preaching is quite unsustainable by Scripture, as any one may see, if he take the trouble) - and in which Christ alone exercises the priesthood within the veil in the presence of God for us. This I believe, then, to be the force of these passages. The type of the pouring out of the Spirit in the camp, with the gracious wish of Moses, is the characteristic, the essential distinction, of Christianity.

136 Accordingly we find its primary presentation to the world, the Spirit poured out on the one hundred and twenty who were assembled together, who thereupon began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance. And Peter, standing up, explains to the Jews, that they were not drunk, but that it was the thing spoken of by Joel, the undistinguished pouring-out of the Spirit upon men of all classes, servants and handmaidens, their sons and their daughters prophesying - the pouring-out of the Spirit upon all flesh. This was the characteristic of its agency, and this we have seen acted upon in the subsequent history: to deny this is to mistake the only power of the dispensation, and, I will add, to lose it. And what is the consequence? Irregular action goes on, and cannot be restrained, for kingly power cannot be assumed to such purpose, or they are taking the part of Dathan and Abiram; but the power of the Spirit, in which God would give competency to restrain evil, has been slighted; and office which has been relied on affords no remedy, unless the rights which the Roman Catholic system has assumed be attached to it, which is the assumption of power not given to the church at all. It is not for me to assert what is the evil of the present day. I am sure it is not the overflowing boldness of testimony against evil. And if evil teaching exists, the remedy is not in hindering or rejecting lay preaching (for hindered it surely will not be, nor can it be), but the cordial co-operation of those who hold the truth; by which the common energy (and common energy is infinite energy in this matter) should be exercised to sustain it against that which does not hold the truth, and the clergy and all may be persuaded it will be needed. Thus the distinction will be between truth and error, and not office and the Spirit, the most mischievous that human wit could have devised. In the meantime, those who hold office really from God will find those who have the Spirit, but not special office, gladly, aye, thankfully, most thankfully, recognise them in it, instead of being thrown into opposition, and colour given to those who have not the Spirit, in their apparent similarity of conduct; and apparent evidence afforded, that those who have office are opposed to the Spirit, in their prohibition of those who have it exercising it.

137 The times call for decision; and the only thing which will withstand evil and error, is truth, and truth wielded as a common cause against error and self-will by the saints under the Spirit; and then God can be wholly with them, instead of being obliged to withdraw His countenance from them when they are opposed to their brethren and rejecting them, when He must justify them - when it is the order of His glory, and all their blessing to do so. May He by His Spirit guide us into all truth!

On the Formation of Churches

J. N. Darby.

<01011F> 138

Published originally in French, in Switzerland, about 1840. In English it has been entitled, "Reflections on the Ruined Condition of the Church; and on the Efforts making by Churchmen and Dissenters to Restore it to its Primitive Order."

Aim of this Essay

Circumstances have latterly drawn the attention of many Christians to the question of the competency of believers, in our days, to form organised churches after the model, as they suppose, of the primitive churches, and have led to the inquiry whether the forming of such bodies is at this time agreeable to the will of God. Some respected and beloved brethren insist that the forming and organising of churches is, according to God's will, the only means of finding blessing in the midst of that confusion which is acknowledged to exist. Others consider that any such attempt is altogether man's effort, and as such, is wanting in the very primary condition of lasting blessing, namely, the condition of entire dependence upon God; although it may be blessed by God up to a certain point on account of the sincerity of purpose and piety of those who take part in it.

The writer of these pages, bound by the strongest ties of affection and of love in Christ to many who belong to bodies assuming the title of Church of God, has studiously avoided all collusion of judgment with his brethren on this subject, although he has often conversed with them concerning it. He has done no more than withdraw himself from the things he found among them, when those things appeared to him at variance with God's word, always endeavouring to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," and remembering that word, "If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth" (Jer. 15), a direction of unspeakable value in the present confusion. His affection is not lessened; his attachment is neither interrupted nor impaired.

Two considerations especially constrain the writer to declare what to him appears the instruction of the Scriptures on this head: duty to the Lord (and the welfare of His Church is the highest of all considerations); and love to brethren - a love which must be guided by faithfulness to the Lord. He writes these pages because the project of making churches is one of the hindrances in the way of the accomplishment of what all desire, namely, the union of the saints in one body: first, because those who have attempted it, having gone beyond the power given them by the Spirit, the flesh has been fostered in them; and, secondly, because those who were wearied with the evil of national systems, thinking themselves under a necessity of choosing between such evil and that which meets their view as dissenting congregations, often remain where they are in despair of anything better. In the actual condition of things it would be an extravagance to affirm that these churches can realise the desired union; but I will not press that lest I should pain some of my readers. I shall rather endeavour to put in the foreground the points on which we are agreed, points which will at the same time assist us to form a right judgment on certain systems standing around us - systems which, if themselves incapable of yielding the good result desired by many brethren, leave the partisans of each, as their only consolation and excuse, the thought that others can do no more than themselves towards realising the object in view.

139 THE LORD'S PURPOSE IN THE GATHERING OF THE SAINTS ON EARTH

It is the desire of our hearts, and as we believe God's will under this dispensation, that all the children of God should be gathered together as such, and, consequently, as not of the world. The Lord hath given Himself "not for that (the Jewish) nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God which are scattered abroad." This gathering together in one was then the immediate object on earth of Christ's death. The salvation of the elect was as certain before His advent, though accomplished by it, as afterwards. The Jewish dispensation which preceded His coming into the world had for its object, not to gather the church upon earth, but to exhibit the government of God by means of an elect nation. At this time the Lord's purpose is to gather as well as to save, to realise unity, not merely in the heavens, where the purposes of God shall surely be accomplished, but here upon earth, by one Spirit sent down from heaven. By one Spirit we are all baptised into one body. This is undeniably the truth concerning the church as it is set before us in the word. Men may go about proving that hypocrites and evil men had crept into the church, but there no resisting the inference that there was a church into which they had crept. The gathering together of all the children of God in one body is plainly according to the mind of God in the word.

140 NATIONAL SYSTEMS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

As to systems called national, the existence of them cannot be traced higher than the period of the Reformation. The very idea seems not to have found entrance anterior to that period. The only thing in the least analogous - the privileges of the Gallican Church, and the practice of voting by nations in certain general councils - are so widely different, that they cannot be considered to call for any discussion. Nationalism - in other words, the dividing of the church into bodies - consisting of such and such a nation, is a novelty, not above three centuries old, although many dear children of God are found dwelling in it. The Reformation did not directly touch the question of the true character of God's church. It did nothing directly tending to restore it to its primitive estate It did what was more important: it brought out the truth of God as to the great doctrine by which souls are saved, with much more clearness, and with far mightier effect than the modern revival. But it did not re-establish the church in its primitive powers. On the contrary, it placed it in general under subjection to the state, in order to free it from subjection to the Pope; because it regarded the papal authority as dangerous, and looked upon all the subjects of a country as Christians.

To escape from this anomaly, believers have sought to shelter themselves under the distinction between a visible and an invisible church. But I read in Scripture, "Ye are the light of the world." Of what use is an invisible light? "A city set on an hill cannot be hid." To say that the true church has been reduced to the condition of being invisible is at once to decide the question, and to affirm that the church has entirely lost its original and essential standing, and departed from the purpose of God, and from the constitution it received from Him; for God did not light a candle that He might put it under a bushel, but that He might put it upon a candlestick to give light to them that are in the house. If it has become invisible it has ceased to answer the purpose for which it was formed. Such, upon its own shewing, is the present condition of Christianity

141 POSITION OF DISSENT RELATIVELY TO THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

We are (may I not say it?) agreed that the gathering together in one all the children of God is according to God's will as expressed in His word. But I ask, before I go farther, Can any one believe that the dissenting congregations, such as we see them in this or any other country, have attained to this end, or are at all likely to attain to it?

This truth of the gathering together of God's children is in Scripture seen realised in various localities, and in each central locality the Christians resident therein composed but one body: Scripture is perfectly clear on that head. It has indeed been objected that such union is impossible, but no evidence is produced from God's word in support of the assertion. It is said, How could it possibly be in London or in Paris? Now the thing was practicable at Jerusalem, where there were more than five thousand believers: and even though meeting in private houses and upper rooms, Christians were nevertheless but one body, under the guidance of one Spirit, with one rule of government, and in one communion, and were so acknowledged. Thus, at Corinth, or elsewhere, a letter addressed to the church of God would have found its way to a known body. I go farther, and say, that it is plainly our duty to desire pastors and teachers to take the care of such congregations, and that God did raise up such in the church as we see it in the word.

Having fully recognised these weighty truths; namely (1) the union of all the children of God; (2) the union of all the children of God in each locality; having, moreover, acknowledged that they are so seen in the word of God - the question might seem to be settled. But here we pause.

It is indeed undeniable that this state of things, appearing in God's word (for it is a fact, not a theory), has ceased to exist, and the question to be solved is no other than this: How ought the Christian to judge and act when a condition of things set before us in the word no longer exists? You will say, he is to restore it. Your answer is itself one proof of the evil. It supposes that there is power in ourselves. I would say, Listen to the word and obey it, as it applies to such a state of declension. Your answer takes for granted two things: firstly, that it is according to the will of God to re-establish the economy or dispensation on its original footing after it has failed; and secondly, that you are both able and authorised to restore it. Is this scriptural ground to take?

142 Suppose a case: God made man upright - God gave His law to man. Every Christian will allow that sin is an evil, and that it is our duty not to commit sin. Suppose that one convinced of this truth should set about fulfilling the law and being upright, and in that way pleasing God. You will at once exclaim, he is self-righteous and trusting in his own strength, and does not understand God's word. A return from existing evil unto that which God at the first set up, is therefore not always a proof that we have understood His word and will. Nevertheless, we shall rightly and truly judge that what He did at the first set up was good, and that we have departed from it.

Apply this to the church. We all acknowledge (for to such only am I writing) that God established churches; we confess that Christians (in a word, the church generally) have sadly departed from this original settlement by God, and are guilty therein. To undertake to re-establish it all on its first footing is (at any rate, it may be) an effect of the working of that very spirit which leads one to seek to set up again his own righteousness when it has been lost.

Before I can accede to your pretensions, I must see, not only that the church was such in the beginning, but, moreover, that it is according to God's will that it be restored to its primitive glory, now that man's sin has tarnished and departed from that glory; and, furthermore, that a voluntary union of "two or three" or two or three and twenty, or several such bodies, are each of them entitled, in any locality, to take the name of the church of God, when that church originally was an assemblage of all believers in any given locality. You must, moreover, make it clear to me, if you assume such a place, that you have so succeeded by the gift and power of God in gathering together believers, that you can rightfully treat those who refuse to answer to your call as schismatics, self-condemned, and strangers to God's church.

And let me here dwell on a most important consideration, which they who are bent on making churches have overlooked. They have had their thoughts so fully engaged in their churches that they have almost lost sight of the church. According to Scripture the whole sum of the churches here on earth* compose the church, at least the church on earth; and the church in any given place was no other than the regular association together of whatever formed part of the entire body of the church, that is to say, of the complete body of Christ here on earth; and he who was not a member of the church in the place in which he dwelt, was no member of Christ's church at all; and he who says that I am not a member of God's church at Rolle** has no right to acknowledge me as being any member of God's church at all. There was no idea of any such distinction between the little churches of God in any given place, and  the church as a whole. Each one was of some church, if one existed where he was, and thus in the church, but no one imagined himself to be in the church if he was separated from the church in the place he lived in. The practice of making churches has alone led to the separation of the two things, and almost obliterated the idea of God's church, by making partial voluntary churches in different places.***

{*Or, rather, the Christians of whom they consist.}

{**The principal champion of the dissenting churches, an excellent man, was there.}

{***Lardonism and some bodies of analogous character alone maintain a consistent course in this respect, and are consequently completely in error. By a happy inconsequence in those who are now forming little churches of God in different places, they nevertheless consider believers who do not form part of them as being in the fullest sense of God's church.}

143 I return to the case of the person already supposed. Let us now suppose that his conscience has been touched and received life through the Spirit of God, what will be the effect? In the first place it will be to make him acknowledge his ruined state in consequence of sin, and the absence of all resource in any innocence or righteousness of his own. The next result will be a feeling of entire dependence on God, and submission of heart to the judgment of God on such a state. Apply this to the church and the whole dispensation. Whilst men slept, the enemy has sown tares. The church is in a state of ruin, immersed and buried in the world - invisible, if you will have it so; whilst it ought to hold forth, as a candlestick, the light of God. If the professing body is not in this state of ruin, then I ask our dissenting brethren. Why have you left it? If it be, then confess this ruin - this apostasy - this departure from its primitive standing. Alas! the fact is too evident. Abraham may receive men-servants and maid-servants, oxen, camels, and asses; but his spouse is in the house of Pharaoh.

144 How, then, will the Spirit work? What will be the acting of such an one's faith? To acknowledge the ruin; to have it present to his conscience, and to be humbled in consequence. And shall we, who are guilty of this state of things, pretend we have only to set about and remedy it? No; the attempt would but prove that we are not humbled thereby. Let us rather search in all humility what God says to us in His word of such a condition of things; and let us not, like foolish children who have broken a precious vase, attempt to join together its broken fragments, and to set it up in hopes to hide the damage from the notice of others.

IN THE FALLEN CONDITION OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION, CAN MAN RESTORE IT?

I press this argument on those who are endeavouring to organise churches. If real churches exist, such persons are not called on to make them. If, as they say, they did exist at the beginning but have ceased to exist, in that case the dispensation is in ruins, and in a condition of entire departure from its original standing. They are undertaking in consequence thereof to set it up again. This attempt is what they have to justify; otherwise the attempt is without anything to warrant it. It will be objected that the church cannot fail, and that God has given to it a promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I acknowledge it, if we understand by that promise that the salvation of the elect is secure, that the glory of the church in the resurrection will triumph over Satan, and that God will secure the maintenance of the confession of Jesus in the earth till the church be taken away. That, however, is not the question. The salvation of the elect was equally secured before there was a gathered church. On the other hand, if it is intended to affirm that the present dispensation cannot fail, it is a great and pernicious error so to say: indeed, if such be the truth, why have you separated yourselves from the state in which it was? If the economy or dispensation of God in the gathering of the church on earth still subsists according to its original standing, how is it that you are making new churches? It is a point upon which Popery alone is consistent with itself.

But what says the word? That apostasy is to set in before the judgment; that in the last days perilous times shall come; that there shall be a form of godliness without the power. It adds, "from such turn away." And the thought that the dispensation of the church cannot fall away is treated of in Romans 11 as a fatal presumption, which leads the Gentile Church to its ruin. The Holy Ghost passes condemnation on those who have that thought, as being wise in their own eyes, and teaches us, on the contrary, that God would act towards the present dispensation as He did towards the previous one; that if it continued in the goodness of God, this goodness would be continued to it, otherwise the dispensation would be cut off. Thus the word reveals the cutting off, and not the restoration of the dispensation, in case it should not continue faithful. And to go about re-making the church and the churches on the footing on which they stood at first, is to acknowledge the fact of existing failure without submitting ourselves to the witness of God, as to His purposes in reference to such a state of ruin. It is to act according to our own thoughts, and to rely on our own strength, for the accomplishment of our project - and what has been the result?

145 The question before us is not whether such churches existed at a period when the word of God was written; but whether, after they have, by reason of man's sin, ceased to exist, and believers have been scattered (and these are facts, the truth of which is admitted), those who have undertaken the apostolic office of re-establishing them on their original footing, and in so doing, to set up again the entire dispensation, have really apprehended the divine will, and are indued with power to accomplish the task they have taken upon themselves - questions which are widely distinct. I cannot think that any, even the most zealous of those persons, who, with a desire of which I willingly acknowledge the sincerity, have sought to again set up the fallen dispensation (and David was sincere in his desire to build the temple, although it was not God's will that he should do so), are in a condition to be able to do it, or that they have the right to impose upon my faith, as God's church, the little edifices that they have set up. And yet I am very far from thinking that there have not been churches in time past, when God sent His apostles to settle them; and in my opinion, he who is unable to discern the difference between the state in which the church was in those days and its present condition, has no very clear judgment in the things of God.

146 IF THE DISPENSATION CANNOT BE RESTORED, WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE

It will be said that the word and the Spirit still remain in the church: most true. Blessed be God for it: this it is which is the whole ground of my confidence. What the church wants, is to learn to lean upon this. It is on that account that I am enquiring what the word and the Spirit say of the state of the fallen church, instead of arrogating to myself a competency to realise that which the Spirit has spoken of the first condition of the church. What I complain of is, that the thoughts of men have been followed, and that which the Spirit has recorded as having existed in the primitive church has been imitated, instead of searching for what the word and the Spirit have declared concerning our present condition. The same word, the same Spirit, which, speaking by Isaiah, told the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be still, and that God would preserve them from the Assyrian, said, by the mouth of Jeremiah, that he who should go forth to the Chaldeans should be saved alive. Faith and obedience in the one case was nothing less than presumption and disobedience in the other. Some will say this tends to confuse simple minds. Obedience to the word in humility of mind never confuses. I add, that those who are bent on restoring the whole church ought to be well instructed in the word, and to abstain from doing anything under the pretext of simplicity. The lowliness that feels aright the real condition of the church, preserves us from pretensions, that impel to an activity which is unauthorised by the word. The truth is, that the Scriptures, even those already quoted, prove that the condition of the dispensation at its close will be just the reverse of what it was at its opening. And the text quoted from the Romans (chap. 11: 22) is decisive on this point, that God would cut off the dispensation instead of restoring it, if it continued not in the goodness of God.

The passage - "My Spirit remaineth among you - fear ye not," contains a most sure and precious principle. The presence of the Holy Spirit is the keystone of all our hopes. But this cheering prophecy of Haggai did not lead Nehemiah, who was faithful to God, when Israel returned from the captivity, to set about fulfilling the task assigned to Moses, who was faithful in all his house at the commencement of that dispensation. No, he confesses, in the plainest and most affecting language, the fallen condition of Israel, and that they were "in great distress." We see him doing all that the word authorised him to do, in the circumstances in which he stood; but never did he set about making an ark of the covenant as Moses had done, and because Moses had made one - nor imitate the Shekinah, which God only could make, nor the Urim and Thummim, nor put in order the genealogies while the Urim and Thummim were wanting. But we are told in the word that he had blessing such as had not been "since the days of Joshua"; because he was faithful to God in the circumstances in which he stood, without assuming to make anew that which Moses had made, and Israel's sin had destroyed. If he had done that, it would have been an act of human presumption and not of obedience. Obedience, and not the imitation of the apostles, is our duty in such circumstances. It is far more humbling; but, at least, it is more lowly and safe; and that is all I ask or desire, that the church should be more humble. To rest satisfied with existing evils, as if we could do nothing, is not obedience; but neither is it obedience to imitate the actions of the apostles. The sense of the presence of the Holy Spirit delivers us at the same time from the evil thought of being obliged to continue in that which is evil, and from the pretension to do more than the Holy Spirit is at the same time doing - or from regarding either the one or the other of these states as a state of true order.

147 I shall be asked - Would you then have our arms hang down, and ourselves to do nothing until we have apostles? By no means. I only doubt whether it be God's will that you should do what the apostles did; and I say that God has left for faithful Christians directions sufficient for the state of things in which the church now is. To follow those directions is more truly to obey, than if we should set about imitating the apostles; and the Spirit of God is ever with us to strengthen us in this way of true obedience.

DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT FOR THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THINGS

The Spirit of God, foreseeing all that would happen in the church, has, in the word, given warnings, and at the same time, the needful assistance. If He tells us, that in the last days perilous times shall come, and if He pictures to us the men of that time, He adds, "from such turn away." If He says, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6: 14), and this warning is one of all ages; if He says that we are all "one body," and therefore partake of one bread; and, notwithstanding, I find no such union of the saints, He tells me at the same time, that there, where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus, He is in their midst. But His directions are even more precise than this. I have for comfort in all times, that the Lord knows them that are His, but for my own direction, that he that names the name of Christ should depart from iniquity: where I find this established, I must leave it. But there is more; I learn that in a great house, such as the professing church is become, there are vessels to dishonour, and that if a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel made to honour, fit for the master's use. And the man of God is exhorted to follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

148 Those who have been endeavouring to form churches seem, though meaning well, to have entirely forgotten our need of power as well as of direction. When we are told that all the directions for the churches are for all times and places, I venture to ask if they are for times and places in which churches do not exist? and we are brought back to the inquiry - If the dispensation is in ruins, who is to make the churches? Again, I would ask, is the direction given by the apostle, as to the use of the gift of the tongues for our own times? Doubtless, if that gift exists; but that condition is assuredly a most material modification of your rule, and the very turning point of the discussion between us.

DOES THE WORD OF GOD AUTHORISE THE NAMING PRESIDENTS AND PASTORS?

Those who cling so fondly to the practice of making and settling of churches, quote the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus, with most undoubting confidence, as serving for guidance to the churches in all ages; whilst they were really never addressed to any church whatever. It may be observed that the quotations from God's word on matters most bearing on those who are engaged in settling churches, such as the choosing of elders, deacons, etc., must be derived from these epistles alone - and most remarkable it is, that those companions of the apostle who possessed his confidence, were left in the churches, or else sent to them when already existing, in order to select such elders, when the apostle had not done it - a clear proof that the apostle could not confer upon the churches the power of choosing their elders, even when churches he himself had formed were still in existence; and notwithstanding, we hear all this adduced as instructions for the churches in after times. Official nomination is an assumption of apostolic authority, and contrary to the order and principles on which it took place then. Nor has this left the saints without resource when God graciously works. Pastors, and doctors, and evangelists are gifts which have their places in the unity of the body, and have their just exercise wherever God has graciously given them; and in 1 Corinthians 16: 15, 16, I find the Holy Ghost directing submission to all who in devotedness of heart have given themselves to true labour in the Lord. So 1 Thessalonians 5: 12, and Hebrews 13: 17, teach the same godly submission to those who labour, and thus take the lead in the work of the Lord.

149 THE CHILDREN OF GOD HAVE NOTHING TO DO BUT TO MEET TOGETHER IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

With what design then am I writing? Is it that Christians should do nothing? No! I have written from a desire that there should be less presumption and more diffidence in what we undertake to do: and that we should feel more deeply the ruined condition to which we have reduced the Church.

If you say to me, 'I have separated myself from the evil that my conscience disapproves, that which is at variance with the word' - it is well. If you urge that God's word requires the saints to be one and united; that it tells us that, there where two or three are gathered together, Jesus is in the midst of them, and that therefore you "assemble yourselves" together, I say again, it is well. But if you go on to tell me that you have organised a church, or combined together with others to do so; that you have chosen a president or a pastor, and that, having done this, you are now a church, or the Church of God of the place you inhabit - I put this question - My dear friends, who has commissioned you to do all this? Even according to your principle of imitation (although to imitate power is an absurdity: and the kingdom of God is "in power"), where do you find all this in the word? I see no trace of the churches having elected presidents or pastors. You say that for the sake of order it must be so. My answer is, I cannot get off the ground of the word - "He that gathereth not with me scattereth." To say that it is necessary that it should be so, is to reason after the manner of men. Your order, being constituted by the will of man, will soon be seen to be disorder in the sight of God. If there are but two or three met together in the name of Jesus, He will be there. If God raises up pastors from amongst you, or sends them among you, it is well; it is a blessing. But ever since the day when the Holy Spirit formed the church, we have no record in the word that the church has chosen them.

150 What then, it will be asked, must we do? That which faith ever does - acknowledge our weakness and take the place of dependence upon God. God is sufficient in all ages for His church. It is of the last importance that our faith should hold fast the truth, that whatever the ruin of the church on earth, there is ever in Christ all the grace, and faithfulness, and power needed for the circumstances in which the Church is. He never fails. If you are but "two or three," who have faith for it, meet together: you will find that Christ is with you. Call upon Him. He can raise up whatever is needed for the blessing of the saints; and doubt not He will do so. The blessing will not be ensured to us through a pretension on our part to be something when we are nothing. In how many places has not blessing to the saints been hindered by this choosing of presidents and pastors? In how many places might not the saints have assembled together with joy in the strength of that promise made by Christ to the "two or three," if they had not been scared by this pretended necessity for organisation, and by charges of disorder (just as if man was wiser than God), and if their fear of disorder had not persuaded them to continue a state of things which they confess to be wrong? Nor does the constitution of these organised bodies by man hinder the domination of a single individual, or a struggle between several. It tends rather to produce it.

That which the church specially needs is the deep feeling of her ruin and necessity, a feeling which turns for refuge to God - with confession, and keeps clear from all known evil -  acknowledges the authority of Christ, as He who rules as Son over His own house, and the Spirit of God as the sole power in the church; and by so doing, acknowledges every one whom He sends, according to the gift such a one has received, and that with thanksgiving to Him, who by such gift constitutes such brother a servant of all under the authority of the great Head, the great Shepherd of the sheep. To acknowledge the world to be the church, or to pretend to again set up the church, are two things equally condemned and unauthorised by the word.

151 If you say, what then is to be done? I rejoin - Why are you ever thinking of doing something? To confess the sin which has brought us where we are, to humble ourselves low before the Lord, and, separating from that which we know to be evil, to lean upon Him who is able to do all that is necessary for our blessing, without assuming to do more, ourselves, than the word authorises us to do - such is the position, humble it is true, but proportionately blessed by God.

A point of the utmost importance, which they who wish to organise churches seem to have altogether lost sight of, is that there is such a thing as POWER, and that the Holy Spirit alone has the power to gather and build up the church. They seem to think that, as soon as they have certain passages of scripture, they have nothing to do but to act them out; but under the garb of faithfulness, there is in this a fatal error - it consists in leaving aside the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit. We can only act out the word of God by the power of God. But the constituting the church was a direct effect of the power of the Holy Ghost. To leave aside that power, and still hold to the pretension of imitating the primitive church in what flowed from that power, is strangely to delude ourselves. Only I must remark that, where a direct act of obedience is concerned, the Christian has not to wait for power: the constant grace of Christ is his power to obey the word. In what precedes, I speak of power to do a divine work in the Church.

I know that those who esteem these little organised associations to be the churches of God, see nothing but mere meetings of men in every other gathering of God's children. There is a very simple answer on this matter. Such brethren have no promise authorising them to set up again the churches of God when they have fallen, whilst there is a positive promise that, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, He is in their midst. Thus there is no promise in favour of the system by which men organise churches, whilst there is a promise for that "assembling together" which so many of the children of God despise.

152 And what do we see to be the consequence of the pretensions of these bodies? Those who contrast these pretensions with the reality, are disgusted and repelled: while multitudes of them are formed apart from each other, on the various views and opinions of those who formed them; and thus the desired object is hindered, namely, the union of God's children. Here and there the pastor's gifts may produce much effect; or it may happen that all who are Christians may be living in unity, and there will be much joy; but the same thing would have resulted though there should have been no pretension whatever to be the church of God.

CONCLUSIONS

I conclude by a few propositions: -

1. The object to be desired is the gathering of all God's children.

2. The power of the Holy Ghost can alone effect this.

3. Any number of believers have no need to wait till that power produces the union of all (provided they act in the spirit of unity, which, if carried out, would unite the whole body of Christ), because they have the promise that, where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, He will be in the midst of them, and two or three may act in reliance upon this promise.

4. The necessity of ordination for the administration of the Supper nowhere appears in the New Testament, and it is clear that it was to break bread that Christians came together on the Lord's Day; Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 11: 20, 23.

5. A commission from man to preach the gospel is a thing unknown in the New Testament.

6. The choosing of presidents or pastors by the church is also altogether without warrant in the New Testament. The election of a president is a mere act of man, entirely unauthorised. It is a mere intervention of our wilfulness in the concerns of God's church, an action pregnant with evil consequences. The choosing of pastors is an encroachment on the authority of the Holy Ghost, who distributes gifts according to His will. Alas! for him who does not profit by the gift which God grants to another. Where elders were appointed, it was either by the apostles or else by those sent by the apostles to the churches. If the church is in ruins, God is sufficient even for that state of ruin; God will lead on and guide His children, if they walk in humility and obedience, without setting about a work that God has not called them to.

7. It is clearly the duty of a believer to separate himself from every act that he sees to be not according to the word, though bearing with him who ignorantly does the act; and his duty requires this of him, even though his faithfulness should cause him to stand alone, and though, like Abraham, he should be obliged to go out without knowing whither he goes.

153 FINAL REMARKS

My design in these few pages has not been to shew either the ruined condition of the church, nor yet that the actual dispensation cannot be again set up, but rather to propose a question which is usually entirely misapprehended by those who undertake to organise churches. The ruin of the dispensation has been briefly considered in a tract on the apostasy of the present dispensation; but as a brother, to whom these pages have been read over, felt that this question of the ruin of the dispensation was awakened in his mind and desired to have some proof to satisfy such as were in like manner exercised, I add a few sentences.

1. The parable of the tares of the field is the Lord's judgment on this point - that the evil wrought by Satan in the field where the good seed had been sown should not be remedied, but should continue until the harvest. Let it be borne in mind that the parable has nothing to do with discipline among God's children, but relates to the question of a remedy for evil brought in by Satan into the dispensation itself "whilst men slept," and to the restoration of the dispensation on its primitive footing. This question is decided summarily and with authority by the Lord in the negative, for He tells us that, throughout the duration of the dispensation, no remedy shall be applied to the evil; that the time of harvest, in other words the judgment, should extirpate it, and that until that period the evil should go on. Let us here call to mind that our separation from the evil, and our enjoyment of the presence of Christ with the "two or three," is altogether a different thing from the pretension to set up the dispensation again, now that the evil has come in. The former is at once a duty and a privilege; the latter is the fruit of pride and disregard of the directions of the word.

154 2. The 11th chapter of Romans, already quoted, expressly tells us that the present dispensation shall be dealt with like that which went before it, and that, if it continued not in the goodness of God, it should be cut off - not restored.

3. The second chapter of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians teaches us that the "mystery of iniquity" was already working; that, when an obstacle which then existed should be taken out of the way, that "wicked one" should be revealed; and that the Lord would "consume" him with "the breath of his mouth, and destroy him with the brightness of his coming." Thus the evil which had come in, in the days of the apostles, was to continue and ripen, and manifest itself, and be consumed by the Lord's coming.

The third chapter of the second Epistle to Timothy shews the same thing, that is to say, the ruin of the dispensation, and not its restoration: that in the last days "perilous times should come," that men should be "lovers of their own selves" (and the Spirit adds, "from such turn away"), and that "evil men and seducers" should "wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."

Jude also shews that the evil which had already crept into the church would be the subject of judgment at the Lord's coming. (Compare verses 4 and 14). And this awful truth is confirmed by the analogy of all the ways of God toward men: namely, that man has perverted and corrupted what God has given him for his blessing: and that God has never repaired the evil, but has brought forth something better, after judging the iniquity. And this better thing has been in its turn corrupted, until at last eternal blessing will be brought in. When the dispensation was a positive revelation, as was the case under the law, God gathered a feeble remnant of believers from among those who were unbelieving, and translated them into that new blessing which He has established in place of that which had been corrupt, transplanting the residue of the Jews into the church. In the passage of Romans 11 the Holy Spirit instructs us that the Lord will in like manner deal with the present dispensation.

The same thing is seen in the Apocalypse. As soon as the "things that are" (that is, the seven churches) are brought to a close, the prophet is carried to heaven, and all that follows has to do, not with anything acknowledged as a church, but with God's providence in the world.

155 I have done no more than cite a few express passages; but the more we study God's word, the more do we find this solemn truth confirmed. I say, then, do whatever you are enabled to do; but do not pretend to accomplish objects which are altogether beyond what the Lord has given you to which are altogether beyond what the Lord has given you to do; and do not thus betray the pretensions and the weakness of the flesh. Humility of heart and soul is the sure way not to be found fighting against the truth, for God giveth grace to the humble. And may His name of grace and mercy be for ever praised.

Some further development of the principles set forth in the pamphlet, entitled "On the Formation of Churches" and reply to some objections made to those principles.

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1841.

<01012F> 156

Introduction

The edition of the little tract "On the Formation of Churches" being at present exhausted, instead of publishing a second I give some explanations, called for alike by the circumstances actually surrounding the question and the difficulties which present themselves to many minds. My intention is not controversy. I am aware that, instead of doing good, it only tends to create divisions. I do not think I enter into it by giving these few explanations followed by several remarks on certain passages of the word. As to that which concerns me personally, I have only to be silent; for me it is a small thing to be judged by man's judgment, I desire to be like a deaf man who heareth not; Psa. 38: 13, 14. A stranger, it is true, according to the flesh, here as elsewhere, I have learnt that the Holy Spirit forms sweet and strong bonds, such as the world cannot understand, between those who, but for that, would never have known each other. I have also learnt that the children of God know what it is to be strangers (Exod. 23: 9; Lev. 19: 34), in that God has made them themselves strangers and pilgrims on the earth. The ties uniting them are not of this world, and will remain when all that distinguished them here below will have ceased to exist.

I do not propose to myself to reply to Mr. Rochat's pamphlet. My only wish is to take advantage of the chief points of this work in order to treat of the important subject now occupying people's minds. It may be thought perhaps that, if I do not reply, it is because I am unable. Be it so. I would rather be reckoned beaten, than go out of the path in which I believe the Spirit of God leads me, or deviate, by uncharitable conduct, from that which may be profitable to all the souls loved of Jesus. I should not even have published this little work, if some persons had not sought explanations from me on passages quoted on either side

157 I shall be allowed to make some remarks by the way. If the name of Rolle has given pain to the well-beloved brother who has undertaken the task of replying to me, I truly regret it. I might have chosen as an example any other local body; and if the name of Rolle presented itself to my mind, it is probably because the meeting in that town has been formed, as everyone knows, on the principles under discussion. However, I think I also now see in it the hand of God.

It may perhaps be said to me, If desirous of avoiding controversy, why do you enter upon such a subject? I reply that, along with a sincere desire for peace, it is not right on that account to refrain from setting forth important principles. If we are content to be judged by men, and commit ourselves entirely to God, I believe controversy can always be avoided. Those who wish to know the truth will examine the word and will be enlightened on the subject in question.

It strikes me that our beloved brother Rochat would have done better to have brought more calmness into the discussion. The little tract, according to him, presents 'views really quite new,' 'on a point of singular importance.' Now, since the importance of the subject is so generally recognised, I may at least be excused having spoken of it. If charity is carefully maintained, I hope in the end what I have done will be proved to be right, and I believe that God Himself will approve me in it. Although the brother who has replied to me blames me, I continue to respect and love him. I look upon him, if not as my elder in age according to the flesh, at least as my elder in the grace of Christ. I love him, notwithstanding that he differs from me; I love him because of the grace God has bestowed upon him, and because I believe him to be much more faithful than I am in many respects. Blessed be God there is that in the effects of grace which is stronger sometimes than the rather rough usage of man's mind. I hope not to be wanting in love whilst making a few remarks on my brother's work, which will soon bring me to the main point of the question.

General Remarks

The pamphlet which I have in view strikes me rather as the writing of one who, unaccustomed to argue with equals, looks for the reception of what he says as a thing decided. I beg this dear brother will bear with me whilst I explain a few things to him and examine with him his interpretations of the word. It seems to me that he has misunderstood me in many respects, and that he has not rightly interpreted some passages. A considerable portion of his pamphlet is taken up in replies to matters which are in his own thoughts, and not in the little tract; to matters he may have heard of somewhere, but for which I am by no means responsible. He blames the expression 'apostolic churches'; I have looked for it in vain in the tract. He argues at great length against the idea that there are no apostles because of the sins of the church; I have never said a word, nor have I even thought, of the question. One more little remark: he blames me much for using unscriptural expressions, and tells me that a person who thinks with the Bible can speak with the Bible. I have employed as well as I could words and expressions, which presented themselves to my mind; whether the thoughts are scriptural remains the question. Our dear brother does not like this expression 'the church dispensation,' in fact it does not appear to me very exact, but it is sufficient that everyone understands me. The substance of the question is what is important in my mind. But is it not surprising that, in the very pages where these expressions are so strongly blamed, we should find the following words, 'The question is quite a different one. The dispensation of the new covenant subsists' (page 31 of the reply of Mr. Rochat)? Where is the expression found in the word? Does not our brother think with the Bible in this.* I am not quite satisfied with my expression; his is perhaps more in accordance with traditional thoughts. In that it has the advantage, and will be more easily adopted: but in what is it more scriptural? For my part I do not blame our brother that, in order to express his thoughts, he has chosen words which he found the best adapted for the object he had in view. Let him on his part also forgive my expressions. On a point of such great importance for all the church, such observations may be well passed over.

{*I think at bottom my idea is more exact than his.}

158 There is one more thing which seems to have offended our brother. It is the desire so often expressed in the tract for greater humility. I have spoken of the tendency of the system to engender pride, but I have never spoken of individual pride. The pamphlet furnishes me with a very clear example of the evil I desired to specify. 'If the church,' says the author (page 107), 'wishes its decisions to be respected, it should make them so as to be able to say, founding itself with full conviction of the word: It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' Now that is what I call pride. We must bear in mind that the church, according to our brother, is this or that particular flock. Let us now examine the passage quoted. A dispute had arisen at Antioch, on a matter of importance, one that interested all the churches of the Gentiles. That was the appeal of a church to a higher authority or light. The authority of Paul and Barnabas having failed to decide it, a resolution was come to that they and other brethren should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, for the decision of this matter. Then the apostles and elders came together to examine this question, and having associated all the brethren with them, they thus addressed the brethren from among the Gentiles: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things." Later, Paul and his fellow travellers, passing through the cities, instructed them to keep the ordinances decreed by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. To arrogate to oneself the right of speaking as the apostles and elders spoke, when they were judging a question proposed to them and which referred to all the churches of the Gentiles and to say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, appears to me pride, when spoken by a meeting in our times, come out of existing worldly systems. That is what I mean when I speak of pride; the above example is clear enough and sufficiently precise to elucidate my meaning.

159 Our brother insists much on this; viz., that as long as faithful persons remain, it would be wrong to say that the church has apostatised. He rests his argument upon this precept - "From such turn away," and he quotes Revelation 13 to shew us that there are faithful ones even under the Antichrist himself, connecting this quotation with 2 Thessalonians 2. I agree with him as to the connection between these texts, but it is precisely that which proves that the existence of faithful persons does not prevent there being an apostasy; for in this last passage that state of things is called apostasy although faithful persons remain, seeing that there will be such till the end. The existence then of faithful persons does not prevent there being an apostasy, since there will be some even under the Antichrist. The presence of Elias, of the prophets hid by fifties in caves, of the seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal, did not do away with the fact of the ruin of Israel then in a state of apostasy, worshipping that false God. Israel apostatised in making the golden calf; but this did not prevent Moses remaining faithful, nor the Levites consecrating themselves to God by their fidelity. There have been faithful persons in all apostasies, and there will be till the end.

160 But our brother, having neither understood nor laid hold of the assertions of the tract, argues against things not found therein. I will explain myself on these points.

He insists upon it that the dispensation has not been cut off.* Neither do I believe that it has. Like him, I distinguish between the abolition of a state of things by the Lord 'and the case where this state of things has ceased to exist through the negligence or the wickedness of man.' What I have proposed for the examination of brethren is this, what is the will of God in this latter case? In thus putting the question, I can say I have gained my aim, for I am fully convinced that the Holy Ghost will enlighten the saints. I ought also to say that I do not even think that the apostasy is at its height. Some there are who apply 2 Thessalonians 2 to the Roman system; these latter cannot deny that the apostasy is already come.

{*This subject is to be found treated at length in the "Hopes of the Church." Prophetic Vol. 1.}

The chief point on which I insist is that the word of God predicts an apostasy and a cutting off, and tells us that, if the Gentiles do not continue in the goodness of God, they will be cut off. Now if the state of things established by God has ceased to exist through the negligence or wickedness of men, it is clear they have not continued in the goodness of God One more explanation. Provided that the meaning of the term "church" is understood, I have no objection to the word. The word church means an assembly: there, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, it is clear that there is an assembly. But when, by dint of the use of the term church, the belief is entertained that expressions made use of by the apostles and the church at Jerusalem can be employed, then I am afraid; especially when they assume the name of the 'church of God of such a place,' an expression which goes much farther than that of church. It is true, that if some are unwilling to meet, that does not prevent its being the church of God; but the result is that they are not of the church of God. After that to affirm that the few who did not dare meet with the disciples at Jerusalem were nevertheless disciples, amounts to saying that he who refuses to confess the Lord openly with his mouth is notwithstanding that a Christian, and should not the less be recognised as such. Not so; if a body is the assembly of God, he who does not wish to be of it cannot expect to be recognised as a Christian; and if he separates himself from it, he ought to be looked upon as a schismatic.

161 Is it possible that one who refused to meet with the disciples at Jerusalem, and to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, would have been recognised as a Christian? would not any one who separated himself from them have been treated as schismatic and even worse? Save in the case of a schismatic or of an excommunicated person, there is no example of a church of God of a place which was not understood to contain all the children of God in that place.

I thank God that His word connects with an assembly of two or three disciples gathered in the name of Jesus all that is requisite for its walk before the Lord. One more little remark. They tell us, Let us walk in the ordinances of the word: there is no need of apostles since we have their written instructions, which can at all times be carried out. Be it so. Well then are there so many flocks habitually deprived of partaking of the Lord's supper through the want of consecrated pastors? It is not I who prevent them. I believe that, if all things are done with propriety and good order, there can be breaking of bread quite as well without a consecrated man as with one. I see in the word no trace of consecration for this purpose. I cite this fact to shew that the want is felt of something more than precepts to follow: in other words, that God should raise up by His power instruments according to His good pleasure. Thus it is not enough to say, Here are the precepts: all that is now to be done is to follow them; since there are directions incapable of being followed out, unless God interposes afresh to re-establish what is lost as regards instruments. Let no one mistake me: I love order with all my heart, the true order which befits the house and ordinances of God. Leaving aside circumstances, every brother has the same capacity to break the bread. Nature as well as the word teaches us that young men, that new converts, are little fitted to take the lead in any way, and that the elders, if God has raised up any, have their proper place in the house of God. I here repeat, with all my heart, what I said in the little tract: that is, that with earnest and continual supplication I do pray that God may raise up pastors and teachers according to His own heart, for the wants of His dear sheep, in order that the church of God may be preserved, cared for, instructed, rendered capable of resisting the snares of Satan, and that the little ones of the flock may be sheltered from every wind of evil doctrine. Yes, this is the fondest desire of my heart. It cannot be otherwise for one who loves the church and knows something of the love of Jesus for them who are His, of the privileges which belong to them, and who knows also something of the snares and devices of the enemy. Moreover, I think that the relation of a pastor to the sheep of God's flock is the sweetest and most precious which exists on earth. In its fruits and its joys, this relation will not terminate here. I may add that I know no person, at least so it seems to me, who desires more faithfully to fill it than he whose pamphlet has given rise to these pages.

162 As to the rest, Ephesians 4 suffices for our guidance in this matter.

OF THE UNITY OF THE BODY OF CHRIST

We are now coming to points of much greater gravity than mere explanations.

If what I have said is called controversy, I reply that an explanation from me has been insisted upon, in order that the author himself of the pamphlet might understand me; I believe I have nearly limited myself to this. Before proceeding to a few remarks on the passages quoted, there is one point of the greatest importance questioned in our brother's pamphlet. I had said that, being taken up with the thought of the churches, the idea of the church was too much forgotten. What was my surprise to see formally denied the unity of the church on earth, as if that was not in the thought of God. The author attributes to me the idea of a confederation of churches: because the churches are always the starting point of his thoughts. For my part, it is not a confederation of churches that I see in the word, but the unity of the body of Christ. Our brother, in quoting from Timothy, pretends that when the word speaks of the church, it is, as if it were said in French, "the family," to designate the families or each family (see pp. 26, 27, first reflection). I think the word of God speaks very clearly of one body on the earth, having certain gifts and privileges, as also a certain responsibility, and a common destiny here below although belonging to heaven in the counsels of God. I shall quote a few passages, by which it will be seen that the point in question is of one body, and of one body on the earth endowed with certain privileges, for the employment of which on the earth it is also responsible, although the result, which is the perfection of the body, be in heaven according to the counsels of God. So this subject can be considered under the point of view either of this responsibility here below, or that of the accomplishment of the counsels of God in the heavens.

163 These are the quotations from holy scripture: "And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body," Eph. 2: 16. "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (v. 20). "There is one body and one Spirit," Eph. 4: 4. "From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love," Eph. 4: 16. Gifts are given, not for the edification of one church, but for the "edification of the body of Christ" (v. 12). They are placed not in one church, but in the church. The result of this principle is of all importance, because, if I am a teacher, I am not one of a certain church, but in the church. But perhaps it may be said, this body has its unity in the heavens. I reply, that the apostle speaks of the service of the members of the body here below, of the joints of service here below, of which the work will be finished when the church will be glorified. Moreover, the application of this quotation to the church, a society here below, is in accordance with the views of the author himself of the pamphlet (p. 43); and we can convince ourselves of this application in reading attentively the passages quoted by him. The church is then one body here below, and the gifts sent from on high are gifts placed like joints in the whole body. All the epistle to the Ephesians might be cited here; for this fundamental and precious truth forms the subject from beginning to end.

164 The same truth is found again in 1 Corinthians 12. There is but one and the same Spirit. "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (v. 11). "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body; so also is Christ" (v. 12). It is not then a confederation of churches, but one body; and here we have the divine constitution of the body of Christ, which is the church. It never could have been said of one church in particular, "so also is Christ," because no church in particular is the body of Christ: "Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church; first, apostles,"* etc. The same truth is found in Colossians 2: 19, and Romans 12: 4-6. I fully admit then the existence of churches in the intention of God; but I say, that the ruling thought of the apostle, or rather of the Spirit of God, in this matter, is the body of Christ, the church, and not the churches; and, although the gifts can be exercised here and there generally, but not of necessity in one assembly, in the beginning they were not considered as the portion of one church, but as that of the church, of the body of Christ.

{*Note to translation. In the Corinthians, all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus are added to the church of God which is at Corinth, in the address at the beginning of the epistle. Thus the local church, when really such, becomes a practical representative of the whole body - Christ being in its midst. But there is no membership of a church.}

Also Christians are not members of a church, but of the church: namely, the body of Christ. God has set the members every one of them in the body; the members are only one body (1 Cor. 12: 12). The destiny of this body, looked upon in its unity of internal life here below, is one; and looked at in its responsibility here below, its destiny as a dispensation is also one. I do not deny that churches may fall and be subsequently restored* through repentance; but the admission of this truth does not exclude the other. To ignore, forget, and still more, to deny this unity, is to deprive oneself of the chief element of the doctrine of the word on the subject we have now in hand. This leads Christians to occupy themselves with matters relating to the confederations of men, rather than the recognition of the rights of the Spirit of God in the body of Christ. This is why I say that I do not speak of the confederations of the churches, but of the unity of the church, of the body of Christ; and I assert that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are found in this body acting by its members.

{*I am not aware that we have any example of a fallen church being restored.}

165 This truth, of the unity of the church as a body here below, a truth misapprehended and disfigured, it is true, in the way of presenting it as a confederation of churches is, says the author of the pamphlet, a fundamental error into which I have fallen, and which falsifies all my reasoning (p. 26). This expression, the church, signifies the churches or each church (pp. 27, 28). The word in looking at the church as a society only sees churches and not the church.

It is necessary here to be clear and precise. I affirm that the doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ, is a fundamental truth of the word of God. I appeal to Ephesians 4, Colossians 2, 1 Corinthians 14, and Romans 12; and exhort all my brethren to search thoroughly these passages. Further, I affirm that all the privileges of the church flow out from this principle* - that the gifts are in the church, that the faithful are the members of the church, of the body of Christ, and not of one church. It is plain that wherever this principle is ignored or denied, all judgment on the state of the church must be proportionately erroneous. The apostles were in the church, and not in a church. Apollos was as much a teacher at Corinth as at Ephesus, because the church was but one. The daughters of Philip performed the duties entrusted to them in the house of their father; they made use of the gift they had received as members of the church, of the body of Christ, even when in an assembly they must have held their peace.

{*I do not speak of the knowledge of this principle, although this knowledge be of great importance to the well-being of the church.}

ON THE NOMINATION OF PASTORS

Before treating the subject of the ruin of the actual economy, we shall speak a little of the nomination of pastors. Our brother does not wish to insist on the passage of the Acts, the only one which speaks of elders being ordained and which could be alleged according to the ordinary translation which renders it, by the opinion (avis) of the assemblies.* I have no doubt this was done in the unity of the Spirit with all the body, but by this expression, "they had ordained them elders," it is evident that the word they refers here to Paul and Barnabas. If I said in an assembly, I select for you such and such a person to be an elder, could it be said that the assembly had made the choice? The introduction of the words "by the opinion of the assemblies" is purely gratuitous. Our brother says that it is through prejudice that the words have been withdrawn. Take Acts 10: 41, where the same word is met with in the original, and let us give it the meaning which it is desired to put upon it in Acts 14: 23, and the absurdity will appear: "Not to all the people, but unto witnesses** chosen before of God by the suffrages of the assemblies," "or by way of suffrage." Although in the word used here there is an allusion to the custom of raising the hand in voting, it is employed simply to signify the choice, or rather the designation, of some person. The translation "by the suffrage of the assemblies," is quite false, for if it be insisted on that the Greek word means to vote by raising the hand, then according to that translation, they voted by the opinion of the assemblies; but it is impossible to attribute, by means of this same word, the choice to the apostles and the opinion to the assembly. If it were a case of vote, the assembly should have raised their hands and thus have made their choice. This expression, to choose by the opinion (avis) of the assemblies, I repeat it, is false in every case. The word is made to carry the sense of choosing by the advice of some other. Persons who raise their hands choose; the word cannot thus be cut in two.

{*This is added in French translations - I think from Calvin down.}

{**The translation of Lausanne says "designated." Why have these words been added, "by way of suffrages," in Acts 14: 23, whilst here they have been omitted?

166 The fact is, that it is simply stated that the apostles chose them elders in every assembly. But our brother says, One can appoint when others have made the selection. That is true; but the question is to know if the others have chosen. I reply, that there is no trace in God's word of election of pastors; we have only the single case of the choice of elders; and, moreover, this selection was made by apostles or their delegates. Titus had been sent as a delegate of the apostle to fill his place in certain respects: and so the means employed for the appointment of elders ever remains outside a church. There may be many pastors in a flock, provided that God has raised them up and given them, without any selection of man; because pastors are a gift from on high; and if this be so, to establish pastors is not the act of the Church.*

{*I will not reply to accessory arguments; I shall only insist upon what applies directly to the matter in hand. But I may say, in passing, that, if Deuteronomy 1 is closely examined and compared with Exodus 18, it will be found that these passages state quite the contrary to the conclusion our brother desires to draw from them.}

167 Besides, I see no voting by the church in any case sanctioned by the Spirit or the word. We are taught in the word (Eph. 4) that pastors are gifts from on high which Christ distributes. We see in the history of the apostles that they chose elders for the churches, Acts 14. We find also that the apostle sent Titus, to ordain them in every city, following the orders he had given him - the requisite qualities for a bishop or overseer not being described in any epistle addressed to a church, but only in a letter addressed to an individual, who, in this matter, represented the apostle. We have not a single example of the choice of a bishop or of an elder made by a church, nor of a vote on any subject whatever. The question for our decision is, what does the word authorise us to do in this case? The author of the pamphlet admits (p. 70), that the word of God does not speak of the choice of the church. This is already a concession which says much: but he adds, that analogy is in favour of this practice; we have the case of Matthias and the deacons.

As to Matthias, not only was he named before the descent of the Holy Ghost, but it was done on an entirely different principle from that of the church's choice, viz., on the Judaic principle, which consisted in drawing by lot. As to the deacons, or at least as to the seven who were chosen to serve tables, the analogy is contrary to that which our brother wished to shew. The apostles, having received a gift from above, a ministry of God (a ministry of which it is said, "ye have not chosen me but I have chosen you," John 15: 16), did not wish to mix themselves up with a temporal ministry. And the choice was given to the church for the service of tables, because the church furnished the tables; just as the choice was reserved to God when God furnished the gift. It was on this account that Paul, in order that the ministry of the word confided to him by God should not be suspected, refused to take the money which the churches desired to entrust to him, unless someone chosen by the churches accompanied him to take charge together with him. Thus, if the passages quoted are examined, it will be found that the analogy is quite contrary to the conclusion sought to be drawn, and one that upholds the principle I have shewn. But in the pamphlet itself I find a full confession of the true state of the matter.

168 There are the views of the author on this point. Whilst giving his assent to a passage of the tract which advises not to go beyond gifts, he says (p. 106), 'the Head of the church will be well able in His good time to send teachers, elders, deacons, without its being necessary for us to make them before he sends them.' That is my thought: I believe it is the thought of God on the subject; but I stop there, wishing to walk humbly, praying earnestly to God for the raising up such men for the wants of the church. I bless God also for gifts, perhaps inferior, but useful, which He deigns to bestow in the meantime, and I act upon the universal principles of the word, which are applicable to such a state of things. See 1 Peter 5: 5; 1 Corinthians 16: 10-12, 14-16, 18; Philippians 2: 20, 30; and other passages.

It is no doubt a state of weakness, but if in this state God is waited on, and if He is honoured, "to him that hath, shall be given"; He will honour our endeavour. But this is how our brother continues, 'In the meantime, let us choose, for the sake of order and decency, governing men to carry on the work, who, according to the gift that is in them, may fill up every day, as well as they can, offices which are not yet manifested.' It is then acknowledged that, pending God's action, man's intervention to fill up offices not yet manifested is necessary. That is the knot of the question. Where is such a thing to be found in the word? Where the trace of such a principle, of such an idea? The result is, that if any true gift of ministry, or eldership, is manifested, the organisation being already complete, it follows, that the provisionary substitute must be deposed from his presidentship - an operation calculated to produce the most painful results that could happen to a body of Christians. Such an act would look like ingratitude and selfwill; by many it would be termed revolutionary, and might nourish in the body habits and dispositions most hurtful to true sanctification. This is what will take place necessarily if one will act previous to God's action. Should not these consequences be arrived at, then the true elder will remain outside his office, and the faithful will in consequence suffer a proportionate loss. The fact is, that the most ordinary effect of this proceeding is the almost entire prevention of the development of real gifts.*

{*Note to translation. - Gifts and local offices are not here distinguished clearly; the principle only is in question.}

169 OF THE RUIN OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION

After having given these explanations, I return to the subject of the ruin of the present dispensation, that is, of the system established of God here below - to that which the word of God says concerning the destiny of this dispensation. I wish to speak with all possible respect; but it seems to me that our brother has quite failed to understand what the Bible says on this subject. This is not the place for questions with regard to churches, but of the intentions or the warnings of God, concerning that which was established on earth, after the death and exaltation of our Lord Jesus. I do not hold to the word dispensation, although it is generally used to specify a certain state of things, established by the authority of God, during a given period. The author of the pamphlet himself gives it this sense when he speaks (p. 49) of the Levitical dispensation, the present dispensation, the dispensation of the fulness of time, and so on. What we have now to do, is to try and become acquainted with what concerns the present dispensation.

The greater part of the difficulty, which in general presents itself to the minds of the faithful on this subject, consists in their confounding the intentions of God with regard to the dispensation with His counsels regarding the faithful found in it. These counsels can never fail in their effect, but the dispensation itself may pass away and come to an end (although having been to the glory of God, in that it has displayed His ways), because the unfaithfulness of man has rendered it unfit to be the means of manifesting any longer this glory. Then God, who foreknows all that He purposes to accomplish, substitutes for it another dispensation in which man is placed in another kind of trial, and thus all the ways of God are manifested, and His manifold wisdom shines in its true brightness even in the heavenlies. We know that the Levitical dispensation has passed away, and that the faithful found there have been saved according to the counsels of God. Let us again examine, with more development, what the word of God says of the present dispensation. First, there is a very solemn question, which is closely connected with the destiny of the dispensation. Is this dispensation the last? This is evidently a question of the highest importance. The author of the pamphlet says that, after all, it is always the same dispensation of the fulness of times which subsists; that it is always Jews and Gentiles forming one body in Christ by faith, and being the people of God under the new covenant. This dispensation of the fulness of times, says he, is sufficiently explained in Galatians 4: 4, "But when the fulness of the time was come," etc., and the gathering together of all things in Christ as under one head is, says he, sufficiently explained in Ephesians 2 by the gathering together of the Jews and Gentiles in one body in Christ. If in my turn I dare complain of expressions, I should say that I do not like to hear it said that one passage is sufficiently explained by another. I desire rather to seek what God has meant to say in each passage.

170 May I be allowed to make a remark here? I can hardly suppose that the author of the pamphlet ignores all that has been written on the subject of the coming of the Saviour to introduce a new dispensation. A large number of Christians of all denominations, and even of his brethren in the ministry, whether national or dissenters, believe fully, as a truth of the Christian faith, that there will be another dispensation before the end of the world. I doubt indeed, if amongst dissenting brethren whose ministry is a little known* there be one who does not believe in this truth. I do not quote them as authorities; but I am a little surprised that the author satisfies himself with saying that Galatians 4: 4 sufficiently explains Ephesians 1: 10.

{*This refers to Switzerland.}

Let us examine a little this question by the word. First, although in many translations the resemblance between the fulness of times of Ephesians 1: 10 and the fulness of time of Galatians 4: 4 may strike people, nevertheless this resemblance does not exist in the Greek.*

{*Neither the translation of Martin, nor that of Ostervald[-w], nor yet that of Lausanne, translates Galatians 4: 4 by fulness of times.}

The passage of the Epistle to the Galatians only means that the period had arrived, that the time that had to run was accomplished, or, if you will, that the time purposed and ordained in the wisdom of God was fully come. Martin translated "accomplishment of the time," which appears to me pretty exact. But in Ephesians 1: 10 it is the dispensation of the fulness or of the accomplishment of the times, the dispensation which is characterised as the accomplishment of all the arrangements of God.

171 Now, it is not at all a dispensation which is in question, when it is said that a certain term is come, that a certain fact is accomplished; although that fact may be the foundation of the present dispensation. So far is it from being a description of that dispensation that the greater part of the description turns upon that which has preceded the dispensation, upon that which was to happen before the dispensation existed? Christ born under the law is not at all this dispensation, although His birth necessarily preceded it. Neither is it a question, in this passage of Galatians, of the gathering of Jews and Gentiles in one body, but of the relation of the redeemed with God. And if the union of Jews and Gentiles explains sufficiently the union of all things in Christ, I ask, which of the Jews or Gentiles represent the things which are in heaven? (Eph. 1: 10). Besides, the Jews will be restored and blessed as a nation in the dispensation to come, which is quite another thing from their union with the Gentiles in one body. Here we are on a fundamental point, upon which the whole question hangs. I feel I ought to point out this distinctly. Our brother says, that the present dispensation is the dispensation of the fulness of times, that Galatians 4: 4 refers to this also, and that it is always this dispensation of the fulness of times which subsists, although under different phases; in short, that on the return of the Jews this dispensation will subsist, as well as the dispensation of the gathering of Jews and Gentiles (pp. 29-49). This is evidently a capital point; because, if there be another dispensation, this one must necessarily terminate, instead of subsisting to the end.

For my part, I say, there is no connection between Ephesians 1: 10 and Galatians 4: 4; I say, that the author has confounded the birth and the first coming of Christ (Gal. 4: 4) with the dispensation of the fulness of times; that this dispensation of the fulness of times does not yet exist, and that the present dispensation must terminate so as to give place to another. I doubt his finding amongst his brethren any man, well instructed in the word, who would agree with him in his assertions; and yet all his system depends upon their being well grounded. I ask every brother, capable of forming a judgment, if the explanation that our brother has given of Ephesians 1: 10, and of Galatians 4: 4, is right. Do they find also that the application of the expression "the dispensation of the fulness of times" to the present dispensation is correct? Let us pay great attention to the scope of this question. God has been pleased to reveal to the church the mystery of a future dispensation; the system of the author of the pamphlet hides the mystery and plunges the church back again into ignorance in this respect. It has not been God's will that the Christians from among the Gentiles should be ignorant that Israel was rejected, as a nation, but only during the period of the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles. The author makes this mystery once more unknown, and would have the Jews, as a national body, take their place in the fulness of the Gentiles.

172 The supremacy of Christ over all things is found set forth in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians as distinct from His supremacy in the church. The one pertains to His rights of Creator although He enjoys them as man; the other to the power of His resurrection, according to which He is head of the body (see, for the first, Col. 1: 15, 16, and for the second, verse 18). So little is it true that these words, the church and all things, are identical terms, that, in the passage (Eph. 1: 10), the gathering together of all things is a mystery revealed to the church, and that, at the end of the chapter, we have Christ, Head of His body, the church, over all things.

I do not say what the pamphlet makes me say, 'that the dispensation of the fulness of times has failed'; for I deny entirely that that dispensation has come. I add, that salvation through the blood of Christ existed before this dispensation, and, in like manner, as there will be faithful ones under the Antichrist, it is evident that access to the throne of grace will yet be open; but that does not prevent the fact, that this dispensation is in a state of ruin, that the apostasy exists, because the word of God affirms that the presence of the Antichrist will be the signal that the apostasy has already arrived.* I repeat what I said in my pamphlet, viz., that the gathering together in one body of the children of God (not as the author of the reply has made me say, the gathering together of the churches) was the immediate object of the death of Christ as regards this dispensation, because John says so in his gospel, John 11: 52. The passage (Eph. 2: 17, 18) quoted by the author of the reply to shew the contrary, proves what I say, if it be examined from verse 16 to the end; and chapter 3: 4-6. The subject which the apostle treats in the whole passage, is not only salvation in Christ, or the access of a Christian to the throne of grace, but the unity of the body. It would be impossible here to enter into the things which prove that a new dispensation will take place on the coming of the Saviour. That has been treated elsewhere.

{*Note to translation. - This refers to 1 John 2: 18, connected with 2 Thessalonians 2. But apostasy is used generally in the sense in which all used it and applied it to the state of the professing church under Popery. Here it is merely the argument from the passage, that the existence of saints did not prove there was no ruin, for there would be saints under Antichrist. I do not believe the apostasy or Antichrist to be yet come. This is unfolded farther on.}

173 I will only mention that Acts 3 teaches us that the times of refreshing will come by the presence of the Lord, when He shall have sent Jesus; that then the glorious things spoken of by the prophets will have their accomplishment, but not before. It is not till after the fulness of the Gentiles (i.e., all the church from among the Gentiles) shall have come in, that God will save Israel; and it is only when the Lord will have put an end to the times of the Gentiles and crushed the image, that the little stone will grow and become a mountain which will fill all the earth (Dan. 2: 33, 34); finally, the Lord will come to execute judgment on the nations, which evidently will close the dispensation. Then the Jews will be recognised as the nation favoured by God, which is an impossible thing as long as the present dispensation lasts. The author of the pamphlet will allow me to tell him, that to ground his argument with regard to the church and the present dispensation on the assertion that Ephesians 1: 10 is sufficiently explained in Galatians 4: 4, is not the way to commend it to those who have ever so little studied the word. It is evident that there will be a dispensation in which the Lord shall reign in righteousness; now He is dealing in the patience of grace.*

{*See Psalm 96, 99; Ezekiel 36: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 6: 2; Zephaniah 3: 8, 9, 19, 20. The expression "the world to come" is applicable solely to this world under a new dispensation.}

Let us now prove by direct evidence, that this dispensation, at its end, will be in a state of ruin and not of restitution. The Lord tells us that, as it was in the days of Noe, and of Lot, so shall it be "when the Son of man is revealed." There were, however, faithful persons then, whom God knew how to preserve; well! does not the author believe that the world, at the time of Noe and of Lot, was in a fallen, ruined state? Thus shall it be when the Son of man shall be revealed. The state of things then existing was one of ruin, although there were faithful persons. It may be called economy, dispensation, what you please; the force of the truth here is obvious.

174 As to 2 Timothy 3, I have not quoted it in the thought that it could by itself shew the existence of an apostasy; but to shew that the word of God always presents to us the picture of the ruin of the state of things established by God - a ruin which the presence of a few faithful ones cannot prevent - a ruin which will terminate by the complete apostasy, and the manifestation of the Antichrist, and which will be closed by cutting off. Perilous times shall come: this is all that our brother sees; but in what consists the difficulty of those times? It is this: that men, Christians by profession, are found again in the reprobate condition of the Gentiles, depicted in Romans 1. And it is added that evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse. It is said, that men shall be in this state. Is not that a state of ruin, a fallen condition, when the description of Christendom is that men shall be such as the Gentiles, whom God had given over to a mind void of judgment? Compare Romans 1 & 2 and 2 Timothy 3. In the original the resemblance between them is even more striking. Therefore difficult times are not only spoken of, but the special character of those times is shewn. We may add that, when the times are so difficult that there is need of extraordinary warnings, it is evident that it must be a general state - a state that characterises the dispensation, and more or less in contrast with that of the first times. Thus what is read in 2 Thessalonians 2 - the great apostasy - is not yet consummated. But in the application of this passage to the general destiny of the economy, I assert that it teaches us of the mystery of lawlessness which had commenced working from the time of the apostle, was to continue, and that which restrained being taken away, that the lawless one should be revealed, whom the Lord should destroy by the appearing of His coming; and that, previous to this, the apostasy should take place.

Is not that the ruin of the dispensation, the manifestation of an apostasy, the principles of which were already at work in the apostle's time, and only waited till that which restrained was taken out of the way, to manifest themselves in the lawless one? The author says that this does not prove that the dispensation is closed. I do not believe that it is closed, and I have not said so; but it reveals the ruin of the dispensation - a ruin, the instrument of which was already at work, and which ends in apostasy and in judgment. That is what I said.

175 In the word of God we see two great mysteries, which develop themselves during the present dispensation: the mystery of Christ, and the mystery of lawlessness. The counsels of God, engaged in the first, have their accomplishment in heaven. The union of the body of Christ with Himself in glory will evidently have its accomplishment there on high. But, by the power of the Holy Spirit, there ought to be on earth during this dispensation the manifestation of the union of the body of Christ. But here the responsibility of man comes in for its share in this manifestation here below, although in the end all will be to the glory of God. Therefore the dispensation may be in a state of ruin, although the counsels of God never fail; on the contrary, our lie will turn to His glory, although He judges righteously.

In this sphere of man's responsibility, Satan can introduce himself the moment that man fails to lean absolutely upon God. We know this by every day's experience.

It is, then, revealed that the mystery of lawlessness will have its course. Here it is not a question of counsels, but of an evil done in time. The question here is of this mystery of lawlessness; the apostasy or falling away is not a mystery. There is no need of a revelation to inform us that a man who denies Jesus Christ is not a Christian; he says it. But in this case, it is an evil that has commenced working in the bosom of Christendom, in relation with Christianity; a mystery of which the lawless one will be the full revelation, as the glory of Christ and of the Church will be the full accomplishment of the mystery of Jesus Christ. The words translated, in most versions, "iniquity," and "wicked one," are the same in the original; save that one indicates the thing, and the other the person. It is "lawlessness" and the "lawless one" pre-eminently. This mystery of lawlessness commenced working in the apostle's time: later the veil would be removed. The apostasy would be then: and at length the lawless one would come to his end by the appearing of the coming of Christ. Thus is the dispensation to be brought to an end: this is what we have revealed in this passage. Hence, as we see elsewhere, this will be to introduce the glory and reign of Christ, so that all the earth may be filled with the knowledge of the glory of God.

176 Whatever Christians and theologians may have said on the parable of the tares (Matt. 13), I may be allowed to say that it teaches us quite a different thing from what our dear brother finds there (p. 55). He tells us that 'wherever the Lord shall sow or cause to be sowed the good seed, the enemy will also come to sow tares, and that it will be so till the end.' This is not at all what the parable states, though the thing may be true in itself.

The word gives us a similitude of the kingdom of heaven, to which this dispensation belongs, and of which it forms a part. There is no other sower but the Son of man, and the work which He has done is marred, not as to the barn, because He will know how to separate the wheat from the tares, but as to the world, in which the work of this dispensation takes place. We see also that the evil, which introduced itself in the beginning by the carelessness of men, cannot be repaired by men as a whole, and in this world. For this is a dispensation of grace and not of judgment.

The counsels as to the wheat cannot fail - it will be in the barn. But the work, with respect to this world, has been marred; because men have been entrusted with it, and their carelessness has given occasion to the enemy's work, to which no remedy can be brought, as long as the dispensation subsists. I have not said that this parable proved that the evil was to go on increasing; but I said that the Lord had pronounced this judgment: viz., that the servants could not remedy this state of things. Is not this what the parable says? It is never said in the word that the apostasy would choke the wheat, or the faithful. There will be faithful ones under the Antichrist, as we have seen, although it be certain that the apostasy will then exist. As for me, I only dare to say what the word has foretold. I behold an evil, to which the neglect of man has given rise, which has marred the Lord's work, as to its state and as a whole in the world, which the Saviour alone can remedy, and which He will remedy in putting an end to this dispensation, this age, by the harvest.

I beseech those who desire to know the thoughts of God, very carefully to compare what I have said with the texts quoted, and to see if all is correct. Our brother passes over Jude, because what I have said is obscure. I will endeavour to make it clearer. I say that the word of God teaches us that the evil which will be the object of the judgment of the Lord Jesus, at His coming, entered into the church from its commencement; that this evil is to continue, and that, notwithstanding all the goodness and patience of God, He will bring it into judgment. I quote Jude in support of this assertion. He teaches us that certain men had already crept into the church who were marked out beforehand for this sentence. Although at that time those persons were not as yet so manifested, he gives them, by the spirit of prophecy, these three characters: the natural hatred of a heart alienated from God, like that of Cain; the teaching of error for reward, as Balaam; and open rebellion like that of Core. In this last stage they perish. He says, it is of those that Enoch prophesied when he said that the Lord would come with His holy myriads to judge those who have spoken against Him, etc. However, there will be faithful ones; but already, even at the time of Jude, the evil, which is to end in open rebellion and which is to be the object of the judgment of Christ at His coming, existed in the church.

177 Examine the epistle (it is not so long), and see if it does not speak of an evil which has already crept into the church, and which would bring in the judgment of persons who were still hidden, but who, being more fully manifested, would be the object of this judgment. What is the impression produced by the epistle, if it be not that of a warning to a faithful remnant against a terrible evil which would bring in this judgment - against an evil which then existed in the bosom of the church, of which the condition of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the fallen angels, presented the fearful but just picture? Was not that a state of ruin and of failure, which was only budding, it is true, at that time, but of which the features and the end were not hidden from the prophetic Spirit in the apostle? If there be obscurity in all this, at least there is in this obscurity a dreadful shadow, a shadow which God has placed there, and which should urge us not to pass over it too easily, especially when so grave a matter is in question as the destiny of the church.

Here I have an important remark to add. This epistle of Jude, which in an especial manner treats of the ruin, as well as that of John, which puts the faithful on their guard against the antichrists, by no means address themselves to a church, but to all who compose the church in general, to the faithful as having a common interest, a common destiny. The same may be said of the second epistle of Peter, which also speaks of the same, although it has a character more in relation to the Christians from among the Jews.

178 The author of the pamphlet sets aside all that can be quoted from the Revelation. We know that the Spirit has said, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time is at hand." And I cannot refrain from saying, that it is precisely on the point in question that this warning and promise become so important.

I do not wish to enter into details on the Revelation; but I ask what this book presents to us in its prophetic part, when Laodicea (the last of the churches mentioned) has been spued out of the Lord's mouth, and when John is taken up to heaven? Is it the establishment of the dispensation in blessing, or very positive prophecies of misery and judgment? As for me, I find that the kings of the earth will be gathered together by unclean spirits to make war against the Lamb; that Babylon the great will corrupt the whole earth, till she is judged; and that the clusters of the vine of the earth will be cast into the winepress of the wrath of God, and trodden in the winepress of His anger; finally, that the kings of the earth, persevering in evil, will give their power to the beast, and that, through the judgment of God upon them, they will have one and the same will to do so.

I do not now interpret, I take these things as a whole. Do they not announce, including the vine of the earth, a state of corruption, of apostasy, finally of cutting off, before the beginning of the thousand years of blessing which will come in by the presence of the Lord? I do not think the church has done any good by setting aside such solemn warnings; the more so, because God has attached a special blessing to those who listen to them. If the author of the pamphlet does not himself desire to dwell upon this, let him not be surprised if someone draws the attention of the children of God to such portions of the word. Let him allow me to remind him that, if this book were addressed to the then existing churches, the question, in what was addressed to them, was not of churches, but of ruin, apostasy, and of judgment. This is the future which is presented, when John ascends up to heaven. If there be churches, let them take heed to it.

179 In 1 John 2: 18, We have a very striking example of the way in which the latter times presented themselves to the mind of the apostle, to the spirit of prophecy which God had given him. These times were to be known by the presence of evil, of the Antichrist, and besides by this that, even in the times of the apostles, the signs were there. "You have heard that Antichrist shall come": it was a subject of which even little children in Christ were informed. "Even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Finally, the apostle directs the attention of the little children to the coming of the Saviour. One may surely admit, that the presence of the Antichrist is a sign of the ruin not of the faithful, but of the dispensation as a whole, and of its approaching cutting off. Is it not also true, that this passage in John confirms the testimony borne to this truth, that the evil which would occasion the cutting off had introduced itself from the very beginning, and would continue until God executed the judgment, which would destroy the lawless one, and that in consequence the dispensation would not be restored?

If the patience of God has endured the evil for a long time, does that imply that the judgment will be less certain for Him with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years, or for the faith that cleaves to His word alone?

I come now to Romans 11. Here the arguments of the author of the pamphlet are rather against the apostle than against me. He says that, in order that the cutting off of the dispensation may take place, the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be found in it. Has he never heard, in the word, of the churches of the Gentiles; of an apostle of the Gentiles; of a reception of the Gentiles as a body, when the Jews had been cut off; of Gentiles upon whom the name of God was to be invoked? . . . It is true that, as to the fundamental principle of the church, there was in it neither Jew nor Gentile, because all were looked upon as risen together with Christ; but as to the earthly dispensation of the church, there was an apostle of the Gentiles and an apostle of the circumcision. There was this distinction - "To the Jew first, and also to the Greek"; and it is of this earthly dispensation that we are speaking.*

{*Note to translation. - The passage does not refer to the mystery of the church at all, but to the tree of promise beginning with Abraham.}

180 I believe our brother will find that the death of Stephen was the occasion of an important change in this respect; it is that of which we are speaking. The Jews were then guilty, because they had rejected not only the Son of man, but also the witness given by the Spirit to the glory of Jesus.

The apostle here speaks of the branches grafted into the good olive tree instead of those which had been broken off; he speaks of the dispensation of the promises of God. This already is an important principle. He speaks of the Gentiles, as having taken the place of the Jews, in the enjoyment of the dispensation of the promises (see verses 12, 13); because the Jews were broken off from their olive tree dispensationally. It is evident that the faithful amongst them were not broken off from Christ - very far from it, they enjoyed communion with Him in an infinitely higher way than that which they possessed before; but, as a dispensation, the Jewish branches had been broken off. There are then, besides the union of Christ with the faithful, privileges enjoyed as a dispensation, which may be lost; for the Jews, as a dispensation, had lost them. The apostle tells us, moreover, that the Gentiles had been put in the place of the Jews, in this position; it is not I that say so, but the apostle. He tells us also, that in this position they, as the Jews, are responsible, and may be cut off, as the Jews have been, although the remnant enjoyed, subsequent to this cutting off, still higher privileges, as the faithful of the present dispensation will enjoy with the Lord in glory during the reign of a thousand years, although the dispensation in which they were faithful be terminated; that is, though God will have put an end to the present dispensation, in the which He now places Himself in relation with men here below.

In different dispensations, God puts Himself in relation with men, on certain principles; He judges them according to those principles. If those who are found in this outward relationship are unfaithful to the principles of the dispensation, although God may long forbear, He puts an end to it, while at the same time preserving the faithful for Himself; this is what He has done as to the Jewish dispensation. Well! this chapter informs us that the Gentiles have been graffed into the place of the Jews. Mark, that in making this statement, I do not argue concerning what ought to be, but I quote the revelation of God contained in this chapter. The Holy Ghost speaks to Gentiles, He places them under their responsibility, and threatens them with the same fate as Israel.

181 Let us examine more closely this chapter. First, the apostle distinguishes between the counsels of God, and the enjoyment of privileges attached to the dispensation. As to the counsels of God, the Jews, as a nation, were to enjoy promises, which had been made to them in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, notwithstanding all that might happen, for "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It is moreover what will happen in another dispensation in the world* to come. In the present dispensation,** what is presented to us is one body, gathered together from all nations, for heaven. But as to the dispensation of God, the Jews were to be cut off, until the fulness of the Gentiles had come in; and the setting aside of the dispensation was not to prevent a remnant being spared and saved: this is what the apostle set forth in the beginning of the chapter.

{*The expression "world to come" is not applicable to heaven.}

{**Note to translation. - Strictly this is not a dispensation at all, but a heavenly calling, introduced, at the close of the Jewish, before the world or age to come in which the promises made to them will be fulfilled.}

The counsels of God remain firm, as to the Jews, although the Jewish dispensation be set aside, and a remnant preserved -  notwithstanding their apostasy and cutting off, to form part of another dispensation. In the meantime, this remnant has lost its Jewish character, and what is before us is the bringing in of the fulness of the Gentiles, after which God will again take up His counsels and dealings with the Jewish nation. Set aside during this dispensation, but kept by the powerful hand of God, judicially blinded, and enemies concerning the gospel, this nation is nevertheless beloved for the fathers' sakes. This rejection of the Jews is the reconciling of the world. The Gentiles are graffed into the good olive tree of the promises made to the fathers, and, says the apostle, under the same responsibility that had resulted in the cutting off of the Jewish branches. So that, if they did not continue in the goodness of God, they would also be cut off; they were to take heed, not to entertain the idea that they could not fall as the Jews had fallen, seeing that they were subject to the same conditions: "on them which fell, severity." The mystery of iniquity; the sleep during which the enemy sows the tares; perilous times; the state of Christians which is like that of the heathen; finally, the apostasy, or the falling away: all this is not, it appears to me, continuing in the goodness of God.

182 Moreover, the apostle would not have us to be ignorant of this mystery, that there is a fulness of the Gentiles to come in, and that then Israel will be saved as a nation by the coming of the Deliverer, who will come out of Sion and who will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. So Israel, Jacob, the nation, will be saved, for the counsels of God do not change. But is it in this dispensation? By no means; this has, for its first principle, the absence of the Saviour, and a heavenly calling, by the presence of another Comforter, who unites us to Jesus in the heavenlies, and who, in communicating to us His perfect and accomplished salvation, causes us to walk as pilgrims and strangers here below, being one body with Him who is on high, wrestling against wicked spirits in heavenly places, and passing through a world called "this present evil age," while taking up our cross to follow Jesus in His humiliation. But Israel will be saved, when the Deliverer shall come out of Sion. The world will be blessed by the presence and the reign of the Saviour; the present evil age will have terminated; Satan will be bound; the glory of this world, instead of being a snare laid by the enemy to turn away the faithful from their heavenly calling, will be the glory of Christ Himself; the enjoyment of all that this world can give will be the portion of the faithful here below, instead of the cross. Is this the same dispensation? In the place of the grace that endures all things, and which, while submitting to all things, commits itself to Him who judges righteously, it will be a kingdom of righteousness, which will not permit evil, because Jesus will have taken His great power and will act as a king. Yes, the presence and the reign of Jesus will bring in this immense change. In a word, whilst now we have to follow Jesus in His humiliation and rejection - precious participation in His sufferings, so that we may be glorified together, then it will be the presence of Jesus reigning in power. It will be the dispensation of the fulness of times. The Jews will be a separate nation, and all the promises made to the fathers will be fulfilled on their behalf. I speak now of the earthly part of this dispensation, of that which concerns the world and the Jews; for much better things are reserved for those who will have suffered with Christ, and who will then be made equal to the angels, and even placed in a position above them; so that all things in the heavens and on the earth will be thus gathered together under one head, gathered together in one, even in Jesus, the centre of blessing, the manifestation of the power and the glory of the "most high God, possessor of heaven and earth."

183 No; the faith and hope that is founded on the word, cannot recognise the present evil age, during which Jesus is absent, as this dispensation of the fulness of times. But there is a verse, the translation of which has helped on this false interpretation, namely, Romans 11: 31. This is the true translation: "So these also have now not believed in your mercy, in order that they, also, may be objects of mercy. For God hath shut up together all in unbelief, in order that He might shew mercy to all." The Jews were the objects of the promises, and the Gentiles of pure mercy. Jesus came to fulfil the promises made to the fathers: the Jews have rejected Him - and further, they have refused and rejected the revelation of the mercy shewn to the Gentiles, thus filling up the measure of their sins, so that the wrath of God "is come upon them to the uttermost," 1 Thess. 2: 16. So they also, being shut up in unbelief, become objects of pure mercy, like the Gentiles, although according to the flesh they had been heirs of the promises. This it is brings out the riches of the wisdom of God in a manner surprising to our hearts.

I beseech those who take an interest in these subjects to be so good as to examine the Greek to see if that could be otherwise translated; for my part, nothing is clearer. I should not have entered upon the domain of criticism, had not our brother appealed to this passage as a triumphant proof that there is one dispensation only to the end. To me, as to the apostle, it is a grand example of the wisdom of God, who has known how to combine with faithfulness towards His people, rendered still more striking by means of this, the grace which shews mercy unto them, as a sinful and guilty nation that has rejected the promises - a wisdom which, by means of this temporary reception, calls in the Gentiles, not to be an earthly people, although they be tried on the earth, but to fill the heavens with His glory. Then having recalled His ancient people to the enjoyment of the promises, He will make manifest to them, as well as to the world, that He could love poor sinners, as He loved His well-beloved Son, and make them partakers of the same glory in virtue of their union with Jesus, to the praise of His glory. Shall I say that it is the same dispensation as at present, where I am travelling in sorrow, although joyous, sighing for that bright day in which I shall see that dear Saviour, who has so loved me as to give Himself for me, and in which (infinite blessing!) I shall be made like unto Him? Shall I not rather say: come quickly, Lord Jesus, come quickly!

184 In short, our brother says, that he sees a threat to the Gentiles. I ask, a threat of what? Is it not of being cut off? And now let us look around and see if the Gentiles, who have been graffed into the place of the Jews - if Christendom - has continued in the goodness of God. It is unnecessary to speak of the Roman system, although, doubtless, there are souls saved in that system. Neither will we speak of the Greeks, who barely subsist under the domination of the Mohammedans - that scourge sent by God, or who are plunged in the superstition of a reigning hierarchy. Let us consider the countries where the light of protestantism has penetrated. For the most part they are sunk in unbelief; and barely an individual believer here or there is found, who fights against the general unbelief. The greater part of those who are called ministers are not converted. They are unconverted pastors, who are set over flocks of unbelievers, or who pretend to feed even the true sheep of the Lord, but who drive them away. These ministers are nominated, not by the Spirit of God, nor by the church, in any way whatever, but by the civil authorities, who have no office in the church (although all believers own them in that which has regard to their civil office). What do we see, in short? The Lord's sheep dispersed and scattered. It is an assembly of unbelievers administered and governed by persons who perhaps have not even the profession of Christianity, which is called the church. Believers generally find themselves confounded with this assembly, and those who are at the head are invested with the pre-eminence as with a civil right.

Compare this state of things, of which I have given but a sketch, these principal features admitted by all, with what is said of the church of God in the New Testament - in the Acts, in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Is the dispensation in a state of declension? Has it continued in the goodness of God? Has the separation of some faithful persons changed this state of things? What conclusion do I desire to draw from this? A deep humiliation on the part of the faithful, whatever the author of the pamphlet may say. Here he will allow me to make an observation. He complains, that I say "we," in speaking of the church, of its misery, and its ruin. He himself has been faithful, he says; be it so! I deny it not; I bless God for it. But, for my part, and miserable as I know myself to be, I prefer to identify myself with the sorrows, the misery, and even the failure of the whole church. I do not wish to add to it my own unbelief; but, even if I had walked like these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, I would rather say with one of them, "O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against him. Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws which he set before us," Dan. 9: 8-10.

185 If I know how to bring but little profit, little strength to that which has fallen, though avoiding the evil, I will at least bring to it my tears, my sympathies, and my testimony, which the spirit of Christ also seems to me to bring. Moreover, individual faithfulness does not prevent one feeling, in spite of oneself, the effect of the unfaithfulness of the body of which one forms a part. Although Joshua and Caleb in the end reaped the effect of their faithfulness, they experienced also, during the passage through the wilderness, the effect of the unbelief of the assembly; nevertheless, not without receiving consolations and a strength in their hearts, which the rest of the people did not enjoy. The members of the same body ought to suffer from the misery of the other members through love, through the spirit of Christ and of charity. If they will not do it through love, they do it through necessity. Although our dear brother is unwilling to say "we," I do not think he can escape from the consequences of the general state of the church. But all that is the result of his having lost the idea of the unity of the body, this precious bond of charity.

I repeat here what I said in the pamphlet: people forget the want of power, when they think it possible to follow the apostles because they have their writings. This is what the author does, when he says, "By following in the administration of the church, and in the establishment of different charges, the rules which the apostles have left us" (p. 36).

186 But was there not an administrative power, a power acting in the apostles, which we cannot pretend to? Was there not in the establishing of charges an authority which we cannot arrogate to ourselves? Compare what the author says. As to this power, says he, God never refuses it to anyone (p. 85). Did there not exist in the primitive church other power than obedience to apostolic laws? I set no limit to the blessing of the church now, but it is not by denying the existence of the power which existed at that period that it will be found again When our brother says that if the apostasy were to become general, it should have been predicted that the tares would choke the good seed. The answer is, that this is not what is predicted in the word. When all worship the beast, except those whose names are written in the book of life, the apostasy will be general; but the tares will not choke the wheat, for God never leaves Himself without a witness. There will be a time, it is true, in which human testimony will cease, but then God will bear witness to Himself by His signal vengeance upon His enemies.

SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS

I have yet to add a few remarks in addition to the observations that I have been making on the pamphlet of our dear brother. The important point to notice, for the well-being of the whole church, is, in the first place, the fundamental and very serious error, which consists in the denial of the unity of the church of Christ - a unity such that it should manifest itself on earth by the presence and the power of the one Spirit during this dispensation. Secondly, the confusion of this dispensation with that of the fulness of times.

These two errors suffice to obscure or to warp the judgment on all that concerns the present state of the dispensation, and on the whole subject of the church of God here below. For my part, I think I see, along with our dear brother, the hand of God in that he has been constrained to state them clearly, so that they should be examined by the word in all patience and love, and that the brethren, asking of God the help of His Spirit, might form their judgment according to the word, where the truth lies as to these points. The author says (p. 81), to choose, to nominate, to establish, is more scriptural than to own. To own is also scriptural (1 Thess. 5: 12) - with this difference, however, that the word of God calls on all the faithful persons to own and never to choose gifts, nor even elders, as we have seen.

187 Nay, further, when a person is owned, the heart, the conscience, the affections, and respect are engaged; it is a bond, a bond formed by the exercise of the gift, in the heart of such who have profited thereby. The heart that has received blessing responds to the action of the Holy Spirit, which has taken place by means of the brother who has been its instrument; and thus the heart attaches itself to that instrument, and owns God in him; it is God's will that it should be so, and He binds together the members of the body by these mutual helps. And this is very especially applicable to a pastor, whose task is, to my mind, the most difficult that exists. What powerful bond does there not result when we own one from whom we have received blessing, who has led us on, counselled us, warned us, and preserved us from danger, and has made us know God - our God - better! The fact is that, according to my experience, there is more danger of overvaluing than of undervaluing a true pastor. Nevertheless, I see that the apostle puts a very great value upon such affections. Can one compare a vote of the church to bonds thus formed?

I do not deny that apostolic authority may have been of use, in certain cases, to give a sanction to the office of elder. This is what can never be done by the vote of a church, where perhaps new converts are called to determine a matter requiring the greatest spiritual discernment. It is never said that an apostle nominates a pastor, seeing that a pastor is a gift coming directly from God. They did choose elders. It was an office for which the gift of feeding the flock of God, in one way or another, was necessary or suitable. But they could not nominate to a gift - a very important distinction for us, because we can enjoy the gift, without there being any one with authority to appoint an elder. Besides, I put no limit to what the Holy Spirit can do in this respect by counsel and a truly spiritual wisdom, although there be no apostle. It is my wish that all that the Holy Spirit gives may in all respects be freely exercised. It is not here a question of right, of authority, but of duty, of charity, of those bowels of love, which spends itself for the flock of God, which desires that all that God has given may be used in its place. There is no rule for that. The Holy Spirit always justifies Himself in His work. If any one acts against the word, it is evident that it is not the Holy Spirit who led him to act. When Paul besought Apollos to go to Corinth, and Titus to remain in Crete, it was not a regulation for the church; but the word has given us such things, not in order that each one may always follow them, but as the precious tracks of the ways of the Spirit of God.

188 And here we must again notice this principle: that what concerns the individual conscience is at all times obligatory, and that God always gives strength to accomplish that which He requires from faith. We have only to obey. But it is not so with the things that relate to the administration of the church; because they suppose a certain state of things, a power of administration, a strength acting in this respect, which is not given to all. If God tells me to turn away from certain persons, not to bear the same yoke with unbelievers, this does not concern an administrative function, but individual faithfulness. Consequently, there are rules which are not necessarily for all times. It does not follow from this, it is true, that there are no churches, but it follows from it that the church, or believers, may, in certain cases, be incapable of following all the rules, although the rules be there.

There is still a difference to point out between this dispensation and the Jewish dispensation. In the Jewish dispensation, the branches cut off were natural branches, so that, although sin occasioned the cutting off, it was not sin that had given them their place on the good olive tree. But in the present dispensation, as it is a remnant according to the Spirit,* which is of the essence of the dispensation, it is clear that the introduction of the wild branches has been occasioned by sin. "While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares." At least, if it was not absolutely sin that introduced these branches, they were, however, never legitimate, and they would very soon have been manifested, if there had been entire faithfulness. But it has not been so, and in consequence the branches must be finally cut off, and the faithful gathered in for a dispensation of glory, in order to reign with the Lord a thousand years, the dispensation being thus fully brought to an end.

{*For, whenever I can find a remnant according to the Spirit, I find what is essential to the dispensation, although I have not all that was possessed by those who were faithful at the beginning of the dispensation. It is the confusion of these two things which leads our brother into error. I acknowledge that which is essential to the existence of the dispensation, where there are two or three believers gathered in the name of Jesus; but I do not pretend to possess in that state what I do not actually possess, and I do not wish to fill up its place by human means. This is what nationalism and dissent have done, in order not to have the appearance of disorder in the world.}

189 As to presidency, there is one more explanation to give. I do not find that the word 'president' is employed in the word of God in the sense of presiding in an assembly. In this sentence, "that he who presides,* let him do it with diligence," it is the same word which is translated to rule in this text, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God," Rom. 12: 8; 1 Tim. 3: 4, 5, 12.

{*The word used in the French edition of Martin. In Switzerland, the dissenters from the Establishment had chosen presidents, when they had not regular pastors.}

The choice of presidents is nowhere to be found, as we have said. The maintenance of proper order in a large gathering by grave brethren, such as terminating at a suitable time, making communications to brethren, and other similar things, breaking the bread, if the Supper is taken; these are things against which, for my part, I have no objection to make, provided worship takes place by the Spirit of God in the assembly, and not through the means of a president. I do not feel the need of saying much on this point. As to the details of circumstances, they are almost indifferent to me, provided there be gravity, order, and the liberty of the Holy Spirit in the worship that takes place. I should not have said so much, were it not for fear of being misunderstood. It is God who alone can bring us to the proposed end.

REMARKS UPON THE "REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL SOCIETY OF GENEVA, FOR 1841"

They have put into my hands the Report of the Evangelical Society, in which the matter that occupies us has also been discussed, from the very beginning of the different reports. I pray God with all my heart, that the work the Society is engaged in may be blessed, whatever may be the way in which it is conducted. I only wish here to draw attention to the arguments which have been used on the subject of ministry, and to shew how far a false idea can lead astray true Christians. All, it is said, should work for the advancement of the kingdom of God; but if there is not a priesthood, there is a ministry (page 60 of the Report).

190 Let us mark this well. In this passage of the Report, ministry does not mean service rendered to God and to men, whether of evangelisation, or of faithful care amongst those who have already been brought into the Lord's sheepfold; but it means a body of men, to whom belongs the right of exercising their ministry; of men who are, as it is said, a few lines lower down, a government in Christian churches. In short, ministry does not mean a certain service, or the subject of testimony with which this service is occupied (as it might be said, for instance, the ministry of the apostle, to designate his service; the ministry of the gospel, to designate the subject matter of testimony); but what has been falsely called the Clergy. I fully acknowledge a ministry (that is, a service rendered by God to men, by means of men raised up by God to this end), whether it be that this ministry is exercised towards the world in evangelisation, or is exercised in the church by gifts and suitable instruments of every kind. "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation," etc., Rom. 12: 6-8, etc. Peter also said, "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God," etc., 1 Pet. 4: 10.

Finally, Jesus Himself approves of those, as faithful servants, who have traded with the gift that He entrusted to them, because they have sufficient confidence in Him to labour without further authority than the communication of the gift; and intelligence enough to understand that God does not light a candle to put it under a bushel. But this is not the meaning of the word ministry, in the paragraph we have just quoted. There the ministry is contrasted with the work of Priscilla, and Aquila, and of Origen before his ordination. "They were only simple believers," but besides that, "there is a ministry," that is, a clergy. Christian churches need a government.

The whole force of this argument rests on the confusion that is made of the ministry with the established clergy, with a body of teachers, nominated and set apart by man. The author of the report cites, in support of this, 1 Corinthians 12: 28: "God hath set some in the church." We will content ourselves with what the reporter says himself elsewhere; not man, but God. I do not think that he wishes to make apostles, and who was it that ordained prophets, teachers? But it suffices to say that the apostle only speaks here of the operation of the Holy Spirit. "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." This is how God appoints.

191 Ephesians 4: 11, 12, is quoted; but I find here that Christ has bestowed the gifts, and in nowise that man made a body of those who possessed them. I find that the apostle, in the Epistle to the Galatians, asserts, as his glory, that his ministry was not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and by God the Father. Who was it that set apart the prophets when it is said "so that all may speak and that all may be edified?" Who from among men ordained those that, at the time of the persecution which took place at the death of Stephen, went everywhere preaching the word?  Where is it said that these teachers, whom Christ had given as gifts, were ordained? What connection is there between all that and ordination, or a mission on the part of man? Is there no difference between the Lord Jesus, the head of the body, who imparts gifts to men by the Holy Spirit, according to His good pleasure, and an academy for bringing up a clergy? Is it then intended to educate apostles, for they are mentioned here just as much as teachers?* What an extraordinary confusion is found in the mind of man, the instant he desires to be something!

{*I see in effect that the dear brother I have in view, amiably imaginative, compares the school of theology to the twelve who were with Jesus. I had only paid attention to the passages quoted. As to this allusion, I do not occupy myself with it; I see more of the reporter than of the Report; it is unnecessary I think to argue about it. (Page 15 of the Report.)}

Let us examine the other passages quoted. Romans 10: 14, 15: "How shall they preach except they be sent? How beautiful are the feet of them who preach the gospel of peace." Is it then a clergy? Was it man who at that time sent out the apostle and others to preach the gospel? Was the apostle mistaken when he said, Not of man, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ? Was he not then one of those who were sent? What a singular feeling of self-satisfaction must exist, when after sent is added "by men," and when God is thus found excluded from this glorious privilege and the prerogatives of His grace. In short, who is it that says here that it is men who ought to send them? Romans 12: 6-8 says not a word of ordination for the ministry; on the contrary, it is said that each one ought to act according to the gift which has been entrusted to him. "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God," 1 Cor. 4: 1, 2. Because I ought to consider the apostle as a minister of Christ, does it follow from this, that there ought to be a clergy in the church of God? I am perhaps slow of apprehension, but I see no sequence in this reasoning, although I heartily acknowledge the apostle to be what he says. But does the reporter hold the clergy, from which he has separated himself,* to be what the apostle was? If not, the point in question is clearly quite another thing. God had sent the apostle; it was necessary to acknowledge him as such; but if one desires to find out how, it will not be difficult to discern in this very epistle, that it was not because he was sent and ordained by men: "Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it," Col. 4: 17. Who says that Archippus had received this ministry through the intervention of man?

{*Messrs, Merle, Gaussen, etc., who had separated from the Genevese establishment, or were driven out for faithfulness, when it was Socinian. At that time the Clergy were almost wholly Socinian. If my memory does not much deceive me, Mr. Merle drew up the Report.}

192 I find in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25), that faithfulness consisted in that they had acted on their own responsibility, without waiting for anything further than the communication of the gift on the part of Christ, because they had a right confidence in the goodness of their Master and the understanding of His will. He who would have had some other warrant, was condemned out of his own mouth. I am far from putting ordained men in this category; I speak only of the grand principle; for many among them have laboured faithfully in the sphere they have given themselves, and have even acted with a good conscience in this respect. Perhaps they may be found somewhat of the number of those who have put out their money to the banker.

In conclusion, I have nothing to say for my part against the laying on of hands in itself. I do not speak of that laying on of hands which bestowed gifts, but of that which can be given to any brother approved in the kingdom of God, who has acted on his own responsibility, and with the knowledge of the grace of God, the only real motive owned by God, and who is desirous of being recommended to the grace of God for a special work; in that case, it is all very well. It is what happened to Paul, who received the laying on of hands from the laity (as they say), not to receive authority, nor to be placed amongst the clergy, but to be recommended to the grace of God. It appears, indeed, that this was repeated: compare Acts 15: 40, and chap. 14: 26, with chap. 13: 3. That is a very precious thing, but quite in contrast with a ministry transmissible and authorised by men, into which introduction takes place by the intervention of men, by its preparatory education, as if it were a trade.

193 Let us continue the examination of the passages. The reporter only quotes one more passage which we will look at in a moment. "And those who trust to the choice made by the churches, of those to whom some ministry was confided." (At the end of page 60 of the Report.) Some ministry was confided! I am astonished! Some ministry! Did the churches choose the apostles, the prophets, the teachers, the evangelists? There were those, it is true, who said, "I am of Paul, of Cephas, of Apollos" - others who have had itching ears. What then is the subject of the passages quoted? Nothing but tables and money. The apostles, because they had the ministry of the word, which was the object, not of the choice of men, but of that of God, requested that men should be chosen to administer the money entrusted to them by the church, because it did not become those who had the ministry given of God to leave it to attend to temporal matters. In like manner, the apostle, careful to provide things honest even before men, was unwilling to take the money, unless there was someone, chosen on the part of the church, to take charge of it together with him. "Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance, which is administered by us, providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men," 2 Cor. 8: 20, 21.

I have reserved one more quotation, because it is presented to us at length, and I doubt if there be found, even amongst the abettors of popery, an idea so monstrous, and so astounding on this subject. Let us recollect, that the point in question is the institution of a ministry, of a body of men set apart for this service, of the clergy, in short. "If the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory"; "for," adds the apostle, "if that which is done away is glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," 2 Cor. 3: 9-11. I assure [my reader] that I have read again and again this passage and the paragraph where it is quoted, thinking to surprise myself in some confusion of ideas, because it seemed impossible to me that a Christian could make such an application. But no; such is the case. According to the Report, the clergy, the ministry that God established for the primitive church, is the glory which remains. The apostle does not speak of the subject of his ministry, in 'contrast with the condemnation and death pronounced by the law, at the glory of which in consequence man could not look; it is not the glory of the Lord with unveiled face in the Person of Jesus Christ; no! it is the established ministry, it is the ministerial system, it is a separate class of men, a clergy; this is the glorious thing that is to remain! Is it possible to go to greater lengths?

194 Even if elders were subjected to the laying on of hands, which is never said, where is it seen that those who exercised the ministry were subjected to it? where is this idea found, that it was only elders who could exercise the ministry? It would be very difficult to prove such a system by the word, and indeed it is never quoted; I appeal to the citations already made by the reporter on the subject of the ministry. He says, that "it is forbidden also to choose ministers amongst new converts." That is said of the elders, of overseers, but not of ministers: the mingling of these two things is quite unscriptural, although the elders ought to have been fit to teach. But who could have believed, that an attempt would be made to prove that it was forbidden to choose ministers amongst new converts, whilst young men are brought up for the ministry, and that elders or bishops are made of them by the consecration of men, as soon as they have finished their studies? Where is it said in the passages alluded to, and in which the qualities which bishops should possess are specified, "that they ought to receive solemnly the imposition of hands from the assembly of the elders"? When Titus was sent to appoint elders in every city, from what assembly of elders did they receive the imposition of hands?

195 It is singular enough that, although laying on of hands took place for all sorts of cases, as for the blessing of children, on the sick, on an apostle, to impart the Holy Spirit to all believers, or for a special gift - as to Timothy - finally, on those who were chosen to be deacons; and that thus it is probable that hands were laid on elders, when all things were done in order: it is, I say, singular that the word is perfectly silent on the subject. For my own part, I have no doubt, that as God had foreseen the abuse that would exist as to the Virgin Mary, and that in His grace He always shews her as repelled by the Lord Jesus during His ministry, so likewise God, foreseeing also the abuse of a custom, which probably existed at first, was perfectly silent on the subject; so that the Clergy, of which the system was foreknown to Him, as all things, might never have the semblance of His authority to make it a separate class,* and by this means to exalt itself, as if it were the ministry of God. We know what has been the result.

{*The word "clergy" is derived from a word which is found in 1 Peter 5: 3, signifying "lot," or "heritage": "Not as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." The word translated by "heritage" is in Greek, cleron. Clergy has been made out of this, and the term is applied to the body ecclesiastic to make it the Lord's heritage and the government of the churches; whereas, there is found in the passage a warning against such conduct. The abuse began early. (See Gieseler, p. 169, vol 1, Clark.)}

As to the circumstances which have given rise to the exposition of the principle which we are commenting upon, I do not meddle with them: I occupy myself with principles only. It may perhaps appear extraordinary to comment upon a report. I reply, that it is not only a report, but a direct attack against certain principles, and the setting forth of other principles, which are given as more biblical: this is a proper subject for discussion.

There is, in the report itself, a singular and striking effect of the principles therein set forth: -

Mr. Such-an-one, minister of the holy gospel.

Mr. Such-an-one, evangelist.

This is rather comical. There are evangelists who are not ministers (I suppose according to Ephesians 4: 11, 12, quoted in p. 61 of the report); and ministers of the holy gospel, who are not evangelists; and, what is more, evangelists, who are not ministers of the holy gospel. It is the ordination of man which makes this strange distinction. May God make them to be good evangelists, and good ministers of the holy gospel! But, truly, the wisdom of man is folly in the sight of God; and the folly of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. Thanks be abundantly given to Him, for that He is good enough to pass over the littleness of the folly of man, and bless according to His sovereign grace those He sends! And I pray Him therefore, that, in His grace, He may keep from the pride that attaches itself to a human distinction those, who, not content with being evangelists sent by Him, have had themselves made by men ministers of the holy gospel.

196 Let us hasten, however, to find some roses in the midst of these thorns. I quote another report: "To pretend to distinguish here, as it is too often done amongst us, the ministry of preaching, and that of the sacraments (as if one of these ministries, exercised without the authority of the clergy, constituted, more than others, a separation), is to go beyond the scripture, and contrary to it" (page 25 of the report). I do not quote these words of the dear brother, who is the reporter, to lead others to think that he agrees with the principles of my pamphlet. It is clear enough that he does not. I take the words as they are,* as a testimony which, by dint of circumstances, pierces through the prejudices which have been produced by old habits and certain forms of study. I rejoice to agree with him, and that, in consequence of the evil done by the clergy, according to his account, he has been compelled to put in its true light this truth, that the celebration of the Lord's supper is no more a separation than preaching is. I draw the same practical (I do not say theoretical) conclusion, as the author of the report; when I find myself authorised to preach apart, I find myself authorised to communicate apart. It is, in my opinion, a perfectly just principle.

{*As Tertullian, who said, "Oh, testimony of a soul naturally Christian."}

I have no doubt that the reporter has sometimes demanded other conditions for preaching than those which I myself demand. I have no wish to make him say what he does not say. I take the naked principle: and, I say, that to draw a distinction between these two things, as has been too often done amongst us, is to go against Scripture, seeing that, if I am authorised to preach apart, I am authorised to celebrate the Lord's supper apart. Let this be noted! I admit with him, that these two steps are very serious; and I am sure that he does not wish to separate from nationalism, neither by one nor the other. I let him judge for himself if it be to separate oneself from the church. I insist only upon the point contained in this sentence: to preach the word and dispense the Lord's supper, without being authorised by the ecclesiastical governors, when they are in disorder. I add what he gives us of Benedict Pictet: "The truth of the faith, the purity of worship, submission to Christ, constitute the essence (l'être) of the church. The preservation of these things is then the preservation of the unity of the church."

197 We have said enough in reply to the quotation which the same reporter makes of the Epistle to the Ephesians. One minister, nominated by men, is a thing far different from the diversity of ministry found in the body of Christ; such a person, in general, extinguishes all the other gifts, unless they manifest themselves in spite of him. It is this confusion that is made between a ministry, authorised by men, and the ministry of the body of Christ, which has produced so much confusion in practice, and which, in eliminating every other ministry than that which is found in the one minister, has forced all other ministries, as it were, into a position of opposition. However irregular, the means, as they are called, have become in a measure more regular in spite of the regular means, so that we have evangelists acknowledged, who are not ministers of the gospel, even teachers, and the Lord's supper apart, without there being separation from the church.

It is a very important thing to commit to faithful men what one has learnt; but there is always this confusion, that by ministry is meant an ecclesiastical body, ecclesiastical authorities. It is not said here that Timothy (2 Tim. 2: 2) was to confer offices, but to communicate the truth; as also he was to prevent certain persons from preaching other doctrines. He was called to watch over the doctrine, and to commit it to faithful men, able to teach others also. The reporter says, that it is evident that these principles (those of the ruin of the church) are false, because "it is easy to see that the state of the churches of Rome, of Ephesus, of Galatia, of Corinth, was the same as ours." Does he think then that it was the duty of the faithful to have the Lord's supper apart, because of the condition of these churches, as he thinks that it is now his duty to have the Lord's supper apart? Was it the condition of those churches to have their pastors nominated by the civil authorities, perhaps by unbelievers? Has the domination of the Pope changed nothing in the state of the church? What does he mean by "ours"? - the church of Geneva, where he cannot take the Lord's supper? - the church of Rome, which he fights against with all his might? Where was the church among those churches mentioned in the word, however far it might have wandered in practice, or where was the doctrine which opened "the door to admit to the Lord's supper, all those who, in the church acknowledged themselves utterly lost by their works and completely saved by Jesus Christ"? I think it strange the reporter should say, that as to their actual circumstances, the churches, in the time of the apostles, were in the same condition as his own.

198 The reporter, moreover, gives us a summary of the evangelical doctrines, on which, thanks be to God! we agree perfectly, as in many other matters, precious for time and eternity; then, contrasting the opposite error, he says: "Such has been in every age the language of the fallen churches and of all false religions." Such have been the doctrines of the whole professing church; it was therefore a fallen church. There were only persecuted separatists who may have kept the good deposit of faith.

The church, as a body, is in ruin. That is what I say. In what condition was Protestantism a few years ago (and even at present, in several places), as to doctrine? A scandal, even to a pious member of the Romish Church! Good has introduced itself a little; but it is in spite of the church; I appeal to the Oratoire.* The church, yes, the church of the reporter is, according to him, in ruin; his position shews it. "Such is," says he (in speaking of a rejected teaching, as unworthy even of the name of Socinian), "such is the doctrine which has been promulgated in Geneva for a quarter of a century, and that without any remonstrance being raised, if it be not those of men who have been publicly punished by judicial sentence. Were we not right in saying, that our circumstances were unheard of?" How unheard of, if the condition be the same as that of the church at Ephesus? "The Romish religion, even, is not so fatal to the eternal interests of humanity"; "and all that with the sanction of the authorities." Yet persons dare to say: the condition of our church is such as that of Rome, of Ephesus, etc.! And it is not a fallen church!

{*The place established for preaching and worship at Geneva by those who had left the national body, which was Socinian, where these reports by Mr. Merle, etc., were read.}

199 I beseech my brother to believe me in this, that I am not saying here a word concerning his position; this is not the place to discuss it. I quote all these avowals, because he loudly blames this doctrine, that the church is in a state of failure, and yet it seems to me that he himself proves it. Such is all that I occupy myself with in this report. May God bless the work of those who preach the Lord Jesus! this is my prayer. The report discusses principles, I discuss them too; and I close by making this remark, that there is all possible difference between "preparing for the church faithful persons" - a task that appears to me rather a difficult one for man - and "committing to faithful men" the truths that one has learned, so that there may be a rampart against error. I would also recall the very important remark of the report on evangelisation. The word of God has settled the question. "God," says the scripture (1 Cor. 12: 28), note it well; God, and not man -  God "has set some in the church; first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers." Well! let it be God, and not man, who appoints them, and we shall be content.

I wish, in conclusion, to remember myself, as well as to remind those who will peruse these pages, that the Holy Spirit is ever with us - that His strength fails not. The unbelief of the mass of professors may exercise an influence on the mode of the activity of the child of God, never on its source. It may give him more of sorrow sometimes; he may find himself more isolated, but that cannot prevent his being faithful. The unbelief of the mass may doubtless change the circumstances in the midst of which he labours, and so modify their effects, but it cannot alter the faithfulness of him who labours in it; on the contrary, the moment when evil is at its height, is ordinarily the time of the greatest faithfulness of Christians: we have already said so in the pamphlet, "On the Formation of Churches"; Elijah, Samuel, Moses, and others, are witnesses of this.

Moreover, the duty of evangelising always remains: the responsibility of those who have to labour in pastoral care is always the same, and Christian love will constrain those who are filled with the Spirit of Christ thus to occupy themselves. The conviction that the church is fallen, and that the world is going to be judged, will only serve to give more activity, so that they who have ears to hear, may hear, and be saved from the perverse generation, whose iniquity will soon bring in such terrible consequences; namely, the righteous anger of a God of patience, the wrath of the Lamb! Let us work, dearly beloved, whilst it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. The love of Christ is the best guide for our daily duties.

200 APPENDIX

I desire to add a few words on an objection, or rather on an aspect under which one may view a part of the reasoning of my pamphlet, in order to take away from its force. The answer to this objection is already to be found in the reasoning itself. Nevertheless, I would say a word about it. Here is the difficulty: it is admitted that God has set in the church, apostles, prophets, etc.; but it is said that it is in the body of Christ, in the church, one part of which is in heaven already, while another is in conflict, and a third part, finally, is not yet manifested;  consequently, it is said, one cannot speak of a unity of the church on earth.

Here is my answer: -

It cannot be denied that there has been a manifestation of that body, and of the unity of that body on earth, at the beginning of the present dispensation. Apostles and prophets did not exercise their ministry in heaven, although it was a spectacle there to angels; and the faithful who composed that unity, that body, were all on earth. This fact once admitted, the objection loses all its force; or, rather, it becomes an argument in favour of the truth on which I insist; for the blessed and powerful unity which then existed, does no longer exist. I only wish to enter upon the question, as concerning the conscience of those who now form the church of God on earth, and not with respect to the counsels of God.

If this objection be attentively considered, it will be seen that it gives greater prominence to the idea of the unity of the church, as a body on earth during this dispensation. If the unity of the church is not taken in the sense of forming a society here below, but only in the sense of the assembly of the elect, in a state of eternal salvation; then, it is evident that a considerable portion of the church was already in heaven, when the present dispensation began. This beginning has taken place, and the apostles were given, as well as the other gifts, as the result and manifestation of the glorification of Christ "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," Heb. 8: 1.

201 The unity I speak of, is, therefore, a unity produced by the sending of the Holy Spirit here below, after Christ had been glorified; it only existed after the sending of the Holy Spirit, as the result of His mission. It is evidently a question of something different from the unity of all the elect in heaven; for a great portion of these elect were already saved and removed from the earth when the unity that is spoken of began. It is therefore, a unity which belongs to the present dispensation, of which the Holy Spirit, sent from above, was to be the strength; it is a unity which should have acted on the world and consequently have been seen of the world. As the Saviour Himself said: "That they also may be one . . . that the world may believe," etc. And the manifestation of the Spirit applied in effect to the welfare of the body here below. Further, that unity was visible at the beginning of the dispensation; all the manifested saints formed part of it. The joints of supply were all working in the unity of the body on earth. But, it is said, this unity of the body must necessarily have ceased, since many of those who formed part of it are gone to heaven. In speaking thus, one admits that the unity took place; for, if it has ceased, it existed once. Yes; there has been here below a manifestation of the unity of the body by the power of the Holy Spirit, carrying it out in all the joints of supply. These joints of supply did exist, and were active, and if any joint did not perform its functions aright, the Holy Spirit, by means of the apostles, applied the remedy, although Jesus was no more on earth. "What will ye," says Paul, "shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, or in a spirit of meekness?" Thus, the glory of Christ was not in the dust here below. The church, filled with the Holy Spirit, one and united, reflected in the midst of the darkness of the night of the world the glory of that hidden Sun, of Jesus its beloved Saviour. This manifestation of the glory of Christ by the church in unity no longer exists. Is that a matter of indifference?

To me, it is a subject of tears and of deep humiliation. The glory of Christ, present, so to speak, in the church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, shed all its light on the cross, all its brightness on sin, and on the world. The cross, which began the Christian life, closed the life and hopes of the world; but it shone with all the brightness of the glory to which it led, and which was to be its crown. These were the two terms of the Christian life. All the rest, that which lay between, was only passing. It was easy to be a stranger and a pilgrim, where the cross and the glory united to place in its true light the world which had crucified the Lord of glory; where the world was for the heart only, the empty tomb of Christ - for love, only the scene of a testimony borne to a glory and to a love, which produced the ardent desire that He might come quickly. Is it so now? Are we united as at the beginning? Does that testimony of devotedness still exist? Are the glory of Christ and His coming things so present to the church, that every sacrifice is easy to it - that the cross is light for it - that the riches of this world are only for it an opportunity given of God to bear witness to His love, only unrighteous riches, of which one frees oneself, as of a burden, in order to cast them into the treasuries of Christ, that they may come out transformed and purified in the waters of His love? Am I to be satisfied when people tell me that the unity, in the bosom of which all this did manifest itself, can no longer exist, because the first Christians, who formed part of it, are dead? Ought my heart and my conscience to content themselves with such an answer? Dear brethren, are your hearts satisfied with it? If they are, I have done reasoning. If the manifestation of the glory of Christ in us and by us on earth, in His body. which is the church, does not touch you, I have nothing more to tell you. If the heart is indifferent to all this, there is no more reasoning for the Spirit of God. But if it be only knowledge that you lack, may God deign to bless my words for your heart!

202 The doctrine of the union of the church, as a body, whether at the beginning or through the whole duration of the dispensation, is closely connected with the doctrine of the presence of the Holy Spirit here below. If He unites the members which are on earth to those who have departed, is it not just as true, that, being on earth as regards the order of the dispensations, He necessarily unites into one body all the Christians who are on earth? It is perfectly certain that this it is which He did at the beginning.

The objection which we are discussing, admits this truth. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit does not now unite the children of God into one body - if that is impossible, for whatever reason it may be, it is evident that the state of things established by God on earth, as the means of manifesting His glory, and as the instrument of testimony, has ceased to exist. You may give it what name you like - failure, ruin, apostasy. It is one of the gravest facts, of the deepest import, in the kingdom and in the dispensations of God. If the Holy Spirit gives unto us to penetrate through that which envelopes the mystery of lawlessness, and if thus, before the full manifestation of the apostasy to the world, we can say, There is the apostasy,* it seems to me that to condemn the anticipated application of this expression to those who walk in the spirit of apostasy, and who will be the apostasy when the veil is removed - it seems to me, I say, that this is less profitable and less true than to warn the church of the circumstances in which it is placed. If anyone found a plant which produced poisonous fruit, while it was not yet the season for it to bear its fruit, and said to an ignorant person, "this plant bears poisonous fruit, pay great attention to it," would there not be more blessing for that person than if it had been said, "see that plant, it does not bear poisonous fruit"? In the first case, the remark would perhaps have failed in exactness, and been less logical than in the second; but would it be less true, less seasonable?

{*As Jude said, "And Enoch also . . . prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh . . . to execute judgment . . . and to convince all the ungodly . . . of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him"; although they were yet hidden in the bosom of the church, where they had got in unnoticed.}

203 In order that the force of the unity produced by the Holy Spirit may be better understood, I shall call attention to a fact. At the time of His coming, Jesus, as Son of man, was corporally here below, although, as God, He was present everywhere; all the ways of God, on earth, were connected with that great fact. And so it is also with respect to the Holy Spirit: Jesus, when He was going away, promised "another Comforter"; that promise was fulfilled not many days after, and the Holy Spirit came down on the disciples, although He was present everywhere, inasmuch as He is God. According to the dispensation of God, the Holy Spirit dwells now also personally in the church of God on earth. All the ways of God are connected with this great fact - the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church. The Spirit bears a living testimony to the glory of the Son of God, as the Son Himself glorified the Father while He abode here below.

204 This doctrine of the coming down of the Holy Spirit, and of His presence of earth, is evidently of the deepest import in the question of the unity of the church.

I do not quote again the passages of the Epistle to the Ephesians and of the Epistle to the Corinthians already quoted above. At the beginning, "the Lord added to the church . . . such as should be saved." I shall only call attention to the expression: "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it," 1 Cor. 12: 26. This expression is scarcely applicable to the members of the body of Christ who are already in heaven. Either this principle of love no longer finds its application, or the church has yet a unity on earth and must be viewed as a body which has "many members," but the members of which - of this body which is one, although they are "many" - are but "one body," 1 Cor. 12: 12. But in its present state, that body is imperfect, dilapidated, ruined, if you will. To say this is only to give one proof more of the ruin I have spoken of, a proof, the force of which is, I believe, but little appreciated by those who bring it forward.

The word apostasy has frightened many persons, and it has been said that the word is not scriptural. This is a mistake. It has been used because it is the word which the apostle employs to mark what is to happen before the judgment. Martin has translated it by the word "revolt" (2 Thess. 2: 3); Sacy, by the word "apostasy."* The term "apostasy" necessarily supposes a certain body or a certain person that has been in a certain position, but who is fallen, who has failed, who has not kept his original state, etc.

{*See also the version of Lausanne, Acts 21: 21, in footnote.}

The same objections might be made to the language of the Spirit of God Himself, speaking by the mouth of Jude, as are made to the use of the word "apostasy" to designate a state of things which is not yet openly manifested. "And Enoch also," says Jude, in speaking of those who had got into the church unnoticed, "prophesied of these." Man, reasoning according to his own views, might say, They are not "these" at all. According to man, he would be right. In fact, they were not these persons; but the Holy Spirit is not afraid of saying "of these," because, though hidden, they were of the same race. It was the same principle: they were the same men morally speaking: only the discernment of the Spirit was necessary in order to designate them. Is it wrong to speak as the Holy Spirit speaks?

205 I said in my first pamphlet, that the fall of man in the present dispensation was according to the analogy of all that had come to pass until now. I shall quote some of the instances to which I referred, in order that one may feel the universality of that sad proof of the folly and weakness of man, and of the power of Satan - of our enemy.

Adam soon lost his innocence. Noah got drunk in his tent, immediately after the flood. The Israelites made the golden calf, before Moses came down from the mount.

Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire, before the days of their consecration were accomplished; and Aaron did not eat of the sin-offering according to the ordinance of God.

Solomon, set up as king over Israel, in peace, according to the promises of God to David, fell into idolatry; and the kingdom was divided.

Even though the glory of Christ will have been manifested in the last days, the moment Satan is loosed, the nations will submit themselves to him, and will make war against the beloved city and the camp of the saints.

The fall of man in the present dispensation, and the ruin of the dispensation, by means of man's unfaithfulness in keeping the deposit which was entrusted to him, is only that which is again found, in all the situations, in all the circumstances, in all the dispensations, in which he has been placed. If this did not take place in this dispensation, it would be contrary to the analogy of all that is presented to us in the history which is given to us in the Bible, and contrary to all that is revealed to us about man in all the dispensations of God.

On Ministry: its nature, source, power, and responsibility.

J. N. Darby.

<01013E> 206

The state of the church of God sufficiently, it seems to me, points out the usefulness of the following observations on ministry, which are not presented with a view to controversy, but to throw light on a subject on which much controversy has been expended. It is a subject, moreover, of sufficient dignity and interest to lead us above the mists of theological discussions, and into the enjoyment of the pure light of heaven, whence true ministry emanates.

It may be well as a preliminary to give its true place and proper aspect to the idea of ministry; for it appears to me, that the importance of it has scarcely been fully apprehended. Its details may be taken up afterwards.

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL

The existence of ministry is consequent on the nature of the present dispensation; and, in saying this, we ascend very high to discover its source; for the nature of this dispensation is nothing less than the sovereign grace of God, the activity of His love.

The position and the character which distinguish the servants of God, are always, and necessarily, in unison with the principles of the relation which exists between God and men. When God only recognised certain families, the head of the family was its priest and prophet. We find examples of this in Abraham, Noah, and the other patriarchs. But this principle acquires a more general and important application, when a whole dispensation is in question; as in the case of Judaism and Christianity. The ways of God, and the principles of His dealings with sinners, are here unfolded with many more details for the conscience, and more distinctness and splendour as to the accomplishment and the revelation of grace.

Observe, accordingly, the marked distinction between these two dispensations. In Judaism, under mount Sinai, where the law was given and those ordinances established which regulated the intercourse between the people and God, we have a people already formed and recognised as such before God; a people whom God had already brought to Himself (Ex. 19); whose existence and whose rights depended on their being the children of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and who, with few exceptions, were perpetuated by natural descent. In a word, they already existed as a people, when God entered into covenant relationship with them; for it pleased God to try if man, so privileged and put in possession of every possible advantage for the maintenance of his position, could stand before Him.

207 The work and principle of Christianity are altogether different. Christianity supposes man to be lost; it supposes that the trial, to which God has subjected him by means of the law, has only served to prove more plainly how impossible it is for man, whatever his advantages or his privileges, to stand before Him. But this having been proved, Christianity presents to us God in His grace visiting this ruined race. He beholds the Gentiles sunk in ignorance and idolatry, and degraded by the most revolting crimes; He finds the Jews still more culpable, having been unfaithful to higher privileges; and He exhibits both Jew and Gentile as the terrible proof that human nature is fallen and corrupt, and that in the flesh good does not dwell. In Christianity God sees man wicked, miserable, rebellious, lost; but He sees him according to His infinite compassions; He only notices the wretchedness of man to bear witness to him of His own pity. He beholds and comes to call men by Jesus; that they may enjoy in Him, and through Him, deliverance and salvation, with His favour and His blessing!

The consequence of the position of the Jewish nation was very simple: a law, to direct the conduct of a people already existing as such before God; and a priesthood, to maintain the relations which existed between this people and their God -  relations which were not of a character to enable them to draw nigh to Him without mediation. The question was not, how to seek and call those without; but to order the intercourse with God of a people already recognised as such.

As we have already seen, Christianity has an entirely different character. It considers mankind as universally lost, proves them in reality to be so, and seeks, through the power of a new life, worshippers in spirit and in truth. In like manner does it introduce the worshippers themselves into the presence of God, who there reveals Himself as their Father - a Father who has sought and saved them. And this is done, not by means of an intermediate priestly class who represent the worshippers because of the inability of the latter to approach a terrible and imperfectly known God; but it introduces them in full confidence to a God known and loved, because He loved them, sought, and washed them from all their sins, that they might be before Him without fear.

208 The consequence of this marked difference between the relations in which Jews and Christians stand as toward God is, that the Jews had a priesthood (and not a ministry) which acted outwards, that is, outside the people; while Christianity has a ministry which finds its exercise in the active revelation of what God is - whether within the church or without - there being no intermediate priesthood between God and His people, save the Great High Priest Himself. The Christian priesthood is composed of all true Christians, who equally enjoy the right of entering into the holy places by the new and living way which has been consecrated for them - a priesthood, moreover, whose relations are essentially heavenly. Ministry, then, is essential to Christianity; which is the activity of the love of God in delivering souls from ruin and from sin, and in drawing them to Himself.

On earth, then, as regards the relations subsisting between God and man, a priesthood was the distinguishing characteristic of the Jewish dispensation; ministry, of the Christian: because priesthood maintained the Jews in their relations with God; and because by ministry Christianity seeks in this world worshippers of the Father. I say, on earth, for, in truth, when we consider the portion of the Christian in its highest point of view, namely, in that which has relation to heaven, Christianity has its "kings and priests" - that is to say, all saints. The worship of God is not ministry; it is the expression of the heart of the children before their Father in heaven, and of priests before their God; in the intimacy of the presence of Him who, in His love, has rent the veil, which His justice had opposed to the sinner; and has rent it by a stroke which has disarmed justice, and left her nothing but the happy task of clothing with the best robe those to whom before all entrance had been denied.

To suppose, then, the necessity of a priestly order is to deny the efficacy of the work of Christ, which has procured for us the privilege of our presenting ourselves before God; it is, in fact, though not in words, to deny Christianity, in its application to the conscience, and to the justification of the sinner; it is to overthrow all those relations which God has established that He might glorify Himself and place man in peace and blessedness. On the other hand, God acting in Christianity according to the active energy of His love towards sinners, Christian ministry becomes the expression of this activity. It has its source in the power of this love; whether it be in calling souls, or in nourishing those who are called and whom Jesus loves.

209 It is thus presented to us by Paul, as one of those things which characterise the gospel of the grace of God.

SOURCE OF MINISTRY

"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them: and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation." These are the three things which flow from the coming of God in Christ: "reconciling," "not imputing," and "committing unto us the word of reconciliation." Without this last, the work of grace would have remained imperfect in its application, for He who, in His coming here below, was reconciling and "not imputing" - this Jesus needed to be "made sin" for us, to die and go away. The work finished, it remained thus suspended in its application; and the crowning of this glorious work of the grace of God was to commit to man "the word of reconciliation," according to His own power and good pleasure. There were thus two elements contained in ministry: first, deep conviction and powerful sense of the love displayed in this work of reconciliation that capacitated; secondly, gifts, to declare to men, according to their necessities, the riches of this grace which animated the hearts of those who bore witness of it.

This it is that is presented to us in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25). He that had five talents, as well as he who had two, was actuated by the confidence which grace gives, by the knowledge of the character of his master, and by the confidence engendered in him, both by this knowledge of his master, and by this trust which he saw was reposed in himself. Their abilities, and their gifts, were not the same. God is sovereign in this respect. He who had only one talent, according to his ability, was wanting in this confidence, which is inspired by the knowledge of God in Christ. He mistook the character of his master. He was slothful, because of the state of his soul; as the two others were diligent from the same cause.

210 We thus see, that the principle of ministry is the active energy of love, of grace, flowing from the faith by which we know God. To touch this is to overthrow the whole in its fundamental principle. In its essence, ministry flows from individual knowledge of the Master's character. Grace known and strongly felt becomes active grace in our hearts - the only true, the only possible source, in the nature of things, of a ministry according to God. We see, moreover, that it is the sovereignty of God, who gives, as He sees good, either natural capacity - as the vessel to contain the gift - or the gift, according to the measure of the gift of Christ, out of those treasures which are found in Him, and which He has received for men.

We find ministry based on the same principle, when the Lord says to Peter, "Simon Peter, lovest thou me"; and, on His reply adds, "Feed my sheep, feed my lambs." This leads to the two essential parts of ministry, namely: first, the free activity of the love, which impels to call souls to Christ; and secondly, the service of love which is unwearied in its efforts to edify them when called. As regards the ministry of the word (for there are other gifts), these two divisions are distinctly presented to us in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians. In verse 23, Paul is "a minister of the gospel preached to every creature under heaven"; and in verse 25, a minister of the body of Christ, the church, to fulfil the word of God.

As the mainsprings and sources then of all ministry, there are these two things: the love produced in the heart by grace, the love which impels to activity; and the sovereignty of God, who communicates gifts as seems good to Him, and calls to this or that service - a call, which renders ministry a matter of faithfulness and duty, on the part of him who is called. It is to be observed, that these two principles both suppose an entire freedom from man, who cannot interfere, as either the source or the authorisation of ministry, without, on the one hand, neutralising love, as the source of activity, or, on the other, infringing on the sovereignty of God, who calls and sends, and whose call constitutes duty. Co-operation and discipline according to the word find, withal, their own place untouched.

211 Whatever ministry is not founded on these two principles is really no ministry at all. There is no Christian source of activity but the love of Christ and the call of God.

ON THE POWER OF MINISTRY, AND ON ITS RESPONSIBILITY

Having thus briefly considered the question of the source of ministry, which connects itself with the very first principles and with the existence of Christianity, and which has its being in the activity of the love of God, let us examine the power which works in this ministry, and under what responsibility it is exercised by those to whom it is committed.

POWER OF MINISTRY

2 Corinthians 3 indicates its general character. It is the ministry of the Spirit.

There are two grand features which characterise the work of Christ in the world. He is the Lamb of God who takes away sin, and He baptises with the Holy Ghost. I pass by the first point, however full of interest, as not belonging to our subject, save so far as it is an object about which ministry is occupied. I rest on the second of those things by which John the Baptist describes the work and the glory of Christ. "He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost" - a point which is evidently of the utmost importance, and the spring of all the power and spiritual energy which is to be found in the church. And truly, a spiritual energy is needed, that Satan may be combated with success, and that these poor bodies, the flesh being mortified, may become the vessels of testimony and of the power of God.

This power of the Holy Ghost in man is a most important truth. Jesus Himself was anointed by the Holy Ghost and with power. "How," said Peter to Cornelius, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him." This was not spoken of His divinity; for He was God before the foundation of the world; nor of His perfection as man; for, as born of the Virgin Mary, His flesh was holy. He was the Son of God not only when He created the world, but also in the world, as the man born of this same Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost. He had the consciousness thereof when He answered His mother who sought Him in the temple: "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" Neither does it refer to His love: His mere presence in the world was love itself. But in addition to this, John the Baptist sees the Holy Ghost descending like a dove, and remaining upon Him. "God had anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power"; and then, for the first time, filled with the Holy Ghost, He begins His ministry, acts officially as Son of man in the world, and endures the temptations by which the Last Adam was to be tried, in order that He might assert His title beyond the power of Satan; while, on the contrary, the first Adam had fallen under that power. Then it is that we see Him casting out devils by the Spirit of God, and saying to His mother, "What have I to do with thee?" His whole life was the power of the Holy Ghost in ministry. By the Holy Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God. He was much more than man; and yet was He a man - this Jesus of Nazareth, "whom God had anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power."

212 Our part in all this has another and different element. In Him it was man, the Last Adam on the earth, Himself accomplishing, in the face of Satan, all that the spiritual man could offer to God in His life. His voice was not heard in the street. He must needs be perfect, and as man overcome Satan in that world in which man had failed, and in the very circumstances in which man found himself in consequence of his fall. This is what that precious Saviour has perfectly accomplished. Up to this, however, He had not become the commencement of a new order of things.

The first Adam failed in the garden of Eden, in the very place where he was surrounded by blessings. It was when driven from it, that in his fallen state he became the head of a fallen race in this world of sin and ruin. Jesus, the Last Adam, must needs first be perfect, and personally gain the victory over Satan in the midst of the ruin - a victory so complete, and so perfect, that, having bound the strong man, He could spoil his goods, and that His name, in the mouth of those whom He sent, sufficed to cast out devils. But to commence a new world of glory and of blessing, to redeem His church, and make her like unto Himself, according to the power by which He is able to subdue all things to Himself, it was necessary that He should overcome Satan in the last stronghold in which he held men captive, by the judgment and under the sentence of God Himself, that is to say, in death. It was necessary that He should undergo, to the full, the last effect of sin, as the result of the wrath of God, and of the power of Satan, as well as of the weakness of man. This He did.

213 Thus, the wrath of God having passed over (except as to those who reject Jesus), all the power of Satan being destroyed in the very seat of that power as regards man, death being overcome, his gates of brass burst open - Jesus, the Last Adam, Victor over Satan and death, Heir, as Son of man, and, by the righteousness of God, of all that Adam possessed, and much more than Adam lost, while, as Son of God, upholding all things by the word of His power; the image of the invisible God, and the expression of His glory - Jesus, conformably to the counsels of God concerning man, begins to act as the Head of a new world, and of a new creation. Nevertheless, although He had abolished all that was against us, although He had triumphed over Satan on the cross, and led captivity captive, the time for the deliverance of creation had not yet come. The present was only the period for the witness of the power of Jesus, in the midst of a creation still in its fallen state and from whence Satan was not yet expelled. It was the time for gathering the church of His elect out of the world, that He might nourish and cherish them, until they should be presented to Himself in glory; that is, in a word, for making this church on earth the receptacle* of the power possessed by the Son of man at the right hand of God. He, who now filled all things, having first descended into the lower parts of the earth, and then re-ascended up far above all heavens - He had received gifts for men, Eph. 4: 8-10.

{*Christ, having won the victory over Satan, and redeemed the church, could associate this church with Himself seated in the heavenly places, and make it the vessel for the manifestation of the power which conquered Satan, though Satan was not yet driven out. This is what the church ought to have been practically; it is what she was at the beginning.}

The day of Pentecost was neither a moral change of the affections, nor the breath of life from the risen Jesus; all this had already taken place. The disciples were waiting at Jerusalem until they should be endued with power from on high. Having been endued therewith, no doubt this acted powerfully on their affections, because it revealed Jesus with power; but the life and affections were already there, even as in a still higher sense the life and affections of the Son of God were in Jesus before the Holy Ghost descended upon Him as a dove. Jesus took His place, according to the counsels of God, with the faithful in Israel, in the baptism of John, "fulfilling all righteousness"; and was then anointed for service among them. By virtue of His death and resurrection, He placed His disciples in the same relation with God, in which He Himself stood, going to His Father and their Father, to His God and their God; and He baptised them with the Holy Ghost, as the witness of His glory in heavenly places, and the power which identified His disciples with Himself in this glory. It is very certain, from the words of Jesus Himself (Acts 1), that the gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that nothing which the apostles had previously received was the fulfilment of this promise; for He says to them: "Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

214 The gospel by Luke, of which the Acts of the Apostles is only a continuation (the Acts taking up the subject in almost the same words as those of this gospel), presents to us the Lord Jesus specially as Son of man, Head of a new order. That gospel presents this truth morally, the Acts in power.

The gospel by John, although touching the same subject, presents it under another form. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, Advocate or Comforter, sent by the Father in His name or by Jesus Himself from the Father. He guides into all truth, shews things to come, and gives them to know that Jesus is in the Father, the disciples in Jesus, and He in them. If I were considering the subject of the Holy Spirit, I should have to speak of the close of this gospel, where He is seen as the Spirit of truth in the midst of the church, witnessing against the world by His presence, and guiding believers into all truth. It would be necessary to consider all those passages where He is presented to us as the seal of redemption, the earnest of the inheritance, and the Spirit of adoption, such as 2 Corinthians 1; Ephesians 1; Galatians 4; Romans 8, and many others. But I am reminded that, if the thought of the presence of the Holy Spirit, that mighty Comforter, draws the heart in that direction, our subject is ministry - a subject which is sufficiently important to glorify the Spirit.

To return to our subject. It is because of the relation which exists between the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God, and the mission of the Holy Ghost, of which we have just spoken, that we find in John that the Holy Spirit "was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified"; for the presence of the Holy Spirit here below was the consequence of the glorifying of Him who here below had accomplished all the work of God, and fills all things.

215 And here we may remark, in connection with the point which has been occupying us, the progress of ideas presented to us in chapters 3, 4, and 7 of John. In chapter 3 the Holy Spirit is seen as quickening; in chapter 4 He is the power of communion - of true communion; in chapter 7, the Son of man, not being able as yet to shew Himself to the world, declares, that rivers of living waters shall flow from the bellies of those who should believe; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified; and it was then that He (the Spirit) was to become the witness of the glory of the Son of man, and to bear testimony on earth to this glory.

What a source of ministry is now opened to us! The love of God in Christ towards poor sinners, but this love, fulfilled* in the glory which was consequent upon the death of the Son of man, who had descended into the lowest depths of man's misery, had there glorified God, and was now Himself glorified as man. In what a position is ministry thus placed! What a glorious function; and how does man sink into nothing before it! It is, indeed, the ministry of the Spirit and of righteousness; for, if the love of God be the source and the subject of it, the righteousness of God accomplished in the glorifying of the Son of man who had glorified Him upon earth, and who had more than re-established all that glory of God (which was falsified, and, in appearance, belied by the victory of Satan, and the ruin introduced into God's creation), this righteousness becomes also its foundation. And because of this glorification of Christ in power, there were also healings and miracles attached to this ministry - at least, it is one reason for them,** for miracles were likewise a confirmation of the most important part of it, namely, the life-giving word.

{*See 1 John 4: 9 and 17, margin.}

{**But here also, they were, generally manifestations of that gracious power, which, by providing a remedy for those evils perceptible to the natural faculties, drew attention to that which in the power of the resurrection of Jesus (the great miracle of divine interference in human misery), provided a remedy for sin - the root of the evil. I say generally, for we have examples of the judgments of the Holy Ghost within the church, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira; and upon apostate Judaism, as in the case of Elymas the sorcerer.}

216 But they were also a testimony to the victory of the Son of man over Satan, and to His right of blessing over creation, notwithstanding all the evil which is there discovered. A time was to come when all this evil would be removed; but that period was not yet arrived. Nevertheless, He, who was to accomplish it, was exalted, and was manifesting, in the midst of the evil, this power in man. Thus, the prince of this world, he who was the mover of all the evil which is found therein, was shewn to be judged; and this is why miracles were also called the powers or miracles of the world to come (Heb. 6: 5); because then all this evil will be subjugated and arrested by the presence of the Son of man; and the miracles were a sample of this blessed result, a sample wrought by the Holy Spirit come down from on high. In this respect, it is indeed but a poor exhibition of the glory of the Son of man that we present before the world. May we, at least, have the wisdom to acknowledge and confess it.

But these things were, it is true, only accessory. The principal thing was the testimony borne to the love of God, to the victory of the second Adam, and to the work which He had accomplished as man - a testimony borne by the word, by that word which had created, which sustains, which quickens unto eternal life, which nourishes the renewed soul, and which reveals all the glory of God - the word, of which Jesus is the living fulness.

Considered as ministry of the word, the ministry which manifested the presence of the Holy Spirit, manifested at the same time the sovereignty of God, the miraculous power of Him who was sent, and the extent and activity of grace.

This ministry was carried on, whether among the Jews, or, as in the case of Cornelius, among the Gentiles, by the gift of tongues: Galileans, Romans, speak all kinds of languages. Man becomes only an instrument in the hand of God - of the Holy Ghost sent down from on high. He it is who guides, rules, and acts: but He does this in order to convey the testimony of the glory of the Son of man to all men; and in order, while speaking to them of the wonderful works of God in the languages in which they were born, to draw their hearts by a grace which had come even unto them, towards the power there manifested; and, at the same time, to assert the rights of the last Adam in grace over all men. This, while commencing with the Jews, evidently addressed itself to the entire economy of the Gentiles. The judgment of God had separated the nations by confounding their languages, so that they were reckoned by languages, families, and nations (Gen. 10 and 11); and in thus separating them, He had established the bounds of the people, according to the number of the children of Israel, Deut. 32: 8. The time for putting an end to all this had not yet arrived; but grace is brought in, and takes the rule, in this state of things, among the Jews, who were, after all, the most wicked of all the nations. A testimony appears, which uses the very fruit of sin to shew that grace was reaching men just where the judgment of that sin had placed them. The Holy Ghost enables Jews to speak all the languages, by which men and the hearts of men were divided in consequence of the judgment of God against the pride of the renewed earth.

217 The subject of this ministry, although the circumstances which accompanied its exercise might manifest to an instructed eye the sovereignty of God, the rights of the Son of man over the nations, as well as His grace towards the Jews who had rejected Him - the subject of this ministry was, at the commencement, solely the glory of the man Jesus raised from the dead - a glory, which was to be the centre and rallying-point of souls saved by the operation of grace, and formed into the body, the church - a church which thenceforward was to be instructed and governed by this same Spirit.

Jerusalem, which had been for so long a time the beloved city, not having submitted itself to this testimony to the glory of Christ, lost the glory of being any longer the centre and fruitful source of evangelical administration. Her citizens had sent a message after the King who had gone to receive His kingdom, saying, that they would not have Him to reign over them. And, upon the death of Stephen, the whole church is dispersed, "except the apostles." Thereupon, God, who ever finds in evil the opportunity of displaying some grace more glorious than that which has been defaced, raises up, independently of the work at Jerusalem, an apostle born out of due time, who was neither "of man nor by man"; and reveals, at the same time, this unspeakably precious truth, of which this apostle, thus called, becomes the great witness, that the church is one with Christ glorified in heaven - that she is His body, which He nourisheth and cherisheth as His own flesh. Thus disappeared that which Peter had announced to the Jews, namely, that Christ would return to them in grace, as to a people subsisting before Him. And thenceforward, we have to do with the hopes which are identified with Christ in the heavens, with the marriage supper of the Lamb, with the union of the Bride and Bridegroom in heaven. The return of Christ here below is entirely in judgment - although for the deliverance of a remnant. This is a point of progress in the ministry and administration of the church, of which the results are very perceptible to us.

218 Consequent upon the full revelation of the union of Christ and the church, we find, in the writings of the apostle Paul, a much greater development of those gifts of the Holy Spirit - in connection with the position of him who, as a member of "the body of Christ," might possess this or that gift. The same principles, however, are found practically set forth in the writings of Peter.

ON ELECTION AND ON GIFTS, AS THE POWER OF MINISTRY

We have already seen, and we have a very striking example of it in Paul, that the sovereignty of God is exhibited in ministry as in salvation. "Ye have not chosen me," saith the Lord, "but I have chosen you, and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain." "He is a chosen vessel unto me," said the Lord to Ananias, "to bear my name before the Gentiles." So that, as this sovereignty of God excludes the choice of man, anyone who denies the existence of a ministry having diversity of gifts, is opposing this sovereignty. But here, on examining the word, we shall find this sovereignty exercised by the Holy Ghost in the midst of the church: we shall likewise find that it is Christ who gives, and that it is God who works, all in all. The first point on which the apostle insists, touching his ministry, as the consequence of his remarkable position, is, that it is neither of man, nor by the medium of man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.

The objection was often made, that he was not of the twelve; that he was not a regularly-appointed apostle. This subject we find frequently discussed in the Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Galatians. The apostle takes pains to assure them, that his ministry was independent of man; that he had not consulted flesh and blood, but had preached Christ so soon as God had revealed Him to him for this purpose. He founds his authority upon the proofs of spiritual power which he had given. Afterwards he confers with the other apostles: he communicates to them his gospel; but he receives nothing. God takes care that unity should exist between Antioch, at that time the centre of Gentile evangelisation, and Jerusalem, originally, we may say, the only seat of the church. We see a co-operation,* according to existing necessities: Barnabas seeks Paul, who had retired to Tarsus; and Silas determines to remain at Antioch, finding a work to accomplish there. Paul, afterwards, associates with himself other labourers, and desires Apollos to go to Corinth: Apollos refuses. But, in all these varied circumstances, Paul most positively repudiates all the pretensions of that Judaism which required (at the same time that it put forth other principles of Judaism, and in order the more easily to give currency to them) a mission from man to authorise his ministry. In truth, it was neither the wisdom, nor the arrangement of man, which carried the gospel beyond Jerusalem: it was the dispersion of the whole church -  the apostles only excepted. All those that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word; the hand of the Lord was with them; and many believed. Their mission was that which persecution and their own zeal conferred on them.

{*The special work of Peter, and of Paul, was also mutually recognised; the one being, according to the will of God, the apostle of the circumcision, the other of the uncircumcision. It is to be remarked here, that the general mission of the apostles to the nations (Matt. 28) is not even noticed in this arrangement.}

219 In truth, the church cannot be a source of ministry; for this expression of the power of the Holy Spirit, which ministry is, necessarily precedes in many things the existence of the church: the church is created, called, and formed by means of it. Apostolic ministry, or at least that of the evangelist, precedes necessarily, by the very nature of the case, the existence of the church (although after the church is once formed, its members may become evangelists): and the mission of these apostles, or evangelists, must be directly from Christ, and from the Holy Spirit; otherwise it is absolutely null. The twelve apostles had been sent forth by Christ during His life, although they were specially gifted after His resurrection. Paul, as regards his call, received his mission from Christ in glory, having seen that Just One, and heard the voice of His mouth: as to his separation to a special work, he had received the immediate direction of the Holy Spirit at Antioch. They went out sometimes from the bosom of a church, as Paul from Antioch: they might report to the church with joy, what God had wrought by them; but they held their office from God and from Jesus Christ: it was in the name and by the authority of God and of the Lord Jesus that they acted, and they recognised none other. They could not "please men" and be the "servants of Jesus Christ." Paul did not scruple to say it was a small thing for them to be judged at man's tribunal: He who judged them was the Lord. The Pharisees, it is true, called in question the conduct of Peter in the case of Cornelius; but the God of all grace had not waited for their decision! The presence of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles had justified the fruits of grace and obedience in the accused apostle, and stopped the mouths of those who complained of the extent and power of this grace.

220 I see two things in the exercise of this ministry, in the body of the church: the whole body, of which Christ, the glorified Man, is the Chief and Head; and hence the position of this body as on God's part, in the world, there to represent the glory of its Head; and this body, considered as the body of Christ Himself, the beloved object of His affections, the bride whom He has loved, for whom He gave Himself, and whom He nourishes as His own flesh: the church as the instrument of the glory and power of God in the world; and the church as the beloved object of the affections of Christ.

The gifts bear the characters, as it seems to me, of these two relations. The first of these positions is much more general, and, at the same time, has to do more with the responsibility of the church: in the second is involved, that which Christ does, and, as to the substance of it, can never fail to do, for His church - His bride. In both, the oneness of the body united to Christ is continually kept in view. In the one, we have the Lord Jesus, the Head, in heaven, but who nourishes His body till all come to His perfect stature. In the former, although personally Jesus is necessarily excluded from the ministry, He and the church are, nevertheless, seen as a whole, wherein God is acting before the world, in His name, as it is said (1 Cor. 12: 12) "So also is Christ." Accordingly, in this case (see the same chapter), the spiritual power of Christianity is contrasted with idolatry. We have that which distinguishes the Holy Spirit from demons (for the question was concerning spiritual power); the Holy Spirit alone said "Lord Jesus"; and, on the contrary, no one, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said, or could say, "let Jesus be Anathema." There were diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; divers services, but the same Lord; divers operations, but the same God wrought all in all. Thus the Spirit, the Lord and God, are brought forward in connection with the gifts; and it is added, in order that we may see the immediate source of these things in the church, that one and the self-same Spirit divideth to every man severally as He will.

221 The power of the gift came from the Holy Spirit (comparing verses 6 and 11 we learn the divinity of the Holy Spirit)., but inasmuch as the Spirit acted in each with a view to the glory of the Son, as the Son had with a view to the glory of the Father, each became, by his gift, the servant of Christ, as Christ Himself had become a servant in His ministry. The Holy Spirit acts in sovereignty, but ever in the accomplishment of the counsels of God (even as the Son quickeneth whom He will, John 5: 21); and, being a witness of the glory of Jesus - Son of man, and Lord - each one of those in whom He acts becomes the obedient instrument of this Lord. Such operations are not, however, secondary, nor of any subordinate spirit, nor of any angel; they are the operations of God Himself, and the servants have to do with Him. Thus the apostle, who was gifted for his apostleship by the Holy Spirit, calls himself an apostle, not of man, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. He also calls himself the apostle of Jesus Christ, the servant of God, and, speaking generally, "by the will of God."

In the list which is given to us in 1 Corinthians 12, we have, in general, all the gifts which are, for the establishment of Christianity, signs to the world, and Proofs of the glory of the victory of Christ as man, and of His rights of government in the church. Evangelists and pastors - that which is now called ministry - are not found there at all. It is rather the aggregate of divine operation and capacity in the body, than the care which Christ takes of the body as being His. Thus, except the gift of teacher, which is connected with that of pastor, all the gifts found here are now lost - at least in their primitive form and character. I speak only of the fact, and leave to others the task of explaining why this has come to pass, and how far it may or ought to be justified. This is a very solemn subject for those who value the glory of Christ, and of His Church, and who recognise the power of the Holy Spirit.

222 All these things, although, in a certain sense, they might constitute a testimony of the love of God, might be exercised without love; the question was more properly of power. Accordingly, the apostle here shews us a more excellent way. Love or edification ought to have directed the exercise of these things, and at Corinth this was not the case then: discipline was needed, as the apostle teaches us in these chapters. The gifts, in themselves, were rather the expression of power; for this reason, the Spirit, as exercising the authority of Christ in the church, regulates and controls the exercise of the gifts which He has entrusted to this or that individual; and even represses their exercise when they are not used in love, for the edification of the body. This is what we find in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is not so much God operating in the body as a whole, and employing its members for His service to manifest His power, as Christ, who had descended into the lower parts of the earth, and then ascended, that He might fill all things, having led captivity captive, and received gifts for men, by which He forms and nourishes His body on the earth in order to present it to Himself perfect at the end. Thus its unity, although essentially the same, is here seen as the result of grace, which calls those who are afar off and those who are nigh, that God may make them His habitation through the Spirit. It is a unity of relation and blessing: one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all, etc.; while, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, the attention of those Christians is directed to their condition in contrast with their state when in idolatry, where there were many gods and many lords, and, in reality, many demons. It was now one Spirit who did all; one Lord; and one God who wrought all in all; and not dumb idols.

The Epistle to the Ephesians gives us specially the privileges of the church united to Christ. God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. At the end of chapter 1 he prays for the blessings flowing from the title of God of Jesus Christ, namely, the understanding of the glory of God's inheritance in the saints, and of the power which has set us there with Christ as it has set our Head Himself there. In chapter 3, having developed the "mystery" which had been confided to him, namely, the union of the Jews and Gentiles in one body in Christ to be the habitation of God through the Spirit, being saved and washed by Christ, and united to Him in glory, he seeks the blessings flowing from the title of Father of Jesus Christ, namely, the knowledge of the love of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, strengthening the inner man, to render him capable of enjoying these things, to the end he might be "filled with all the fulness of God." Behold the boundless and fruitful sources of blessing to the church, and that to the glory of Him, who worketh in us, in the church throughout all ages, world without end. But until we are perfected, those blessings are accomplished by the Holy Spirit acting in us, in the oneness of the body, according as Christ hath received for the members of this body. He, having fulfilled all things, ascended up on high, and received gifts for men; and He has given some apostles, some prophets. We see that the gifts, presented here as the fruits of the ascension of Christ, are not power acting in the body within, and acting without to manifest the glory of God; but they are that which served to establish and edify the church, as the "habitation of God" and the object of the love of Christ, in order that all may come to the measure of His stature.

223 Lowliness, love, the bond of peace, are first presented as the walk worthy of our vocation to be the habitation of God in unity. Then follow the individual gifts: "to every one is given," according to the measure of the gift of Christ, the exalted Head of this body.

These gifts are, properly, that which is called ministry. The apostle does not here speak of miracles, of healings, or of tongues: these things, the signs of power in the face of the world, were not the direct channels of His love to the church. Every gift is a ministry: for, as there are diversities of gifts, yet but one Spirit, so there are divers ministries, but one Lord. By the possession of a gift I become the servant of Christ, from whom I hold the gift by the Spirit, and whom the Spirit reveals as Lord. Hence every gift in exercise is a ministry - service discharged under responsibility to Christ; but the gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4 are more especially gifts of ministry, of service rendered to Christ in His body, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." It was a work and not merely signs of power.

224 We have here enumerated apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The first two, in the exercise of their highest functions, have laid the foundation of the church, either by revelation, or by the authority of Christ, which was committed to them; for it is by this last that the apostles were distinguished from prophets. A prophet revealed the mind of God, and his work was, in this respect, finished. An apostle was sent direct, as an architect, authorised by Christ to build His church. They ordained, put in execution, took the oversight, governed, established authorities in the churches, and took cognisance, as having authority, of everything that went on in them, in order to regulate it; in a word, they were authorised, on the part of Christ, to found and to build, and to establish rules in His church. In this sense there are no longer apostles. Paul knew that after his departure grievous wolves would come in. Peter takes care, by his epistle, to remind them of what he had said to them. But it appears to me, that, in a lower sense, there may be apostles and prophets in all ages. Barnabas is termed an apostle. Junius and Andronicus are called apostles, and it is said of them that they were "of note amongst the apostles" (Rom. 16: 7, 8): so that there were others who were not named.

As regards the revelation of God, it is complete; as regards any authority to found the church, it no longer exists: neither the twelve nor Paul have had any successors. The foundation cannot be twice laid; but one may act under an extraordinary responsibility as sent by God, and by a faith which depends upon communications made only to him who enjoys them (although there can be no new truth, which would not be found in the word) - a line of conduct which is only vindicated in the eyes of others, by its resulting in blessing to the children of God. This may still exist. We may cite as examples, without pretending to justify all that they did, a Luther, a Calvin, a Zwingle[-i], and perhaps others. So for prophets; although there be no new revelations of truth, there may be, as proceeding from God Himself, a power of applying to the circumstances of the church, or of the world, truths hidden in the word; such as, in practice, might render the ministry prophetic. Moreover, all those who expressed the mind of God "to edification" were called prophets, or, at least, prophesied. But the apostles never speak as if the church would last long; or, as if the faithful would have to wait long for the coming of Christ.

225 Teachers and pastors, to guide and to instruct the flock, are,   in this epistle, joined in one gift (for the Holy Spirit is speaking of edification), although the gift of teacher is mentioned separately elsewhere. It is by these gifts that Christ nourishes, cares for, and strengthens the sheep, as it is by evangelists that He calls and brings them to Himself. The distinction between teacher and pastor is easily perceived, although connected together; for the one is occupied about the doctrine, the other about the sheep - an obvious distinction, but a very important one; because there is an affectionate interest in the progress of the sheep, an exercise of heart, in the gift of pastor, a care for the sheep, which is not necessarily presupposed for the simple act of teaching. It is thus that this gift of pastor gives occasion to the most tender affections, and to the strongest ties, as did also the gift of an apostle, and as does the gift of the evangelist with regard to those who have been converted through his testimony.

I notice here, that the apostle does not speak of the gifts, but of the persons who possessed them. "He gave some pastors and teachers." The gift, without doubt, was in the vessel. But God had attached it to the person, and this person, known by his gift, was given to the church. We cannot be united to a gift, but to a person. God has given not a mere apostolate, but an apostle.

It is certainly conceivable, that he who possesses the gift may be unfaithful, and even that the gift itself may be withdrawn, or at least, that it may not be in exercise. But, generally, we have to do with a person having a certain function permanently committed to him; we have to do with a joint in the body, and that joint is always that joint.

RESPONSIBILITY OF MINISTRY

Furthermore, the exercise of gift, although subject to the. directions of the word, is in nowise dependent on the will of the body, but on that of the Head. He has given, He has placed in the body such or such a joint; and they are responsible to the Head for the fulfilment of their functions. The wisdom of the Head is disputed, if the employment of the gift be gainsayed. This responsibility is to be exercised in love and for edification - not otherwise: but responsibility to Christ cannot be set aside; nor may we touch Christ's claims upon the service of His servant.

226 The circumstances of the church may occasion difficulties in this matter; but humility and faithfulness to the Lord will always know what to do. Love and obedience always find the path. The Spirit will ever be with him who obeys Christ in love. This responsibility of the individual to Christ is of the utmost importance - as important, in its place, as regards service flowing from gift, as it is when the question is one of moral conduct. Whatever affects this, affects the rights of Christ and the responsibility from which none can be exempt. We sometimes see both destroyed by the spirit of corrupted Christianity, and men exempted from their individual responsibility in matters of moral duty, just as in their responsibility to Christ in the exercise of their gift: God, however, never forgoes His claims upon them. To hinder this service, does not hinder heretics or false teachers. The flesh in the most true Christian must be everywhere kept down; and it needs to be so in the use or abuse of gifts real or supposed, as in other things. The flesh is never a gift of God. I cannot think, that to strengthen the sense of individual responsibility is to open a door to the flesh.

These gifts placed in the church as a whole, in the body of Christ, become joints and bands; and it is in the church, in the body, that they are placed. A gift is a gift in the body and for the whole body, as a member of the human body acts for the whole. My eye sees for my whole body; my foot steps for the whole body. To give them a charge over that which is not the body, is to dislocate them. They may, indeed, be exercised in a given locality, but as the expression of the grace and of the claims of Christ; and this grace and these claims of Christ extend to all the body. Let us remember, that they are never to be used by the will of man: where that will comes in, sin enters. This may happen, as may any other sin; but, as in the case of any other sin, it becomes the subject of discipline. We see this in the abuse of the gift of tongues at Corinth. On the other hand, the narrow spirit of man is often corrected by the inalienable and universal rights of the Spirit of God, supreme and one in all the body. No human arrangement can supersede His claims; but He, as we have seen, has the right to direct the exercise of each individual gift. He it is who exercises the government of God in the church. It is good to remember, let us add, that the gifts are not necessarily exercised in an assembly. Placed in the body, it is in the body they are exercised, though it may be often, doubtless, in an assembly; but they are also exercised on other occasions.

227 There are other very precious practical passages, besides the two we have been considering, which take up the subject of ministry in its highest connection with the glory of Christ and of God: we desire not to omit them. The first of these passages, Romans 12, enjoins particularly the modesty which leads the servant of God to confine himself to the assiduous and faithful employment of the gift committed to him. The second requires that if any man speak, he should speak as from God, in order that God may be glorified.

Let each one, says the apostle, think soberly of himself (how truly gracious and good, how encouraging to the heart, and, at the same time, how wholesome is the word of God!): let him "think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. . . . Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation." Hence we may also remark, that we find not only special gifts as joints in the body; but, generally, the humble and faithful use of the talent confided to the servant - a talent with which he trades, according to his responsibility towards the Master, from whom he had received it.

In 1 Peter 4: 10, there is the same responsibility operating in love towards others. "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." I know that many fear such a principle; but that does not change the truth. If any one does not speak to me as announcing the truth of God, I do not know why he speaks to me at all. Moreover, this is what the apostle says; not according to the word of God, as some translate, but "as the oracles," as announcing the word, of God. This is what every man does who preaches the gospel: he has no doubt of the certainty of what he says. If one has not this assurance, he ought not to teach. The pretension to infallibility is one thing: quite another is the certainty that we possess God's mind, and that on such or such an occasion, we give it out from Him and according to His will.

228 This responsibility would often prevent a man from speaking, when he is not taught of God: and if, as among the Bereans, even what an apostle says is judged by the word, there is no danger. It is not a question of new revelations, nor that the things spoken should be received without examination; but that the speaker should have the assurance that he is giving utterance to the mind of God, and not merely to his own thoughts. If anyone undertakes to teach me, and I ask, Are you sure that this comes from God, that it is the truth of God, and that God would have you to teach it to me? and he answers me that he is not sure of it, what confidence can I have in him? Even supposing that he replies he is sure, I have still to examine it by the word. The more we place him who teaches under such a responsibility, the more solemnity and sobriety will there be in his teaching; and where there is love, and real gift, he will not shrink from this responsibility. If he does, let him reflect upon the parable of the servant who buried his talent: if he has not sufficient love to trade, because of the responsibility, he is exactly in the position of this wicked servant; he is not acting according to grace. We are thus reminded of this great principle: direct responsibility to Christ, by whom the talent has been entrusted to us - a responsibility from which no earthly relationship can disengage us. The claims of Christ, and His judgment, are ever there.

Responsibility, power, liberty, according to the Spirit, and the restraint of the flesh, these are the great principles of the Christian walk in this matter - a walk of which love will ever be the spring, the moving principle, and the aim. A service which is rendered to Christ, as wholly above man, without which responsibility to Christ would be made void, it acts in the unity of the whole body: otherwise the unity of the one Spirit is denied. Such is the order that the Spirit alone can produce, because He alone can put man out of sight, and subject his will by communicating a liberty, which is not the liberty of self, but of the Spirit of God - a liberty which ever recognises with joy, and as its blessedness, the authority of the Lord and entire submission to His will - a liberty which exists only to serve Him, and considers independence as the miserable pride of sin.

229 He who speaks of the rights of man, whether of an individual or of mankind, only speaks of sin. He who does not acknowledge the rights of the Holy Spirit, resists the sovereignty of God, who, by means of these gifts, exalts on this earth that same Jesus who once visited it in humiliation. The church, the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost Himself upon earth -  this is the grand truth of ministry, and of the glory of Christ, and of His service upon this earth. The presence of God gives joy, liberty, responsibility, and solemnity. Man, in the presence of God, is set aside, as to his vanity and pride, and strengthened in his service and fidelity.

CONCLUSION

Such is the source of power, and order of ministry, as set before us in the word of God.

Essential to Christianity, because Christianity in accordance with the active energy of the love of God seeks that which was lost, testifying to the work and to the victory of Jesus by which the lost may be saved, this ministry of Jesus, who alone is worthy to be thus glorified, receives all its power, and has its only source, in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. It is the ministry of the Holy Ghost, in the choice and employment of His servants. In all this God is sovereign. The exercise of the gifts bestowed by Him is regulated by the Holy Spirit, who acts sovereignly in the church. The proofs and examples of this are found in the word. As a source of ministry, or as authority for its exercise, man interferes only to sin.

It will be seen, that I have not touched the question of local charges, as not exactly entering into my present subject. It is evident, that the apostle Paul, and those delegated by him, established, according to his direction, several elders in the churches which he had gathered; and that servants or deacons of the assemblies, and even deaconesses, had been, at least in certain cases, appointed for the temporal affairs and necessities which were ministered to by the charity of those female servants. Peter speaks of elders much more vaguely. There is no proof that elders were appointed among the Hebrew converts. It would rather appear, that men of gravity and of character acted among them upon their own responsibility - a responsibility laid upon them in this matter by love. In the Epistle to the Corinthians, where details of discipline are given, there is no mention made of elders. The Holy Spirit has perhaps permitted this in order that we might have these things directly from the hand of the apostle. It is only, I believe, in the Epistle to the Philippians that we have the expression "with the bishops and deacons."

230 The ruin in which the church is found at the present day acts more directly upon the apparent order in this respect, than upon ministry itself; because, in this matter, man can more easily come in with exterior arrangements. But we must not confound gifts, and the service flowing from such gifts, with charges. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is sufficient for this, as for every other need of the church, provided she take the position in which the Holy Spirit sees her. Love will then suffice for all that God requires, and will make the best improvement of the means of blessing bestowed by Him; and He ever bestows that which is suited to His own glory, and to the real welfare of His believing people.

I see no more real difficulty, as regards authority, than as regards the ministry of the word; because authority in the church is not a place with certain powers limited by a written law; nor something confided by men jealous lest the authority they have given should be overstepped through the lust of power, or the ambition of the person to whom it has been entrusted. Authority in the church is always, like the ministry of the word, the power of the Holy Spirit on the conscience; which moreover will not be found wanting. Where it exists, God will enforce, even by chastisements, the authority of His Spirit which He has lodged in a man, if that authority be despised. The discipline of the church also confirms it in certain cases; examples of this may be seen in the Epistle to the Corinthians. If we do but believe in the presence of God in the church, we cannot doubt that He is able to compel respect to Himself, and that in the authority which He has entrusted, to whomsoever it may have been given.

As to the spirit in which this ministry should be exercised, I say nothing; for it does not become me to speak of it. An entire self-renunciation (and that goes very far when we know the subtlety of the heart) is the only means of walking with the full blessing which belongs to this happy position of service to God, our brethren, and mankind. We must always remember, that is, by the power of God, we are free from all men, and responsible to God alone for the employment of the gift which He has confided to us, it is in order that we may be the servants of all. Let us remember that no one is able to give liberty to himself; and if the love of God has given us liberty, it is in order that, by this love in us, we may serve one another. He has made us free from self, free from independence, free from our own wills, to act as God acts, as He has acted in Christ - not to please ourselves, but to serve one another in love.

231 There is nothing more blessed in this world* than ministry in this kind. We shall quickly find how much faith is needed in order thereto, and how much of that holiness which keeps us near to God that we may draw strength from Him. May God teach us to keep near to Him every moment, that we may not in detail be following our own wills, even although on the whole we may be seeking to do His.

{*We do not speak here of communion with God, but of the various positions in which man may be found.}

I would here remark, that grace is required in these days to realise at the same time the two principles of brotherhood and the exercise of gifts; because the latter necessarily gives externally an appearance of superiority. The flesh, it is true, may use these gifts to seek an earthly superiority, instead of the love and service of others. The humility which seeks only the good of all, makes everything easy. In worship there is an entire equality of position. More holiness may give a nearness to God in which the worship will be more true, and will be a juster expression, and at the same time nearer to God, of the wants of the assembly. The Spirit of God will then act more immediately, and will produce a more intelligent development of the links of souls with God; so that there may be in this a difference of capacity. What we have to seek is spirituality; this is the principal thing. The priest was in a higher place than the Levite; and all the priests were one, save the high priest: this is our position as worshippers. There was another position, which was very blessed, and where God, as sovereign, assigned the occupation. This was the position of the Levite. The glory of the Levite was to do that which God gave him to do. A Merarite was not to touch the vessels of the sanctuary, nor a Kohathite the different parts of the tabernacle. The Gershonites and the Merarites had a more extensive charge - more oxen and chariots; but they were not entrusted with such precious things as the Kohathites.

It is thus that the apostle reasons in reference to gifts, comparing them to the members of the body. All the services, all the gifts, are inferior to worship. In the distribution of gifts God is sovereign, and puts more external honour upon that which is least honourable. The gifts, which are not set off with so many external adornings, are sometimes the most precious. If we are in a low state spiritually, we shall look at the outward appearance, and thus at those gifts which are more external. The Gershonites and Merarites will have more importance in our eyes, with their oxen and their chariots. Nearer to the sanctuary we shall discern that the Kohathites, who carry the vessels on their shoulders, are as much or even more honoured than the others. At all events, each will be esteemed happy, in proportion as he shall have accomplished the task that God has given him to do. In Ephesians 4 we see, in the first place, that which is common to all: that which is special to each comes after; and these latter things are only to accomplish the former. Let not brotherhood displace gifts, but let gifts subserve brotherhood. The sense of the presence of God will keep everything in its place.

232 The same Lord has said, "all ye are brethren"; and, "strengthen thy brethren." In order truly to strengthen them some painful experience of self will always be necessary, as in the case of Peter. It is not thus that man would have appointed, but God has so ordered. To deny the Saviour, with whom he had companied three or four years - to destroy, if he had been able, His name from the face of the earth - such, as regards our importance, is the preparation through which God causes one to pass, when He is pleased to put him forward in His service; perhaps, in addition to this, a thorn in the flesh, because the other is insufficient. For what are we, and who is sufficient for these things?

May God Himself direct His church according to her need, according to the love and the riches of grace which are in Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in her.

Remarks on the state of the Church in answer to the pamphlet of Mr. Rochat, entitled, "A Thread to Help the Simple to Find Their Way"

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1843.

<01014F> 233

This work was given to the press at the end of October, 1842; but its publication was delayed by certain causes, independent of the author's will. Had it merely been an answer to Mr. Rochat's "Thread," etc., I should have hesitated to publish it after so long a delay; but I think it contains principles of sufficient importance to call for its publication, notwithstanding this delay.

In the interval, I received a circular of the Evangelical Society of Geneva,* which accuses us of holding a system according to which "there are no longer either church, or pastors, or teachers," etc. All I have to answer to this is, that such are not my principles, nor those of the brethren who share my convictions, as anyone may ascertain by reading what has been published up to this day.

{*The Fifty-sixth Circular, containing a discourse, published separately, under the title, "Geneva and Oxford."}

The author of this assertion having had the kindness to shew to a brother that which concerned us in the discourse, "Geneva and Oxford," then in the press (see p. 6), was fully informed that what he said was in nowise in accordance with the principles and views of the brethren. After all, the brethren of the Evangelical Society are now compelled by subsequent events to "play the part of Cassandra."* They ought not to complain if a brother, resting upon the word of God, warns his brethren of the difficult times in which we are living. Better would it be for them to humble themselves, than to blame those who, in love, have done what they are, after all, compelled to do themselves.

{*Such are the very words of the author of the discourse, "Geneva and Oxford," p. 5.}

One of our brethren has desired me to add here a parallel between the way in which the school of theology at Geneva speaks about pastors and teachers, and the writings of brethren which are attacked. I give a quotation from a well-known paper, entitled, "A few words on the views of brethren in Christ, who meet for worship simply as brethren": "It is not that we deny Christian ministry, as it is called; on the contrary, we receive it thankfully from the Lord, and in the widest sense of the expression, whether this ministry manifests itself in the way of government or pastoral care, or presents itself under the character of teaching, exhortation, preaching, or any other service towards the saints, etc.; Acts 20: 28; Rom. 12: 7, 8; Eph. 4: 12; 2 Cor. 8: 4; Matt. 10: 42."

234 We may add the following extract from "Some further developments on the formation of churches": "Let no one mistake me; I love order with all my heart - the true order which befits the house and ordinances of God. Setting aside circumstances, every brother has the same capacity to break the bread. Nature, as well as the word, teaches us that young men, that new converts, are little fitted to take the lead in any way, and that elders, if God has raised up any, have their own proper place in the house of God." I here repeat, with all my heart, what I said in the little tract, "On the formation of churches": that is, "That with earnest and continual supplication I do pray, that God may raise up pastors and teachers according to His own heart, for the wants of His own dear sheep, in order that the church of God may be preserved, cared for, instructed, rendered capable of resisting the snares of Satan, and that the little ones of the flock may be sheltered from every wind of evil doctrine. Yes; this is the fondest desire of my heart; it cannot be otherwise to such as love the church and who know something of the love that Jesus has for His own, of the privileges which belong to them, and who know something also of the snares and the machinations of the enemy. Moreover, I think that the relation of the pastor to the sheep of God's flock, is the sweetest and the most precious which exists on earth. In its fruits and its joy, this relation will not end there."

Again: "We are taught in the word (Eph. 4), that pastors are gifts from on high, which Christ distributes"; and it is said, "Nay, further, when a person has been owned, the heart, the conscience, the affections, and respect are engaged; it is a bond, a bond formed by the exercise of the gift, in the heart of such as have profited thereby. The heart that has received blessing responds to the action of the Holy Ghost which has taken place by means of the brother who has been its instrument; and thus the heart attaches itself to that instrument, and owns God in him. God's will is that it should be so, and he binds together the members of the body by these mutual helps. And this is very particularly applicable to a pastor, whose task is to my mind the most difficult that exists. What powerful link does not result when we have thus owned one from whom we have received blessing, who has led us on, counselled us, warned us, preserved us from danger, and has made us know God, our God, better? The fact is that, according to my experience, there is more danger of overvaluing than of under-valuing a true pastor. Nevertheless, I see that the apostle puts very great value upon such affections." In the first tract, entitled, "On the formation of churches," you again find these words, "If God raises up pastors from among you, or sends them among you, it is well; it is a great blessing," etc.

235 Here are now a few words extracted from the last Report of the School of Theology (see General Meeting of the Evangelical Society of Geneva, Second Anniversary, p. 49): "The sole fact of the keeping up of our school as it is, the accomplishment of its present modest task, the furnishing two or three ministers of the gospel a year, appears to us worthy of the labours with which we are honoured," etc.

From the quotations we have just given, it will be easy to see who are these that speak in the more scriptural way:* whether the professors, whose "school furnishes two or three ministers a year," or those Christians, who only own the ministers given by the Lord Himself, according to His grace and sovereign goodness to His church, which is His body.

{*According to Ephesians 4: 11, 12 - a passage quoted against us.}

INTRODUCTION

If, in the series of pamphlets of which the present one forms a part, it were a mere question of forms of churches, I should not have the courage to write again on the same subject. But it is not so. Certain questions, which, in the eyes of some, merely relate to forms of churches, are, at bottom, of the deepest importance, since in reality they bear on a most serious thing, namely, on the responsibility of the whole church of God. Reasoning about forms may indeed be introduced into the discussion, but it is because the forms bring to light the principles which are connected with them.

236 If some persons refuse to occupy their minds with these things, under the pretence that they are but secondary points, this is only an artifice of the enemy. For behind all this, as we have already said, we find the solemn question, Is the church of God responsible for the present state in which it is found? It is scarcely denied now that the state of things which existed in the days of the apostles no longer exists at present. Undoubtedly many things remain in our day, as then; there are Christians, and the church possesses certain gifts. But that visible unity, where the Holy Ghost displayed His power, so that the grace and power of Christ, manifested in the body of the church, were seen by the world itself, because the Spirit of the Head dwelt in the body; where is, I say, that unity? It no longer exists. The "So also is Christ" (1 Cor. 12: 12), to use the expression of the apostle, is no longer perceivable. Two answers have been made to what has been said of the guilt of the church and of the final judgment that awaits the whole system.

It has been alleged, first, that the church has no unity as a society of persons; and, secondly, that we are not responsible for the evil that others have done before us, although we suffer from it. This last point, especially, is of the highest importance. I do affirm, that the church has been placed on earth to display, as a body, in a visible unity, the glory of its Head, by the Holy Ghost. This it no longer does; it is responsible for it, and, regarded as a dispensation, it will be punished on that account, although the faithful are sure of being saved in glory. We have in the word a great number of passages and principles, which prove this community of interest and this responsibility in the church. The fact that its ruin is an opportunity for marked faithfulness on the part of individuals, in nowise affects the truth established by these passages. The Lord told the Jews: "Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," Luke 13: 35. Those whom the Lord addressed will never utter these words, but the nation will, at least the remnant of their posterity. Ten virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom (Matt. 25); they are the same ten virgins who are there when the cry is heard, "Behold the Bridegroom cometh!" The same evil servant also is there, when the master returns (Matt. 24: 48-51); and it is the same as to those who had received the talents, Matt. 25. Are we not all identified with the sin of Adam? Do not the tares grow until the harvest? And will not the harvest take place for the tares, as well as for the wheat? As to this, we will mention farther on other judgments declared by the word of God.

237 But we have no need to insist on this scriptural notion of the unity of the whole system from its beginning to its end. The question is very simple and of the greatest solemnity. Is the church responsible for the state in which it is found, or can it say, like the Jews, in Jeremiah 31: 29: "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge"? An infidel, speaking of himself, may say: If I have inherited the bad condition of Adam, it is no fault of mine; I suffer from it, but I am not responsible for it. God, in the government of the world and of His people, does not judge thus; He treats man as responsible, and He acts towards His people, as considering them to be responsible for the state in which they are found. They have been themselves in the evil; they are partakers in it. His grace may deliver one individual or another from the eternal consequences of sin, but those consequences are none the less certain for the human race. Grace may deliver children of God from the order of things which is going to be judged, so that they be gathered into the barn in time of harvest (Matt. 13: 30); but they are taken away from the coming judgment, because the church is responsible.

The church is in a state of ruin; it has ceased to bear testimony to the glory of Christ, as it ought to have done, and as it did indeed at the beginning. When I come to the discovery of this sad and overwhelming truth, I feel my responsibility; and I think it is enough to put the question thus, in order to reach the conscience of those whose ear is open to the voice of the Holy Spirit, and who have at heart the glory of Christ. To abide faithful, under this conviction, is the means of being able to enjoy a safe shelter in Him who keeps His own for glory, whatever be withal the circumstances in which they may be found. Nevertheless, this will not prevent God from manifesting that He has looked upon the dispensation as being responsible, when He will put an end to it by judgment. And if God has given a testimony as to this (and He has done so), does not the responsibility already lie on us? Here it is that Romans 11 finds an important application.

In the following pages, these truths are only treated in connection with the point to which the controversy has been brought. But I wish it to be well understood that this is just the question to be decided with respect to the state of the church. Are we responsible, and are we to be judged as such, if after having been warned we are walking in that which the Lord is going to judge? The solution of this question must of necessity act upon those who entertain a hope of re-establishing the church; for they deny at the very same time both its unity and its responsibility, in order to satisfy themselves with those few small bodies which they have formed. Hence these two questions are very closely connected, and I attach importance to the question of the formation of churches, because it is linked with that of our common responsibility.

238 My desire is that we may indeed remember that we are responsible for the state in which we are found, and not for the acts of the Christians who lived before us, although these acts may have helped in bringing on that state of things. The church as a body has been placed on earth to glorify the Son of God. Alas! it must be owned with confusion of face, that the church does not glorify Him now. The word of God shews us that there is a solidarity or rather an accumulation of responsibility, and that we inherit the sin of those who have gone before us in a course of departure from God, when it is a question of His government with respect to a dispensation. "Thy first father hath sinned," says Isaiah (Isa. 43: 27). "Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch," says Stephen (Acts 7: 43), alluding to the sin of Israel in the wilderness, "and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." The Jews undergo to this day the consequences of the sin which they committed in the wilderness, of all those which they have since added thereto, and the measure of which they have filled up by putting to death the Lord Jesus.

GENERAL REMARKS

STATE OF THE DISCUSSION - ON THE FUTURE DISPENSATION - ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH - MILLENNIUM - FALLING AWAY OR APOSTASY - THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY.

It is a most solemn thing for a servant of Christ to write on subjects which may stamp a certain character on the state of the church, or at least, act on the hearts and conduct of God's children. Nevertheless, when one feels assured of the Lord's will, all becomes a subject of joy; for the Christian ought only to feel happy while accomplishing in obedience His service here below. Moreover, although the subject I am treating be important, my task is now very simple.

239 I shall not revert to what has already been fully discussed, nor to what may be considered as more or less personal. I should not probably have answered, had I not seen that our discussion has made a very great advance, and that it might be profitable for all to state it fully. My wish also is to bring out what may act upon the conscience of those who seek the truth, and who have their heart open to receive it, without confining myself exclusively to answer the tract which has been the occasion of the present one. The pamphlet of our brother, Mr. Rochat, has afforded me, as regards the main points, matter for very much joy. I say, as regards the main points, because I cannot say that the spirit of it gave me pleasure - nevertheless, my intention is in no wise to dwell on that. If Mr. Rochat does not wish me to love him much ("A Thread," etc., pp. 5, 6), or at least to say that I love him, I must love him in spite of himself. If he thinks that to flatter him when I find him in error, or to appear to agree with him when I do not, is to shew love, after having reflected ever so little he will feel with me that such love would not bear any resemblance to Christ's love. In this respect, I ever ask myself: If we were about to die together, is there any word among those I have uttered, which I should have to regret? After all, we are liable to be mistaken, whether on the score of judgment, or because we may also be lacking in watchfulness; although, on the other hand also, if the eye be single, the whole body will be full of light (Matt. 6: 22).

I begin by stating the advance we have made, as it seems to me, in the discussion. Our brother acknowledges (p. 73), that there is a future dispensation; that the present dispensation is to be followed by another. I cannot say how far he acknowledged this before; I merely seek to state the point to which we are arrived. If he was in error before, I would forget his error; if he was in the truth, to state the truth, as to which we are agreed, can only do good to us all. There is to be "another dispensation," he says, "in which the Jewish people will act a principal part; where Jesus Christ, in Person, will reign over the earth, with the risen saints; and that dispensation will be preceded by the falling away of what is called Christendom, accompanied by the manifestation of the Antichrist" (p. 71). Up to this word, I quite agree with the author. I cannot say there is no accidental error, when he goes on thus: "followed by severe judgments of God on the nations which have rebelled against Christ." Of course, the dispensation will be "followed" by severe judgments. Yet I do not suppose that Mr. Rochat denies that it will be introduced also by severe judgments. Perhaps he meant to say that the falling away would be followed, etc., etc. However this may be, what I have quoted is sufficient. I shall point out, farther on, the points as to which I do not see that our brother has well understood as yet the character of the coming dispensation. At all events, there is to be another dispensation where Christ will be present, and which will be preceded by a general falling away and the manifestation of the Antichrist. This is evidently a most important truth for the church of God.* We shall farther on call the attention of brethren to a few considerations connected with it. Let us come to the unity of the church.

{*Also Mr. Rochat tells us elsewhere: "The signs of the times announce the approach of His glorious kingdom." Therefore, the apostasy and the falling away are things which closely concern us, since they are to precede this glorious reign.}

240 "There is," says Mr. Rochat (p. 25), "the general assembly and the church of the firstborn," and (p. 27) there are churches. But in page 26, he gives us another idea of the church, which is very just, and very important practically: "The church on earth, at each successive period, is thus the aggregate of the elect which are then manifested." It is in this sense, adds our brother, "that it is said that God has established in the church, first apostles," etc., etc. That is just the sense which I meant to present, which I have pressed, and which appears to me most essential as regards our responsibility and the judgment which we form of the state in which we are. If the church on earth is the aggregate of the elect manifested at each period, in what state is this aggregate found at the present time? I have also some considerations which appear to me important to present on this point. I merely point out by the way this manner of looking at the church. Our brother owns that his views on the subject are modified; it matters little what instrument has produced this change, provided it be through the teaching of God (p. 25, note).

241 There is another thing as to which our brother admits a principle, which tells all that I could wish on the subject. "If I am a member of the whole body," he says (p. 41), "I am a member of the parts of that body." I insist on this. A Christian does become a member of a local church (if, however, one can admit this expression of "member of a church," for it is now owned to be unscriptural); he is a member of the parts of the body, if he is a member of the body.

Nothing more simple; we cannot become what we are already; and, according to Mr. Rochat, if I am a member of the whole body, I am a member of the parts of this body, which meet in divers places: it is not a question of becoming such - I am such already. This is the principle I have always maintained, and on which I have insisted and acted. By the very fact that I am a Christian, I have all the claims of a member of the body, wherever I may be found. It is not a right which I acquire by joining any particular body; it is a right which I possess as any member of the body of Christ. Let brethren weigh well this principle which Mr. Rochat asserts, and on which I insist. Practically, the whole question between us is thereby decided.

Mr. Rochat also admits that the expression of "a member of a church" is not scriptural. We know how much the habits of brethren have been formed from that expression, and how much it has guided their conduct; so that in many localities, if a person did not declare himself member of a church, he was not admitted among brethren to partake of the Lord's supper. It was not enough to be a member of the body of Christ, a faithful Christian, owned of all.*

{*I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Rochat says (p. 21), that "the churches" [dissenting assemblies] received every Christian. It is well known that there were several which only admitted to the Supper those who formed part of an organised church.}

The whole of this system was wrong, according to the principle now owned as true by Mr. Rochat himself.

But our brother wishes, instead of the expression of "member of a church," to substitute that of "forming a part (p. 51) of a particular church," or "being of such a church." I have examined the list Mr. Rochat gives, in his "Simple Scriptural Views," of the passages which contain the word church, and I find that these expressions are not more scriptural than the former. The idea of being a member of a particular body is not found in Scripture in any form whatever; the idea is not scriptural.

242 Finally, it is owned on both sides, that there will be another dispensation, in which Christ will reign personally over the earth; that, before that period, a general falling away will take place. The signs of the times announce the approach of the glorious reign of the Lord. The church on earth is the aggregate of the elect which are manifested there; if anyone is a member of that church, he is also a member of its parts, that is, of the churches. Our brother admits that a portion of the church is mixed up with Christendom, and he acknowledges that the description I gave of it is, for the most part, correct. That would suffice also to shew that the sum total of all the churches would not be the church; but I do not now insist on this.

I resume the first of the subjects mentioned above, in order to shew, I do not hesitate to say, in what respect our brother has not yet laid hold of the truth with respect to the doctrine of the millennium. "The consideration," he says, "of the eternal glory (p. 72) appears to me much more fruitful, in consequences of every kind; for what are the thousand years when compared with eternity? Moreover, the millennial glory is not that of heaven, where God will be all and in all."

This phrase contains such confused ideas, that the best and indeed the only answer to make to it is to present the scriptural truths on this point. If Mr. Rochat takes the trouble to study the passage which he now applies to the coming dispensation, he will find that God purposes to head up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth, and that heaven is the place where the millennial glory will shine with greatest brightness. When Mr. Rochat speaks of heaven, and says that God will there be all and in all, he falls into complete confusion. Is not Christ in heaven? There is no connection between heaven and this declaration "That God may be all in all," 1 Cor. 15: 28. The difference which there is between the time which precedes and God being all in all, is that the essentially mediatorial glory will be ended, and Christ will have given up the kingdom to God the Father. It is here a question of a period of time and not of a place. Christ will always be in heaven; the church will be in heaven always with the Lord, enjoying all the blessings in the heavenlies, before the time when God will be all in all. And even then the church will be essentially in its state of eternal glory. And so little is it true that there is any idea of heaven attached to the words, "God all in all," that the only other passage which speaks of that post-millennial state rather presents the idea that men will be upon the earth, although heaven be mentioned, Rev. 21: 1-8.

243 If I do not mistake, 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21 are the only passages which speak of the time when God will be all in all - a time which indeed gives rise to thoughts that are full of blessing and deeply interesting. Nevertheless, God has thought fit to present much oftener, and with much more detail, the coming of Christ, and His glory to the conscience and heart of the faithful. Then we shall be like Him; then we shall see Him as He is. The object of God's predestination will be accomplished as to us, and we shall be conformed to the image of His Son. The marriage of the Lamb will have taken place. His bride will have been presented to Himself, having no spot or wrinkle or any of such things. We shall be then in our Father's house, Jesus having come for us in order to introduce us there, that where He is there we may be also. The desire of Christ's heart will be accomplished: "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

I do not know whether our dear brother has postponed all this till the time when God will be all in all, or if he considers it as of small importance. However it may be, he is entirely mistaken when he says that the millennial glory is not that of heaven, for we shall see Christ as He is, we shall be like Him, and we shall be either raised or changed; we shall go to meet Him; we shall be ever with the Lord, and we shall reign for ever and ever. The difference is not that heaven does not form a part of this glory, but that it is the mediatorial glory of the Son of man; afterwards He will have given up the kingdom.

Before the time when God will be all in all, we have the house and love of the Father, the marriage of the Lamb, the Bridegroom and the Bride, a state of glory equal to that of the angels, which will never cease, and the seeing Christ as He is, we being like Him. The reign over the earth, however excellent and full of blessing, is only the inferior part of the glory of the saints who will dwell with the Lord in the heavenlies. If it be true that the word of God shews us in two passages the end of this state of things, considered as a dispensation, it is equally true that it acts upon our hopes, our hearts, and our consciences, by the thought of the joy of being with Christ in glory, of being with Him in the Father's house, of being in the place where God Himself will be the temple, where God Himself and the Lamb will be the light. Such is the millennium, such is the heavenly Jerusalem, though God be not yet all in all.

244 As to the earthly part, I think that our brother (p. 73) has wrongly applied these words: "He unites the Jews and the heathen into one body, establishes them heirs, and gives to both access by one Spirit unto the Father." It is never said of the Gentiles that they will be one body with the Jews during the millennium. The contrary is the case. See, for instance, Isaiah 60, 61, 62. It is never said that they will be joint heirs, but the very contrary, and, indeed, not even a single passage can be shewn, where the last expression - "access by one Spirit unto the Father" is applied to the millennium. It is confounding the body of Christ, raised for the heavenly glory, with the state of the Jews, the elect people on earth, and with the state of the Gentiles, who, though blessed, are in a state of inferiority with respect to the Jews, as a multitude of passages proves.

Finally, the author does not believe that the millennium applies to heaven, although heaven be the most important part of the glory of that day of God; and he applied the passages which speak of the privileges of the body of Christ then in heaven, to the Jews and Gentiles who will be on earth, during the millennium, in a completely different state.

I would now present a few considerations on the falling away and the manifestation of the Antichrist. We have here, as I said, an extremely important practical truth, a truth admitted by Mr. Rochat's tract. This dispensation will end by a general falling away (p. 73), which the signs shew us to be near. Mark well that such is the doom of Christendom. And what is to terminate the falling away? The judgment of this world by the presence of Christ. Can one say then (p. 78), that it is the same dispensation of the grace of God, which will last till the end of the world? Mr. Rochat consents to substitute in the room of the word phasis that of dispensation; but it is always, he says, the same dispensation of the grace of God. Is then the judgment of this habitable earth of all the living (the church being raised and glorified), is that a continuation of the dispensation of grace? Why weaken the effect of such solemn truths, truths that God has revealed, that they may act upon the conscience? I repeat my question: Is then the judgment of the living on earth a continuation of the dispensation of grace? Or does Mr. Rochat think that it is not even necessary to point out, that this judgment interrupts the dispensation, although it requires the presence of Christ for its execution? Moreover, I think he will find that the coming dispensation is precisely a dispensation of judgment on the earth, which contrasts with grace, as a multitude of passages declares (Psa. 96, 97, 98, 99; Isa. 32; Psa. 72), although it be always true that it is only grace which saves individuals in every dispensation.

245 What grieves me in our brother's pamphlet is that, while disputing about words, he could remain silent as to the most solemn testimony God has given us on the state of things in which we are, and that he has sought to weaken the importance of the warnings which flow therefrom for the church. If the Lord be near, as Mr. Rochat tells us, and as I believe He is, is it not true that He comes to judge, because the present state of things demands and requires judgment? Is it then that the Lord comes to judge and to reap, before the tares and the wheat are ripe? And if Christendom is in a state which provokes this judgment, or if it is hastening to become such, is it the time for saying, that there are other things of greater importance? Is it right, while admitting with difficulty that it is another dispensation, to pass over the universal judgment of the living and the harvest of God, without saying a word on the subject, and even with the assertion, that what is to follow will be a continuation of the dispensation of grace?

One remark more. There will be, then, a general falling away, an apostasy. But the evil which characterises the last days had already begun in the days of the apostles; the mystery of lawlessness was already working; and it was already sufficiency developed before their death to enable one of them to inform us that many antichrists had already come, so that they knew that it was the last hour, 1 John 2: 18. One may cry up the continuation of the churches; and yet there was evil enough in the days of the apostle John to point to the last hour as having already come. I beg leave to notice here that those who have not received the light, which has produced this conviction of the general ruin of the dispensation, and who believe that popery and the Pope are the accomplishment of 2 Thessalonians 2, etc. - that those, I say, cannot deny that the apostasy has already come. Such was the general belief before the introduction of those doctrines which are so much cried down. If the habit of speaking as all Christians have spoken until now has led to a vague application of a term, the use of which has been amply explained, it must be regretted, that people have followed others too much and conformed too much with custom.

246 In presence of such important truths, of judgments so awful as those which are soon about to fall on this rebellious world, I do not think fit to enter into further explanations of words, when things are so clear on the subject.* It is admitted that in Christendom there will be a general falling away, that the principles of this falling away were sufficiently ripe in the days of the apostles for John to say that there were already many antichrists, and that it was the last hour. It is allowed that a certain portion of Christians are confounded with the object of the judgment, which is about to be executed. Let those who choose dispute on the word "apostasy" and on the sense it has in the French dictionaries, provided the conscience of God's children be reached by this truth, that we are in the last hour, that Christendom is at the eve of judgments. Besides, it is not merely a question here of a few branches in open unbelief, which are to be cut off; neither is it a question of a certain separation of the righteous; for it is now admitted by Mr. Rochat that the Christians who are manifested will be raised or changed, and will go to meet the Lord Jesus. As to those who have fallen away, they will be cut off, so that all that belongs to this dispensation will have come to an end. It is no longer a question of the saints or the apostates here below. Most certainly God will spare some of the Jews and some of the Gentiles for another dispensation: but He will make an end of all that is called church, as to this world, and this very soon.

{*I have consented to lay aside the word "apostasy," because I do not attach myself to words, provided the truth be admitted. One has shouted victory, but it has been a mistake. I think that that expression is thoroughly applicable, according to its scriptural sense, to the state of things that we see around us. I consent to abandon it, in order to render more easy the discussion of these subjects with such as are sincere, because, in fact, the falling away which will take place at the end is a more open falling away, more undisguised. But the word of God applies this term to a moral and real abandonment of the true principles of Christianity and to the men who, while they call themselves Christians, act under the influence of Satan (1 Tim. 4), who corrupts everything which he cannot hinder. This abandonment of the true principles of Christianity, by the very persons who pretend never to have abandoned it, is called apostasy in the word; and it is most important that this should be understood, in order that the outward form of Christianity may no longer deceive the simple, but that they may fully know that the apostasy is none the less real for being hidden.

Mr. Rochat says (p. 22), that scripture places the moment of the apostasy at the time of the appearing of the Antichrist. He mistakes; scripture says nothing of the kind. The passage quoted only says, that the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy have first come and the man of sin have been revealed, etc. But the falling away may take place long before the revelation of the man of sin.

In the "Abridged History of the Church of Christ," the author of which I need not name, we find a chapter with this title: "Apostasy Consummated." I quote a passage from it (vol. 1, p. 121): "what progress that unfortunate church had made, in the eighth century, in the path of error and perdition! After having for a long time followed the instructions of the Holy Ghost, such as it possessed in the epistle especially addressed to them, at length tired of watching, praying, combating, weary of bearing the yoke of the good Shepherd, it relaxed by degrees from its pristine faithfulness. At first it had neglected, then afterwards it had abandoned, the word of truth. Instead of remaining a particular church, as it originally was, it had wished to become generally catholic, and had insensibly exalted itself to that degree, that it aspired to universal dominion, drawing away with it all the West in its apostasy."

Is then the word "apostasy" more terrible under my pen than in that work? All the West has been drawn away into the apostasy. It is said, that the truth is only contested when it becomes important.

Again, the author of the same work applies Romans 11 to the cutting off of that church. "The moment is approaching," he adds in a note to volume 1, page 122,"when that adulterous church, which has become high minded, will be cut off for ever."

I would only add two remarks here. First, I have not made a wrong use of the word "apostasy," since an author who well knows how to write his mother tongue, uses it in a more positive way than I do. The church of Rome acknowledges the Trinity; it owns that Christ is the Lord, that He is both God and Man, as well as other fundamental truths; and yet it is the consummated apostasy, because it has first neglected and afterwards abandoned the word of truth because it has become high minded, etc. Then next Romans 11 applies to this state of things, to all that has been led away by the church of Rome. Secondly, the author goes farther than I. I do not believe that the apostasy is consummated, as I have already said elsewhere. On the other hand, if the author extends the application of Romans 11 beyond individuals at Rome, or the church of Rome itself, then you must take the apostle according to his own expressions. "I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles." Besides, I am persuaded that, ere long, the Romish church will put an end to this difficulty, at least within the limits of the fourth empire. At all events, the whole of the West has been drawn away. The author leads us to perceive the consequences of the unbelief by quoting Romans 11.}

248 Let us now turn to the church. The writer admits that the church is the aggregate of the elect manifested on earth. It is very evident that it is not the aggregate of the churches, because as Mr. Rochat himself acknowledges, a part of the elect manifested (and every one acknowledges that it is a great part) are not found in those churches. Mr. Rochat rejects the idea of unity, as the unity of a society of persons here below. I had borrowed the expression of a "society-church" from his pamphlet, only rejecting the idea of a confederation of churches. Let it be remembered, that I fully admit the existence of the local churches at the beginning, and the duty of meeting together outside the world which is about to be judged. Mr. Rochat admits that the passage, "God has set in the church; first, apostles: secondly, prophets," etc., applies to the church on earth, as the aggregate of the manifested elect. Now, I ask if this body with its members, its joints of supply working according to the measure of each one part for its self-building up in love, formed a unity as the unity of a society?

Mr. Rochat says (p. 34) that the passages I have quoted apply to the internal unity manifested, maintained, and developed by certain charges, but not a unity as of a society. He admits at the same time that one of these passages at least applies to the aggregate of the elect manifested at a certain period, in a word, to the church on earth. For my part, I cannot give a better definition of a society, than that of an aggregate of persons having an internal unity, manifested, maintained, and developed by certain charges.* But whether it be called a society, or another name be given to it, it is admitted that there is an aggregate of elect persons, at a given period, or, if one will, an internal unity manifested, maintained, and developed by certain charges, and that unity is the aggregate of the elect at that period. It cannot be denied that the aggregate of Christians formed one body at the time of the apostles. That unity manifested, maintained, developed by these charges, existed then. Where is it now? Then it was a body working by its joints of supply on earth.

{*If any thing can be added, it is a sign or outward bond, which rendered them members and gave them officially a right in the society; that is what is found in baptism.}

At the present time, a great part of the aggregate of the elect on earth is mixed up with that which is not the church; indeed, the greater part of the church is nowise holding the church position, but is to be found even where the falling away of Christendom is preparing, while Christendom is every day becoming more worthy of the judgments of God. The Christian society as a body, acting by the joints of supply, does no longer exist as it did exist; it has ceased to work; its unity has ceased to be visible on earth. Mr. Rochat contents himself with churches; but where is the aggregate of the elect in a manifested unity? And of all he can produce of these churches, where is the common action of the joints of the body in the aggregate of the elect - in the church? As to that state of things, the result of an evil which had made progress enough in the days of the apostle, for him to call those days "the last hour,"? for him to tell the faithful that there were many antichrists, I leave to our brother to characterise such a state of things by the name he may prefer. Does he deny that the church - the aggregate of the elect on earth - did constitute a society, whose members formed part of a body, which was working in its unity on earth - manifested unity? If he does not deny it, where is that unity now? Where is that unity of working in the aggregate of the elect? Was there not in the days of the apostles a constituted body, which contained all the elect which were manifested on earth? I ask the question, where is it to be found now?*

{*I do not attach myself to the word "society" - it is an expression of Mr. Rochat; but the thing is most important, as may be seen in John 17. The Lord prays that those who believe may be one, that the world may believe. The inhabitants of the Canton de Vaud form a Society, because, being all born Vaudois (though there be different parishes), they are all attached to a common centre; they possess common rights; they have charges filled by men who work for the common interests of the country. They are all Vaudois. That unity is felt and known, although it might be difficult to present in a visible way the bond which unites one Vaudois to another Vaudois. Thus it was in the church at the beginning; all were Christians, born again, fellow-citizens of a heavenly country; there were charges by functions, which had their sphere of activity in the whole body, namely, apostles, prophets, teachers. Though there were churches, as in the Canton de Vaud there are parishes, Christians formed a society, as the Vaudois form one, because there was internal unity, manifested, maintained, and developed by charges. There were local charges; but there were also charges and gifts which were for the whole body (as the Council of State in the Canton de Vaud); and the apostles, the prophets, etc., did not any more belong to a local church, than the Council of State in the Canton de Vaud belongs to a particular parish.}

250 Having made these remarks on the points where there has been some advance, I resume the different objects of the pamphlet. Mr. Rochat tells me (p. 15) that the ordinances were not decreed only by the apostles and the elders. It is of the word of God he must complain, and not of me. It is true that in the address it is added the church. But when the Holy Spirit speaks of the ordinances which were decreed, He says in Acts 16: 4 of the decrees "ordained by the apostles and elders"; and it was the apostles and elders who had "come together to consider of this matter." Further, does our brother seriously believe that the brethren at Jerusalem, even supposing that their church was formed on his own principles, could have had the idea that a church in our day might have the right to send decrees to other churches? When it is said, "And to us" (Acts 15: 28), did not this refer to men having some direct authority? Could any gathering, convinced that a doctrine is presented in the word, send a decree to other gatherings? No! There was then an authority and a capacity, which no longer exist.

OF THE CHURCH AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY - RUIN AND CUTTING OFF

I refer here to an essential principle, I mean the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth. The New Testament always speaks of the Holy Spirit as being on earth, having been sent from on high, when Christ had ascended, although inasmuch as He is God He is necessarily everywhere. He therefore becomes the centre* of a unity on earth. Indeed, in this respect, the dead are even, so to speak, lost sight of; their bodies not being raised, they cannot have a part in the manifestation of the glory of Christ. Their happy souls (for they are with the Lord), being absent from the body, cannot be the instruments of that glory. And this is still more manifest as regards the body. But the One Spirit on earth is the bond of unity for all the believers who are found there. It is in them that the glory of Christ ought to be manifested, not only as individuals, but, above all, as a body, the One Spirit being the bond of unity for the whole body on earth. Hence, I am not afraid to say, that the state of things which existed in the primitive church does no longer exist. After all, this is generally admitted. That unity which ought to have existed that the world might believe exists no longer. The certainty of the salvation of the elect, and the fact that there are such on earth, have nothing to do with this question. The intention of God was that there should be a manifestation of unity on earth. This manifestation, this state of things, no longer exist. As to inward life, we are agreed: it is but one; the destiny of the church, inasmuch as it possesses that life, is to inherit glory with Christ. I do not make the unity of the body to consist in that, as Mr. Rochat supposes; it is the internal source of it, as the fact of being born a Vaudois is the source of the unity of the Vaudois. Without dwelling on this distinction, it is enough to say that the destiny of the church, in this point of view, is one.

{*Rather, the power and bond of unity. Christ is the centre.}

251 On the other hand, the present dispensation has a destiny here below, as the Jewish economy had one, and in the point of view of the responsibility of man, it is the purity and the faithfulness of the church, which are the basis on which this destiny rests. The universal church of the elect manifested on earth was to shew forth in the world the glory of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as a city situated on the top of a mountain; it was to be the salt of the earth - and all that in its unity, being composed of all those who believe. That is what existed in the beginning. I do not say that, if some of its parts detach themselves from it, as a society, the church ceases to exist, as Mr. Rochat makes me to say. What I say is, that corrupt men, "marked out beforehand for this sentence," have got unnoticed into the church; that the mystery of lawlessness already worked at the beginning, and that the aggregate, the body of the church on earth, is in a state of disorganisation and corruption. I say that it has ceased to manifest on earth that unto which God had called it. The fault is not with God, but with man. No; God is not responsible for this, although by means of it His counsels be accomplished. If there is a fault (and fault there must be somewhere, if the good that God had done has been marred and corrupted), there is responsibility; someone is guilty. Is it denied that the aggregate of the church on earth is corrupted and disorganised, and that the testimony which God had established in the unity of the church of believers is marred and has failed in the world? If it is denied, I ask, where is that testimony? Why does God put an end to the dispensation, if the testimony which ought to have been rendered to His glory subsists in all its force? But if, in effect, corruption and disorganisation do exist in the church, if the testimony of God to the world scarcely subsists, if the name of Christ is blasphemed in the midst of the world, by means of Christians - of the church, to deny the responsibility of men, of Christians, is indisputably the most evident antinomianism.

252 Before going further, I would here notice by the way, one of the arguments of our brother, Mr. Rochat, as a sample. He had attributed to me several things which are not in my tract; among others, that the sin of the church had caused apostleship to cease. He justifies himself by this reasoning. The tract, he says (p. 12), appears to him to establish two principles: the one, that without apostles there could be no churches on the primitive footing; the other, that it was because of the iniquity of man that those churches, constituted on the primitive footing, had ceased. I reason in the same way as to familiar circumstances: since the departure of a certain physician, there is no cure for a certain disease. Those who are attacked with it owe this to their excesses; therefore it is evident that it is these excesses which drive away the physician! . . . Having noticed this one sample of reasoning, I pass over everything that does not refer to some truth which is important for the conscience of all.

With respect to depreciating simple brethren, may God preserve us from doing so! What I desire is, that brethren - whether simple or not simple - may be exactly what the Spirit has made them in the church. Humbleness of heart and the power of the Holy Spirit can alone lead us to this result - so precious and so full of peace for all and for each one in particular.* If all the brethren gave up self-seeking, and every idea of rights, to seek only the edification of all in a spirit of obedience, all such questions would fall to the ground.

{*God has proposed to Himself two great objects with regard to a Christian: the one, to save him; the other, to manifest in him His own glory. These two objects will be fully attained when the Christian is in glory. Meanwhile, his salvation is certain, because God is true. But, on the other hand, it thus becomes the duty of such as enjoy this salvation, to be on earth the living witnesses of God's glory, by the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in them. It is the same with the church: it is saved;* but it is its duty and its privilege to manifest here below the glory of Him who saved it, and who dwells in it by the Holy Spirit. It is here that the responsibility of such as are saved finds its place. The rigid Calvinist only sees the accomplished salvation of the Church - an infinitely precious truth, the results of which in heavenly glory can never fail; but he does not see the establishment of the church here below - and that by God Himself - as depositary of the glory of God, and under the responsibility of man. The Arminian, on the contrary, concludes from this responsibility of Christians the uncertainty of their salvation, thus weakening the counsels of God, the eternal efficacy of the work of Christ, and all the sense and force of the seal of the Spirit, who would be bearing witness to an error, if after all we were not eternally saved.

There is a responsibility which results from grace, from the position which it has made for us. If God has adopted me for His child, I am bound to walk as a child, without questioning whether I shall always be a child. Thus God may Himself secure the accomplishment of His glory in His elect, and outwardly also by their means; or He may leave the manifestation of His glory to their faithfulness as His children. All these suppositions will be realised, the glory will be fully manifested in His elect, when Christ shall have glorified them. Then also will they fully glorify Him, as the angels do. But, in the meantime, God has entrusted His glory here below to the church, as He had of old entrusted it to the Jews. Christians are faithful to this responsibility, by the Spirit who dwells in them, and who acts with efficacy, if He be not grieved. This therefore concerns the whole church, because the Holy Ghost dwells as the one Spirit in the Church. And although the evil may begin by one individual only, belonging to one particular church, it is here a question of principles which corrupt the whole lump in general, such, for instance, as a Judaizing spirit.

I deem it important to notice here that all the epistles which speak of ruin, of false principles which are the occasion for judgment, do not speak of a church, but of Christians in general - of the state of that which is called Christendom.}

{{*Note to translation - It is more exact to say, when individuals are saved, because the church is looked at as a new creation. But the general principle of the statement has remained here.}}

253 There are two dangers to be avoided: one, that a brother who has received certain gifts be led unwittingly to absorb everything in the exercise of them, while only seeking at bottom the good of all; the other, that those who have little gift be jealous of the gifts of their brethren, instead of profiting by them, since the gift which any one does possess is not for himself but is the portion of all. Who could be jealous of the skill of a physician, when it was a question of his health and the health of his friends? After all, it is grace alone which can remove difficulties of this kind. Woe to those who despise one of those little ones whom Jesus loves, or, as our brother, Mr. Rochat, expresses it, who despise the Holy Spirit in that little one. Happy those, on the other hand, who walk with humility, and who strengthen, by prayer and by cordial affection, the hands of one whom Christ has raised up to labour for the good of souls, according to the love of that faithful Saviour.

The fear of God is here of the highest importance; and if the heart of the faithful always knows how to love the poor of the flock, because Christ loves them, the ambitious flesh of man is as much in need of this precept, "Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause" (Exod. 23: 3), as of the one which forbids honouring "the person of the mighty," Lev. 19: 15. Such as serve Christ alone in everything will be blessed and rewarded by Him in glory at the last day. May God grant unto all of us to seek only His glory.

254 I now desire to reply in a few words to this question of our brother Mr. Rochat (p. 16): Will His Spirit fail us, when our desire is to seek to walk according to His intentions? The Spirit will not fail us. I have already expressed myself as to this, and in such a manner that it led Mr. Rochat to say that I did not seem to despair of seeing apostles again appear (p. 94, note), although I have never spoken of it. But what I ask, both for me and for my brethren, is that we may not go beyond the measure of the acting of the Spirit amongst us; and that with a view of coming to an organisation of which we may have formed an idea to ourselves, we may not be doing things in which the Spirit of God could not act with us, and where, consequently, we should be acting by ourselves (that is, according to the flesh), if even it were to imitate that which existed formerly.

One word more on the question of ruin and cutting off. It is not denied that there is a state of declension in the church, nor that some day there will be an apostasy and a cutting off. (Mr. Rochat, p. 21). It appears to me that in two respects our brother has not understood this question. First, a state of failure which cannot be restored has no connection with a cutting off, as he supposes: for the one is the fault and iniquity of man, while the other is the judgment of God. Even in a church, is the failure of a Christian or of a hypocrite, whose restoration (I do not say conversion) is impossible - is it, I say, the same thing as his being cut off? The cutting off is judgment executed; the failure, however serious and irremediable it may be, is a fault, the manifestation of an evil disposition: Nothing more simple; and so it is in the passage which has given occasion for the use of the word (Rom. 11: 22): "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which e fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in. his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" - or cut away. The cutting off is the consequence of the failure. If the vine of the earth has produced nothing but sour grapes instead of good grapes, that is not a cutting off, but the cause of a terrible judgment, which He will execute, who "treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God," Rev. 19: 15.

255 Our brother speaks of a time of declension in the church or in the dispensation of the church. Such was the case of the churches in Revelation, for instance, and that may very well bring in the cutting off of the church which is in such a state. But here it is not a question of this, but of an immense system of evil, called the mystery of lawlessness; a mystery which was already working in the days of the apostles, which was connecting itself with Christianity, which was acting within its bosom, and was taking its form, and which succeeded in arrogating to itself alone every true Christian right. It is not something good that has somewhat corrupted itself, nor some few branches openly in unbelief which are cut away. It is a mystery of lawlessness which mars the whole; it is a leaven, which has leavened the whole lump, so that the apostle could say, Men will be so and so, etc. (2 Tim. 3: 5), "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." It is an evil which will end in a general falling away and the manifestation of the lawless one, when that which restrains is removed; an evil which, when the church will have been raised or changed, will be followed by the universal judgment of all the living, that is, of all the habitable world, so that God will have put an end to the dispensation in its principles and in its form. It is a state which causes the Lord to say, that "in the day when the Son of man is revealed," it shall be as in the days of Noah and in those of Lot (Luke 17: 26-30); and, in another place: "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18: 8).

Our brother speaks as if the apostasy or falling away was a future thing, quite detached, and affecting only some branches, which will be cut away; whereas it is but the unveiling of an immense evil, of a work of Satan contrived under the veil of Christianity, which had already begun in the days of the apostles, and which was then sufficiently ripe for enabling one to say, "It is the last hour."

It was not the state of a church, but an evil which influenced the result of the introduction of Christianity into the world, so that God was no longer glorified there by means of this, but on the contrary, judgment should begin from His house - a judgment which is to fall on every part of the habitable world. The apostasy is not an isolated future fact; but the revelation of a state of things, all the elements of which are ripe before its manifestation; which ripens under the form of Christianity, having borrowed its ordinances, having given to it forms, which, substituted for life, hold in bondage even those who possess life, and hinder the manifestation of the truth and of the glory of Christ, until the moment when, everything being undermined and God Himself having removed that which restrains, the public falling away will break out and thus call for the judgment of God. I will add here, that I have no doubt that there will be a blessed manifestation of the elect before the catastrophe of the world. God will bring them out from among the worldly, that they may not be condemned with the world. It was so at Jerusalem before the judgment of that city; so that I expect, through the gospel, a work which fills with joy the heart of the believer.

256 ON THE ADMISSION OF BELIEVERS INTO THE CHURCH -  RESPONSIBILITY - PRIMITIVE CHURCHES - RECEIVING INTO LOCAL CHURCHES - ON THE PASSAGE, ACTS 2: 47.

Our brother says in his chapter on the unity of the church (p. 27), "The privilege and duty of those who are manifested as members of the body of Christ is to join the church which the Lord has gathered for Himself in the locality they inhabit." Our brother forgets that things went on quite differently in the primitive church. A man brought to the faith of Christ was baptised,* and thus outwardly manifested; but he was not baptised as member of a church, but as member of the church; he was introduced into Christ's assembly. It might so happen, that it was in an isolated place where there were no Christians, as was the case of the eunuch of the court of Candace; but that changed nothing as to his admission. The reception of a Christian was not a reception into a particular church. There was only one baptism for the body of Christ,** sign of admission into the universal assembly on earth, but not necessarily into the assembly in heaven. Let us pay attention to this; baptism, that outward act which did not answer universally or necessarily to the internal unity (witness, Simon Magus),*** was the sign of an outward unity (as of a society of persons), by which sign all were of one body here below, without its being, however, the body of Christ viewed as the assembly of the elect unto eternal life.

{*I speak here without making any allusion to questions and discussions between baptists and paedobaptists.}

{**Note to translation. - Baptism is not admission to the body. That is by baptism by one Spirit. But the doctrine of the ruin, or the house, I was not distinctly brought out then. The general reasoning is perfectly just.}

{***See also 1 Corinthians 1: 10.}

257 I do not speak now of the state of that outward body at that time, nor its safeguards for its purity which existed in the circumstances of Christianity, in the evident power of the Holy Spirit in the strength of love and discipline which acted therein. I only speak of the fact, that there was a society on earth, the members of which were admitted by a certain form, by means of which all were supposed to be, and were, in fact, members of that society, until, as it might happen, they were excluded from it for some violation of its rules. If I am told that this society has been corrupted and no longer answers to God's intention in the establishment of it; that it is, on the contrary, the seat of all that wars against the truth and against integrity of heart, or that, having forgotten its primitive discipline, it has allowed those to enter its sanctuary who despised all that it considered sacred: be it so; I believe it; but what cannot be denied is the existence of such a society at the beginning of Christianity, the members of which were recognised by baptism. That society had gifts, and ordinances, and government, whether local or general; that society was then the church, since the elect were there manifested in unity.

The church had the one baptism, as the one Spirit, and yet it was not either a particular church, or the internal unity of Christian life, which was formed by such means. Either this society has ceased to exist (and what exists now does not deserve to be considered as such), or it exists still in its unity as such, under all the solemn responsibilities as to which it completely fails - ripening, as a society, for the most severe judgments of God. Both these things may be said; but they demonstrate the truth of the position I maintain. Morally, as the representative of the glory of God on earth, this body no longer exists; it is the seat of the power of the enemy more than of the power of God. As to its responsibility, this body still exists. The servant who, instead of accomplishing his service, beats his fellow-servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken, is judged as a servant. The responsibility does not depend on the accomplishment of the service, but on the position which demands that accomplishment.

258 Let those who, by the will of God, may read these pages, pay attention to the cause of the iniquity of this evil servant: he was saying in his heart, "My Lord delayeth his coming," Matt. 24: 48.

Finally, the church, as a society, nearly identical (and, as to the manifestation of the glory of God on earth, perfectly identical) with the church in its internal unity, did exist at the beginning. Where is it now? It is the intelligent answer to this question, which alone gives the solution of the difficulties presented by both Puseyism and nationalism, and the controversy on dissent.

Ministry and baptism, those two links between the exterior and interior of this society, are of necessity become the turning points of these questions, and the occasions of the corruption of the society; of exaggerated pretensions on the part of those who will have it that the exterior alone is the church, and of so many difficulties on the other hand, for those who will only own as the church the internal society - difficulties which they cannot escape, until they admit the ruin in which we are found, not for eternity (because in this respect the faithfulness of God interposes), but as to the manifestation of the church for the glory of God here below. These difficulties will only disappear for them when they admit this ruin; because, as the Holy Spirit does not act at present in that power which made the exterior to be the expression of the interior, the separation of those two things has left a gap which nothing can fill up as to this world, and which places us in a state of things where we are found guilty of having failed as to the manifestation of the glory of God on earth. This is a painful conviction, undoubtedly, and humbling for us, but in which we have, first, this consolation that God in His grace can never fail, and that we shall certainly have the heavenly glory; and, secondly, that God directs the hopes of those who are faithful, even in the midst of unfaithfulness, to that which in His counsels is the result of that ruin - to the glorious appearing of Christ, who will take us unto Himself, that we may appear with Him in glory, when He will appear to judge all this evil.

Finally, there is a consolation which is attached to faithfulness in the trial; and the result of obedience is always the enjoyment of more special communion with God, especially when that obedience is accomplished in the midst of departure from God and a general contempt of Him, in the midst of the moral rebellion of those who bear the name of God, who will bear it and arrogate to themselves alone (and perhaps more than ever) the privileges which belong to the Christian only. I say, more than ever; because it is a fact, that the greater the departure from God, the more those who hold to the outward order boast of their privileges, and do so as if they were the only persons favoured of God; that the glory and the importance of those privileges may be assigned to them. "The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord!" Such language comes not from the mouth of those who love the Lord who dwells in that temple. Elijah, while he bore witness in the midst of Israel to the glory of Him from whom Israel had departed, enjoyed an intimacy with God, rarely found even among the prophets. Moses, when he had pitched a tabernacle without the camp, communed with God, and God "spake unto him face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

259 Moreover, if the pretensions of those who cling to outward forms do prevail, as I doubt not they will, at least for a time, and even under the worst form, let us remember that that which is internal is eternal. Eternal righteousness, in the Person of Christ, bowed its head for a moment before the presumption which used the ordinances of righteousness, as separated from Him, so that they rose up against Him - that righteousness, I say, rose nevertheless more glorious than ever, more sanctioned than ever, in resurrection and "at the right hand of the Majesty on high." The act which had trodden under foot that righteousness only brought judgment and ruin on that presumption, which, having clothed itself with the glorious name of the ordinances of that righteousness, had succeeded in deceiving the world by their outward appearance. The Spirit of prophecy had said with Isaiah, "Therefore thou has forsaken thy people" (Isa. 2: 6), before God had as yet executed any judgment.

I know that people will not have it that man is responsible for an evil which existed before he was born. It is true that as regards the final judgment of individuals, each one will bear his own burden; but such is not the course of God's government in the world. As children of the first Adam we are all under the effects of his sin. The righteous blood shed upon earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, was required of that generation which filled up the measure of their fathers, Matt. 23: 35. The blood of prophets and saints, and of all the slain upon the earth, was found in Babylon, Rev. 18: 24. As far as love is concerned, and as the family of Christ, we are all necessarily identified with the woes of those who are Christ's and with His glory which is cast down to the ground. I do not think that a Christian is in a position to reprove his brother, as he ought to do, and point out to him his sin, if he has not borne on his heart all the weight of that sin. I do not speak of atonement; that is evident. It is thus that Christ reproves. His love feels all the evil of which His brethren are guilty, as if it were His own, and this is what gives such energy to His intercession. It is in this sense that (according to the spirit of love) a Christian does not bear with the evil which is in his brother; and it is thus that I desire to speak of the sin of the church, for alas! the honour of Christ is lost, the beauty of that which He loves, and which was His glory, is passed away; the happiness of His own is weakened and almost destroyed.

260 It remains now for me to make a few remarks on details. When the church in any place was called the church of God, there is nothing more simple. As the word church means assembly, it is clear that the Christians of a certain place, being gathered together, were truly the assembly of that place, but it was not only the assembly that owned God, but that which God owned, and which enjoyed exclusively the privileges He could vouchsafe unto it, as being His assembly.

In like manner, at that time, the assembly of a city was that which was owned by the laws of the city, or the will of the emperor, and which alone enjoyed the privileges belonging to such an assembly. There could not be two. The Greek word 'ecclesia,' that is, 'church,' in its primitive sense, applied to the constitutional assembly of those who had the right of citizenship in a city. It is in this sense it is used in Acts 19, in the case of Demetrius. The question is to know if, for us, the right of citizenship comes from admission into the church of a city, as in municipal cases, or else from our admission into the universal church. As to this right of each Christian, the heavenly citizens of such or such a place cannot dispute it to their brethren, unless the latter, through evil conduct, have deserved to be deprived of it. If they dispute it, they dispute the foundation and basis of their own rights, for they have none others but those which they deny to be sufficient for their brethren. They are rebelling against the rights of Him, who, with the same authority, vouchsafed thus privilege to themselves and to those they reject; and they act like the Jews who raised difficulties to the admission of Gentiles, although they themselves held their rights from Him who had vouchsafed similar rights to the Gentiles. It appears that our brother, Mr. Rochat, does not now dispute this principle. As for me, my only desire is that the thing be fully established, that this principle be clearly brought to light, and that it be understood that every assembly which pretends to decide such a question denies the origin and source of all its own rights. If the right of heavenly citizenship, which God has granted to every Christian, is not sufficient in order to be received by the brethren of a certain locality, it is not sufficient for themselves; and if it be not sufficient for themselves, they can neither act as an assembly nor as Christians.

261 I desire to add a remark on what we read in Acts 2: 47, "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Here the word church cannot be taken as meaning some particular church. First, if that is the true sense, it is clear that now there is no longer any church, for God no longer acts thus. If this passage is carefully examined, it will be seen that the word which has perplexed translators (who have given some, "saved," some, "to be saved," others "who were saving themselves," etc.), is the word, I may say the technical word, used for the remnant of the Jews, who escaped the judgment of God. Thus it was that the disciples asked if "the saved," those who were to be saved, were numerous. This is what is told us in this passage: the way that God employed in His mercy to save this remnant, which He had destined to escape the judgment of the nation which had rejected the Saviour, was to add them to the church. But it is no question here of a particular church, for at that moment there was only one known assembly of God, the church which met at Jerusalem, but which was the church in every possible sense. Thus speaks Paul of the church in general. See Galatians 1: 13; Philippians 3: 6.

262 OF GIFTS PLACED IN THE CHURCH

It has been sought to weaken the proof of the existence of a universal church on earth, the internal unity of which was manifested, maintained, and developed, by shewing that gifts were found in the churches. I said - and the thing is evident - that gifts were to be exercised usually in the assemblies; and that, if there were prophets residing in a town, it might naturally be said, there are prophets in the church of that town. But when I said that gifts were placed in the church, not in the churches, I only quoted the express revelation of God, 1 Cor. 12: 28. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles," etc. This is never said of a particular church, and cannot apply to it. Mr. Rochat now admits in his pamphlet that, when it is said, God has given some, apostles, this applies to the church, in the sense of the aggregate of the elect manifested on earth at a certain period. That is precisely what I say. There was an aggregate of elect persons on earth, which had a unity and joints of supply, and which thus formed a body, a society, an aggregate, the unity of which was recognised. Mr. Rochat acknowledges that this is true with respect to three of the gifts mentioned in the word. I believe it to be applicable to all, inasmuch as they are gifts; for those who possessed certain gifts, or other qualifications, were thereby rendered capable of filling charges which might be more or less circumscribed in their exercise, and which Mr. Rochat confounds with gifts. But at least, according to him, there were three of the gifts mentioned (p. 26), which were not placed in the churches, but in the church. Consequently there was the one body, the one church. And this is so true, that if one united all the churches, the aggregate of the church would not be realised; for it is evident that Paul, Timothy, Titus, Silvanus, and many others, did not belong to a particular church.

They walked with the church, if there was one in the place where they were; but they acted, in the exercise of their gifts, outside the churches, or in several churches at the same time. When Titus was in Crete to establish elders in every church, he did not act as a member of a local church; still more was it so in the case of apostles and prophets. Thus the most powerful action, the most striking, that which came most directly from Christ, was outside the churches, though recognising them, just as I fully recognise that they existed in those days. These things were in the church of God on earth, as joints of supply which worked in the body, in the aggregate, the unity of which was thus proved and in part maintained.

263 I shall, farther on, add a few words on charges and gifts; I only mention them here to prove the existence of a church of God, as a body, on earth. When our brother pretends (p. 42), that some children of God have a kind of antipathy for the churches of the Lord, he mistakes. There are Christians who do not like to see that title wrongly applied, because they attach too great an importance to the idea of a church of the Lord and to the state in which the church of God was found, when the churches were owned of Him. They do not wish to lower the force of this expression, by applying it to gatherings, which would monopolise it without having a well-grounded claim to it, and thus depreciate in the eyes of the world a precious title, and destroy the true idea of the church and the churches, among those who appropriate that title to themselves. Hence the wrong use made of this word by those who apply it to themselves alone has kept away from the churches a great number of persons.

It is in those countries where Christians have had the pretension to be the church, that the most sincere children of God have had the greatest dread of this. It does not follow, because the Lord sent messages to the primitive churches, that all the assemblies which, in our day, arrogate to themselves that title, because they have been organised in such or such a way, ought to be owned when everything is in a state of ruin. Without doubt, the gathering of the children of God in each locality is a thing infinitely precious and well-pleasing to the Lord; but it is not because they call themselves the church, that this union is well-pleasing to Him, but because, according to the will of Christ, they are united, and united, because there is but one Spirit who is in them all, and who attracts them one towards another by the constraining power of His love. Moreover, the word church signifies an assembly, it is the assembly of those who have common privileges, and it is important that this should be known, in order not to exclude from it those who hold these privileges from God Himself.

NOMINATION OF ELDERS

I have reasons for thinking that the author will no longer insist now on Acts 14: 23. At all events, since it is an important passage, and the only one which might seem to present the assemblies as participating in the choice of elders, I will say a word more on the subject. Mr. Rochat would prefer leaving out the expression of "the church" or "the assembly," in the passage, because it is not in the Greek. But we must remember that the point in question is the participation of the assembly.

264 Our brother tells us that Wahl translates, not merely "I choose," but "I choose by way of suffrages." He has quoted Wahl wrongly in the very thing that is in question. I am fully persuaded that it is through pre-occupation, as it may happen to everyone; but it is important to know that Wahl says, "I choose by way of suffrage," without an s at the end of the word. The reason for this is quite simple, and the difference is immense. The suffrage is always the suffrage of the person who chooses, so that one could not translate, I choose by way of suffrages, with an s, since it would be choosing by other suffrages besides my own; whereas, if I say, I choose by way of suffrage, in the singular, it is my act in view; it is a question of myself. It is always the suffrage of the person who is the subject of the verb "to choose," which is spoken of. The word translated by "chose" means to stretch out the hand, and those who did choose stretched out their own hands, and not the hands of others. If anyone wishes to confine himself to etymology, although the verb, like so many others, has lost its etymological sense, the only sense which can be given to it is, "the apostles chose by stretching out their hand."

The thing in question is not to know if the word retains the sense of suffrage (although in its general use, it has lost it) but, admitting the sense of choosing by way of suffrage, we must know by whose suffrage it is. Then I answer, by the suffrage of him who chooses, and of him alone. As for the case of 2 Corinthians 8: 19, it is exactly the same thing. The churches "chose," but then the "churches" are in the same relation to the verb, as Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14: 23. The churches, like Paul and Barnabas, did not choose by the suffrages of other persons, but by their own suffrages. This passage in 2 Corinthians entirely confirms this interpretation, which, after all, is the only reasonable or possible one. I do not here exclude the idea of hands being lifted up; but this I say, that the hands lifted up, if there were any, according to the form of the word, were the hands of the apostles. Moreover, I do not think that Mr. Rochat would dispute it now.

265 Mr. Rochat knows as well as I do, that the use of the participle, instead of the past tense, makes no difference. Hence, in the only passage where the choice of elders is mentioned, the word shews us that the church did not choose herself, but that it was the apostles who chose for the church. The only epistles which speak of the qualification of elders and of deacons are addressed, not to churches, but to persons who in a special way represented the apostles. These two circumstances are more than extraordinary, if the rule of the word was that the churches were to choose their elders. Add to this that Titus had been sent to a great distance in order to establish them, as the apostle had commanded him to do - him, I say, and not the churches which existed in these localities.* Mr. Rochat says that I make a distinction unknown to everybody between elders and pastors. All I can reply to that is, that it is astonishing how grave and learned men can remain so entirely shut up in their own ideas. Nearly the better half of the Reformed Church has made this distinction; all the Presbyterians make it; and our brother has only to make a short excursion in the Canton de Neufchatel, and he will find in each parish Mr.  - , elder, who is not the pastor at all.** Farel, Knox, the reformers in France, etc., were not men to be despised in their generation. By the way, does my memory fail me, when I say that Farel was never ordained? It is certain that at Geneva a poor artisan had begun to distribute the Lord's supper, and was banished for it. Faith is worth many ordinations of men. On the other hand, I do not quote these facts as authority to rest upon, but solely in reply to our brother, who says (p. 51), that he has thought, until now, that everybody was agreed in thinking that these two charges were the same. For my part, the Bible suffices me.

{*If Mr. Rochat wishes to find examples and arguments on this point, he may consult "Poli Synopsis Crit," on this passage.}

{**See also the "Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church of France," Article 29, etc.; "Confession of Faith of the Churches of Switzerland," chapter 18.}

Mr. Rochat has only referred to a part of the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Although they are not very important with respect to this subject, I will say that in Exodus 18, it is Jethro who proposes the thing to Moses, and that it is Moses who chooses. From what is said in Deuteronomy 1: 13, it is Moses who proposes the thing to the people, saying, "Take ye." The people answer, "The thing which thou hast spoken is good," etc. Then Moses says, "So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you," etc.

266 Our brother is very much astonished also that I said, As to the service of tables, the choice was granted to the church, because the church supplied the tables, as the choice also was reserved for God, when God supplied the gift. He asks if God does not supply the gifts for a deacon. Everything is confounded here, because our brother has not understood the use of the word gift. All the things that we possess are gifts of God undoubtedly; but, in the word, the use of this expression is specially connected with certain gifts, which result from the glory of Christ, as Son of man. "He gave gifts for men." "He gave some apostles," etc. "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." "Covet earnestly the best gifts," etc.

Now the charge of deacon was not one of these gifts, but a charge which had to do with the care of temporal things. A person was the deacon or the servant of the church. Certain qualities were necessary, to be a deacon, but this charge was in nowise one of the gifts mentioned in the list which is left us, Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 12. A man might very well possess a special gift of service, in a more general sense, without being officially a deacon, but the things intrusted to deacons were temporal, and they were intrusted to them by the brethren. As to those who possessed gifts, the things which were intrusted to them were spiritual; they came directly from God; and those men were immediately responsible towards the Lord in their service. They were servants or deacons of Jesus, in things which were spiritual, and not servants of the church in things which were temporal. But here comes out the whole thought of our brother. "The church," he says (p. 55), "ought to have named elders, not only because it paid them, but also because it intrusted to them something much more precious than its money, namely, the souls of the faithful which composed it." I only ask where such a thought is to be found in the word as this, that the church intrusts to the elders the souls which compose it?

As to the phrase which astonishes our brother, I maintain it in all its force; and I see great perfection in the ways of the Spirit of God as to this. As regards the difference which exists between the elder and the pastor, I say that the pastorate was a gift of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4), whereas the charge of elder was not one. This charge was established by men in the church, according to God undoubtedly, but it was an institution connected with government, and not a gift from above, although certain gifts and certain qualities were necessary for those who were named elders. I said that the gift of shepherding the flock of God, in one way or in another, was necessary or suitable for them, because it is shewn by the first epistle to Timothy that the elders who laboured in word and teaching are distinguished from the other elders. Peter speaks of the elders in a very vague manner, calling himself an elder, and contrasting them with all the younger, so that it would be difficult to suppose a choice.

267 I admit this, that on certain occasions the disciples did take resolutions in common. In the case of the disputes about circumcision, which the apostle Paul could not settle, the brethren at Antioch agreed to refer to the decision of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. If our brother, Mr. Rochat, likes to quote this as an instance of a decision on the part of the church, he is quite free to do so. For my part, I see the incapacity in which the church was to decide anything on the subject; they agreed to refer this question to a superior authority. Except the answer from the apostles and elders, with the church, to the question which had thus been proposed to them, all the other cases (excluding what was done before the coming down of the Holy Spirit), only relate to deacons and to pecuniary aid. Let brethren take resolutions in common when circumstances arise, I have nothing in the world to say against it, provided their direction be from God; but this, I repeat, that I see nothing in the word that resembles the decision of a majority. It is evident that, if the church is in a bad state, the majority will probably decide wrong, and nothing can prove that the Holy Spirit is with the majority. It is merely a human means of settling an affair. In matters of arrangement one may very well consult what suits the greater number; but, as regards moral things, the number is of no moment.

Our brother (p. 59) returns to the subject of gifts. He asks if the gifts connected with the charge of elder did not come directly from God. When it is a question of governing one's household, and one's own children (1 Tim. 3: 4, 5), it is quite a different thing from gifts, in the scriptural sense of the expression.

268 Mr. Rochat (p. 60) insists on the answer he gave in his first pamphlet to this remarkable fact, that every direction about elders is given to Titus and to Timothy, and never to the churches. He remarks that Paul says to Timothy (1 Tim. 3: 15), "These things write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know [not, 'how thou oughtest to behave thyself,' but] how one ought to behave oneself." I take a similar case. My son is chosen councillor of state, and I write to him to explain how one ought to behave oneself in the affairs of the state. This shews, according to Mr. Rochat's mode of reasoning, that every citizen may, at any time, exercise the functions of councillor of state, because I told my son how one ought to behave oneself. I confess I do not see where the force of that argument lies.

The author adds to his thought, which is also mine, that we must not go in advance of the gifts of God. "When God," he says (p. 61), "sends elders and deacons, I will not have them to be tacitly owned, but to be established through their being recognised by a regular vote of the church." But, first of all, in the case of establishing elders and deacons, it is supposed that all is in order, the very thing that always remains to be proved; and if even it were supposed that all is in order in the church, it would still remain to be proved, that it has a right to establish elders by a regular vote, as Mr. Rochat says. This has not been done, but quite the contrary. It ever remains true, that what is presented to us in the word, is the choosing of elders by the apostles; their establishment by the delegates of Paul; directions for those same delegates, and an absolute silence on this subject in all that is written directly to the churches.

I will point out here a principle, which is expressed twice in Mr. Rochat's pamphlet, with a very slight difference: where the word has determined nothing, man is free. The essential thing is to follow its spirit (p. 66). There is no principle more dangerous than that one. Were it followed, all kinds of innovations might be introduced into an assembly, and imposed on the brethren by the vote of a majority. It is true that the Holy Spirit leads us according to the spirit of the word in cases where we do not find at first a positive text; for the Spirit has not abandoned the church. But to say, in such a case, that man is free, is a horrid principle. It is this especially that I dread in the system of dissent. Man, the flesh, its rights, are constantly put in place of the Holy Spirit.

269 As to the article on the ruin of the dispensation, I have replied to it while considering that on the unity of the church. Here is what I have to say now about women (p. 86). Whenever brethren meet as an assembly before God, the women are to remain silent; it is a moral ordinance of the word. Discipline is not connected with organisation, but with the presence of Jesus, where two or three are gathered together in His name. The Holy Spirit necessarily exercises that discipline, wherever He acts; for He is holy, and He governs in the church. The author's answer about the refusal anyone might make to join the disciples, is no answer at all. The church was not yet manifested at the time of Joseph of Arimathea (p. 90). To belong to the assembly a person must have been baptised, and those who had not been baptised could not be owned as Christians. As for those who had been baptised, they had thereby publicly joined the Christians. As for the imposition of hands, if it were only given to recommend to the grace of God someone who is about to go forth for the Lord's work, I see nothing to hinder it; but if it be to make a minister, as people say, or to give a right to the exercise of ministry, it is a positive infringement upon the sovereignty of God.

ROMANS 11 - THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA

I thank God we are at last getting out of these details. Romans 11 must occupy us for a moment. This expression is blamed, "The Jews have been cut off." It is evident that here the word "Jews" must be taken in the sense of the Jewish dispensation. Is it denied that God has put an end to that dispensation, by adding what is called "the election" to the church (Rom. 11: 7), by cutting off or dispersing the unbelieving, and by interrupting His dealings with the nation, although it be kept, according to His counsels, for future blessing? In like manner it is not a question of cutting of fall the Gentiles: but God will equally put an end to this dispensation, which (the Jews having been set aside) is characterised as "salvation unto the Gentiles." This is, after all, what Mr. Rochat himself now acknowledges. I return to this infinitely solemn truth, which I have at heart to place before the eyes of Christians, namely, that you, Gentiles, have been put under a responsibility analogous to that of the Jews, that you have failed as they have, and that you will be cut off as they have been. I do not mean that the judgments of God will reach all the faithful individually; but the whole system in which you now are, and of which you form a part, will be judged and destroyed, as the Jewish system was.

270 One thing has greatly struck me in our brother's reply; it is the manner in which he lays stress on inexact words and expressions, while he keeps silence on the most solemn warnings of the word, on all I said of Jude, of the first epistle of John, and of all that is addressed to the Christians of the universal church. I think this a bad sign. It was on reading over my last tract to see if I had considered certain points, that I was struck with the great number of important passages which are not touched upon in Mr. Rochat's answer. And yet these passages must act, either for good or for evil, on the conscience of Christians, according to their true or false application. I entreat my brethren with all my might, and before the Lord, to weigh these passages of scripture. If they deign to read what is said on them in "Further Developments," etc., it might at least direct their attention to these subjects. I do not speak now in the sense of controversy, but that their conscience may be kept under the influence of these solemn warnings of God, and that they may judge the existing state of things, according to the light of the word.

I have still something to say on the book of Revelation, because this may be the means of fresh light to my brethren. If we examine closely the seven churches of Asia, we shall find much more than promises or threats addressed to certain local churches. When it is said, in Revelation 3: 10, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from [it should be 'out of'] the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly" - it is evident that the application of these words goes much farther than the then existing church of Philadelphia, or any other particular church. For the hour of temptation has not yet come: and Philadelphia and its church have been for ages forgotten. That there was a partial accomplishment at Philadelphia, I do not deny; but I cannot doubt that there is a promise for the last days in favour of those who have kept the word of the patience of Jesus. I do not deny the judgment of the particular churches, although I do not see their restoration; but in order to understand what is said to the churches of the Revelation, we must go further than the judgment of those churches. As to Laodicea, we shall find that the threat of the Lord to spue it out of His mouth is unconditional; because it was lukewarm, it was to be spued out. It is true that the Lord is long-suffering; that Jesus stands at the door and knocks; but it is in order that he that opens may sup with Him: this is an individual promise. It is not added, as to other churches called to repentance, "or else I will come"; for the threat was absolute. In the Revelation, the coming of the Saviour is always supposed to be near. The Spirit forbids sealing the words of that prophecy, "for the time is at hand." And that is the true force of the text commonly given thus, "And he that is filthy, let him be filthy still";* that is, let him that is filthy, remain filthy; it is too late to change: every one remains what he is. The judgment of the churches always refers to the coming of Jesus. Each one of them is supposed to remain until His return, and each one also presents a moral state which undergoes the judgment of the Son of man by the Spirit - judgment which will be executed at the coming of the Lord. If the return of Jesus has been delayed according to man's thoughts and in fact, in a certain sense, this is explained to us by the word (Matt. 25: 2; Rev. 3). Scripture always speaks in view of His coming as being at hand. Meanwhile the moral state of certain assemblies of that day, and the judgment pronounced on them by the Spirit, serve as a warning and a specimen for the church in general, and apply also, by the Spirit of God, to the forms of evil which the church would put on up to the end. These are "the things which are." In "the things which are to come" there is no mention of the church as being on earth.

{*Note to translation. - In the French translation it is, he that is defiled, let him defile himself yet; he that is sanctified, sanctify himself still.}

271 But I close. I pass over in silence the comparative picture of the two systems, and the contrast which is presented in it between Mr. Darby and the word, because I have discussed all the subjects it contains. That there is a serious opposition between Mr. Rochat's views and mine (in the spirit of the things more than in the details), I fully agree. I believe that he has substituted, for the presence of the Spirit of God in the government of the church here below, certain rites and ordinances of churches, the greater part of which cannot be justified by the word. I believe that his views prevent the conscience of the church from being reached by the conviction of its responsibility and of its sin, in that it has not manifested the glory of Christ here below. When Mr. Rochat speaks of the practical consequences of what he calls my system, it is easy for him to pronounce a judgment. People may have exposed the apostles, because the enemy had raised a tumult; one may shut out the truth, because the opposition to that truth has caused trouble.* Our brother alludes to what took place at Geneva. But it remains to be proved if all the fault is with the principles. May it not be in part with those who are opposed to them? I believe I have said all that is necessary - no doubt, with much weakness, for I have gone through much bodily suffering; but I think I have touched upon all that concerns the conscience of the church.

{*I am ready to revert to the circumstances which have happened at Geneva, if love lead me to do it; and I am fully persuaded that impartial persons would be somewhat astonished to hear the narrative of these circumstances, and would perhaps judge very differently from what they have done. But I greatly prefer leaving all these things to the judgment of God.}

272 CONCLUSION

And now, if I am asked what the children of God have to do in the present circumstances of the church, my answer is very simple. They ought to meet in the unity of the body of Christ outside the world. That is a need which is pretty generally felt, a principle of all importance in these days of falling away, a principle which he who is guided by the Holy Spirit will not fail to find in the word. Whenever it once has been found, obedience becomes a duty of the conscience; and the more light a person has, the more deeply this will be received. To act according to his conscience, according to the word, a Christian only needs faith - that energetic principle which only looks to the will of God, and never to circumstances or to difficulties. The consciousness that we shall be preserved from the judgment which will fall upon Christendom will give seriousness, humbleness, firmness to our walk. Let us remember that "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

As regards details, take heed to the promise of the Lord, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. 18: 20.* That is what the heart needs that loves God and is tired of the world. Reckon upon that promise of the Lord, you children of God, disciples of Jesus. If two or three of you meet together in His name He will be there. It is there that God has put His name, as of old in His temple at Jerusalem. You need nothing else but to meet together thus in faith. God is in your midst; you will see His glory. How greatly has not that God of love blessed us by the simplicity of His intercourse with us! Do not think that you have to build spiritual palaces, in order that God may come and dwell in your midst. If two or three are gathered together in His name, it may be a poor tent, but God is there. Do not pretend to erect palaces when you have only the materials for huts.

{*It has been asked why this portion of the word has been taken rather than others to be applied to the present time. It is astonishing to what a degree pre-occupation of the mind blinds the judgment. Do not people see that this is a promise which only requires the faithfulness of Him who has promised? Where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, the word receives its accomplishment. It is evident that the rules that Paul was giving to Timothy and to Titus are very different, and that they suppose an altogether special mission.}

273 Act in simplicity with what you have; if you have the Lord Himself, you have all you need. "Whosoever hath, unto him shall more be given." Remember also, that when the disciples came together, it was to break bread, Acts 20: 7. "Upon the first day of the week," it is written, "when the disciples came together to break bread," etc. 1 Corinthians 11 shews us the same thing, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." There was an abuse of the Supper, and the apostle was correcting this abuse. But we can see that the object of their coming together into one place was to eat the Lord's supper.

It will always be a precious thing to the disciple to remember the love of Him, who, "having loved his own which were in the world . . . loved them unto the end." If God saves us from a general ruin, it is so much the more touching for our souls. At the beginning, the disciples used to take the Lord's supper every day in their houses. If God sends us or raises up among us someone who can feed our souls, let us receive him with joy and thankfulness from God, according to the gift that has been vouchsafed to him, and let us honour the Lord thus in His gift. Let us also ourselves seek to bear testimony in love to those who are round us, that they may escape the wrath to come. If God raises up from the midst of those who are gathered together a brother who is able to exhort or exercise some other gift, let him do it with simplicity for the good of all, watching much over his own heart, lest it should become a snare to him. It is always dangerous for the soul to be put forward: a man does not cease to be a simple brother, because he has a gift which makes him the servant of all.

274 Never make any regulations; the Holy Spirit will guide you, if you rest on Him, and if you rely upon God who is ever faithful. Seek to be imbued with the spirit as well as the letter of the word; and act in each case under the direction of God, always trusting His word. He will know how to raise up helps, if it be necessary: only believe.

As to discipline, remember that cutting off is the extreme resource. The children of a family may be obliged, according to the wisdom of their Father, to refuse all intercourse with one of their brethren; but does not the heart understand in what spirit this is to be done? To preserve the holiness of the Lord's table is a positive duty. We owe it to Christ Himself. Cases may present themselves, where we repel with fear the manifestation of sin (Jude 23); but, on the other hand, beware of a judicial spirit, as of fire in your house. The Christian who knows Himself best, and who loves most, will never fail to exercise discipline when he is obliged to do it; but he will do it, as on the part of Christ's heart that has been grieved - the heart of Him who ever loves, and with the sense that the flesh is also in himself. Moreover, if it be a question of excommunication, all ought to take a part in it, not because they have a right to it (for what would be the spirit of a child who could insist on his right to take a part in the exclusion of one of his brothers!), but because the conscience of all must be purified, and because the whole assembly must be, through this act, separated from a sin which demands the putting away.

If God raises up in your midst persons who watch over souls, who, jealous of seeing them respond to the grace of Christ, feed them on that grace, and plead both for them and with them, it is a precious gift from the Lord.

275 With respect to the distribution of the Supper, the difficulties are imaginary. As the apostle says of the woman, nature also can teach us here. The Supper must be celebrated in a suitable way; this every Christian would feel. If you are not numerous, and you are placed in the same circumstances, all is easy. If there is a large assembly, it has not been formed in a moment; and there are always to be found in it persons who are well known and respected by brethren: those persons may break the bread. As to an essential difference as a right, there is none; but it is a duty towards God to celebrate, in a suitable way, an institution of Christ, so precious to the church. It is the flesh alone that would make use of the ordinances of the Lord to exalt itself above other brethren, and to arrogate some importance to itself; and the flesh is always bad.

If God raises up several brethren who feed His flock, and who labour (though with little gift, perhaps, but in love, and in a sense of responsibility, and therefore of humility, as those will always have who are truly sent of the Lord), let them seek to help each other in their labours, to pray together on the subject, and to profit by the counsel one of another. This confidence is very precious; and he that is humble and truly seeks the good of souls will always be most happy to profit thereby. This will never take from us our individual responsibility, but will often help us to fulfil it for the good of the church and for the glory of Christ. At the same time, let each one remember that, if God uses one of His children to labour in the church, it is that he may be (although free with respect to others, and responsible to Christ), the servant of all. Whoever departs from this position abandons both his duty and his privilege. Let us always remember that it is God's will that we should be dependent upon Him, and that every effort to free ourselves from that dependence upon Him, who is our only safeguard and our stay, is but the work of the flesh, which would have its ease in the world.

Finally, I close by presenting again that which is at the root of the whole question - the responsibility of the church. In general, discussions descend to details; here it is the contrary. The details have served to bring into evidence the fact, that there was a serious principle in question, a fundamental principle for judging soundly about the church, its state and its affairs. Is the church responsible for the state in which it is found - yes or no? Until now, the system of dissent denies this responsibility. If our brethren who follow this system come to acknowledge this, it will be a step more in advance, that they will have made - a subject of joy, not only for brethren here below, but for heaven also. At the commencement of the revival dissent was honoured of God, because they acted faithfully in separating themselves from the world, and in bearing witness to the sanctification of the church of God and to the duty of being a light before men. When they sought to lay down as a principle their capacity to re-establish things on the primitive footing, their present weakness was soon manifested. People may perhaps tell me, Weakness will soon be manifested among you, who hold this language towards us. I fully acknowledge it, for the difference between us does not consist in this, that we are the strongest, but in this, that we own our weakness and our incapacity.

276 Let us seek the gathering of brethren in love; let us profit by whatever God has vouchsafed to us; and let us obey in all that concerns our individual conduct, distinguishing between this obedience, and the pretension of affecting that which requires a higher power than what we possess. The gathering of brethren in love, and their practical separation from the world, are the two great principles of blessing. With respect to our comparative state, let us be humbled before God about it, and let us feel that we are responsible before Him for the state in which we are found.

Let us remember that it is not a question of power, when we examine the question of responsibility. This is a principle which every Christian should admit concerning man as a sinner. He is responsible for the state in which he is, although he is, of himself, incapable of getting out of it. He is responsible for the actual evil in which he walks. So it is with the church. Hence, it is always our duty to cease to do evil, and to learn to do well. If we have not learnt to do well, we ought, at least, to cease to do evil; we ought, at least, to abandon that which our conscience condemns. God will thereupon teach us to do well. He that is faithful to leave the evil, concerning which his conscience is enlightened, will not be long before finding light to go on farther in the path of good, for God is faithful. All true union is founded on faithfulness in separating oneself from the evil which is known. Without that, union is only a mixture of good and evil, a union which Satan likes with all his heart and which God detests. From the time sin entered into the world God is gathering round Himself those whom He separates from the evil that exists, by acting on their conscience by His Spirit; and this extends to every evil, for God's judgment extends to it. The object of God is union, but He cannot unite Himself with evil, and He cannot unite us unto Himself without separating us from the evil in which we are. This is true as a principle of life for the whole conduct of Christians. "Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." As for the judgment of God on the general state of the dispensation, it is from the mouth of God that we must learn it.

Remarks on the pamphlet of Mr. F. Olivier entitled, "An Essay on the Kingdom of God; Followed by a Rapid Examination of the Views of Mr. John Darby."

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1843.

<01015E> 278

Preface

The following pages require two words of preface.

Firstly. Whatever may be the source of this opposition, I am convinced that the pamphlet of Mr. François Olivier is an effort against the truth. Its tendency is to hinder simple brethren from acting in faith. I have therefore freely expressed my thoughts with regard to it.

Secondly. Although I do not doubt that the substance of what is found in these pages is solid, it is, perhaps, well to warn him who may glance over them, that they do not pretend to furnish anything but a few rapid observations on the views of Mr. Olivier.

I received Mr. Olivier's pamphlet on Monday evening, and have had to answer it without giving up my other occupations, and during a journey I have taken this week to Vevey, in order to be able to give the manuscript to be printed before leaving for France.

A journey of a few weeks will detain me in that country and would consequently have hindered me from taking up the matter.

Remarks

The life that we lead down here is a very mingled one; and we must keep very near to God in order to preserve the soul in equilibrium, and to rejoice in the very things which would naturally pain the heart, as seeing them in connection with our Father's will. Returning from a journey, in which I had been able to enjoy the happiness of the brethren assembled in peace, finding God near to them and in their midst, where I tasted the joy that one experiences in seeing many souls awakened and numerous conversions, sharing the joy of those who labour in it more faithfully than oneself, and seeing them happy in their work because God has blessed and is still blessing them - returning thus from places, where, having laboured oneself, one is happy to see the brethren again in peace, walking better even in one's absence than in one's presence, I stumble upon a pamphlet which sees nothing in all this but "disorder, misery, and premature teachers": a pamphlet, which pronounces upon the brethren judgments that reveal the thoughts of its author, much more than they depict the character of those whom he blames.

279 The condition of many persons at the present time brings to my mind the curse pronounced upon him who leans upon an arm of flesh, Jer. 17, "He shall not see when good cometh." I pity them with all my heart. We are poor, weak, yea, very weak. Our faith, or rather our lack of faith, often puts us to shame; and I doubt not, alas! that we often do things that are not according to the wisdom of God. When God, in His grace, gives us to be conscious of it, we have to humble ourselves: notwithstanding we are happy, for we walk with God; and He, in His great mercy, blesses us - unworthy as we are He has permitted us in our little measure (a very little measure, I confess, but according to that which He has given us) to work with God. But I have already said too much of this; I act as a fool. It will be thought that, because I am happy in the blessing of God, I seek to commend myself.

How can I rejoice in pamphlets, which, composed by the sad wisdom of men, will not have the foolishness of faith? This is how it is. Even when done in a spirit of strife, those who write them are forced to propagate the substance of the truth: and they themselves help on the work, while they condemn the persons who follow the truth heartily and joyfully. As for the faith and joy which accompany them: God has "hidden these things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes"; and, "there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last" - for such has been the Father's good pleasure. But the last, like the first, are forced to help on the spread of the truth, for such is the good pleasure of God, who will not allow His Church to slumber in these last days. If we will be "the last" when God is working, we have but ourselves to blame. Must God stop in His work of blessing because man will not go forward? God, in His goodness, forbid it!

280 Without approving every sentence or the spirit of the whole, let people examine the pamphlet of this minister, Mr. François Olivier, from page 52 to 69, and what evils - "irremediable evils" - he is speaking of in detail. Now he wishes us to call this state of things "the kingdom." And he will not have us call the outward kingdom of God "the church." Be it so. It is at least the general condition of things. Let it be called kingdom, as he wishes, or with others the visible church, the thing is admitted and is according to him "irremediable." This is serious. For one could then truly say of the church, with which, according to Mr. Olivier, the kingdom was confounded, what God says of Israel in Jeremiah 2: 21, "yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed." "But," says Mr. Olivier, "I must continue to repeat, it is in the kingdom, and not in the church, that this corruption began and increases." Then I find in page 19, "Here one sees the kingdom of God is confounded with the church"; and, page 20, "the church is itself the spiritual kingdom, in which, and over which, Christ reigns"; and, in page 23, "as long as this was the case, I repeat, the church and the kingdom in their  visible state here below would have been but one and the same thing."

According to Mr. Olivier, that continued until some church ceased to receive all the Christians in its locality, or admitted into its bosom persons whose profession was evidently not real. Up to that time the church and the kingdom had been confounded; but it was during this period that the evil began. It was while the apostles were addressing all professors as saints, that heresies and corruption began, and that antichrists "went out," which alone manifested that they were not "of them": so that the corruption began, the mystery of iniquity was at work, when the church and the kingdom were confounded.

The evil began in that assembly, which, according to Mr. Olivier, was at the same time the church and the kingdom. He wishes us to believe that the church cannot become corrupt (p. 25); he admits that it may be enfeebled and may suffer from the condition of the kingdom (p. 68). If he means that God will keep true believers to the end, he does not think, I suppose, to give us fresh light by telling us so. Substantially, therefore, the only result of his book is, that he admits that the existing state of things (believers, as believers, excepted) is an "impure Babylon," "without remedy." "It is a horrible corruption which must definitively end in the accomplishment of the mystery of iniquity, in a general apostasy, upon which the Lord will only have to cause His most terrible judgments to fall" (p. 68). Let us also remark that he justifies the application of the word apostasy to the state of things which has long existed (p. 65).

281 Mr. Olivier applies the passage, 1 Timothy 4: 1-3, to religious forms destitute of life. The errors which are there pointed out "exactly concern superstitious practices." We find (p. 67), that those who are guilty of them "have already apostatised." In this catalogue of irremediable evils is found the state of the dissenting churches themselves, as also that of the primitive churches immediately after their formation (pp. 50, 56, etc.).

But there is another remark to be made here. We have seen that Mr. Olivier asserts that the church cannot become corrupt; it is in the kingdom and not in the church that this corruption arises and increases. The great thing is, that corruption and apostasy (according to 1 Tim. 4) do exist. Let them call it kingdom, or give it any name they will, provided that consciences are reached. Popery, Nationalism, and in many respects even Dissenters are infected by this corruption, all being in the kingdom; and this state of things is irremediable. I go farther, and I say that this corruption began in the church as well as in the kingdom, since it began by principles of evil and not by the apostasy of individuals - by principles of evil among true Christians who formed what existed of the church upon earth.

My first witness for a part of this truth will be Mr. Olivier (page 46). "Another inevitable source of corruption is the sins of true Christians themselves." Mr. Olivier will have it that this has acted upon the churches, or the kingdom. That may be; but at least the "source of corruption" was found in the true Christians who composed the church. But one may go still farther; for that which was a source of corruption was not only the sins of true Christians, but, yet more, Judaism. What overthrew Christianity was found in true Christians. The Galatians were not only a church; they were true disciples. Those who had come down from Jerusalem to Antioch are recognised by the apostles as belonging to them, although not authorised on their part. The Pharisees who blamed Peter for having eaten with the Gentiles were believers. One sees many other examples of it. We find then, that the machinations of Satan among true Christians were the first and principal source of the evil. I admit that this may have been an occasion for the introduction of false brethren; but the corruption began in the church. It is in the church that we find it now, unless the most gross errors and superstitions, in which real Christians are found even according to Mr. Olivier, are not corruption. I say according to Mr. Olivier; for he admits that there are Christians in popery, in Nationalism, and elsewhere.

282 If, again, Mr. Olivier will not allow that true Christians, whose sins and whose errors, as we have seen, are an inevitable source of corruption, form the church, because in the sight of God the church will only be truly gathered together in heaven at last, then I answer, that his reasoning is both false and absurd: false, because Timothy ought to know how to behave himself in the church of the living God, and certainly that was not in the church gathered in heaven - the body of Christ was increasing by joints of supply, and certainly that was not in heaven - absurd, for no one dreams of corruption being in heaven; and the reasonings of every man of good sense, and of the Bible, are occupied with the church upon earth. But if true Christians composed the church then there was in the church, according to Mr. Olivier, "an inevitable source of corruption" in the sins, and (shall I add according to the word of God? in the errors which were found there: errors, which for a moment made Paul doubt that those who had adopted them were true Christians, Gal. 4: 11, 20. So it is true that there is corruption at the present time in the church, for the sins and errors have been increasing from the commencement among true Christians, although God has often raised up some special lights in their midst. It was not necessary that all Christians should be corrupted to make it true that the corruption began in the church. It was sufficient that "there was an inevitable source of corruption" in those who formed part of it. That is what took place by Mr. Olivier's own confession. But this is a fact, a truth of the greatest importance, because the church is found to be compromised in the corruption which has invaded the kingdom itself. Inevitable sources of this corruption were found there.

Mr. Olivier may try to persuade us that the sleep of the workmen was a legitimate rest, although the apostle tells us that those who sleep sleep in the night, but that we who are of p the day should watch. However that may be (for I leave this interpretation to consciences), it is certain that the first indications given us in the Bible of the evil which has invaded the outward kingdom, are pointed out as in the church itself; this is what gave rise to the introduction of false brethren who maintained these same principles, Gal. 2: 4.

283 Dare I add, for my own part, that if there had not been such a want of clearness, equilibrium, and measure in the theories of that poor Mr. D., we should not, it is to be supposed, have possessed the description of calm, and moderate things that is contained in pages 50 to 69 of Mr. Olivier's pamphlet? One must have a forlorn hope to mount the breach first: prudent men no doubt follow in better order.

But I beg those who read Mr. Olivier's pamphlet to weigh well the state of things depicted in these pages, and to remember that, according to Mr. Olivier, all Christians, all members of the church of God upon earth, were found in it. I do not present them this mode of expression as the clearest; I do not consider that it is. I think that in spite of all his care Mr. Olivier has fallen into flagrant contradictions; and I have noticed some of them. But however that may be, weigh what is at the root of the matter and reflect, you Christians, what you have come to, if Mr. Olivier is right. Call this state of things, then, the kingdom, or whatever you please; this is what I ask you, what is the condition of things in which you are found and what will be the result?

Mr. Olivier has not, in fact, been able to deny the existing evil; he has only employed the resources of the French language and of his own mind, in order the better to describe the state of things which exists under the name of Christianity.

But here is a frightful result of Mr. Olivier's system. "This horrible corruption, which must definitely end in the accomplishment of the mystery of iniquity, in a general apostasy, upon which the Lord will only have to cause His most terrible judgments to fall," that "unclean Babylon" to which Mr. Olivier has made us look, is the kingdom; it is the deplorable condition of the kingdom. But (p. 38) although those who are of the kingdom are not [all] of the church, "all those who are of the church are certainly of the kingdom." The kingdom contains a good number of persons who are not of the church, but, on the other hand, all the members of the church are in the kingdom and of the kingdom, according to Mr. Olivier. There they are then, spite of themselves, in that unclean Babylon: it is impossible to get out. They are, by the very establishment of things on God's part, shut up in that which is the sad object of His most terrible judgments. Being of the kingdom, they are of this Babylon and they cannot get out of it! Christ, being the King of the kingdom, is found to be the king of this unclean Babylon! I pity you who embrace such a system.

284 Such are the effects of what man calls moderation and prudence, and of the absence of faith in the testimony of God as to the state of things in which we are found, but from which we must come out when we have discovered what it is. Faith would have instinctively recoiled before such conclusions, and would have felt them in a moment. When people only seek human exactness, and to blame the sentiments of others, they but dig pits into which they fall themselves. I speak here only of reasonings.

I have employed conventional terms, perhaps, with a certain want of exactness in some respects, as to expression. I have sometimes, perhaps, because everyone does it, called the church, that which is not really the church; and Mr. Olivier has done so himself in this pamphlet. In so doing, I was much better understood. My aim was to reach the conscience; and this aim has been accomplished to a certain point, and, by the grace of God, will be so more and more. And here, in order to be exact, those who oppose plunge the church, true Christians (and not the church in the conventional sense of Christianity, but the church in the sense given to it by Mr. Olivier), into an irremediable state of corruption from which they cannot get out. They are not only within the enclosure in which this is found, but they form part of the thing itself which is in this condition; and, in order to make this more clear, we are informed that this corruption could not take its rise in the church, and, at the same time, that one inevitable source of this corruption is in the sins of those who compose the church.

The fact is, they have not dared to resist the truth, because it was too evident. The human mind, which always draws back before the consequences of faith, has meddled with it; and the most deplorable moral confusion results from man's pretension to be exact. "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise," 1 Cor. 3: 18.

285 As to all that we find between pages 74 and 105, without warranting all the details (what is said, for example, of the reign of Christ over the church, as the consequence of that which precedes; the definition of the first resurrection, etc.), one may say that it is, on the whole, a clear and interesting setting forth of truths which are, it is known, very dear to us. It is only in their application by faith to conduct that they touch the question which occupies us; and, in this respect, all is wanting.

I will now take up the criticisms which bear upon the expressions and upon the use of Scripture terms, to see what confidence one can place in this spirit of human exactness. In almost every case in which Mr. Olivier has left the ordinary use of the controverted terms, I find mistakes.

First, Mr. Olivier wishes to make the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God the same thing. In some places this is true; just as the canton and the republic of Geneva are now the same thing. But if I were to try and identify the canton and the republic in history, I should only shew my ignorance.

The expression "kingdom of heaven" is only found in Matthew; and when the Spirit of God wishes to speak of what has already come, He always changes the expression, and says, "kingdom of God." Thus in Romans 14: 17, one would never find such an expression as this, "For the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink"; because, although the kingdom of heaven is necessarily the kingdom of God, the expression "kingdom of heaven" relates to an order of things in the dispensations of God, and alludes, I doubt not, as Mr. Olivier says, to Daniel 7. That is why this expression is found in Matthew - a gospel full of Jewish points of view - a gospel which devotes itself to shewing the accomplishment of the prophecies and of the promises made to the Jews. This is why it is always said, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand": Jesus Himself said it, while He says, "The kingdom of God is among you," for the King was there; but it was not the kingdom of heaven whilst the King was upon earth. Since the exaltation of Jesus, this kingdom of heaven has taken a special character, on account of the rejection of the Jews for a time. And this is what is explained in Matthew 13; the rejection of the people having been proved at the end of chapter 12. Mr. Olivier is mistaken when he says that Peter (Acts 3) places the times of refreshing at another period. The rejection of this discourse put them off to another period, according to the counsels of God; but Peter said, "Be converted . . . that the times of refreshing may come."

286 Besides, it is not true that the church is itself the spiritual kingdom; not one of the passages quoted by Mr. Olivier says so. The saints obey, it is true, but Christ is never called the King of the church. We come to God's throne of grace. There is a single passage in the Revelation which might be quoted: "King of saints,"* Rev. 15: 4. But this passage is so doubtful that one can found nothing upon it. We find nothing in the word to bear out the thought that Christ exercises royal authority over the church, and the teaching of Matthew 13 renders this distinction important. Mr. Olivier does not pretend to apply here the passages from the Old Testament, such as King in Zion. In the New Testament he finds none. But then his theory of a spiritual kingdom and an outward kingdom, as two different spheres, falls to the ground. We have simply "the kingdom of heaven," which is not the church at all. The church has no relation nor any contact with the kingdom, save that it exists down here in the field, over which the authority of the kingdom is exercised. Later on, the church will reign with the Lord over that same field.

{*Griesbach rejects it absolutely from the text in order to put there "nations," instead of "saints."}

Hence, to speak of "corrupting the kingdom" (p. 25), "a pure kingdom," is only confusion. "The kingdom becomes Babylon" (p. 69); all that is entirely contrary to Scripture. If anyone is king over Babylon, it will be the antichrist. We are to come out of Babylon; we cannot come out of the kingdom, in the sense in which we are in it, as, indeed, Mr. Olivier felt.

It is grievous to speak thus of the kingdom, as if it were a certain number of persons in such and such a condition. The kingdom of heaven is a government - a reign, if you will. The King is there; His authority is there. He bears for a long time with scandals in His kingdom; but His kingdom, His reign, cannot be Babylon. Do they wish to make Christ king over Babylon? Is this the exactness that they seek? It is true that the enemy works in the kingdom while men sleep, because they are put there under responsibility; and there you see the importance of using the word dispensation, that everybody understands, because it is only a question of man and his position when God has placed him under responsibility, while the kingdom, or the reign, embraces also the government of the King, the sovereignty of God Himself. The kingdom was "among" the Pharisees, because Christ was there; the kingdom was "at hand" when the apostles were going to give their testimony in Israel (Matt. 10: 7). The church is never the kingdom, either pure or impure. The kingdom contains the King; and it is very inexact and grievous to speak of the corruption of the kingdom. Scandals are allowed in His kingdom, according to the sovereign counsels of God - scandals that the King will remove by and by, when He takes to Him His great power and acts as King. It is because in truth the principles of the kingdom are always God's principles, that the apostle can say that "The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." And, for the same reason, the kingdom of God could be preached, although Satan might sow in the field over which this kingdom ruled. The church down here may be corrupted, because the flesh is found in those faithful who compose it; though the chastenings and the grace of God may preserve it for glory, where flesh and blood cannot enter.

287 Now, if we come to the church, it is indeed the body of Christ. But the word of God speaks of the church below, and calls the gathering together of believers down here the church, the house of God, in which one must learn to behave oneself, and where there is activity of ministry by which this body grows. I will not abandon this scriptural application of the word, because I admit that at last, through the faithfulness of God, all the church will be assembled above. The object (and it is a signal one) of this pamphlet which I am now answering is to destroy the idea of an assembly on earth, and of the responsibility of that assembly; but I have discussed these points in the Remarks on the State of the Church. I will only remark that Mr. Olivier contradicts the word in his reasonings. The national churches are not churches (it is difficult to avoid conventional terms), "seeing that they do not assemble together, and that the word church signifies 'assembly.'" (p. 52). But (pp. 116, 117) he says that my views about the church and the body of Christ are false, and contrary to the ideas of Scripture, as to the assembly of the church, since the earthly body of Christ would never be really gathered together down here. Then there has never been any church upon earth, and, without reasoning (p. 35), "there has never been seen anywhere the least trace of any assembly that could be, or has been, named in the full and absolute sense of the word the church or the assembly of God." As to the full and absolute sense of the word, I do not know; as to the scriptural meaning, which is much more important, one can have no doubt. If Mr. Olivier means to inform us that all the elect have not been on the earth at the same time, it is trifling with serious truths. Who needs to know it? But "the Lord added to the church," not to a church, or to an outside kingdom, "those who should be saved." And Timothy was learning how he ought to behave himself "in the church of the living God." This was not in the universal assembly in heaven. I do not know if Mr. Olivier wishes a more complete and absolute meaning than is given in the word. For my own part I am quite content with what I find there. But what does he make of that time when (p. 23) "the measure of the church, which is the body of Christ, was the rule of the measure of the kingdom?" That is not in heaven at a future time, I suppose. It is what took place at the commencement. The kingdom of God was confounded with His church (p. 25). The true kingdom is none other than the church (p. 25). Let us add to all this confusion, that if the true kingdom is nothing more than the church, and that (p. 24) the church only contains the members of Jesus, then the kingdom in which one finds tares, whence Christ removes the scandals, where He acts as King, is not at all the true kingdom; that kingdom of heaven, of which the Spirit of God speaks in Matthew, where Christ is King, which is His kingdom, is not the true kingdom. There is the effect of confounding the pure kingdom with the church - of making distinctions between an outward and an inward kingdom: in a word, of getting completely away from the word of God.

288 Let us now come to the word dispensation. Here Mr. Olivier is very unfortunate even in the things in which "a smattering" is necessary for teachers, from the time when miraculous gifts ceased in the church, and on account of the distance of times and places.

Economy, or dispensation, he says, means law of the house; but economy means nothing of the kind. It signifies the administration of a house; and, taken in an extended sense, it means any order of things that God has arranged, as when one says, animal economy, vegetable economy. It is true that the Greek word signifying 'law' is derived from the same root; but it is a derivation much more distant in meaning. Nemo means to distribute, divide, feed, etc.; and thus in a house there was steward, and an economy - a man who arranged, distributed, provided for the family; and all the order which resulted from this was the economy, the administration, of the house. Thus, when God had established a certain order of things upon the earth, one has accustomed oneself, pretty correctly, as it appears to me, to call it an economy. The word of God even makes use of it, Eph. 1. It is possible that there may be a shade of difference between the scriptural and the conventional use of the word. In general, the way in which it is used in the word of God is more strictly according to its original meaning, and contains rather the idea of an active administration. The word dispensation is often used thus, and it has the same etymological meaning. God dispenses His favours. In the conventional sense, economy means an order of things established by God: the Jewish economy, the present economy, etc.

289 But these economies, until the coming of Christ, are, as far as their course is concerned, left to man, and to his responsibility, although God may work secretly. For example, the Lord speaks thus of the present economy, "So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come." Outwardly, all goes on without the intervention of Christ, from the sowing of the seed until the harvest. Well, the time which elapses from the seed-sowing till the harvest is what is generally called the present dispensation. I have called it "the church dispensation," because it is the time during which the church is called, and exists here below, in contrast with the Jews and the legal system. And one sees that, although in fact it is God who causes the corn to ripen, outwardly He seems to let everything take its own course. Thus, Satan may act in the midst of all this; man may sleep; and the whole state of things may become corrupt: and, in fact, it has become corrupt, as Israel became corrupt; and this dispensation also, this order of things, is in a state of ruin.

290 And (must I say it?) Mr. Olivier applies, according to 1 Timothy 4, the word apostasy to what has taken place; and he is right, for the word of God does so. I do not hold to the expression; it is much more exact than speaking, as he does, of the kingdom, and of the apostasy of the kingdom (p. 95); because the latter embraces the government, and the King, and the harvest; whilst, in the ordinary sense, the word dispensation does not embrace them. The King terminates the present dispensation when He begins to reap in His kingdom. And see what extraordinary confusion Mr. Olivier introduces into his criticisms on that word. "The present dispensation is the dispensation of the grace of God" (p. 111). But this passage merely speak of a ministry confided to Paul - "if ye have heard of the dispensation (ministry, oikonomia) of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." Here we see the meaning which I have pointed out -  the primitive sense of the word; it is someone to whom the distribution and administration in the house have been entrusted. But can one say that the present dispensation, in the ordinary sense of the word, was entrusted to Paul? That would be ridiculous.

In 1 Corinthians 9: 16, 17, the word of evangelisation is said to be an administration (oikonomia) which is entrusted to him. Once more, let me ask, was the present dispensation, in the sense which every one takes it, confided to Paul? The apostle uses the word "stewards" (1 Cor. 4) in the same sense, applying it to his ministry. Martin translates it "dispensers of the mysteries of God." I cannot admire the effect of a smattering of the knowledge of Greek. It seems to me that it obscures the subject, whilst it is very inexact in the translation of the word.

Mr. Olivier is not willing that we should try to gather together Christians as such, but only some Christians (p. 108). Perhaps we should not succeed, for want of faith, and spirituality; but what he rejects is the will of God; what he desires is the convenience of men, and with this object; "for (this is the history of it) these weak things are churches and ministries" (p 103).

Allow me, in passing, to make a remark. I discover, alas! the secret of the pamphlet in two sentences: in the accusation brought against his brethren, of being revolutionists, who say, "get out of that place that I may get into it" (p. 160); and in this sentence (p. 154), "I consider it an important thing that the exercise of their gifts should be regulated by that of the leading minister." I find it much better that it should be regulated by the word of God; a leading minister may, no doubt, help as to this in the church, as he may help in everything else.

291 I should remark here, in passing, that the same word is used in speaking of Judas and Silas (Acts 15), as is translated, "them that have the rule over you," Heb. 13: 17. In the passage in Acts 15, no one dreams of giving to that word the same meaning as is attempted to be drawn from Hebrews 13. Again we have a little use made of the smattering of Greek: that which has been translated "recognise" (1 Thess. 5: 12), is not recognise (that is, formally) at all, but know. It means only to acknowledge by affection and respect, but in nowise by a public act - "a regular vote of the church."

I leave to Mr. Rochat and the dissenters the task of answering what is said in pages 101 and 102. "We are, it is true, in the midst of a corrupted kingdom, where it is impossible to recover the primitive position of believers." I think it is impossible to find it if we seek the outward form, as dissenters have done, but not at all impossible if we seek the foundation, if we withdraw ourselves from every evil thing; for God is faithful, and does not weary in His love towards those who seek Him.

As to the apostasy of the dispensation, I have already touched upon it in speaking of the dispensation; but I have treated it at length in the Remarks on the State of the Church. Only when Mr. Olivier says that the apostles pointed out the evils which were creeping into the churches, he makes a mistake; it is in the so-called General Epistles, and in the Epistles to Timothy: epistles that are not addressed to churches, that the Spirit of God speaks of these evils. These epistles speak neither of churches nor of the kingdom - an all-important point, as I have already observed. The apostles do not speak of churches as becoming corrupt, but of a mystery of iniquity which was already at work, and which was not in such or such a church. Mr. Olivier is entirely wrong on this point. Let us remember that Mr. Olivier applies the word apostasy to the doctrines and to the conditions of the national churches and of the Roman church, which, however, are not churches; and we shall then understand what is the force of the denial of apostasy in the dispensation. (Compare pp. 65, 67.)

292 Let us come to Romans 11: 1-22. First Mr. Olivier says that from verses 1-10, Paul is shewing that God, while He has cast off Israel as a nation, has not cast off the Israelites as individuals. It is surprising that anyone should have fallen into such a mistake. The church, which was chiefly, or at least in great part, composed of Jews, could never have raised the question of the Israelites being individually rejected. What kind of a gospel would it be, that could leave such a question undecided? The question is this, "Has God cast off his people?" The first proof that He has not done so is, that there is an election, as in the time of Elias - the rest were blinded.

Second proof. If they stumbled, it was not that they should fall, but that salvation might be granted to the Gentiles. Here, observe, the apostle does not say to some Gentiles, but to the Gentiles; and that the Gentiles, not some Gentiles, are put in contrast with the Jews. It is very certain that they are not elect Gentiles in contrast with elect Jews; but Gentiles in contrast with Jews. This is why the apostle says that the rejection of the latter is the reconciling of the world. So that the apostle tells us that the Gentiles, the world, have been placed, since the fall of the Jews, in a different relation with God from that in which they were before. It is not a question of deciding whether they have all been made partakers of the efficacy flowing from that relationship; but the relationship exists.

The third proof is that, when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel, Israel as a nation, shall be saved, and that at the return of Christ. When the apostle says, "I speak to you Gentiles," he does not say, as Mr. Olivier makes him, "to you faithful Gentiles"; for he adds, "Inasmuch as I am an apostle of the Gentiles." Was he the apostle of the faithful Gentiles? Clearly not. He was the apostle of the Gentiles as Gentiles, in contrast with the Jews, the circumcision, of whom Peter was the apostle. Again, verse 13 precedes verse 25, where he says "my brethren." In verse 13, and following, he is occupied with the salvation granted to the Gentiles, and the reconciliation of the world as a doctrine, and not as a warning to his brethren.

Mr. Olivier further makes verses 17-22 to be a warning to the faithful and the believing; as if Paul said to them that, if they did not persevere, they would be cut off. But it seems to me rather singular to say that, because the mass of unbelieving Israel had been cut off and the election saved, the election from among the Gentiles was to take heed lest it also should be cut off. The more the passage is examined, the more evident it is that the interpretation which applies to the present dispensation (looked at under the aspect of the calling in of the Gentiles, and which makes it a warning to the Gentiles as to their responsibility) is the only true interpretation. As to Abraham, I consider him as the root, but looked at as the personification of the three principles - election, calling, and promise.*

{*Note to translation. - Abraham was the first called to be root of a new race.}

293 I distinctly maintain that there are privileges outside vital union with Christ, and privileges for which the Gentiles will be responsible, as the Jews have been for theirs. See 1 Corinthians 10. Those who have enjoyed these privileges will be beaten with more stripes if they have not profited by them; whilst those who have not possessed them will be beaten with few stripes. It was a privilege to be a servant in the house, to have received a talent; but such persons, or classes of persons, were not vitally united to Christ. The seed sown on the stony ground was a privilege; but it had no root, no vital union.

And now for the three economies (p. 140) - it is a very unexpected result. If there were three, I should not make so great a mistake as to confound them with the same word used in the sense of an administration entrusted to an individual, Col. 1: 25; Eph. 3: 2.

The word of God says three things as to the present dispensation. First; by the existence and by the principles of this dispensation, the world is placed in a fresh relationship with God. The Gentiles are no longer regarded as "dogs" in contrast with "the children." It is the time of salvation for the Jew first and also for the Greek. Salvation is granted to the Gentiles; the fall of the Jews has been the reconciling of the world. If the church has not been faithful in using this grace for profit to the poor world, so much the worse for the church.

Secondly; those who are called, but not elect, all the baptised, are put in direct relation with the Lord, and are responsible in general (I say in general, because circumstances vary) for the privileges of Christianity. If those who really enjoyed these privileges have given liberty to Satan to corrupt; or, if others have been able to come in because of the corruption which had already been introduced, so much the worse (I say again) for them and for the aggregate; such is Christendom.

294 In the third place; there is the body of Christ, those who are united to Him, who partake of His life and who will be saved spite of all the obstacles that they meet with in the journey.

I see in this neither three dispensations nor a single difficulty. No one thinks that the Gentiles were grafted in as a body. Those who believed stood by faith. Those who entered without faith will be judged according to the privileges which they abused. And, before the end, God will send the gospel of the kingdom in order that judgment may not fall upon all without a testimony having been given to them.

In all his reasonings upon this subject, Mr. Olivier has confounded the ways of God towards Israel and towards the world with the salvation of individuals.

And this is one of the points of the church's responsibility in which it has completely failed. It ought to have been one, that the world might believe; it has not been so. It ought to have been a witness to all nations; it has not been so. And instead of being the source of good to the world, as it ought to have been, the world has been a source of evil to it - the church, properly so called - to true Christians. Instead of being the light of the world, it has become, according to its own confession, the invisible church. This is why I have spoken of Christendom and of the Gentiles grafted into the place of the Jews; for what God had grafted into the place of the Jewish branches became worldly, failed in faithfulness, and is become, in the modern sense, Christendom - the little seed, a great tree where the birds of the air make their nests.

All Mr. Olivier's reasonings are only obscuring a very simple thing. As the early Christians have not been faithful, the consequence is that the testimony and the profession of Christianity as a whole in this world have been marred. If it were a question of the taste of wine, a bottle of the best wine put into a cask; of water might give rise to many reasonings whether good wine were there or not: those who are fond of drinking it would soon settle the question.

295 When Mr. Olivier says that I consider infidels as members of the body of Christ, it is only because he did not understand the application of what I said in answer to Mr. Rochat's pamphlet. Mr. Rochat, having separated from evil, did not wish to share the responsibility of the state of things which surrounded him; for myself, I bear the burden of it. It would not be worth while noticing an accusation which refutes itself, if what is said were not a fresh proof of the absence of all idea of the church's responsibility down here. I have neither spoken of unbelievers nor of the members of the body of Christ; I have spoken of the state of the church. Nor do I only speak of the unfaithfulness of true members. The glory of Christ is not manifested: the church does not shine before the world. The glory of Christ is, as it were, hidden, dragged in the dust; and enemies triumph because of it. The enemy's power succeeds morally in most cases, as the enemies of Israel succeeded when Israel was unfaithful. Nor was there only individual unfaithfulness to deplore, but a condition of things which dishonoured God in the world. Mr. Olivier does not perceive this, at least according to what he says here. Hence the accusation he brings against me of regarding unbelievers as members of the body of Christ, although I neither spoke of unbelievers nor of members of His body. This is the root of the matter - the manifestation of the glory of Christ upon the earth by the church: ought the church to have manifested it? Ought we to humble ourselves if it does not do so? If this be false, I am mistaken; if this be true, the opposite system is profound iniquity - an iniquity of which people, no doubt, are not aware, but which is none the less an iniquity that leaves the church without hope from those who prop it up.

As to the attack upon the meetings of brethren, I make no answer. That there is difficulty and weakness, I do not doubt; but to answer would be either to justify ourselves or to accuse others. According to the blessing that exists in the meetings, God will bring those who He means to bless. If there is not any blessing, one cannot expect that He will make His children come.

I have for many years been accustomed to similar attacks, and I have found that the effect has been to turn aside those who had not faith enough to act from conviction, to stop simple persons for a time, and thus to exercise the faith of the brethren; but that after that the reaction has been stronger, and that it all turned to good and brought souls into a freer and more blessed position. Besides, in every case if we are reviled, we have only to submit in patience and to commit all to God. It is not surprising that those who have lived under a completely false system should not quickly accustom themselves to simple truths. I can understand Mr. Olivier being accustomed to lead the worship, and wishing to do so; but I do not think he can shew me anything like this in the word of God - at least, in the New Testament. That the dissenting principle* of all having a right to speak should have produced in others the desire to be the only speakers or to lead the worship, I understand very well; and that these two evils should have made simplicity more difficult, I also understand. But the wretchedness of a system which I think bad ought not to become a rule for the walk of those who wait on God.

{*Note to translation. - This refers to Switzerland.}

296 The tendency of Mr. Olivier's tract is to lead to the denial of the union and bringing together of the church on earth, and of the responsibility of the church as to the condition in which it now is. Consequently, I think it is an effort against the truth, although many grand truths are brought out in it. I consider his whole system, as to the church and kingdom, completely false. The results of it are to make Christ the King of the "unclean Babylon"; for, certainly, He is the King of the kingdom."

"The apostasy of the kingdom" is an absurdity, because, I repeat, the King and His government always exist; and the judgment of the King is a part of the manifestation of the kingdom. It is false to say that the pure kingdom is the same thing as the church; for the field, as much as the good corn, forms part of the kingdom. The field is purchased as much as the treasure hidden in it.

All this is but the consequence of traditional ideas, and the reasonings founded on them only serve to confuse. It is, as if I said, The canton of Geneva is composed of so many square miles of ancient territory, and of so many new ones united to them; and, afterwards, The canton of Geneva has voted such and such a thing in the diet; and then insisted upon the absurdity of a vote given by square miles. It is just the same if a person say, that, because the good seed is one of the elements of the description of the kingdom, therefore the kingdom is the good seed.

297 I have added these pages in the hope of proving that this boasted exactness, which imposes on so many simple people, is only confusion - a moral confusion impossible where faith is applied to these subjects. That inaccuracies of expression may be found in what I have written, is very possible. I had but one object - that conscience might be reached, and that the glory of God have full hold upon it. I trust that many consciences will yield to its precious influence.

May our good and faithful Saviour God, who loves to bless us, and whose goodness never wearies, grant this to us!

Thoughts on Romans 11, and on the responsibility of the Church in reference to a pamphlet of Mr. F. Olivier, entitled "Defence of the Principles Laid Down in the Pamphlet, 'Essay on the Kingdom of God,' etc."

J. N. Darby.

Lausanne, 1844.

<01016E> 298

The reading of Mr. Olivier's defence of his principles did not dispose me to answer him regularly on all points. The character of his reasoning did not induce me either to follow him in details, or to take up that which he has thought fit to oppose to me. Happily, after going through the pamphlet and examining somewhat attentively the conclusion at which he has arrived, I found there was no need for it; because, while blaming the reasoning through which I arrived at my own conclusions, and pointing out a few contradictions into which I had fallen, he ends by admitting the truth for which I stood up.

This will appear with the greatest evidence, if we examine with a little attention two things which are to be found in his writings on the subject. The great question raised between myself and the adversaries of the important truth on which I insist, is the existence of a church on earth; then the responsibility of Christians for the condition in which we are found - in which this church is found. I have insisted on the unity of God's assembly and on the responsibility of its members as to the condition in which it is found. I have said that we are responsible for that condition, or, to speak more exactly, for the glory of God, such as it ought to have been manifested in the church on earth. Now Mr. Olivier says I have not by direct passages proves this responsibility; but that what I presented may be considered as a pretty strong presumption of the responsibility of the church.

We shall say a word on responsibility; but there can be no presumption, either strong or feeble, of the responsibility of the church, if there be no church. The existence of the church, therefore, is recognised, and that on earth; for in the glorified church there is no question of appearing to be members of Christ, or of viewing sins or not as our own.

299 Here are Mr. Olivier's words, "As to these true members of Christ (or these, at least, who appear to be such) to whatever time they may belong, I may, in a measure, look upon their sins as my own." Mr. Olivier considers himself to be responsible in common with the true body of Christ. That is not the whole truth, nor exactly the truth, as I would state it; but after all there is a common responsibility, and the sins of those Christians are ours. This is to admit everything; this is the point for which I stand up: there is a common responsibility in the church from the beginning to the present day. But how solemn the consequences for the conscience, when once this truth is admitted! If we remember now that, at the beginning, the church and the kingdom were composed of the same persons (that is, of the true Christians or those at least who appeared to be such); that the church and the kingdom were confounded in one; even if one would say that it was Christians in the churches and in the kingdom who introduced corruption, and not the church corrupting itself; yet we also find, according to Mr. Olivier, that he himself, all of us - responsible in common as we are, in the unity of the church - ought to regard those sins of Christians as our own. It matters little whether this took place in the church or in the kingdom. Those who did it were true members of Christ, or those who appeared to be such. But in the unity of the body we are responsible in common, and the sins of Christians at any time ought to be considered as our own. We have then, as clearly as when the sun shines forth after rain, the church; a common responsibility among its members in its unity, and the responsibility of the church according to that common responsibility. For, assuredly, those who have committed that evil and introduced corruption into the kingdom were responsible for it, and we can look upon their sins as our own. Well, if in this complete triumph of the truth - and it is the only one (God is my witness!) which I desire - the intelligence of him who has fought under its banner must undergo any humiliation - so much the better for the soul before God!

I shall not seek to justify myself as to the (about thirty) contradictions of which Mr. Olivier accuses me, although I have examined them; it matters little to me now that the truth has come to light. There are a few which I could not find out, as in pages 25 and 27; one or two are examined farther on, merely because they refer to questions which must still interest brethren. In the main, I still believe the two things which Mr. Olivier considers as contradictory. One there is which has the appearance of a contradiction, it is true, but that is all. In general it seemed to me that more light would make them clear to those who do not understand them, but I do not think fit to discuss them here. The grand truth being admitted, I leave behind me the road by which we have come to it.

300 This is what appears to be indeed a contradiction: I told Mr. Rochat that the Gentiles were received as a body; I told Mr. Olivier that the Gentiles are not graffed in as a body. I still believe both these things. The house of Stephanas or any other was not graffed in as a Gentile body; but as the same time God views the aggregate of received Gentiles as a body* responsible to Him; and this is what the Gentiles will understand when they shall be punished in an awful manner by the righteous judgment of God.

{*Mr. Olivier has taken up this expression, as if I had spoken of the body of Christ; but one may speak of a body, without speaking of the body of Christ.}

We might stop here, were it only a question of controversy and pamphlets; but several subjects of general interest to Christians having been entered into and discussed, it is well, for the satisfaction of all, to examine them more carefully. There are two which present themselves more especially. The one is, in what sense it may be said that we inherit sin. The other is the explanation and application of Romans 11. Before, however, entering on the subjects, I would remind the reader to whom controversy is painful as it ought to be, as it has indeed been to me, that here the controversy did not bear on secondary points, nor on slight differences of opinion, as some would have us to believe; but on subjects of the utmost moment - on the existence of a church of God on earth, and on our responsibility with regard to its actual state - questions, I repeat it, of the most solemn nature, and which ought to interest every soul which has at heart the glory of Christ Himself.

Mr. Olivier may say, Why be so eager on questions of second-rate importance? But let us not be deceived: we are not on secondary questions. I repeat it again, it is a question of the responsibility of the church of God, and even of knowing if there be a church on earth. Is the existence of the church on earth and our responsibility in relationship with that fact, a matter of second-rate importance? For my part, in the midst of the sorrows of controversy of Christians, I bless God that one has been brought to establish clearly that the matter in question is so fundamental, that what sometimes produces painful separations is by no means a slight difference of opinion, but the denial of the existence and responsibility of the church of God on earth. That the source of divisions will be found to be there, I have the most profound conviction. God will not have the truth upon this subject set aside. Is the existence and the responsibility of the church on earth a nice distinction - an opinion? Is it not clear that if any one have a clear conviction on these points, it ought to be a motive in the presence of God - the motive which will affect the whole conduct of a Christian as such, and his entire manner of seeing things; nay more, that a Christian's entire conduct and mode of seeing things will be moulded upon the existence of such a relationship? Could it be a matter of opinion to a woman to know whether she was the wife of such or such an one or not? And if she is, would one speak of a strong presumption of responsibility? Is not the question one of morality when relationships established by God exist? And is it not morality of the very highest kind possible, the morality which is based upon the relationship which God has established between His Son and the church which He has given to Him? morality, I admit, which is not within the limits of man's judgment - on which one could not insist when addressing the natural conscience, but which one may say forms the whole life of a Christian in the most exalted part of his conduct. It is a responsibility which governs all others, and which is even the spring of them.

301 I abstain from making remarks on particular passages of Mr. Olivier's pamphlet, but I would ask by the way, since he recognises now the existence of the church (for if it does not exist, there can be no presumption, either strong or weak, as to its responsibility), is it seemly to speak of a strong presumption of responsibility when such a relationship exists as that which subsists between Christ and the church? What need is there of proofs and analogies to demonstrate that the church is responsible, if it exists? Is it needful to prove the responsibility of a woman towards her husband? Or what would one say of the wife who raised a question about it (and towards such a husband!), and who - when one had made every effort, spite of one's shame to be obliged to do such a thing, to recall to her her duty - replied, that indeed there might be a strong presumption about it? Is responsibility a mode of thought? Is not responsibility the very basis of all morality, and is it not, along with grace, also that of even every doctrine which has to do with the relationships of God with man? And do not say, Yes, individual responsibility everyone recognises, that is what I have insisted upon. If the responsibility in common, of each individual, is that which is meant, it is well;* but one seeks to avoid, by these equivocal expressions, that responsibility which refers to the state of the church, which ought to glorify the Lord as such, according to the position in which God has placed it, and to one's duties towards God in such position.

{*It is plain that even when the responsibility is one common among many, the responsibility presses upon the individual.}

302 Now I believe that to insist upon this at the present time, is the subject the most important and necessary which there can be for a Christian and the most affecting for those who love Christ. It is a subject which brings with it consequences of the most solemn nature; I earnestly beseech my readers to pay attention to it. I speak as of a testimony on the part of God. Time will shew if I am mistaken or if the testimony be of God;* and therefore it was that I spoke of profound iniquity, because to withdraw the heart and conscience from under the influence of a relationship founded upon grace the most precious and astonishing - a relationship which should govern and mould every other which it does not destroy, especially since this relationship is one known to faith only, in such sort that to enfeeble faith is to enfeeble the perception of this relationship, and to call in question the responsibility which flows thence: I hold, I say, that it would be hard to designate such an attempt by an epithet too strong.

{*The two truths with which this question connects itself are: the return of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church; for the Holy Spirit has come down on earth, and this it is which gives to the church its unity and corporate responsibility upon earth. It is with the church as with a human body, all the component parts of which are said to be entirely renewed in a very short period of time, yet the individual remains the same man: the spirit of man which is in him attaches vitally to itself, and appropriates successively new heterogeneous elements, and the unity and the person change not.

There are three great truths which are connected with Christ, the centre of all truth, or, if you please, three different positions in which He is seen: dead and risen; then in heaven (with this corresponds, as its proof, the presence of the Holy Spirit upon earth, John 16); and lastly, His return down here. Dead and risen - thus is the church, His body, justified, risen with Him. Such is the doctrine of justification; and although it is evidently true as to the whole church, considered as a body, yet in its application day by day, and for each conscience, it is an individual matter for each. The Holy Spirit dwells as the seal of this doctrine in the body of an individual as in a temple. Then in heaven Jesus is hid in God, yet crowned with honour and glory; the doctrine which thence flows is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church upon earth,* in His body; of the Holy Spirit who gives to this body its unity, and makes the terms "body of Christ" - "bride of Christ" - "church of Christ" to be applicable to those who, upon earth, are united to Him who is in heaven, and who thus form a unity upon earth; the dead in Christ being for the moment out of sight. If this is understood (for one may be converted and not understand it), one desires, as bride of Christ, the return of the Bridegroom. Justification is connected with His death and resurrection; for we know that His work has been accepted on high. The unity of the church, and her waiting for Christ as is becoming for a faithful bride - this it is which is connected with the glory of Christ on high, and the presence of the Holy Spirit down here. These are the two great truths which have been specially put forward, which, as I believe, God Himself has put forward at the present moment, and which have produced so much disquietude in those who desire to remain without the sphere of their influence - whether in the national churches or in dissent. That there should be ignorance of these things, one can well understand; that there should be opposition to them is indeed sad; but to say that these truths are secondary is utterly to deceive oneself. To make little account of the glory of Christ manifested in the unity of the church here below is, in truth, a proof that that glory and the love of Christ for His church are not dear to the heart, and therefore offers little opportunity of speaking to the conscience. If after having urged upon a son his duty towards a tender and affectionate father, and having explained to him the nature of filial affection, he should ask one to trace out accurately his duty, one might well refuse; he has not the mind to understand his position: the request is the request of a hireling. The feeling must be awakened if conscience is to act; but woe, woe to him in whom it does not exist! It is just the same with regard to the responsibility of the church, the grace of the relationship must be owned, and it is the heart taught by the Holy Spirit which understands it. I doubt not that there is enough to condemn, by means of the conscience itself, him who thus fails; but to do so is neither my task nor my desire. If the heart could be awakened so as to feel the force of this relationship, of this obligation - that would be the most precious fruit of all the conflict in which I have had to engage on these points. Israel might have been condemned by the law; but is not the appeal of God much stronger, and Israel much more hardened, not to have replied to it, when it is said, and said in vain, "Go yet, love a woman beloved of (her) friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel"? For, as the first principle is love, if that fails, all fails. I admit, and I always have admitted, that one may understand the love which saves without knowing that the church is the bride of Christ; but under existing circumstances, this it is which the Holy Spirit in a peculiar way calls to mind: "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come." Such is the normal position, such the primary testimony which the church renders. After that, it can turn towards others and say, "And let him that is athirst come," for living waters already flow there; "and whosoever will," etc. But for Christians this is the Spirit's last behest to the church pointing out her true position. Her sentiments are based upon her relationships to Christ, and the Spirit demands that those who hear should be in unison with this desire of His heart. Is it wrong to engage those who have heard the voice of the good Shepherd, to take the position of the bride and to join in the cry, "Come"? But the doctrines of the presence of the Holy Spirit here below in the Church, and of the return of Christ, are identified with its unity upon earth, with the position of bride, or rather of her who here below is espoused to be presented as a chaste virgin unto Christ, and with the desire of His coming, which detaches us from all that is not of Him, and attaches us entirely, exclusively, to Himself.

It is easy to understand how those who are in national establishments feel themselves troubled by such a truth. They have quite another sort of unity; and, as to them, division is that which separates from what is really union with the world and subjection to another than Christ. That dissenters - who, faithful in separating from that which is contrary to the precepts of the gospel have made churches, though they have never apprehended, but contrariwise have rejected, the idea of the church upon earth - should be opposed to it, this also is intelligible enough. But it ought not to enfeeble the power of these two great truths upon our hearts, nor alienate us from them. Division in the latter case is sometimes in appearance less reasonable, because the evil among them is less gross than elsewhere, but they have not accepted, and still do refuse to accept these truths. They have no influence upon their manner of acting. That there should be patience there can be no doubt; but that these two immense truths should not produce effects, that they should leave those who oppose them in tranquillity - will never be the case. It is well for brethren, and even for those who oppose, to understand what really is in question. Hitherto the unity and the responsibility of the church have been denied. The return of Christ has had no practical effect upon the opponents of these doctrines. Scarcely are they even now recognised as being strongly probable - which is not such a conviction as can furnish a motive for conduct; while all the affections of the church ought to be formed upon, and her walk regulated by, these doctrines, while awaiting Christ's return.

I find two things presented in the word as the great means of judging of the state of the people of God: 1st, the comparing it with the state in which God placed them at the first; 2nd, with the glory of Christ who is about to return. Compare Isaiah 5 for the first and chapter 6 for the second.}

{{*Note to translation. - It is not exact to say, dwells "in the body." It is in the house, as Ephesians 2, not the body, which is in Ephesians 1.}}

303 Having shewn of how solemn a nature the subject before us is, let us now turn to Romans 11. This chapter contains, it is true, the proof of only one of the points involved in this discussion, so that if this proof itself fails, or if this point is set aside, still the great truth, to wit, our position before God, would in nowise be changed. Yet the passage is important, and the making of its meaning clear is interesting to the believer. I therefore take it up again. Mr. Olivier accuses me of having reproduced very inaccurately the beginning of his short commentary on the subject, of representing him as raising the question, etc.; and he asks if the mistake here made by the author is yet to be attributed to precipitation. My reply to this is very simple; it is that I quoted textually what he had said. To ascertain it, one has only to compare page 25 of my answer, with page 130 of Mr. Olivier's Essay, or with the quotation he makes of it in page 28 of the Defence. The commentary I made on what I quoted appeared to me and still appears to me to be right; and in fact, I find that Mr. Olivier, in his interpretation of this passage, departs entirely from the thought of the apostle, and that the explanation he gives of it is untenable. He says that the reply to the question, "Hath God rejected His people?" is, that God has rejected Israel as a nation but not as individuals, as Paul was witness.

304 Well, be it the question or the reply, I say he has not in the least apprehended the thought of the apostle or of the Holy Spirit. I repeat what I said in my first pamphlet, that the church could never have given rise to the question if Israel had been rejected as individuals, since the church was composed in great measure of Israelites. If Mr. Olivier has not put this as a question (and this I did not say), the reply he gives to the apostle's question is absurd. He says that Israel was rejected as a nation, and not as individuals; and what reply is that to the question, "Hath God rejected his people?" If Israel was rejected as a nation and not as individuals, yet the rejection of the people was equally sure. It was a palpable fact that individuals were received; but the apostle applies it in proof that the people were not rejected, a question indeed which the substitution of the church raised. He cites his own case, not to shew that he had been received as an individual, but in proof of the interest he took in his nation. He was of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Now what is the meaning of being of the tribe of Benjamin, if it is not the people, as a people, whom God still loves? God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. What people? The people of whom he speaks in verse 1 - Israel! One cannot doubt it when one reads the end of chapter 10. And I ask, if the question was about the election of individuals, what ground could there be for proposing the question whether the people of God were rejected because the church was called? No; but in that God had reserved an election from among the people of Israel, set aside for the moment on account of its sin, He had given proof that He still thought of that people; as the case of the seven thousand in the days of Elijah also shewed. Moreover, verses 26-29 leave no doubt upon the subject; for he affirms, while speaking of the future reception of Israel, that, although as to the gospel they are enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, as to election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Who would say that they, who are enemies as to the gospel, yet loved for the fathers' sakes, and who thus present the proof that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, are accepted as individuals? Could any one say that this is a proof that the people is rejected as a nation, though not as individuals? Would anyone say that the election of individuals for the church is on account of the fathers?

306 I repeat then that Mr. Olivier has not apprehended the thought of the apostle, but on the contrary, attributes to him a thought which the whole chapter contradicts, and which appears altogether erroneous if one does but take the trouble to read it; for it is clear that Israel loved for the fathers' sakes, yet enemies as to the gospel, is not Israel loved as individuals, but quite the contrary. Paul shews that the momentary rejection of the nation was by no means God's definitively rejecting His people; that they were yet beloved for the fathers' sakes, an elect people, the gifts and calling of God being without repentance; and he proceeds almost to state the very opposite of what Mr. Olivier says as to individuals: for he says, "If some of the branches were broken off," that is, he takes pains to restrict the breaking off to some branches. I conclude then that the whole interpretation given by Mr. Olivier to the chapter fails in the very basis of his whole thought - that he has not even understood what the apostle is speaking of.

It is evident to those who may examine what I wrote (p. 26) that when I said, "verses 13 and following," my intention was to contrast the verses which immediately follow verse 13 with those further on, for in the preceding passage I had expressly done so;* and in fact, in verse 13 and those which follow it is not a question of warnings but of doctrine.

{*This is one of the supposed contradictions, which I should feel ashamed to consider before Christian brethren. Once more, I do not take them up; if I did so, I should have to say some severe things.}

307 Lower down in the chapter there is a warning, but here also we must take up the subject from an earlier point. That every Christian may well find profit here, I doubt not; but the warning is addressed to us, not as brethren, but as being of the Gentiles. My readers should remember that if there had not been something peculiar, there would have been no need to speak of Gentiles. Nay, one could not have done it. The apostle speaks no longer here of the church, considered on the principle of her relationship to Christ. That subject closed with chapter 8. Nothing is able to separate the believer from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; whom He did foreknow He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son: He called them, Jews as well as Gentiles, no matter which, and He justified and glorified them. He speaks then here of the special administration of the work of the church upon earth, and in reference to Israel, of its condition and circumstances down here; of its relation with the ancient people of God; he asks if that people had been rejected, and what the consequences are of all this for the Gentiles, and for the world.

In Jesus Christ, if the question be about Christian position, eternal life, or the church considered in her essential relationship to Christ, there was neither Jew nor Gentile; the thoughts found in this chapter can there have no place. If the question be about the cutting off of an individual for sinful conduct, little matters it whether he be Jew or Gentile, that has nothing to do with it; and on the other hand, there would be no question about the grafting in again of the Jews more than of any others, and neither Jews nor others could be grafted in if God had cut them off in such a manner. And if it were a question about a warning from the apostle to Christians at Rome, and so to others elsewhere, as being brethren, it would be almost nonsense to say, And thou, O Gentile, take heed! Why, "I speak to you Gentiles?" Had not Christians, Jews by birth, as much need to take heed? Or could the Spirit of God in such a warning have made the distinction, and thus denied the principle of the church of God in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile? If the question is about a divine administration upon earth, then God can well make the distinction and develop His ways towards the one and the other; and it is plain that from the commencement of chapter 9 the apostle is occupied with this, and pointedly contrasts the Jews and Gentiles, presenting us with the administration of the divine ways upon the earth. First, declaring his attachment to Israel, he points out an election in the election for the earth, and further, that if God according to His sovereignty had chosen Israel (and such was Israel's boast), He had not renounced His sovereignty; and consequently He could call the Gentiles if He would. Then he recalls to mind that the prophets had shewn that a little remnant only of Israel at such an epoch would be saved, and that a stone of stumbling would be laid in Zion.

308 Then in chapter 10 (after having anew protested his ardent desires for the welfare of Israel as such, notwithstanding all their ignorance) he introduces Christ the end of the law, faith, the testimony by preaching, and lastly, Israel provoked to jealousy by a foolish nation - God found of those who sought Him not, and Israel rebellious and gainsaying, God having in vain stretched forth His hands to them. Then he asks, "Is then this people rejected?" God forbid; God loves them still, and has reserved a remnant of them. The apostle then shews that their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, and the riches of the Gentiles; at the same time he presents their fall to the Gentiles received into the place* of the branches cut out as a warning, lest they also should experience a like fate, and then he declares that Israel as a whole should be again restored when the Deliverer should come out of Zion, and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, its unbelief having ceased. Is it not very evident here that the apostle speaks not to brethren in a church, in the character of brethren? For in such case it imports little whether they be Jews or Gentiles, or rather they would be neither one nor the other; that in short, he does not speak to them here simply as being brethren in Christ, but that he treats of the ways of God upon earth in reference to certain classes of persons, as Jews or Gentiles, reckoned as such before God in the administration of His government and promises here below.

{*If the question were about a warning to brethren in Christ as members of the Church, and not about the earthly administration of the economy, how could it be said that the Gentiles were grafted into the place, or into the midst of the Jews? The Jews and the Gentiles were grafted or admitted together; but when speaking about the tree of promise, and the ways of God toward this tree of promise here below, then the Holy Spirit may well speak of the cutting off of branches, because the tree remains always and necessarily there, whatsoever in other respects might be its form in detail. This is really the subject of the chapter, and not the church properly so called. Then, also, in like manner, the Gentiles might be, and were grafted into the place of the dry branches which were cut out; in the meanwhile the green branches, which remained in the tree, of necessity took the form of the dispensation of grace, the mould in which the promises were now cast. It will be the same with the Gentile world; all those who have professed the name of Christ, except the elect, will be cut off - the others will be in heaven - and the dispensation of the promises upon earth will again take the Jewish form; yet according to the new covenant, and in blessing upon the Gentiles also, under the reign of the Son of man. The truth is, it was not only the law which applied to man upon earth, but the promises also of God revealed in the word before the manifestation of His Son, of the eternal life which was with the Father and has been manifested to us. These promises, I say, reached not to the heavens either: they were given since the foundation of the world, had reference to the world, and must be fulfilled upon earth. Even the resurrection itself, concealed as it was in the declaration, "I am the God of Abraham," etc., presented no distinct revelation of heaven. The promise of eternal life given to us in Christ before the world was, was not of this world, and is not fulfilled here, although we are possessed of it while here in pilgrimage; the life, according to which we enjoy it, existed before the world was, the life of the Word, the life of Christ. This is the life of the church, and what was revealed in order that the church might exist: but it must needs, here below, equally take the position of the seed of promise, that is, though its life is the life which Christ had before the world was made, it must needs, at the same time, be placed in the position of heir of the promise here below. But how does it take that place? In that it is united to Christ (to Him who, while indeed having divine and eternal life in Himself, is the true Seed of Abraham), and in that it is made partaker of His life. As partaker of His life, it expects heavenly things, the same glory with Him; but in that it has that life, it is placed upon the same root, is introduced into the position of the heirs of the promise here below, of the seed of Abraham, according to the promise, because Christ, although He had the life of God in Himself, deigned to place Himself there. By the possession of that life, it is properly speaking the church* (whether composed of Jews or Gentiles matters not); but as introduced into the position of the seed of Abraham and heir of the promise here below, it is sustained by the root. The branches grafted in take the place of those which had been cut off. It is the administration of the promises here below which is treated of; and it is in this latter point of view that the subject is looked at in this eleventh chapter. When I say that the promises made to Abraham do not go beyond this world, I mean not to say that Abraham or any other such had not the enjoyment of other things in his soul; but it was not in such things that the promises by the which he was called through faith consisted. It is only when he entered Canaan, the land of promise, where he possessed nought, that his heart by faith rose higher; Heb. 11: 8, 9; Acts 7: 5.

As to us we are called by a testimony to heavenly things; it is in heaven that the church in spirit finds herself; in the meantime we are the seed of Abraham and heirs according to promise. There it is, that the administration of God as to His promises and His ways towards Israel enters into the account, even for the church; and it is about this that the chapter treats, and not of the promise of life given before the world was. Therefore it is that He speaks of cutting off the branches grafted in amid others, of grafting in afresh the branches which had been cut off, of the Gentiles, of the people beloved although enemies as concerning the gospel, etc. To distinguish these things, and the government of God which flows thence and is connected therewith, from the power of eternal life in Jesus Christ, is of all importance for the understanding of the word.}

{{*Note to Translation. - It should be, properly speaking, Christian. The church was formed by baptism of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise all is right.}}

309 It was well timed to introduce this in an epistle addressed to Christians at Rome (moreover not addressed as a church), the capital of the Gentile world, in an epistle which treats of the whole judgment of God in His relations with men - Gentiles, Jews, in Adam, by means of Moses, without law and under law, believers in Christ, possessing the Spirit, objects of all the government of God; which treats in short of the specialities of the consequences of the gospel with regard to His promises toward the earthly people, and shews how His faithfulness to them could be reconciled with the calling of the church (for heaven perhaps, but) upon earth, and its introduction into the enjoyment of the promises made to Abraham (till then exclusively the lot of the earthly people). This in fact needed an explanation; and the Lord by the Spirit gave it in His goodness, at the same time explaining the effect produced upon the world by the temporary rejection of Israel, and warning the Gentiles received into the place of the branches which had been cut out, of the position in which they really were found as such: Gentiles, I say - remark it - and not the church; this could not be - the elect Jews formed part of it, and they are not warned at all. In the church, for heaven, that distinction was not known. "But thou, O Gentile," not "but thou, O professor"; but "thou, O Gentile, I speak to thee only." But why does he so speak if it was only a solemn warning against pride, for the profit of their souls? A converted Jew or Christian, had not he need of it? The Jew - did he not also stand by faith? This passage is found at the close of a development of the ways of God, contained, as we have just seen, in this epistle: and to make of it a simple warning, is to misapprehend all the thought of God in it, and thus to forget that when the church as such is spoken of, there is neither Jew nor Gentile; we are all one in Jesus Christ.

311 As to what Mr. Olivier says (p. 31), I did not accuse him of saying that the election must beware lest it be cut off, because it (the election) is saved; but if Mr. Olivier turns the passage into a warning to Gentile believers really standing by faith as such (that is to say, to the election from among the Gentiles, as he has done), he really turns the cutting off of Israel and the wonderful faithfulness of God in sparing the election from among that people, into a warning to the election from among the Gentiles, that they should fear to be cut off. This is exactly the force of what he says, and I feel more than ever the absurdity of his interpretation of the passage, in noticing again this remark.

I pass over the omission of the words, "from among Israel" and "from among the Gentiles" in his observations, an omission which completely disfigures the sense. In his phrase the election is the same election; in my remarks two elections are contrasted. My reply to page 32 is already made. Mr. Olivier (p. 33) says that Paul speaks to Gentile believers. The question is, to know, not to whom he speaks, but of what? No one doubts that the apostle is addressing the Christians at Rome, while pointing specially to the Gentiles; but wherefore this distinction if it were simply a warning for the good of their souls individually, as in the passages of which Mr. Olivier would take advantage and on which I have nothing to say, because they have nothing to do with our subject, except Hebrews 6, which I believe contains an allusion to the doom of this economy? But it would be going too far away from our proper subject to enter upon it. Moreover, Mr. Olivier has not in the least understood my thought. I have not in my reply passed over the words, "standing by faith." I presented (p. 28) very distinctly the effect of the ways of God in cutting off Israel, and introducing the gospel, upon the world, their effect upon professors, their effect upon believers.

{*I again make use of this word, because it is very much used, and understood by all; every one will continue to speak of the Levitical economy, and the Christian economy, when this controversy is closed, just as before it began.}

312 Now I cannot admit that "standing by faith," "grafted into the olive," and "in the goodness of God" are expressions signifying one and the same thing. They may here apply in a general way to the same persons, though even this is not, accurately speaking, true; but they do not signify the same thing. The Jews who believed, for instance, were indeed by the goodness of God, in the order of things introduced by Christ, but they were not grafted into the good olive-tree in the sense in which this is said of the Gentile. He speaks of their olive-tree, which is another proof that he speaks of the administration of things here below, and not of salvation nor of a cutting off in the simple sense of loss of salvation. If the question were about the promises of life eternal in Christ risen, in contrast with the death of the soul, there would he no difference; it would be no more their olive-tree than that of the Gentiles. "Goodness toward thee" is not the state in which the individual finds himself, but the relationship in which God presents Himself as being towards those who, according to the principles of the economy, are the objects of that goodness. Consequently he speaks not of goodness towards the Jewish believers, although they were in the same goodness of God as the rest, because the Jews were there as branches by nature, although now cut off, for the greater part, for their unbelief. So true is this, that the apostle speaks of grafting them in again. If it is simply an individual warning, could he that had been cut off (according to Hebrews 6 and 10, passages quoted by Mr. Olivier) be grafted in again? And if the apostle speaks of individuals only, why says he that they can be grafted in again? Is it not evident that he speaks of Jews as Jews, and that this would be accomplished if the Jews were admitted to the enjoyment of the promises at the end of the ages, although the apostle says they (that is to say, quite other individuals than those of that day, but yet Jews) can be grafted in again? Is it not further evident that although they partake not in the enjoyment of the heavenly blessings, that would still be true, because they will be upon their own olivetree, enjoying the promises made to Abraham? They will be grafted therein again.

Moreover, although an individual stands by faith when he believes, such nevertheless is not all the apostle means; it is the principle upon which he stands, and not the possession of the thing which is in question. He who possesses faith will never be cut off. In the Epistle to the Galatians, it is said, "After that faith came," that is, after the establishment of that principle of relationship with God in place of law. Now we stand by faith, that is the principle of our relationship; the goodness of God exercises itself towards those who find themselves there. I do not see that it is said that the grafting in is by real faith of the heart, although there be nought solid save that which is such. Hebrews 6 supposes the participation of all the privileges of the Christian economy without real faith of the heart, and without fruit being borne to God, and I know not who would say that Simon the magician was not grafted in, although so soon cut off. It may be said, he believed; Yes. Yet just as all the professors of to-day believe that is to say, like Christendom. In short, I find here in chapter 11 the principles of the administration of the economy, and not the state of individuals, although these principles, doubtless, are realised in the individuals who really believe in the gospel. He speaks not of faithful Gentiles, save in the sense in which one can call professors "faithful."

313 In general, the reply I made (p. 28 of my last pamphlet) is sufficient as to pages 34 and 35: "the cutting off of Israel has been the reconciling of the world." All the baptised are under the responsibility, in general, of the privileges of the economy, and will be judged accordingly; believers find their enjoyment therein, according to their faith. I add, that Mr. Olivier is mistaken, when he says that the world can lose nothing. It is true that the world will enjoy other advantages during the millennium, far greater it may be; but the world now has the enjoyment of great advantages, which will be taken from it when the judgment takes place - when the Master of the house rises up and shuts to the door. If, by an act of divine judgment, the gospel can no longer be preached in any country, that country has lost a privilege; so it will be with the world. The world has not been grafted in, but the world has been placed in a new relationship towards God. Farther on, I will return to this point; in the meanwhile, I will cite a remarkable passage which applies to this subject (Luke 2: 32); Christ has been a light for the revelation of the Gentiles. They were, before, so entirely in obscurity, that they were as if not in existence in the sight of God, not as to the judgment of the secrets of the heart, but as to the government of the world on the part of God: a distinction which Mr. Olivier seems to be ignorant of. "The times of this ignorance," says the apostle, "God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead," Acts 17. Is not this to change the position of the world before God? And if God has proposed to use His church as an instrument for this, and it has failed, that will bring with it its result, even as to the world in reference to the government of God, although each one shall bear his own burden as to the eternal judgment. (Compare Ezekiel 33)

314 That God will be justified, when He shall judge and condemn the world, I cannot doubt; that He will send the gospel of the kingdom at the end, the church having failed in its duty, I believe; but this changes nought as to that which God has revealed concerning His relationship to the world, as we have seen in Acts 17: 30, 31.

In fact, I feel a difficulty in replying to Mr. Olivier's observations, because he appears to have entirely neglected this thought of the government of God. It is the government of God which is the subject of these chapters in the Epistle to the Romans, and not the salvation of the individual, properly so called. In the second chapter, the apostle speaks of that, of perishing without law, of being judged by the law, etc.; but to say that a sovereign disposition by God imposes no responsibility upon those to whom it is not known, is to misconceive the whole subject, although such a thought may have to the natural heart an air of great justice. Men sometimes find themselves without excuse under the effect of a judgment of God, occasioned by the fault of their fathers, themselves persevering in the moral consequences of the fault, though they may not have individually committed the very fault itself. See, for example, the judgment of the Spirit upon the state of Gentiles (Rom. 1), "Having known God, they glorified him not as God," etc. The Gentiles, of whom he speaks, had never known Him; their fathers, Noah, etc., had known Him. If fresh light came which made manifest that state, they are held responsible to quit it according to that light, and guilty, also, according to that light of all which they do as individuals afterwards; but there is then another thing: the light enables us, I say us, to see where they are who are without the light which we enjoy, and they are without excuse.

315 On the other hand, if great privileges have been granted to a people, and they have lost the knowledge thereof, they will yet be responsible (see what Josiah said when he found the book of the law), because, according to the government of God, one is responsible according to the place in which one is found, and not according to our capability of fulfilling it. Moreover, it is clearly not to the world that Paul addressed himself; but that is not the question. Even if it were true that Paul spoke only to believers, yet, since it is to a special class of believers that he does so (a distinction which would be impossible if the question were about the fundamental idea of the church), he can speak to that class under a peculiar aspect, all the while that he calls them brethren (and so he does), and give them instructions upon all that which concerned the subject on which he treats; and this is what he does. He may, at the same time, include other persons who are found in the same position without true faith, and this he insinuates; he can also speak of the consequences of his doctrine to the world, as also he does. To suppose, as some have done, that because he speaks to brethren he speaks only of brethren, and concerning those who are really such, seems futile; and one can see indeed that up to verse 25 he reasons in an abstract manner, according to the train of thought which the Spirit suggests to him; and having explained all the consequences of the ways of God, he at last declares, using the expression, "I say, then," addressing himself to his brethren, that he does so because he would not have them ignorant of this mystery. But he had previously developed the great principles and thought of God as to the mystery, its effect upon the world, upon the Gentiles, etc.

To me it is evident, that as to that practical bearing and application of these words, "you Gentiles," though all Gentiles be liable to their application, those who are referred to in the words of Simeon (Luke 2) are the only ones who are the object of them; the rest, as the inhabitants of Central Africa, for instance, exist not for the application of the reasoning of God in this chapter. When God applies them so, He will take care, by the preaching of the everlasting gospel, that all the Gentiles should be the objects of the judgment which will shew the justice of His government; but we cannot exactly address to them these warnings; we should be right in applying to them the doctrine which Paul applies (Acts 17); there he preaches to the world, here he speaks to professors. It is not exactly the inhabitants of the countries in which the gospel has been preached who are the Gentiles "brought to light," only the light is come there to bring them into light; but it is the countries of the baptised, where Christianity is professed. In theory, all the Gentiles have been brought into light. God takes knowledge of them. Therefore the apostle can say to the Colossians, "The gospel which is come unto you as it is in all the world, and brings forth fruit"; but as to the position of responsibility as a body, that is realised where they have been Christianised.

316 As to the disappearing of the contrast (p. 37) between the unbelief of the Jews, and the Gentiles standing by faith, there is no such thing. If the faith spoken of were the faith of an individual, there could be no cutting off; but the apostle points out the principle upon which the standing is, and that by which a falling may take place, in order to shew that as the Jews enjoying certain privileges lost them through unbelief, a similar thing would befall the Gentiles as to their privileges, if they should be found in the same position of unbelief. This is clear enough, I think. The apostle speaks not of those "standing by faith" in order to shew that those who were would be cut off, but to shew the principle upon which they stood, and that if, on the contrary, that failed, they would be cut off. Now as to a true believer, that could not ever be; but for him who was in the enjoyment of privileges, who was in the goodness of God as to his position, but who had not faith, the same thing which had happened to the Jews in similar circumstances might happen to him. It is in such persons that these warnings ever find their fulfilment.

With regard to what is said in pages 37 and 38, the question is not about reception, but about cutting off. As to the administration of things on earth (and that is what the apostle is occupied with here) Simon Magus was received. On pages 38 and 39 I have nothing to add. Only besides Colossians 1: 6, already quoted, I shall call attention to 1 Timothy 2: 5-7, which is a well-known abstraction of the apostle. What follows is only a confusion of the three distinct cases - of the world, of Christendom, and of believers - already pointed out in my first reply to Mr. Olivier, and of which he only quotes the first (pp. 40, 41), as if this were the sole application I had made of the principle. If he had quoted the whole passage (p. 28 of my Reply) he would have spared the reader the trouble of reasoning on what he said, and me that of noticing such an omission; for if any one has read what I there said, all that he replies is without application. He reasons on one of the cases I noticed, omitting the others, as if that were all I said on the matter, and as if I had confounded the world - the Gentiles - with believers, in the application of these general principles; whereas, in the lines which follow what he extracted, I had pointed out two other cases, that of professors and that of believers, in which the application of the apostle's doctrine was quite different.

317 He has omitted the first word of the passage he quotes: "first," before the words "by the existence and by the principles," etc.; and also that which precedes, "the word says three things, as to the present dispensation." I have avoided all such remarks, and all reply to things which were not connected with the root of the question; but it was needful that I should notice this, because we have been considering this eleventh chapter of the Romans - a point which naturally preoccupies those who take an interest in this question; and I have been obliged to clear up all that has been said on the point, for that is the main subject of the reasoning of this chapter. I still believe that man is responsible for the privileges he enjoys; I here add to Acts 17, Colossians 1: 6; 1 Timothy 2: 5-7 (already quoted); John 1: 11 and 5. He was in the world, but the world knew Him not; the light shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. I add this simply to confirm this principle.

When Mr. Olivier says that I asserted that the world, the Gentiles, will be responsible for these privileges, he is not quite correct. I did say that the world, the Gentiles, are placed in a new relationship towards God, and that there are privileges for which the Gentiles will be responsible, as the Jews have been for theirs. Those who have enjoyed these privileges will be beaten with many stripes if they have not profited from them, whilst such as possessed them not will be punished with few stripes. It seems to me that this is quite another thing from saying that the world and the Gentiles, being placed in a new relationship to God, will be responsible for those privileges which they possess, outside vital union with Christ. I spoke of the world as in a new relationship to God, of the Gentiles who enjoyed certain privileges, and of those who have not possessed them. Thus Mr. Olivier presents me as blending the very things which I put in contrast. Besides, does Mr. Olivier deny that the world or any man is responsible for the privileges which they possess? And here the question is not about the responsibility of those called of God, but of an universal principle of any privilege men may enjoy; and even if the called were spoken of, the question would not be of those "standing by faith," in the sense given by Mr. Olivier - that is, in the sense of true believers. Is not Christendom called? And this is the essential point at issue; only to say more of it here it would be needful to enter upon the second subject I have to treat. Further, it is no question about Gentiles who have had the gospel preached to them, but about that which is called the church of baptised Gentiles, and consequently the conduct of true Christians from the commencement.

318 In fine, this is the substance of chapter 11. Up to the end of chapter 8 the apostle sets forth the state of man, whether Jew or Gentile, the efficacy of the blood, and the power of the resurrection of Christ, as well as the sweet and precious privileges of which the believer is rendered partaker in Christ, and he shews us the source and security of these privileges, God being for us, and we partaking of these privileges, not only according to the eternal counsel of love, but according to the power of the eternal life, which was in Christ before the foundation of the world, and which has been communicated to us. After this full opening out of truth, the thought of Israel suggesting itself immediately to his heart, he turns to the administration of the promises here below; then he explains in chapters 9 and 10 that what seemed inexplicable in the substitution of the church for Israel was in perfect accordance with all that God had said and done, with His imprescriptible rights on which depended the title of Israel itself; that, moreover, what had just come to pass had been predicted; that they had stumbled upon the stone of stumbling. He asks, Has God then rejected His people? God forbid! I, says he, am a Jew, but there is, as there was of old, an election in the midst of this very people, and that which God now does, does but put a little more forward His perfect ways and His unfailing grace. For have they stumbled that they should fall?* By no means! It is but a means of introducing the Gentiles as such into the enjoyment of the promises, and thus, as he says, to excite them to jealousy (to excite, note, those who are, says he, of my flesh); for that rejection has placed God in relationship with the world, and caused the wild olive, the Gentile, to be grafted into the heritage of promise into the midst of the branches which by nature were of the good olive - speaking here evidently of the administration of the promises here below, for they were by nature children of wrath even as others. He calls even the unbelievers branches according to nature; but these having been cut off on account of their unbelief, there had been grafted in the midst of the Jewish believers (these also inheriting the promises equally according to the election of grace) some new branches taken out of the wild olive in order that they might also enjoy the promises; but let them take heed, even these branches, to recognise the grace which grafted them in. Otherwise, according to the same perfect administration of the promises here below, God could cast them off in like manner. And on the other hand, the Jews abandoning their unbelief would be grafted in again. The Gentile had reason to fear; he stands by faith; if faith fails, certainly he is no better than a Jew. The apostle not only shews what is to be feared (which is addressed to the conscience, and consequently, in that sense, in order that it may be applied individually); but after that he comes to something positive.

{*Here, again, it is evident that the question is not concerning individuals as to salvation, but the administration of the promises, for as many as remained in unbelief had stumbled that they should fall.}

319 Such, then, is the thought of God. Israel is blinded for the moment in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and then Israel as a whole, as a nation, shall be saved. God will not repent of His gifts and calling. Enemies for the Gentiles' sake as to the gospel, they are yet beloved for the fathers' sakes. One can see the characteristic manner in which the Gentile is taken up, for he is called the wild olive: "Thou being a wild olive." Also he, the Gentile, is placed upon the root, not upon the trunk, nor upon the branches. He became neither a Jew, nor of Israel. And the reason, as it seems to me, that he says, Thou, O Gentile, in the singular, is because the question was, as to the Gentile, one of principle. As to the Jew, it was an accomplished fact that the branches had been cut off; the church, properly so called, regarded as the corporate body of believers, could not be; and it is thus that the apostle then contemplated them, and it is thus also that they really were; and a threat was so much the more inapplicable under this point of view, that there were Jews as well as Gentiles, and as to the latter, it was the election from among the Gentiles which had just been brought in. In that point of view, then, I could not speak of cutting off The election from among the Jews - an idea found indeed, it is true, in the prophets, but new in the history of the people, remained upon the trunk, and thus the threat of cutting off could not be addressed to the election newly grafted in, but to the individual, as a Gentile, if he persevered not in that position. The explanation of this mystery is, that there was a partial blinding of Israel until the election from among the Gentiles - their real fulness - should come in; for the church began with a remnant. Israel ended with the separation of a remnant; but that fulness once accomplished, that which is not of faith among the Gentiles, which might be found there, would be cut off.

320 Paul was entrusted with the revelation of the church in its highest character of union with Christ and in its unity. The subject on which we have spoken, this eleventh chapter, was with him an episode; whilst with Peter, it was his ministry; he had the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is this which constitutes the difference in ministry of these two blessed servants of God. If their discourses and writings are studied, this will soon be seen.*

{*Note to translation. - I have expunged a sentence here, as being a misinterpretation of Acts 3: 25.}

If I have spoken of responsibility in connection with the church, it is because the activity of the love of God, the ministry of reconciliation was entrusted to it, and the application of this doctrine of responsibility to it is practical, and goes home to our consciences; but that changes nothing in the government of God, as we have already seen in the word.

Now, when Mr. Olivier assumes that (pp. 45-47) he expresses my thoughts, I must say that it is not so; that, on the contrary, all he says there appears to me a mass of confusion, and even of error. First, Mr. Olivier tells us that at all times God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, and not imputing their trespasses unto them. This is a somewhat astonishing assertion. At all times! Where does he find this "At all times"? God was in the Anointed at all times; but it was formerly a mystery, etc. Neither was this the mystery: the blessing of the Gentiles, the blessing of all the families of the earth, had not been at all concealed. The hidden mystery was that they, Jews and Gentiles, should be one body in Christ, enjoying spiritual blessings in heavenly places, co-heirs with Christ. This can easily be seen in the perusal of Ephesians 3, compared with Colossians 1: 26, 27, where it is Christ not come in displayed glory, but dwelling in them the hope of glory, that is, of heavenly glory. But God was in Christ here below, in the anointed One, according to the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh. When God was acting on the ground of law, He imputed iniquity. As to the Gentiles, He passed by the times of ignorance, sin not being imputed where there was no law; Acts 17, Rom. 5. But God was in Christ reconciling the world;* such was one chief thing He was doing in Christ; a second was not imputing their sins; a third, committing the ministry of reconciliation to others, when the Saviour must needs return up on high, after having been made sin for us. Further, if God was at all times in Christ reconciling the world, how is it that God placed Himself in a new position towards the world, when the church knew it? According to Mr. Olivier, He always was in that position, only the world knew it not; and when it did know, it was the world which was in a new relationship to God (p. 47). But the word does not say that the church then knew that God had always been in Christ reconciling, but that the rejection of the Jews was the reconciliation of the world. The question is not whether those who heard the gospel are responsible for what they heard, but what is the responsibility of Christendom and of true Christians who find themselves therein? That is what concerns us, and of that nothing is said. I cannot understand either how a rejected gospel places them in a new relationship to God; they have committed a fresh sin; but they are not in a new relationship: they remain in their idolatry more guilty than before. I can only see in these pages confusion heaped upon confusion.

{*Not imputing, and not only simply passing by.}

321 On the following pages taken from his first pamphlet I have only one remark to make: it is that to suppose as a general principle that the body cannot exist if there are yet other persons to be grafted into it, is mere self-deception. The apostle calls the assembly a body; that was the principle of the institution; nevertheless it was augmented every day by means of the joints and bands which minister nourishment, Eph. 4. The apostle had no idea that a body could not increase and finally arrive at the point that the fulness of the Gentiles should be come in. An army can recruit itself and be always the army. I do not say the Gentiles were grafted in by the act of an altogether exterior dispensation. That which God had established pure, Satan, availing himself of the sleep of man, had spoiled. Those who had been grafted in did not abide faithful; Christendom is the result, and we must not confound all this with the reconciliation of the world, which is only in a special manner connected with it. Let me also recall to mind, that in setting up the kingdom of heaven the Sower recognizes no other field than the world; possibly all is not sown; but it is the object of His attention, the field of His toil and the scene of His judgments. The Lord speaks of it as a whole. That may be an abstraction, but it is the abstraction of the Spirit of God, received and understood by those who are spiritual. For the Spirit of God makes His thoughts to enter into those who are humble of heart; He conceals these things from the wise and prudent, and reveals them unto babes.

322 Mr. Olivier finds it is a contradiction to make, on the one hand, the ways of God in the world, the starting point of the failure of the dispensation; and, on the other hand, to shew the failure of the church, as having for its starting point a so-called body of Christ. But the wisdom of man is not worth much. I speak thus of a body of Christ, because in Ephesians 4 the Spirit of God speaks of a body upon earth, increasing by that which joints and bands administer; and because I find in Jude also the point of departure, whence we arrive at a state which brings the judgments of God upon the wicked and rebellious, to be in this - that some have glided in among the children of God. Mr. Olivier questions their responsibility: the fact is there; and he now admits that there is a strong presumption of this responsibility. The ways of God in the world form the point of departure in Matthew 13, and in Jude it is found in persons who have crept in among the faithful. One may consider the ways of God in the field of the Sower; or one may consider, in a more detailed manner, and, so to speak, closer to the eye, the responsibility and the faults of those who were sown by the Lord in the field: the two things are equally true and important in their several places, instead of being contradictory.

323 I have but one word to say, in passing, upon the kingdom of heaven and the church. If those who compose the church and the kingdom were the same persons, and they have sinned, so that the kingdom has become Babylon, it matters little whether they sinned as bearing the character of the kingdom or of the church; they have brought in all the disorder. The sin and the errors of the children of God, even if they are not the corruption, are something else than the sun and the rain which are the occasion of it here below (see p. 61). Christians at least are guilty, even if the church be not - although a strong presumption of its responsibility is now admitted; and if the churches, true Christians in the churches, are guilty, then it is true Christians who were responsible for these things; and this is the great point. Further (p. 125), Mr. Olivier now admits the common responsibility of the church, of the true body of Christ, that which is composed of true Christians. Well, according to Mr. Olivier, these true Christians allowed persons to creep in that were not so, even evidently not so; if the churches (that is his way of presenting it, pp. 63, 64) have failed (and the common responsibility of the church is now admitted), there they are together, after all, responsible in common for this sin, and responsible in common for the evil that has come in; and this is what I think: All my doctrine is admitted, all my thought is acknowledged to be true. I do not say that it has been formally admitted; but it is evident that if some Christians composing a church have done this evil, and if there is a common responsibility in the church, the church ought to feel itself responsible and guilty in this.

If even we had come to this result through a hundred instead of thirty-four contradictions, I feel too happy at having come to a good result, and if the truth be admitted, I shall not, as I have already said, stop to justify myself as to these thirty-four contradictions, which for my part I believe to be all a mere supposition. I leave all this in Mr. Olivier's hands, and in the hands of every one. The church is responsible in common as to the acts of its members; but some of its members, such or such churches, have failed, and have been the means of corrupting the kingdom, of producing the state of things where we find ourselves; therefore the Church is guilty of it, as being responsible in common for that which some of its members have done. This is the root of the whole controversy.

324 I do not know that I need say more on the subject we have treated. But in the word there are certain points connected with it, about which confusion of thought has been produced by what has been said during this discussion: interesting points touched upon, perhaps, for the first time, and from which one may derive real profit by examining them somewhat further.

For myself, I have learnt much while searching the Scriptures on the subject of the kingdom of heaven, as it was needful for me to do, in order to satisfy my mind on the point treated in this discussion. I find that the true idea presented in this expression is the reign of the heavens in the Person of the Son of man. John the Baptist put this forward in his testimony as "at hand." The Lord did the same; yet still in the character of prophet. All this being rejected, it is the violent only who take it by force; so that it was not set up, and the Lord could say (though Himself actually present) "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come," Matt. 10: 23. After that rejection was made manifest, and the Lord had pronounced judgment upon Israel at the close of chapter 12, the kingdom is preached as a mystery.* After this it is established in mystery, but administered by Peter, who had the keys of it, when the King was ascended up into heaven. And, lastly, it will be made good, according to the power of its King, when Satan will be driven out of the heavenly places, and when Christ will receive the kingdom, and establish blessedness on the earth thereby.

{*Hence the Lord presents Himself now as sowing; He seeks not fruit from the vine: all had to begin.}

Such is the summary of what I have found, and present to my brethren as such, evidently without any intention of controversy. The church, such as it is presented by Paul, does not come into mention here. In his writings it is presented as the body, the Bride of Christ, identified with Him in life as He is in heaven, in His nature, position, and glory. The administration of the kingdom is quite another thought. Paul may speak of the gathering together of the saints here below as a body, as the Bride, etc., because such was the extent of their privilege; of this we will speak shortly, but the thought which he attaches to the church is its identification with Christ. At the death of Stephen, the administration, by the Spirit, of the kingdom of which Peter had the keys, was rejected at Jerusalem, as the announcement of the kingdom (in the testimony both of John the Baptist and of the Son of man) had already been, and from that time it ceased to be presented to the Jews as a people. Until then the Holy Spirit acted upon the ground of the intercession of Jesus upon the cross in their favour (compare Luke 23: 34 and Acts 3: 17), and as if the debt of ten thousand talents incurred by the death of Jesus had been remitted. The love of God still delayed to withdraw, and it is only in Acts 28 that He renounces His efforts towards that people, over the smallest remnant of which He ceased not to hover.

325 Nevertheless the Jews, ever setting themselves in opposition to the truth preached by Paul, and withstanding the preaching to the Gentiles according to the grace of God, filled up the measure of their sin, and wrath came upon them to the uttermost: they were sold with all that they possessed until payment should be made. From that point of time, the Gentiles are the subject of divine history. The Gentiles appear in the foreground, either as from attachment to their idols rejecting, or as receiving the testimony of grace which was proposed to them. Jerusalem trodden under foot by them, entirely disappears from the scene; and the iniquity and conduct of the Gentiles, such as it was, becomes the object of the judgment and actions of God. Meanwhile the Jews are as if buried (see Isa. 26; Ezek. 36), yet preserved, even as the Gentiles had previously been, as if not in being. It is evident that the Gentiles professing Christianity, and the Gentiles of the four monarchies, subjected to the Beast, are the special though not sole objects of the ways of God in His government; but it is on the occasion of the destruction and judgment of these in particular, that the Son of man will establish His kingdom in power, although He will subject and judge all the others afterwards. Of this the prophecies of the Old and New Testament speak plainly enough.

I have now only one remark to make with regard to Mr. Olivier's system, which speaks of the corruption of the kingdom: this system still appears to me inadmissible. It still remains true that he makes Christ to be the King of Babylon: this is evidently untenable; but it is what he has done. He seeks to avoid its consequences, not by denying it, but by turning the argument against me, and saying, "What! you make Christ to be the Bridegroom and head of Babylon, the head of the corruption." My reply is, I have not done so; neither is it what I do now. First, I never said that Babylon was the church, or the church Babylon, as Mr. Olivier has said of the kingdom. I have not spoken of Babylon. I believe it has taken for a time the form of Christianity; but this is not in my judgment its sole or its exclusive form. Perhaps in the sixteenth century the reformers might be justified in speaking of it thus, because it was then the form that it took; but I think that there are other elements and other principles in Babylon. That is not the leading idea of Babylon in Scripture, although it may be an important element of it. But, alas! it is but too true that the church during the absence of Christ might be unfaithful in her conduct, though espoused to Christ, but placed under responsibility until the marriage of the Lamb. If one cannot reconcile the thought of responsibility here below with the accomplishment of the promises of God on high, one has much yet to learn as to the ways of God in reference to man; for the same thing is true of every Christian: evil is wrought before the church or the Christian is on high, come to perfection. Christ does not therefore cease to be the future husband of the church; and it is precisely when one ceases to recognize that relationship of bride of Christ, that the evil begins. Hence we have not to quit the church, but the church has to purify herself; for it ceases not to be the church although it has ceased to be faithful. But there is no question about purifying Babylon: it will be destroyed. If saints find themselves there, they must come out of it. Again, if it is the kingdom, they cannot come out of it. It is a complete confusion of ideas. There can be no question of coming out of the church.* If it be said that in its captivity the members of the church are in Babylon (though this I did not say), it is the church, so to speak, which must come out of it. Finally, the idea that the church may have been unfaithful is quite intelligible; but that Christ should be King of Babylon is unintelligible. I admit that it is a thing to be proved that the church has been unfaithful, if the heart feels it not; but in that thought there is nothing unintelligible, and no contradiction; whilst the system which makes Christ to be the King of Babylon is mere nonsense.

{*No one has ever seen Babylon in the church, even if they may have spoken of the church in Babylon (which, however, I have not done).}

327 And now I must revert a little to this point; but I hope to be brief. First, Mr. Olivier (p. 95) tells us that the practical sense in which Scripture speaks to us of the church upon earth is rather the church as it appears to man, than that which it is in the sight of God - I say then, be it so; but then what a door is opened here for uncertainty, after what has occurred in the history of Christianity!* But I ask, "Appears to whom?" To Mr. Olivier. But to Mohammedans, to the heathen, it is Christendom which appears to be the church. If one says, Such is not the fact: this requires the judgment of spiritual persons, I say, "Stop a moment. Do you deny that the church was set up as a testimony to the world? that it ought to have been the epistle of Christ? and also ONE in order that the world might believe?" That which to the world** appears to be the church has then a very great importance in the sight of God. He is jealous for the glory of His Son. And if that which bears His name upon earth, that which appears to be the church in the sight of the heathen world, dishonours Him, and belies all that He is, instead of preaching Him, and if this is nowhere remedied, it is a fact of the most solemn moment touching that which appears to be the church, and which presents the name of the Son to the world in the sight of God. And such in the sight of God in the world is the fact. What appears to be the church is an abomination - is not the church; it is, if you will, the work of the enemy;*** nevertheless it is the testimony rendered to the Son of God. Some will not have it that what presents itself thus should be called the church. It is quite right to undeceive men's minds upon the point, I fully admit; yet in the sense which is perhaps the most important, and certainly the most important as to judgment and the government of God, it is what appears to be the church. God may for the sake of some righteous still spare, at least until the tares be ripe; but the vintage of God will not be of the fruits of His grace - it is the winepress of His wrath.

{*It is of no use to say here - the whole of the elect - for they are known only by means of what is seen; there are, moreover, many who would deny that there is such a thing in the sense in which the word is here used.}

{**It is to the eyes of the world that it ought to appear; if it had continued faithful, the question could not possibly have existed for the spiritual man. He was a member of it; he had no need to judge about it.}

{***When Henry Martyn was at Shiraz in Persia, a Mahommedan said he was sure he was not a Christian, because he lived near to God; for he had seen the Christians at Calcutta, and they were the most wicked men possible. I myself have had the same sorrow when wishing to preach the gospel to the captains of merchant ships who sailed to and from the Levant. They told me they made no great account of one religion more than another, that they had found Turks much more upright and honourable in their dealings than Christians. It is useless to say they were not Christians. We speak of the testimony rendered to the world.}

328 But let us consider now the judgment of the spiritual. What is it appears to be the church? Whom shall I consult? Christians in national establishments? What appears even to the most enlightened among them to be the church? They will tell me that the Epistle to the Corinthians is a proof that Mr. Olivier and all of us together are entirely deceived on the subject of the church. Mr. Rochat would take it quite in another way, and Mr. Olivier would be greatly disconcerted to be identified with him, as if they had one view about the church. I believe indeed that the remark is perfectly just, that the word of God calls that the church which appears to be the church; but this causes that now there is nothing in exterior appearance which corresponds to that which is inward, to the true church, to the assembly of the elect. We can use the word church according to what appears to be the church, and there will be nothing which is accurately true, because, alas! the church does not appear at all, unless we call that the church of which an unbeliever could say that "its annals were the annals of hell." This I at least would avoid doing; yet the words of Mr. Olivier shew us where we are in this respect; and the children of God - have they no burden upon their hearts on account of this? No; I will not say upon the consciences; I will make no appeal on this subject to the conscience. "Where is the flock that was given thee, saith the Lord, thy beautiful flock?" (See Jer. 13: 20, 21) And the Christian flock, the flock of God now - is it less precious to Him? Will the bride of Christ have no concern for the glory of her Bridegroom?

But can one speak thus? Is it right to speak thus of the body upon earth, or to say "this pretended body"? It is an important point as to responsibility. Can we speak of responsibility? First, let us bear in mind that the common responsibility of all the members of the church at all times is acknowledged. This is evidently of all importance. Further, in the practical sense the word of God calls that the church which the church appears to be in the sight of men. Well we speak in this sense with the word, admitting at the same time that there may be therein hypocrites who will never be in heaven. Still the passages I have already cited speak distinctly of the church upon earth. Timothy had need to know how to conduct himself in the church of the living God. The Lord added to the church. The Lord "hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing; helps; governments; diversities of tongues," 1 Cor. 12. He gave them as joints and bands which might serve for the edification of the body "until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ": and by their means the body receives from the Head its increase, Eph. 4.

329 An effort is sometimes made to invalidate the force of these express declarations of the word by means of a comparison. The church is spoken of, it is said, as detachments of the army; but this is not correct. It is an army which recruits itself, but which is not thereby the less constantly the army as a body. Mr. Olivier thinks the idea ridiculous of a body to which one adds; but Ephesians 4 expressly speaks of a body which increases according to the vigour of each part: so that which is found fault with is really the idea and expression of the word itself. And when John said, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come," certainly this is not when the church is in heaven with her Bridegroom - was that man of God right? Can one go farther than to call the church, such as it was upon the earth at the commencement, the bride of Christ? Mr. Olivier may say, "I do not recognise one body: it is ridiculous; I know no such thing as the church, it is but a pretended church" (see pp. 49, 125, etc.). With much more reason he might have said, "How the bride? It was but a little portion of the bride." Nevertheless, the word of God calls that which was then found upon the earth "Body," "Church," "Bride"; and the children of God would do better to speak according to the word than to follow the reasonings of the human mind, however wise they may seem to be. The inconsistencies of the word of God are more true than the most palpable deductions made by the intelligence of man, because the word is truth, and has no need of deductions. When we read it we need faith; but here I admit one thing, namely, that when the word of God uses these expressions (and this remark has some importance), it speaks always of the privileges and blessings of the church, because, while placing in that position the mass of living believers, it speaks in view of the final result; but this by no means prevents this glory, in so far as manifested by the Holy Spirit, being confided to these believers, and that Christians should be responsible for it.

330 And here it may be well to strip the word "responsible" of much of the mist with which men like to envelop it. It has been said, we are not responsible for the acts of our fathers. The one common responsibility is admitted; I do not again revert to it. But further, the question is not only about the acts of such or such an individual. I confide my house to someone, forbidding him to admit to it any save my servants; he, a lover of society, in the very act of entering upon the responsibility of this charge, admits all sorts of persons, and the house is thereby altogether injured, and its appearance spoiled. He will say that he is not responsible for their acts, but he is responsible for the state of the house which I entrusted to him. It may be he has wished to prevent others, when they were doing what spoiled the house: this will not satisfy me, my house is spoiled, my confidence has been abused, and he, to whose care I left it, is responsible for the evil; that is, that he ought to give me back the house such as I had entrusted it to him. It is very important to seize this thought. The glory of the name of Christ, the results of His victory over Satan and over the effects of his power, such were the blessings trusted as a precious deposit to the church; which was by its very position the witness of this. You are the letter of Christ, says the apostle; not the letters, but the letter. There is no need of discussing the particular acts of which the church may have been guilty; it ought to have guarded that which was committed to it. It was the pillar and ground of the truth; in a word, the glory of Christ was confided to it here below. Has it been faithful?

Here I must say a word on the subject of responsibility, and on the difference of that responsibility according as it is viewed in connection with eternal judgment, or with the judgment of God here below. Here is where I find one of the contradictions of which I am accused. Mr. Olivier makes me say (p. 123), on the one hand, that we inherit and are responsible for the acts of sin of those who went before us, and, on the other hand, that we are responsible for the state in which we find ourselves, and not for the acts of Christians who lived before us. But the words, "and are responsible," in the first phrase, are added by Mr. Olivier.* I perceive that he wishes to avail himself of this other passage which he quotes, "I know very well that one would not have it that man is responsible for an evil which existed before he was born . . . but the government of God in the world does not proceed thus," etc. Here are the words left out, as indicated thus by dots . . . . "It is true that, as to the final judgment of the individual, each shall bear his own burden; but," etc. It is just these words that make all the difference.

{*I must add that he does not repeat the words: "when it is a question of His government with regard to an economy."}

331 I wish to explain myself on this point, because it is important that all Christians should understand it. I have already said something about it in my pamphlets. That each is individually responsible for his conduct, and that each shall give an account of himself to God, is a principle upon this subject generally recognised, and I need not enlarge upon it. "Each of us," says the apostle, "shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14: 12) - "Each shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6: 5) - "God will render to each according to his works in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom. 2: 6, 16); but that is not the government of God in the world. In this God acts often towards masses, on the general result which the whole presents in His sight, and even in the sight of the world, if it is His people who should render a testimony for Him; for without this God would be identified with the evil, and His very character would be compromised. He can sustain while chastening; but, as He said of Israel, the nations shall know that Israel is gone into captivity, because of their sins. Sometimes the sin of a chief person, who draws others after him, but who himself is the most culpable, brings judgment upon his posterity and upon his people. "Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal," 2 Kings 23: 26.

332 On the other hand, one sees the world suffering the consequences of the sins of their fathers; the heathen are living witnesses of it. God gave them up to a reprobate mind, Rom. 1: 17. Thus we may easily see that we ought accurately to distinguish between the eternal judgment of God and His judicial government of the world; for in reference to His eternal judgment it is said of the Gentiles - "those who have sinned without law shall perish without law . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom. 2: 12, 16) - the gospel which Paul preached. As to the government of the world, it is said, as to the same Gentiles, "The times of this ignorance God winked at"; for in truth, sin is not reckoned where there is no law. Nevertheless death and sin reigned. Here man inherited the guilt of his fathers, while; in present government, they were not held responsible for their own acts: they were so, indeed, as to eternity, according to the light they had neglected. When God puts Himself in relationship with any people, and places a testimony in the midst of them in such sort that the light of the testimony is cast upon the sin they commit, and in which they continue to walk in spite of the testimony, then God brings, according to His government here below, judgment of all that sin upon the generation which fills up the measure of the evil, so that there is no more room for patience.

As witnesses of this, see the Jews who rejected Christ and the testimony of the Holy Spirit: all the blood which had been shed since the blood of righteous Abel had to be required of that generation. God had not required it before; He had enlightened them by His law, stirred them up by His prophets, warned them by chastisements, had made an appeal to their whole moral being by the mission of His Son. The very sins of the fathers ought to have been a warning to their children to avoid the same offences, because, after the sins of the fathers, their offences were committed in the light. But they persisted therein, and thus heaped up wrath for the day of judgment; and they had to submit to the consequences of all this, according to the just judgment of God. This in no wise prevents each of their fathers having been and being subject, at the judgment of the dead, to the consequences of his own individual sin; but the nation, the system as a whole, the public object of the government of God in the world has been nudged.

333 If there were among the faithful those that bemoaned the evil, they were transferred into another system; in like manner, the just of preceding ages will enjoy the effects of their faithfulness in the world to come. And, as a matter of fact, the sin of a son, who sins after his father, is greater than that of his father, because, if there is light in my heart, as it shines in the system in the midst of which I live, the sight of the sin will act powerfully on my conscience - will produce a horror of the sin thus committed in the sight of God, and I shall avoid it, astonished that anyone can act thus, as a man does who sees another walk in the mire or fall over a precipice. If I persevere in the sin of my father, I am more culpable than he, in that his sin was a warning to me; my sin is double, is morally augmented by all the effect which his sin ought to have produced to deter me; that is to say, by the amount of what his sin was in the sight of God; for we suppose the case of those who have light and the testimony of God. My sin is augmented by the very amount of his, although he will be equally responsible for what he has done; also, it is evident that my heart in this case is hardened by reason of the sin of my father, whom I have seen, or whom I ought to have seen, in the light of God granted to me, Ezek. 23: 11; 2 Chron. 34: 19, etc.; Jer. 11: 15.

This is what we see of the judgments of God in Israel. Only we may add that God, in His goodness, has constantly renewed His testimony, and that, in His patience, He has sent His prophets, rising up early, as it is said, to send them until there was no remedy (see Jer. 7); and lastly, His own Son. The consequence has been, as we have already said, that all the righteous blood, from Abel to Zacharias, came upon the generation which filled up the measure of the iniquity of their fathers in rejecting the last witness of God, Matt. 13: 35. [23:13] We see here sin inherited and the people held, as to the government of God, responsible for the sins of their fathers; for their sins were morally the accumulation of all those that went before, and which God had borne with, according to the patience which they had despised, and of which they availed themselves to plunge more deeply into evil.* (See also Dan. 5: 18-23.) It is clear that this consideration may augment the sin of an individual; but this prevents not the other great principle of the government of God as to those who bear His name or who enjoy the light He gives, or who are found (in consequence, perhaps, of their own pride, and the blinding of Satan) in the position, or pretending to enjoy the position, in which God has placed His own. (See, for instance, Jer. 23, Matt. 24: 48, etc.)

{*Moreover, God was forced, as to His public government in the world, to impute everything, for His name was named upon the people. He became, so to speak, responsible together with them for all the sin which His people committed, if He did not judge it. It was His glory to exercise patience, but not to permit for ever sin among the people with whom He was identified, and it is plain then, that it is the sin of the people which must needs be punished, just as the sin of my son accumulates by reason of my patience. It is not the last fault which I punish in the end, but my son, and this because of all the evil which I have borne with up to that time, and which is even enhanced by reason of my patience. It is thus with the people of God.}

334 We may add that the judgment of God is according to the iniquity of the people; He brings upon them their iniquity. (Compare Jer. 5: 21 and Isa. 6: 9, and other passages, as 2 Thess. 2: 10, 11.) Now the Spirit of God applies this general principle to Babylon in the Revelation. In her is found all the blood which has been shed upon the earth. The judgment of God renders her responsible for all that which has been done from the beginning, and the apostles and prophets are called to rejoice at the vengeance God takes upon her.

These apostles and prophets had no relationship with her; but the Babylon of the last day will inherit and will be responsible for the evil under which the apostles suffered. Yet each one shall answer for his own sin committed at the beginning or at the end of the ages, although (as we have already said) the individual sin may be aggravated by the perseverance in the same sin, or may be, on the other hand, less grave from defect of light. That the culpability of Babylon is real no one who knows and honours God will call in question.*

{*As to Babylon, we find it active in corrupting; it makes the nations drunk. If Israel corrupted itself instead of keeping the law, Babylon corrupted instead of acting in love and truth. The people of God are found in her, and are in danger of sharing in her sins. To me it is evident that, while pride and idolatry are indeed the very root, its iniquity is the result of contempt and abandonment of all the light of God, from Noah to the church, as also of the testimony of the last days. Its heart is then full of all the iniquity of man, in the presence of all the light of God, and of all the privileges of those that are His in Christ, and having knowledge of it all. It will, in fact, be the activity of Satan; but as to men and their responsibility, it will falsify and deny all the relations based upon the revelations of God. The "Beast" is another thing; it contends with the power of the Son of man, with Christ. It is not the complete corruption of man in things which, in principle, he held from God.}

335 Such are the clear examples we have of this principle in the government of God, of holding a system responsible for all evil which has been wrought during the whole existence of that which precedes it, whose privileges or even greater ones it inherited. We inherit the guilt of those who went before us, and we are judged responsible for the whole. As to the individual, he will have to bear the judgment of that which he has done.

I now close. I thought that I ought not to reply to Mr. Olivier's pamphlet; but it appeared to me that a few words on Romans 11 and upon the government of God, distinguishing it from individual responsibility, might help in the edification of my brethren. I feel a certain regret that some pages of what I have said on Romans 11 present so much the form of a reply; but this had become necessary, because many were already occupied with these things in that point of view; it was therefore meeting their wants. It has not however, I trust, hindered the development of the subject (quite apart from the controverted points) nor the introduction of thoughts as to the position of the church, the difference between the life of Christ (the eternal life which was with the Father), and the inheritance of promise which He has taken as seed of Abraham, and on the relation of the church with the Father, on the one hand, and with the administration of His promises on the other. These thoughts are, it seems to me, more important aids to the progress of the children of God, than even the leading subject of the discussion. Yet I am perfectly assured, that if any one come to recognise the unity of the church upon earth and its responsibility in that unity, it will make a marked distinction between those who receive that truth and those who, I will not say, are still ignorant of it, but who reject it. I believe that God is at this time acting upon the church by these truths; that it is these truths which, in the sight of Christ, bring out the faithfulness of heart which He desires. I am sure that neither nationalism nor dissent can bear with them; and the more they are discussed, the more do I feel that they are, as to faithfulness, the great truths for the day in which we live. I do not doubt that those who reject them will still seek to represent them as secondary truths; but all that I see in this is a snare of Satan, from which I hope many souls will be delivered. These truths are connected with the presence of the Holy Spirit upon earth, who gives unity to the body here below. It is because they are truths, that the church can, as espoused to Christ, say to the Bridegroom, Come! and he who denies them, denies at the same time the special privileges which link the church to Christ, as well as the responsibility which flows thence, and to which the heart will adhere, that it may not renounce so precious a tie. Only let those who enjoy these things remember that the task laid upon us in our ministry of love, according to that which is entrusted to us, is to give meat in due season. This is charity: it thinks not of our own ideas, but of the need of the souls we meet with.

336 Ever keep, brethren beloved, according to this charity, the doctrine which is connected with the cross and resurrection of Jesus - the justification of the believer and of the church; and seek to awaken the church from her torpor, by the doctrine of her position as the bride of the Lamb - one and beloved. Take for a banner this testimony of the Spirit - "The Spirit and the bride say, Come!" such is the desire, which comes out of the fulness of the heart. Encourage in grace (for this is all in grace) those who hear, but who have not the persuasion of being the bride of Christ, to come and join their cry to yours and to say with you, Come! And certainly if the heart has entered into the love of Christ in secret, the same Spirit which has made you taste the joy of His love, will make you turn toward the world, and say in the consciousness of that joy and of the possession of those living waters, "And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

337 The same Spirit which makes us enjoy Christ and desire His coming, urges us to call others to the same enjoyment. In fact, this verse (Rev. 22: 17) is the expression of the position of the church and of the presence of the Holy Spirit; but it has been left to her as a last testimony, on the part of the Lord, in order to define that position.

The thought of the coming of Christ and the persuasion of our obligations to Him, as Bridegroom, give to our souls and to our testimony an energy which nought else could give. He who recognises the Holy Spirit down here, soul of the unity of the church which is the body and bride of Christ, witness of His glory on high, and consequently ardently - yes, ardently - desiring His return, will not cease on this account to enjoy that third great truth which is the foundation of the others - Christ delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. On the contrary, he will enjoy it the more, he will understand it the better. But to avail oneself of the last named truth in order to deny the others, is at least to provoke God to take from us the strength even of that which we desire to retain.

May Christians, then, plainly understand what is in question, namely, the existence, unity, and responsibility of the church of God, of the bride of Christ on earth; and may those who believe these things use them, not as a means of judging others, but of encouraging them in grace, as those who hear, to come and hasten by their sighs the return of the Bridegroom. As for him who opposes these things, after having heard the cry of the Spirit and of the bride, whosoever he be, he will bear his own burden.

On Discipline

J. N. Darby.

<01017E> 338

[It is well to note that this short paper, printed from notes of a discourse at a meeting 1841), refers to the spirit animating the individual in dealing with evil. The putting evil out is assumed; as the word of God expressly commands it. We are bound to keep God's house clean, to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest there be amongst us such or such, to judge them that are within, and put out the wicked. But this is a proving of ourselves to be clean. God will have the place of His dwelling clean. The question of withdrawing from evildoers, a positive commandment of the word, is not touched. The object of the tract is the spirit in which discipline is to be exercised.]

We ought to remember what we are in ourselves, when we talk about exercising discipline - it is an amazingly solemn thing. When I reflect, that I am a poor sinner, saved by mere mercy, standing only in Jesus Christ for acceptance, in myself vile, it is, evidently, an awful thing to take discipline into my own hands. Who can judge save God? This is my first thought.

Here I stand, as nothing, in the midst of persons dear to the Lord, whom I must look upon and esteem better than myself, in the consciousness of my own sinfulness and nothingness before the Lord; and to talk of exercising discipline! - it is a very solemn thought indeed to my own mind; it presses on me peculiarly. Only one thing gets me out of that feeling, and that is the prerogative of love. When love is really in exercise, it cares for nothing but the accomplishment of its object. Look at it in the Lord Jesus, no matter what stood in the way, on He went. This is the only thing that can rightly relieve the spirit from the sense of an altogether false position in the exercise of discipline. The moment I get out of that, it is a monstrous thing. Though the subject-matter of conduct be righteousness, that which sets it going is love - love in exercise, to secure, at all cost of pain to itself, the blessing of holiness in the church. It is not a position of superiority in the flesh. (See Matt. 23: 8-11.) The character of discipline as "master" we have not at all. Though influenced by love to maintain righteousness, and stimulated to a jealous watchful care one over another, we must ever remember that, after all, "to his own master" our brother "standeth or falleth," Rom. 14: 4. Love alone guides it, and the service of love displays it. We do see that character of discipline in the Lord Jesus, when He took a scourge of small cords to drive out the desecrators of the temple (Matt. 21; John 2); but it was anticipative of another character of Christ, when He will execute judgment.

339 There are two or three kinds of discipline, full of comfort as shewing the association of the individual with the whole body, and with God, which have been ordinarily confounded amongst Christians.

There is, in this country, a great deal more difficulty connected with the question of discipline, than elsewhere, because of certain habits of action, whereby discipline has come to be looked at merely as a deliberative and judicial act. Persons have been voluntarily associated, and there has been a habit of legislating for the credit of the voluntarily associated body. Because people must secure themselves, each society makes its own rules. Now that principle is as far from the truth as the world from the church, or light from darkness. One cannot admit of any principle of voluntary association at all, or of preservative rules of one's own. Man's will is that which brings in everlasting destruction. It may be modified, but the principle is altogether false. There is no such thing as voluntary action on man's part, in the things of God; it is acting under Christ, by the Spirit. The moment I get man's will, I get the devil's service and not Christ's. This has occasioned a mass of practical difficulty, that those abroad do not feel. When I get the notion of a judicial process going on, for the trial of crime, by certain laws, I find myself altogether off the ground of grace; I have confounded all sorts of things.

The developed statement of Matthew 18: 15-17, though often cited, does not seem to touch the matter. It is a question of wrong done to a brother; and it is never said, concerning the one who has done the wrong, that the church is to put him out; but, "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." This may have to be the case, as to the church subsequently, but it is not its character here; it is simply, "Let him be unto thee," etc. - have nothing more to do with him. It supposes a case of wrong done to an individual, as in the trespass-offering, where it is said, "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour," etc.* There is the sovereignty of grace to forgive, even to the "seventy times seven"; but "thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." An individual has wronged me: how am I to act? I go not to the Father's discipline, nor to the Son's discipline over His own house; but, acting towards him in the love of the brotherhood, I go and say, "Brother, thou hast done me wrong," etc. There is, first of all, this remonstrance in righteousness; yet the path is such that it may not get out of the scope of grace. Having done this, if he will not hear me, I take with me one or two more, "that in the mouth of two or three witnesses," etc. If that fails, I then tell it to the whole assembly. If he refuse to hear the church, "Let him be unto thee," etc. The thing prescribed is a course of individual conduct, and the result, individual position towards another. It may come to a case of church discipline, but not necessarily. I go hoping to gain my brother to repentance, to replace him in his right relation in fellowship with myself and God (where there is failure in brotherly love, it necessarily affects communion with the Father): if my brother is gained, it goes no farther; it ought never to pass my lips; the church knows nothing of it, or any other creature, but we two. If there is failure, I act to restore him in fellowship to all.

{*All acting against God's commandments and doing that which was not to be done, was sin, and called for the sin-offering; but there were trespasses against the individual, wrongs done to the neighbour, by breaches of confidence and the like, and for these there was a trespass-offering. See the first seven verses of Leviticus 6.}

340 As to the discipline of the Father, there is a great deal more of individual prerogative of grace in this. I doubt whether it comes under the care of a body of Christians at all; it is the exercise of individual care. I do not see that the church stands in the place of the Father. The idea of superiority is true in a certain sense; there is difference of grace as well as of gift. If I have more holiness, I must go and restore my brother, Gal. 6: 1. But then this individual action in grace is not church discipline. It is most important to keep these things clear and distinct, so that, while one is quite ready to be subject to the two or three, individual energy should not be at all restrained, but remain clear and untouched. The Holy Ghost must have all His liberty. I could suppose a case where an individual had to go and rebuke all round, as Timothy, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering," etc., 2 Tim. 4: 2. That is discipline; but the church has nothing to do with it, it is individual action.

341 But again, the church may be forced to exercise discipline, as in the case of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5. The Corinthians were not the least prepared to exercise discipline; but the apostle insists upon their doing so. There is that which is the individual exercise of the energy of the Spirit in the ministry of grace and truth, and the like, on the souls of others; and church action not at all involved. It is a mischief to make church discipline the only discipline. It would be a most awful thing if it were necessary to bring every evil before all. It is not the tendency of charity to bring evil into public: "Charity covereth a multitude of sins." If it sees a brother sin a sin which is not unto death, it goes and prays for him; and the sin may never come out as a question of church discipline at all. I believe there is never a case of church discipline but to the shame of the whole body. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul says, "Ye have not mourned," etc.: they all were identified with it. Like some sore on a man's body, it tells of the disease of the body, of the constitutional condition. The assembly is never prepared, or in the place to exercise discipline, unless having first identified itself with the sin of the individual. If it does not do it in that way, it takes a judicial form, which will not be the ministration of the grace of Christ. Christ has not yet taken His full judicial place. The moment it comes to that, the saying - "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still," etc., the church has departed from its place altogether. Its priestly character in the present dispensation is one of grace.

What is the character of fatherly care and discipline? How does the father exercise it? Is it not because he is the father? He is not in the same place as the child. This is the principle of it. There is one superior in grace and wisdom; he sees another going wrong in judgment, and he goes and says to him, "I was once there," etc. - "do not go and do so and so." It is entreaty and exposing the circumstances in love; though, in case of hardness, rebuke may come in. The father can make all allowance for weakness and inexperience, as having passed through the same himself. Make yourself ever so much the servant, the principle of the father must be maintained; and it is a principle of individual superiority, however accompanied by grace. All the world should not stop me. It is the prerogative of individual love, to say, "Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." It flows from the father's love, and leads me to the other, not to let him go on wrong, for love's sake. It is not a case of trespass against me, but a case of walk or conduct against his place as a child. We fail, because we do not like to go through the pain and trouble of it. If a saint gets into trouble, he is Christ's sheep; and I am bound, in whatsoever way I can, to seek to get him out of it. He may say, "What business have you to come?" and the like; but I ought to go and lay myself at his feet, in order to get him out of the net which he has got into, even though he dislike me for it. This needs the spirit of grace, and the seeking to bear the whole on one's own soul.

342 The other kind of discipline is that of Christ, as Son "over his own house." The case of Judas is of great value here. It will always be, that, if there is spirituality in the body, evil cannot continue long; it is impossible that hypocrisy, or anything else, should continue, where there is spirituality. In the case of Judas, the Lord's personal grace overcame everything; and it will always be so, proportionably, and practically. The highest manifestation of evil was against this grace - "he that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me . . . . He then, having received the sop" (grace thoroughly came out, when the evil was shewn to be done against Himself), "went immediately out," John 13.

This discipline never acts beyond what is manifested; and, therefore, we see the disciples questioning one another what these things meant, before the evil was done; it did not touch the conscience of the assembly. The Father's discipline comes in, where there is nothing manifest, for that which is secret, or which may come out years after. If an elder brother, and seeing a younger one in danger, I ought to deal in this fatherly care, and tell him of it; but this is very distinct from church discipline. The moment I exercise fatherly discipline, it assumes a communion, in myself, with God, about the thing - a discernment of that working in another which may produce evil, that he has not - a perception which I have by my spiritual experience, which authorises and incites me to act in faithful love toward him, though without, perhaps, any ability to explain what I am doing to a human being.

343 The mixing up of these three things, individual remonstrance, the Father's discipline in this fatherly care, and Christ's discipline "as Son over his own house" - ecclesiastical discipline, has led to all manner of most dreadful confusion.

The great body of discipline ought to be altogether aimed at hindering excommunication, the putting of a person out. Nine-tenths of the discipline which ought to go on is individual. If it comes to the question of the exercise of the discipline of "the Son over his own house," the church ought never to take it up, but in self-identification, in confession of common sin and shame, that it has come over to this. So it would be no court of justice at all, but a disgrace to the body. Spirituality in the church would purge out hypocrisy, defilement, and everything unworthy, without assuming a judicial aspect. Nothing should be so abhorrent, as that, in God's house, such a thing had happened. If it were in one of our houses that something dishonourable and disgraceful had happened, should we go and feel as though we were altogether unconcerned, that we had nothing to do with it? It might be that some reprobate son must be put out, for the sake of the others - he cannot be reclaimed, and he is corrupting the family - what can be done? It is necessary to say, "I cannot keep you here; I cannot corrupt the rest by your habits and manners." Would it not, nevertheless, be for weeping and mourning, for sorrow of heart, and shame and dishonour to the whole family? They would not like to talk on the subject; and others would refrain from it to spare their feelings: his name would not be mentioned. In the house of the Son, how abhorrent to be putting out! what common shame! what anguish! what sorrow! There is nothing more abhorrent to God than a judicial process.

The church is indeed plunged in corruption and weakness; but this is the very thing that would make one cling to the saints, and the more anxiously maintain the individual responsibility of those who have any gift for pastoral care. There is nothing I pray for more, than the dispensation of pastors. What I mean by a pastor is a person who can bear the whole sorrow, care, misery, and sin of another on his own soul, and go to God about it, and bring from God what will meet it, before he goes to the other.

There is another thing most clear. The result may be putting out; but if it ever comes to a corporate act in judgment, discipline ends the moment he is put out, and ends altogether - "Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth," 1 Cor. 5: 12.

344 The question whether I can sit down with this or that person who is within never arises. A person staying away from communion (because of another, of whom he does not think well, being there) is a most extraordinary thing; he is excommunicating himself for another's sake. "For we, being many, are one bread [loaf], and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread," 1 Cor. 10: 17. If I stay away, I am saying, that I am not a Christian, because another has gone wrong. That is not the way to act. There may be a step to take, but it is not to commit the folly of excommunicating myself, lest a sinner should intrude.

All discipline until the last act is restorative. The act of putting outside, of excommunication, is not (properly speaking) discipline, but the saying that discipline is ineffective, and there is an end of it; the church says, "I can do no more."

As to the question of unanimity in cases of church discipline, we must remember, it is the Son exercising His discipline over His own house. In the case in Corinthians it was the direct action of Paul in apostolic power on the body, and not of the church. The body claiming a right to exercise discipline! one cannot conceive a more terrible thing; it is turning the family of God into a court of justice. Suppose the case of a father going to turn out-of-doors a wicked son, and the other children of the family saying, "We have a right to help our father in turning our brother out of the house," what an awful thing! We find the apostle forcing the Corinthians to exercise discipline, when they were not a bit disposed to do so. "Here (he says) there is sin among you, and ye are not mourning, that he that has done this deed might be taken away from among you (he is forcing them to the conviction that the sin is theirs, as well as that of the man); and now put away from among yourselves that wicked person." The church is never in the place of exercising discipline until the sin of the individual becomes the sin of the church, recognised as such.

There is all this, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear" (1 Tim. 5: 20), "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such," etc., and the like; but, if evil has arisen of such a character as to demand excommunication, instead of the church having a right to put away, it is obliged to do it. The saints must approve themselves clear. He forces these people into the recognition of their own condition, gets them ashamed of themselves -  they retire from the man - and he is left alone to the shame of his sin. (See 2 Cor. 2 and 7) That is the way the apostle forced them to exercise discipline. The conscience of the whole church was forced into cleanness in a matter of which it was corporately guilty. And what trouble he had to do it! That is, I think, the force of, "To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ; lest Satan should get an advantage over us: for we are not ignorant of his devices." What the devil was at was this - the apostle had insisted upon the excommunication (1 Cor. 5: 3-5); and the church did not like it. He compelled them to act; they did it in the judicial way, and did not want to restore him, 2 Cor. 2: 6, 7. Then he makes them go along with him in the act of restoration: "to whom ye forgive," etc. The design of Satan was to introduce the wickedness, and make them careless about it, and, afterwards, judicial; and then to make it an occasion of separation of feeling between the apostle and the body of saints at Corinth. Paul identifies himself with the whole body, first forcing them to clear themselves, and then taking care that they should all restore him, that there should be perfect unity between himself and them. He goes with them, and associates them with himself, in it all; and so, in both excommunication and restoration, he has them with him. If the conscience of the body is not brought up to what it acts, to the point of purging itself by the act of excommunication, I do not see what good is done: it is merely making hypocrites of them.

345 The house is to be kept clean. The Father's care over the family is one thing; the Son's over "his own house," another. The Son commits the disciples to the care of the Holy Father John 17), this is distinct from having the house in order. In John 15 he says, "I am the true vine," "ye are the branches," "my Father is the husbandman," etc., it is all the Father's care. The Father purges the branches, to the end they may bear as much fruit as possible. But in the case of the Son over His own house, it is not individual, but the house kept clean. "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged," etc.

346 There are then these three kinds of discipline: -

(1) That of brotherly relationship. Here I go as a person wronged, but it must be with grace.

(2) That of fatherly care - the Father exercising it with loving-kindness and tenderness, as over an erring child.

(3) Where the Son is over His own house, and where we have to act in the responsibility of keeping the house clean, that people should have their consciences according to the house in which they are - not only the individual, but the house, the body: the conscience of the body must act. The effect may be, graciously, that the individual is restored, but that is a collateral thing. When you come to that point, there is something besides restoring; there is the responsibility of keeping the house clean - the conscience of all there; and that may sometimes give a great deal of trouble.

As to the nature of all this, the spirit in which it should be conducted, it is priestly; and the priests ate the sin-offering within the holy place, Lev. 10. I do not think any person or body of Christians can exercise discipline, unless as having the conscience clear, as having felt the power of the evil and sin before God, as if he had himself committed it. Then he does it as needful to purge himself. It will all be for positive mischief - the dealing with it, if not so. What character of position does Jesus hold now? That of priestly service. And we are associated with Him. If there were more of the priestly intercession implied by eating of the sin-offering within the holy place, there would be no such abomination as that of the church assuming a judicial character. Suppose the case of a family, in which a brother had committed something disgraceful, would it not be for bitterness and anguish of the whole family? What common anxiety and pain of heart it would occasion! Does Christ not feed upon the sin-offering? does He not feel the sorrow? does He not charge Himself with it? He is the Head of His body, the church: is He not wounded and pained in a member? Yes, it is so. If it be a case of individual remonstrance with a brother for a fault, I am not fit to rebuke him, unless my soul has been in priestly exercise and service about it, as though I had been in the sin myself How does Christ act? He bears it on His heart and pleads about it to draw out the grace that will remedy it. So with the child of God: he carries the sin upon his own heart into the presence of God; he pleads with the Father, as a priest, that the dishonour done to Christ's body, of which he is a member, may be remedied. This I believe to be the spirit in which discipline should be exercised. But here we fail. We have not grace to eat the sin-offering. I come to church action and there I find yet more: it should go and humble itself until it has cleared itself. This is the force to me of "ye have not mourned," etc.; there was not sufficient spirituality at Corinth to take and bear the sin at all; "You ought to have been bowed down there, broken-hearted, and broken in spirit at such a thing not being put out - concerned as to the cleanness of Christ's house."

347 It is another part of priestly service to separate between clean and unclean. The priests were not to drink wine nor strong drink, that they might keep themselves in a spiritual state, by the habits of the sanctuary, being able to discern between clean, etc. This is always true. We must take as our object, in dealing with evil, God's object. God's house is the scene and place of God's order. If it be said, that the woman must "have power [a covering] on her head because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11: 10), it is as the exhibition of God's order. Nothing should be permitted in the house that angels could not come in and approve. All is in thorough ruin; the full glory of the house will be manifested when Christ comes in glory, and not till then; but we should desire that, as far as possible, by the energy of the Holy Ghost, there should be correspondence in spirit and manner with what shall be hereafter. When Israel returned from the captivity, after Lo-ammi had been written upon them, and the glory had departed from the house, the public manifestation was gone, but Nehemiah and Ezra could find that in which to act according to God's mind. That is our present condition. But we have now what they had not: we were always a remnant, we began at the end - "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," Matt. 18: 20. If the whole corporate system has come to nought, I get back to certain unchangeable blessed principles from which all is derived. The very thing from which all springs, to which Christ has attached, not only His name, but His discipline - the power of binding and loosing - is the gathering together of the "two or three." This is of the greatest possible comfort. The great principle remains true amidst all the failure.

348 If we turn to John 20 we find that when He sent forth His disciples, He breathed on them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." There is nothing like a corporate church system here; but the energy of the Holy Ghost in spiritual discernment in the disciples, as sent from Christ, and acting on behalf of Christ. Discipline is a question of the energy of the Spirit. If that which is done is not done in the power of the Holy Ghost, it is nothing.

In principle, what was needed has been said. I do not see any difference, whether it be in the hands of a remnant, or anything else; because then we get into the structure of a judicial process at once - sinners judging sinners. It is, first of all, a question what the energy of the Spirit is for ministry in God's house. The unanimity is a unanimity of having consciences exercised and forced into discipline. It is a terrible thing to hear sinners talking about judging another sinner; but a blessed thing to see them exercised in conscience about sin come in among themselves. It must be in grace. I no more dare act, save in grace, than I could wish judgment to myself. "Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," Matt. 7: 1, 2. If we go to exercise judgment, we shall get it.

As to the difficulty of saints meeting together, where there is not pastorship, my prayer is, that God would raise up pastors; but I believe where there were brethren meeting together, and walking together on brotherly principles, provided they kept to their real position, and did not set about making churches, they would be just as happy as others in different circumstances. One thing I would pray for, because I love the Lord's sheep, is that there might be shepherds. I know nothing next to personal communion with the Lord, so blessed as the pastor feeding the Lord's sheep, the Lord's flock; but it is the Lord's flock. I see nothing about a pastor and his flock; that changes the whole aspect of things. When it is felt to be the Lord's flock a man has to look over, what thoughts of responsibility, what care, what zeal, what watchfulness! I do not see anything so lovely. "Lovest thou me? . . Feed my sheep - feed my lambs." I know nothing like it upon earth -   the care of a true-hearted pastor, one who can bear the whole burden of grief and care of any soul and deal with God about it. I believe it is the happiest, most blessed relationship that can subsist in this world. But we are not to suppose that the "great Shepherd" cannot take care of His own sheep because there are no under-shepherds. If there were those who met together and hung on the Lord, if they did not pretend to be what they were not, though there were no pastors among them, there would be no danger; they would infallibly have the care of that Shepherd. We must not impute our failure to God, as though He could not take care of us. The moment power in the Spirit is gone, power in the flesh comes in.

A Letter on Separation

J. N. Darby.

<01018E> 350

I write rather because of the importance of the point than for any immediate occasion of circumstances: I mean leaving an assembly, or setting up, as it is called, another table. I am not so afraid of it as some other brethren, but I must explain my reasons. If such or such a meeting were the church here, leaving it would be severing oneself from the assembly of God. But though wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, He is in the midst, and the blessing and responsibility, of the church are, in a certain sense also, if any Christians now set up to be the church, or did any formal act which pretended to it, I should leave them as being a false pretension, and denying the very testimony to the state of ruin which God has called us to render. It would have ceased to be the table of the people and testimony of God, at least intelligently. It might be evil pretension or ignorance; it might call for patience, if it was in ignorance, or for remedy, if that was possible: but such a pretension I believe false, and I could not abide in what is false. I think it of the last importance that this pretension of any body should be kept down: I could not own it a moment, because it is not the truth.

But then, on the other hand, united testimony to the truth is the greatest possible blessing from on high. And I think that if anyone, through the flesh, separated from two or three walking godlily before God in the unity of the whole body of Christ, it would not merely be an act of schism, but he would necessarily deprive himself of the blessing of God's presence. It resolves itself, like all else, into a question of flesh and Spirit. If the Spirit of God is in and sanctions the body, he who leaves in the flesh deprives himself of the blessing, and sins. If, on the contrary, the Spirit of God does not sanction the body, he who leaves it will get into the power and liberty of the Spirit by following Him. That is the real way to look at it. There may be evil, and yet the Spirit of God sanction the body (not, of course, its then state), or at least act with the body in putting it away.

But if the Spirit of God, by any faithful person, moves in this, and the evil is not put away, but persisted in, is the Spirit of God with those who continue in the evil, or with him who will not? Or is the doctrine of the unity of the body to be made a cover for evil? That is precisely the delusion of Satan in popery, and the worst form of evil under the sun. If the matter, instead of being brought to the conscience of the body, is maintained by the authority of a few, and the body of believers despised, it is the additional concomitant evil of the clergy, which is the element also of popery. Now, I believe myself, the elements of this have been distinctly brought out at -; and I cannot stay in evil to preserve unity. I do not want unity in evil but separation from it. God's unity is always founded on separation, since sin came into the world. "Get thee out" is the first word of God's call: it is to Himself. If one gets out alone it may require more faith, but that is all; one will be with Him, and that, dear brother, is what I care most about, though overjoyed to be with my brethren on that ground. I do not say that some more spiritual person might not have done more or better than I: God must judge of that. I am sure I am a poor creature; but at all cost I must walk with God for myself . . . .

351 Suppose clericalism so strong that the conscience of the body does not act at all, even when appealed to; is a simple saint who has perhaps no influence to set anything right, because of this very evil, therefore to stay with it? What resource has he? I suppose another case. Evil goes on, fleshly pretension, a low state of things on all sides. Some get hold of a particular evil which galls their flesh, and they leave. Do you think that the plea of unity will heal? Never. All are in the wrong. Now this often happens. Now the Lord in these cases is always over all. He chastens what was not of Him by such a separation, and shews the flesh in detail even where, in the main, His name was sought. If the seceders act in the flesh, they will not find blessing. God governs in these things, and will own righteousness where it is, if only in certain points. They would not prosper if it were so; but they might remain a shame and sorrow to those they left. If it be merely pride of flesh, it will soon come to nothing. "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest." If occasion has been given in any way, the Lord, because He loves, will not let go till the evil be purged out. If I do not act with Him, He will (and I should thank Him for it) put me down in the matter too. He loves the church, and has all power in heaven and earth, and never lets slip the reins.

352 I have not broken bread, nor should do it, till the last extremity: and if I did, it would be in the fullest, openest testimony, that I did not own the others then to be the table of the Lord at all. I should think worse of them than of sectarian bodies, because having more pretension to light. "Now ye say we see." But I should not (God forbid!) cease to pray continually, and so much the more earnestly, for them, that they might prosper through the fulness of the grace that is in Christ for them . . . .

Separation from Evil - God's Principle of Unity

J. N. Darby.

<01019E> 353

The need of union is felt now by every right-minded Christian. The power of evil is felt by all. Its pressure comes too near home, its rapid and gigantic strides are too evident and affect too nearly the particular feelings which characterise distinctively every class of Christians, to allow them to be blind to it, however little they may appreciate its true bearing and character. Better and holier feelings, too, arouse them to the sense of common danger, and (as far as it is entrusted to man's responsibility) the danger in which the cause of God is, from those who never did, and never would spare it. This need is felt wherever the Spirit of God acts, so as to make the saints value grace and truth and one body.

The feelings which the sense of the progress of evil produces may be different. Some, though they are but few, may yet trust to the bulwarks they have long looked at, but which had their force only in a respect for them which exists no longer. Others may trust to a fancied force of truth, which it has never exerted but in a little flock, because God and the work of His Spirit were there; others, to a union which never yet was the instrument of power on the side of good - that is, a union by concord and agreement. While others may feel bound to abstain from such an agreed union, by reason of previously subsisting obligations, or prepossessions, so that the union tends to form only a party. But the sense of danger is universal. That which was long mocked at as a theory is now too practically felt to be denied; though the apprehensions of the word, which made those who were subjected to that mockery foresee the evil, may be rejected and slighted still

But this state of things produces difficulties and dangers of a peculiar kind to the saints, and leads to the inquiry, where the path of the saint is, and where true union is to be found. There is danger, from the very blessedness and desirableness of union, of those who have long truly felt its value, and the obligation that lies on the saints to maintain it, being led to follow the impulses of such as refused to see it when it was spoken of from the word, and to abandon the very principles and path which their own clearer apprehension of the word of God led them to embrace from it, as foreseeing the coming storm. They learnt from that precious word that it was coming; and, while calmly studying it in the word, saw the path marked out there for the believer as such, and indeed, in every time. It is now pressed upon them to desert it for that suggested to men's minds by the pressure of the anxieties they anticipated, but which, though there may be an impulse of good in it, the word of God itself did not furnish when inquired into in peace. But is this the path of the saints? - to turn from that which generally rejected intelligence of the word afforded them, to pursue the light of those who would not see? This, however, is not the only danger; nor is it my object to dwell on the dangers but the remedy. There is a constant tendency in the mind to fall into sectarianism, and to make a basis of union of the opposite of what I have here just alluded to: that is, of a system of some kind or other to which the mind is attached, and round which saints or others are gathered; and which, assuming itself to be based on a true principle of unity, regards as schism whatever separates from itself - attaching the name of unity to what is not God's centre and plan of unity. Wherever this is the case, it will be found that the doctrine of unity becomes a sanction for some kind of moral evil, for something contrary to the word of God; and the authority of God Himself, which is attached to the idea of unity, becomes, through the instrumentality of this latter thought, a means of engaging the saints to continue in evil. Moreover, continuance in this evil is enforced by all the difficulty which unbelief finds to separate from that in which it is settled, and where the natural heart finds its ties, and, generally, temporal interests the sphere of their support.

354 Now, unity is a divine doctrine and principle; but, as evil is possible wherever unity is taken by itself so as to be a conclusive authority, wherever evil does enter, the conclusive obligation of unity binds to the evil, because the unity, where the evil is, is not to be broken. Of this we have a flagrant example in Romanism. There the unity of the church is the grand basis of argument; and it has been the ground of keeping the world, we may say, in every sanctioned enormity, and made the name of Christianity its warrant - an authority to bind souls to evil, till the name itself became shameful to the natural conscience of man. The plea of unity may then be, in a measure, the latitudinarianism which flows from the absence of principle; it may be the narrowness of a sect formed on an idea; or, it may be, as taken by itself, the claim to be the church of God, and hence in principle secure as much indifference to evil, as it is the convenience of the body or its rulers to allow, or is in the power of Satan to drag them into. If the name of unity then be so powerful in itself, and in virtue of blessings withal which God Himself has attached to it, it behoves us well to understand what the unity He owns really is. This it is I would propose to inquire into; acknowledging the desire for it to be a good thing, and many of the attempts at it to contain in them elements of good feeling, even when the means may not carry conviction to the judgment as being those of God.

355 Now, it will be at once admitted, that God Himself must be the spring and centre of unity, and that He alone can be in power or title. Any centre of unity outside God must be so far a denial of His Godhead and glory, an independent centre of influence and power; and God is one - the just, true, and only centre of all true unity. Whatever is not dependent on this is rebellion. But this so simple, and, to the Christian, necessary truth, clears our way at once. Man's fall is the reverse of this. He was a subordinate creature, an image too of Him that was to come; he would become an independent one, and he is, in sin and rebellion, the slave of a mightier rebel than himself, whether in the dispersion of several selfwill, or its concentration in the dominion of the man of the earth. But then we must, in consequence of this, go a step farther. God must be a centre in blessing as well as power, when He surrounds Himself with united and morally intelligent hosts. We may know that He will punish rebellion with everlasting destruction from His presence into the hopelessness of uncentred and selfish individual misery and hatred; but He Himself must be a centre of blessing and holiness, for He is a holy God, and He is love. Indeed, holiness in us (while it is by its nature separation from evil) is just having God, the Holy One, who is love too, the object, centre, and spring of our affections. He makes us partakers of His holiness (for He is essentially separate from all evil, which He knows as God, though as His contrary); but in us, holiness must consist in our affections, thoughts, and conduct being centred in, and derived from Him: a place maintained in entire dependence upon Him. Of the establishment and power of this unity in the Son and Spirit I will speak presently. It is the great and glorious truth itself on which I now insist.

356 This great principle is true even in creation. It was formed in unity, and God its only possible centre. It shall be brought into it yet again, and centred in Christ as its Head, even in the Son, by whom, and for whom, all things were created, Col. 1: 16. It is man's glory (though his ruin as fallen) to be made thus a centre in his place - the image of Him that is to come;* but alas! his imitator in a state of rebellion in this same place, when fallen. I know not (I would venture to say no more) that angels were ever made the centre of any system; but man was. It was his glory to be the lord and centre of this lower world (an associate but dependent Eve his companion and help in his presence). He was the image and glory of God. His dependence made him look up; and this is true glory and blessedness to all but God. Dependence looks up, and is exalted above itself. Independence must look down (for it cannot in a creature be filled with itself) and is degraded. Dependence is true exaltation in a creature when the object of it is right. The primeval state of man was not holiness, in the proper sense of it, because evil was not known. It was not a divine (but it was a blessed creation) state; it was innocence. But this was lost in the assertion of independence. If man became as God, knowing good and evil, it was with a guilty conscience, the slave of the evil he knew, and in an independence he could not sustain himself in, while he had morally lost God to depend on.

{*See Ephesians 1. He hath made known to us the mystery of His will; that is, gathering together in one all things in Christ, in whom we have received an inheritance.}

With this state (for we must now descend to the present actual question of unity), with man in this state, God has to deal, if true real unity, such as He can own, is to be attained. Now, He must be still the centre. It is not therefore in mere creative power. Evil exists. The world is lying in wickedness, and the God of unity is the Holy God. Separation therefore, separation from evil, becomes the necessary and sole basis and principle, I do not say the power, of unity. For God must be the centre and power of that unity, and evil exists: and from that corruption they must be separate who are to be in God's unity; for He can have no union with evil. Hence, I repeat, we have this great fundamental principle, that separation from evil is the basis of all true unity. Without this, it is more or less attaching God's authority to evil, and rebellion against His authority; as is all unity independent of Him. It is a sect in its lightest and feeblest forms; in its fullest, it is the great apostasy, of which one of the characteristics, as ecclesiastical or secular power, is unity; but unity by subjection of man to what is independent really or openly of God because it is of His word; not established by subjection to the Holy One, according to His word,* and by the power of the Spirit working in those that are united, and by His presence, which is the personal power of union in the body. But this separation is not yet by judicial power, which separates (not the good from the evil, the precious from the vile, but) the vile from the precious, banishing it from His presence in judgment; binding up the tares in bundles, and casting them into the furnace of fire; gathering out of His kingdom all things that offend (Satan and his angels being himself cast down and all things thereupon being gathered together in one in Christ, in heaven and in earth). Then the world, not the conscience, will be cleared from evil by the judgment which will not allow it, but early cut off all the wicked (not by the power and testimony of the Spirit of God).

{*This is characteristic of the independent unity. I believe that it will be in an openly infidel state, and a manifestation of the power of Satan. But supposing it is not openly such, it is clear that subjection to God is shewn in subjection to His word. Now, the authority of the church is confessedly the antecedent to the authority of the word in Romanism, and the saints are not all of them allowed to be the immediate objects of God's own word, nor act upon it (that is, be subject to it). They are to be subject to the church: let the church allow it or not, that makes no difference. He who allows can hinder (that is, hinder God's addressing the saints). For this is the true question of Protestantism, not man's title to the Bible merely, but God's title to address man directly by His word; more particularly to address each of His own servants, or those professedly such.}

357 It is not now the time of this judicial separation of the evil from the good in the world, as the field of Christ, by the cutting off and destruction of the wicked. But unity is not therefore given up out of the thoughts of God; nor can He have recognised union with evil. There is one Spirit and one body. He gathers together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

And now, as to the principle in general: God is working in the midst of evil to produce a unity of which He is the centre and the spring, and which owns dependently His authority. He does not do it yet by the judicial clearing away of the wicked; He cannot unite with the wicked or have a union which serves them. How can it be then this union? He separates the called from the evil. "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and I will receive you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. As it is written, I will walk in them and dwell in them," etc. Now here we have it distinctly set forth. This was God's way of gathering. It was by saying, Come out from among them. He could not have gathered true unity around Him otherwise. Since evil exists - yea, is our natural condition - there cannot be union of which the Holy God is the centre and power but by separation from it. Separation is the first element of unity and union.

358 We may now inquire a little further into the manner in which this unity is effectuated, on what it is based. There must be an intrinsic power of union holding it together to a centre, as well as a power separating from evil to form it; and this centre found it denies all others. The centre of unity must be a sole and unrivalled centre. The Christian has not long to inquire here. It is Christ - the object of the divine counsel - the manifestation of God Himself - the one only vessel of mediatorial power, entitled to unite creation as He by whom and for whom all things were made; and the church as its Redeemer, its head, its glory, and its life. And there is this double headship: He is the head over all things to the church which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all. This will be accomplished in its day.

For the present we take up the intermediate period, the unity of the church itself, and its unity in the midst of evil. Now there can be no moral power which can unite, away from evil, but Christ. He alone, as perfect grace and truth, detects all the evil which separates from God, and from which God separates. He alone can, of God, be the attractive centre which draws together to Himself all on whom God so acts. God will own no other. There is no other to whom the testimony could be borne, who is of God and towards God. Redemption itself, too, makes this necessary and evident: there can be but one Redeemer, one to whom a ransomed heart can be given, as well as where a divinely quickened heart can give all its affections, the centre and revelation of the Father's love. He, too, is the centre of power to do it. In Him all the fulness dwells. Love (and God is love) is known in Him. He is the wisdom of God and the power of God. And, yet more than this, He is the separating power of attraction, because He is the manifestation of all this, and the fulfiller of it in the midst of evil; and this is what we poor, miserable ones want who are in it; and it is what, if we may so speak, God wants for His separating glory in the midst of evil. Christ sacrificed Himself to set up God in separating love in the midst of evil. There was more than this - a wider scope in this work; but I speak in reference to my present subject now.

359 Thus Christ becomes, not only the centre of unity to the universe in His glorious title of power, but (as the manifester of God, the one owned and set up of the Father and attracter of man) He becomes a peculiar and special centre of divine affections in man, round which they are gathered as the sole divine centre of unity. For indeed, as the centre, necessarily the sole centre, "he that gathereth not with me scattereth." And such, as to this point, was the object even, and power of His death: "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me."And more specially, He gave Himself "not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad." But here again, we find this separation of a peculiar people, "He gave himself for us that he might . . . purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." He was the very pattern of the divine life in man, separate from the evil, by which it was universally surrounded; He was the friend of publicans and sinners, piping in grace to men by familiar and tender love; but He was ever the separate man. And so He is as the centre of the church and high-priest. "Such a high-priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" - and, it is added, "made higher than the heavens." Here in passing we may remark, that the centre and subject of this unity then is heavenly. A living Christ still became the instrument of maintaining the enmity, being Himself subject to the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Hence, though the divine glory of His Person necessarily reached over this wall as a fruitful bough of grace to poor passing Gentiles without (and it could not be otherwise, for where faith was, He could not deny Himself to be God, nor what God was, even love); yet in His regular course, as a man made of a woman, He was made under the law. But by His death He broke down the middle wall of partition, and made both one, and reconciled both in one body unto God, making peace. Hence it is as lifted up, and finally as made higher than the heavens, that He becomes the centre and sole object of unity.

360 Let us remark in passing, that hence worldliness always destroys unity. The flesh cannot rise up to heaven, nor descend in love to every need. It walks in the separative comparison of self-importance. "I am of Paul," etc. "Are ye not carnal and walk as men?" Paul had not been crucified for them, nor had they been baptised in the name of Paul. They had got down to earth in their minds, and unity was gone. But the glorious heavenly Christ in one word embraced all. "Why persecutest thou me?" This separation from all else was more slow among the Jews, as having been outwardly themselves the separated people of God; but having fully shewn what they were, the word to the disciples was, "Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach." The Lord (when as the great result He would have one flock and one Shepherd) put forth His own sheep and went before them. Indeed we have only to shew that unity is God's mind, and separation from evil is the necessary consequence; for it exists as a principle in the calling of God before unity itself. Unity is His purpose, and, as He is the only rightful centre, it must be the result of holy power; but separation from evil is His very nature. Hence, when He publicly calls Abraham, the words: "Get thee out of thy country, and out of thy kindred, and from thy father's house."

But, to continue; from what we have seen, it is evident that the Lord Jesus Christ on high is the object round which the church clusters in unity. He is its Head and Centre. This is the character of their unity, and of their separation from evil, from sinners. Yet they were not to be taken out of the world, but kept from the evil, and sanctified through the truth; Jesus having set Himself thus apart to this end. Hence, as well as for the public display of the power and glory of the Son of man, the Holy Ghost was sent down to identify the called ones with their heavenly Head, and to separate them from the world in which they were to remain: and the Holy Spirit became thus the centre and power down here of the unity of the church in Christ's name - Christ having broken down the middle wall of partition, reconciling both in one body by the cross. The saints, thus gathered in one, became the habitation of God through the Spirit. The Holy Ghost Himself became the power and centre of unity, but in the name of Jesus, of a people separated alike from Jew and Gentile, and delivered out of this present evil world into union with their glorious Head. By Peter, God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. And of the Jews there was a remnant according to the election of grace; as Paul, one of them, was separated himself from Israel, and from the Gentiles, to whom he was sent.

361 And so was the constant testimony. He that saith he hath fellowship with Him and walketh in darkness, lieth and doeth not the truth. Separation from evil is the necessary first principle of communion with Him. Whoever calls it in question is a liar - he is, so far, of the wicked one. He belies the character of God. If unity depends on God, it must be separation from darkness. So with one another. If we walk in the light, as God is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. And mark, here there is no limit. It is as God is in the light. There the blessed Lord has placed us by His precious redemption; and hence, by that, the whole manner of our walk and union must be formed: we can have no union (as of God) out of it; the Jew could, because his - though separation, and hence the same in principle - yet was only outward in the flesh, and the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest (no, not even for the saints, though in God's counsels doubtless they were to be there through the sacrifice about to be offered).

So, again, one with the other. What fellowship hath light with darkness? Christ with Belial? What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? And then, addressing the saints, the Holy Ghost adds, "For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate." Otherwise we provoke the Lord to jealousy, as if we were stronger than He. Of this unity and fellowship, I may add, the Lord's supper is the symbol and expression. For we, being many, are all one bread (loaf), for we are all partakers of that one bread.

We find then most distinctly, that, as the unity of Israel of old was founded on deliverance and calling from the midst of, and maintained separation amongst, the heathen which surrounded them, so the church's unity was based on the power of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, separating a peculiar people out of the world to Christ, and dwelling amongst them; God Himself thus dwelling and walking in them. For there is one Spirit, and one body, as we are called in one hope of our calling. Indeed, the very name of Holy Spirit implies it; for holiness is separation from evil. Whatever failure, moreover, there may be in attainment, the principle and measure of this separation is necessarily the light, as God is in the light; the way into the holiest being made manifest, and the Holy Ghost comes down thence to dwell in the church below, and so in power of heavenly separation, because the indwelling centre and power of unity (just as the Shekinah in Israel), He establishes the holiness of the church and its unity in its separation to God, according to His own nature, and the power of that presence. Such is the church, and such is true unity. Nor can the saint recognise, intelligently, any other, though he may own desires and efforts after good in that which is short of it.

362 Here I might close my remarks, having developed the great, though simple, principle, flowing from the very nature of God, that separation from evil is His principle of unity. But a difficulty collateral to my main object and subject presents itself. Supposing evil introduces itself into this one body so formed actually on earth, does the principle still hold good? How then can separation from evil maintain unity? And here we can touch on the mystery of iniquity. But this principle, flowing from the very nature of God, that He is holy, cannot be set aside. Separation from evil is the necessary consequence of the presence of the Spirit of God under all circumstances as to conduct and fellowship. But here there is a certain modification of it. The revealed presence of God is always judicial when it exists; because power against evil is connected with the holiness which rejects it. Thus in Israel God's presence was judicial; His government was there, which did not allow of evil. So, though in another manner, it is in the church. God's presence is judicial there - not in the world, save in testimony, because God is not yet revealed in the world; and hence it plucks up no tares out of that field. But it judges them that are within.

363 Hence the church is to put out from itself the wicked person, and thus maintains its separation from evil. And unity is maintained in the power of the Holy Ghost and a good conscience. And indeed, that the Spirit may not be grieved, and the practical blessing lost, saints are exhorted to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God. And how sweet and blessed is this garden of the Lord, when it is thus maintained and blooms in the fragrance of Christ's grace. But, alas! we know worldliness creeps in, and spiritual power declines; the taste for this blessing is enfeebled, because it is not enjoyed in the power of the Spirit; the spiritual fellowship with Christ the heavenly Head decays, and the power which banishes evil out of the church is no longer in living exercise. The body is not sufficiently animated by the Holy Ghost to answer the mind of God. But God will never leave Himself without witness. He brings home the evil to the body by some testimony or other - by the word or by judgments, or both in succession - to recall it to its spiritual energy, and lead it to maintain His glory and its place. If it refuse to answer to the very nature and character of God, and to the incompatibility of that nature with evil (so that it becomes really a false witness for God), then the first and immutable principle recurs, the evil must be separated from.

Further, the unity which is maintained after such separation, becomes a testimony to the compatability of the Holy Ghost and evil: that is, it is in its nature apostasy; it maintains the name and authority of God in His church, and associates it with evil. It is not the professed open apostasy of avowed infidelity; but it is denying God according to the true power of the Holy Ghost, while using His name. This unity is the great power of evil pointed out in the New Testament, connected with the professing church and the form of piety. From such we are to turn away. This power of evil in the church may be discerned spiritually, and left when there is the consciousness of inability to effect any remedy; or if there be an open public testimony, it is then open condemnation to it. Thus, previous to the Reformation, God gave light to many who maintained a witness to this very evil in the professing church, apart from it; some bore testimony and still remained. When the Reformation came it was openly and publicly given, and the professing body or Romanism became openly and avowedly apostate, as far as a professing Christian body can, in the Council of Trent. But wherever the body declines the putting away of evil, it becomes in its unity a denier of God's character of holiness, and then separation from the evil is the path of the saint; and the unity he has left is the very greatest evil that can exist where the name of Christ is named. Saints may remain, as they have in Romanism, where there is not power to gather all saints together; but the duty of the saint as to it is plain on the first principles of Christianity, though doubtless his faith may be exercised by it. "Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity." It is possible that he that departs from evil may make himself a prey; but this, of course, makes no difference; it is a question of faith. He is in the true power of God's unity.

364 Thus, then, the word of God affords us the true nature, object, and power of unity; and, in so doing, it gives us the measure of it, by which we judge of what pretends to it, and the manner of it; and, moreover, the means of maintaining its fundamental principles according to the nature and power of God by the Holy Ghost in the conscience where it may not be realised together in power. Its nature flows from God's; for of true unity He must be the centre, and He is holy; and He brings us into it by separating us from evil. Its object is Christ; He is the sole centre of the church's unity, objectively as its Head. Its power is the presence of the Holy Ghost down here, sent as the Spirit of Truth withal from the Father by Jesus. Its measure is walking in the light, as God is in the light; fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus, and, we may add, through the testimony of the written word - the apostolic and prophetic word of the New Testament especially. It is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (of the New Testament), Jesus Christ Himself being the corner stone. The means of maintaining it is putting away evil (judicially if needed), so as to maintain, through the Spirit, fellowship with the Father and the Son. If evil be not put away, then separation from that which does not becomes a matter of conscience. I return, if alone, into the essential and infallible unity of the body, in its everlasting principles of union with the Head in a holy nature by the Spirit. The path of the saints thus becomes clear. God will secure by eternal power the vindication, not here perhaps, but before His angels, of them who have rightly owned His nature and truth in Christ Jesus.

365 I believe these fundamental principles are deeply needed in this day, for the saint who seeks to walk truly and thoroughly with God. Latitudinarian unity it may be painful and trying to keep aloof from; it has an amiable form in general, is in a measure respectable in the religious world, tries nobody's conscience, and allows of everybody's will. It is the more difficult to be decided about, because it is often connected with a true desire of good, and is associated with amiable nature. And it seems rigid, and narrow, and sectarianism to decline so to walk. But the saint, when he has the light of God, must walk clearly in that. God will vindicate His ways in due time. Love to every saint is a clear duty; walking in their ways is not. And he that gathers not with Christ scatters. There can be but one unity; confederacy, even for good, is not it, even if it have its form. Unity, professed to be of the church of God, while evil exists and is not put away, is a yet more serious matter. It will always be found to be connected with the clerical principle, because that is needed to maintain unity, when the Spirit is not its power, and, in fact, takes its place, guides, rules, governs in its place, under the plea of priesthood, or ministry, owned as a distinct body, a separate institution: it would not hold together without this.

Grace, the Power of Unity and of Gathering

J. N. Darby.

<01020E> 366

This paper, though issued a good deal later in date, is inserted as being the natural supplement to the foregoing tract. - Ed.

Beloved brother,

I have had the desire on my mind to make a few remarks on a point I believe to have importance at the present moment; and in doing so, I carry in my mind a tract to which the circumstances drew attention, and practically review it. And I do so, the rather, because I think I read a paper some time back in "The Present Testimony," which, if my memory serves me, placed the subject on a ground which I did not think quite just: that is, it saw only one side of the matter, as it seemed to me. I am not going to comment on it, as I apprehend you can edify your readers better by other means.

What I think important to be understood is, that the active power that gathers is always grace - love. Separation from evil may be called for. In particular states of the church, when evil is come in, it may characterise very much the path of the saints. It may be, that through many acting under the same convictions at the same time, this may form a nucleus. But this in itself is never a gathering power. Holiness may attract when a soul is in movement of itself. But power to gather, is in grace, in love working; if you please, faith working by love. Look at all the history of the church of God in all ages, and you will find this to be the case. Grace is the formative power of unity, where it does not exist. I take for granted here that Christ is owned as the centre. If evil exist, it may gather out of that evil, but the gathering power is love. The paper which I would pass under review is a tract, which, from circumstances, is not unknown: "Separation from Evil, God's Principle of Unity." I trust I should have grace to acknowledge error where I thought there was such, and I am sure I owe it to the Lord to do so; but my object here is somewhat larger. That tract refers to the state of the church of God at large, and not any particular member of it; but as one part of truth corrects an evil, so another, by its operation on the soul, may enlarge the sphere, and strengthen the energy of good. There are two great principles in God's nature, owned of all saints - holiness and love. One is, I may be bold to say, the necessity of His nature, imperative, in virtue of that nature, on all that approach Him; the other, its energy. One characterises; the other is, and is the spring of activity of, His nature. God is holy - He is not loving, but love. He is it in the essential fountain of His being; we make Him a judge by sin, for He is holy and has authority; but He is love, and none has made Him such. If there be love anywhere else, it is of God, for God is love. This is the blessed active energy of His being. In the exercise of this He gathers to Himself for the eternal blessedness of those who are gathered, its display in Christ, and Christ Himself, being the great power and centre of it. His counsels as to this are the glory of His grace, His applying them to sinners and the means He employs for it, the riches of His grace. And in the ages to come He will shew how exceeding great these were in His kindness to us, in Christ Jesus.

367 Allow me, in passing, before entering on the examination of the point which is now directly my object, to say a word on the sweet passage I have referred to, because it opens out God's full thoughts in bringing into the unity of which that epistle speaks. We are blessed in Christ, and God Himself is the centre of the blessing, and in two characters, His nature and His relationship; He is both as related to Christ Himself, viewed as man before Him, though the beloved Son. The verses I refer to, are Ephesians 1: 3-7. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Lord, when ascending up on high, said, "I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"; only that here He goes on to the unity in Christ. There Christ speaks of them as brethren. In this double character then, in which God stands to Christ Himself, He has blessed us with all spiritual blessings, none left out, in heavenly places, the best and highest sphere of blessing, where He dwells; not merely sent down to earth, but we taken ourselves up there, and in the best and highest way, in Christ Jesus, save His divine title to sit on the Father's throne. Wonderful portion, sweet and blessed grace, which becomes simple to us in the measure in which we are accustomed to dwell in the perfect goodness of God, to whom it is natural to be all that He is, who could be no other.

In verse 4, we have "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ," according to the glory of the divine nature, introducing into His own presence in Christ that which shall be the reflex of itself, according to its eternal purpose. For the church in the thoughts of God (and, I may add, in its life in the Word), is before the world in which it is displayed. Here, it is His nature. We are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. God is holy, God is love, and in His ways, when He acts, blameless. Then there is relationship in Christ, and His is that of Son. Hence in Him we are predestinated to the adoption of children to God Himself, according to His good pleasure, the delight and goodness of His will. This is relationship. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as God. This is the glory of His grace; His own thoughts and purposes, to the praise of which we are. He has shewn us grace in the Beloved. But in fact He finds us sinners. He has to put sinners in this place. What a thought! Here His grace shines out in another way. In this same blessed one, Christ the Son, we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins - what we need, in order to enter into the place where we shall be to the praise of the glory of His grace - and this is according to the riches of His grace; for God is displayed in the glory of His grace, and need is met by the riches of grace.

368 Thus we are before God. What follows in the chapter is the inheritance which belongs to us through this same grace - what is under us. Into this I do not enter; only remarking, as I have elsewhere, that the Holy Ghost is the earnest of the inheritance, but not of God's love. This is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us. These two relationships, of God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be found to unfold much blessing. They are of frequent occurrence in Scripture.

But interesting as that subject is, I turn now to the one before me. I have read over the tract I have referred to. I confess, it seems to me that one who would deny the abstract principles of that tract is not on Christian ground at all. I cannot conceive anything more indisputably true, as far as human statement of truth can go. Still there is something more than truth to be considered, and that is, the use of truth. God's imputing no sin to the church, through grace and redemption, is always blessedly and eternally true. To a careless conscience, I may have to address other truth. Now, I repeat, that on reading that tract I do not see how a person resisting the principles stated, is on Christian ground at all. Is not holiness the principle on which Christian fellowship is based? And the tract is really and simply that. But two other points I believe it important to bring out along with that - one, in relation to man; the other, to the blessed God. The first is this: human nature we all own, and in a measure know, is a treacherous thing. Now separation from evil, when right, which I now assume, still distinguishes him who separates from him from whom he does so. This tends to make one's position important, and so it is; but with such hearts as we have, one's position mixes itself up with self - not in a gross way but in a treacherous one; it is my position, and not only so, but the mind being occupied with what has been important (justly so in its place) to itself, tends to make, in a measure, separation from evil a gathering power, as well as a principle on which gathering takes place. This (save as holiness attracts souls who are spiritual by a moving principle in them) it is not.

369 There is another danger: a Christian separates from evil, I still suppose, in a case in which he is bound to do so. Say, he leaves the corruptest system in existence; on this principle, it is the evil acting on the conscience of the new man, and known to be offensive to God, which drives him out. Hence he is occupied with the evil. This is a dangerous position. He attaches it, perhaps anxiously, to those he has left, to give a clear ground why he has done so. They conceal, cover over, gloss, explain. It is always so where the evil is maintained. He seeks to prove it, to make his ground clear; he is occupied with evil, with proving evil, and proving evil against others. This is slippery ground for the heart, to say nothing of danger to love. The mind becomes occupied with evil as an object before it. This is not holiness, nor separation from evil, in practical internal power. It harasses the mind, and cannot feed the soul. Some are almost in danger of acquiescing in the evil through the weariness of thinking about it. At all events power is not found here. God separates us surely from evil, but He does not fill the mind when it continues to be occupied with it; for He is not in the evil. It is quite true that the mind may say, Let us think of the Lord and drop it, and get a measure of quiet and comfort; but in this case the general standard and tone of spiritual life will be infallibly lowered. Of this I have not a shadow of doubt. The positive evil will not be actually acquiesced in; but God's horror of it is lost in the mind, and the measure of divine power and communion just proportionately lost, and the general path shews this. The testimony fails and is lowered. This is the widest evil - where there is conflict with evil not maintained in spiritual power - and creates the most serious difficulties to extended unity; but God is above all. The new nature, when in lively exercise, because it is holy and divine, revolts from evil when it comes before it. The conscience, too, will then be in exercise as responsible to God. But this is not all, even as to holiness. There is another, which in many (I may say, at bottom, in all) cases distinguishes real holiness from natural conscience, or conventional rejection of evil. Holiness is not merely separation from evil, but separation to God from evil. The new nature has not merely a nature or intrinsic character as being of God. It has an object, for it cannot live on itself - a positive object, and that is God. Now this changes everything; because it separates from evil - which it abhors, therefore, when it sees it - because it is filled with good. This does not enfeeble its separation. It makes its abhorrence of it lively when it has to be occupied with it, but it gives another tone to that which is abhorrent to it, the possession of good sufficient, when it is not forced to think of evil, to put it quite out of mind and sight. Hence it is holy, calm, and has a substantive character of its own, apart from evil, as well as abhorrent of it. With us this can only be in having an object, because we are and ought to be dependent only so far as we are positively filled with God in Christ. We are occupied with good, and hence holy, for that is holiness; and, therefore, easily and discerningly abhorrent of evil, without occupying ourselves with it. It is God's own nature; He is essentially good; delights in it in Himself: and therefore He is abhorrent, in virtue of His goodness, of evil; His nature is the good, and hence in His very nature He rejects the evil. He will do so authoritatively, no doubt, in judgment; but we now speak of nature.

370 Hence you will find, that when it is in power, love precedes and makes holy, whether it be mutual or the enjoyment of it in the revelation of God. "And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: to the end he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints," 1 Thess. 3: 12, 13. So in 1 John 1, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us); 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. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth."

371 Now here the separation from evil, walking in the light, in God's revealed character in Christ, in the practical knowledge of God as revealed in Christ, in the truth as it is in Jesus in whom the life was the light of men, is fully insisted on with lines as clear and strong as the Holy Ghost alone knows how to make them. He who pretends to fellowship, and does not walk in the knowledge of God according to that knowledge, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But what makes the fellowship? This keeps it pure - but what makes it? The revelation of the blessed object, and centre of it, in Christ. He was speaking of One who had won his own heart - who was the gathering power into fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. He knew by the Holy Ghost, and enjoyed what the Saviour had said, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." This was love, infinite, divine; and, through the Holy Ghost, the witness of it had communion with it and told it out, that others might have fellowship with him; and truly, his was such. They joined in it. Now that, I apprehend, was gathering power. The object gathered to, necessarily involved what follows. So, indeed, he closes the epistle. "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding to know him that is true, and we are in him that is true; that is, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols." That is, the gathering power of good comes before the warning. This is the more remarkable in this epistle, because it is, in a certain sense, occupied with evil, is written concerning those that seduced them.

372 Holiness, then, is separation to God, if it be real, as well as from evil; for thus alone we are in the light, for God is light. This is true, in our first sanctifying - we are brought to know God, brought to God. If we come to ourselves it is, "I will arise and go to my father." If it is restoration, "If thou wilt return, return unto me." Indeed a soul is never restored really till it does; for it is not in the light so as to purge flesh, even if the fruits of flesh have been confessed; nor is sin seen as it is in God's sight. Hence love comes in, in all true conversion and restoration, however dimly seen, or through however dark workings of conscience. We want to get back to God; there is forgiveness with Him that He may be feared; otherwise, it is despair which drives us farther away. Indeed, what would or could restoration be if it were not to God. But, in the full sense of gathering, that is, to common fellowship, it is clearly the blessed object which reveals that in which we are to have the fellowship, which so gathers. We are to have fellowship in something, that is, with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. This, then, must draw hearts to itself, that in their common delight in it their fellowship may exist. The principle of the tract is this, that in doing this it must separate from evil. It is "this-then-is-the-message" part of the statement. So Christ says, "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Now here was perfect love, entire separation from all sin and condemnation of it. "In that he died, he died unto sin once" - separation from the world, and deliverance from the whole power of the enemy and the scene of it. It is perfect love drawing from everything to itself; shewing all was evil, absorbing the soul into what was good, in a saving way from it. But when we follow Him into life, all is gone from which He separated. "In that he liveth, he liveth unto God"; that is His whole being, so to speak. Now He is, in this life, made higher than the heavens - the divine glory I do not here enter into, but the life. It is a heavenly place He takes, and our gathering through the cross is to Him there, in the good where evil cannot come. There is our communion - entering into the Father's house in spirit. And this, I apprehend, is the true character of the assembly, of the church, for worship in its full sense. It remembers the cross, it worships, the world left out, and all known in heaven before God. He gave Himself that He might gather into one. But here I anticipate a little, for I am speaking as yet of the object, not of the active power. I apprehend that what separates the saint from evil, what makes him holy, is the revelation of an object (I mean, of course, through the Holy Ghost working), which draws his soul to that as good, and thereby reveals evil to him, and makes him judge it in spirit and soul: his knowledge of good and evil is, then, not a mere uneasy conscience, but sanctification; that is, sanctification is resting, by the enlightening of the Holy Ghost, on an object, which, by its nature, purifies the affections by being their object - creates them through the power of grace. Even under law it had this form, "Be ye holy for I am holy"; though, I admit, it there partook necessarily of the character of the dispensation. In the cross we have these two great principles perfectly brought out. Love is clearly shewn, the blessed object which draws the heart; yet the most solemn judgment of and separation from all evil; such is God's perfectness - the foolishness and weakness of God. Divine attraction in love, evil in all its horror and forms, perfectly abhorred by him who is attracted and attaches himself to that. The soul goes with sin, as sin, to love, and goes there because love thus displayed has shewn him that it is sin, in being made sin for us. This is the power objectively that separates from evil, and ends all connection with it; for I die then to all the nature I lived to. Evil ceases to be, through faith, as I live hereafter in blessed activity in love. But I have, perhaps, dwelt long enough on what objectively gathers and gives fellowship; and surely, our fellowship, communion, is in that which is good - and as heavenly by no evil being there. Imperfectly realised no doubt here, but so far as it is not, fellowship is destroyed, for the flesh has none. Hence it is said: "If we walk in the light as God is in the light, we have fellowship one with another." But we cannot walk out of darkness but by walking in the light, that is, with God: and God is love, and were He not, we could not walk there.

373 But we have other privileges; God's love in Christ is not only an object which gathers - it is an activity which does so. Love is relative; it acts and shews itself. Hence God has acted. It is not the silent depths of self-consciousness which heathenism made of God, as mere intellect, though erroneously supposing matter equally eternal, receiving merely form from God; though it then became active in generating thoughts - and, delighted with them objectively, became active in creation to produce them according to truth. In this scheme they justly made primeval darkness the mother of all things. But such is not our God. These, save in benefits sensibly known in creation, knew not love in God. Jesus has revealed Him, and we thus know Him to be love, and light, too. Blessed knowledge! It is, as given to us in the word, eternal life; and this life is occupied with it, as we have seen, with the Father and the Son. But we can equally say that we know this sweet and blessed truth: "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." It is the activity of love which is the power of gathering. "He gave himself . . . that he might gather into one the children of God, which were scattered abroad." Even in Israel: "How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." Here we have not only the attractive, sanctifying object bringing into fellowship, but the activity of love, which acts, gives itself, in order to gather; in this we are allowed to have a part. It is this, while sanctifying and maintaining His holiness, making us partakers of it, reveals God and gathers weary souls.

374 Now this alone is the proper principle and power of gathering: I do not say on which souls are gathered; for that is clearly holiness - separation from evil in which alone communion is maintained - or darkness would have fellowship with light. But love gathers; and this is as evident to the Christian as that it gathers to holiness, and on the principle of it. For when would the mind of man separate from and leave the evil in which it lives, which is its nature, alas! as to its actual desires, and the sphere in which it lives? Never! Alas! its will and lusts are there - it is enmity against God. This is what the presenting of grace in Jesus has so solemnly proved. Law was never given to gather; it was the rule of a people already with God - or a convicter of sin. Sin does not gather to God, nor law; and one or other is all man's state unless grace acts. Besides, grace alone fully reveals God; and hence without grace that to which we are to be gathered is not manifested. Grace alone reaches the heart so as to bring it - all short of this is responsibility merely, and failure. It is Christ gathers, and hereby know we love, because He laid down His life for us. Indeed, truth itself is never known till grace comes. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The law told man what he ought to be. It did not tell him what he was. It told him of life if he obeyed, of a curse if he disobeyed; but it did not tell him that God was love; it spoke of responsibility; it said, "Do this and live." All this was perfect in its place, but it told neither what man was nor what God was; that remained concealed; but that is the truth.

375 The truth is not what ought to be, but what is - the reality of all relationships as they are, and the revelation of Him who, if there are any, must be the centre of them. Now that could not be told without grace, for man was a ruined sinner, and God is love. And how tell, moreover, that all relationship was gone* - for judgment is not a relationship, but the consequence of the breach of one - as the truth of any existing one, but in the revelation of that grace which formed one on this very ground by divine power? Hence we read "of his own will begat he us** by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures"; that incorruptible seed of the word. Hence Christ is the truth. For since, grace, God Himself, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even, are revealed as they are; what man is in perfection, in relationship with God; what man's alienation from God; what obedience, what disobedience, what holiness, what sin, what God, what man, what heaven, what earth; nothing but finds itself placed where it is in reference to God, and with the fullest revelation of Himself, while His counsels even are brought out, and of which Christ is the centre. Hence grace is the acting power in and alone capable of revealing truth; for Christ's being here is grace; His working effectual grace.

{*Morally, I mean, for we are, of course, creatures still.}

{**Law begat nothing in me; it supposed man was, and that he belonged to God, and prescribed a way for him.}

Now, the very existence of such an object and such a power would prove a gathering power, gathering into unity, for it must, being divine, gather to itself; yet, we are not left to abstract consequences, however practically familiar to every renewed soul who does and must know, that all such are drawn together to Christ. The word of God is plain: "He should die . . . that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." I speak of these things as characterising the power which gathers. Christ, though the truth itself, yet, while here, was lonely truth: no new relationship was established on a divine basis for other men. Hence presented grace was rejected grace; the corn of wheat abode alone; but, dying, redemption was accomplished and atonement made. He was no longer "straitened"; the grace and truth shut up, so to speak, into His own heart, could now flow freely forth. The highest love was shewn; and sin in man, instead of hindering its application and barring relationship, was its object, at least that as to which it was displayed; and thus, therefore, He gathers. Divine righteousness supplants - what, indeed, never existed, though it was called for - human righteousness; divine life, mere human life; and God finds His glory in salvation. Grace reigns through righteousness. Now, this it is, by uniting souls in the power of the Holy Ghost to Jesus, which gathers by the cross, whence the truth is told to us as we are here, to Christ in heaven, who tells our true place to faith there - saving always, of course, His personal divine title.

376 Now this, I apprehend, is what Ephesians shews, only that as it begins with the divine glory, the true source of all, that epistle begins with the purpose of love as to us in heaven in glory; and brings in redemption itself as a second thing, needed to bring us there. But this clearly does not alter the love which is, and is acting to bring us into this blessed and heavenly unity, and which is thus heavenly, and, in connection with God's glory, is holy according to the holiness of His presence. Christ's path on earth is the pattern of it below - in its full measure on the cross. Hence heaven and the cross are correlative. When the blood went into the holiest the body was burnt without the camp - outside; yea, denying all relationship of God with man as he was. Then gathering into one began. He slew the enmity - as between Jew and Gentile - and reconciled both in one body to God; and so we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Ordinances always separate according to human holiness; grace unites according to divine.

I believe I have said enough to make what is in my mind plain; and I am more anxious to state than to insist on it. In the full divine sense, without grace, there is neither truth nor holiness (out of God, of course, I mean), save as holiness may be applied to the elect angels - nor can be; because it is impossible that a sinner can be with God but on the ground and by the power and activity of grace. The power of unity is grace; and, as man is a sinner and departed from God, the power of gathering is grace - grace manifested in Jesus on the cross, and bringing us to God in heaven, and bringing us in Him who is gone there. This is holiness: certainly the cross was not acquiescence in evil.

Affectionately yours in the Lord, J. N. D.

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL - VOL. 1]

A glance at various ecclesiastical principles and examination of the foundations on which the institutions of the church on earth are sought to be based. In reply to various writings.

J. N. Darby.

<04001F> 1 {file section a.}

Introduction

Whoever prays much for the Church will feel little disposition to let his desires evaporate pen in hand. Nevertheless, these prayers will give to him who perseveres in them a spiritual impulse, by virtue of which (far from letting himself be hindered by things which might have the appearance of meeting the need of souls, but which in reality would serve only to seduce and lead them aside) he will be constrained to manifest, as far as in him lies, the true character of that which, while clothing itself with this specious garb, might draw souls far away from the truth and from the Lord's blessing.

The controversy on the subject of the views put forth for some years past, as to the Church and the presence in it of the Holy Ghost, has assumed an entirely new phase. We no longer hear people say much of Korah, or hold similar language - language which a spiritual activity, that does not enter into the framework of that which exists, has always to endure. It is now agreed that it is a question of serious principles. Events, and the imperious wants of the children of God, have brought all who reflect, no matter how little, to recognize as solemn and, so to speak, prophetic warnings - warnings which God has verified by the sequel - what had at first been taken for enmity against that which exists, and for a desire to upset an order and an authority which people loved to consider the assured channels of blessing.

Far more than this, the principles put forth as to ministry are recognized as being of all importance and essential to the existence as well as to the well-being of the Church. I do not mean that, on that account, those who have put them forth are the more loved; nor, by the fact of persons being obliged at last to recognize it, is a disagreeable truth the more loved for that. We find moreover, that when such truth cannot be denied, it is suddenly discovered that all the world knew it already, and that the one who has insisted on it has done nothing but exaggerate and thus spoil it. It little matters, if, by the goodness of God, the truth makes its way. The grace of Him who has given it to us will do the rest; and if this does not fall to the lot of those who have blamed the testimony rendered to this truth, I hope it will at least do so on behalf of him who has borne the burden of it.

2 I desire to take matters up at the point at which they are actually found, and that as briefly as possible.

FIRST PART

PRESENT STATE OF OPINION ON THE SUBJECT OF MINISTRY.

The universal priesthood of the children of God, a truth so precious - what do I say? - a relationship with their God and Father essential to their happiness and to that of the Church itself - this priesthood is now admitted without contestation; but, in exchange, it is sought to carry on the combat with more success on another ground. We will follow our adversaries to the field which they have themselves chosen, namely, the question of ministry: that of the sufficiency of the word and the Spirit to lead Christians in every respect; finally, that of a formal organization, the great idol of the day, what is called a Free Church.

What had been refused to the testimony of the word is yielded to the force of circumstances. Wherever there is a little light, the clergy are absolutely unable to maintain themselves in the position they took pleasure in keeping. Spiritual activity is too great; eyes are too much opened to abuses; the position in which the clergy themselves find themselves is too false. By the goodness of God the attention of Christians is too much awakened as to these questions. But the exterior evil is more threatening than even this movement of minds in the midst of the flocks; and the ecclesiastical functionaries feel that they must leave it an undisputed field, or that still worse would come to them. They feel, besides, that what constituted their support is becoming a clog to them, and that they are obliged to leave in freer hands the work which they would like to direct, and which nevertheless they dare not undertake.

Read what is said in "The Archives of Christendom," vol. 14, p. 74, "This immense privilege [that of priesthood], to which the mercy of God has exalted poor sinners, imposes sacred duties on all Christians, confers on them also all the spiritual rights which the Church is in possession of I say all: government, the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, the power to remit or retain sins." "If this be objected to," adds the author of this article, "the protestant dogma on this point is not known."

3 There is certainly great confusion in this; but the establishment of such a principle is of the greatest importance. The author, it is true, makes a restriction - a restriction which he presents not at all as flowing from divine right, but purely from human right. It is that for good order. The Church entrusts* these rights to men whom she sets up, to a Clergy.

{* The presence of the authority of the Holy Spirit, and, in consequence also, the authority of the gifts He confers, are ignored by our opponents. Priesthood does not confer the right of preaching; it is the gift which imposes this duty on the one who has received it. If, for example, a spiritual capacity for preaching is met with, the Church can neither confer nor take it away. Neither gifts, nor the right to preach, are the portion of all; and it is very wrong to consider the right of preaching as a right of man. It is a duty which flows from a gift, an obligation toward God. Woe to him who does it not, if God has conferred the gift on him. The Church cannot entrust him with that for which God has already made him responsible, nor take it from him; neither can it relieve him from the responsibility which is attached to it. On the other hand, the Church cannot entrust to him that which God has not given him. If he has the talent, the Lord calls him to traffic with this talent; if he has it not, no institution can fit him to do so.}

"Such is, in particular," continues this same article, "the evangelistic ministry. The minister receives his gifts from God only; his office from men. It is not a character which distinguishes him from other Christians, which makes of him and his colleagues a separate order, a caste, a clergy, according to the proudly pretentious word of the catholic hierarchy, which thus calls itself alone the heritage of the Lord, while it sees in the rest of the Church only the laos [the people], the laity."

Besides this, the article we are citing complains, because the author of the "Examination of the Darbyite Views on the Sacred Ministry" believes he finds in scripture a hierarchical government for each flock, concentrated in the person of the pastor alone, however right it may be, that he should "endeavour to utilize the religious elements he meets with among the faithful." And he fears this monarch soon becoming a pope, "without reckoning that here again universal priesthood is found pitiably banished in the cloudy region of abstractions."

Here is the language of "The Reformation." "For our part, we readily acknowledge the services which Plymouthism has rendered to the gospel . . . . Everything in Plymouthism may be reduced to two points, the idea of the action of the Holy Spirit, and the idea of the authority of the scriptures . . . . Plymouthism wishes to substitute for human organization the action of the Holy Spirit . . . . We also have long thought that, on the ground of conformity to primitive usages, there can be no successful defence of present usages. We must take our stand boldly on that of evangelical liberty and of human order." That is, boldly saying that we must arrange the things of God according as we think proper.

4 The same journal adds, "Perhaps Plymouthism owes its existence not so much to such views on scripture and the Spirit, as to an anticlerical tendency to which these views have served as a scaffolding, as materials, and as weapons. If this be so, we might find ourselves not so far severed as might appear. It is thus that we find ourselves entirely agreed as to the principal point of the controversy on the subject of ministry: that is to say, as to sacerdotal notions of every sort - apostolical succession, the efficacy of ordination, the conferring of an indelible character, the distinction between laity and ecclesiastics, the inherent capacity of the one or the inherent incapacity of the other to exhort, to teach, and to administer baptism or the Lord's supper. Upon all these points we pass condemnation, because nothing of all that is found in the New Testament, but especially because it is contrary to its spirit and tends to alter it gravely. It is yet needful to extirpate from our thoughts the preconceived notion of a distinction between ecclesiastics and laymen."

Let us listen to M. Henri Martin, in his pamphlet on "The resignation of the Vaudois clergy."

"The whole Church," says he, "is the clergy. There is, in the New Testament, no other high priest than Jesus Christ. Every Christian is nevertheless a priest, as sharing the priesthood of the Lord . . . . If all are priests and offerers of sacrifice, there are in the Church no laity in the vulgar sense of the word, and all are the laity in the sense of being the people that God has acquired for Himself."

The "Examination of the Darbyite views,"* by a minister of Neufchatel, also acknowledges that spiritual gifts are allotted to all the faithful without exception; and the author, speaking of what he calls the Darbyite system as to ministry, agrees** "that the greater part of the blows by which it is, in general, thought possible to vanquish this enemy, in reality do not touch it"; that instead of "rejecting ministry," it "on the contrary pretends to re-establish the only true, the only scriptural one" . . . that "received with charity, this adversary will certainly be changed into a friend who will contribute to awaken in the bosom of the Church the consciousness of several important truths." And the author cites this one among others: "that true Christian ministry, the ministry of spirit and of life . . . cannot be conferred by a mere human consecration, but must rest upon a call and a living gift of the Spirit." Moreover, he declares that he gives his "full assent to all that the system of Mr. Darby contains really true and salutary to the Church in the present day," and he recognizes "the necessity of raising ministry to, and maintaining it at, the height of these eternal truths."***

{*"Examination of the Darbyite views on Holy Ministry by passages of Scripture," by a minister of the Word of God. Neufchatel (Switzerland), 1846.}

{**"Examination," page 18.}

{***"Examination," pages 1921.}

5 Here are testimonies drawn from pamphlets and journalistic articles written with the intention of condemning the system brought of late under the notice of Christians testimonies which perfectly justify what I have advanced, namely: that the battlefield is entirely changed. By the avowal of our adversaries,** the great principles which have been put forth are eternal truths. The most decided among them agree with me on the principal point. If the Reformers recognized these eternal truths, so much the better for them and for us. I have given the preceding extracts with a view to establish that these truths are recognized. There is no longer any possibility of drawing back from this recognition.

{**In saying "adversaries," I mean to refer only to views and the position taken with regard to them. I am not the adversary of the persons who have taken this position. The author of an "Examination of the Darbyite Views," a pamphlet written in a gentle and amiable spirit, is, to my knowledge, a brother who would not like to be an adversary of the children of God. He has, in general, represented my views with uprightness, with sincerity, and ordinarily with justness. Nevertheless, in the point which constitutes the thesis of the pamphlet, he has made me say precisely the contrary of what I have really said. Preoccupied with his subject (I only attribute this mistake to preoccupation), he has made me, from the distinction established between gifts and local charges, conclude their incompatibility - a conclusion contrary to what I have written, of which he would have done well to take a little more account. The examination which, on this occasion, I have made of my previous publications, has convinced me of the justness of what I said, and has shewn me that God has given me grace to keep, with much more exactness than this brother, within the limits of truth on the subject in question, a subject on which I agree with him. The controversy bears upon the points which he has avoided; among others, that as to whether the Church's fall has not altered the position of the children of God. A system which prefers the Church of Neufchatel to the apostolic times exposes itself to be received with some distrust.}

6 We shall see, nevertheless, that it is quite possible to seek to render null the force of this concession, made under the constraint of facts, rather than dictated by faith.

I shall begin by rectifying some errors into which the author of the "Examination" has fallen, and to which I have alluded in the last note.

SECOND PART

REFUTATION OF SOME ERRORS CONTAINED IN THE "EXAMINATION OF THE DARBYITE VIEWS ON SACRED MINISTRY."

CHAPTER 1

ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF GIFTS AND LOCAL CHARGES.

The author of the "Examination" says (p. 21), "The entire doctrine of Mr. Darby on ministry rests, as we have seen, on the separation he establishes between the ministry of gifts, and charges. Charges, which appear to be characterized, according to him, by the absence of any special gift, by election through human intervention and employment for secular uses, are the diaconate and episcopate, or the office of elder."

Next, after having quoted from the epistles various passages containing lists of gifts, the author adds (p. 24), "Mr. Darby cites especially, with confidence, four lists or enumerations of the ministries of the Spirit . . . lists which do not contain the denominations of elder or deacon, and which prove thus the decided separation established by the primitive Church between ministry and charges."

"This is assuredly the decisive point. If we find, as Mr. Darby contends, in the apostolic Church, on the one hand, gifts exercised in free ministrations for the edification of the Church; on the other, charges, the result of a human election for an external administration, and this, as two series without points of contact, the case is decided in favour of Mr. Darby. If, on the contrary, we can demonstrate, that these two series are two currents proceeding originally from the same source, and which, after having separated for a moment, tended more and more, from the apostolic times, to re-approach one another and to be lost in one single stream, the future instrument of the fruitfulness of the Church; then we are on the road towards justifying the present institution, which is, in its principle, nothing else than the fusion of the divine gift and the human charge in one and the same ministry."

7 This, then, is the point to which the author has directed all his arguments. He affirms that I contend that gifts and charges are "two series with no points of contact." Let us see how far my writings bear this out.

I take the liberty of citing a passage from my pamphlet entitled, "On the Presence and Action of the Holy Ghost in the Church" (p. 35), where I say: "That the bishop may be engaged in feeding the flock, I do not deny. But, from the fact that such a gift is useful in the episcopal office, it does not follow that all who possessed it were in this office, and still less that the office was the same thing as the gift. I may engage my clerk to write well and be a good accountant, and he must know these things in order to be clerk, but it does not follow that every scribe and keeper of accounts should be a clerk. This office supposes a confidence which extends to many other things, to the management of money and goods, to dealing with customers, etc. Thus, a man may be a pastor and lack many things necessary to a bishop, and never have been invested with this office. A man may lack the power of rule, discernment needed in order to watch over souls, gravity to have influence over light spirits in the details of life,* personal acquaintance with souls, and, at the same time, be capable of feeding the flock with great success, without being clothed with the office of a bishop. This gift, namely, of pastorship, may, among other qualities, fit him for the office of a bishop; but an office which one is invested with, is not a gift given by Christ ascended up on high.

{*These expressions shew how the author of the "Examination" has misunderstood my thought, when he ascribes to me assigning to local charges as their object "employment for temporal uses." While presenting in good faith the general ideas I have put forth on ministry, he has, in treating the point in question, fallen into a preoccupation which has completely hidden from him all I have said, so that, in seeking to oppose me, he maintains what I have myself maintained in the writings from which he has gathered the exposition of my views. I beg all persons who honestly wish to know what I think, to read what I have written.}

8 "Bishops, and not a bishop, for there were always several, were local officers, who only acted in the midst of the particular church in which they were found. A bishop was not a gift, nor a joint in the body according to the measure of the gift of Christ; but a local office, for which the possession of pastoral capacity was suitable among many other things. Pastorship is never presented as an office established by men, although bishops, who were, according to God, established by men, with a special object of watching over souls locally, may have possessed this gift and used it in their locality. These things are linked on one side, as the authority conferred on the apostles by Christ was linked with what had been given to them. For apostleship, although directly from God, was also an office, and that, we may say, from Christ as man, acting with authority in the government of the Church; and authoritative charges flowed from thence.

"The bishop may be called to pastoral care and teaching also, as qualities of his office. I do not doubt, historically speaking, that as man has continually more and more eclipsed the action of the Spirit of God in the Church, the gift became gradually lost in the office; but that makes no change in the word, and we live in times in which we must come either to the word or to Popery," pp. 40, 41, 42.

How the author of the "Examination," after having read the pages I have just recalled to notice, can have been able to affirm that all my system depends on the incompatibility* of gifts and offices, as on the incompatibility of two series without points of contact, is to me a puzzle. I even have said that, historically, gift was gradually lost in office. And when, in speaking of these two series, the author compares them to two streams which, from the times of the apostles, tended more and more to approach one another and to merge in one river, it might be said his ideas were borrowed from mine. Whether this brings him nearer the justification of the present institution, is another question. However this may be, in the very pages of my pamphlet quoted above, I treat the particular point on which the author of the "Examination" insists. And how, having carefully** read these pages, he could present my views in such a manner, I know not. What is certain is, that the point which he views as decisive, cannot be so, since, with regard to the pastorate and episcopate, far from destroying what I have advanced, he only repeats it, attributing to me and combating as though it were my system, precisely the opposite of what I have said, and presenting triumphantly to upset me precisely what I had myself established. Such blows can take no effect; besides, how can one answer a writing, which, while I have affirmed positively that gifts and offices are connected on one side, seeks to shew that I make of these two things "two series with no points of contact," and presents this mistake into which he has fallen, as the foundation of my system?

{*Expression to which the author several times reverts.}

{**For he has recognized the force of a critical observation which is to be found in them as to a Greek phrase.}

9 Let me be permitted to make another quotation from my "Remarks on the condition of the Church"; and it will be seen to what a degree the way in which, on this "decisive point," the author of the "Examination" presents my views, is devoid of foundation.

"As to what concerns the difference which exists between the elder and the pastor, I say that pastorship was a gift of the Holy Spirit, which the office of elder was not. This office was established by men in the Church, according to God no doubt; but it was a governmental institution, and not a gift from on high, although certain gifts and qualities were necessary to the one who was named elder. I have said that the gift of feeding the flock of God in one way or other was necessary or suitable to him, because it appears, by the Epistle to Timothy, that the elders who laboured in the word and doctrine are distinguished from other elders."

I am sorry to be obliged to reproduce these extracts from my own writings, but the subject, at bottom, connects itself with that which acts powerfully on the walk of Christians; and it is important it should at least be understood what is the real question.

In sum, here is what I have said, and what the author of the "Examination" has made me say.

10 I have said: gifts and offices are connected on one side. He has made me say that there is no point of contact between them.

I have said that in certain cases gifts were necessary to office - he makes me say that there is incompatibility between the two.

I say that gifts have been gradually lost in office - he says the same. Where then is the difference between us? Here it is. He considers it as a good thing that we are deprived of apostles and prophets; more: he affirms the Church to be in a better state than in the time of the apostles. I say, on the contrary, that the Church has lost much, that it is in a fallen state. The author of the "Examination" announces, from the outset, that he will leave aside this question. He apparently has not seen that here is the essential point. As to the points he touches on, we have seen he does not refute them; but that, however, is what he assumed to do.

CHAPTER 2

ON THE RUIN OF THE CHURCH.

Among the points which the author of the "Examination" has left aside, I will mention the ruin of the Church; next, the doctrine of the return of Christ; finally, that which relates to the conflict with the Catholic hierarchy. It may be very convenient not to be occupied with it; but how form a sound judgment as to ministry and the Church in relation to it, if we put aside the question of the ruin of the Church?

I have insisted that ministry is a divine thing, an institution of God, all the energy of which comes from on high; that man having been unfaithful, the Church, in whose midst ministry was exercised, is in ruin, and that the external order which is connected with ministry has fallen with her. It is attempted to answer me by putting aside the subject of the ruin of the Church. That is nevertheless the very root of the question.

We insist on the fact that the house has been ruined, its ordinances perverted, its order and all its arrangements forsaken or destroyed; that human ordinances, a human order, have been substituted for them; and, what merits all the attention of faith, we insist that the Lord, the Master of the house, is coming soon in His power and glory to judge all this state of things. And here we have a disciple who, when this Master is rousing the attention of His own to the real state of things, when He is directing it to the house which He had been the one to build at the beginning, and to the judgment He intends to execute on account of the unfaithfulness which has suffered His house to fall to ruin, here, I say, is a disciple who, though he is responsible, is not occupied with these things. The one who holds this language is a member of a system; he gives out this system as the house, and those who act in it as servants of the Master.

11 No, no, nothing of the kind! The house is in ruin, and you are bad imitators acting from your own leading, and wrongly.

How avoid the question of the ruin of the Church? How judge of the state of the Church without entering upon the question of its ruin, the question of the abandonment of the principles on which God established it, and the position in which He had placed it?

It is not possible. It is even so impossible, that while desirous of avoiding this question, the author of the "Examination," treats it in his fashion; for he constructs a system entirely opposed to the fact of the ruin of the Church. According to him, there has always been a real progress; the suppression of the apostles was a benefit, their presence hindering the development of the Church (pp. 77, 78); blossoms fell, in order that excellent fruits should be produced.*

{*Thus, what the author would call the church of Neufchatel is like a young man at the flower of his age, compared with the apostolic state, which was only the infancy and childhood of the Church of God.}

Thus, far from seeing the Church in ruin, the author of the "Examination" finds it in a state of youth . . . of which faith, hope, and love form the imperishable crown."* Far from finding in clerical ministry a human institution substituted for the ministry of the Spirit, he surpasses even Popery, in the judgment of the "Archives," in the position he gives to the Protestant clergy.

{*"Examination" page 75.}

We are then led, in following the author of the "Examination," to consider the question of the ruin of the Church, not directly and in itself, but to take cognizance of the system which is set against it, and to judge, according to the scriptures, of the foundations on which it is endeavoured to base it.

12 SECTION 1

THE "EXAMINATION" OUTDOES POPERY IN THE INVIOLABILITY WHICH IT ATTRIBUTES TO THE CLERGY.

It is more convenient than safe to put aside the question of the Catholic hierarchism, when one is oneself accused of acting according to the same principles; and, even according to the "Archives of Christianity," the system of the author rests on those principles. In a very laudatory notice of the "Examination," the "Archives of Christianity,"* after having given assent to what is said by the author on "universal priesthood," expresses itself in these terms: "But, as often happens, it seems to us that he (the author of the "Examination") recalls with one hand what he has yielded with the other, and shews himself in some respects inconsistent with the great and beautiful principles he has just laid down. Thus, taking his stand on a passage of Paul (2 Tim. 2: 2), of which he evidently exaggerates the bearing, he claims for the evangelical ministry, neither more nor less than the character of apostolical succession, and that, if we have rightly understood him, in a sense with which the bishops of Rome and of Canterbury ought to shew themselves equally very well satisfied. Now this principle, which, forgetting that the Spirit of God blows where it lists, traces for Him, through all the ages of the Church, one only channel (often a very impure one), in which He must ever flow; this principle, the creator of an aristocracy whose erring ways are known, a flagrant denial of the privileges of the Church of Jesus Christ, which we have just been proving; this principle, which has recently produced the fruit of Puseyism, contains in germ the whole Catholic establishment, which, for that very reason, claims for itself the exclusive title of Christian Church . . . . It has already produced in the ideas of the author a strange, though very logical, result. I speak of a veritable divine right which he claims, not only for the spiritual gifts of the ministry, but for the office. He supposes the case in which the ministry, 'wandering from the right way, instead of transmitting the sound apostolic doctrine, makes itself the instrument of a pernicious and poisonous doctrine, and from being a means becomes a hindrance . . . .' What is then to be done? 'Then reappears in all its dignity that ministry, that imperishable priesthood of all the faithful, of which mention is so often made in the Holy Scriptures.' And what is the right and the power of this priesthood? To withdraw from an unfaithful ministry the office which has been entrusted to it? 'No, it is to God alone that it belongs to overturn that which He alone has set up!' The priesthood of all the faithful will be able, ought, to render testimony to the truth, but, at the same time, to suffer this scourge to rest upon the whole Church, to suffer this pernicious and poisonous doctrine to flow in great waves into souls, 'and then wait for the right hand of the Lord to act in power.' ("Examination," pp. 82, 83.)

{*No. of 26th April, 1846.}

13 "For there would be needed, in order to renew this ministry, 'a divine act, a creative act, similar to that by which it was in the first instance founded.' Behold, then, a christian church crushed under the weight of a divine and always inviolable right, without authority to exercise any discipline upon an unfaithful ministry, although she is invested with an imperishable priesthood. But Catholicism has not gone so far; it has suspended priests, bishops, popes. Besides, have you well considered? This divine right of the office, you recognize it even in your hypothesis of an unworthy ministry! This 'instrument of a pernicious and poisonous doctrine,' it is God who has set it up! Therefore, it remains inviolable! It is exactly the principle on which an Alexander Borgia could be, by his office, as infallible a pontiff as if he had been a saint, and I am not unaware that something of this superstitious regard for a lying title has been perpetuated even in the bosom of Protestantism."

"Finally, there is another consequence of these views which we should be unwilling to admit. The author, resting on a more than doubtful interpretation of some passages of scripture, believes he finds there a monarchical government for each flock, concentrated in the person of the pastor alone though he ought to endeavour to utilize the religious elements which he meets with among the faithful. Monarchy, absolute monarchy! . . . I greatly fear it would soon be a mere pope. The poor heart of man and experience are at hand, let them be interrogated! I need no other proof, without reckoning that here again universal priesthood is found pitiably banished in 'the cloudy regions abstractions.'"

Such is the language of an article which does its best to praise the "Examination."

14 SECTION 2

OUR DUTY TO JUDGE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE "EXAMINATION."

The author of the "Examination," acknowledging as "eternal truths" the principles I have put forth; the connection between gifts and offices in apostolic times having already been clearly established in my previous writings; the "Archives" having taken care to give warning that, in his ecclesiastical principle, the author of the "Examination" went farther than Catholicism itself; the application of this principle to justify the present institution being founded on a more than doubtful interpretation of some passages of scripture; universal priesthood being again, in the judgment of the "Archives," pitiably banished in the cloudy regions of abstraction, I might think myself absolved, as far as concerns the theses of the "Examination," from the fatigues of controversy. But, as these views are used as a support in the endeavour to embarrass the path of faith, it is good that the sheep of Jesus should not be seduced; and, in order to spare them the dangers of a wrong path, charity demands that these things should be carefully passed under judgment.

SECTION 3

FALSE IDEAS AS TO A PRETENDED DISMEMBERMENT OF THE APOSTOLATE.

In order to shew the progress of the Church, the author of the "Examination" constructs a history of ministry of which the result is precisely, as the "Archives" remark, "to find for each flock a monarchical government, concentrated in the person of the pastor alone," etc., and it is precisely this historical result, which is still, according to the judgment of the "Archives," founded on "a more than doubtful interpretation of some scripture passages." And, in fact, all this pretended history is full of inexactitudes. True as it is that there exists a point of contact between gifts and offices, and that, historically, gifts have become lost in offices, equally untrue is it to present, as does the "Examination," this absorption of gifts by offices as a dismemberment of the apostolate effected by the apostles themselves, and as a progress of the Church.

The "Examination"* marks out a first phase of ministry, a phase specially apostolic. On account of the external growth of the Church, "the apostles soon feel the necessity of relieving themselves of a part of their functions . . . of the least important, the distribution of alms. Hence the institution of deacons . . . . This help does not seem to have long sufficed. The continual growth of the Church, above all, its propagation outside Jerusalem, and the duty . . . of carrying out their special mission and the proper duty of their office, oblige the apostles to abandon by degrees the pastoral position which they had taken . . . in relation to the church of Jerusalem, and to take the apostolic position to which they are called in relation to the entire Church. The void thus formed (at Jerusalem) is filled up by a new office that of elder, or bishop, the institution of which is not recounted to us . . . . The office of elder was naturally superior to that of deacon: its later origin indicates this to us; for it is only in proportion as the apostolate retires, if I may venture so to speak, from a lower to a higher place, into the sphere of action which is proper to it, that offices successively arise.

{*Page 43, etc.}

15 This false principle of the dismemberment of the apostolate, a principle which serves also as the basis of the system of the "Espérance," has no foundation in the word of God. Quite the contrary; it is in contradiction with the origin and the very nature of ministry. This principle, which makes the apostles the source of ministry, in the place of Christ, Head of the body, is as abominable as can be. It is on Christ immediately that each ministry depended in its function. There was a diversity of gifts, but one Spirit; diversity of administrations, but one Lord; (1 Cor. 13: 4, etc.) Christ is the "head of the body" (Eph. 4: 15, 16); and it is from Him that "the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edification of itself in love." It is Christ ascended on high, who gave pastors, just as He gave apostles, grace being given to each according to the measure of the gift of Christ. "He gave some apostles, some," etc. (Eph. 4: 11). To one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit; etc . . . . but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every one severally as he will," 1 Cor. 12. The apostles might be the means by which the Holy Spirit was received; but the communication of the Spirit by their means was not a dismemberment of the apostolate. The apostles would have had no right to carry out such a dismemberment. They were bound to keep themselves in the position of servants, according to the talents which had been imparted to them. And this is what they did. Far from dismembering the apostolate, it is precisely because they would not abandon, for another work, that of apostleship, that, according to the will of God, they confided a work, which was being carried on without order to persons specially marked out for it.

16 Nothing is more unfounded than to assert that the apostles relieve themselves of a part of their functions, to form, of that part of it which they put aside, the office of deacon. Was it the apostles who, by partiality, preferred the Hebrew widows? And what confusion of ideas to say that the gift of wisdom, formed into an office, became the diaconate!* Besides, it is entirely false to suppose that a word (as here that of wisdom), which has a general meaning, and which also designates a gift, always signifies this gift. Nothing of the kind is true.

{*"Examination," page 44.}

SECTION 4

OBSERVATIONS IN DETAIL - WHO BREAKS THE BREAK - APOSTOLIC POSITION - MEDIATIZED GIFTS AND FREE GIFTS - PAUL AT CORINTH - THE MINISTRY OF PAUL OVERTURNS THE SYSTEM OF THE "EXAMINATION."

Many other assertions of the author are no less devoid of proof.

When he says,* that Jesus "had left to His apostles no positive direction as to the constitution of the Church" he seems to attribute to Christ on earth the office of founding and organizing the Church. This is to confound entirely the work of Christ while He was on earth, and the constitution of the Church. The Church only began after the departure of Jesus, and the author himself acknowledges this truth, when he says:** that Pentecost gave birth to the Church.

{*"Examination," page 41.}

{**"Examination," page 42.}

He says, in speaking of the apostles:* "It is they who go from house to house, breaking bread." It was neither the apostles, nor any one else, in my opinion. Those who broke bread were those of whom it is said that all those who believed were together in one place, and had all things in common, sold their possessions, distributed them, and continued with one accord in the temple. The expression kat oikon signifies, not from house to house, but at home in contrast with the temple. They broke bread in private houses and not in the temple.

{*"Examination," page 43.}

17 When he says that the apostles abandon "by degrees the pastoral position," in order to take, relatively to the entire Church, an apostolical position, he affirms a thing of which scripture says not one word. Scripture says rather the contrary. It was agreed, as Galatians 2: 9 teaches us, that Paul and Barnabas should go to the Gentiles, and that Peter, James, and John should go to the Jews. Here, then, the "Examination" rests its system on an invented fact.

When, moreover, he establishes two categories of gifts: namely, gifts arranged into office, and "in some degree mediatized" (that is to say, gifts which, no longer depending immediately on the Lord from whom they proceed, and to be exercised under His immediate authority, are placed under the authority of an office conferred by men and exercised mediately); and "other gifts which appear to have always preserved their independence, as those of prophecy, of tongues, of contemplative knowledge, the exercise of which does not seem ever to have been put in regular order by an external consecration";* when, we say, the "Examination" establishes, as one of the proofs of the development of the Church, and puts in distinction with and almost in opposition to each other "a regular ministry of offices," and "irregular ministries," gifts not arranged into office  order;** when it adds,*** that ["]the posterior origin of an office (that of elders), indicates that it was naturally superior to an office of more ancient institution," the "Examination" does but multiply assertions entirely devoid of foundation and of proofs. Was the apostleship, the most ancient of offices, naturally inferior to the others? Besides, apostleship was an office before it was a gift; what then is a gift brought into the regular order of office? The gift of tongues dates from Pentecost itself. Miracles, healings, prophesyings, all sorts of gifts, which have no connection with offices, are found in the Church from the beginning. The whole system of the "Examination" is nothing but a system.

{*"Examination," page 39.}

{**"Examination," page 47.}

{***"Examination," page 45.}

When, in speaking of the church in Corinth,* the "Examination" takes the liberty of affirming that there was "a marked distinction between free ministries, to which the edification of the Church is entrusted, and the offices of elders and bishops, the place of which would perhaps have been encroached upon by the gifts, if the apostleship had not come to occupy it, and to fulfil for the moment its functions," whence did he draw this? There may perhaps have been more gifts in one church than in another; but who says that, in the epistle to the Corinthians, Paul fulfils for the moment the duties of elder or deacon? Can pastors and elders of the Canton of Neufchatel say, with Paul, in this epistle, "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?"

{*"Examination," page 51.}

18 Moreover, the manner in which the ministry of Paul, "as of one born out of due time," began, overturns the whole system of the "Examination." Nor does the author say anything at all about it. He speaks indeed of his consecration; but that is quite a different question. The fact is, that Paul, who was an apostle, "not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (Gal. 1: 1), could not possibly figure in any development of "human order." And it is on this that Paul insists absolutely in the epistle to the Galatians. And it is worth remarking, that after that this apostleship, which is neither of men nor by man, is shewn us in activity; the other apostles disappear entirely from the biblical history of the Acts.

SECTION 5

GLANCE AT THE NATIONAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AS AT PRESENT ESTABLISHED.

These last are but observations concerning details. Let us come to facts - that is to say, to what concerns the National Presbyterian Church as at present established. However ingenious theories may appear on paper, what have the two orders of things, I am about to present, in common?

The one, that an apostle, who is neither of men nor by man, chooses men, some of whom were already prophets, and the others distinguished for piety, and, as to the latter, confers a gift on them by the imposition of hands.

The other, that in a certain geographical circumscription there is found established, as a sort of monarchical government, a pastor, who may even not be converted (as happens in the immense majority of cases), but who is established according to a system limited to a nation, and established over an unconverted flock or still worse, pretends to feed those who are really the sheep of the Lord; who (what an apostle made no pretence to, for it is to put oneself above God, instead of being His servant) pretends to have the right to refuse and to reject those whom the Lord Himself might send for the blessing of His true sheep, and who, perhaps, raises the police against them.* And do not say that I have not the right to suppose this pastor established according to a human order, to be unconverted.

{*This is, in fact, just what has happened, since the publication of his work, in the neighbourhood of the author of the "Examination," on the part of those who co-operated in drawing it up. I am assured that the author does not approve of this conduct.}

19 I have this right, and justly so, since the "Examination" will have it that the national institution is of God; still more since it will have it that, even in the case in which the pastor, established according to this system, might propagate "mischievous and poisonous doctrine," the thing should be left to God, and the poor sheep to the care of the wolf. I am bound to enquire whence the right which makes this pastor a monarch derives its source. It is not derived from God, assuredly; for it is not God who has chosen him. It is either a Council of State, or, save an appeal to the Minister of Public Worship, a Consistory composed of the principal taxpayers, or a king, or a patron who has purchased this right for money. This is what is said by pious ministers, who thereby shew the judgment they pass on systems they themselves have long defended, accusing of schism and radicalism, those who, their hearts broken by such a state of things, had judged it their duty to abandon it. The force of circumstances has constrained them to acknowledge as an institution not only human, but injurious to the rights of Christ,* that which the "Examination" still defends and maintains as being an institution of Christ; and, as defenders of the slighted rights of Christ over His Church, the ministers of whom we speak have stood forward to vindicate them against the same institution whose cause the "Examination" endeavours to plead.

{*See the "Constitution of the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud." Fuller mention will be made of it hereafter.}

Think, Christians, think of such a system, in presence of the love of Christ for His Church!

Another question presents itself. According to the "Examination,"* the present ministerial order, a fusion of divine gifts and human office, concentrates the guidance of the flock in one office, that of elders, and this office in one man. It adds, "This ministry of one man ought to seek to reinforce and multiply itself through the gifts which the Spirit of God grants to the members of the flock, whether by associating these gifts with himself officiously, as the present office of elders offers him the means of doing, or by encouraging and directing these gifts in their private exercise."

{*Page 80.}

20 What is, at bottom, this liberality, thus generosity? Nothing but, without perhaps the consciousness of it, the usurpation of the place of Christ in the exercise of His sovereignty over His Church.

Let us even suppose, to give the "Examination" the greatest possible advantage as to its ground - let us suppose these concentrating ministers to be in every place converted and truly elders, here is our question: - Who is it that has given them the right to accept or refuse the gifts which are exercised freely? What passage of scripture can afford any presumption that Christ has conferred such a right upon them?

We go farther still and concede still more. Let us suppose for an instant that these ministers, each of whom is one man, invested with one office, which concentrates in itself the guidance of the flock, and which is the fusion of a gift and an office, were in a true position: are not the evangelists, teachers, pastors, prophets, who are not "mediatized," the servants of Christ responsible to Christ, and to Christ alone? Are they perchance responsible to those who hold office? Nothing approaching to such a thought is found in the word. Has Christ the right to give such ministries? And, if He gives them, to whom are they responsible?

Alas! in the system which is sought to be sustained, but which the word of God does not sustain, it is a question, in fact, neither of the Church of God, nor of ministry in the Church of God.

That which is in question is a geographical district, under the dominion of such and such a sovereign, or in the territory of such and such a state. This district is a parish. All the inhabitants are made Christians of; in certain countries* civil rights even are attached to this qualification of being a member of the established church. According to the system, all spiritual movement outside this arrangement is prohibited. At a determined age, persons take the sacrament for the first time; and there are countries where it is only after the accomplishment of this act, that custom permits young people to go and drink and dance. When, by sacrament first taking, they have become completely Christians, they may then go. But for this parish a minister is necessary. And if it is in this manner that Christians are made, it is not astonishing that ministers are made at the university.

{*This is the case in the country in which the author of the "Examination" lives.}

21 And let not people cry out that these are only abuses. No, this is the system According to the system, in fact, according to the principle described in the "Examination," and according to that which exists as a fact in the national churches, one must recognize a Socinian minister, or, if you will, an unconverted minister, as well as a pious minister. He has the same rights in the church; and the minister of Christ, whom the national establishment may have placed in either the same parish or a neighbouring one, is bound to recognize him and to leave the sheep of Jesus in the hands of such a man.

And the Bible is quoted to justify this institution! And it is quoted, because it shews us that there were over churches elders, and, as is also said, angels! Separation is complained of. Separation from what? From a system which, according to the new light of a part of the clergy themselves, denies the rights of Christ over His Church, compels the sheep of Jesus to remain in poisonous pastures, and places the Church, bound hand and foot, in the hands of men. And why not separate from it? Is it the Church of Christ? I think not; it is not what I have found in the word. And if it is not the Church of Christ, why then be of it? Truly pious ministers will answer, "We do not ask you to acknowledge unconverted ministers." In that case, why do they acknowledge them themselves? And how do they think that we can acknowledge, in their person, a system which they condemn as to others?

To say that the principle of the existing ministry is only the fusion of gift and office, while, in the greater number of cases, there are, on the part of those who are invested with it, neither gifts, nor even conversion, is only to deceive oneself about words in a very serious matter. That which is practised in the national institution in order to prepare and to make ministers, is not, as is pretended, what Paul commends to Timothy, when he says, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. 2: 2. No. To instruct young men at a university with a view to ordain them afterwards, be they or be they not gifted or converted, is not to commit certain truths to faithful men; it is to instruct and train for a profession young men whose faithfulness has not yet been able to be proved, and who have not one of the qualities requisite for an elder. In certain cases there was a union of gifts and offices. That which is now in vogue is a vast system which has no reference to either the one or the other.

22 No, the inhabitants of a geographical district do not form the Church of Christ. No, a ministry which joins together and confounds in one mass and with the same rights the converted and the unconverted, unbelievers and believers, gifted and ungifted, is not the true ministry, but a confusion established by man.

It is in vain for the author of the "Examination" to connect and fuse together gifts and offices. I defy him to bring forward, in the biblical history of ministry, anything similar to the system in which he acts and which he maintains. And if the body of Christ is one, how can these geographical districts be that body? That in one particular town the children of God should all unite together and form a body, can be understood; the Bible has made me understand it: but that in the constitution of the Church there should be any thing like nationalism, any thing like nationality in the matter of the Church, is what is not found in the word of God.

No, the word of God does not speak to us of the fusion of gifts and offices; it does not at all justify the system of the "Examination." It shews us, outside all human order, the extraordinary call of Paul, a call which the "Examination" leaves entirely aside. It is to Paul that had been committed the revelation of a mystery hidden from ages and from generations (Col. 1: 26), a revelation, observe, precisely of this truth of the Church of God, one body, united to Christ on high; and Paul particularly insists that the ministry which was intrusted to him has no relation with that which went before.

23 SECTION 6

THE PRETENDED PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH

In his preoccupation relative to the progress of the Church, or more especially the progress of ministry in the Church, the author of the "Examination" discovers three epochs, three periods in the history of christian ministry.* He takes as a starting point pure apostolic ministry: as his second period simultaneous ministry of gifts exercised freely, and of offices.

{*Examination," pages 64, 65.}

"But soon," adds the "Examination," "the extraordinary abundance of gifts diminishes, and the time arrives, when to the flowers of the early season more durable fruits are to succeed . . . . The apostleship comes to an end . . . . The office of elder is appointed of God as a provision in each flock for the maintenance of order and discipline . . . . This third phase . . . . may be called the epoch of episcopal or presbyterian ministry."

Apostleship and gifts, flowers of the early season, give place to more durable fruits. Is it possible to fall into such an illusion? Are we to put among the number of these durable fruits the encroachment of popery, the universal worship of the Virgin, and the torturing of those rare and precious witnesses of the Lord, who came at long intervals, during many ages, to be put to death by those whom the "Examination" calls durable fruits, in comparison with the spring flowers of gifts and apostleship?

Is Protestant rationalism one of these durable fruits? Does the author think that his church of Neufchatel has lasted from the time of Jesus?

Has all sense of the affection of Christ for His Church and all memory disappeared at the same time?

This presbyterian phase, how long did it last in the primitive Church? Not even a century. And even, if we are to refer to the opinions of men, this phase, which the "Examination" considers as the third, has the anteriority in the eyes of many others, who consider the apostolic or episcopal phase the primitive one.

Just see to what degree the idea of the progress of the Church has misled the "Examination."

Making mention of 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul shews us that our present knowledge is far from being comparable to that which we shall have when we see face to face, the author is carried away so far as to  say:* "St. Paul then evidently distinguishes in this chapter three states of the Church; that of infancy, during which God grants it these extraordinary gifts, like the flowers with which a father adorns the cradle of his newborn child; the age of youth, which embraces all the earthly pilgrimage of the Church since the termination of the apostolic age, and of which faith, hope, and love form the imperishable crown; finally, the full age or the heavenly state into which love alone enters and dwells without changing its nature, because then God is all in all, and God is love."

{*"Examination." page 76.}

24 "The cessation of the apostleship should itself, however strange this may appear, be looked at as progress . . . . The apostles were for the Church, in its state of infancy, tutors and guardians. But, when the divine child had begun to grow, when the hour of its coming of age, of free and spontaneous development, had sounded for it, as God had given apostles in His grace, He also withdrew them in His grace."*

{*"Examination." page 77.}

It is sufficient to read the chapter in question, to assure oneself that Paul makes no mention in it of the state of the Church, but of the nature of the knowledge we possess. This is so certain that the author of the "Examination" himself has felt that he was misinterpreting this passage, and has sought to answer the objections which he foresees.

Here is the reasoning of the apostle: "We know in part . . . when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." There is a partial knowledge which belongs to the Church here below. This knowledge will be perfect above.

The "Examination" says, on the contrary, that knowledge itself disappears entirely, to make way for faith, hope, and love, an imperishable crown which serves as an intermediate term between gifts, or the state of infancy, and heaven. Thus, for the author, the loss of knowledge, of apostleship, of prophecy, is in reality progress. For him, again, it is not when that which is perfect is come, that knowledge is done away; it is during the entire period between the apostles and the return of Christ.

It is impossible not to see that he is entirely mistaken. What a thought! The Church superior now to the state in which it was in the times of the apostles! Does the author see that around him? That the Canton of Neufchatel enjoys many of the blessings of Providence, that its clergy even contain in their midst pious men, I have neither any interest in contesting, nor desire to do so; but to say that the state of this church, the great mass of which lies, on the author's confession, in the darkness of nature, is superior to the apostolic state, is what, I am sure, even the "Class"* would be ashamed of And do you know, reader, what is the foundation for saying this? On this, that there is more faith, hope, and love: and that the spring flowers of apostles, prophets, gifts, and knowledge have given place to love, faith, and hope, which now exist and which have, in fact, existed since we have had the apparent misfortune, but real blessing, of losing these ephemeral gifts of infancy.

{*The company or corporate bodies of Pastors.}

25 "If people wish to prove a fall of the Church," says the "Examination,"* "let them point out the cessation of faith, love, and hope; but let them beware of adducing in proof a fact such as that of the cessation of gifts."

{*"Examination," page 75}

The author is mistaken in thinking that it is in the loss of gifts that I find the ruin of the Church. In some respects this loss may be a symptom, a mark of this ruin. The ruin is another thing. I shall beware of seeking to establish the cessation of faith, love, and hope. To say that these things have ceased, would be to say that there is no longer a Christian in the world. Let him who is contented on that account to deny the ruin of the Church, be contented! But I will answer in a more explicit manner.

As concerning love, we see in Acts 2 and 4 what the Holy Ghost produced. "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers . . . . And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, 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." "And great grace was upon them all Neither was there any among them that lacked: as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them," etc.

Here are the flowers (we were in the habit of calling them fruits) which, alas, were too quickly lost; and we should have trouble to find them in the church which the "Examination" boasts of as being an advance on the apostolic state of things. Can the author of the "Examination," with his hand on his heart, say that there is real progress since the times of the apostles - that love has not ceased? Ceased! No, it will never cease. But where will the author shew me anything to compare with what we read of in the Acts? If it is answered, that this did not last, then it is acknowledged that the fruits of the Spirit in love have not lasted.

26 There are things yet far more precise. In the epistle to the Philippians, the epistle in which the author says we have the proof of the progress and development of the Church, because in it the apostle addresses himself to the bishops and deacons - here is what Paul says as to the state of Christians, when referring to Timothy: "For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." Were faith, hope, and love progressing?

In the second epistle to Timothy, which the author also quotes in proof of his system, we see the heart of the apostle broken because of the state of the Church. He is, as it were, astonished that a Christian should not be ashamed of him, and, on account of this, prays for a special blessing on his house; 2 Tim. 1: 16. Compare this epistle with that which we have quoted from the Acts, and see what was the state of the Church as to faith, love, and hope. The author may endeavour to make us think that the existence of his parochial monarchy compensates us for it; but how sad to see a brother undertake such a task.

One thing, perfectly certain, is that, in writing to Timothy, the apostle did not look for a progressive development of good. He had the foreknowledge of just the contrary. "This know also," says he, "that in the last days perilous times shall come," 2 Tim. 3: 1. God had been preparing the heart of His imprisoned servant by making him feel the miseries of the Church. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge," 2 Tim. 4: 16. Where were then faith, hope, and love? Let this touching and last appeal of the apostle, who was ready to be offered (chap. 4: 6), serve as an answer.

Perhaps Paul elsewhere renders a different testimony to the real progress of the Church, through the means of his departure? What does he say to those elders who, according to the system, ought to have replaced him, and even more? "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," Acts 20: 29, 30.

27 Does Peter give a different testimony? No. For him, what fills up the picture of the last times are mockers and false teachers, who will privily bring in damnable heresies; 2 Pet. 2: 1.

And were these last times slow in arriving? No. John, the last of the apostles, John, who, perhaps, gives us to see "angels," but at the same time the Church in decay, and ready at the end to be spued out of the Lord's mouth, this John makes us know that in his time these things were not delayed. "Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists, WHEREBY we know that it is the last time," 1 John 2: 18. Why whereby, if there had been real progress other than in evil?

However amiable and sincere he may be, I pity the man who, in presence of such testimonies, can believe in a real progress of the Church in good through the absence of the apostles. I pity still more a body of pastors who, comparing themselves with the apostolic work and condition, can put themselves forward as the proof of a true progress.

The revelation which, according to the divine knowledge, is given us, of the period of this real progress only confirms the prophetic previsions and touching lamentations of the hearts of the apostles. Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition . . . . For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming," 2 Thess. 2: 3-8. And the Apocalypse, which, according to the "Examination" itself, "closes so admirably the New Testament," shews us that the Church ends by being spued out of the mouth of the Lord, having already, in its first phase, left its first love. And when the things which are (the seven golden candlesticks, the seven churches, the state of the Church) have come to an end, the apostle speaks of the future, of "the things which shall be hereafter," when the Church is no longer seen on the earth, and it is the progress of an apostate world towards its ruin and final judgment. The salt is removed from the earth, and all becomes corrupt. Little matters it. For the "Examination" it is real progress due to the disappearance, to the withdrawal of the apostles and of the care which they had over the Church.

28 The "Examination" speaks, it is true, of the precautions which Paul takes, before leaving this world, for the future of the Church. In fact, conscious by divine revelation that they were about to depart, the apostles, whose hearts were devoted to the welfare of the Church of Christ, exhort and conjure those who remained to watch, because evil was about to enter. Nothing more natural. But these elders, in whom people wish to see the successors and in some sort the heirs of the apostolate, already existed at the same time as the apostles. Paul died more than thirty years, and John more than sixty, after the Lord's departure. There were then elders existing at the same time as the apostles, during a period of thirty or even sixty years. The elders therefore were neither the successors of, nor still less the substitutes for, the apostles, at the time of the departure of the latter. And that which, in his thesis of the progress of the Church, the author of the "Examination" had to shew, is that the elders were to walk better without the apostles than with their help; for, says the "Examination," "the continuation of an authority such as the apostolic would have had a disproportionate weight in the scale of the destinies of the Church, and hindered its development, instead of forwarding it."

After the elders had exercised superintendence and wrought energetically for nearly half a century, that the apostles press upon them that they should be faithful, and that they should watch with so much the more care when they themselves should be no longer present, is easily understood. And it is this which Paul says, in general, to the Philippians: "not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you." Paul exhorts the elders as he exhorts the Church, for he addresses himself to all. But, in fact, have these exhortations had as their result the establishment of the safety of the Church upon the faithfulness of its leaders? Let ecclesiastical history - and this history is that of the clergy - let ecclesiastical history answer the question. It is this history which has led infidels to say that the annals of the Church were those of hell.

29 To speak of durable fruits, as proof of the progress of the Church and of the gain it has found through the cessation of apostleship, to speak of a "shining covering" which vanishes while "the solid groundwork, the real and permanent elements of the life of the Church, remain and are developed,"* is what none but a member of the clergy would have dreamt of. That the system of the clergy has been developed, on that point there is no doubt; that the blessing of the Church has been the result, is what history does not testify.

{*"Examination," page 75.}

If the cessation of apostleship is a progress, why does the apostle say (Eph. 4) that the Lord has given some apostles, some, etc., until we all come in the unity of the faith, that we be no more children? That, in His grace and faithfulness, God has taken care that, spite of the unfaithfulness of man, there should be enough for those who rely on Him, is true. Blessed be His name for it! But this is not the question. The author affirms that what God had given (so that we should 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) was an "obstacle," a hindrance to this end being attained, and that this obstacle needed to be removed to enable us to arrive at it. The apostle says that it was given to lead us there; - the author says it was removed with this object. Let faith in the word, the history of the Church, and the spiritual man, decide the question.

When leaving the Church, the last apostle might have said (adds the "Examination"), it is expedient for you that I go away.* Not only did he not say so, but, on the contrary, Paul said: "Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you," Phil. 1: 24. And he says this in that epistle to the Philippians cited by the author** to shew that the apostle represented the elders and deacons as an advance before which he himself was to disappear. And when Paul must needs depart, he conjures Timothy to watch and to continue faithful, because everything would go wrong after his departure.

{*"Examination," page 53.}

{**"Examination," page 53.}

30 Let it not be thought that I exaggerate the bearing of the views of the "Examination." We have seen it: he says expressly that it was in His grace God withdrew apostleship, the continuation of which would have weighed with a disproportionate weight in the scale of the destinies of the Church, and have hindered its development.

That (the foundation once laid) God should have seen fit to leave the Church to its responsibility, can be understood; but it is. entirely false to say that the apostles did no more than lay the foundation, and to present them as an obstacle to the development of the Church; while they themselves, more than any others, laboured in the Church for its development, for its government, and sought to keep it in safety against the wiles of the enemy.

As to the question of knowing whether the Church has been faithful to the responsibility which devolved on her - and this would be the true question to resolve in order to establish the progress or the failure of the Church - the author refuses to treat it. Here is again a fragment of that which he gives us instead!* -

{*"Examination," page 78.}

"The Church (after the apostolate) had nothing more to receive . . . . From a child it had become a young man. The Lord opened to it a long and glorious career, that of external independence, in order to realize the internal and voluntary dependence which is the only true dependence. For that, apostleship, necessary as a beginning, would no longer have been of any use would on the contrary have been a restraint."

In fact, apostleship would have been an excessive restraint upon the Church in the career it has followed. When such thoughts are cherished thoughts contradicted for the conscience and heart by all the history of the Church, there is good reason for setting aside the truth which closes the entire word: "Surely I come quickly; Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus." A long career was not in the thoughts of those who insisted on the personal coming of Jesus, as putting an end to their tribulations, nor of those who, after the Lord Himself, insisted among the brethren that they should constantly wait for the coming of Jesus, nor in the mind of Him who made it a sin to think, "My lord delayeth his coming." And (without dwelling longer on this truth, infinitely precious and important though it be) we will ask why, if the cessation of apostleship was necessary, in order to "realize internal and voluntary dependence," the absence of the monarch of a parish would not be equally a benefit? For the dependence is to be internal and voluntary. And when you say internal dependence, you do not mean in the interior of the Church, for the apostles were there no less than the elders. And if it is a question of individuals and of their internal dependence, the elders would not be less hurtful to it than the apostles. If the care of the one was useful, the care of the others would have been still more useful. What is perfectly certain, is that there were neither parishes nor monarchs; and what is still more so, is that at that time the Church was not made up of a mass of unconverted people circumscribed in given geographical limits.*

{*In the country in which the system defended by the author of the "Examination" reigns, the non-ratification of the baptismal vow, conformably to a non-scriptural catechism, entails the 1088 of civil rights. And the ecclesiastical chiefs do not fear to employ the civil authority to enforce on the inhabitants the rights of their system. [Since this was written, there has been a revolution, and this changed.]}

31 SECTION 7

VIEW OF THE CHURCH.

The most serious evil that there is in all these reasonings, by the help of which it is sought to discredit the views put forth on the ruin of the Church, is that the relationships and very existence of the Church are thereby denied.

This denial of the Church, Messrs. Rochat and Olivier have formally made in their writings. Wolf has acted in the same manner; it is, moreover, what I meet with in private every day.

The idea of the Church has no existence in the mind of the greater part of those who oppose my views. Others have such an idea of it as makes them take the fruits of the sin of man for those of the grace of God.

If it were felt that there is a Church, the bride of Christ, a holy body formed down here on earth by the presence of the Holy Spirit, the reasonings by which it is sought to deny the ruin of the Church would be, for the greater part, impossible; and it would not even be attempted to deny the ruin in the midst of which we find ourselves.

I will explain myself as to what I mean by the Church. The Church is a body subsisting in unity here below, formed by the power of God by the gathering together of His children in union with Christ who is its Head; a body which derives its existence and its unity from the work and the presence of the Holy Spirit come down from heaven, consequently on the ascension of Jesus the Son of God, and of His sitting at the right hand of the Father after having accomplished redemption.

32 This Church, united by the Spirit, as the body to the Head, to this Jesus seated at the Father's right hand, will, no doubt, be manifested in its totality, when Christ shall be manifested in His glory; but, meanwhile, as being formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, it is essentially looked at, in the word of God, as subsisting in its unity on the earth. It is the habitation of God by the Spirit, essentially heavenly in its relationships, but having an earthly pilgrimage, as to the scene in which it is actually found and in which it ought to manifest the nature of the glory of Christ, as His epistle of commendation to the world, for it represents Him and is in His place. It is the bride of the Lamb, in its privileges and calling. It is presented as a chaste virgin to Christ for the day of the marriage of the Lamb. Evidently this last thought will have its accomplishment in resurrection; but, what characterizes the Church, as being quickened according to the power which has raised Christ from among the dead and set Him at the right hand of God, is the realization and manifestation of the glory of its Head by the power of the Holy Ghost, before Jesus its Head is revealed in Person.

Those who compose the Church have other relationships besides. They are children of Abraham. They are the house of God over which Christ is head as Son. But these last characters do not detract from what we have been saying; still less do they annul it.

At the beginning, the truth of the Church, powerfully set forth by the apostle Paul, was as the centre of the spiritual movement; and those who were not perfect, still attached themselves to this centre, though at a greater distance. The Church is, rather, the circle nearest to the only true centre, Christ Himself. It was His body, His bride. This truth, lost now for the generality of Christians, (and it is a ground of shame), has become a means of separation, like the tabernacle of Moses, set up outside the unfaithful camp (Ex. 33); because, if, according to the principle of the unity of the body taught by the apostle, one acts outside the world, most Christians are unwilling to follow, and, while keeping up worldliness, they cannot do so. How, indeed, could they gather outside of that which they are keeping up?

33 This lack of faith has a sorrowful consequence. Relationships with God are taken up, belonging, it is true, to those of which the Church is composed, but inferior to those of the Church itself, and they are taken in order to form with them a system which is put in opposition to the most precious of all the relationships of the Church with God. People insist that the children of God are Abraham's children, which is true; but they wish to place them at this level, in order to deny the position of the bride of Christ. They will have it that they are branches grafted in, in place of the Jews, so as to reduce them to the level of the blessing and principles of the Old Testament, and this, in order to avoid the responsibility of the position in which God has set us, and, thereby, the necessity of a confession of our fall. They allow, in a general sense, that we are the house of God, which is true; a house in which there are vessels to dishonour: and they make use of this truth to justify a state of things which has left outside everything that can belong to the affections and the heart of a bride.

Let Christians give heed to it!

Hence, the postponement of the return of Christ to epochs which are connected with the judgment He will execute on an unfaithful house and a rebellious world. Hence also, the loss of the desire for His coming, a desire peculiar to the bride and inspired by the Spirit who dwells in and animates her.

The proofs of the existence of such a Church are beyond all contradiction, and, although I have already produced them elsewhere, it is good, even if it were but for one soul, to recall some of them, so that they may act on the conscience.

SECTION 8

PROOFS IN SUPPORT.

1 Corinthians 12 is positive on this subject.

"By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (v. 13), one body in which the gifts are exercised; the exercise of these gifts, as well as the baptism itself of the Spirit, demonstrates that it is a question of 4 body on the earth.

"God hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers, after that, miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues," 1 Cor. 12: 28. He had set them neither in such and such a church, nor in the Church gathered to heaven.

34 The epistle to the Ephesians, almost entirely, treats this subject. Christ is the Head of His body which is the Church; chap. 1: 22, 23. There is one body and one Spirit; chap. 4: 4. This body grows by the ministry of that which every joint supplies: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers; chap. 4: 16, 11. It is very certain that it is on earth that this takes place.

Paul wrote to Timothy, that he might know how to behave himself in the "house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," 1 Tim. 3: 14, 15. There was then a Church, which was one, the pillar and ground of the truth, a body manifested in unity upon the earth, a bride who desired the coming of her Bridegroom in order to the accomplishment of her blessing; who, meanwhile, sought to glorify her Bridegroom, and who, by the power of the Spirit who was in her, manifested the glory in which her Head was, at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens. And if Jesus, her Bridegroom, was in heaven, invisible to the natural sight, she it was who was visible on earth for the manifestation of Christ's glory; and she was on earth Christ's epistle of commendation, known and read of all men; 2 Cor. 3.

That God makes sure to this Church, seen in His eternal counsels of grace, an unfailing portion of glory in heaven, is certain. That, in consequence, the gates of Hades cannot prevail against that which Christ has founded on the confession of the Son of the living God, nothing again more certain. But to employ such precious truths to set aside the responsibility under which the Church is laid that she should be down here a witness to the glory of Jesus, is to use the certainty of grace to destroy the necessity of a life answering to it.

Christ asks that we may be one, so that the world may believe; John 17: 21. That which Christ asks for, is a visible unity, a unity which witnesses to the nature, the love, and the holiness of Christ, and even to His power; and that, in order that the world which knows not Christ, neither can see Him, may learn, by the effects which it sees, what is the real source of grace which is hidden from it and beyond its reach.

But a world church, visible, and a spiritual church, invisible, there is what, on the one side as well as on the other, destroys completely the thought and counsel of God, not, assuredly, in their eternal accomplishment, but where God has always placed, in the first instance, that accomplishment, that is to say, in the responsibility of man. God has always first entrusted to man as responsible, that which He intends to accomplish later, according to the efficacy of His own power.

35 The world church is a denial of the nature, the love, the holiness, and the affections of Christ, as it is of the nature, the love, the holiness, and the affections of the bride, while it pretends to realize her unity. The invisible Church is null as a witness in this world, by the very fact of its invisibility. Rather would it serve as a witness of the powerlessness of the Spirit and the powerlessness of Christ Himself, to disengage His own from this world which has rejected Him, and to gather them in oneness by virtue of His Spirit, and as an evident demonstration of His glory - to gather them, as the faithful bride of His heart who belongs to Him alone.

The world church is founded on the compatibility of Christ and evil in the most intimate relations; it denies thus the character of Christ. The invisible Church, as such, is null in testimony. It is the denial of the power of Christ to gather His own, to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad, and to manifest in them, thus gathered, His power and glory.

That the Church, alas! is invisible, is but too true. And if it is so, it is in a fallen condition, it is unfaithful to the glory of its Head, it has failed of the object of its establishment on the earth.

To own such a truth as this, to confess it as a fearful sin, a sin perhaps irremissible as to the integral re-establishment of God's system, to confess in this respect our sin and our iniquity, this is what places us in our true position on this point.

To justify such a state of things, to put it forward as regular and providential, as that which ought to be, is to shew hardness in sin; it is to lack the heart and affections which seek the glory of Christ, and which shew that we have the consciousness of our relationship with Him as His bride. How afflicting is this!

If the Church ought to have manifested on the earth the glory of Christ, it is very certain that a visible church, worldly and corrupted, does not do so; and that, just the contrary, by the very avowal of those who sustain it and plead its cause, it only hides those who are Christ's. It is not less evident that no more does an invisible church, by the very fact of being invisible, manifest on the earth the glory of Christ.

36 Let those then who seek to justify such a state of things say openly that the Church was never responsible, by its faithfulness upon earth, to manifest the glory of Christ; if not, let them own that we have fallen.

I appeal to the whole of the New Testament, to all the principles of the word of God, to the history of the Acts, to the testimony of the epistles, and to the consciences of saints, to judge whether the Church has maintained the testimony to the glory, the holiness, the love of her Bridegroom, and whether she has maintained it as a faithful bride, who ought to be occupied with it during the absence of her Bridegroom, who knows but her Bridegroom, who is watchful for His glory and continues faithful to Him, all the more because He is absent.

SECTION 9

OBSERVATIONS ON THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL.

We have finished with the system of the "Examination" as to the progress of the Church.

We have had opportunity to remark, more than once, in passing, that the apostleship of Paul is entirely opposed to the system of a human ministry. Before finally bidding farewell to the "Examination" it remains for us to glance at the history it gives us of the apostleship of Paul.* This history exhibits a boldness which, truly, can only be found with the clergy.

{*"Examination," pages 34-36.}

Let us leave the "Examination" to speak.

"From his mother's womb St. Paul had been chosen to become a distinguished instrument as a preacher of the gospel. Nevertheless, when the decisive hour has arrived at which his ministry is to begin, how is he called to it?"

Here, the "Examination" cites Acts 13: 14, and adds both in a note and in the text:

"How, in this passage, both the action of God and the action of man, far from excluding each other, admirably unite to produce, first, the ministry of an evangelist, and by and by the apostleship of St. Paul. St. Paul, though long ago an apostle in the plan of God, appears here at first only as a prophet and teacher; he becomes an evangelist by the imposition of hands . . . . It is only by degrees that he acquires in the eyes of the Church that apostolical position and authority which, for a long time, he has possessed in the divine thought. Long before, both he and Barnabas have been called to this work by the Holy Spirit; nevertheless, it is by the intermediate agency of their colleagues that their definitive vocation is effected. They are certainly filled with a special gift for this ministry; nevertheless, this gift is not removed from, but submitted to the recognition of the Church and to the imposition of hands. It is men who send them away, and yet it is the Holy Ghost who sends them."

37 Thus, according to man's idea, it is by degrees that Paul acquires, in the eyes of the Church, this apostolic position and authority, which he has long possessed in the divine thought; it is by the intervention of their colleagues that the definitive calling of Paul and Barnabas is operated; their gift is submitted to the recognition of the Church and the imposition of hands; it is men who send them away; and the system of the "Examination" is considered as justified.

Let us now listen to the word of God, and to Paul himself, for Paul also has given us a history of his call to the ministry.

"Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father . . . . But 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: neither went I up to Jerusalem to those which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother . . . . Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia . . . . But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me . . . for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me . . . . And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision," Gal. 1: 1, 15-21; chap. 2: 6-10.*

{*See, again, Romans 1: 5, where Paul says he received apostleship by Jesus Christ, for obedience to the faith among all nations; and Acts 26: 16, 17, where Paul relates the commission he has received from the Lord Jesus: "For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness, both of those things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee."}

38 Paul thus absolutely denies a commission from his colleagues, the apostles. As to the colleagues whom the "Examination" gives him, they do not even enter into his thoughts. And even if it were so, it would not be the less singular for teachers to call to the apostleship one of their colleagues, while there were apostles at Jerusalem. But we know that Paul takes care to deny it in principle.

Let us also remember that, according to the "Examination," the work of the apostle was not an apostolic work. He was only an evangelist. It is true that, in this same journey, the Holy Spirit calls him an apostle; Acts 14: 4. Little matters it, the "Examination" affirms that, by the imposition of hands, he only became an evangelist. And nevertheless, according still to the "Examination," it is man who produces, in conjunction with God, his apostleship. When? The "Examination" does not say; it only says "soon" and "by degrees."

According to the "Examination," God effects the calling of Paul by the intervention of his colleagues. What does this mean? "The HOLY GHOST said, SEPARATE ME Barnabas and Saul," and those to whom He says it, commend them to the grace of God (such are the very words of Scripture, Acts 14: 26) by the imposition of hands. And Paul is again a second time recommended by the brethren to the grace of God (Acts 15: 40), when he undertakes a fresh journey.

Men, says the "Examination," send them away. From what may not a system be drawn? Martin translates: "laissèrent partir" ("let them depart"); the Lausanne version says: "ils les laissèrent aller" ("they let them go"). It is not a question of anything but of that feeling of affection and harmony which, while letting him go, accompanies with its holy desires the one who departs and perhaps goes with him a little way on his road, as a witness of the heart accompanying him. There is not the least idea of a mission being given.* The same expression is found in Acts 15: 30 and 33. The brethren, sent to Antioch, take leave of those in Jerusalem; and after having passed some time at Antioch, take leave of the brethren there in peace, in order to return to the apostles at Jerusalem.

39 THE VOICE OF GOD calls prophets to separate Paul and Barnabas for the work, and these prophets recommend them to the grace of God. And the "Examination" sees in this man joining himself to God to authorize ministry! and, in order still to maintain the honour of man, Paul is represented as being, in his work, but an evangelist. And all apostolic commission is denied to him. Paul becomes by degrees an apostle in the eyes of the Church, according to that which he was in the thoughts of God.

{* Note to translation. The express word of scripture is, 'they therefore being sent forth by the Holy Ghost.'}

It is thus that the "Examination" gives the history. I trust that those who labour will become by degrees, in the eyes of those who blame them, what they are in the thoughts of God, and that "soon."

A glance at various ecclesiastical principles and examination of the foundations on which the institutions of the church on earth are sought to be based. In reply to various writings.

J. N. Darby.

<04001F> 39 {file section b.}

THIRD PART

ON THE FREE CHURCHES.

INTRODUCTION

Christians attached to the word of God have shewn not only that the clerical system is not found in it, but also that it is contrary to the principles which it contains, and in fine, that the national system is in opposition to all that is there said of the Church.

All this is now admitted by the Evangelical Christians who exercise the most influence in the religious movements of ecclesiastical bodies. We have already seen that, in the eyes of the "Archives of Christianity" and of the "Reformation," clericalism is an evil, and it is anti-scriptural. Not long ago brethren who separated from this state of things, were schismatics. But now, what was then maintained in opposition to these brethren, and which was maintained as being according to God, is by their avowal a system which denies all the rights of Christ. This is rapid progress.

40 People therefore substitute for this system which they no longer dare to present as resting on a divine foundation, other principles upon which they raise a new edifice, principles which we are about to examine.

These principles are summed up in a few words:

The complete, entire, and often even avowed abandonment of the word of God. The denial of the action of the Holy Spirit.

The Christians of whom we speak are quite willing to be freed from the yoke of the state. That one can understand. But it is in order to establish over the flock, without being held in check by the state, the still heavier yoke of ministry. Now the ecclesiastical yoke, the yoke of the clergy, is of all the most intolerable. It is the weight of the name of God attached, and attached without restraint, to the will and the iniquity of man, because evil is clothed with the authority which ought to have laid hold of the conscience. The world has seen the effects of it.*

{*For the civil magistrate to govern, is the ordinance of God. The magistrate may abuse his power, no doubt, and man is wicked; but there is a just Judge who knows how to maintain the oppressed, and who, as the apostle tells us, watches over that which He has ordained. The authority is the minister of God for good to those who do well. "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." If one is persecuted for the name of Christ, the case is different; it is our glory. But if we do good, the civil power, armed as it is with the authority of God, will not harm us. The Christian submits to the authority with joy, and that for conscience' sake, having confidence in God. He does it of good will.

As to the clergy, whence does their power come, when they have any? Who would put confidence in it? However, I confess, I have no fear that the Free Church, such as it has manifested itself in these countries, will come to that.}

CHAPTER 1

ON THE SCOTCH MOVEMENT AND THAT OF THE FREE CHURCH ON THE CONTINENT.

People are in error on the continent, on the subject of the Scotch movement. This movement has been essentially popular. The king of England and the great noblemen, episcopal for the most part, had the right to nominate to a very large number of parishes, which, for a century past, had been a subject of contestation in the Church of Scotland. The people wished to name their pastors. Attempts at accommodation were made; they failed. The ministers and the evangelical elders put themselves at the head of the movement. The civil tribunals having constrained certain parishes to receive ministers named by the patrons, the separation took place. The evangelical ministers left the synod; the people of the parishes left the churches. The mass of the population found thus a means of escaping from the ancient rights of patronage of the episcopalian aristocracy, which the tribunals and the whole civil order maintained in these rights.

41 In the Canton de Vaud, the inverse of this is the case. The popular cause is nationalism subjected to the state. In Scotland, the nationals are the ministers without the people. On what side is that found in Switzerland?

Churches are not made on paper - they are formed by faith. A church of the multitude can only be the result of a powerful principle acting upon the masses. This principle is found either in superstition, or, as at the Reformation, in the remarkable intervention of Providence, which, favouring the movement of faith, where abuses disgust natural conscience or clash with the will of man, throws the mass on the side of the good which is acting by the grace of God. It is this which explains, on the one hand, the history of all false religions; on the other hand, the history of the Reformation, and, finally, on a smaller scale, the Scottish movement.

There exists nothing that answers to this in the dreams of a free church, in which those minds take pleasure, who, at the present day, while opening for themselves a way in which the nation does not follow them, seek to unite, the nation being wanting in this combination, popularity with the preservation of existing institutions. In order to popularise their cause and their church, they grant it certain rights and certain privileges, preserving, all the while, for themselves the consecrated system, the citadel of the clergy. Let them, however, understand this: if there are popular rights in the church, the people themselves will be judges of them. Such is the popular principle - the principle of the age. The people will exercise their rights themselves, in fact as well as in title. That will be their affair. The ministers will have the task of protecting, if they can, the rights they have given to themselves, so far as these rights are compatible with the will and action of the people. Their business will be to watch over the preservation of their clericalism. The people will dispose of the rest, and the ministers will be, if they can, their clergy. There will result from this, under whatever variety of form, independent dissenting churches, with a clergy whose efforts will tend to bind the whole into a Presbyterian bundle, in order to give it, if it can, harmony and strength.

42 This is, I venture to predict, the future of the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud. This is what will happen wherever ministers seek to organize a free-church system, by contriving beforehand its mechanism.

On a larger theatre than the Canton de Vaud, the ministers would probably succeed in acquiring a stronger link among themselves and a more decided clerical position; but, at bottom, each of them, in his locality, would find himself to be the pastor of a dissenting church with a congregation of the people as his flock. Their part would be purely to preserve clericalism. Sad task! A task to which, nevertheless, where this attempt has taken place, their operations and reasonings are reduced.

The Free Church lacks a first principle of power. There is found in it neither the principle of God, nor the principle of the man of the age. That there may be found, on the part of certain individuals, a vital principle, true faith, I do not doubt. But, evidently, that is not the question. Powerful principles act noiselessly, but cause themselves to be spoken of The Free Church speaks a great deal about itself, before even having taken its rise

Let us, however, examine its principles, as far as it has put them forth.

CHAPTER 2

ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FREE CHURCH OF THE CANTON DE VAUD.

In entering upon the constitution of the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud, the only one which has hitherto been formed on this side of the Rhine,* I desire to express my sincere respect for many of the persons who form part of this association, and to testify to many among them, whom I have more or less known, the cordial affection which flows from the sweet conviction of our meeting one another again in the heavenly kingdom. This makes me all the more feel how grievous it is that such brethren should have thought it their duty to ally themselves, or at least should have appeared to ally themselves to any political party, and to falsify thereby, in the eyes of the world, a religious principle and a walk which, with the sacrifices by which it was accompanied, made them respected by good men, even of opinions contrary to their own. United, alas! to persons who do not share their faith, these brethren, by the very attacks to which they are exposed, figure as a political party, and appear rather to undergo the consequences of this, than to bear the cross for the sake of Jesus. This position has had the effect of causing Christianity and the blessed name of Jesus to sustain the reproach of serving as a cloak to a party which was seeking to clothe itself with the influence of that name. How much happier would it have been for these brethren to preach that name without alloy, in the beauty and purity which are proper to it, in the midst of the irritation of passions, on whatever side they might have been shewn! If we suffer, let it be only for the name of Jesus; and let adversaries find no occasion of complaint against those who profess to serve the Lord, except concerning the law of their God.

{*Some movements intended to form free churches have taken place in Germany, and some have been formed entirely rationalistic. Their nature and principles are so different that I am not willing either to occupy myself with them here, nor to confound the course of the Vaudois clergy with that of Uhlich or others similar.}

43 Without doubt, it is a sincere conviction which has determined and impelled in the course they have followed, a large number of the brethren of whom we speak. But (and their opponents themselves have said this) conscience does not act by masses, but individually. In order to increase the influence of the movement, those who had decided convictions thought it their duty, as it appears, to wait for those who had not, or who had less fixed ones. This weakened the idea of a personal conviction. By that very means, conscience evidently was the loser.

The members of the Vaudois clergy were already under the necessity of raising these questions. Events had constrained them to do so. At the demand of the government, prolonged discussions had taken place amongst the clergy upon the change of the fundamental law of the Cantonal church. For a long while past, the clergy had supported and defended against all dissent the principles of nationalism. When, therefore, the greater part was seen to detach itself from the state and unite itself in an ecclesiastical body in order to maintain in concert, according to the very expressions of the constitution of the Free Church, the rights of Jesus Christ over His Church and the purity of evangelical ministry, people might have been astonished that never before had the rights of Christ presented themselves to the minds of these men as disowned by the system which they had previously extolled and justified, not scrupling, moreover, to blame severely, those who, judging as they themselves now judge, were acting individually according to this conviction, and were separating themselves from a system guilty of such a slighting of the rights of the Lord.

44 Evidently, it is the system which, in their conviction, disregarded the rights of Jesus, and destroyed the purity of evangelical ministry. The act of the government, which served s an occasion for the retreat of a part of the clergy, is the proof of this. Moreover, the ministers who have resigned have not confined themselves to protesting by their resignation against his act, nor to going outside while waiting for its recall, nor o complaining against an isolated act of oppression, while still approving the system. They have done more. By the establishment of a new system, they have protested against the one which up to that time they had justified, and which, by their acknowledgment, denies the rights of Christ over His Church.

How does it happen that the new system, founded on such a declaration, should be the object of admiration to Christians who remain attached to the one to which this declaration applies? That does not belong to me to decide. It is good to remember [for fas est et ab hoste doceri] that conscience is an individual thing.

Let us now examine the system of the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud, such as it is set forth in its Constitution, the acceptance of which is obligatory upon every one who wishes to be a member of it.

SECTION 1

THE CLERGY, THE FOUNDATION OF UNITY IN THE FREE CHURCH.

While setting aside the state, rejecting all alliance with it, and while refusing at the same time to take the position of the Christians who had previously separated from nationalism, the founders of the Free Church wished, in constituting themselves as a body, to preserve some bond which these did not possess and which the state did not furnish. This bond is the clergy, the clerical body.

45 Plainly, the churches whose association composes the Free Church have no other according to its constitution. The unity subsists in the body of the clergy and there solely. This principle, the importance of which cannot be overestimated, was that of the Church as fallen in the first ages, that which ended in popery in contrast with the Church of God.

In the Protestant or Reformed Churches, the state serves as a link, as a principle of unity; they are, consequently, national churches. The Romish system has another centre of unity, which I need not stop to notice here. The dissenters, whatever may be additionally the unity of ideas and of habit of association with which analogous principles furnish them, are in general independents or congregationalists; that is to say, their churches, as churches, acknowledge no bond of unity among themselves.

There remains then to the Free Church but one principle which can and does really make of it a body; it is the clerical principle. Little matters it whether the clergy is composed of pastors or elders. It is they, a body of officials, distinct from the mass of believers, who alone give a character of unity to this bundle of churches. The details of the Constitution shew it. General Church assemblies, church councils do not produce a shadow of unity! This unity resides in the synod; the synod is the principle of it. Everything which concerns the clergy is carefully kept in the hands of the clergy. The veto without a statement of motives is alone permitted to a flock to which a pastor is proposed. As to their internal matters, the assemblies may be consulted and may express their wishes when the church council calls them together; but all action whatever is reserved to the clergy.

The true unity of the Church of God, that is to say, the unity of the body of Christ on the earth, is completely excluded from the Free Church. There are "constituted bodies," but the idea of the body is lost.

The confusion of these two things is striking in the Sixth Article of the Constitution. "The Free Church is governed by constituted bodies who are to employ themselves, each according to the function assigned to it, in procuring the spiritual good of the Church and its members, so that the whole well proportioned and well joined together in all its parts should derive its increase from Christ, according to the power He distributes to each member," Eph. 4: 16. Now, it is perfectly certain that this passage of the epistle to the Ephesians applies solely to the body of Christ, one upon earth, to the functions of its members, and to that body looked at on earth, insisting particularly on its unity flowing from its being the habitation of one Spirit (chap. 4: 4) - an idea impossible here, because the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud has no pretensions to be the body of Christ, and its four constituted bodies are not members of the body of Christ.

46 It is sad, to say nothing more, to use the word of God, and that in its most precious and profound teachings, to apply it to that which is a creation of man, and to that which has no right to pretend to be what the passage cited speaks of. It is sad to seek to clothe a purely human system with the lustre of the blessing which is connected with the work of God. The Free Church of the Canton de Vaud is not, and still less are its constituted bodies, the body of Christ, nor the bride of Christ, however it may clothe itself with these beautiful names by debasing their meaning and force. "She is resolved," say the authors of her Constitution, "to yield obedience (to Jesus Christ) as a faithful wife to her husband." Wife! She is not a wife. There exists neither a Vaudois bride, nor a French bride, nor an English bride. By attaching such a name to bodies constituted by men, the idea of the unity of the body of Christ is falsified and lost, an idea of which the importance cannot be exaggerated.

The grand principles of the Free Church are then:

The establishment of a body of clergy, the only agent and bond of unity;

And the denial of the unity of the body of Christ, of that truth of which true Christians feel very particularly the need and importance.

In fact, it cannot be otherwise in a church of the multitude. How seek, how find, in an unconverted mass a principle of spiritual union? There is needed for this mass, a body in which, in theory, because of its public character, piety should be reputed to reside; a body which may act on it and give it a centre by maintaining religion in the midst of it. Let the action of the flocks, set aside by the "Constitution," be introduced into the general assemblies, and the Free Church will present the spectacle of the miseries of dissent, without having like it either separation from the world, or the safeguard of the conversion of its members.

47 Several details of the "Constitution of the Free Church" afford us a striking proof of the preoccupation of its authors, as to the maintenance of the clerical principle.

First, the nature of the quotations which are made from the word of God. Except the faulty application of a passage of Ephesians referred to above, the word of God, cited very carefully in order to support the authority of the clergy, is only quoted four times on other subjects, and these four quotations, have no reference to the principles of the Free Church, but solely to general principles of piety, and they might have been equally met with in the first religious book that might be taken up. If it is a question, on the other hand, of exhibiting all the passages which appear suited to exalt the authority and importance of the clergy, the New Testament is rummaged through and through.

Here are further proofs of this preoccupation.

The laity may elect deputies to the synod. They have, besides, the power of refusing a minister, without having in addition the permission to express the motives of this refusal. To this is limited all the action which is granted them.

All discipline belongs exclusively to the clerical bodies.

All ministry has its source and direction in the synod. No one can act in the ministry of the word unless he be sent by the synod. People can neither receive nor open the door to a minister whom the synod has not sent or sanctioned. "The synod occupies itself with evangelization and with all work that has for its object the advancement of the kingdom of God."

In sum, it all comes to this: the clergy govern without being themselves under the authority of a government.

SECTION 2

ABSENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FREE CHURCH.

There is another thing which is more serious. In the whole of the organization of the Free Church the Holy Spirit is not even named; and, with the exception of the profession of faith contained in the second article of the "Constitution," it mentions it nowhere. It could not do so. The Spirit of God is the power of the unity of the body of Christ. "There is one body and one Spirit," Eph. 4: 4. Now the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud has an altogether different unity, a bond of quite another nature. For it, such as it has constituted itself, there is one body, and it is that one body; "The churches which have been formed since the year of grace 1845, in the Canton de Vaud, are, by the present act, united into one body." There is the unity of the Free Church. It is not that of the body of Christ, it is such as leaves this on one side. The Spirit of God is not, consequently, nor can He be, recognized nor sought as the One whose presence forms, characterizes, and establishes unity, and gives it as a banner the name of Jesus alone. One Spirit and one body is what does not enter into the framework of the unity of the Free Church. Its unity denies the other. "One body" excludes everything which is not itself.

48 The consequence of this is, that, uniting the defects of the corrupt church of the middle ages and of present nationalism, the synod or the clergy which is substituted for the presence of the Holy Spirit, sets aside equally the action of the Holy Ghost in ministry. "The synod occupies itself with all work that has for its object the advancement of the kingdom of God." That does not at all suppose the free action of the Holy Spirit nor does it permit the individual activity which is its fruit. There may be, if you will, instruments sent by the synod; but liberty of action, independently of a mission received from it, there is not.

As to what concerns the unity of the Church the body of Christ, as well as the free development of the work of the Spirit of God in the ministry of the word, the constitution of the Free Church is in complete antagonism with the most precious instructions of the word, with those which, for the days in which we live, are the most important that God has given us. Instead of maintaining, as it says, the rights of Jesus, it wars against the rights of the Holy Spirit. It gives itself liberty as regards the government, to take it entirely away from the Holy Spirit and the faithful led by Him.

One could not, in fact, deceive oneself to the extent of treating a church of the multitude, as a body dwelt in, animated and directed by the Holy Spirit. Neither its unity nor its action could be those of the Spirit. The Spirit is therefore set aside in order to substitute the clergy. Alas! the constitution of the Free Church equally sets aside the word of God.

49 What injustice! I shall be told. "It proclaims the divine inspiration, the authority and entire sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament." Entire sufficiency for what? Tell me a single article of the "Constitution" which professes to be drawn from it. If the scriptures are sufficient for the ordering of the Church, what must be thought of a constitution drawn from sources entirely outside it a constitution which has not even expressed the intention or the desire to take the word of God as a foundation? It is, at least, a kind of sincerity, for there is not a single article of the "Constitution" which has emanated from it. This "Constitution" establishes a purely human organization, which has no relation whatever to the principles of the word of God. Those who have taken part in it have owned that the word of God has served them neither as a starting point, nor as the foundation of their work. Where, indeed, should we find, in the word of God, that it is a question of church members of the age of twenty-one years, or of electoral rights, or of votes counted by number of heads, of elders elected for six years, and other similar things? An ingenious, and no doubt pious mind has conceived an ecclesiastical system according to its own will; this system, modified by the difficulties or by the light of others, has found its formula in the "Constitution" of the Free Church.

The Spirit and the word have, then, been left out no less than the unity of the body of Christ.

SECTION 3

THE DOCTRINE OF A FREE CHURCH.

The doctrine of the Free Church is found, alas! as defective as all the rest of it.

Nothing in it, perhaps, seriously wounds orthodoxy. One even sees in it the desire for piety. Nevertheless, its profession of faith, the doctrines of which the "Constitution" presents as being the "centre and foundation of christian truth," is a meagre and even false confession, and its orthodoxy is of a very pale hue. The work of redemption is put in it in the last line, and would disappear almost entirely save for the enumeration of the facts on which it is founded.

What is, according to the "Constitution," the only means of salvation? The gift of Christ? The death of Christ? The eternal redemption which Christ has obtained for us? No: it is something in man, it is "living faith." And why "living"? True faith is no doubt living. Why then draw attention to this word? Because the tendency of this expression is to connect salvation with the qualification of a grace in us, instead of making it depend solely on the perfect work of Christ, on the righteousness of God, in which one partakes and to which one submits oneself by faith. I repeat it, the work of Christ, the redemption He has accomplished, are completely hidden behind the state of the soul which has embraced it. It is faith, and not the object of faith, which is put forward.

50 Here is something which is really nonsense: "Christ communicates to the faithful and to the Church all the graces necessary for regeneration." How can they be called "faithful" and "the Church" if they are not yet regenerated? What does that mean: "the graces necessary to regeneration"? The Holy Spirit then does not regenerate! He communicates to unconverted man certain graces necessary for regeneration, graces which man makes use of to regenerate himself. Is that the obligatory doctrine, to which a formal assent must be given in order to become a member of the Free Church?

It is added: "It is by the Holy Spirit whom He sends on the part of His Father." This is not according to the truth. Jesus has sent this Comforter who shall abide for ever with the Church, as also it may be said that the Father has sent Him in Christ's name. As to what concerns the Holy Spirit, one finds thus, at the bottom of all the system of the Free Church, an unbelief and ignorance, involuntary no doubt, but not the less real.

Again: "He will return to put his own in possession of eternal life." One may, it is true, speak of eternal life to designate the power of the glory; but, met with thus by itself here, this expression only adds a little more vagueness to all the rest. The word of God teaches us and repeats to us that he who believes in the Son HAS eternal life.

The work of redemption and the work of life are, alas! carefully lessened in this confession of faith. It is defective enough to be false, for a defective faith established as a rule is false. It is besides positively false in many of its assertions.

The Free Church admits discipline in principle and in fact. The manner in which it orders the exercise of it, the formula of its doctrines on this subject, betrays in a somewhat curious way the conflict between the need of pious souls and the difficulty which a church of the multitude puts in the way of it. The 31st Article of the "Constitution" lays down in principle that all discipline shall be in the hands of the pastor assisted by the church council. Next, if all gentle means fail, what will the council do? What rule will it follow? After having consulted the word of God, "it will follow the course which shall seem marked out thereby." There would have been in any case this faculty or this latitude without an article of Constitution. This is but a declaration of incompetence, by which the assemblies will escape the organization intended by the "Constitution": for, suppose the church council saw in the word of God that the conscience of all the body ought to be concerned in discipline, the Free Church would see its constitution violated in its fundamental principle, and an independent authority established. Evidently, a church which should exercise this discipline in a regular manner, could not receive every member of a church not disciplined, even were he an elder, although he might belong to the Free Church; and, in fact, a church exercising this discipline would cease to form an integral part of the body, and would become a dissenting church. How, too, exercise this discipline by means of the conscience of the whole body, if the body is a church of the multitude? The presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church becomes here an essential question.

51 It will be on this point, and on the question of the nomination of pastors, that as a system the Free Church will be broken. Its "Constitution" will remain as a memorial of the powerlessness of man to constitute by human means that which is only of God. That which proceeds from faith on the part of the individuals who have taken part in it, whatever there is of conscience (and there is this), will remain as a precious proof of the goodness and patience of God.

I should not have deemed it necessary to pass this work in review, if I had only had in view the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud. The work of God in that country will bear its fruit, according to the measure of the power which acts in it. If there is found there a testimony superior to that of the Free Church, accompanied by a power which God can put honour upon, this testimony will attract those who are truly spiritual. If there be not, the Free Church will pursue its course and will take the form which will result not from its "Constitution," but from the elements of life, of good or of evil existing in the midst of the assemblies that compose it. The "Constitution" is neither the expression nor the form of the efficacious principle which has brought this work into existence. It is the form which the clergy have wished to give it, and that will not last. I speak of it because elsewhere people are deluding themselves with the hope that a similar clerical movement will bring in a deliverance that they are waiting for.

52 This is not faith. Let those who have faith take it as a warning and cling afresh to the truth. They will please God so far as faith acts in them and they act by faith, according to the conscience which they have as to things, according to the light that God has set in their consciences His word understood by faith. One has only to follow the word of God. Is one alone in following it? That is so much the more honourable, as demanding all the more faith. Seen from outside, the path of faith appears very painful; it is, for every one who walks in it, full of sweetness and peace. The mountains, on which God communed with Abraham and Abraham with God, were the object of terror to Lot. He thought he should perish there; Gen. 19: 19.

FOURTH PART

REFUTATION OF THE REPROACHES OF THE JOURNAL, THE "REFORMATION," ON THE SUBJECT OF HUMAN ORDER AND EVANGELICAL LIBERTY.

CHAPTER 1

ECCLESIASTICAL RADICALISM.

We have already seen some citations from the Journal the "Réformation," proving the state of opinion on ministry among those who still support the clergy. I shall now give, on the question of worship, other extracts from this journal, which I give, not as a recognized authority, but as ideas which are current and shew certain sides of the phase through which the Church of God is now passing. We shall see also what is lacking, what the children of God ought to desire, and desire ardently in these times, as well as the rocks they have to avoid. I read in the "Reformation" of April 8th, 1847: "To our mind, spiritual and true worship consists essentially, not in the preaching of Protestants, nor in the false sacrifices of Papists, but in the singing of praise to God by the whole assembly, in the celebration of the Lord's supper taken in common, in prayer offered by several in the name of all, in the reading of the Bible on the part of such as know how to read, and in words of exhortation offered by whoever feels himself able to exhort his brethren. Along with this, there will be preachings and teachings, of which teachers will have the responsibility."

53 I have no objection to make to the details given by the "Réformation" as to what ought to be done; but there is entirely wanting to them a principle, that of the action of the Holy Spirit, whether as a power, the source of the activity of man and acting to produce this activity; or as discernment as to that activity and as power for discipline with regard to it. The form is good - God is not presented as being the power of it.

I could not admit that "whoever feels himself able to exhort" has the right to do so, unless two things be added: on the one hand, the responsibility of the one who exhorts to know that he is led of the Holy Spirit; on the other hand, the discernment by spiritual men of this action of the Holy Spirit, or it may be of the absence of it, and the discipline which flows from it, if there be occasion for it. It is God whom I seek in the assembly.

Such a system of worship, proposed in such a journal as the "Réformation," ought, at least, to strike every attentive reader. All that I ask is, that persons should act thus, depending upon the help of God.

Here is, on the other hand, the description given by the same journal of the services of the churches. I beg the reader to bear in mind that it is not I who speak.

"The bells are rung; the church is filled. During this time, a chapter of the Bible has been read; next, the ten commandments; but few persons have been listening. To this reading succeeds that of a liturgy, which many have followed with their lips, and to which, perhaps, no one has really added his Amen. A sermon is heard which people agree to find admirable, but that is all. Three verses of Psalms have been twice sung, to which the organ alone has imparted any feeling, and people leave, saying they have been worshipping God, and worshipping Him in spirit and in truth. But, no; we must be just. Language is here less false than facts. They say they have been to sermon. Every one seems to acknowledge that it was not worship."

54 And, again:

"More guilty, perhaps, and not less absurd, the greater number of protestant churches, with their inevitable men in black, their imposed liturgies, and their everlasting sermons, boast of having replaced forms by the Spirit, while they have substituted for forms, which at least act on the imagination, and sometimes on the heart, a withering and lifeless formalism. People begin to understand the error of the clerical system. The Church is no longer the body of pastors; it is the body of the faithful, it is the christian people. There is in this a great revolution."

Let us also hear M. Napoleon Roussel, in a postscript, on "Sunday Worship."

"I confine myself then to saying here that the sermon is as heavy as false, as dull as the black gown with which people dress themselves out to preach it; that it ought, in short, to be given up, in order to speak, in a style intelligible to all the world, things not only fundamentally true, but true in the means which serve to establish them. I would that people mounted the pulpit, not to set themselves up above the audience, but solely in order to be better heard by it . . . . I would . . . . alas! many other things, which neither I, nor others, do."*

{*I give here, as explaining the motives for many things with which the course of the Brethren, who are called Plymouthists, is reproached, the following fragment of a discourse on 2 Samuel 6: 112, which is the tenth of M. Napoleon Roussel's discourses on "Sunday Worship."

"Another day, we find an obstacle in our way, when accompanying the holy ark, when conducting a christian work, when labouring in whatever manner for the advancement of the kingdom of God. As it is in acting with uprightness and simplicity that we have been foiled by the malice of men, we almost reproach ourselves for this uprightness and simplicity, and this time we wish to try adroitness and cunning. Under the pretext of making ourselves all things to all men, so as to gain some, we make ourselves all things to all men in such a way as to ruin ourselves with others. Nor is this enough. To gain worldly people, we employ worldly people themselves to draw the gospel chariot. Because such an one is rich, we place him in the  front; because such another is clever, we make him a charioteer. We employ the crowd to push behind, and end by being lost in the herd of unbelievers whom we purposed to direct. In the midst of such a retinue, we ourselves lose faith, and we copy those who ought to imitate us. Can we then be astonished, if God allow our work to perish? Is it not more wonderful, that we are still spared by Him who punished Uzzah for bringing an unbelieving arm to the help of the holy ark?}

55 I prefer simply to pursue good and to link myself with the power which alone can produce it, by walking in peace with the word of God as a guide, rather than to publish journalistic articles intended to point out evil. But, indeed, when journals and men of influence in the evangelical world hold such language, an immense revolution is accomplished. It is not that all accept these thoughts, nor that all have definitely stated them; but the movement of which they are the expression exists in persons' ideas. The germ of them is in people's minds, and is being there developed; if not, such language would not be heard. The journals only verify certain moral facts, state them precisely, and by publicity lend them force, importance, and give them a general circulation.

"At the present day," adds the "Réformation," the people of the Church have attained the consciousness of their rights. They are no longer willing that the pastor should be outside or above his flock, but one of its members. They renounce divine right, apostolical succession. They substitute popular election to the election of the clergy by the clergy."

However much the writings above cited may reproduce facts more or less established, could I be pleased with the tone of them? I am very far from it. If I cite them, it is not only to shew the state of opinion in the class to which these writers belong, but also to put brethren on their guard against such thoughts and such language. Even though it were true, it is a human way of speaking, which only tends to replace man by man; that is to say, clerical man by radical man armed with the consciousness of his rights.

Faith does nothing of the kind. It judges the pretensions of the clergy because they are not according to God. It does not own them. It owns a divine right and never gives it up. It owns that this divine right is the only one which can exist, and that the Christian's part is to have the enjoyment of and to submit to it. The divine right is the joy of the heart which loves God and knows He is grace. Faith has rights in the presence of God, the right of owning that all belongs to Him, that every excellent gift comes from Him. The right of man is death and condemnation. If he desires blessing, it is in the divine right, as well with regard to ministry as to everything else. No blessing elsewhere, absolutely none. Let us proclaim it loudly, my brethren, let us always remember it. If people come and speak to you of your rights, do not listen to this language. The flesh can thus readily be flattered; but you, Christians, who know that all is grace, you know that it does not belong to you to speak of rights; that the sinner has only one - that of being lost; that the saint owns that all right resides in God; that the rights of man and election by man never puts us in possession either of salvation or of any blessing whatever.

56 The Holy Spirit, the thought of the Holy Spirit, does not appear in that which we have above transcribed. If it were said that the Holy Spirit is in the Church; that consequently He acts not only in the clergy, but in the body of the faithful, as well for what concerns the action of this body as in the ministration of each member, according to that which God sees good to confer, this would make itself understood by a serious man established in grace; but, that which manifests itself in the fragments above quoted is radicalism in the Church. The rights of man, the rights of the masses, popular election to the exclusion of the divine right, is the very definition of modern radicalism. Ministry in its least gifts is but the expression of the energy of the Holy Ghost acting in us, energy given by God, from whom comes every good gift and every perfect gift.

This brings me to two other points which I shall again present in the very terms of the "Réformation."

CHAPTER 2

DUALISM.

I read in the "Reformation" of January 28th, 1849: Everything in Plymouthism may be reduced to two points - the idea of the action of the Holy Spirit and the idea of the authority of the scriptures.

Plymouthism wishes to substitute for human organization the action of the Spirit. This is the reason for their principal objection to ecclesiastical ministry.

Next, remarking on the following words of Mr. Recordon, "God only blesses the labours of the workmen; He is sovereign and He acts in grace by the instruments which it pleases Him to choose" (words that accompany a reproach addressed to the faculties of theology which venture to call, to choose, to designate, to send, to displace at their pleasure, the Lord's workman), the "Reformation" thus expresses itself:

"We see how it is: it is always a dualism set up between the action of God and means, between the Spirit and man, as if the divine work could be accomplished otherwise than in and by man."

57 The "Réformation" says again, under date of the 29th November, 1846:

"The religion and ecclesiastical system, which is set forth by Mr. Vermont, rests, it seems to us, on two principles: the authority of the Bible and the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is not, of course, against those two principles, considered in themselves, that we desire to protest, but against the use made of them. Thus the action of the Holy Spirit is taken in the point of view of a gross supranaturalism. The divine action is not conceived of in its dynamic harmony with human action, but rather as a purely objective and constantly miraculous power. It seems that God is to intervene in a way which excludes man; and that where calculation, the use of means, and well considered activity, come in, the Holy Spirit can find no place. The expectation of the faithful is to be entirely passive. It must await the unfolding of divine graces and abstain from action as much as possible, so as to leave them more liberty. In a word, spiritual graces are always brought back to the supernatural form they assumed in the apostolic age."

Alas! there is in this way of thinking and this way of speaking of the presence of God, and of the action of His Spirit, a lightness, a spirit of jesting, and a tone of petty philosophy, on the subject of holy things, extremely painful to those who feel how serious a thing it is to put oneself forward, to have to do with that which is so precious to Christ as His Church, and how solemn a thing to call oneself a workman together with God, to occupy ourselves with His work, and to say that He acts in us.

As we shall see, the author of these articles has, moreover, entirely misplaced the question.

He is not mistaken in presenting, as the foundations of what people are pleased to call Plymouthism, the authority of the scriptures and the action of the Holy Ghost. It is on these, in very truth, that I desire that my own work and that of my brethren should rest.

What is this dualism between God and man, this singular rivalry of which we are said to be guilty? A rivalry singular truly, on the part of a wretched creature, a worm, with Him who has created man Such a thought enters not, either to affirm or deny it, the mind of one who knows what God is and what man.

58 But the author of these articles is mistaken in every respect. In order to get rid of the action of the Holy Spirit, such as he finds it put forward as one of our fundamental principles, he falls into a strange excess. According to our views, as he affirms, "spiritual graces are always brought back to the supernatural form which they assumed in the apostolic age"; and he had before affirmed with no less assurance that, according to our views, "the action of the Holy Spirit is understood in the sense of a tolerably gross supranaturalism." The heart revolts in copying it. Does there really exist such a contempt for the action of the Holy Spirit? Alas! that at least betrays the thought of the author. He wants man to appear, man to act. The action and manifestation of the Spirit is for him a gross idea.

And again, the author is mistaken as to the facts of the apostolic age and as to the principles he condemns. The form which the work of the apostolic age assumed did not tend, in general, to a dualism of any kind - very far from it. There was, in certain cases, a sort of dualism. For example, tongues were spoken, and the one who spoke them did not always understand what he said. When that was the case, the apostle declares that this action of the Holy Ghost was of a lower order; "for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret; that the church may receive edifying." "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him, howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries . . . . He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church . . . wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may interpret . . . . But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church," 1 Cor. 14: 5, 2-4, 13, 28. And Paul adds, as to himself (v. 19), "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." He will have, in speaking, his intelligence to have some part, not as if to produce in any sort another source of truth, but as a vessel blessed for himself and for others with what the grace of God communicated. By this means, there was blessing for himself and communion with others. The power of God by itself was something, no doubt; but the edification of the Church was the object which the love of God proposed to itself. The heart entered into it, spiritual Intelligence submitted to it and rejoiced in it. It is thus that, in promising the gift of the Spirit, the Lord Himself says, of the one who should receive it, that "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" (John 7: 38); out of his belly, that is to say, from his innermost affections, according to the well known use of this expression in the scriptures.

59 This dualism, of which the "Reformation" accuses us, is so little in my thought, that, on the contrary, in my eyes, it is precisely, save in the case we have just seen, the absence of it which distinguishes (a general, but not absolute distinction) the revelations of the New Testament from those of the Old. As a general rule, there was, in the prophets of old, this separation between the intelligence of man and the communication of the Spirit. It is otherwise in the revelations of the New Testament. The prophets, serving as channels of the Spirit of God, said, "Thus saith the Lord." Their hearts felt morally the state of the people, but the prophetic answer of God was communicated without the full intelligence of the prophet. This is why we find in the New Testament, that they "searched diligently . . . what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow: unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," 1 Pet. 1: 11, 12.

Thus, the ancient prophets themselves studied their prophecies; and there was a further action of the Holy Spirit to make them understand the meaning of them. They then found that it was not for themselves, but for us, that they ministered these things.

We, on the contrary, know that these things are ours. Christ, this precious Saviour, has accomplished the work of eternal redemption. He has entered into His glory at the right hand of God, and the Holy Ghost has come down to be the revealer of this glory of the man Christ, the revealer of the Father's love, the seal of God upon us, as upon those who are to participate in it, and the earnest of all these blessings in our hearts: for the Head is there, and we are united to that Head; and the Spirit, come down from Him and from the Father, is in us a divine link with Christ. This Spirit, acting in the realization of the relationship of Christ to the Church,* can reveal nothing to us which is not ours. The understanding rejoices in it. The affections of the heart attach themselves to it. There is a difference of gifts, no doubt, according to the sovereignty and wisdom of God, in order to communicate to the rest that which He has made us understand; but there is nothing to understand and to communicate but that which, by the same Spirit who renders us capable of it, we know also belongs to us. These rivers of living water flow from the heart which rejoices in the grace and the glory of which He has given us to partake, and from its communion with the Lord who has loved it.

{*I say, in the relations of Christ with the Church because, in the Apocalypse given to the Church, the Spirit again becomes a prophetic Spirit, and speaks in a different manner.}

60 Throughout their whole extent, then, my thoughts (and I doubt not they are, in substance, given by my God) are precisely the contrary of the dualism in question.

But there is still something to add here upon the difference people wish to make between the past and present.

At the beginning of the Church there was not only the action of the Holy Ghost, but, besides this, new revelations. Now, in the communication of these divine truths for the Church of that age and of all ages, God preserved the mouth of those whom He employed for this work, so that no error should fall from it, where He saw good to give that which was to serve as an authority. It is not that this took away spiritual intelligence from the others. Even when an apostle spoke, they searched the word to see "whether these things were so," Acts 17: 11. If prophets addressed the assembly, the rest judged; 1 Cor. 14: 29. There were, however, divine revelations entrusted to those who were chosen of God to be the vessel of those revelations and organs of communicating them. Perhaps some of these communications were only for the moment; but those which were for every age of the Church are preserved for us in the written word. It is true also that, at that time, one was called upon to study that which the word of God reveals, so that one's profiting might be known to the whole Church; 1 Tim. 4: 13-16.

61 Where is dualism, save in the mind of the author, who, as regards the apostolic age, makes everything proceed from the Spirit outside the intelligence of man, and, at the present time, makes everything be derived from man without the Spirit?

In order that there may be any good, it is needful for the Spirit of God to act in man and enable him to receive, communicate, understand, either a revelation,* or even spiritual communications of things already revealed in the word. Blessing cannot come from man; man receives it by the Spirit. He has, in order to communicate it, neither wisdom, nor power, nor direction, save by the Holy Spirit. If he acts from himself, he abandons his christian position before God. As to one who listens to him, he understands by the Spirit, and the thing is applied to his soul by the Holy Spirit alone. I do not deny that the soul and understanding of the one who speaks are the vessel of this action, this power. I know they are; that the soul, the conscience, the understanding of him who listens are so likewise; but I say that it is the Holy Ghost who acts, if there is blessing, and wherever there is.

{*1 Corinthians 2: 12-15. When I say, a revelation, I speak of the apostolic times. For us, the complete revelation of truth is in the word. If there be a distinctive principle of Christianity, it is that of the presence and action of the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

Luke 24: 49. John 4; ch. 7; ch. 14: 17-26; ch. 15: 26; ch. 16: 1-15. Acts 1: 8; ch. 2: 38, 39; ch. 4: 31; ch. 5: 3; ch. 8: 17; ch. 10: 47; ch. 11: 15; ch. 13: 9; ch. 19: 2. Romans 8, almost the entire chapter (compare verse 9 and 7: 5). 1 Corinthians 2: 9-16; ch. 3: 16; ch. 6: 19; ch. 12; ch. 14. 2 Corinthians 1: 21, 22; ch. 3: 8, 17, 18; ch. 6: 6; ch. 11: 4. Galatians 3: 3-5, 14; ch. 4: 6; ch. 5: 16, 17, 25; ch. 6: 8. Ephesians 1: 13; ch. 2: 18-22; ch. 3: 16; ch. 4: 3, 4; ch. 5: 18; ch. 6: 17. Philippians 1: 19; ch. 2: 1. Colossians 1: 8. 1 Thessalonians 1: 6; ch. 4: 8; ch. 5: 19. 2 Timothy 1: 14. Titus 3: 6. 1 Peter 1: 12; ch. 4: 14. 1 John 2: 27; ch. 3: 24; ch. 4: 13; ch. 5: 8. Jude 20.

The attentive reader must have observed, in following these passages, that I have not cited those which refer to regeneration, a universally recognized work of the Spirit; but only those which concern the reception of the Holy Spirit by believers, and this action in believers. (Compare John 7: 39; Galatians 4: 6; ch. 3: 24; Ephesians 1: 13.) If we have lost all this, what becomes of the Church?

I beg the reader that he will go through all these passages in order - that which is not often done. He will not fail to find his reward in doing so. I think that will be worth all the rest of my pamphlet to him.

I always maintain, as the only true and possible meaning of the passage 1 Peter 4: 10, 11 that to speak as the oracles of God does not mean to speak according to the scriptures, though this be also  necessarily; the case, but to speak as announcing the oracles of God, as Martin translates it. For my part, if this be not done, I know not why I should listen. The reason given, namely, "that God may be glorified in all things," puts it beyond question that this is the meaning of the passage.}

62 If then any one objects, and says, No; it is he who introduces dualism; it is he who separates man from the Holy Ghost. That is indeed the dualism of incredulity, which makes of man a being capable of acting in the things of God without God's being with him, or acting in him. It is rationalism.

The movement is impressed on man and effectuated in man; but it comes from God: if not, it is evil. This is a point as capital as it is elementary. And, whatever may be the contempt with which the journalist treats these things, and accuses this system of meaning that the faithful should abstain from action as much as possible and take a more passive position, I boldly avow that I desire for all my brethren, as also for myself, that we should feel even more and more our entire dependence on God; that it is the Spirit which quickeneth and that the flesh profiteth nothing; yes, that we should feel our constant dependence, and that, if the Spirit does not lead us, we should not pretend, either in a smaller or a greater way, to meddle with the things of God. I believe, then, that the Spirit of God acts in man and by man, and in particular by the members of the body of Christ. He gives understanding, power, and energy. He is a Spirit of power and of liberty! But if He thus acts, His grace produces in the heart of man a spirit of humility and of entire dependence on God, a spirit which would be unwilling even to do a miracle if one could, unless the express will of God led one to do it. The life of the new man lives by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and does not dare to act out of dependence on Him. That the Spirit should act in man and not outside man (an idea foreign to any system whatever), this is not, whatever may be said, what is intended.

What is intended is as follows: It is intended that people should calculate, reflect, employ means, arrange forms, without the Spirit and without the Bible, as we shall see; it is intended that all this should be done according to "human order," that is to say, of people's own will, yes, without the action of the Holy Spirit, without the direction of the Bible, which, say they, furnishes no rules as to church matters. And then, after all that, when man has acted without God, after his own counsels, people flatter themselves that God will put His hand to it. "I know," says the author, "that the Spirit of God can manifest His power, not only in spite of diverse forms, but even n these forms." That is to say, man will act alone, without the Spirit of God, without any direction from the Bible; then, God may come in and act, if He will.

63 I believe that in all systems, or rather, in spite of all systems, where there is faith, God will be found. But what a strange piety, to arrange things in the first place in one's own way, then to leave God to come in later, if He sees good! It is just man who wants to have man and the commandments of man.

As for me, I do not seek for "miracles"; but I do desire true dependence on God. I desire that man should not act without Him; that the presence of God in the midst of our assemblies should be our power and our blessing. Does the author of the article want God not to be present? Or does he want man to act without Him in His presence?

I have said that people wish to act without any direction from the Bible. They wish, in fact, as to all that concerns the Church, to set aside the Bible, as well as the Holy Spirit. Now, I say that man has nothing to do in the things of God without the Bible - that he has not to act without the Bible any more than without the Holy Ghost.

This is the second point I desire to treat.

CHAPTER 3

THE GOSPEL CODE.

To take the impulse of the Spirit without the word, is to expose oneself to take the flights of the imagination for a spiritual impulse.

To take the Bible without the Spirit, is to raise man to the level of God as to his capacity, and to make man do without God in his heart. It is rationalism.

To take the Spirit without the Bible, is to give a loose rein to all the follies of the human imagination, and to cover these extravagances with the name of God.

To do without the Spirit and the Bible, is what was reserved for the adversaries of the spiritual energy, which, in our days, is manifesting itself in the Church.

Is that true? the astonished reader asks. You shall see.

The word of scorn, which, in order to shake, to weaken, to crush their faith, is flung at those who, taking the Bible as their rule, do not venture to act without its directions in the most precious and important things of God - this word by which it is thought to fix on them the stamp of error or of ridicule, is 'gospel-code' (l'Evangile-code). We are accused of making a code of the gospel.

64 In one sense, I do not make one; in another, the Bible is my rule in every particular; and, without it, I dare do nothing in the things of God. I know that the letter killeth and that the Spirit giveth life. I do not take the Bible, without the Holy Ghost, as a literal code.

If the Bible tells me to love my brother, I shall find a thousand things in which love will be shewn, and of which the Bible does not speak, although, even in those things, I am directed by other instructions of the word. In many things, in which we have our senses exercised to discern good and evil, the word leaves liberty in order to put love to the proof. By our conduct in these things, it will judge, by the help of other passages, the thoughts and intents of the heart. The directions of the Bible suppose neither the imperfection which leaves man to himself in any particular whatever, nor a code which ties him to ceremonies and makes all his conduct a ceremony. And the Bible supposes neither the one nor the other, because the Spirit acts in a being become spiritual, who is to be directed by his affections and his conscience, but according to the word and according to the example of Christ; in a spiritual being who ought never to act of his own will (for that is what Christ never did, and what the word never allows).

To suppose that one must have either a code, or the calculation and will of man; to suppose that there is a category of things among the most important things, which most nearly concern God, in which man is to act at his pleasure, without the directions of God, is to shew an entire ignorance of what is spiritual life and christian obedience. I should like to hear the author explain what is meant by the perfect law of liberty.

Ignorant and weak as I am (and I feel it), I venture to tell him that the more progress he makes in spiritual life, in the knowledge of the Bible and the knowledge of the Lord, the more also will he find that the word of God applies to everything in which man is found in relation with God, and withdraws him from everything in which he is out of relation with God, that it produces this effect not as a code, but as light and life, as direction which the Christian will understand by spiritual intelligence, by the mighty grace of the Holy Spirit; light, life, direction, in which he will seize the thoughts and wisdom of God, in which he will seize what is the will of God (and that is what constitutes his joy); when, in fine, he will find all the thoughts and intents of his own heart judged by this word which penetrates to the joints and marrow, to the soul and spirit.

65 Does the author think that the things relating to the Church, be they what they may, are not included among the relations between God and man? If they are included, if they have a place among them, the word will in them reveal God and judge man. It is in them that God and man are brought into the closest contact, that God will have nothing but what is of Himself, that He abhors the commandments and ordinances of man. He Himself is there. The Church is builded together to be the habitation of God by the Spirit. And, as to particular assemblies, where two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus, He is in their midst.

And the Bible gives us no direction as to these things! What then can the calculation and reflection of a journal be worth, with regard to those in whose midst the Lord is found?

When the existence of a Church, the body of Christ on earth, is denied, when what that Church is, is ignored, and every divine idea discarded, the Spirit and the word may easily enough be set aside. Indeed, in a system founded on such principles, the word and the Spirit would have nothing to do, unless to judge everything. And, if a system is to be established according to the wisdom of man, I undertake to demonstrate that, whatever it may be, it contradicts, in every way, the word of God: so little is it true that the word of God is silent as to all these things. If persons presume to say, that when the word of God has said one thing, we may just as well do another thing, we shall at least know what is the question at issue.

Let me quote the text which has given rise to all I have just been saying.

"The second principle of Plymouthism is its notion concerning the Holy Scriptures. We do not here speak of the inspiration or authority of the books of the Bible, but rather of the use that Plymouthism makes of this doctrine, that the New Testament is the word of God. It concludes from it that everything found there is to be a law.* In vain is it alleged that the New Testament itself does not at all state this claim; that nowhere have the apostles given us their conduct in the direction of the Church, as a model which it was necessary to follow; that not one passage expresses the obligation of Christians to regard the ecclesiastical institutions of the first age as an absolute standard . . . . It must not be thought that the idea of the gospel-code is a Christian axiom, which can always be made our starting-point, and which one has never the need of examining."

{*This is, indeed, just what I thought, provided that in the application one is guided by the Spirit of God. I beg the reader to remember that it is God who inspired the word, in order that the man of God may be perfect. Why has God indited these things by His Spirit? Why has He caused them to be preserved in a written form, if they were of no use for the future? That we have acted in such a way as to hinder this application; that there may have been gifts which we do not possess, and consequently positions in which we are not, is fully admitted. This was true in the times of the apostles also. That is not the question. It is this: Were the writings indited by the Spirit not to serve except for those who lived in the times of the apostles? Had not these writings their application in later times; and, if they had, till when had they? This is the point in question.

This is not, it is true, the whole question. On account of the state of the Church, we cannot do everything that is written; but this does not diminish the authority of that which is written: it only makes us feel the state in which we are. But if, on the one hand, we cannot do everything that is written, we dare not, on the other hand, do out of our own heads otherwise than what is written. The principle of our adversaries is that we can do what the apostles did as using the divine authority which had been committed to them.}

66 And farther on, "We also, we have long thought that, on the ground of conformity to primitive usages, there is no successful defence of present usages. We must boldly place ourselves on that of evangelical liberty and human order. We have already said that there is the whole question" (The "Réformation," of January 28th, 1847).

Yes, in truth, there is the question. If we add the denial of the presence and action of the Holy Ghost, there is all the question.

Happy and bold emancipation from the Bible and from the restraint of the presence of God! Can one imagine anything setting aside more boldly the word of God, in all that relates to the Church?

As a general rule, it is wished that we should not seek in the word directions for the Church; and, as it must be confessed that there are many in it, it is said that those which are found there are not to be made a law of That a Christian is saved, if you will, he may learn from the word; but as to directions for the Church on earth, it is insisted that the Bible furnishes us none. It cannot be denied that there are some in it; but we must take care not to see in them a law, and make use of evangelical liberty, and that boldly. The Spirit of God has not put them in the word in order that we might observe them Would it be believed that it is come to this?

67 It is admitted that the present usages could not be justified by the Bible. Let us take note of this. And as people are not bound to follow the Bible, as everything that is found in the New Testament is not to be made a law, are directions to be entirely dispensed with? No. People are to use their liberty; they are to abandon what is found in the New Testament since it condemns present usages, and they will betake themselves to human order; that is to say, they will fashion things according to their own will. They do not mean to say by this, that there are things which, because of our weakness, we cannot do; which we do not deny, and for which we humble ourselves. Now they want quite another principle, namely, to put aside the Bible and to follow human order.

If this is the principle which is opposed to what is called Plymouthism, while this decried Plymouthism recognizes the presence of the Spirit of God as a Spirit of union, power, and order, and recognizes the word of God, understood by the help of that Spirit, as a sufficient rule given by God for every case, and notably to lead ardent affections and subject consciences in a path pleasing to God, in the midst of the Church which that Spirit has gathered in its unity in order to be the faithful spouse of Christ - all that is done, in throwing discredit on our views by the name of Plymouthism, is to cover us, in the eyes of simple souls, with a nickname given by the enemy to Christian faithfulness and obedience to the authority of God's word. Let people say what they will, provided that, for my part, I may realize that which they reject.

Let us again cite the "Réformation" of October 29th, 1846.

This brings us to the other fundamental error of Plymouthism, we mean the use it makes of the word of God. The evangelical principle, that of the Reformation, is the exclusive authority of the holy scriptures, and consequently, the assertion that those scriptures are fully sufficient. At the same time it is taken for granted that, by this, the churches of the Reformation mean an authority in that sphere of things of which the Bible speaks,* a sufficient light in those questions which tend to salvation. It has never otherwise been understood or explained . . . But . . . the sixteenth century itself was not always consistent.

{*Does not the Bible speak of the Church and of the order which is becoming for it?}

68 "Scripture is sufficient for all that which pertains to salvation. Such is the Protestant maxim."

"But to appeal, in ecclesiastical questions, to the authority of scripture, to expect from scripture light upon these questions in the name of its dignity as the sole rule for Christians, is to comprise matters of form and organization among things necessary for salvation.* Now, is not this the Catholic principle? Outside the Church, that is, of a particular form of the Church, no salvation? These so deeply anti-evangelical notions are much more widely spread than is generally believed."

{*Here then we find put forth in all distinctness and nakedness the principle that the Bible is of authority and obligatory only in what is absolutely necessary for salvation. Who then is to fix the limits of what is absolutely necessary for salvation? "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Is this the only point on which the word of God is to be of authority, unexceptionable and obligatory? What a frightful principle!}

The attention of Christians cannot be too much drawn to the slippery nature of the ground on which they have been set by the existing systems and by those who seek either to preserve them or modify them by introducing new life into them. It is impossible to maintain their systems, if the authority of the Bible be maintained. And hence the Bible is set aside to admit these systems or to keep them. Catholicism, to which people would assimilate us, does not seek its constitution in the Bible. It makes the Bible depend on the authority of the Church; that is to say, it takes away from God the right of Himself addressing the conscience and making man directly responsible for what he has heard, and it practically declares that what God has said and done in this respect is defective. For the Catholic, the Church and her forms precede the Bible, which he receives from the hands of the Church. For the Catholic, the forms must not be judged by the Bible, which is precisely the principle of our adversaries. There is, however, between the Catholics and them this difference: the Catholics call their system the divine order, respecting God in name; our adversaries call their's human order, having no other principle than their own will.

69 Here again, it is a question not of any form but of the power on which what is legitimate in this respect depends, and of the rule which is to direct the action and the effects of this power, so that we should not stray from it. We say, Christ is Son over His own house; the Holy Ghost is the One who acts in the Church to produce therein, by His divine presence, the order, liberty, and blessing which become the house of God's Son. And where the Spirit is, there is liberty.

Nevertheless, man, not inspired, cannot be trusted as the vessel of the thoughts of the Spirit; and God, in His grace, has taken the pains to give us written directions, enlightenment, warnings, for which we bless Him from the bottom of our hearts, while at the same time distrusting ourselves. We believe His word perfect with the instruction of His Spirit. We believe it to contain everything a Christian needs, and that according to the order and importance of the subject, according to His perfect grace, acting in respect of the wants of man; for eternal things, eternal truths; for the means to be employed, directions which are suitable to an inferior order of things, but which describe the existence on earth of what on earth is most precious to God. It is neither a law, nor a code, because man would not be capable of making use of it, and because God is not willing (and it is in grace that He is not willing) to expose us to the risk of departing either from continual dependence on Him, or from living relations with a Being, a living God. This God, infinite in His wisdom, has known how to give that which perfectly directs, in dependence on Himself, the spiritual man who, having the Spirit of the Lord, can understand the thought and will of that Spirit. He has known how to accommodate His written instructions to His own perfections and to man who has the Spirit; for he judgeth all things (1 Cor. 2: 15, 16),* so that for him,* these instructions are perfect, complete, and divine; and because they are divine, they are beyond the reach of the natural man who would never profit by them through seeking a code in them, however truly they may comprehend everything which, at all times, governs the relations between God and man. But these relations are foreign to the natural man.

{*"The Spirit searcheth all things; yea, the deep things of God."}

{**This is true even for the weakest Christian; only it is limited to that which he has realized, God not suffering him to be tempted above that he is able to bear.}

70 Besides, the instructions given to the Church, as well as those given to the Christian for his individual walk, are moral instructions for moral circumstances. They have not ceremonies in view and cannot be a code. In such or such an act of the Church, a thousand moral principles may exercise their influence; and, on the other hand, a thousand hearts and a thousand consciences will have to submit to them. Now these moral principles are in the Bible. In certain cases, the word being positive, the will of man has nothing to do but to submit. In others, with the intention that the heart should be exercised and faith put to the test, it only gives directions designed to act on the heart and on faith, and moreover perfectly sufficient to produce their effect in the case of those whose heart acts according to that which is said; for God, the living God, is ever there. It is this last truth which changes everything, and it is this which is entirely forgotten by the class of Christians to whom we are now replying.

But, the rules given for individual conduct are quite as much moral as those given for the Church. They nevertheless do not form a code. Sometimes there are rules and relations exact and positive; sometimes, principles; a code, never. If we read, for example, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," this directs us personally and profoundly. The Lord, notwithstanding, did not do this: He answered peaceably. There is not a code which, by literal directions, decides every case which presents itself. Does then the word of God not furnish us with sufficient directions for practical walk? It is sufficient for salvation to believe that Jesus is the Christ; at all events, the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Finally, the truth of the matter is this: "When thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light . . . . If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light," Luke 11: 34-36. It is not the will of God that it should be otherwise. Now there is not in the Bible anything save what is necessary, when the case to which it applies presents itself. Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; and, if the word of God is not sufficient for every circumstances, and on every occasion, man, deprived of the wisdom of God, will stray in the desert wastes into which Satan and his own will will have led him.

71 CHAPTER 4

ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH.

As to what concerns the administration of the Church, the great principles which are found in the word of God are the following.

For the calling, and for the spiritual wants of this Church, God has given certain gifts which act for the increase and the union of the body at all times. Forms have no place whatever. Order is always morally the will of God; now the word provides for it where it is needed (1 Cor. 14; Rom. 12; 1 Pet. 4.) Through the corruption of man, the Church may be found in a state of dilapidation; but, if this be so, the word of God suffices in this case also to the spiritual man, to enable him to judge of it and to direct him in the circumstances in which he finds himself.

This is what our opponents deny. They say that at the beginning God gave rules and forms needful for the walk of the Church, but that these forms do not concern us.

They were, we must surely suppose, in that case, as necessary as they were good in those days, since God gave them by inspiration; but at the present day, although He had shewn the necessity for such directions, God has abandoned His Church without leaving it any for its walk.

Let us then examine the positive testimony of scripture on this subject.

The word of God presents to us a Church formed on earth* by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven when the Son of God took His seat there in glory, having accomplished the work of redemption. This Church is one with its Head. It is the body of which Christ, ascended to heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father, is the Head; Eph 1: 20-23.

{*We have already given the proofs earlier. The following are passages to be consulted on the subject: John 11: 52; ch. 7: 39; Ephesians 2: 14-22; ch. 3: 5, 6; ch. 4: 4-16; 1 Corinthians 12: 12; 13.}

This precious redemption has brought about the establishment of man in this glory in heaven, the manifestation of this glory, such as it is in Jesus, and the participation of poor sinners even in this glory.

72 In the name of Him who has accomplished redemption, and who is seated in the glory, the Spirit, come down as witness of these things, has called sinners to come out of the world which had rejected Him, and to enjoy the infinite grace which had thus called them according to the counsels of God and washed them in the blood of Him whom the world had crucified. This same Spirit (who, by means of those whom God had chosen, had thus called sinners, and had communicated life to them) has also united them in one body, of which this glorified Christ is the Head, of which the Spirit Himself is the link with Christ, and in which He is the link between the members, one with the other. But this link is a living and powerful link, and He acts by a divine operation in the members. The members individually and the body* collectively are His temple.

{*This is so far inexact as that His body is not the temple; collective Christians, however, are.}

The word shews that this is the basis and source of all true ministry.

Ministry is thus linked with the existence of the Church of God and the love of Christ for this body which He nourishes and cherishes as His own flesh. By his unfaithfulness, man has been able to spoil the development of this ministry and of the life of the Church down here, as well as the development of the life in the individual; but the existence of ministry is connected with the very existence of the Church, and the faithfulness of the Head with whom it is united.

Consequently, to affirm that the teaching of the apostles on the subject of ministry and its action does not apply to later ages, is to say that there is no longer either a body of Christ, or faithfulness in its Head to nourish it. That is impossible. Moreover the Comforter will abide with us for ever.

Many things, indeed, are lost. Tongues are no longer spoken, miracles are no longer performed. That which was connected with the external testimony and established the authority of the word is no longer found in the present day; but that which is of the substance of the things, that is to say ministry which calls and which nourishes, exists at all times. 1 Corinthians 4 and 14; Romans 12; and 1 Peter 4: 10, 11, contain instructions the force of which will subsist as long as the Church shall be on earth. One ought to take account of other passages which reveal to the heart and conscience our actual position before God, and which, in various respects, modify the application of those I have named; but until we are come to the measure of the stature of Christ, He will nourish the Church for its increase, and the Church will make increase of itself by this means.

73 Now, it is this ministry, its action, the rules which apply to it, that are in question. As to organization, we are but little reproached with too much insisting upon it.

To my mind, it is evident that the coming of Christ was before the eyes of the apostles; and this, whilst at the same time caring for the Church in an indefatigable manner, and making provision that such care should not fail it. But the apostles could not cause that the power - and there was power - of their ministry should continue after their death. See what Paul says to the Ephesians (Acts 20: 22-30), and what Peter teaches; 1 Peter 1: 14, 15. Now, the kingdom of God is in power. The power of the ministry of the apostles has disappeared, and the consequence has gradually been the corruption of the Church and frightful disorder; so that one has seen what was called order and holy orders become the seat of the enemy's power, and what called itself the Church to be that which truth had to combat.

Now, in the perilous times of the last days, when there should be the form of godliness and its power denied, to what does the apostle (in view of everything which, before his prophetic eyes was springing up in the Church) direct his beloved Timothy, his son in the faith, this devoted heart into which he was pouring out his own? Here is the language he holds to him, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them . . . . 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, throughly furnished unto all good works." Now, it is very certain that this goes much farther than direction for the walk of the Church, that it embraces everything. The man of God is not simply a Christian; he is a man acting in the work and Church of God. This was the case with Timothy, to whom the epistle is addressed, and to whom Paul says, "Thou, O man of God," 1 Tim. 6: 11. He needed to know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God; 1 Tim. 3: 15.

Now for these times, after the departure of the apostle (times in which his immediate care would be wanting to the Church, and evil would go on increasing), to what does the apostle direct the faith of the man of God? Precisely to divinely inspired scripture, to that which we are told not to make a law of, to that which, if it must be said, is derided as a code, to what Timothy had learned from him (and where shall we learn from him, if not in the written word?); to the scriptures in fine, that he might be perfect and furnished unto every good work. Now I think that the work of the ministry and the care of the Church are a good work; at all events the apostle expressly says so to Timothy; 1 Tim. 3: 1.

74 So likewise it is to God and to the word of His grace, that, in similar circumstances, the apostle commends the elders of Ephesus; Acts 20: 29-32. All this relates to the administration of the Church.

If, then, we cannot do certain things, it is not that the authority of the word is wanting to us as to these things, nor hat it is not our blessing to possess these precious directions in which God has shewn us that He has thought of the least ants of His Church; but we acknowledge our weakness; and we do not pretend to do what God has not committed to us. Thus, for example, I do not pretend to name either elders or deacons. If others pretend to have the spiritual discernment and the authority necessary for this, let them do it; but of this I have not discerned the proofs - very far from it. More than this: he who should make such a pretension seems to me not to understand at all either the state of the Church, or the thoughts of God, to act contrary to the will of God, and to lack precisely that which is necessary in order to direct the Church, namely, intelligence of the thoughts of God. Do I despise the functions of elders and deacons? Do I love disorder? Far from it. And if I do not pretend to establish anyone in these offices, I own (blessing God with all my heart for it) the qualities requisite for them when they are manifested. I lend them all the moral support which spiritual respect with regard to what God has given them can afford, and I associate myself with them as far as it belongs to me to do so. And the word furnishes me with directions on this subject. It calls on me to own those who labour, those who give themselves to the ministry (diaconate) of the saints and to submit myself to them; 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13; 1 Cor. 16: 15; Heb. 13: 7-17; 1 Peter 5: 26. I do not treat this subject at length, but only in its relation to the authority of the word, while blessing God in that itself furnishes the answer to all its adversaries, from whatever quarter they may arise.

75 CONCLUSION

You, Christians, who take the word for your guide, for counsel, who find in it a precious gift which God has bestowed on us and a perfect light in every case, do not be discouraged. If you meet with opposition, and if the number of those who are willing to follow this way is small, be not astonished. "All men have not faith," 2 Thess. 3: 2.

And where there is faith, how many things, alas! tend to obscure spiritual life, to hinder the eye from being single, to cause us to say: "Let me first go," etc. (Luke 9: 59).

But faith is always blessed. The single eye always enjoys the sweet and precious light of God. The word suffices to make every man perfect; and, if distinctions be wished, it suffices not only to save him, it suffices also to make him wise unto salvation, and, further, to make him perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works.

Whoever you may be, dear and well-beloved brethren, confide in this word. Only remember that, to profit from it, you need the help and teaching of the living God. You can learn from it neither grace nor truth, nor make use of it, unless the Spirit of God instruct you. All the language, all the ideas of faith - of Christian life are found in it; but you have the care of a living and divine Master. This word is the sword of the Spirit.

Whatever may be moreover the forms and ways of piety which are found in them, and the zeal which impels them, you will find that those who oppose a walk which claims the word of God as authority in all things, leave aside or reject and do not understand the following truths:

First, the doctrine of the Church of God, the body of Christ, one upon earth, the bride of the Lamb.

Secondly, the presence and power of the Spirit of God, acting in the children of God and directing them; especially, the presence* of the Holy Ghost in the body, the Church down here, acting in it and directing it, as well as all its members, in the name of Him who is its Head.

{*Read, "operation."}

Thirdly, the authority and sufficiency of the word of God.

76 These Christians evade, on one side or other, the authority of the word of God. They admit it as Protestants, to escape from it as believers, as members of the Church, as disciples; and what they organize in nowise flows from it, as the "Constitution of the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud" has given us a proof.

You will also see that in general, among the Christians of whom we are speaking, the clergy take the place of worship. There is, it is true, some change and some progress in this last respect. The Spirit of God is producing wants; but there will never be a true and blessed answer to these wants, save in admitting with faith the principles called to mind above. For you, dear brethren, who have understood these things, I will add a warning.

One may have this precious knowledge necessary in order to walk intelligently before God (Eph. 5: 15); but one may have it, boast of it, proclaim it, and with all this repel humble souls desirous of advancing, and throw them into the hands of those who have no wish that they should walk according to this knowledge. We ourselves must walk in seriousness, in humility, in the love which the presence of God produces. This supposes faith and life in the soul. Where it is found, blessing is not wanting to those who thus walk. Although this does not justify the unbelief or the opposition of others, if you present the truth in such a way as not to glorify God, you give them power and influence against it. Principles are not enough: we need God. Without this, mighty principles are but a sword in the hands of a child or of a drunken man; it were better to take it from him, or at least, that he use it not till he be sober. Let us shew the fruits of our principles. Let us be firm in the truth. We must be firm. The more some oppose the truth, and others profess to wish to possess it, and accommodate themselves, without their conscience unreservedly submitting to it, to the wants it has produced in other persons (and both these cases present themselves), the more we have to keep in the narrow path it has marked out in the word for our souls, according to the grace and power of the Holy Ghost who has sanctified us to obey Christ. Let our hearts be large and our feet in the narrow path. Often, when people talk of charity, their hearts are narrow and their feet are following the path which suits them. It is this which makes the heart narrow, because the conscience is uneasy, and people do not like those who make this evident. The presence of God (and it is of this that we are speaking) gives firmness, practical submission to the word of God Himself, which tranquilizes the soul in the difficulties of the way, which causes one not to seek the prevalence of principles by crooked ways and human means; finally, it gives humility and uprightness. God will know how to enforce these principles, where He acts in His grace. Only let us manifest this power, He will do all the rest.

77 Yes, dear brethren, life, the presence of God, this is what (by the operation of the Holy Ghost in us and in others) gives force to the truths which are committed to us, whatever they may be. Better that these truths should not make way, than that we ourselves should get away from the presence of God to enforce them.

The need of unity and of spiritual action is making itself felt. You will see human efforts spring up, intended to produce things which answer to these wants. Do not trust them. The Church, the Spirit, the word, the practical expectation of Christ, these are the things of which you have now to realize the truth and power. While waiting for the coming of Jesus, as the immediate object of the spiritual affections of the heart, here is what we have to occupy ourselves with.

There are systems of every sort, the National, the Free, that of the Evangelical Alliance,* and others. When the truth is firmly retained, all this is judged in the soul without violence or noise. Nothing of all this can accord with the things I have spoken of: only let us be sure that God will honour personal faith wherever He finds it. Let us thus have hearts large, ready to own God wherever He works; but let us not be deceived by appearances. Neither one nor other of these systems can be the bride of Christ, nor the habitation of the Spirit of which the word speaks; nor can they act simply according to the word.

{*I will say a word on the "Evangelical Alliance," because souls are sought to be gained under the sweet name of union.

The foundations of this Alliance are quite different from those which the Spirit of God would or could have laid, although the want which suggested this Alliance may have been, I doubt not, in great part produced by that Spirit. As usual, man has sought to arrange things in his own way. And, in the first place, the principle of clergy has been made fundamental. A second principle which has been established has been that, in becoming a member of the Alliance, no one was supposed, either to renounce the sect to which he belonged, or to renounce the putting forward of his own principles, a condition without which union would have been impossible. Dr. Chalmers strongly insisted on united action, saying that, without this, the "Alliance" would have no vitality and would not stand. People did not dare to follow this advice; and it was decided that the point should be left on one side! Later on, the English members of the "Alliance" decided not to admit any possessing slaves, a measure which excluded a certain number of Christians of the United States. People were thus led to subdivide the "Alliance" into a certain number of national districts, and to renounce a general union.

Can it be said that this is the unity of the Spirit?

As to the doctrines owned by the "Alliance," they comprise too much or too little to serve as a common ground for all those whom it is designed to unite. It is of little use to enter into other details; for, except a great annual meeting, a great deal of talk, and some local reading-meetings, from which are excluded the Quakers, those called Plymouth Brethren, and, through one cause or another, the greater part of Christians, this "Alliance" does next to nothing.

In France, under the name of "Union Evangélique," the "Alliance" is only an instrument of clericalism and exclusiveness, and even, it appears to me, without much good faith. I say this, because, if one pretends to seek the union of all Christians, and uses this pretension to make of it an instrument of exclusiveness, I cannot call that good faith. In proof of what I assert, I may mention the exclusive communications made to those who are thought to belong to the clergy; I may mention the fact that there is presented to those who wish to become members of the Alliance an engagement to sign, by which they bind themselves not to be present at a meeting held by any of the brethren professing what are called Plymouthist principles. Is this engagement required everywhere? I know not. What I do know is, that it is required; and it is certain that those who act in the "Union" and for the "Union," actively make use of the "Union" for the object indicated. That people should oppose views which they do not approve, is nothing surprising, and can readily be understood; but to set up the "Union," to attain this end under the pretext of union, is what I can understand but cannot honour.}

78 Now, dear brethren, God shakes everything except the kingdom which cannot be shaken. He will remove everything save that. Why build that which His coming will destroy? Let us keep ourselves firmly in the word of His patience. He did not possess, He possesses not yet, the fruit of the travail of His soul: all which is not that will perish; let us attach ourselves to that which will not perish. Every other thing will distract us. Impossible for me to enjoy fully the coming of Jesus as a promise, if I am seeking to build the things which His coming will destroy. His Church will be taken up to Him. His Spirit will be for ever its power. His word abides for ever. Let us abide by it. Neither will our labour be lost (1 Cor. 15: 30-32), nor the work of faith, although this word be, no doubt, the word of His patience.

79 How many events since these pages were written have come to give force and reality to the truths revealed as to the Church, the Spirit, the word, and the practical expectation of Christ! How happy to have received in peace, by faith, that which these events give the demonstration of, and which becomes doubly precious in the midst of all that is being unfolded before our eyes! And what a confirmation for faith, to see events confirm, by providential actings, that which, by the teaching of the Spirit, we have believed and received as truths.

And, in presence of these events, how should Christians cherish and realize, more than ever, the coming of the Lord Jesus! It will be the daily joy of our souls and a powerful means of confirming us in peace and in a sure and Christian walk. Let us know how to apply its power to all our walk. Let us remember that an incorruptible inheritance, undefiled, is reserved in heaven for us who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time. And, meanwhile, let us remember that Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world," and that we ourselves are not of this world, even as Christ was not of this world. We are dead and risen with Him. Let us apply these testimonies of the word to all our walk, remembering that our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for the Lord Jesus as Saviour, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body. While walking tranquilly with Jesus, the God of peace will be with us. Nothing separates us from His love. He may let us be chastened if need be, but He never abandons the government of all things. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father. The Lord Jesus walks on the rough sea as on the calm: we could not, without Him, walk either on the one or on the other.

Kept in the communion of the Lord, far from diminishing in our hearts the value of the elementary truths of the gospel, the principles I have spoken of make them infinitely more precious, and at the same time much more clear. They will be proclaimed with more power and simplicity.

Thus the coming of Jesus will re-animate our zeal to call those who are His own, to address ourselves to sinners, to warn the world of the judgment which awaits it, and which awaits it such as it is down here; it will impel us, according to our measure, to a holy activity in the Church, to the end that the Church may awake and may prepare itself, as also to a holy activity towards the world.

80 May God keep us near to Himself, and preserve us, you and myself, my brethren, whoever you are who love the Lord Jesus, in the faithful and patient waiting for Jesus, who has said to us, "Surely, I come quickly!" Amen.

Considerations on the character of the religious movement of the day and on the truths by which the Holy Ghost acts for the good of the church.

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1849.

<04002F> 81

That there is a universal movement on the subject of the position of the Church of God - a movement which breaks many bonds, and upsets many notions is a plain fact. The world itself is occupied with it. The ties which unite to the State the bodies commonly called churches are waxing old with the forms of society whence they originated. The ivy falls with the crumbling edifice.

In all this the Christian is called to separate the good from the evil. All these movements are connected with the innovations which have taken place in the old social state of Europe - with the revolutions, which have destroyed respect (or rather, which manifest the destruction of respect) for the traditions of their forefathers - respect which sustained at once the social state and the religion of the country. Although formerly some objections were raised against such and such details, men felt, nevertheless, that the country and church of their ancestors were at stake. The fact that a thing is ancient no longer suffices to insure respect for it.

The Scotch movement had this character no less than the others, though in a less evident manner. It shared the softened character of the social revolution in Great Britain; but it was not the less a popular movement counter to aristocratic influence.*

{*An influence which now withdraws more than ever from Presbyterianism, and more than ever attaches itself to the Episcopal system, as in England to Puseyism.}

The other free churches have evidently originated in the political troubles of the countries to which they belong.

Was there then no movement of conscience in that which produced the Free Church of Scotland? Assuredly there was. The question of patronage had agitated Scotland for a century at least. In other countries the consciences of a great number of persons, ministers or laymen, had been burdened by the mixture of the world and the Church, or driven to separation by other reasons: but these difficulties had never produced free churches. Conscience acted individually. Some understood one another perhaps, and acted in concert. A secession was formed - a separation, a school of theology, or the like. Individual conscience, and a certain spiritual activity, delivered from the yoke, found free course; but the national body, as yet intact, persevered in judging this as an irregularity, and sometimes persecuted it.

82 Matters no longer rest there. All is debated. The ties which bound up the whole in one bundle are unloosed. The notion of liberty has weakened the rights of the Church which the state supported. It is no more solely the conscience of spiritual men who, by faith, open for themselves a road in the face of personal difficulties created by associations which they respect. A principle is laid down, as the sole religious principle that maintains the rights of the conscience and of Christ, and, as such, declares itself entitled to occupy the theatre of the world. The providence of God is prominent therein. This is an important consideration for faith and conscience. People desire the Church to be formed according to Christ. Men, long dogged in their consciences, and pushed forward now by providential circumstances, are seen to shake off the yoke of an alien influence, and to act with faith, in the design of forming a church which answers to the wants of the times, such as they understand them, and to the ideas they have got of what the Church ought to be.

2. Here an important question arises. Is it the duty of all to join this? Is it in this path the Spirit of God leads the Christian?

The heart welcomes the faith and faithfulness to conscience which are found there. Yet brethren, who, for years, have walked outside the religious world, should not, as regards their own position, have need to think of this. For years they have taken a position, and they believe it to be in conformity with true intelligence of the word. While all was quiet, they studied this word; and God shewed them, they are convinced, the path which they must follow. There they have found the blessing and approval of God, while experiencing their weakness and all sorts of infirmities which accompanied their little faith; but seeing so much more, in the midst of all this, how God protected the work, and, poor as it was, acted by it on the conscience of His own, and for the conversion of sinners. They have even foreseen all the convulsion which unexpectedly came to pass, so that it neither surprised nor alarmed them. Partakers of a kingdom which cannot be moved, they awaited, in peace and with joy, the coming of Jesus. The revolutions which have taken place confirmed them in their convictions and thoughts without shaking their confidence and joy. The shelter of a faith which explains all these things, and understands so much the better that nothing it possesses is thereby touched, is a position which spares them the excitement which overpowers men preoccupied by the circumstances of the moment, and makes the state and duties of the Church hinge, in their eyes, upon the movements of the world, where peace is ardently sought, because it nowhere exists, and where it will be sought in vain by those who desire it here below, till the Prince of Peace come to establish it; though God may, for a time, restrain the billows. The brethren, of whom I speak, I repeat, find more motives than ever for peace, and a retired, quiet walk in the road marked out for them. A secure shelter is so much the more prized when the storm bursts, though nothing be changed in the shelter itself, and even because it is not changed. For them their path - painful for faith at the beginning, but now staked off with so many blessings - has more charms, more attractions than ever; they have more motives than ever for following it.

83 If men stopped there, all would be simple. "Stand still" is all that there would remain to be said. "Abide in the path where the tokens of a God of goodness recur to you, and where the goodness of a God who directs you, has set you; a path you have found in the word, found in peace, and yet with a heart burthened with grief for the Church, in the midst of the contempt of brethren who then boasted in a position which now they decry with equal energy - of brethren who find the sole bond of union in that wherein they only saw schism some few days ago. Why busy yourselves with aught else than faithfulness to that which God has taught you?"

But here are some considerations which others present to us.

"The difficulties of the times are great."

"True; but faith strengthened in a path that is known, is not afraid before them, like those who, just departing from a system in which they have lived, find everything new to their individual faith, and feel themselves, at the same time, called to found a system."

84 "But (say you) the difficulties are great." Unity is cried up as the only means of strength against the rising billows. "It is a duty. You ought to think of the whole Church, and not merely of your own peculiar peace. If you do not, you cannot be blessed. Let us be unitedly one, for the good and strength of all."

I answer to this, that, as the only means of strength, unity does not inspire me with unreserved confidence. I fear somewhat that, clothing itself withal with the character of the desire of unity, it is a want of faith with regard to the Head which seeks so strongly the support of the members. The conscience of our brethren has long felt the evil; but the importance in their eyes of those who shared in the same system themselves, but who had no strength from Christ the Head of His house, hindered them from separating from them. This subsists still in their minds. These brethren feared then to separate from the mass, because of the importance which their own want of faith lent those who formed it. They fear them in this same measure still; and that so much the more, as conscience and faith enfeeble themselves by hesitations, and delays and weaken themselves by the accrediting of things which they condemn. We know to what point influences so deleterious have led some brethren, otherwise respected by all. "Say ye not, A confederacy to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary," Isa. 8: 12-14. Such is what occurs to the spirit of the believer on hearing these cries for union made to those who are departing from under a burden to which they have so long bowed their back.

But when they tell us, "You ought to be concerned about all your brethren, and not confine yourselves to seeking your own peace, and your particular interests," this has a hold on the conscience and heart, and we are engaged, before God, to weigh what this appeal demands of us.

What is the character, what is the force of this movement in the sight of God? what its claims on our spiritual judgment? As regards man, there is good - there is conscience. As regards God, His hand has shewn itself in the circumstances. To what point does His Spirit shew Himself in this movement itself?

Dullness of conscience in these things does not induce me to address the least reproach whatsoever to our dear brethren who have shared it. One is rejoiced, with all one's heart, that God has delivered them. The heart of the Christian goes cordially to meet them. On their side they will agree that it is a question of our responsibility toward God, of the walk which would glorify Him most. Now, dullness of conscience - this feebleness which has hindered conscience from acting for long years of convictions, during which these dear brethren propped up what they knew to be evil, and even condemned those who separated themselves from their system and walk (and add to that the fact that circumstances have brought about the conclusion at which they are themselves arrived) - this dullness of conscience hinders its activity of today from exercising so much power in forming their judgment as to the walk which is to be followed before God by us who already walk outside that which they have just left. Does that hinder our hearts from being open - cordially open - to these brethren, from receiving them, and wishing to strengthen them, by prayer, as well as by an interest sincere and manifest to the eyes of all? Far from it. For my part (my voice is very feeble), I see God's hand in what is passing. I see conscience in my brethren. My voice would encourage them, as my heart rejoices in it.

85 The fact that "the hand of God has acted" produces evidently, in the heart of him who looks to God, respect for the movement. God is there, that is evident. This action of His providence makes what is passing to be respected. But, to a certain point, it deprives the work of the character of a work of God's Spirit. I say to a certain point; for I have no doubt that the Spirit of God acts in the heart of these brethren, and I hope also in others not yet manifested. I understood also that the fact of having preceded them in date is far from saying all. "There are first who shall be last, and last who shall be first." I understand that this may seem to say from God, to those who walked outside the world-church, "If you had been faithful - if you had had the faith necessary to make the word tell in the souls I had prepared, I should have had no need to raise up a new testimony." I submit myself, I hope, with all my heart to this appeal to my conscience. It is always good to listen to God. Only it behoves that I seriously weigh what He tells me, and that in the means He employs, if the means be not directly His word, I separate what is of man from what is of God; "the precious from the vile," Jer. 15: 19. My brethren, I am sure, will agree to this. Without it I should go astray in a path, which, while presenting something good, would not answer to the impulse communicated by God Himself; and I should lose perhaps much of the testimony He had formerly confided to me. I repeat, then, that the providential character of the present movement, the impulse it has received from political movements of the day, the fact that it has even sprung up in these movements - all this requires me to consider what is of God, and what is not. It is not, I repeat also, that I see not the work of God's Spirit in their hearts. Nor is it that I attribute the religious movement to the spirit which has produced the political movement. Far from it. Nevertheless, it is plain that the religious movement has been occasioned by the political movement. Consciences were discontented. The Holy Spirit had suggested wants to their hearts. But neither this trouble of conscience, nor this action of the Holy Spirit, gave birth to that which is being done. Revolutions followed unexpectedly. Bonds, in appearance still solid, were found rotten or worn out; and that which conscience and the work of the Spirit in it brought not about, circumstances have accomplished. The Church was not set free by the power of the Spirit; revolutions have freed her. Blessed be God, if His goodness accomplish outwardly that which the faith of our brethren could not lay hold of, that which was offered them by His hand ever stretched out to give them what His voice, in the word, revealed to them!

86 3. It has not been so when God acted in His deliverances.

Cast out by his brethren, who understood him not, Moses received from God in the bush the rod of his authority. He sets out. He returns to his oppressed brethren, and makes known to them the God of their fathers; and he forsakes Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king, for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible, and had respect unto the recompense of reward. The people, standing still, see the deliverance of God Himself, and their enemies are swallowed up in the "mighty waters." In the face of much unbelief, and in spite of many murmurs, God Himself and His cloud led them through the wilderness, where there was no way and where fiery serpents disputed their passage. It was God Himself who brought into Canaan this, alas! incredulous people, acquainting them with the discovery that, at the end of so many griefs and dangers, their raiment waxed not old, neither did their foot swell. It was the faithfulness of God which nourished a faith ready to die, and which maintained the courage of some in the presence of the unbelief of many.

87 "Blessed is the man that dwelleth in thy house!" And blessed also is he in whose heart are the ways, the ways which lead to "thy house," and which, "passing through the valley of Baca, make it a well: the rain also filleth the pools."

And when Christianity, that unspeakable gift of God, was introduced into this world, what did we see in Jesus, that Man who lifted not up His voice in the streets? A testimony which was His, purely and profoundly moral - what do I say? - divine, in the midst of a world which had its own ways; a testimony, a life, a person, introducing into this world the light of God Himself, the consolation, the brightness, the power morally independent, which proceeded from Him; and that in a humility which made them penetrate in love wheresoever a broken heart, degraded perhaps in men's eyes, had need of it; a humility which opened the road to a love before which nothing was found too low for God to descend to it in grace. O what need had this poor world of it! Did He borrow anything from the circumstances which surrounded Him? The contrary was the entire of His life. He came into the midst of these circumstances to reveal God there, because all was opposed to Him, and because, consequently, all was miserable; and God in love entered there in that grace, which much more abounds where sin abounded. Did Jesus meet with the concurrence of circumstances? Certainly not. "His time" was "when man was ungodly and without strength." Thus work must have been the work of God. O how happy are we to have a work which is a manifestation of Him in this poor world! Has not God made circumstances co-operate? Yes, all conspires after its way: not that He arranges circumstances to falsify the character of the testimony, as if this testimony were not of God, or as if man were not opposed to Him. Whatever might have been the height of the wall that man opposed to His entrance, to Him, Jesus, the porter opened, and the sheep heard His voice.

We are not Jesus. No, my brethren, we are not. But you would imitate Him; and God is faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able. Here is what the word teaches me: "for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name." - And He that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth, what does He for those who are thus described on His part? He sets before them an open door, and no one shall shut it. That then, to which I hold is to keep His word, and not to deny His name; to keep His word whatever may be the weakness of the position in which I am found; to maintain pure, and such as He has entrusted it to me, the testimony of His name This is what He calls keeping the word of His patience. Our business is to keep the testimony pure. God will accompany it with His power. Jesus was the faithful witness. The porter opened to Him. God, who ruled all, put the testimony in relief by circumstances seemingly opposed, but in which, in reality, He made all conspire to the full effect of this testimony. He who has all power in heaven and earth will do the same. If it is His word, the word of His patience, even when it shall be with but little strength, He will open and no one will shut, and He will keep us from the hour of temptation, which is coming upon all the world, to try them that DWELL UPON THE EARTH. You know the beautiful name the church bore to which He addressed this promise.

88 Our task is then to keep His word, not to deny His name all that His name implies (for the name of Jesus means what He is), to keep the word of His patience.

The testimony of Jesus derives, then, neither its strength nor its existence from the circumstances of the moment: its value consists in this, that He was what He was in Himself, coming from God and giving testimony to Him. God perfectly took care of this testimony.

Let us now examine the testimony of the Apostles. Did this testimony draw its existence, did it originate in circumstances? No. It came directly from God. Not only is this true of the doctrine; it is not less true of the testimony rendered to Christ Himself Whether miraculously, or by His energy in the soul, the Spirit of God raised a testimony which drew its strength and its character from this energy itself of the Spirit; thus He introduced, and without mixture, the testimony of God into the world. This the world, this the Church needed. Nor is it less the true testimony, now that the Church is quite mixed up with the world, and at the same time steeped in error.

Outward persecution acted in Judea so as to extend the sphere of testimony. By that patience of grace which had told the Apostles to preach in His name, beginning at Jerusalem, Jerusalem had been for a moment the centre of God's testimony; but, become hostile to the Gospel, it drives from its bosom the persons who testified. God then recommences His testimony at Antioch, in making of the communications and authority of the Holy Spirit the starting point of this testimony. Never has the movement of the world given rise to that which has been God's own testimony.

89 Come we then to the Reformation. Is it born of circumstances? By no means. It is (none call it in question) a soul chosen of God, whose anguish goes even to death; a soul hence stripped of its own righteousness, and, what is of great importance, stripped to a great degree of its own strength; who finds a Bible, and in the Bible the marvellous revelation of God's sovereign and efficacious grace. It is not a new revelation, like that of the Law and that of Christianity; and the work is thus mixed up with the inner life of man, develops itself little by little in its fundamental truths with this life itself, and clothes, to a certain point, with its effects the measure of light to which the instrument who accomplished it arrived. But it is the fruit of an inner work. Circumstances, revolutions, in no wise caused the Reformation. The profound iniquity that existed in that which called itself the Church, inasmuch as it shocked and disgusted the natural conscience of man, dashed with his interests, and insulted him in the feelings that were dearest to his heart - all this was a cause that the truth, which was to deliver the mass from this insupportable burden, gained them over to the support of this truth without having penetrated their hearts; and the work of the Reformation became a work of multitudes and nations. Kings and princes took advantage of it, in order to get rid of the pope, and to be masters at home. The people, no more exalting Rome, resorted only to the temporal authority; and what called itself the Church exalted princes and kings. But whatever form it took, this work derived its origin from God, and drew its strength from God by faith. It was not the fruit of circumstances, though God wrought in many ways to bring about this result, both by subsequent political events, and by the invention of printing and the introduction of the Greek literature of Constantinople, which preceded this epoch. In its cause, origin, and energy, the work was exclusively inward and divine, though not a new revelation, destined to stamp its particular character upon the result produced. A work which is at the same time a revelation, preserves its distinctive character, whatever be the unfaithfulness of man, by the very fact that it is a revelation. But the Reformation was a moral work in man, a work in which the Spirit of God acted; but it was a fruit of the Spirit of God which related to a revelation already given; a fruit which, in the work, made this revelation stand out with a remarkable strength, and which, if the work should fail, sent us, not to the work itself, but to the revelation which was both the source and authority of it, even as God's Spirit was its strength. Christianity rested much on the Old Testament; but it was a new revelation, as we all recognize. And that is what makes the difference, in this respect, between the modern school of Geneva and the truth of the position of the Christian before God in our days.

90 The work of the Reformation was a work of God's Spirit, and of the power of the truth; and its history gives me a proof of this power, an effect of this truth; but it does not give me the standard of it. The Reformation is not a revelation that abides, preserving always the same degree of authority, never ceasing to be the rule of truth, forasmuch as it reveals it; it is but a fruit which can decay, and which sends me back to the rule whose authority maintains itself intact throughout all ages. The Reformation was in no sense Christianity itself. Christianity was not reproduced by it, and that by the very fact that it was not a revelation. It was a very precious fruit produced by the Holy Ghost on this tree already planted. To make of it the standard of truth, of that which God ought to do, is to misapprehend its nature, and, what is much more important, is to misapprehend what is Christianity. We must come to the word, which the Reformation so blessedly exhumed. The Church might have need of certain truths which are found there, and which God in His wisdom brought not on the stage at the time of the Reformation. Not to appreciate the Reformation would be to despise the work of God. On the other hand, to consider the historical church as that to which we ought to return, and as the standard of what we ought to do, would be to disown the living God who acted there, and who acts always; to disown the word He has given us as the sole standard of our faith - and the word sanctions none other; to disown, finally, the power and supremacy of the Spirit, and the care of Christ with regard to His Church, as if we could impose on Christ the historical idea that we make for ourselves, of His action at a given period, as an instruction and a standard for us as to what He should do now.

91 4. Far be it from me to suggest to my reader the thought that the school of which I speak would, in doctrine, establish another rule of faith than the word. I speak of its system, sufficiently know by its writings; a system which, in one manner or another, is found expressed in the Constitutions of the free churches, and the Address of the brethren who withdrew from the Synod of Paris. Now, I believe that to take historically the Reformation as the standard of truth, as Christianity integrally restored, is to make a profound miscalculation, and to strike a blow at the authority of the word in its nature, and at the right to be alone heard which it has.

The consequences soon force themselves upon us. One is forced to make the sin of man appear to be the wisdom of God, because God can make use of everything. Lutheranism and Calvinism are there; Anglicanism and Nationalism, or the union of the Church and State, are there; and men torture themselves to draw from these things (which assuredly are not found in the word of God) philosophical consequences which they apply today, and abandon or destroy tomorrow in order to form something altogether new; and in order to make the essay of this novelty, they bring us back to the work which produced what they destroy. Though there be in the Reformation an admirable work of God's Spirit, it suffices not to adapt to the circumstances of the present time the truths then admitted; a task of which I understand at the same time the bearing, and which contains a just principle as to the walk of the Church of God. Would we serve God in our generation, let us take the Bible itself, not to question truths already acquired (new truths cannot put aside the old), but let us take it as truth itself.

It is to that I attach myself, and not to a work in man, though it be a work of the Spirit of God. At the epoch of the Reformation, God, all wise, put in relief the truths necessary for His Church. And while I receive them, I do not conclude that God has nothing to make known to me from His word necessary for the times in which we live. It is one thing to find in the Reformation man's liberty of thought - that is, the intellectual principle of sin - and here is that to which Rationalists of every sort limit themselves. It is another thing to find there the communication of the truth which we have to make use of today, adapting it to the new circumstances of the Church; and here is the horizon whereby the brethren of the free churches of different shades are bounded: and, again, another thing is to own the work of God and the powerful truths brought to light by the power of His Spirit, and take the Bible as the servant of God bound to this sole rule, without daring either to own any other means of finding His will, or to withdraw from anything of that which is found there, confiding in God, in His faithful love to His Church a love according to which He communicates the things needful for the circumstances in which she actually finds herself.

92 In the perfection of the word, there are, I have no doubt, truths and lights necessary for the critical circumstances, for the trying days, in which we are found, which God gave not to His servants at the time of the Reformation; truths which, at least, they made no use of, dragged away by the circumstances in which they were, and which, on the contrary, we could not perhaps pass by if we would ensure the blessing of the Church at this moment.

The deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, Christianity, and even the Reformation, proceed directly from God and His work. It is God in the bush; Christ come from the bosom of the Father; the apostles sent of Him and filled of the Holy Ghost; Paul eyewitness of His glory; Paul and Barnabas sent from the bosom of the Church by the voice of the Holy Ghost; it is spiritual energy which, drawing its testimony from the truth already revealed, established it according to the measure of this energy and the gift which was distributed. I speak of the testimony itself, and not of the instruments or of the form of their mission. Luther and Calvin were raised up by God for a work which takes its rise in their faith by His grace.*

{* The reader will find, in pages 11, 12, and 29 of the Address of Paris brethren, their principles on this point. Here are some of them, which will make what is at the bottom of their thought understood: -

"Thus spring up [say they] the living and popular professions of the Church, which are those of all its members, which answer to the actual attacks of infidelity, and resolve the difficulties of the time.

"We place ourselves again on the ground of the Reformed Churches of France. We raise with our feeble hands the colours which drag in the dust. It is worth while to pick up this noble standard of our fathers, which is the standard of Christ-of Christ boldly and clearly confessed."}

93 Now, a testimony born of circumstances is clothed more or less with the character which they imprint on it. We are bound to examine to what point it is the word of Christ's patience. The elevated position, both in society and in the world church which they who render it occupy, may be an element which has weight, looked at from the point of view of providence. God may make use of it, and even employ it to put in the shade and bury a testimony that possesses it not, and that because of its infidelity; and if God found it good to do so, His judgment would certainly be just. But this consideration says nothing as to the character of the testimony itself, and cannot act on conscience, although the fact might act on circumstances.

It is evident this is a public fact, that the formation of free churches has been a result, a produce of the political movements of the day. The consequence has been that they have not extended beyond the sphere on which these movements have acted. The revolution of the Canton of Vaud produced a free church of the Canton of Vaud; the revolution of Geneva gave occasion to a free or evangelical church of Geneva; and the revolution of February is the cradle of the free church of France.

Does that rise to the height of the testimony of God?

There will be, it is understood, fraternity amongst those different churches. Community of interests and sentiments will produce and keep up, to a certain point, ecclesiastical confraternity; for I speak not here of purely Christian brotherhood, which has evidently other foundations. But does all this answer to the wants which the Holy Spirit has caused to spring up in a great number of Christian souls, and to the exigencies of the love of Christ, and the rights of this love over us? Do these new national free churches answer to the testimony Christ has given at this moment? Have not political circumstances, in the bosom of which they have received existence, left on them a tint, which, in certain respects, absorbs and hides this testimony dear to Christ?

You will admit, my brethren, that it is a serious point for a conscientious soul. You will grant me that we are bound to walk, as much as we can, to the extent of the testimony of the Saviour, and I will not say the entire testimony which is found in the word, as if we had wholly realized it. No. We are all by ignorance below that. At least we should neither be below what we have understood, nor place ourselves in a position which, modelled according to the little light we have acquired, hinders us from going farther

94 This is so much the more important as they already speak to us of schism, if we range not ourselves there, and of a schism which afflicts all the Church. And those dear and excellent brethren, who latterly separated from the Synod of Protestant France, declare to us that it would be a scandal for the independent churches not to be joined with them in the work of the constituent assembly which they are going to summon. I do not take that as addressing itself to me, for I do not belong to the independent churches which they have in view. I speak as the servant of God to the consciences of the whole Church of God. I understand them, and I understand their desire of unity, and the fear with which the effects of division inspire them. I desire neither to weaken their walk (far from it), nor to furnish arms against them to those who remain in evil. I have no sympathy with those who remain there, save the sympathies of my prayers, and of a Christian heart toward my brethren who I see in something which is more than an error, whom I believe to be in a very grave fault, which, though they have not committed it knowingly and willingly, is no less a fault. I impute nothing to them. As I have said, God may often make the last first. We are all under grace - the only hope of us all. But as to their position, I believe it is entirely false. Further, I have no doubt that the brethren who signed the Address to the Members of the Reformed Churches of France sincerely seek to do the will of God in their constituent assembly. But is the starting-point such that the result can satisfy the testimony of God - this word of patience that we are called to keep? And, without risking here a remark on the circumstances in the midst of which this assembly will be able to unite, nor on the probable consequences of the resolutions it will be called to take, I will confine myself to presenting some considerations on the testimony of God, and on the great principles which serve as the basis to these free churches, as well as to other religious movements; besides considerations which the Lord, I doubt not, has given me to find in the word, which apply to all the movement, and flow from the truths which, in the depths of God's thoughts, precede the movement and govern the whole subject. If the signers of the address deign to read this, they will feel that I have not slighted that which their heart put forward to Christians.

95 5. The Constitution of the Evangelical Church of Geneva, laying down something precise, will give me an evident opportunity for presenting my thoughts upon these things. This constitution, having, besides, the pretension to unite the Christians of this city, and claiming rights over our consciences, demands some observations. This pretension is not expressed, and could not be, in the letter itself of the constitution; but it is in the writings of those who are occupied with it-writings which accuse of schism those who do not join this new church.

I appeal, nevertheless, to all my brethren.

The fact that the Evangelical Church of Geneva is the church of a single city, has preserved it from certain things which, in my eyes, are contrary to the word, which (bear with me, my brethren) disfigure the constitution of the Free Church of the Canton of Vaud. A considerable part of its doctrine freely expresses truths which it is my happiness to believe and my joy to hear expressed by brethren whose sincerity and piety I honour. But when I come to the question of the Church (and surely this is the question, when men are making one), I find a gap, or rather error, which seems to me to attach itself to all the work of the free churches, and to make their position essentially false; and I pray my brethren to be willing to weigh this point seriously. It is found at the bottom of all the questions which at this moment agitate the Church of God. I shall speak frankly and with candour. I owe it to my brethren. It is true brotherly love.

The error at the foundation of their work will always hinder it, as it seems to me, from satisfying the wants of a large number of enlightened Christians, as well as the heart and intentions of Christ, and from answering either to the wants arising out of the difficult times through which evidently the Church of God must pass, or to the light which those trials, I doubt not, will cause to break upon souls. Their work will be partial, and will not last, such at least as it is at present. It has not roots deep enough in truth, and particularly in the truth of which God is now making use. The foundation of the truth as to the Church is wanting. Instead of drawing its essential everlasting truth of God - I speak not of salvation, but of that which concerns the Church - it seeks it in the circumstances and habits of the moment; so that, in proportion as we advance and circumstances alter, a further difficulty will be produced.

96 I beseech my brethren to hear me. I make no question of their sincerity. I sympathize with them in the difficulties through which they have passed, and which have influenced their walk. I own the faith of several among them, who were obliged to act in the face of the most painful circumstances. My heart goes forth to them in all these respects. In acting according to the principles set forth in the different constitutions of free churches, they will succeed, perhaps, in uniting a certain number of persons. Their faith, their personal influence, the wants of many souls who are seeking something better, the confidence which their persons inspire - confidence, without doubt, deserved, so far as that may be said of man - all will contribute to this; but I feel assured they will not work the work of God, such as they desire to make it. I count on their love, and that they will believe me sincere. I expect from their Christian honesty, that they will do me the justice to believe that I have studied the word of God on this point, and that what I present to them is what I believe to be a truth of God, absolutely necessary to the blessing of His people.

Let them smite me. Alas! I am accustomed to it; but let them hear.

Here, then, is that which I assert: -

The idea of the Church, so far as it relates to the present question, is wanting to them. Perhaps this remark already produces impatience. For the sake of the glory of our common Master, I beseech them to grant me some moments of attention. If I do not produce conviction in those dear brethren whom I respect, at least I shall have made known to them the grave - and for me obligatory - reasons, on the ground of which I cannot walk with that which would deny the principle I am about to explain, because I judge that in denying it they would not do the work of God. If conviction is not produced, charity, at least, will gain ground.

In the discussions I have had in England on this subject (I speak not of the frightful heresies which have broken out there latterly); in my discussion with Mr. Rochat, with Mr. Francis Olivier, in the arrangements of the Free Church of the Canton of Vaud; in those of the Evangelical Church of Geneva, and up to the recent attacks of Mr. Monsell; it is, with all, the absence of the idea of the Church which has marked all their reasonings, and all the constitutions of the free churches. I believe this truth - with that of the coming of the Saviour - the most important, the most vital which can be at this moment; not for individual salvation, but for the walk of the Church of God, and for that of the Christian whose assured salvation is already realized in his heart. It throws light upon this salvation itself, and upon the doctrine that establishes it, which it confirms with new lustre. It gives to this salvation a fresh importance - a far grander bearing.

97 Mr. Rochat had well understood what the question was; and though at the end he declared that his ideas on this point were modified, he had in clear and precise terms denied the existence of the Church, such as I had defined it. He felt that such a doctrine, if true, rendered the dissenting systems impossible. He was right.

He sums up his views and mine in the following words: "But what I have denied, what I deny still, is that which the author affirms, and which I believe him unable to prove - the unity of the Church in the sense of a society here below . . . . A fundamental error into which the author has fallen, and which falsifies all his reasoning . . . is that he considers the Church a sort of body," etc. Mr. Rochat adds, that the passages I had cited relate "not to the unity of a society, which would have tended to make of churches a single body, responsible, and having a common destiny, here below, as to its existence as a society," etc.

The same point was at the bottom of my controversy with Mr. F. Olivier.* Remember the question is not about the Church as a body infallibly gathered in glory, but about the Church as one body here below.

{*Mr. Olivier has latterly had a protest published to shew that he retains the doctrine of the Church. The reader will find the sort of passages which have made me say that he denies it formally.}

Here are his words: "Mr. Darby owns that the word church means assembly; and though he cannot deny this truth, namely, that the body of Christ never has been really gathered here below, and that the different churches have never been united in one single assembly, he ceases not continually to represent the Christians living on the earth, at a given moment, as being one assembly, with the responsibility of this assembly; and he calls it the assembly of Christ - the universal assembly on earth."*

{*"Defence of the Principles," etc., p. 75.}

98 "Could he better insist now on the idea of a Church assembled on earth, and receiving, for this reason, the name of church or assembly? But that cannot be, not only because the Church was never united in a single assembly here below, but also," etc. "But that this whole, this totality, was one assembly, and that for this it was named the Church, I presume the author no more thinks of sustaining it."*

{*Ibid., pp. 88, 89.}

"When Mr. Darby affirms that the totality of churches here below forms the Church, he goes also too far, seeing that what forms the Church is not only the totality of the churches at a given time, but the totality of the believers in all the succession of ages between the first and second advent of Christ."

"Mr. Darby's manner of thinking makes a division of the body of Christ in two, and even makes two bodies of Christ, if I may say so; namely, first, this pretended body of Christ that God should have created complete on earth," etc.*

{*Ibid., p. 93.}

"I could not charge myself with any responsibility in respect of this pretended exterior body, . . . or this would-be assembly, which, however, has never been assembled."*

{*Ibid., p. 125.}

"Now, this view is contrary, at once, to the notions which scripture gives us of the totality and unity of the Church, as well as of the assembly of the Church, since the earthly body of Christ, which Mr. Darby believes to have been formed of a totality of disseminated churches, would never have been really assembled here below."*

{*"Defence of the Principles," etc., p. 94; and "Essay on the Kingdom of God," pp. 116, 117.}

Such is the language of Mr. Olivier.

I will not make any observations on the passages just cited. I confine myself to begging the reader not to take what is there said of my views as being an exact representation of them. My object is only to establish the fact as to the doctrine.

The Evangelical Church of Geneva believes that particular churches, established in different places, and more or less a mixture of regenerate and unconverted persons, ought, etc.: "it believes, also, that over and beyond all those particular churches which have been, are, and shall be, there exists before God a holy universal Church, composed of all the regenerate, and forming a single invisible body of which Jesus Christ is the Head, and of which the members shall be manifested only at the last day."*

{*It is the reproduction of Mr. F. Olivier's views, with this difference, that Mr. Olivier makes the Church consist of all the believers between the first and the second coming of Jesus; and the constitution of the Evangelical Church of Geneva makes it consist of all the regenerate, an expression which must embrace also the believers of the Old Testament.}

99 Here are ideas sufficiently precise. There are particular churches, and there is an invisible universal Church. Now I say that the idea of the Church, such as the word of God presents it, is entirely lost here.

The constitution of the Free Church of the Canton of Vaud goes farther. It makes of their Vaudois flocks a body which, according to it, is a church, and the spouse of Christ.

Mr. Monsell sets forth views fundamentally the same; but I pass by his essay here; I will speak of it elsewhere. It is not necessary, either, to speak of the opinions which are in vogue in England.

An evident consequence of the opinions just cited is, that there exists not a unity like that which we find in the apostolic times, and that it is not even sought. The movements which we witness are national. We have a free church of Scotland, a free church of the Canton of Vaud, an evangelical church of Geneva, and the reformed churches of France. *

{*I know not if our brethren of France have advanced a step in their ecclesiastical ideas, and rejected the idea of a reformed church of France. In general, they speak of the reformed churches of France; but they speak also of a church, and the projected constituent assembly seem about to unite the reformed churches in a body. Some explanations would be desirable on this subject. Nobody, at this time, should seek to create embarrassment for them by inducing them to express themselves on that head: not I, at least. Their Address being only provisional, perhaps we ought not to seek in it anything but a language long used. However this be, speak they of the churches or of a reformed church, it is a question always of a church of France, of the churches of France.}

Now, what is the scriptural idea of the Church?

I leave aside the idea of the invisible church, an idea which is not found in the Bible. An invisible assembly is almost nonsense. There will be a universal Church manifested in glory in the day of Christ.* Far from being invisible, it will be seen in all the glory of its Head. The children of God, alas! are but too often hidden in the world; and in this sense one may speak of an invisible church. In this case, where is the city set on a hill? where is the light which the Lord would not put under a bushel? To say church is to say assembly. Mr. Olivier makes use of this word to say that, since believers have never been all assembled, there has been no assembly, nor church consequently, except by a figure which consists in speaking of a part for the whole.

{*The constitution of the Evangelical Church of Geneva does not admit the visibility of the Church, even in glory. The members of the invisible church will be manifested in the last day. This shews how far the idea of the body of the Church is destroyed by the notion of an invisible Church; a notion which, moreover, dates, I think, from the time of St. Augustine, when the Spirit of Christ made that pious man feel that the exterior church answered in no wise to that which the word said of the Church, while the exterior body was always the church for superstitious consciences. We know what influence St. Augustine exercised on the Reformation, though the energy of the Holy Spirit acting in the Reformers far surpassed the measure of St. Augustine. It will be well to remember that the present movement seeks to bring us back upon the ground of the Reformation. And precious as that work was, is it at all the thought of God to bring us back to it? Perhaps our brethren of France will not bind themselves to stop there. They cannot bless God more than I for the work itself of the Reformation! Would to God that we had the energy which was displayed then!}

100 The word of God, on the contrary, speaks positively, as of a matter of faith, of an assembly - of a church on earth responsible for the manifestation of the glory of Jesus and of a Father's love - of a body acting by its members.

I do not insist upon the Church as about to be, at a future period, gathered completely in heaven, because I suppose we all own it.* I do not speak of a particular local church formed in each city, because I recognize them in the word; I suppose as nearly all our brethren do. When the question is about sects and denominations, this subject becomes, it is true, important. I speak of the Church on earth. Now what I find in the word is an assembly on earth formed in the unity of one body by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, the Head being in heaven.

{*We have seen, nevertheless, how singularly this idea is weakened, and even lost, in the constitution of the Evangelical Church of Geneva.}

It will be remarked, that the fact that the Holy Spirit is come down from heaven is of primary importance; because it is what establishes plainly the distinction between the state of the body viewed here below, and the heavenly state of the Church in glory. God, in the accomplishment of His counsel, will establish the Church, Christ's body, in the same glory as her Head in heaven. That is the idea of the Church in its plenitude: but, just as that has always occurred, God first set man in a position of responsibility with regard to the things which it is His will to accomplish at a later period by His power. Thus Israel was set under that law which, by and by, will be written on their heart. Now if it be thus, it is evident that the lot of the Church on earth hinges both upon this position and upon the faithfulness that she displays there. But it is that very Church which these selfsame persons disown, deny, or understand not, even those who are acting with a view to raise her up again at the important moment to which we are come.

101 6. Let us see if the word of God shews us such a Church - a body one and unique upon earth.

I repeat my thought. Christ having ascended to the Father, the Holy Ghost is come down, not only to quicken (that had been already), but to gather in one single body on earth the children of God - a body of whose unity His presence was the source and strength, so that all the believers were members of that body.

What says the word on this subject? Ephesians 1: 22. This passage gives us the idea of the grand result in the counsels of God; namely, all things subject to Christ who had created them, and the Church united to Him, as a body of which He is the Head; the body being thus the accomplishment of the Head, who could not remain without the body.

The French, the modern French at least, hardly gives this idea, because the word chef in the acceptation of head is grown obsolete; and one can hardly say of Christ that He is chef over all things, though one might say, at the head of all. Taking chef in the etymological meaning of head, the sense is clear; head (chef) over all things to His body, which completes the Head to form a whole.

Chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Ephesians presents to us the means which God employs for the accomplishment of this work of grace; that is to say, what is done in time for the accomplishment of the everlasting purpose of God. The Jews had been a people brought nigh to God; the Gentiles remained afar off from Him, and, at the same time, separated from the Jews by the ordinances which constituted these as a people on the part of God. By His death Christ abolished these ordinances to make of the two one new man, and to reconcile them in one body to God by the cross. Then the preaching of it was made to them who were nigh; and, says Paul to the Ephesian Gentiles, "to you which were afar off"; so that they were built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (prophets of the New Testament; compare chap. 3: 5), Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: "in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."* Where? On earth it was assuredly that the tabernacle of God was formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost.

{*Some have wished to see here nothing but the church of Ephesus; but clearly? in all the passage, while it addresses itself to the Ephesians, the ye signifies not only ye Ephesians, but ye Gentiles.}

102 In chapter 3 of the same epistle, he explains the mystery; namely, that the Gentiles are of the same body (a joint body) as the Jew, and closes by saying, "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us; unto him be glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end."

The Church, then, is here considered objectively in all its extent possible; but it is, nevertheless, viewed as one body on earth, and as being on earth the habitation of God through His Spirit, who is come down and has united Jew and Gentile in this one body. That is the vocation in regard to which it is said, "Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called."

Unity is not simply a unity of life. Life does not make unity. I pray my dear brethren to pay attention to it. The source of unity is the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. And, though we have faith and common sentiments, life leaves us in individuality. All that in general is sought, and would be called unity, is community of sentiments and faith. The presence of the Holy Spirit Himself unites us corporately, and constitutes us members of this body. In the mind of the apostle, the motive to, and the character of, unity were drawn from the existence of the body; and he exhorts us to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; for there is one body and one Spirit." And on what foundation does the apostle establish these things? On this, that Christ is gone on high and has given gifts to men (we know this is by the Holy Ghost come down from above), in order to edify the body of Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and growing by each supplying joint (allow me this word), according to the measure of the energy of each part,* makes to itself increase of the body, to the edifying of itself in love. The body of the child is still a body. It is nevertheless susceptible of increase. Such is the idea of the Spirit of God. I have said "makes to itself," for the form of the Greek expression implies it. However this may be, the doctrine is evident. All the body, acting by its members, acquires and produces increase of itself. The body is there. It grows, but is there, and this is certainly on earth. It is not in heaven that it grows by the gifts. It is not in heaven that ministry is exercised. It is during the period in which Christ is on high and the Holy Ghost, sent from above, is here below, that this takes place, in contrast with the heavenly state of the body. God willed that this body should be placed here below in this position of responsible activity, according to the power of the presence of the Holy Spirit, before manifesting it as the accomplished result of His purposes, according to the efficacy of His power, who leaves (in what He would effect) no lack, no defect, nor anything that answers not to His intention.

{*The expression, de chaque partie, would be better rendered by the old phrase, d'une chaque partie.}

103 The first Epistle to the Corinthians teaches us the same truth: "As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 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," 1 Cor. 12: 12, 13. It is clearly on earth this baptism of the Holy Ghost takes place; Acts 1: 5. "Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers: after that, miracles; then, gifts of healing," etc. Set where? Not in heaven, assuredly. There is then a body, the Church, on the unity of which the apostle insists - unity which should be found on earth. The apostle speaks of the body, of the Church, of unity, as things existing and manifested on earth, not in an accidental manner, or as part of a whole which touches the earth by one of its extremities, but as flowing from the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven to form this unity on earth, to gather in one the children of God who were scattered. Though there be for those whose service is already closed the rest of the disabled, the army is no less an army; neither does it cease to be still a whole, though it be recruited from time to time with new soldiers.

104 While admitting the unity of the Church manifested in its time of glory, and the existence of particular churches, here is the unity of the Church, such as it is very clearly presented in the word of God; and as to the final result with regard to His own, God will keep this Church to the end. But, as manifested on earth, it was bound to maintain the testimony of Christ's glory, according to the power of the Spirit which was in it. Has the Church done so?

It is a question, not of the faithfulness of God, but of that of the Church. God is faithful in keeping Christians individually. But, though the Spirit abide in him, the Christian is often unfaithful. Just so, if, as a system that God established for the manifestation of His glory here below, the Church has failed in its testimony, God can put it aside as far as concerns this testimony. He has not done so yet; and, as to the result willed of God, the Church will be raised and in glory. I speak not merely of salvation, but of the manifestation of the Church. The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; and God will keep it, in spite of everything, to the moment of its rapture. But besides that, it was formed to give here below testimony to the glory of Christ. Having failed in this aim, God can cut it off as to this service, with all the system that attaches to it here below. The word of God gives the clearest testimony that this is what He will do; and that He will introduce another dispensation, in which Christ will personally execute judgment, and will maintain the righteousness and glory of God on earth. It is then that the Church, according to the counsels of God, will be, as a whole, such as it has been foreknown, and, gathered on high as the Bride of the Lamb, will be manifested in glory.

105 Now, all the systems of free church and dissent set aside the idea which the word gives of the Church. Consequently, the attempts to restore the Church by such means are faulty in their foundation, in their first principle, in the parent idea of all that takes place. The authors of these systems do not put themselves before God according to His thoughts in this respect. However excellent may be their intentions, their conscience is not reached by those thoughts. They do not seek, in nearness to God, that which circumstances demand, because they have not the thought of that which God sees in them. How measure evil when they see not what ought to be? Not having the idea whence they are fallen, they cannot, consequently, hear the exhortation which calls them to think of it. They may accomplish a certain good, for God is good. This will soon be but one difficulty more on the road of faithfulness and of God's testimony.

I request my brethren to read Isaiah 22: 8-14.* Not that I desire to pronounce the judgment which is found there: I pray them only to weigh the moral principle which is there developed. Yet the moment, to which that passage refers, is that in which God was manifested in favour of Hezekiah, because there was some faithfulness; 2 Chron. 22: 4, 5.

{*"And he discovered the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest. Ye have seen also the breaches of the city of David, that they are many: and ye gather together the waters of the lower pool. And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall. Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool; but ye have not looked unto the maker thereof, neither had respect unto Him that fashioned it long ago. And in that day did the Lord God of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth; and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die. And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of Hosts. Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of hosts."}

There are many other passages relative to the Church besides those mentioned above. Thus, in 1 Timothy 3: 15, it is certain that it is on earth, the house of God here below. In the Apocalypse the Bride says, Come. It is evidently on earth. The scriptures give many other proofs of it still; but I have only cited the passages which expressly treat the subject.

106 This is then, dear brethren, with all deference to you, to whatever country you belong, the reason why I cannot join the free churches as they are presented up to the present. What hinders me is not only that, in the different organizations of this work in different countries and in other points of detail, I do not find them founded on the word of God; it is not even ignorance of this precious and important truth of the unity of the Church on earth, established by the Spirit come down here below. You will find in the midst of us, I have no doubt, persons who are ignorant of it also. That which hinders me is, that this work - and let us take as an example the constitution of the Evangelical Church at Geneva, the foundation which is there laid - denies the foundation which Christ has laid, for that which ought to be a testimony for Him here below. What is nearest to His heart, as regards that which is here below (and it is with this our responsibility is connected), ought to be nearest to our conscience. But the work we are discussing is the very denial of the principle in question. To restore, to raise up again the Church - and this is just what you pretend to do - you give for a basis to your work the denial of that which the Lord Jesus established. You will understand me, my beloved brethren. I speak neither of the salvation of individuals nor of your personal love for the Saviour. That, you will confess, is not the question between us. I speak of the systems you establish. This injures all the development of truth; but I do not enlarge on the subject at this moment, nor stop as to certain details which have given rise to grave difficulties.

7. The constitution of the Evangelical Church in Geneva claims some further observations.

This constitution aims essentially at the establishment of a clergy, and in this manner it shuts up all the gifts into the establishment of the elders, which form a separate order.

"The Church," says the constitution, "recognizes the universal priesthood of believers, in virtue of which each one of them is called to draw near unto God, without any one being intermediate other than Jesus Christ, in order to worship Him in Spirit and in truth, and to proclaim the excellencies of Him who has saved him."*

{*The manner in which the article quoted above speaks of worship is very unsatisfactory: the relations of the disciples with the Father are there completely forgotten. And it quotes 1 Peter 2: 9, omitting even chapter 2: 5, and confounds that with John 4, of which it mentions verse 24, omitting verse 23. The relationship of the disciples with the Father, in Christ and His name, according to the power of John 16: 26, 27, is omitted. These things become very important when the question is about setting forth the foundations of the believer's relations with God. They form the character of the faith of all who are cast into this mould; and God will even have it so, that their state be according to their faith. It is in the order of His government that the vital principle of things be reproduced through the whole duration of their existence. Accidental defects disappear through the influence of grace. The creative principles are reproduced, and even unfolded. Therefore it is not without importance carefully to weigh these ecclesiastical constitutions; and however they may contain very good things, the Christian ought to examine upon what foundation the whole rests, and whether it is the one Christ laid down. If it is not, opposition to one's brethren is not what keeps from joining them. We must exercise forbearance towards ignorance. It is seen in us in many things, even in those things that we ought to know. I need not tell my brethren that I am conscious of it. The reading of the Bible makes me every day feel it deeply, and I look above. But to accredit ignorance at the outset of one's walk is another thing. This dishonours Christ, and vitiates in its origin, and thus inasmuch as that is in man's hand) in the whole truth of its being, that which Christ has most precious here on earth, His Church, which they propose to restore.}

107 I suppose that (without having heard of the universal priesthood of believers) one has recognized that each can worship God, without this being granted by the constitution. And provided the clergy be recognized, it is generally admitted that every Christian is to be allowed to publish the excellencies of Him who has called us. But this is to admit the universal priesthood in such a manner as to limit it as much as is possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

"However," adds the constitution, "the Evangelical Church recognizes the necessity of a special ministry as an institution of God and a permanent want of the Church. In consequence, she has elders and deacons."

See, here is the ministry - all the ministry. And this the article following confirms: -

"The elders are all enjoined to feed the Church. We distinguish among them the ministers of the word, who, prepared by holy study, are more especially called to teach and to preach."

108 I fully recognize the ministry - a special ministry - as a thing instituted of God.

Is this the question here? No. The article quoted interdicts absolutely all ministry outside a ministry officially established by men. "The church recognizes a ministry . . . . In consequence, it has elders and deacons."

I leave the deacons for the present.

Amongst the elders, one distinguishes elders who are ministers of the word and elders who are not. In this there is no recognition of any other ministry than that which has been officially established by the laying on of hands. Besides the deacons, there are only the elders to make up "the ministry." This is simply the clergy, without the frankness to own it. What else is it? The only ministry is that of the recognized elder. Again, in order to be minister of the word, one must have been prepared by holy study. What is that, if it is not the clergy? Is there the least difference?

Let us suppose a Christian, blessed by God as an evangelist for the conversion of ten times more souls than all your elders together, because of the gifts God has imparted unto him. Never mind: it is not a ministry; and he is not a minister of the word, because he is not amongst your consecrated elders. Perhaps he is a young unmarried man, who has not the qualities required of God for a bishop, possibly not even the gift of teaching, for one can be a good evangelist without having that gift. It does not matter. He cannot be a minister of the word. He is not in the number of your elders.

And you complain of schism because one does not submit to such things?

Woe to him who so denies the authority of Christ, and the gift of God, as to submit to it!

You erase with one stroke of the pen chapter 4 of the epistle to the Ephesians. You deny the authority of Christ in His own house, as well as the rights of the Holy Ghost; and you talk of disobedience! You confound the bishop with the evangelist; you will not have any, unless it be some of your own bishops; and if there are any others who are so from God, you deny it to be ministry; and you will have us to submit to this, under penalty of your anathema as schismatics! Is it, then, you who have the key of David, to shut and to open, so that there should be no ministry except that of your bishops and of your deacons?

109 You decide too quickly, my brethren. The Master is still there. Better would it be for you to confide more to Him. Is it His house that you direct thus? Take care! It is a serious affair to meddle with the Church which belongs to Him. He is Son over His own house.

He will act in spite of you. He shuts and no one opens; He opens and no one shuts. In this respect, your position is worse than that of the ancient clergy, which hardly meets with the support of anyone. The ancient clergy are in a difficult position: at least, they obey traditions which the course of ages had formed into a habit. But now he who has put himself forward to this work professes that clerisy is of the enemy, and, with this confession on his lips, he again makes a clergy. I call your constitution as a witness of this! For to deny all ministry which is not that of your consecrated elders - to recognize no other minister of the word but your pupils in theology - what is it else, but to institute a clergy? And you re-establish it while saying you will not have any more of it.

Article 12 of your constitution, where mention is made of "brethren who might be called to some work of evangelization," seems to contain a contradiction. But no. This article which, in a way so singular, speaks of those brethren called to some work of evangelization - mentioning them besides the ministers of the word, as if those who are called (of God, I suppose) to some work of evangelization were not themselves ministers of the word - watches that these also (for they feel that there will be some, in spite of all) should not escape the clerical system, and should not work without the Presbytery having laid hands on them. Yes, you establish a clergy, and an all-exacting clergy, which does not suffer any to work outside of its authority, and which accuses of schism all those who do so. Consequently, it is more than a sect. It is Rome on a small scale. It is Rome in its system; and it is, in fact, a sect.

There is another thing to remark; that is, discipline.

Dear assembly of La Pélisserie, if you had not wished for a clergy, you would not have come down to this. And I say it with feelings of sincere affection for the brethren that are there. After having been united to them in the sweetest bonds, I am still united to them by the strongest ties - those of love. Brethren of the Pélisserie, the principle of the clergy has destroyed you, and now you cast yourselves there, where one reaps the fruits of this corruption.

110 In order to satisfy the exigencies of your position, it has been sought "to conciliate unity in the faith with variety in the form." The new church "has recognized that there exists among its members different wants as to worship." Consequently, you may serve God apart every Sunday, with the exception of one Sunday every month. And, in exchange for this sacrifice (and this is what they call unity!) there is granted to you the privilege of being members* of the new church.

{*A principle which, in itself alone, denies the unity of Christ. We are members of His body, and of nothing else.}

As to the discipline which maintains this body and its outward order, and which makes you to know who are the members thereof, here it is: -

"Discipline is exercised by brotherly rebuke in charity, in order that in everything the doctrine of God our Saviour may be glorified among all. This duty concerns all the brethren, and more especially the elders. In extreme cases, these may have recourse to the Presbytery."

Is this all?

Yes, it is all. The putting away is not even mentioned. It is excluded, for discipline is exercised by brotherly rebuke.

But, you will say, although the first words quoted are too wide, there is something more for extreme cases.

Yes, there is something else, and it is this: "These (the elders) may have recourse to the Presbytery." Is it not saying enough that the matter is entirely left to the clergy, and that the conscience of the brethren is reckoned as nothing at all?

That the elders should enlighten the conscience of the flock, guide it to a sound judgment, and exhort it to act according to the word; that they should even succeed in terminating happily many things without the intervention of the flock, and even better than with that intervention, this is assuredly a good thing. But in the article which is before us - recourse to the Presbytery by the elders in extreme cases - this is the discipline of the Evangelical Church. To enter into her bosom, she asks for a profession of faith in the presence of two elders. If the question be about judging those that have entered, the elders can have recourse to the Presbytery. For the ministry, there are consecrated elders, of whom some are ministers of the word, prepared for that by holy study. And the faithful, what can they do? Obey. They have now been provided with elders, with official persons, whom they can obey.

111 If this is not the clergy, it will assuredly be difficult to know what is.

Alas! there remain still in the question, as a whole, some very grave difficulties, which relate both to the character of the work and to that historical church which, in practice, serves her as a foundation, and which gives the measure of the truth which they there profess as their testimony.

I recognize, my brethren, your sincere desire to maintain fundamental truths against fatal errors, and I appreciate it, I believe, sincerely. But the unity of the Church - true bond of the saints - being laid aside, as well as the liberty of the Spirit, who, centre of this unity, is found there alone, it is necessary to arrive at an agreement by the aid of mutual concessions, which reduce the testimony to the lowest round of the ladder, and which thus grieve the Holy Ghost who renders this testimony.

This truth, mutilated by reciprocal concessions, becomes the measure of the faith of the body which unites upon that foundation. If, after having signed a confession of faith of this kind, in order to accommodate myself to other persons who do not believe what God has given me to believe, in order to walk by that means with them; and, because they will not admit of more than that, I insist upon the truth with which God has entrusted to me, I fail in my tacit engagement, since we are together on that ground. Such an engagement grieves the Spirit of God. In order to walk with man I should have renounced the testimony of truth. I should have failed towards God, precisely in what He has entrusted me with. God acts in the Church through the testimony of His truth. He uses instruments, and trusts them with this truth. In the accomplishment of their task they ought to act with charity, with wisdom, giving milk to the children, meat to full grown men, and, in general, laying on the conscience of the Church the truths through which God acts upon her; in a word, distributing the nourishment in due season. But if I form an agreement with those who will have only milk, so as that this should become the common ground, the term, the condition of communion, I deprive myself of liberty - of a liberty which, before God, is my duty. It is an agreement; it is not union.

This is what is clearly seen in the constitution of the Evangelical Church of Geneva She does not seek that which is according to the word while bearing with the weak ones; but, recognizing that there are diversities of views (and whoever knows Geneva could name them), she does her best to conciliate them. Take worship; take discipline. Those who, certainly, had made the most progress are the only ones who make concessions. The preachers (art. 20) keep their monthly (Lord's) supper, while another class of Christians deprive themselves of theirs on that day. Some preachers, transformed into elders, preserve the arbitrary right of discipline; others abandon discipline. That is to say, in order to agree, principles are given up, and they arrange a system on the lowest ground possible. This even takes place in things more grave.

112 Take the doctrine of the coming of Jesus - a doctrine so solemnly important in these last days. I receive, with all my heart, a Christian who does not understand it. As a Christian he belongs to Jesus, a member of the body of Christ, and I love him. In receiving him thus, my liberty of ministry is kept untouched, and I exercise it with regard to him, as also towards all, according to the wisdom which God gives me, in charity. But if, instead of abiding a member of the Church, I place myself so as to become a member of a church, in accepting a document - although there may be nothing false in that to which I subscribe - I commit myself, nevertheless, to something. I say, There is my faith; and thereby I lose the power and the virtue of the testimony I ought to render. In this case, unity depends on this, that I am a member of the particular body to which I attach myself, and this by virtue of the agreement I have just made. As to the coming of Jesus, the authors of the constitution of the Evangelical Church have gone as far as a document concerning the truth could permit them. The paragraphs thirteen and fourteen of their profession of faith, relating to the coming of the Lord, are made up in such a manner as that every one in the world might sign them. The thirteenth might suffice for any one who believed in the coming of Jesus before the thousand years, without hurting any of those who oppose it. It is composed of two passages almost textually quoted. The fourteenth is made more for those who do not believe in it, without wounding, however, those who do believe in it. Each phrase of it is true. The whole paragraph is skilfully conceived for peace.

Is it thus that one arranges truths which ought to be sharper than a two-edged sword? My mouth would be closed on the subject of the coming and of the appearing of Christ; or it would only open itself by giving me a bad conscience! And if I sign the fourteenth paragraph, and an anti-millenarian signs it equally, shall we give to these words, "He shall judge the universal world," a similar sense - an equal bearing? By no means; and by our silence we deceive one another. "The wicked," adds this paragraph, "shall go into everlasting punishment, while the just shall enjoy eternal life." Assuredly; but what just are spoken of? when?* We sign both the one and the other, to walk together as if we agreed, knowing very well that we are far from believing the same things. This cleverness is trying to me. I believe that the coming of Jesus - the judgment of the world by Jesus, when He shall appear in glory, of the world such as it is, filled with living men - is a doctrine of the highest importance, which must be announced in a manner that is clear and developed, and in all its power; and I cannot myself resolve to torture the phrases, so as to reduce the testimony to the level of expressions which the man who does not believe in them can bear. This is not to feel the importance of the doctrine before God. And if I do not feel its importance, I cannot render testimony to it: it is not faith.

{*It is not as to eternal punishment that I, for a moment, raise a doubt here; but I believe that the passage quoted here applies only to the living - to the nations on the earth, to the judgment of the living, a truth of the utmost importance for the consciences of those who attach themselves to this world a truth which has been quite neglected.}

113 If you insist so much on your views in things secondary, you will say to me, that all union is impossible.

I shall answer you, first, that to call this secondary, as testimony, only means that you do not feel the importance of it. This is not my case. And this is precisely that to which I win not lend a hand. If you rest on the foundation, which is Christ, I receive you with open arms in the unity of the body of Christ. If you are speaking of making an agreement for a common profession, as the means of union, your observation is just; but this it is which makes me fear your principle of union. I feel the sword of my testimony broken in my hand. If you love the Lord Jesus according to truth, to me you are heartily welcome. If you deny any foundation doctrine, we do not walk together. But to make accommodations with regard to that which concerns my testimony, I cannot do it. The fault does not consist in having been firm for the truth: I honour my brethren for having been so, and for having professed it. Truly, I do not seek for union in indifference as to error, which is the great sin of the day, and the form which incredulity takes in our age, devoted as it is to materialism. The fault of these brethren is the looking for a way of union in themselves agreeing upon the terms of a confession of common faith. Perhaps you had not any other, by reason of your seeking to produce union, instead of recognizing it in the unity of the body of Christ.

114 In this case, that which you call the church is only an arrangement of men, to which you may perhaps assure the consent of a certain number of signers. Far be it from me to put the Church of God on such a footing. If you are not of the Church of God, none other do I acknowledge.

I find, then (I shall not say the truth, because I do not believe that would be in the intention of my brethren, but), the testimony to the truth compromised in a compromise connected with the truth designed to secure union. The only true principle of union is to be members of the body of Christ. Once united, the most faithful care to maintain truth is an imperative duty of the disciples. The Church owes it to Christ in the care she takes of the sheep.

I see, then, in the work of which we have just been speaking, an agreement between men, and not the Church of God. I find the testimony to the truth compromised - and a testimony to the most important truths.

8. I shall add here three points of the deepest interest, in which the truth unfolds itself, and by which the Holy Ghost witnesses to souls.

Before noticing them, I ask my reader to pay attention here to a consideration which renders the matter more clear.

Certain truths are at the foundation of Christianity itself as a whole. Others have to do with its efficacy or the making of it good towards men. There are, thirdly, some which relate to the means of its reception, and even of its communication. Thus, for instance, we find at the very root of Christianity the existence of one God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His humanity, and such like doctrines. Just as the existence of one God was the fundamental truth of Judaism, and the truth alters not, so likewise the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and, in connection with that, the revelation of the Person of Jesus, distinguish essentially Christianity. Roman Catholic theology admits this.

115 But there is, besides, a class of truths which concerns the relations of man as a sinner with his God - with God thus revealed. And here the work of Christ, as mediator, is unfolded in all its extent.

With regard to this, I see three principal positions in which Christ has been manifested, or will be manifested: in the infinitely precious work on the cross; in the position of Jesus at the right hand of God (a position to which corresponds the presence of the Holy Ghost here on earth); lastly, the return of Jesus Himself in glory.

This relates to the sufficiency of Christianity for establishing certain relationships between man, as a sinner, and God, according to the counsels and love of that very God against whom man has sinned; and for placing the redeemed one in the joy and glory which are destined for him.

It is in this that the Roman system fails entirely. It attributes to the sinner, not the work (as regards which it is as a matter of history in the truth), but the appropriation of the efficacy of the work which Christ has accomplished, an appropriation which, it says, takes place either by means of the sacraments - whence results the establishing of the clergy in a mediatorial position, and, in consequence, necessary to the soul - or by works, so as to deny grace and the state of ruin in which man finds himself; to place him under the terror of the law; and to make him dependent on the priest, and not on God, to whom, as a hard Being, exacting the uttermost farthing, his heart is not drawn, and out of whose presence his unpurged conscience drives him.

Oh, how precious to our souls the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ! What do we not owe to our God! In contrast with this darkness, the Reformation appears and shines in all its lustre, which is the brightness of the testimony of the grace of God. And, as a testimony of the grace of God, it has established with a happy clearness this foundation of grace, which is, at the same time, that of the work of Christ, upon which the relationship of the sinner with God has been established by God Himself.

In saying this, I need not add that I esteem this world in the highest degree. A poor sinner, whose soul depends on this work and on this grace, and who, in knowing and enjoying them, has learned to love the glory of God, and the souls ready to perish of those by whom he is surrounded, cannot otherwise than value this work.

116 Other considerations, without which the price of this work would have been again made void, come to the help of the one we have just presented.

The Reformation made the certainty of my knowledge of this truth, and the faith I have in it, to rest upon the testimony of God instead of that of man. This is a total and entire difference. God takes the place of mall in the salvation and in the knowledge of the salvation. The word of God is the foundation of the faith in His work by the grace of the Holy Ghost. What I find in the Reformation is not that the spirit of man has been made free, although in a good sense that is true. It is not merely that it has made good the claim of man to read the word, although, as regards other men, that is true also. What it has made good are the rights of God, the grace of God; the admirable right of God to save the sinner in His love - precious salvation of which Jesus must have the glory; the right of God to communicate to the sinner the testimony of His grace, and to assure him of it Himself by the word which He had given him; the revelation of the grace of God, and, by that very grace, the immovable and precious rule and foundation of man's faith. Who will dare to say (not to man "Thou shalt not have it"; but) to God, "Thou hast no right to give it, to communicate it Thyself to Thy servant?"*

{*It is evident that if I send orders to my servants, and if any one prevents their receiving them, he encroaches less upon the rights of the servants than upon mine. It is the same as to the word of God, which God has sent to His Church: an argument that has been too much forgotten in the controversy upon the right the faithful have to read the Bible.}

To put these things in the broad light of day, such was the beautiful work of the Reformation. We should always bless God for it. But we must not shorten His arm and say, Thou hast done all. He whose grace has given us the Reformation is the living God. The Lord, whose work made, for the instruments which God had raised up, the subject of their testimony, nourishes and cherishes still His Church, and purifies it by the word. Does He say nothing to us now? His own, who have ears, do they not hear anything in the midst of the storms which burst forth, and which proclaim to those who are hidden in the Rock of Ages that the Lord is coming forth. Or does the fear of these heralds of His power prevent them from hearing the still and small voice which speaks to the heart of His own? We are hidden in Jesus, my brethren. The impetuous winds, and the shakings which announce the Lord, do not frighten us, nor touch our safety or our peace. We know Him whom they do but announce; and while announcing Him, and that solemnly, they are not the things which? for the heart of him who knows Him, have the power of His voice. His word is that - His word communicated to our hearts by the power of His Spirit.

117 Well, my brethren, I believe that His voice is speaking to us. The Lord would, I believe, that, however humiliating for us, our hearts should take notice of other truths besides those which the Reformation set forth truths which confirm these.

He speaks to us of His Church. He speaks to us of the return of His Son Jesus from heaven. His Church has need of it.

Everything is shaking. Everything in the world is stirred up by that interior strength which, acting as from the centre of the moral world of man, shakes and tosses the whole surface, the unwonted agitation of which frightens those that walk there, at the thought of the overthrow that is about to follow.

What is there solid? what immovable?

The Church of God, because Christ loves her.

The question is not merely about salvation. Without salvation one can evidently have nothing else. But in the midst of the agitations of the world and the waves of the peoples, which God only keeps in subjection for the moment, where is peace, duty, the circle of affections? - where is their "own company" to which the apostles themselves would resort in the agitations and the troubles which they experienced in the midst of an incredulous nation, and which, to its own ruin, would rebel against God?

It is the Church.

It is God, you will say to me.

Surely. But towards what does God direct the heart, the thoughts, the affections, of him who is near Him by faith? It is towards the Church. This it is which is dear to Him in the world. If, in His grace, He seeks poor sinners, it is the Church that ought to gather them together.

Where is the Church?

Here that which answers to the second truth of which I have spoken with regard to Christ.

118 While Christ sits at the right hand of God, until the Lord makes His enemies His footstool, the Holy Ghost, who was sent from on high when Jesus Himself went up to the Father, remains here on earth a witness of the redemption of those that are His, and the power of their gathering together again in one body - of the gathering of the Church, which is the body of Him who, as its Head, is seated at the right hand of God. That is to say, just as Christ on the cross accomplished redemption, Christ, at the right hand of God, gathers together the Church on the earth by the Holy Ghost whom He has sent from on high from the Father.

This last truth the Reformation neither set forth nor unfolded.

It admitted, no doubt, as an orthodox truth, that the Holy Ghost had come down on the day of Pentecost. But it instituted national churches, as Saxony, Hesse, and England, etc. (that is to say, churches of nations, grouped geographically in churches, and, as being such, organized in relation with the State and subject to its power) having their confessions of faith according to the light which their directors had been able to pick up.

This, as regards churches, is what the Reformation has produced.

Men are no longer satisfied with it.

Why then establish any more, giving them as a foundation that which the word teaches as to salvation, instead of considering what it says on the matter which occupies us?

Who, in establishing free churches, has asked himself - What says the word of God on this matter? My brethren, it was not thus they acted at the time of the Reformation. In the midst of difficulties and of conflicts much more serious than those with which we are surrounded, they looked to the word of God. The Reformers were men of faith. As to difficulties, they needed none besides God. As to their walk, the word guided them. They dared to obey, because they reckoned upon God for their strength and their protection in the path of obedience.

Why not imitate them in this?

This may lead us to humiliation, and to a walk in appearance little glorious, with little éclat, which appears of no importance. But, if God leads to it, it will assuredly be the way in which He will bless His people. Allow me to remind you again of the passage in Isaiah 22: 7-11.

119 You are thinking to establish a church. Have you thought what the Church of God is, according to the word - the word of Him who made and fashioned it long since? You recognize that, with regard to this, the Reformation has not done what God wished, according to what is revealed in the New Testament. What, then, does the word say? And while revolutions have produced free churches, is it not true that the word of God speaks of a Church formed by the presence of the Holy Ghost come down from on high, who put that Church - the one only body of Christ - in relation with its Head, seated at the right hand of God? And save the churches of such and such place - churches whose local unity is established equally by the Epistles and the Apocalypse - the word of God does not mention any other church. Churches that found their limits in the circumference of the countries inhabited by those of whom they formed part, is that which the word of God makes not the least allusion to. Such churches cannot, either in fact or in affection, be the Bride of Christ. They are necessarily in relation with the country wherein they are found. The unity of the body of Christ is lost to them. The order, the walk, the links, the whole machinery - all, in one word, in their operations, is necessarily restricted within the limits of the country where the church is found. It cannot be the functions or the regulations of the body of Christ. These they set aside. I am not speaking of the uniformity of details; but of all that which forms the body; the moral springs of the institution. The body of Christ is not recognized. The unity of the Church becomes a unity quite different from that of the body: the body becomes quite another body than that of Christ. It is a body which acts in an independent way - a self-regulating body, which has its spring in itself. The consequence of this is, that the Holy Ghost, who gives this unity to the body of Christ, is not recognized in this character. All that belongs to His presence, as come down from heaven to unite the body to its Head, and to act in the members for the increase of the body, is lost in its reality. He acts, it may be, in spite of what is called the church; but He does not act by that which is the system of it. The Holy Ghost cannot recognize a body which He has not formed, but which man has formed. And to form such a body is not recognizing the body which the Holy Ghost has united to the Head. One cannot say that these churches are the body of Christ. The word and the Spirit do not recognize any other church besides the one that is such. I speak not of a local assembly.

120 I prefer presenting to my brethren this truth as an object of faith, rather than as a difficulty which, as to its relation to them, obstructs the way of him who submits himself to the word. The Reformation, the historical church, cannot put us in possession of this truth, which it does not recognize. An invisible church does not answer the wants of the heart which this truth creates. The Church - the body of Christ - is, in the world, the testimony of the power of the Holy Ghost, who can abide in the midst of believers, because they are accepted in Him who appears before God for them; the testimony, also, of the glory of Christ upon the Father's throne. The Church is the dwelling-place of God upon earth, as the temple was before the coming of Jesus. It is the Bride of Christ.

Be assured, my brethren, that there are spiritual affections, relations known and felt with the Lord Jesus, to which the word attaches great price, and whence flows precious light, which makes the love of Jesus shine in a manner quite peculiar, and reveals the object of His affection and of His cares; that there is, in a word, a whole part of the Christian life, and of the love of Jesus depending upon this truth, which he who has the knowledge of it, by faith, could not consent to give up. In doing so, he would sin against Christ. I speak of what Christ nourishes and cherishes as His own flesh - of what He sanctifies and purifies by the word.

Would you like us to forget it? Ought we to withdraw from the influence of the truth that speaks to us of it? I speak of the Church of God.

Why make a church, instead of thinking of that Church which God has created to be the firstfruits of all His creatures, co-heir with His Son, and the Bride of the Lamb?

That is what the Church will be in the glory, you will say to me. This is true. But its gathering together takes place upon the earth; and its unity flows from the presence and the baptism of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. She is one by the Holy Ghost upon the earth, as well as with Christ on high.

And this is what leads me to the third truth which I referred to - a truth which the Reformation left out entirely, and even let fall into the hands of fanatics, into the hands of the enemy. I speak of the return of the Lord.

121 Does not the word of God present us with the return of the Lord as a truth which ought to act powerfully upon the conscience and upon the heart? And are not existing circumstances a serious appeal of the Lord to think of it? The truth that the Lord is coming quickly to judge the habitable world, to execute judgment in convincing the wicked of all their wicked deeds which they have wickedly committed against Him, and of all the injurious words which impious sinners have spoken against Him - ought such a solemn truth to be kept bound in the horizon of God's testimony as an object lost at a distance? - the sweet and precious thought that Jesus will soon come back to receive His own, to gather His Bride to Him, and to shelter her in the house of the Father, in order that she may enjoy eternally there the love which has saved her - is it to remain a stranger to the life of every day of her pilgrimage here on earth, far away from her Bridegroom?

Let us see whether the word of God does not present, whether to the world or the Church, the coming of Jesus, under these two points of view, as a continual motive.

I do not speak either of the great white throne, or of the judgment of the dead. When He sits upon the great white throne, Jesus does not come. The dead alone are standing before Him. Heaven and earth pass away before Him. "They were no more found." Jesus, sitting upon the tribunal of God, calls for the dead to appear before Him - a solemn day, of which the eternal consequences are of a nature to produce seriousness in our souls! But all this is not the coming of Jesus - of Him who is to come back in the same manner as He went.

I speak of the judgment of the living, of this world which we inhabit. What does the Lord say of it? "As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be . . . . For as it was in the days of Noah, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." The same thing happened in the days of Lot. They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded, but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone, which destroyed them all. So shall it be in the day when the Son of man shall be manifested.

122 "But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power: when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe."

Here are some testimonies - and the word is full of them - concerning the coming of Jesus to judge the living. For, alas! the kings of the earth shall be gathered by evil spirits, for the battle of that great day of God Almighty. They "shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is King of kings, and Lord of lords."

"The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof," Psalm 50.

"And he that is called the Word of God shall tread the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God," (Rev. 19); and that when the harvest shall be ripe for the sickle and the grapes of the vine of the earth shall be ripe.

God is full of goodness and patience. He only strikes when iniquity is come to the full. He still seeks souls while it is yet the acceptable day, the day of salvation. No one knows the day "when he shall rise for the spoil." But who will say that the harvest is not ripening for the sickle, and the grapes of the vine of the earth are not filling up for the day of His wrath?

That day shall not overtake as a thief those who are the children of the day - the children of light; but it is because they are the children of the day. Instructed beforehand of the judgments of God, they belong to Him who is to be the Judge, and not to the world on which the judgments will fall. They wait for Him, from heaven, who has saved them by His grace, who delivers them from the wrath to come. Redeemed by His blood, He who has redeemed them is dear to them; and they wait as to glory for Him who, by His grace, has made them capable of it.

123 Now, let us see if, according to the word, this thought does not influence the whole walk, and does not rule all the thoughts of him whom the love of Jesus has introduced into the way in the pilgrimage of faith.

I do not pretend to present you here with the proofs of the doctrine. Although the study of the teachings of the word on this subject is of the highest interest, my aim is to make you see, my brethren, that the truth of which we speak, that the hope of the coming of Jesus, connects itself with the whole Christian walk in every connection of it; and that, in consequence, it is one of the most practical truths.

Is the question about conversion? They had been converted to wait for His Son Jesus; 1 Thess. 1.

Is the question about the joy of the work, and of the communion of the saints? "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1 Thess. 2).

Is the question concerning holiness? It is "to the end he may stablish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints," 1 Thess. 3.

And what will, perhaps, strike more the minds of some, and will shew to what extent the Church has departed from the habits of thought which the Bible inspires is, that at the moment when the afflicted friends of a Christian just departed surround his bed, the apostle comforts them with the thought that Christ will bring him back. "Now, my brethren, I would not have you ignorant concerning them which are asleep, that Ye sorrow not even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain: unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descent from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

124 If one gave this as comfort now, on the occasion of a death, what would be the effect on the greater part of Christians in our days?

Is the question, again, of a life irreproachable in every respect? "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," 1 Thess. 5.

In the midst of the strongest persecutions the thought of the appearing of Jesus came in as the time of rest. "Rest with us," says the apostle; "to you who are troubled rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels." How could such a thought afford consolation to the soul, if this hope of Jesus was not a real and present hope?

Is the question concerning the trying circumstances of life, and of patience under oppression? The same comforting hope is present to the heart of him who suffers. "Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord." . . . "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." . . . "Behold, the Judge standeth at the door."

Is the question about responsibility? "I charge thee in the sight of God," says Paul to Timothy, . . . "that thou keep this commandment, without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And, as motive, measure, and mark of spiritual progress, we know that, when Christ shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. And whosoever hath this hope in Him purifieth himself even as He is pure.

"Yourselves," says the Lord, "like unto men who wait for their Lord," etc. That is the character the Lord would have His disciples to put on. What is it, on the contrary, that marks the iniquity of those who hold the place of servants, iniquity which brings in the cutting off? If it is the language of the wicked servant to say, "My master delayeth his coming," has the Church of God nothing of what is similar to this to confess in her history?

What is the character that the profession of Christianity took in the beginning - a character which this profession has lost, and that Christians are called to put on again? What is the proclamation that awakens them? Here it is: -

125 The kingdom of God is like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom. All, alas! went to sleep. While the Bridegroom tarried, the wise, no less than the foolish, lost the thought of His speedy coming.

What awakens them, puts them into a suitable position, and sets aside those that had no oil? At midnight a cry is heard: "Behold, the Bridegroom cometh, go ye forth to meet him!" Then all the virgins rose. And this is what puts to the proof the state of souls. Could there be any sort of evidence more solemn to set in relief the truth which, at the beginning, characterized the Church, converted to wait for the Son of God from heaven? to shew how the spiritual slumber has taken hold of her, and what means God uses to awaken her?

If the Lord will comfort the disciples whom He is about to leave: "I go," says He to them, "to prepare a place for you; and if I go and prepare a place, I will come again, and will receive you unto myself, that where I am ye may be also."

If the angels sent from heaven are to give a just and healthful direction to the thoughts of the disciples, who were still looking upwards after Him who escaped from their sight, they announce His return to them, saying, "This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Finally, is the question respecting the feelings, the most affectionate, which the revelation of Jesus, the bright and morning star which is to arise, produces? "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." And Jesus answers, "Surely I come quickly. Amen."

This solemn word closes the word, as a whole. The response of the faithful heart, moved by the Holy Ghost - "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

This is what the Holy Ghost has left to vibrate on the heart of the Church until the Bridegroom comes.

In one word, if the coming of the Son of man threatens the world, who rejected Him, with the just and terrible judgment of the God whom incredulity shall know in His wrath - Him whom it desires to be ignorant of, and rejects in His grace, spite of all the proofs which have been granted to it; as it is written, "Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: Lord, when thine hand is lifted up, they will not see; but they shall see," Isaiah 26: 10, 11. If I say, the appearance of the Son of man tolls the hour of the pride of the man of the earth, it is, on the other hand, to the coming of the Son of God that all the thoughts, all the affections, all the motives of the faithful are bound up. The hope of this coming used to characterize and form the whole Christian life. Joy, glory, holiness, rest, consolation, patience, everything in Christianity of the New Testament relates to the coming of the Lord, whose humiliation and work had laid the foundation of so glorious a hope. This hope crowned the whole of the Christian life, and separated the Church from the world, to be, as the Bride of Jesus, entirely for Him - her heavenly Bridegroom.

126 This is not, my brethren, proof of the truth of this doctrine - it is not that which I have sought to present you with here; but proof of the manner in which this truth is connected with the whole of the Christian life.

Is an abridgment of the Christian doctrine required? Take Hebrews 9: 27: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Or, to use another passage, "Now the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, justly, and godly in this present life; waiting for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The appearing of the grace that saves opens the way to the appearing of glory.

These are two great truths: - the Church, a body formed upon earth by the presence of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven; and the return of Jesus to receive His Bride to Himself, and to come back with her to judge the world: - two truths essential to the glory of Jesus, and the instruction of the Church in the circumstances in which it is found - truths which the Reformation did not set forth in the light, and which answer the wants of the moment, in the work which the Holy Ghost accomplishes, as it seems to me, in preserving that which is the ground of all the truths - the work of Jesus on the cross, and the dignity of His divine Person.

127 9. The institutions which the Reformation established, even considered as the effects of the work of God, are passing away. What is to be done then? That is the question.

In bringing souls back to the Reformation, and to nothing farther, does one meet the need which, at this time, the Holy Ghost produces in them; that is to say, according to the thoughts of His grace?

I do not think so. That you have motives sufficient for separating from a system which puts the true doctrine of the glory of Jesus on a level with the denial of that doctrine, I grant. But that is not the question. The question is about setting up the reformed churches of France, or the Reformed Church of France. It is not, observe, what were the symbols of the primitive Church, howsoever ineffectual they were. At that period, the Church was standing, and professed her own faith in rejecting certain errors; for, in fact, symbols are in the main always negotiation (that is to say, truths presented so as to guard against certain errors). But here, that is not what you do. By a profession of faith, you wish to place, or, if you like it better, to induce the churches to place themselves on a given basis, confessing, at the same time, that you do not copy even the institutions of the Reformation; and you expect (a desire in itself holy and excellent) that all Christians will unite with you.

The question thus becomes very serious.

The ensign for rallying which you propose, is it sufficient for gathering Christians together again? A great number of Christians, who share with you both in the same faith and in the principles of the Reformation, remain attached to the institutions which the Reformation created. They are wrong in your opinion; but they do it. You adopt the truth in the measure they profess  it; only you wish it to be so set forth as to exclude those who deny it; that is to say, you make of this denial of error the basis of your new system.

Truth, say you, is a principle of life. I believe it.

The churches, you think, existed because they had faith. This is rather a mistake, as to history. But grant it.

The measure of truth which the Reformation did possess produced the institutions which you abandon. You do not take up a symbol as a standard for rallying; you confine yourselves to adding a formula designed to exclude the French heretics, if they are honest. Will this negation suffice as the foundation of the work of God, which alone can rally His children? For, besides that, the same truth will still be found in the old system; and, at the side of it, the error which, for oneself, one avoids.

128 What then would be the effect of your course? A division; the formation of two camps - not of two camps, one of which would be united together by the truth, and the other by error, but of two camps of which one would admit truth and error, with traditional influences and the institutions of the system; the other, truth without error, making separation obligatory, and drawing its strength from that very separation.

Will this motive (a motive which will, I have no doubt, act upon a great number of upright consciences) suffice to reunite all the children of God? For, while laying down sound doctrine for the foundation, the truth in question is but partial.

You separate from those who will not confess their faith. Feeling, as to yourselves, the obligation of doing so, you profess your own.

Dear brethren, I respect you in the bottom of my heart. I am satisfied that your aim has been the glory of the Lord. But what do you present to others? What sign for rallying have you which, in principle, would reunite all Christians according to the wants of the Church, and the everlasting truths which will answer these wants?

You re-produce, at very best, the fundamental truths of the Reformation, truths which produced what you have just left; you reproduce them unfolded, so as to make a clear distinction between you and the sad denial of truth, which is the symbol of the camp which you no longer support. That is to say, when the question is about forming something beyond the sphere of individual salvation, you have nothing but a negative principle, which separates you from that which exists already, and which condemns it. Many of those that are found there, possess salvation as well as yourselves, and through the same truths. You re-gather Christians, by making such an exposition of these truths as separates those who adopt it from those who do not receive these truths.

As regards a church, the Reformation only produced what you forsake. Possessing only the principles which formed that which you forsake, what will you put in the place of that which you leave? A church of separation, that denies the kind of corporation of which she possesses the constitutive principle, and nothing more. For, while acting in the power of the truth which saves souls, the Reformation produced, in point of fact, nothing but the body with which you will have nothing more to do. Its result in France was not even the formation of a national church, but simply that of a body of professors. That is what you are. What makes the difference is the denial of indifference as to the truth, and, for the moment, the faith of those who are acting.

129 Do I blame you, my brethren, as to your individual act? I approve it highly. The only thing that strikes me is, that you do not approve of a confession of faith as the basis of your work; and that you substitute for it a profession of individual faith, so expressed as to meet the errors of the day. But first, one might in this case act without separating oneself, if it is only individually one does it. If it is inconsistent to remain, as an individual, along with persons who deny the Gospel, because it would be sanctioning them, you ought a long while ago to have left them. Affection for the system kept you there. Will you, then, continue in this system of "the many"? In that case you will soon be again in unbelief. Multitudanism, without confession, soon becomes indifferentism. If you changed systems because it was bad, why did you remain in it until the question of doctrines was touched? Do I reproach you for having come out of it now? Far from it. In my sight, that is an evident duty. But - dropping this consideration, and likewise the character of faith, and the energy which are manifested therein - I seek in your position principles which may serve as the ground for the gathering of God's children; and I doubt whether a faith which rises not above a negation suffices for that. For that, something more is needed than what was sufficient as a motive for withdrawing from a mixed body, of which happily you no longer form part.

It seems to me that your present position is upright and honourable, and that if it is rather late, God at least approves you now. But are you thereby in a position which enables you to lay the foundations of the re-gathering of the children of God, so as to answer the wants of these critical times? Or, in hasting to do it with what you possess (or rather with what the churches of France possess, for you feel you cannot do it narrow, too little based on the energy of the Spirit of God, such as He unfolds it, to accomplish the purposes of the grace of God, to accomplish His own peculiar work? I understand your fears, lest, in waiting, souls should grow cold.

130 Energy is good, but it does not confine itself to laying foundations, when they are laid in a moment, in which, while one is building, it is to be feared that God is acting outside of what one does. Your eagerness makes manifest that, in order to maintain truth and reunite souls, you still reckon upon the institutions which you have just left; and that the truth which you profess is not sufficiently distinctive to retain souls in the position in which you wish to keep them, seeing that other persons, who have this truth in common with you, remain in the old system. It is enough to say, that a formal separation is the principle of reunion; and, for vital principle, your new institution has but the truths which produced that which you abandon.

Is separation sufficient to serve as a rallying point, and to reunite by a spiritual responsibility all God's children? That is the question. Is it not true that your project reckons on the traditional affection of souls for the reformed churches of France? We place ourselves again on this ground, to raise the ancient standard. But you share with others the influence of this sentiment.

Faith, which reckons on God, does not make haste, as if the thing was not in His hands. You make a church - a serious and solemn task! Is it the Church of God?

You desire union sincerely, and for the glory of God. I believe you, my brethren. But who can lay foundations such as that they shall embrace all Christians? God alone. There needs not only portions of truth - not only truths so set forth as to repel those who deny them; there needs the positive truths by which God acts to gather together again His own according to the actual wants of the Church. Because you have had to fight against those who deny them, you think that the precious truths elicited at the time of the Reformation will suffice. Are you sure you have reached the height of the thoughts of God - that your views include the whole sphere in which the energy of His Spirit manifests itself?

You will say to me that I am proud. You will ask whether I pretend to do it. No, my brethren. But I do not pretend to draw up on paper a church constitution which claims the adherence of all Christians, as if it were the sphere in which this energy of God's Spirit manifests itself. I act according to the measure of faith God has given me. That is all. Do likewise; God will bless you; and to him that has shall more be given.

131 If you do not pretend to be able to make a constitution which is according to the depths of the counsel of God concerning His Church at this time, do you well to think of making any constitution at all? Would it be well for you to condemn all those who, having the thought of something more, do not like to limit themselves, or rather to limit God, to the measure of that which He has given you at this time in His grace? It is certain that you cannot go beyond it. Ought you to impose it as a limit? I do not speak, dear brethren, in order to put opposition in your way: nor do I think of opposing you in what I have just now said. I know what prejudices exist. I bless God for the step He has given you individually to take. I even believe it very possible that, your faithful step leaving without excuse those who remain united to that which is evil, blessing will in great measure leave them as to the very truths they do maintain.

This is what I have thought I saw in the ways of God. When the work of the Spirit in Christians embraces all the extent of God's thoughts, and all the energy of His power, it reunites all His children. This it is which took place at the beginning. If the case is not so, God must act elsewhere, because He cannot abandon His own. If a partial energy will create for itself a system and formal institutions, it becomes a sect. God will bless you, my brethren, in your faithfulness. I believe it, and I desire it with all my heart. I only desire there should be sufficient largeness of heart to weigh what I have just been saying; and that there might be the fear of God, so as to feel what a serious thing it is to lay the foundations of a church, so that it should have the right to demand that all should enter therein. If one makes any other church than that, one necessarily makes a sect.

If I unite myself with two or three children of God, I act according to my faith, and upon a principle which embraces all the Church of God, such as God sees it.

If I lay the foundation of a constitution, I make a church; and, in this case, what is the church I make? Does it answer entirely to what God has said of a church in the word?

In acting according to what one has, God will give more.

In establishing a church, I limit the circle of my blessings wall of enclosure that I have made myself.

132 The apostle says, "That ye may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church, by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."

My brethren, I pray God with all my heart to bless you.

Let us seek peace and the good of His Church.

'The Church and its Friendly Subdivisions'

in reply to Mr. R. W. Monsell.

J. N. Darby.

Geneva; Kaufmann. 1849.

<04003F> 133

CHAPTER 1

It is not my intention to occupy myself with Mr. Monsell's attacks on his brethren, and I hope that those amongst them who can feel themselves hurt by his decisions and accusations will keep themselves perfectly tranquil.

The Lord has said to us, "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"; and in such cases experience has made me feel that the best answer is to keep silence, and to continue to labour for the glory of the Lord in doing good.

I pray my God, with all my heart, that He may grant me to justify His goodness and His ways, and not my own. My earnest desire, my earnest prayer to God, is that He may keep me from defending a cause, and that He may give me to be only occupied with His truth. The times are too serious for me to defend any party whatsoever. It is a poor device of the enemy, engaging in such a path, in order to turn away our energy from that which is precious to God, and from that which makes His thoughts of any avail against the work of that enemy.

{*In the Canton of Neuchatel, brethren hare no need of our telling them who desired to put fetters on the work of evangelization, which God has blessed in spite of all. And I think that the brethren of the Canton of Vaud are able to say whether the brethren who visited them, and who have laboured in the midst of them, are "perfidious enemies who have brought poison to them." If they have found them such, it would be useless for me to repeat that they are not so; and, in effect, those who think so would do well to separate themselves from them. I only exhort them, contrary to what Mr. Monsell counsels them, to do it without waiting for anything.}

If the work which is attacked is not of God, let it fall; If it is a work of God, a light of God, let us not stop to justify ourselves; and, in the place of that, let us insist, for the blessing of all the Church, on the truth, which is its foundation. If the walk of those who have professed this truth has barred its progress, let us not be surprised if those who combat the truth which we profess, seek to take advantage of our faults. The remedy for that is to profit by those reproofs, by humbling ourselves before God for that which has given rise to them; and we owe a debt of thankfulness to Him who causes us to see that which might stop the progress of the work of God, which is unspeakably dear to us.

134 The work, which for many years has drawn the attention of Christians, is, I believe, a work of God; and, on the confession even of those who oppose them, it is a question of truths infinitely important to all the Church.

I wish that these truths may remain prominent.

The enemy seeks, by the tract of Mr. Monsell, to turn the thoughts of Christians away from them, and to injure the energy which maintains them. My desire, in writing, is to put them back in their place.

Beside, the tract of Mr. Monsell is fitted to disturb people's minds on questions of secondary importance, which he regards himself as such, and by it to turn them aside from more important things, and from that pursuit after such a knowledge of Christ as nourishes the soul. Even when we would wish it, we cannot, at this moment, withdraw ourselves from these questions, and it is useful to put them in a clear light, in order that minds may be free to think of better things. We must at present occupy ourselves with elders, in order that there may be that tranquillity which makes us capable of occupying ourselves with Christ.

I entreat my brethren to seek much the presence of Jesus, that they may be in a state to put things in their own places, and to attribute to them their right value.

In the place of Christ without elders, elders without Christ would be a sorrowful exchange.

John saw elders in heaven, and they were in a higher place when, leaving their thrones and their crowns, they prostrated themselves before the throne and before the Lamb, than when they were crowned and in their places.

Let us, above all, be worshippers, and keep ourselves cleaving to the truth. The Lord is coming soon.

135 The object of Mr. Monsell, and he avows it,* is plainly, to compose a new church system out of the remains of old dissent and the scattered brethren who expect the "Church of the Future.", He informs us that the system which he "finds to be biblical" is nowhere established.** To accredit this new system, the one now existing must be depreciated, as well as the brethren who were already labouring in the field. The dissenting tendency of one part of the Free Church is evident. The opportunity was too favourable to be missed. He will allow all sorts of things in these brethren, provided they join themselves to his work and to himself.***

{*He has even given the programme of his system which, in the main, is, as it seems to me, nothing but the old dissenting system, in preserving even the two shades of difference of Mr. P. Olivier and Mr. Rochat. He builds, however, on the system of Mr. Olivier, only admitting the system of Mr. Rochat in a subordinate manner, and by the side of the other, and by paying his court to what he calls the new and amiable dissent of the Free Church (although it has not the veto of the church, the only safeguard against the entrance of the unconverted, and although there be clergy in it). It is all one. "The friendly division" is even a means fully admitted (pp. 60, 61) in order to reach the desired end. The proposed system accepts it, provided that no one is friendly with the "gnawing leprosy" of Brethren.}

{**Page 96, of Mr. Monsell's tract.}

{***Pages 125, 126}

He suggests to his Swiss brethren rules of conduct, to win to their side, if possible all the flocks in the midst of which they may be found, or if that does not succeed, to separate themselves from them as from "gnawing leprosy." He hides, under a very transparent veil, that he is speaking of the flocks of "Brethren," when he says that there is scarcely any means of reaching his end in great assemblies, because there are in them always brethren well taught and decided; but that there is more hope of gaining "the little churches of the villages." The pages quoted contain a curious appeal to the "Brethren," on which he makes sure of producing some effect, to act after the same principles, which he accuses other Christians of putting in practice; and he ends in a very curious way, by asking them to send him money, and by adding these words, "This will act as a visible bond between us; and what better bond could we desire?"

If that be the only subject of the tract, what necessity is there, it will be said, to draw thereon the attention of Christians? None, in reality; and if all ended there, silence would be enough. But to attain his object, Mr. Monsell treats of many subjects, which may disturb the hearts of "Brethren," and of very important points as regards the work of God; and it is well that brethren should know at the same time what is the object and foundation of all this. It is then on the subjects mentioned I desire to occupy myself.

136 For my part, I have a sincere respect for old dissenters. It is not for the sake of the system which they have sincerely and conscientiously followed, and which I have frankly and honestly opposed, because, instead of members of Christ, they would have members of a local church, and because they elect amongst themselves presidents; but I have not a single bitter feeling on the subject. I do not make it a subject of reproach. It was their conviction, a false conviction, in my opinion, but all that is gone by. That which makes me respect them, and that which for me is not gone by, is that, formerly, they suffered for the testimony of the Lord, an imperfect testimony it may be, but sincerely rendered to Him whom we all love. It is the turn of "Brethren" perhaps now; and there are some old dissenters who cordially joined themselves to them and who have suffered with them. I have a sincere respect for those who, whether they be still living, or whether they have already entered into rest, have suffered for the name of our common Lord. I hail with joy the faith of those who have taken part in the trials of their brethren of today. I do not wish to close my eyes to the new light which God has given me, and some of these dear brethren have, I believe, committed the fault of so doing. But their fault, I hope, is there, where are my own sins, at the bottom of the sea, out of the remembrance of our God, because of the blood of the Lamb.

CHAPTER 2

Whilst totally leaving aside the attacks directed against the "Brethren," I will make in passing some remarks on the history which Mr. Monsell tells of Plymouthism, and which he has arranged so as to support his arguments. It is thoroughly inexact. The beginning of the "Brethren" was not, as he said, the isolated acts of several brethren in various places, and that too without any understanding between them. The meeting where, Mr. Monsell says, there were more of the Anglican clergy, than at the first meeting of the Evangelical Alliance,* had nothing in common with the meetings of the "Brethren." It was on the invitation of a single person, who received and lodged them in his own house, a meeting the object of which was the study of prophetic questions. Let us take note, however, of the largeness of heart recognized amongst brethren, and let us remember that the Lord Himself began by putting Himself within the reach of all; but He saw Himself limited to a small circle before He had accomplished His course. It is the special character of truth, which acts in love, to begin with a full and large heart, and to find itself soon enclosed within narrow bounds, by that which it meets with in the hearts of others. It is on a little flock that the heart of the Father rests. May brethren remember this, I do not pretend to say, that we were perfect, like Christ (we are very far from that), nor that the hostility of which we are the objects ought to be attributed solely to the pure malice of the adversaries. And, in encountering attacks such as those of Mr. Monsell, it is hard to keep the heart always large and open. I hope, nevertheless, that my brethren will take heed that it may be so. But, whatever love may be shewn by a witness to the truth, it remains no less true that his faithfulness will always have the effect which I have pointed out. {*Page 104.}

137 If one wishes to do things "on a large scale," of which the tract of Mr. Monsell expresses itself ambitious, then, in truth, we must recur to a totally different principle, to the one which the tract proclaims in these terms: "Take always the path where the least faith is needed." For in order to have great numbers, forsooth it needs be, either that God act upon the masses themselves by a spirit of power, or that we should lower the demands of our walk to the measure of the great number, that is to say, to a very low measure of faith. That is the principle which Mr. Monsell avows and recommends. It is the foundation of his tract. For my part I can say that my principles have not changed. That which I published, when I was leaving nationalism, on the nature and unity of the Church of Christ," is still what satisfies me most of all that has appeared on this subject, and it is totally opposed to the principles of union announced by Mr. Monsell.

To return to the history of brethren, all the story which Mr. Monsell makes up of the connection between the little flocks is but the product of his own imagination.

138 It was I who suggested the work of evangelization which was called the Home Mission, although it is true, when the work was once set going, that the national minister (to whom Mr. M. makes allusion) took a much larger part in it than I did, through the energy of his character. To avoid struggles with the Anglican clergy, he had begun missionary meetings, and I succeeded in turning them into preaching. There was no committee. When the work extended, he went, unknown to me, to entrust it to the ministers of the National Church, binding himself to put the laity aside, expecting that my interest in the work and the large-heartedness I had shewn would lead me to remain in it. I refused to do so; and shortly after the bishops and ministers counted the work of little value, and the evangelization drooped. Thanks be to God, the energy is renewed in the midst of brethren.

The mission of Tinnevelly never was, as Mr. M. declares, in the hands of brethren. Mr. Rhenius, who was wonderfully blessed there, Mr. Schmidt, and, if I am not mistaken, two other missionaries withdrew themselves from the yoke of the Anglican Church, because obedience to ordination according to the Anglican liturgy, and other like things, was imposed on them. That awoke a marked interest amongst brethren, and it was natural. The grief which Mr. Rhenius underwent in consequence of the conduct of the Anglican Society brought on his death, and the Mission again returned into the sphere of the Society.

We shall find, towards the end of this tract, the history of that which Mr. M. calls the Plymouth schism.

It is not necessary to follow farther the history of brethren which Mr. M. gives, in the midst of whom he did not enter till seven years after the beginning of the work.

I do not contest the point, that in Congregationalism there was at first liberty of ministry, but that had scarcely any duration. That liberty has existed and still exists among Quakers; but whilst admitting the liberty of ministry, the work of the brethren rests on much broader foundations. While taking as a foundation the great truths of the gospel, here are the principles which distinguish it: the unity of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit come down from above, the witness of a perfect redemption, accomplished by Him who is seated there at the right hand of the Father. It is by reason of the presence of this Spirit, acting in the members, that there is liberty of ministry according to the measure of His energy and of His gifts (a liberty regulated by the word).

139 This is the first principle (a principle of which Mr. M. will not recognize even the existence, as I will shew). It is on this foundation* that we meet, admitting in consequence every Christian.

{*The fact is that we met by the power of grace, according to the liberty of the Spirit of God, with no settled system; but at bottom, it is that which I have just pointed out, which served as the principle of meeting. The first time was at Dublin; we were four brethren.}

The energy of the testimony rendered to the second advent of the Lord Jesus has in practice distinguished brethren. The work has been the result of an energy which came from God; and certainly the knowledge of the revelation of God in His word increased by that means. Practical faithfulness in renouncing the world is, perhaps, that which has most marked it. The knowledge of the word, I am persuaded, has been a consequence of it. But the two principles just pointed out have particularly distinguished the work. Perhaps we should rather say that the things which have distinguished it have been the study of the ways of God in His word in every respect, complete separation from the world, and free and active evangelization.

What Mr. M. says (p. 27, art. 6) is not exact: examination of this can be made when we consider the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

As to the article 8, p. 28, to say that the Plymouth brethren (a name, moreover, which I do not accept) have a special mission to call on the faithful to leave their different denominations, etc., is to advance a statement devoid of foundation. Mr. Irving said the contrary; and he considered the fact that we did not seek to draw the world to us, as a proof that we were not in the truth. To seek the world is, I am persuaded, a false path. Besides, the walk which I follow is a walk of faith; and if any one has not faith which compels him to follow it, he would do better to remain quiet. But it is always true that the power of a new truth detaches those who embrace it from the system which rejects it. That is what has happened in England and Switzerland.

No more is there any ground to say (art. 9) that our "new foundation" is "that of testimony against the apostasy." Let us remember that Mr. M. himself admits the apostasy; and he feels that he cannot act on souls without admitting it. If then there is an apostasy, or "universal disorder," it is clear that those who come out of that disorder, and who meet outside that state of things, are on a foundation which by the very fact of their meeting renders testimony against that disorder; but it is not the testimony rendered against that disorder which is the foundation on which they meet.

140 As regards the ecclesiastical organization, we will refer to it farther on. I will allow myself here one observation. As to the reader who has some taste of the things of God, can he run through the articles in which Mr. M. has depicted that which he calls Plymouthism, and the principles which Plymouthism has put forward, and believe that the absence of organization is what distinguishes it?

However biting that which Mr. M. has said of it may be, it will do us, with upright souls, more good than harm. He has also answered for us the "Examination" of a minister of Neufchatel, shewing that elder and pastor are two different things, and bringing out the difference between the ministry and charges, as well as between gifts and charges, with more clearness than I had done. Finally, he has completely overturned the new Genevese system, shewing it to be clearly antiscriptural, by a deduction drawn from a string of passages, a deduction which I will sum up in Mr. M.'s own words: "I then regard all nominations of ministers of the word as an infringement on divine order."*

{*Page 144.}

CHAPTER 3.

This brings us to a grave matter, and one worthy of the serious attention of Christians.

Whilst developing, with much clearness and force, the proof of the doctrine which brethren profess, concerning ministry and charges (except one point which I will notice farther on), Mr. M., in order to give weight to his right to establish a system and to bring brethren into it, lays as a foundation the denial of what is much more essential than the liberty of ministry itself, of that which alone gives any value to that truth. He employs the truth about the ministry (truth which souls taste more and more) in order to deny that which is much more important - the true unity of the Church, and in order to justify the sects and the endless subdivisions of the Church under the influence of some principle, whatever it may be; and to gain his end, he effaces the boundaries of good and evil, and saps the foundation of Christian faithfulness.

141 It is the moral character of his tract, it is the absence of all trace of the influence of the Spirit of God, which touches me most deeply (for I have known Mr. M. well), but one would not fail to accuse me of prejudice if I insisted on that; and this tract has made me greatly doubt as to his faith on the capital point of the presence of the Holy Spirit. But I will occupy myself with the subjects I have pointed out.

And, first, Mr. M. denies, whilst he ignores the root of that truth, the unity of the Church of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit to produce that unity.

The unity of Christians, says he, consists in their participation of a common life.

If that is so, we can have unity without the existence of a body, and the unity of Christians exists without there being a body, being all the while scattered on the face of the earth without any union, and each one being left to his own individuality. We can, if we meet each other, experience life and mutual affections, but no unity.

The word of God says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," 1 Cor. 12: 13. But, for the object which Mr. M. lays before himself, it is enough that unity be limited to common affections, and that divisions continue among Christians.

He says again, in speaking of Christians, "Their affections and common sympathies are the result of a life communicated to their souls by the Holy Spirit, which has made them partakers of the divine nature."

So, that which he has in view is not the presence of the Holy Spirit, which makes of them one body. The author does not see Christians "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," Eph. 2: 22.

Mr. M. says again, "The intimate and hidden unity shews itself by a visible union" (these are indeed the terms on which the truth expresses itself; and nevertheless it is to reduce it, in that which follows, to some personal and individual feelings), "as the soul makes itself felt through the body and its organs!" And what is that unity, visible as the body is? "Taught by God to love one another, Christians love, as Christ, with a love that shews itself; imitators of God as His dear children, they walk* in love." All unity, that is to say, even visible unity, is the affection and conduct of the individual. It is to deceive oneself, it is to deceive souls in the most serious matters, thus to delude oneself with regard to the sense of the words employed by the Holy Spirit. Let the reader glance through the whole page, whence these quotations are taken, and he will there find the confirmation of what I have advanced.

{*The italics are Mr. M.'s.}

142 Is this, then, unity manifested by a visible union? or is it merely employing the expression of a scriptural truth to turn aside a soul from the true force of that truth?

The effect of this is to draw persons away, without the soul perceiving it, from the thought of God on the subject of unity, whilst it supposes that it possesses that truth, because, in speaking to them of it, use has been made of the very terms meant to communicate it.

In the next page the system appears already.

"Each converted soul becomes a member of the universal Church." What universal Church? of the body of Christ here below? By no means. Paul speaks "of the Ephesians, as members of the Church which has no limit as to place or as to time." The converted soul is "associated with the spirits of just men made perfect; it cannot either do them service," etc. Then we have a piece of nonsense, namely, that this "universal Church is divided into local churches, which are representatives and miniatures." For by universal church the author makes us take in all believers of all ages, dead or alive, a church which has no limit as to place or time. And thus is set aside the idea of a church upon the earth, baptized by one Spirit to be one body; and that was the object in view, and attention was turned away from scriptural truth on this subject, and fixed on churches,* which are the representatives of the universal church. In one word, the Church, such as the word shews it to us, is denied, in order to bring into prominence each flock as having the rights of the universal church, an expression and thought equally unknown to the word.

{*We shall see farther on that Mr. Monsell is content with many churches in one locality and with an infinite subdivision. The object here is to preserve in detail to any separate church the rights of the universal church; an idea which, after all, excludes every scriptural idea of the church, inasmuch as it excludes every thought of a body by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, seeing that the faithful of the Old Testament have never been thus united on the earth. Here are his words "Each flock being in a confined sphere, for a limited time, that which the universal church is until the last stone be laid."}

143 Let us listen again. "Union in Christ is then a moral work, destroying in proportion as it develops itself all egotism and pride." This has a very fine appearance; but read the Epistle to the Ephesians and 1 Corinthians 12, and you will see whether that which the author says has any reference to the thoughts expressed in the word of God.

The idea of a family is very sweet, and I am not opposed to such affections, for we are brethren; but that is not the thought of the word on the subject of the unity of the Church. "We are all one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread."

If the words of men take from me the truth of God, the sweeter they are, they are the worse, and more deceitful.

Now then you will understand, reader, what this language means: union in Christ manifested in the Church by means of local churches. Union is a moral work in the individual. Manifested in the Church means acting in individuals, so far as their souls belong to the universal church, and that, in affections and common sympathies between the Christians of one locality.

Well, I do not hesitate to say that it is immoral thus to employ such expressions in order to delude others on subjects of which the word of God speaks, by the apparent use of the terms it employs. What I call immoral is to make use of gracious and sentimental words to lead the heart of Christians to attach a meaning to words which are used to express Christian truths, for the very purpose of excluding those truths by letting the deluded soul think that it is in possession of all that scripture teaches by these words. Take up the pages of Mr. M. and see if the expressions of union in Christ, of union manifested in the Church, or even of local churches, have in them the same meaning which the infinitely precious truths have which these words contain if we consult the word.

I pursue my subject. We have seen the ideas which are set up to prepare minds to receive the system. Now we will look at the system itself. I accuse this system of a denial of the unity of the Church and of the presence of the Holy Spirit who has created it.

"The unity of Israel manifested itself in the assembly of a whole people surrounding the one altar. Let this people be scattered or even the altar defiled, for the moment all is lost. Our unity, the symbol of which is not one candlestick, but seven, is less massive and more diversified. The temple has not been replaced by another building, but by numerous tents which collectively form one camp." He quotes Exodus 25: 31; Zechariah 4: 2; Revelation 1: 12, 13, 20. Thus the author puts entirely aside, from one end to the other, the doctrine of the epistles on the subject; and the epistles are that part of the word which reveals the direct relationship between the Father, and Christ as Head of the body, with the Church, and which speaks of it. To introduce this part of the word would be to overthrow from top to bottom the author's system. Pay attention to that which he says, namely, that what replaces the temple is not another edifice but many tents. It is not saying that Christ, whilst judging it, bears with such a state of things; it is pretending to say what God would have done to replace the temple. Now I beg my reader to take, not the symbols of the Apocalypse (where a good number of Christians see a prophetic history of the successive states of the Church on the earth, and which, if it is not so, present to us seven local churches,* which gave an opportunity for judging the moral state of every church and even of every soul) to search in its prophecies what the Church is, putting aside all the teaching of the epistles; but to take the direct and positive revelation of those epistles, and to see there if that which God has announced to him is not the Church as the body of Christ, one on the earth by the baptism of the Holy Spirit come down from heaven. We by no means deny local churches. Mr. M. gets rid of them, as we shall see. The word maintains also the local unity.

{*The reader will remember that the number "seven" gives the idea of something complete.}

144 Mark also that in the Apocalypse the Lord is not presented to us in the position in which the epistles reveal Him to us. The epistles tell us of Jesus gone on high, Head of a body and communicating power and grace to that body. In the Apocalypse we do not even see Jesus in His character of Son over His own house. He there presents Himself as judging, a priestly judge it may be, but as Son of man, Judge in the midst of the churches. There is no question at all of union with Christ. Now all this precious truth of the actual union of Christ with His Church, as well as that of His members one with another by the Holy Spirit, is set aside in order that souls may content themselves with that which none dare justify (that is to say, the actual state of Christians).

145 The meaning of the work of Mr. M. comes to this: Do not look too much at that ideal beauty; do not fill your head with that which the word speaks of, and I will present something to you which will do well, for we cannot have things on earth as they ought to be. We must find a walk in which we need the smallest possible amount of faith.

Christians! are you content with that?

Besides, Mr. M. lays down in principle that which I maintained in my argument with our brother Rochat, now at rest. "We are," says he, "members of the universal* Church and of the local church by the very fact of our Christianity."

{*Having already spoken of the expression "universal Church," one always used to put aside the body of Christ, I shall not revert to it. The word of God always speaks of the members of the body of Christ, a body formed by the coming down of the Holy Ghost here below, and until now recognised only on earth. This body will be manifested in its fulness at the return of Christ.}

Immediately after that, Mr. M. gives us a justification of sects, and an apology for the destruction of local unity, which he holds as of slight account, just as he has put aside the body of Christ. "Let this manifestation," says he, "be made by a single faithful assembly, or by many assemblies having different surnames, but having full liberty of mutual communion as a body, it comes to the same thing. That church or aggregate of those churches forms the manifestation of the Church of God in that place."

Now I ask, if the word of God furnishes us with a trace of anything like this, and if it is not very positively condemned as a carnal thing? If one says, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos (that is to say, if there are different surnames), no matter: according to Mr. M. that comes to the same thing. But what says the word? "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Greek nor Barbarian; we are all one in Jesus Christ."

Farther on, the author excludes again the presence of the Holy Ghost, in order to make the union to rest on a state of soul. "I am," says he, "attached to my brethren by the work of God in them and in me . . . . I submit myself to the laws and to the spirit of a society established by the Lord Jesus."

What a difference between this language and that of the word of God! "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." "Now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." "Now are they many members, yet but one body." "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."

146 And here, dear reader, give your attention to this. It is sought to establish a distinction between the gifts of the day of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit the Comforter, of whom the Apostle John speaks; and Mr. M. avails himself of the words of Peter, "That which you now see and hear," in order to contrast them with the words of the Lord, "Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not," for the purpose of making a distinction between the Spirit such as we have it, as the Spirit of grace, and the Spirit as it was with the disciples.* Now what was promised by Jesus was the Comforter, whom, when on high, He would ask of the Father, and whom, from on high, He would send to His own. ** After the resurrection, He told the disciples to wait at Jerusalem the fulfilment of "the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Compare Matthew 3: 11.) Now they had heard from Jesus the promise of the Comforter which the Father would send; John 16. On the day of Pentecost Peter says, "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear," Acts 2: 32, 33. Now, it is by this very Spirit, the promise of the Father, of which Jesus spoke (John 14, 15, 16), that we all are baptized to be one body. And the words "Ye now see and hear," in the mouth of Peter, say nothing of what Mr. M. speaks of. The tongues, etc., were "the manifestation of the Spirit"; and it was that which the world saw and heard.

{*Page 107.}

{**In John 14, Christ, Mediator, asks the Holy Ghost of the Father, who sends Him; in chapter 15, Christ in His personal glory on high sends Him; in chapter 16, the Holy Ghost is here below in the disciples, and He will tell the things He has heard.}

Now I ask, if the Holy Spirit produces in us good works; and I find that it is written, "That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." And I say, Would it be in accordance with the Spirit and the word to say, Ah! that cannot be the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of grace and as the Comforter, because the world does not see Him. We are the epistle of Christ, written by the Spirit of the living God, known and read by all the world. Is this again not the promise of the Father? And again: the Comforter would speak in them, and would shew to them things to come. Was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which did that, totally distinct from that indwelling which made Him to be a Spirit of grace?

147 I fully admit the difference between the graces and the gifts; but I do not admit it to put aside that baptism which makes the unity of the body - a mould in which the Christian affections are formed according to the word, or to make these affections to be simply gracious feelings.

In speaking of ministry, Mr. Monsell could very well quote the most striking passages which relate to the body of Christ, and so he seems not to neglect them. Why then put them aside when the question is concerning the union of the members?

Mr. M. says again, "The Church, being composed of men, is a human society."

Is it thus that the word speaks of it? The Church is not solely composed of men. It has for its Head, Christ; and the Holy Spirit is there, and He it is who makes its unity; so that to say it is a human society is to make an allegation which totally falsifies the idea which God gives of it.

Are the bonds of this society human? Is that which makes it a society human? By no means. That which makes it a society is the Holy Spirit. This assertion of Mr. M., that the Church is a human society, betrays plainly the exclusion of the Holy Spirit from his system on the Church For if the presence of God forms this society, to say, because men are in it, that the society is a human one, is to put man above God; and it is to make that which is the object of the senses prevail over the presence of Him who is the object of faith alone - a presence which, for faith, characterizes this society - a presence without which it has no existence.

Mr. M. says, "The members of the faithful churches have before them the ideal of the Church, of the heavenly families on the earth."* A very nice thought it may be. But I appeal to the epistle to the Ephesians; to that to Romans, chapter 12; 1 Corinthians 12; to 1 Timothy 3 15; and I say, that this description of yours is not at all the ideal of the Church according to the word.

{*Page 123.}

148 In refuting a thought of the "Coup d'oeil," Mr. M. thus expresses himself: "To say that the Church is become quite invisible, is to say that the world can no longer perceive that there are Christians."* Here all idea of unity and of union according to the word is totally destroyed. The Church is made no more than a moral state of the individuals - that it was not the gathering together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad.

{*Page 139.}

Is the Church then no longer visible? asks Mr. M. "Yes," says he. "It is to be seen in all those who profess and know the Saviour." *This is to say that the existence of scattered individuals is the manifestation of a body.

{*Page 140}

But Mr. M. goes farther. "The apostolic church," says he, "was visible solely because it shewed forth the virtues of the Saviour; and, now too, there are souls, who, in a feeble measure, are the witnesses of Christ. Why not call the same things by the same name, in the past as well as in the nineteenth century?"

This is a formal denial of all the doctrine of the word. Did God put apostles in souls? Did He put gifts of healing in a soul? You may exclaim, if you will, You take up things in such a way! Yes; I take things quietly, as I find them in the word, and I say that you put aside and deny the unity of the Church of God and all the doctrine of the word. Mr. M. says I confound catholicism of form with the unity of the Spirit. Take the unity of a man; in what does it consist? I do not speak of uniformity of organization. I speak of the unity of the body. There is one Spirit and one body, one body on the earth; Eph. 4. Your unity of the spirit* consists only in some good feelings in individuals. It is not that of which the word tells us. It tells us of being builded together for an habitation of God by the Spirit. And for empty words I will not consent to give up the word of my God, and the body of which Christ is the Head.

{*It is important here to give its full force to this expression, "The unity of the Spirit." This unity is in no wise as Mr. M. presents it to us, a matter of feeling. The unity of the Spirit is the unity which flows from this, that the One Spirit has united the members in Jesus in one body. Look at the Epistle to the Ephesians. God has established Christ "to be the head over all things," and Head of the Church "which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." That is to say, that the Church, as a body, is the complement of the Head, which is Christ. He has quickened us together with Him - Jews and Gentiles also together. He has made us, as Christians, sit together with Him in the heavenly places. "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body . . . . Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets [of the New Testament. See Ephesians 3: 5], Jesus Christ being himself the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord [this is what has replaced the destroyed temple]: in whom ye [Gentiles] also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" Such is the unity of the Spirit, which in chapter 4 He exhorts the faithful to keep, by recalling to them that there was one Spirit and one body. And mark here that the descent of the Spirit, the power of unity for the body, is in such a way before the eyes of the apostle (and that founded on this, that Christ is gone on high) that he only knows the apostles in the Church as given, after the ascension, by Christ, the Head of the body. (See also 1 Corinthians 12.) There the unity of the Spirit is not so much in contrast with the previous separation of Jews and Gentiles as with the plurality of demons. "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit . . . . But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [whether Jews or Gentiles]. "Now ye are the body of Christ."

Such then is the unity of the Spirit, a reality in the power of God, and not merely feelings in man. The bond of peace is in order to keep this unity.}

149 I have not taken, in the tract of Mr. M. one isolated passage, the sense of which one might be in danger of wresting. I have reproduced a crowd of passages from his tract, which shew that he denies, and that the object of his labour is to deny, the doctrine of the word on the subject of the unity of the Church, of the body of Christ. He denies it in a clever manner, I allow. And in order not to have the appearance of putting aside the passages of the word which teach this truth, he quotes them, but for another purpose - that of explaining the gifts of ministry. But he carefully denies the truth with which we have been occupied. The object of Mr. M. is to accept and justify the actual subdivision of the Church.

After many pages, in which Mr. M. seeks to justify denominations, and in which he attacks severely those who call them sects, and that with justice, insomuch as they have for their foundation a particular opinion, he says, "I do not hide from myself that in saying that one must accept our present subdivision, I bind myself implicitly to accept new subdivisions."*

{*Page 41.}

150 Well, I can weep; I may feel myself incapable perhaps of repairing the evil; but I cannot accept sin before God, nor pledge myself to accept it at some later time.

CHAPTER 4.

I now come to ministry. I think that the work* of Mr. Monsell on this subject may perhaps be of much use, and that so much the more, as emanating from an adversary.

{*We can sum up the substance of this work in a few sentences. Having quoted many passages, Mr. M. says, page 63, "One asks oneself, Where is the regular ministry? The fact is, there is none, in the ordinary sense of the word. A body of men set apart for public religious instruction would have been an innovation totally opposed, even to the ideas of the Jews in apostolic times, and still more to those of Christians."

And page 65, "Let people shew me one single ordination, then I will believe all the others. To say that some of these men had miraculous gifts makes no difference to the question." And again, page 144 "I regard then all nomination of the ministers of the word as an infringement on the divine order." (Mr. M.'s italics.) "One may put oneself on the ground of divine right or of human order. It may be the Anglican priest in white, or the 'inevitable man in black,' or again, the Dissenting minister slipping in as if smuggled in under the cloak of the biblical elder. All nomination for speaking in worship is an evil." It appears that Mr. M. does not attach much importance at least to infringements on divine order.}

He overthrows the system of our other adversaries with much clearness and logical consequence. As to elders, I think his work may be also very useful. I scarcely see anything except the point of the investiture of the elders, on which I have any remarks to make.

As regards elders, the imposition of hands is insisted on, election by the faithful or by a presbytery; and they are not content with their practical existence, even when they are owned with thanksgiving before God.

Let us see what Mr. M. admits on these points, as the result of his study - a result at which I have arrived, and which the adversaries of brethren are one after the other forced to admit.

Mr. M. says on the subject of elders, "At most we can only guess that their installation was accompanied with the imposition of hands: finally, no positive measure was taken to render this institution permanent . . . . The meaning of so marked an indifference is evident, when we remember that the fundamental corruption of Christianity was to be the transformation of these officers into an order of priests, resting its pretensions on apostolical succession.*

{*Pages 92, 93.}

151 It is certain in effect that the word does not contain one word about the imposition of hands, so far as being laid on elders is concerned. What precious care is that which God takes of His Church, and that in all times! According to the customs of those times I have little doubt that hands were laid on the elders; but the Holy Ghost, who foresees everything, and who knows what He ought to say and what He ought to omit, carefully avoided stating it (and for my part I have no doubt that the reason given by Mr. M. is the true one, as also for that which concerns the virgin Mary). The Spirit of God, I say, avoided carefully giving a statement as to the imposition of hands on elders, in the inspired word, our one and only guide; and now, in contempt of His wisdom and goodness, men try to impose upon us the thing which God in His goodness, has taken care to pass over in silence, in that which He has preserved for us and handed down for the blessing of the Church in all times.

I do not insist on the strange consequence which Mr. M. draws, both from the fears of this abuse and from the determination which he has formed to have the imposition of hands, in order to keep up appearances for the flesh. "Take," says he, * "for ordaining, those who are the least esteemed in the Church." And nevertheless, he would prefer it should be those who possessed its respect. It is nothing but the natural consequence of departing from the wisdom of the word; but I confine myself to insisting on the fact that imposition of hands on elders is nowhere found in the word.

{*Page 94.}

"I think," says also Mr. M.,* "with one of the opponents of Mr. Darby, that the institutions of the Apostolical Church are not an absolute model. Therefore I do not insist on the establishment of elders as on a command of God."

{*Page 144.}

Hence Mr. M. does not try to shew a passage where the word declares that some must be established; at the same time he declares that nothing is said on the mode of their establishment. He even adds,* "we know neither where, nor when, nor why, nor how this religious magistracy was established." There is not the slightest allusion to an official source of this authority; he dares not insinuate that the people chose them.

{*Page 92.}

152 Mr. M. touches upon the accusation made against him of establishing the democratic principle.* His answer may be read: it is very insignificant. He agrees that he cannot "present as being of divine authority," the system he wishes to establish. To present it as such, would be, he adds, "to deprive the bride of her privilege of ordering the house of God according to the wisdom He gives her day by day, as directed by His Spirit and enjoying His fellowship . . . and were it not for the conviction which I have of the practical advantages of primitive episcopacy, I would adhere fully to these words (of Mr. Scherer): 'The meaning of the apostolic example is confined for us to a very general indication of the propriety or necessity of the direction of the Church by some of its members.'"

{*Page 96.}

We see what place the word of God holds in these theories.

Mr. M. avoids all discussion on Acts 14: 23. On the other hand, he admits that Titus was sent to Crete, not to recognize elders, but to establish them there.* This is to allow that, in the only case where we find in the word anything precise, it is the apostles and their delegates who alone establish, an important principle where gifts are not in question. And here is the reason: Christ is "Son over his own house." Authority comes from Him, and the bride cannot confer it. It is not a question (and on that we are agreed) of ministry, but of government, of authority, of oversight. Now Christ alone is Head, as the man is of the woman. Christ not only gives gifts; He, further, established the twelve and that was a charge. Paul received his authority from Christ. He commits a charge to Timothy who had been designated by prophecies; he leaves Titus in Crete to establish elders. These are not merely isolated facts, but a chain of facts, which flow from the principle that authority belongs to Christ, and that Christ is "Son over his own house."

{*Page 84.}

Now Mr. M: confesses that there is a "universal disorder" - "apostasy" - "the very strongest thing that can be said in any language."* He confesses that nothing has been said of the permanence of this institution of elders; that this silence of the word is intentional, because this institution was to become the great corruption of the Church, as it has become in truth. And mark this, that there is a parcelling out of the Church, and that, in consequence, if one pretends to establish elders, they will be elders, not of the flock of God, but of a little sect which must have taken from its own bosom persons such as it has been able to find there. Such elders can in nowise answer to that which we have in Acts. It cannot be said to them, "to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" - "all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers."

{*Page 47.}

153 Is nothing more told us then in the word of God on the subject of elders and of the guidance of the flock?

Let us examine again the tract of Mr. M.

We read there,* "The silent establishment of elders, whose existence is revealed to us only incidentally, is a proof of the small importance attached to these things."

{*Page 72.}

That is to say, that elders held their office without our finding any indication of their official establishment. This is the more easy to understand, as Peter, writing to the Jews of the dispersion, shews us that the idea he had of an elder was not at all that of a man officially established. He, himself an elder, wrote to those amongst them who were elders, and he adds (1 Pet. 5: 5), "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder." It is exactly that which would be equivalent to the expression of a president by seniority in age. He contrasts the younger and the elder (neoteroi, presbuterois). That is to say, we have the certainty that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, did not use the word "elder" to indicate men officially established, but men to whom their age, and the experience which accompanied it, gave a moral weight in contrast with younger men. And it is precisely in this way that the elders at Jerusalem are presented in Acts 15.

As Mr. M. acknowledges,* we have no proof that there were elders at Antioch. And he adds, "Six years after the introduction of the gospel at Corinth, the church appears not to have had as yet any more formal government than the moral influence of those who devoted themselves to the work of the Lord; 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. The following year the isolated church at Rome was, to all appearance, in the same situation. The leadership was, then still as the exercise of a gift (Rom. 12: 8) without having become a regular charge." He says again,** "Those who had spoken to the flock the word of God, were by right its leaders," Heb. 13: 7. {*Page 74.}

{**Page 79.}

154 That is to say, we have a crowd of passages which shew us very clearly the position of an elder, leader, and president, as founded on his moral weight and on the gifts, without nomination or official establishment. To those which Mr. M. quotes I would add 1 Thessalonians 5: 12, 13: "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."

We have then in the word of God a position recognized without controversy, and valid without any other question, wherever it is found.* Whilst we fully admit that this was apostolic experience, and that the system of official elders was only established at the end of about thirty years, Mr. Monsell blames us for wishing to go over this experience again.** He tell us that in proportion to the growth of the evil, this system was "laid as a necessity on the apostle," particularly on Paul. For my part, I do not oppose this idea, although it appears that even at the beginning Paul established elders; Acts 14. But admitting this, what does this fact shew? It shews that in proportion as the evil was increasing, and at the same time the desire of glorifying the Lord, love and interest for the things of Christ, were diminishing, it became necessary that certain persons should be possessed with an authority, which, resting on an investiture which none would dare dispute, might impose silence on every disobedient soul. And thus it is that we find apostles who establish; a Titus who is expressly sent to do so; a Timothy who might be called to receive accusations against elders; but all here depends on the fact that the source of the authority is incontestable. Such was indeed the case with the apostles, and with those who in case of need might appeal to the epistles to Titus and Timothy.

{*It is this which shews how utterly without basis the anonymous author of the tract "Are Elders to be Established?" is, when he declares that elders cannot be obeyed unless they have been established by men, and how completely antiscriptural such a statement is.}

{**Page 98.}

But all does not end thus.

"In proportion," says Mr. M.,* "that death laid hold on the Church, the elders exclusively arrogated teaching to themselves,** and ministry was confounded with office. When they had become a corporation, the ambition of power shewed itself among them (a universal rule of corporations): the members of the clergy compared themselves to the priests of the Old Testament, and their functions to all that was already most honoured amongst men - hence the word "sacrament." Then came in salvation by means of ceremonies and forgiveness of sins by priests."***

{*Page 81.}

{**This is, unintentionally, the exact picture of the Free Churches of Geneva and Vaud, and at the same time an answer to the "Examination," by a minister of Neufchatel.}

{***The effect of this on the question, explains why the fall of the church has been made so prominent by this discussion, although this fall was not in the least degree the doctrine which served as a foundation for the contested position.}

155 I do not carry out this picture farther. Mr. M. tells us that we do wrong to go farther back than the state of youth of the Philippian church, to the childhood of that of Thessalonica and Corinth. But this is not the question. Infancy and youth are long gone  by; and now the question is to know if, in this decrepit state of corrupted old age, of which he gives us the picture, we can return to youth, and do that which the apostles did by the authority of Christ, to bridle the will of man by a recognized authority, and recognized because it flowed incontestably from the authority of Christ over His own house, and because according to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit it answered to that which such a position demands. All depends here on the incontestable authority of the Establisher.

On the other hand, we find that in fact the word of God invests morally with its authority, that is to say, with the authority of God, those who, without having been, in the same way, officially established, can, if God raises them up, act on this ground according to their capacity, wherever they may be found, were it even in the midst of a dozen brethren gathered together.

Well! we have recognized the goodness of God in that, without pretending to appoint elders with an authority which shuts the mouth of the refractory by the very fact of their nomination, as the apostles did, to whom Christ had entrusted the rod in the Church. Who will do so now?

If you appoint elders, and if I dispute their authority, you can only maintain it on the footing of moral authority, which will shew, that it is the flesh in me that disputes it. You are, in spite of yourself, on the same footing as I am, unless your act be the fruit of a sect and that you make it a condition of entrance into the flock.

156 But in reality, as to the care of which we speak, is it found amongst the brethren? It is possible that they have not known how to profit by it everywhere as they ought. But let us leave Mr. M. to speak on this point: "In Switzerland," says he, "and in English towns, the lead falls to those who put themselves in the van (oi proistamenoi), very often devoted, wise, and spiritual men." And that is so true, that in his efforts to overthrow the flocks of Switzerland, and in the directions he gives to those who may be inclined to lend a hand to him to this end, he avows that he despairs of success with regard to the large churches: "these," says he, "are led in general by a little knot* of brethren, whose intellectual activity has enabled them to grasp these sacred theories." Mr. M. hopes that the little churches of the villages** will be less sheltered from his efforts.

{*Page 131.}

{**It is singular that he proposes to them to remain thus. Page 132.}

I say nothing of all this part of Mr. M.'s tract, because I do not think that there is one single spiritual soul who does not judge its spirit. One can pardon and pray for the author. If there be any spiritual energy, people will be secured from all his attempts; if there be none, one is always, alas! the prey of such attacks. At least there is straightforwardness in warning us of what he desires to do. Whether it is God who has forced him to this or whether it be irritation, this is certain, that God intended to warn the brethren of it.

Mr. M. finds fault with us, because in the British Isles the guidance of the country assemblies is almost always in the hands of some great or small landowner in the neighbourhood.* Thus is a thing I was ignorant of up to this moment; and yet I have been there more than he has. That might easily happen. I can assure my reader that I have thought of it, and that I cannot remember one single example of that which Mr. M. says is nearly always the case, without bringing forward a single instance: and yet I know the work pretty well. For my part, I think that brethren might, or at least that the grace of God could, give more energy to this part of the work. It demands patience, self-denial, a subdued flesh, the consciousness that one is acting with Christ and an ardent desire for His glory in the Church. But, in truth, it is a work which brings its own reward with it. It is a joy, if it is also a toil, to watch that souls, dear to the Lord, may walk well before Him. If there be not this love and feeling of responsibility, one can only do harm in meddling with the office.

{*Page 78.}

157 I should still have many remarks to offer on the arguments of Mr. M. but I shall not go farther into details on this subject.

To say that Titus was sent to Crete because the churches had not yet made for themselves bishops, is to wrest the word by adding to it one's own inventions. If authority were not necessary to set right those things which remained unordered and to establish elders, why not write to the churches? To dispute the necessity of that authority, is to admit an argument or an insinuation which destroys itself.

I have never read the tract of Mr. Vermont. But the only thing which, in that part which Mr. M. quotes, has struck me as extraordinary, is the very thing which he adopts himself, whilst pitying "those poor brethren at Plymouth" for having such an idea, namely, to be contented with separation if one does not agree. It is enough to compare the expression of his commiseration in page 58, with what he says in page 61. But I do not think that the dear brother who wrote "Mr. Vermont" pretends to render the brethren responsible for what may be there.

I think that Mr. M. is right in combating Mr. Beverly [-ley?] when he denies that the word "deacon" is employed officially. The first Epistle to Timothy, as it seems to me, leaves no doubt as regards this. But there would be no profit for any one in our dwelling here on all these details.

CHAPTER 5.

With regard to the "Friendly Divisions," I must call attention to some principles enounced in the work which occupies us.

Mr. M.'s system is to recognize the division of the Church, and even further to subdivide it.

158 I pray the reader to remember that, according to Mr. M. the unity of the Spirit is only a community of feeling, which he puts in contrast with uniformity. The word of God speaks of the unity of the body of Christ. The practical spirit is called the bond of peace. This truth is set aside by Mr. M. There is indeed for him a universal Church; but Abraham is of it as much as we are, so that it has nothing in common with our actual duties.* There are churches; but, at the same time, every division whatever, provided one is content therewith, possesses all the rights of the universal Church. These fractions may take what surnames they like; that changes nothing.

{*Page 9.}

This system seems to me a system of sin, that is to say, it appears to me to sanction sin knowingly. The doctrine of the word is formally laid aside, and one may, with regard to these divisions, remain according to one's will in sin, provided that those who do it, be, whilst doing it, amiable towards one another, and that no hindrances be put in the way of those who do the same. Sanction us in sin, and we will leave you free to commit sin according to your will. Sin then, according to Mr. M. does not consist in acting against the will of God, but in doing it in a bad spirit? and in hindering others in doing it. The existence of evil being a necessity amongst men, we must put up with it. Not to be content with it, is only a generous but fatal idealism. To oppose sin engenders evil reports; what is essential is to pull together. The position is evil, without doubt; but the heart is good. This is the unity of the Spirit. Finally we must choose the road which demands the least degree of faith.

The reader shall judge for himself if I have exaggerated the principles enounced by Mr. M. I have given a summary of them and brought them together, that sound judgment may he formed on them. But the reader will find them all again in the extracts which I am going to communicate to him.

That one may be able to judge, I take for my point of departure the truth taught in the Epistle to the Ephesians: "There is one body and one Spirit." We are "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit" - and 1 Corinthians 12: "For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body."

{*It is good that the reader should give heed to this word "baptized" in connection with the question, "What is the Church?" John the baptist said, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." After His resurrection the Lord Jesus says to His disciples, 'Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Pentecost therefore was that baptism. It is by this means then that we have been formed into one body. The Church, its unity, its existence as a body, all that is therefore the result of the descent of the Holy Ghost here below, of the baptism of the day of Pentecost. This is the unity, the body, the Church, which the word recognizes, and it recognizes no other. It is certain that the completeness of it shall be manifested in the day of Christ; but that which the word of God recognizes as the body, the unity, the Church, is that which is formed where the Holy Ghost is, that is, on the earth. As God, the Holy Ghost is everywhere. By His divine power, He will keep for glory the very dust of the blessed (Rom. 8: 11). But as, whilst He was God, the Son descended here below, and that, with respect to the ways of God, His place was on the earth, so also the Holy Ghost has come down, and His place is on the earth. He speaks what He has heard. He forms the unity.

When once, by the grace of God, one has laid hold of this truth through faith, all becomes clear. This universal invisible Church, and arguments like those of Mr. Monsell, all this has - and for ever - lost its force.}

159 Mr. M. admits the facts. He is ignorant, at least I hope so, of the root of the truth.

Here is what he admits:

"The Christians of a given locality are members of the Church of that locality, by virtue of the word of God, and not of their own will."

"All Christians, then, in every part of the earth, where there are any, are members of the same Church, whether they know it or not; for the Bible does not recognize any other division of the universal Church but that of place or time - that division, in a word, which renders communion of believers amongst themselves impossible."*

{*Page 19.}

I do not admit that the word of God recognizes members of a local church. This is a truth which Mr. Rochat himself has recognized. We are members of the body of Christ, which is a perfectly different idea. I confine myself now to pointing it out, without dwelling upon it longer.

Mr. M. admits that the Bible does not recognize any other division than that of places.* That there are local churches (that is to say the gatherings of all the Christians of a place) is a truth which we all admit. I say then that, if Mr. M. recognizes others, he does it knowingly.

{*He adds "and of time"; but we need not at present be occupied with this, unless it be to beg the reader to recollect the principles established in the last note.}

160 This is how he presents the principle of brethren on the subject:

"The meeting of all Christians as one single denomination is the only way of manifesting their unity in Christ."*

{*Page 28.}

Thus the reader clearly sees that Mr. M. here reduces carefully the scriptural idea of the unity of the body of Christ to the idea of being gathered in one single denomination. All this is very grave.

For myself, I would say, Christians are bound to respect this precious and capital truth established in the word, namely, the unity of the Church which is the body of Christ. If they come short of this, they sin.

But, for the moment, let us be content with his way of expressing it.

Mr. M., farther on, gives us the following declaration: "Primitively Christendom consisted of one single denomination."*

{*Page 29.}

Always debasing the truth! This is Christendom. The idea of the Church is set aside, and with it the doctrine of the word of God as to the Church. But whatever may be the terms used, at least we have the frank avowal that brethren recognize what the word teaches. There existed at the beginning but one denomination. This is what is scriptural, and it is that which brethren seek. It is admitted that this no longer exists. Mr. M. adds: Mr. Darby declares that the unity which ought to exist, that the world might believe, exists no longer. And it is what Mr. M. does not deny, for he says, "The outward unity is no more."*

{*Page 35.}

Here then is what I call speaking with knowledge of the matter; and I say, since it is so, let us recognize every Christian in the unity of the body of which he is a member; but let us never recognize the division which is not according to the word, since, as you allow, the Bible recognized no other division than that of time and place. These divisions, such as we find them, are a sin. They shew that men are carnal, that they walk as men. This is the language of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. What is Mr. M.'s answer to it?

161 "Truth descends from heaven into a world of darkness and falsehood. Idealism, blind instinct of what ought to be, ignores this darkness. A degrading empiricism, which only sees what exists, accepts it (that is, this darkness). Christianity alone recognizes the hideous reality to oppose it."*

{*Page 30}

Passing over this idealism which he accuses us of, and the degrading empiricism which is content with sects such as they are, let us examine the happy medium proposed by the author.

"Let us remember that the Church of God could not remain in the dust of this earth without losing its primitive beauty and order."* That is to say, that, man being wicked and spoiling that which God has placed in his hands in a perfect state, we must reconcile ourselves to it.

{*Page 31.}

Let us remember here, that it is not a question of the darkness and falsehood of the natural state of man, on one hand, and on the other, of a Christianity which recognizes them and opposes them; but that the question is concerning a thing which God has established in the midst of this evil, and which He clothed with the beauty of its Head by the power of His Spirit - a thing the unity of which was to be a testimony in the midst of the evil. This thing is the Church of God. On the avowal of Mr. M. it has lost its primitive beauty and order.* What is to be done? We must know it could not remain on earth without losing them. That may be true. Neither could man remain on earth without losing his primitive state. Is that a reason to be satisfied with it? Ought he, although unable to get out of it, to reconcile himself with a state so sorrowful? Now, I do not admit, as regards the Church, that it cannot get out of its state of disunion, because the Holy Ghost suffices to produce the unity which is the object of His presence; whereas the object of His presence in us, individually, is to mortify the flesh, to crucify it, but not to remove it.

{*Mr. M. says also "we gain nothing by concealing from ourselves the truth" This so-called diversity is a deplorable state of disunion.}

But ought man to reconcile himself to his state, whatever it may be, so as to remain there and add to it more?

Here is Mr. M.'s answer:

162 "We must distinguish that which may be guilt in our hearts from that which is humbling and enfeebling in our position. To wish to do away at once with denominations, and to rank schism with material division, instead of ranking it with moral separation, is to fight against facts . . . is to deceive oneself in the direction of the employment of one's strength, and to expose oneself to fall into the sin of schism whilst one strives uselessly against the humiliation of ecclesiastical dispersion."*

{*Page 31.}

Let us remember that the author tells us that the Bible does not recognize this division; but, he adds, it exists, and one struggles in vain: it is to fight against facts.

But ought I to recognize and accept this division since the Bible does not recognize it? Yes, according to Mr. M., it is a fact (that is to say, the sin is a fact), against which we must not fight. And that of which they accuse brethren, is fighting against this sin, not recognizing that which the Bible does not recognize. According to Mr. M. the evil lies in the bitterness which may be produced by the testimony rendered to misunderstood truth; and schism with him consists, not in material division, but in moral division. So then, accept the division which the word does not recognize, and agree with others to commit this sin, and all will go well!

That is exaggerating the thought of Mr. M., people will exclaim.

This you will soon see. Let us listen to him:

"I do not conceal," says he,* "that in saying that one must accept our present division, I bind myself implicitly to accept new divisions . . . if then you are convinced . . . make a trial of it; with this object form a distinct assembly . . . that liberty which you refuse to all, we allow to each."

{*Page 41.}

In his accusation against brethren, he says:*

{*Page 61.}

"According to them, since every division into separate bodies springs from the sin of schism, in one way or another, they can only separate for the purpose of fulminating against each other; and yet they separate on slighter grounds than those who admit a friendly division!" The italics are Mr. M.'s.

As Mr. M. does not quote a single example of the fact which he imputes to us, I do not answer his accusation.

I believe, in effect, that every such dividing into separate bodies springs from the sin of schism, if that from which I separate is really the Church or is on the footing of the unity of the Church, even if there should be but a small number of persons.

163 But Mr. M. admits the "friendly divisions." That is to say, he admits that souls are not exercised as to this, and agree to remain in a position which the word of God does not recognize; he admits that, because, being on earth, this sin must necessarily have come in.

I do not attack other Christians; I find that it is a bad system. But to recognize, admit, accept, that which the word does not recognize, I confess that I am not altogether come to this, and that I am not come to say that outward sin is nothing, if the heart is not in it.

It is going too far, you will say, to consider the thing thus.

This is what I read in Mr. M.'s  tract:*

{*Page 35.}

"The reminiscences of Babel are become the organs of the Holy Spirit." It is, in effect, a special and magnificent token of the grace of God. What application does Mr. M. make of it? "May it be so still! The Church cannot begin its history again, and recover the unity which exists no more. All the efforts made to reunite Christians, in beginning by that which is outward, have only increased the bitterness of those differences* which exist, or created additional sects. We cannot escape from our humiliation; but, by the grace of God, we can avoid the sin which has associated itself therewith. Let us be but of one heart and one soul; it little matters then that we are no longer one single denomination [that is to say, the thing which, according to Mr. M.'s own avowal, God has established and which alone the Bible recognizes]. Grace has no need to overthrow the walls of separation, which it can rise above."

{*This is, in my opinion, a singular reason for establishing a system which as yet exists nowhere.}

This does not mean, have brotherly love towards every Christian, and receive him with open arms - language to which the heart should freely respond. It is to say, that we should remain in that which is contrary to the word of God, in outward sin, and that grace, without removing it, will rise above it!

And it is not the notion that, little by little, this division will cease: a false principle, because we are not to do evil that good may come. Nothing is more dangerous for the conscience, nor more destructive of all blessing, because this puts God aside.

164 The thought of Mr. M. is to accept the state which the word does not recognize, and then to expect blessing.

"No disunion," says he,* "can subsist before Him [the Holy Spirit] . . . . Let the congregations of different faithful denominations [for multitudinist Christians must always remain outside**] be united in their Christian sympathies, as much as are the congregations of the same denomination; thus is the unity of the Spirit substituted for the uniformity of men."

{*Pages 35, 36.}

{**Page 36}

And as to the unity which God had established (the only one which the word recognizes) to speak of that is embittering. Let us leave it alone. It cannot be re-established here below. The Church of God was doomed to lose its primitive beauty and order. Is not this the exact meaning of Mr. M.'s expressions?

It is fatal idealism after all, if it be not generous; an idealism without conscience, which sets aside the word and shuns the humiliation of the conviction of sin.

And what is the argument by which Mr. M. sustains this principle?

God, in the plain of Shinar, judged the perverse and rebellious unity, which natural man was using to exalt himself against God, and to make himself a name, to the end that there should be no dispersion. The diversity of nations was and remains the result of this judgment of God. By the presence of His Spirit on earth, God has established a precious unity. Man, by his sin, has destroyed it; divisions and sects have taken the place of that unity. Let us place, according to Mr. M., the result of the judgment of God on a level with the sin of man, and let us keep both, as being equally His will. For what is the history of which Mr. M. speaks? By His power Jehovah confounded the folly of man; and the diversity, the confusion of tongues, which stamped upon it the name of Babel, recalls the judgment of God. The Holy Ghost finds men in this state. For a long period, one race alone worshipped Jehovah, the praises of whom rose up to Him in one language only, praises limited even by the restriction of the blessing which united round an earthly temple, a people who were not allowed to penetrate the veil, which hid their God from them. A perfect and eternal redemption has been accomplished, and the love of God flows out on every side, embraces all races of men, calls them to worship in the heavenly sanctuary, where the glory is manifested in the Person of Jesus with unveiled face, where the love of the Father does not hide itself, where it attracts and reveals itself. The Holy Ghost comes down to bear witness of it. He addresses Himself to all in all tongues. Grace adapts itself to man, to his heart as it is, by putting over and going beyond the barriers of legal ordinances. Lovely spectacle, in truth! Touching testimony of the heart of our God! A testimony which spoke a language that told everything to all. In the very effects of His judgments God finds the opportunity for the exercise of His grace.

165 But God did not stop there. The effect is stated in His word. In the sanctuary of God, in Christ, in the Church, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, nor bond nor free, nor Scythian nor barbarian. All are one. Providence has not changed the outward state of man. By the power of the Holy Ghost grace has united the redeemed in one body. The Church on earth is the result, in unity, of the presence of the Holy Ghost, which gathers together the redeemed. Man, wicked and perverse, has dispersed by his selfishness those whom God had gathered together. In other words, sin has done, as to the unity of God, that which the judgment of God had done as to the unity of man.

And they have the inconceivable boldness to bring these two things together, and to say, as regards the effect of sin, "Let it be so still!" Let the sin abide, in order that its results may become the organs of the Holy Ghost! And people have come to this.*

{*And see to what this amounts. Mr. M. hews down nationalism; which is "a guide to the ditch," (p. 13). According to him, again, the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud assembles "round a holy electoral urn" (p. 126). The Evangelical Church of Geneva is guilty of an infringement upon the divine order. The system of the minister of Neufchatel, the author of the "Examination," is not tenable according to the word. Besides, it is when death has laid hold of the Church that the actual institution has come in, that is to say, that the elders have monopolized the ministry. Then, after having shewn that all is antiscriptural, brethren are called on to submit to a system which places the sin of man on the same line with the judgment of God, and which wishes us to accept the one, as we submit ourselves to the other! Mr. M. sweeps away all other systems; let them protest if they think fit, we gladly leave to them all this debate. Meanwhile, we assuredly do not accept the horrid doctrine which the author puts in their place. The fact is that the only thing which Mr. M. leaves standing is the philosophical demirationalism of the journal "La Réformation," which teaches us that the word of God is no rule, except as to the truths necessary to salvation.

Our adversaries mutually overthrow each other. The journal "La Réformation" and Mr. M. overthrow the anonymous author of the tract "Are Elders to be Established?" and his commandments.

The anonymous author, in his turn, accuses the system upheld by "La Réformation," of disobedience. The minister of Neufchatel and Mr. M. mutually overthrow each other, and so with the others, and that too on the very points on which they attack brethren. I have but one counsel to give brethren: it is to leave these gentlemen to fight out these things between themselves, and to remain quiet, blessing God for His goodness, which gives them peace, and with all their heart to follow after Christ and His presence.}

166 "Mankind," says Mr. M. again, "have divided into many nations as Christendom into many churches. One common design, a providential design, shews itself, I think, in this double division." "The evangelical communions, notwithstanding the scandal of their differences, present a living Christendom, enclosed in the nominal Church, as the Japhetic races offer, in the midst of fallen humanity, a type less degraded than the others."

May God keep me from that philosophy in the things of God, in virtue of which one is taught to find in the patience of our God - who knows how to bring good out of evil - a justification of our sin; a philosophy which places the sad fruits of our sin, which has marred the work of God in its beauty and order, on a level with the judgment of God, which has confounded the insolence and perverse unity of man: which debases the grace, which has surmounted the barriers, which this just judgment had raised between men, and places it on a level with the perseverance of man in sin, a sin which subsists in the barriers and divisions, which man has established in the Church; a philosophy which casts back all this on Providence and which adds, "Let it still be so"; which, if we are not willing to accept this state of sin, calls it taking no account of that which God has already done; a philosophy, in fine, which says that sin does not consist in the fact that there are two congregations, but in the jealousy which possesses them; that is to say, that the sin committed is nothing and that it is to the heart one must look.

Mr. M. will say that all Christians of the same locality cannot meet in a place too small to hold all. Do they form, then, in this case, different denominations? Come! let us be straightforward.

167 This is the summary of these sad pages.

"The differences of denomination will subsist then as the differences of tongues subsist; but divine grace may make them harmless by restoring to the Church the consciousness of its unity."* This is saying that the judgment of God and sin are one and the same thing, and that while always keeping sin, sin will be made harmless by the grace of God.

{*Page 33.}

It is no wonder that with such principles, they make an attack on brethren. And, surely, whatever may have been the principles of our dissenting brethren, I cannot attribute to them such thoughts. And if even there were schism in theory, if even no one were admitted but on narrow views, and thus charity would suffer from it, this sin (schism) must be sought for where we look for all others, in the heart, not in theories. It is not a question of bearing with them, or non-intervention; sin is to be accepted and recognized. "In the present state of things, all Christians are forced to belong to sects in the ordinary sense of the word." [Page 44.]

For Mr. M., the state of Christendom in general is, "everything well considered, below that of the Jews at the time of a the Lord." He is "ready to call their state ruin, apostasy, or by any other term that you may choose in any language."* "The Gentiles have not continued."** "Christendom is an army which no longer knows the voice of its Head; and Dissenters, as faithful soldiers, have quitted the ranks to place themselves under the order of Jesus . . . . Without doubt, it is a deplorable confusion." "When is it," he exclaims again, "that we shall learn all the extent of the universal disorder which surrounds us?"*** Mr. M. says that one might just as well look for sacrifice in paradise as to look for dissent in the apostolic churches: "For there is disorder in dissent - innocent disorder, become inevitable, in order to avoid culpable disorder. It is a violent remedy, and every serious remedy is a factitious evil inflicted to cure an illness still more serious."****

{*Page 47.}

{**Page 47.}

{***Page 53.}

{****Pages 53, 54.}

And what do these violent words lead to, a few lines further on - words which, like an overflowing torrent, overthrow everything, and even dissent itself? Look at this: "We should like . . . to walk under our banners and surround our Head; but, if that be no longer possible, let the letter perish provided the Spirit remains." The italics are Mr. M.'s.

168 For my part, I believe that to follow the Lord Jesus, does not prevent obedience to his word; and that, much to the contrary, it is the word which directs us in obedience by following it closely.

As to the comparison which Mr. M. makes of the relations between the churches, with those which subsisted between the tribes of Israel,* my answer is short and easy. It is God who divided Israel into tribes, and it is sin which has made the divisions which Mr. M. calls churches, which call themselves denominations, a word which Mr. Beverley [-ly?] agrees with everybody to call sects. I do not recognize, then, these churches in any way, for the reason which Mr. M. himself gives for it, namely, that the Bible recognizes no other division than that of time and place. Consequently, I have no altar** to recognize. My altar is set up, not as a memorial, but for the enjoyment of that which God has established - the unity of the Church - an enjoyment, which, in His great grace, the Lord has connected with even two or three met in His name.

{*Pages 36, 37.}

{**Alluding to the two and a half tribes.}

In the following words the system of this tract reveals, as regards the Christian walk, a looseness of principles, which alone would be enough to condemn it. "We have not always a choice between positive evil and positive good; on the contrary, it may often be pleasing to the Lord that we should accept, because of our relationship with others, that path which is not altogether the best. You at every step confound moral questions with questions of judgment; you think that to make every thing a matter of conscience is the way to do everything conscientiously."*

{*Page 40.}

I think that when the will of God is known, and on those points where it is known, we must needs follow it, and that then it cannot be a question of choice. I think that if, because of our relationship with others, one dispensed with doing the will of God, it would be to prefer man to God, it would be a sin produced by the fear of man. And although it is very important to remember that we are called to liberty, the liberty which Jesus gives us does not exempt us from seeking in all things the will of God; but it sets us free to do it, free in the accomplishment of it, because we love His will as well as the things He wills, being made partakers of the divine nature, which, in man, makes itself known by obedience, and by its affection for the things of the Spirit; the Holy Ghost Himself being the power which gives liberty in virtue of the redemption accomplished by Jesus. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free."

169 I will notice in passing that Mr. M. condemns in brethren* that which he seeks to justify here in others, as regards the duty of seeking spiritual profit. There are besides, a crowd of these things which I have had no desire to take up.

{*Page 59.}

In that which Mr. M. says, with the desire of turning away souls from the walk of faith, he shews a levity which is excessively painful; and which betrays the source of all this system. Here is an example: "If there had been a bridge over the Jordan, its waters would not have stopped to let Israel pass over dryshod"*

{*Page 101.}

I confess that such a way of speaking of the admirable ways of our God, the perfection of wisdom and goodness, is to me exceedingly repulsive. I keep away from principles and from a system which keep me, as it appears to me, far from God, and which have their origin in a spirit so at variance with Him; for near Him, there is not that want of reverence for His ways. I deplore it in any one I have known as I have known Mr.M.

CHAPTER 6.

Here is the sad root of the ways and of the system of Mr. M.:

"He," says Mr. M.,* "who knows the evil of his own heart, will always take the toad where the least faith is needed," that is to say, where he is the least put to the test. Here again the italics are Mr. M.'s.

{*Page 101.}

Is this the Christian walk?

Is he who would follow the road, "where he is put to the least test," the one who follows the Lord Jesus?

This is easily understood, that none dare go beyond his faith, that the sense of our weakness would make us seek the grace of Jesus by faith, while distrusting ourselves. But to establish a system, and to settle one's walk,* so as to be as little put to the test as possible, is to avow, in a manner rather astounding, the intention of not following Christ closely. It is a path which the flesh will easily find out.

{*The fact is that the Christian never chooses his path. It is a question of being faithful in the path which God has traced for us by His will. And, if there be a question of the heart's choice, surely, if God gives us the grace for it, a christian heart would accept as a gift the privilege of suffering with Jesus (Phil. 1: 29; ch. 3: 10).}

170 Yet I doubt that a person could find his own blessing there, and specially if he were a Christian, which I do not doubt Mr. M. is.

A word or two here will make Mr. M.'s object plain. The system which he believes to be biblical "is nowhere," says he,* "established." It belongs "to the Church of the future."** However, he does not delude himself.

{*Page 96.}

{**Page 135.}

"Our Church of the future," says he,* will never do miracles, it will not attain to perfection, nor regenerate that part of the world within its reach; . . . and at its close we shall boast ourselves of it still less than at its beginning." For the present, nevertheless, he rests on that which remains of old dissent. "Remember," says he,** "that you have not, like us poor dissenters, the right, I do not say of justifying, but of explaining your fall," etc.

{*Page 136.}

{**Page 100.}

However, that old dissent does not suit him, although he loves to avail himself of the remembrance of it.

"It is unquestionable," says he,* "that there was a narrow spirit amongst the dissenters of certain localities. Perhaps one does still demand too positively the confession of a faith well established, and having the consciousness of itself." "We wish to open our arms to every soul for whom there is a good hope."

{*Page 124.}

"Some years ago dissenters would have been stiff and not easily dealt with. Now we are humbled. We hold to nothing but the unity of brethren. As to the unlucky name of dissent, we like it as little as you do yourselves."* Mr. M. here is addressing the scattered brethren who belong to the Church of the future, whose system is to admit, in consequence, "a wise elasticity of forms."**

{*Page 135.}

{**Page 136.}

As to the National Church, Mr. M. shews no mercy. It is "a deceitful beacon,"* "a guide into the ditch,"** where "all that is most sacred has been cleverly arranged in order to lull to sleep the worldly in a deceitful and deadly sleep." Its members accept the corruption of Christendom.

{*Page 14.}

{**Page 13.}

171 As regards the Free Church, there is some hope. But discipline! One lesson will do for it. The system which they have imagined in order to come to an agreement as to discipline, is, in Mr. M.'s judgment, "a subterfuge unworthy of those eminent minds and of those upright souls" of which it is composed. It is "an unheard of infringement on dogma" . . . "an odious and monstrous piece of inconsistency." "The supper of the Lord is left outside to be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles; the holy electoral urn is the centre round which its members assemble!"* "In matters of interpretation, theologians, when in despair, are capable of anything."** However there is hope. "These dear brethren bestir themselves in vain against themselves; their ecclesiastical system will melt away before their Christian sympathies.*** Doubtless the Free Church will preserve its distinct organization, and unfortunately it will preserve its clergy too."**** "It is an infringement on divine order."***** Nevertheless one will rest satisfied. The Free Church "bears two infants in its bosom,"****** and one of them, "with its supper without meaning as regards communicants," will give way to the other. "Spontaneousness is a young and amiable dissent, too young as yet to account to itself for its origin, and besides caring little to bear that name."******* But one holds out the hand to it." If an express and mature adhesion is enough to create the Christian family, dissenters will be fully satisfied. We can already hold out our hand to every assembly which desires to be a Christian family." If the present means for making a Christian family do not succeed, the Free Church will add "its veto."******** And indeed the Free Church has dissenting tendencies and necessities.

{* Page 126.}

{**Page 128.}

{***Page 128.}

{****Page 129.}

{*****Page 144.}

{******Page 128.}

{*******Page 126.}

{********Page 125.}

I do not know if the soft words of Mr. M. with his sharp lessons, would gain over the Free Church to his advances. I doubt if, such as it is, it will have any future. But there are some dear brethren in its bosom, for whom trials, and the teachings of God Himself, will open a way. Happy are we to have a future in Jesus, when the difficulties of the road are ended. I believe that the Christians of the Free Church have not begun their work on the foundation which God and His word have laid; but I gladly leave them individually in the hands of Him who is always faithful towards His own, loving them and caring for them as His own flesh. Men will make systems. Grace will cause souls to grow in Jesus. He it is who will bring hearts together, and it is neither ecclesiastical constitutions nor agreements which will bring about this result.

172 As to the "Plymouthists" Mr. M. makes them undergo the fate of National Churches. He gives, besides, directions or details in order to sow division amongst the flocks. One ought to remain there if one has a hope of warning the whole; but, if the principles are too deeply rooted for one to entertain the hope of destroying them, "it is a fretting leprosy in the house. Save yourselves from such a congregation as you would extricate yourself from the grasp of a drowning man."* "It is a perfidious enemy."** Finally, if my reader has a wish for it, he will find in Mr. M.'s tract*** instruction cleverly arranged, so as to divide the flocks, to scatter them, and to win over their numbers.

{*Page 132.}

{**Page 129.}

{***Pages 129 to 133.}

For my part, I have only one frank and sincere piece of advice to give to all those whom Mr. M. may address. It is this: If any one shares the sentiments of Mr. M. on the principles in question, and on the brethren who have embraced them, he will do well, and it will only be what is straightforward and honest, to leave indeed as quickly as he can. I can advise no one, not even with the object of winning others, "to be thus perpetually coasting so close to sin"; for in truth "evil communications corrupt good manners." If you see in us "a fretting leprosy," "a perfidious enemy"; if you believe that we have put before you inviting dishes "because poison is never given alone,"* no, eat not of them. But do not pretend holding out to them a brotherly hand, to join the brethren unsuspectingly, whilst in secret you are entertaining such an opinion of them.

{*Page 130.}

CHAPTER 7.

One word on Plymouth, since Mr. M. returns several times to the "schism of Plymouth," although that has, for the purpose here, but a slight importance.

173 The brethren who, at Plymouth, had from the commencement devoted themselves to the work, as well as others who had helped in the oversight of the flock, met each week to take counsel together on all that concerned the welfare of the assembly, the reception of members, etc., and the work in general, communicating in detail to the flock all that which, in general, would interest them, and specially all the cases of public discipline, which demanded any public act on their part. The supper was open to every Christian; gifted brethren, whencesoever they might have come, partook of the supper as members of the body of Christ, and exercised freely as such their gifts. There was much blessing. There were also difficulties, for which God in His grace provided.

Mr. Newton, to make use of his own expression, for twelve years laboured, heart and soul, to bring in there the clerical system. He succeeded in breaking up the little meeting of which I spoke. He prevented brethren of other places from coming; and finally, when I resisted this, he declared, in the presence of some fifteen brethren met on this matter, that he sought to make Plymouth a centre, and to produce there, amongst those who were there, a union against the views of brethren; adding that he hoped to have under his influence, for this end, the assemblies of the three neighbouring counties.

It is clear that I could not agree to this.

Satan sought to overthrow the brethren. Without doubt there had been neglect, since this had thus crept in amongst them. But outside of a little circle of intimate friends, no one suspected it, until Mr. Newton thought himself strong enough to strike the intended blow. God, however, in His great grace, watched over His testimony and over His poor children who, without doubt, had failed therein. It is possible that, in the hard contest which I have had to go through, I have failed in different things; but, at bottom, I have nothing on my conscience. I asked for the re-establishment of the little meeting whereof I spoke. Finally, God brought out all into the fullest light: and a system of lies, of intrigues and blindness, the work of Satan - the like of which I have seen nowhere - was clearly manifested. The brethren in general having shewn firmness in this matter, God blessed this also; and it was discovered that Mr. Newton had, for a long time, secretly taught, concerning the Person of Christ, doctrines which overthrew the gospel; that for a long time, they had been circulated with his knowledge, by means of sisters whom he had gained over, who had positive orders to let nothing of it be seen by those who could judge of it, and who had a list of the persons to whom it was permitted to entrust the manuscripts which contained these doctrines.

174 Now Mr. Newton having put forth these doctrines in a reading meeting, they drew the attention of a brother, who, though he was quite under his influence, was nevertheless sound in the faith. He wrote on the subject to Mr. N. The latter answered him, justifying his doctrine, which he asked this brother to keep concealed, because, said he, there were saints who were not yet prepared to receive it.

Here is that doctrine: It is that Christ, born of Adam, is his descendant, so that the expression "made sinners" (Rom. 5: 19) applied to Him; that is, that through His being descended from Adam, the head of the human family, Christ was constituted a sinner, and exposed to all the consequences of the state in which He found Himself; that He had to obtain life by observing the law; that through His faithfulness He extricated Himself from this state; that at the time of the baptism by John He ceased, from being under the law, to be under grace; that He had to find His way up to a point where God could meet Him, and that this was in death, in the death of the cross: that consequently, Jesus experienced the feelings which an elect man, yet unconverted, must have experienced, if he had a suitable sense of his position; and that Jesus experienced them, not as our substitute, but as associated by His birth with man and with Israel in the condition in which they were respectively.

When the very friends themselves of Mr. Newton told him, that if he did not retract such a doctrine, they would give up all intercourse with him, he withdrew the application which he had made of Romans 5: 19 to the Lord Jesus, but expressly meanwhile maintaining all the rest of the doctrine up to this day. At least he maintained it still, when very lately I left England.

Thanks be to God, the brethren were delivered, and these doctrines repelled. Those of our brethren who acted at Plymouth in concert with Mr. N. were quite undeceived and delivered through the great grace of God. They confessed they had preached a false Christ; and they did this in such a manner as to give them a right to the full confidence of brethren. Some still followed Mr. Newton, and he built a chapel for their use. But, despairing of exercising any action over brethren, he tried to gain some influence among the members of the National Church, and amongst the members of the Scotch Free Church in London. I am told that they also are beginning to be on their guard.

175 The brethren are not only delivered but strengthened. For, painful as it was, this sifting has been salutary to them. And it was needful; for worldliness had slipped into their midst, and at Plymouth it shewed itself boldly. All feel that a weight, for which no one could account, was removed. The field of labour is wider than ever; and I have never found so many doors widely open, nor so much blessing, as during my last stay in England. And (oh! the wondrous grace of God, which has greatly struck me) never, during all this painful time, has the gospel preaching, on the part of faithful brethren, been checked, and never, I believe, was it more blessed.

That all this has been very humbling, I allow, and brethren fed it; and I hope that, by the grace of God, they will feel it as I do myself. But God has strengthened the faith of many brethren; He has enlightened and strengthened them in their walk; He has made many of them intelligent, who only walked with brethren for the blessing which they found amongst them; He has brought out important truths, which were but little known; and brought into full light the devices of the enemy, of which one had no idea.

Such is, in a few words, the history of what is called the Plymouth schism - a painful lesson, but blessed.

This is the thing to which, unwittingly, I think, but by means of his false position, Mr. M. has put a hand.

My brother, for such I believe you to be, listen to me - you know I love you!

You are seeking, and it is not the first time, a sphere large enough to suit you, and you think that if ever the liberty of ministry is to be understood and accepted, "on a great scale," it never will be by our means.* As to a large sphere, faith would have given you one; for it has before it all the will of God, a vast field which His love has opened. There is, it is true, a field large enough, apparently, open to any who would walk in the path: which requires the least degree of faith; but as to that path, it is too much frequented. You will meet there too many competitors; and, after all, you will be deceived. It is far better, while recognizing one's weakness, to do nothing else than seek the will of God. Thus one is blessed, even when weak; blessed, even though man may curse.

176 I pray for you.

{*Page 101.}

CHAPTER 8.

It remains for me to touch upon a few points which connect themselves with the preceding.

We shall find that disbelief on the subject of the presence of the Holy Ghost - a disbelief which effaces the truth as regards the Church, destroys it also as regards the action of that Spirit in gifts and fruits of His grace.

"Ministry," says Mr. M., "is of God."*

{*Page 78.}

Well! how does he understand this?

"Natural or acquired capacity," he adds, "quickened and sanctified by the Spirit of truth, becomes fruit of grace from on high."

That God, before placing therein the gift, prepares the vessel, by endowing it with natural or acquired qualities, this I believe. Paul was a vessel of election, prepared of God. The Master has given to those of His household, to each one "according to his several ability." But to say that natural or acquired abilities become fruit of grace from on high, is nothing but rationalism refined in order to make an exclusive ministry.

Mr. M. says concerning the presence of the Holy Ghost Himself, things which shew a wish to weaken faith in His presence. As to the formula, which he attributes to us,* I have never heard of it. But to say, as he does, that the Holy Ghost "Himself dwells with the friend of Jesus," is to betray, as to the presence of the Holy Ghost, very serious unbelief, of which the sequel of the passage only multiplies the proofs. "He dwelleth with you," said the Lord, "and shall be IN you." Why omit one half of the Saviour's declaration? And who is it who dwells with us and shall be in us? is it not the Comforter sent by the Father? It is, I think, the Holy Ghost in person. This is why he says to the Corinthians "know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you?" (1 Cor. 6: 19). He is then a Person, I suppose. What then does this mean: "a real presence but not a personal presence"?*

{*Page 109.}

177 And this unbelief betrays itself in a way still more serious, in what Mr. M. says a few lines farther on. "The one hundred-and-twenty tongues of fire . . . had not together . . . the value of the dove which John saw descending on the well-beloved Son." Were then these one hundred-and-twenty tongues of fire really the Holy Ghost Himself?

And with what does this assertion connect itself?

"In Jesus alone dwells all the fulness"; "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." "The one hundred-and-twenty tongues of fire . . . had not the value of the dove," etc.

Does Mr. M. think that this divine seal, put on Jesus as man "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power," when He took His place with His own and began His public career, is the same thing as "the fulness which dwells in him bodily"? Is it when the Holy Ghost descended on Him, that the fulness of His deity began?

And if that is not what it means, what connection is there between these things? Was it the personal presence of the Holy Ghost in Jesus which constituted in Him the fulness of the Deity? If not, the contrast which Mr. M. establishes on this point between Him and His disciples has no value.

Jesus as man was sealed by God the Father; but He was God manifested in the flesh, which is quite another thing. There is a difference in the manner of the presence of God. Christ was God incarnate. The Holy Ghost, even if we look on Him as God, only dwells in us. He does not become man so as to unite humanity to His Person. And, if we recognize the Holy Ghost as a Person and as God, what do these words mean: "the one hundred-and-twenty tongues of fire had not the value of the dove"?

This is true, that the manifestation of the Holy Ghost in Christ, who did not lift up "his voice in the streets," was different from the manifestation of the Holy Ghost in the disciples, who were to proclaim abroad from the housetops what He said to them in the ear. Christ was more the object, the disciples were more the messengers, of the faith which condemns the world which has rejected Jesus. But to speak of the comparative value of the Holy Ghost in Jesus and in His disciples is first of all to confound the Person of Jesus with the seal of the Holy Ghost; then it is to confound the Holy Ghost with the manifestations of His presence.

178 It is the Comforter, the Holy Ghost Himself, who came down on the day of Pentecost, and it is His presence which made Peter say, "thou hast not lied to men, but unto God."

If we compare the effects of the presence of the Holy Ghost as a testimony, it is the contrary which is true. "He that believeth on me," said Jesus,". . . greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father," John 14: 12.

To say that the worth of Jesus was greater than that of His disciples is nonsense. One cannot compare God and His creatures, nor the Son of God with those who are His, however blessed they may be. This is evident. To compare the Holy Ghost manifested in one way, with the Holy Ghost manifested in another way, is unbelief as to His divine Person.

I do not say (and I indeed hope that it is not so) that Mr. M. has abandoned orthodoxy. But the page of his tract, with which we have just been occupied, betrays certainly a very serious rationalism, the fruit of philosophy. It betrays a practical unbelief which is enough to account for the general bearing of this tract, and which shews itself to the attentive reader in many places. So again, in these words: "when the apostle says that the children of God are led by His Spirit (Rom. 8: 14), this has solely reference to faith and holiness in the affections and in life." The influence of the Holy Ghost doubtless manifests itself in these things; but that which is on the mind of the apostle is not the influence of the Spirit only, but the Spirit Himself; that which is on the mind of Mr. M. is a state of soul; in Romans 8: 16 the apostle says, "it is the same Spirit," or "the Spirit itself." And again, "the Spirit helpeth," "the Spirit maketh intercession," the Spirit "dwelleth" in us.

That the Irvingites said that there was more than one Immanuel, is a thing I never heard them accused of; and I have great doubts of it, however they have been deceived by the enemy. However that may be, we have not now to deal with them. But I pray my brethren to be well on their guard against that rationalistic unbelief, which the tract we are examining manifests concerning the presence of the Holy Ghost, and against the efforts which have for their object to substitute for the personal presence of the Holy Ghost in us, a real presence of the Spirit with us. All that this page contains seems to me extremely serious, and makes me more uneasy as regards Mr. M. than nearly all the rest of his tract. I do not know where he learnt these things; but I recognize there, in the expressions, in the use of the word, in the manner of quoting from it, as well as in the doctrine, marks so evident of a work of the enemy, a work which I have seen elsewhere, that I confess it alarms me exceedingly. Does he think that the personal presence of the Holy Ghost only took place when He descended on Jesus? And, as we have already asked, is it to this that he applies the expression "the fulness of the Godhead"?

179 Whilst fully recognizing that it was the Holy Ghost in Person who descended on Jesus, it is certain that, generally speaking, the word of God shews the personal coming of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, to be a result of the ascension of Jesus; that it was then that the Holy Ghost was personally sent from on high as that other Comforter, who was to abide with us for ever. Before that, the distinctive thing was the presence of the Son, without the possibility of separating the Father from Him (John 14: 10), and the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12: 28), as many passages shew. That which distinguishes the present time, since Pentecost, is the presence of the Holy Ghost, from whom we cannot separate the Father or the Son; John 14: 23.

Is it thus then that Mr. M. has learnt only to see a "fulness in the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the Christian's heart, which is unknown in the past dispensation"?* Is this all? Has not the Comforter been sent from on high after the ascension of Jesus? Is it not said (John 7: 39), that "the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified"? In nowise is it believed, that the faithful of the last dispensation were, as he accuses us of saying, "strangers to the work of the Holy Ghost" or to divine life; but we believe that the Comforter was not yet given, as He was given when the work of Jesus had been finished. Does not the word of God say it?

{*Page 108}

One remark on the subject of the Lord's return.

Mr. M. says on this subject,* "It was apparently Paul's expectation when he wrote the first of his epistles; but towards the close of his life, he reckoned he would die"

{*Page 102.}

180 Were the thoughts of Paul changed, as if he had been wrong at first? By no means. He speaks of the Church's hope, which he shared, and he speaks of it in these words: "we "at the end he awaited an immediate martyrdom. He was "now" about to be poured out as a libation of the sacrifice. This makes no change in the doctrine, nor in the hope of faith.

A middle course in faith is infidelity in the heart.

There is a painful indifference to the word of God as a guide. In speaking of the choice and appointment of elders, this is how Mr. M. arranges the matter:* "The brethren who had done the one, would be able, if needs be, to do the other also." Is it thus that one is to dispose of the word according to our pleasure?

{*Page 91.}

As to the doctrine of guilt, that which Mr. M. says of it* amounts to this, namely, that the doctrine which teaches that all men are under the guilt under which Adam was, is an error; that is to say, he is, on this point, what is called an Arminian. The important thing to observe is the levity with which, as with the authority of a teacher, he treats traditional orthodoxy on the point as an error. What he says on Romans 5: 14, viz., that the children of Adam are "far from being accounted guilty of having committed his sin," has no connection with the question; because, as this passage says, they have not in fact committed that sin; but he says nothing of their state of guilt in the sight of God. But Romans 5: 19 says positively that by the sin of Adam they were made sinners. Mr. M. criticizes on this occasion a quotation which I made from Amos 5: 26, in the tract on "The State of the Church." The Spirit of God says there that the Israelites, guilty as a part of the whole, of the nation, and guilty of the whole of its sin, would bear the punishment of it in a captivity beyond Babylon. Now we must not lose sight of this, that in this part of the tract "The State of the Church," it was a question not of the eternal consequences of sin, but of the government of God with respect to Israel. since this government of God deals with the Israelites as guilty, I think therefore He regarded them as such. Joshua and Caleb have nothing in common with this, for there is no question of the faithful, who by the way suffer the consequences of the sin of others, as sharing the lot of the people; the question was as to the unbelieving who, ratifying the sin and unbelief of their fathers, bear the punishment of it, after acting like their fathers or even yet worse.

{*Page 48.}

181 I will not take up with a view to answering it, a very ridiculous prediction of Mr. M.* concerning what is to happen to brethren. I only touch on it for the purpose of explaining a principle which is connected with it.

{*Page 52.}

It is said in "Le Temoignage":*

{*"The Testimony," published in French. [Tr.]}

"When corruption has affected a thing which God had made for blessing, He rejects it; or He replaces it by bringing in something else." Mr. M. speaks of this "something else" as if we made it to be "that which should replace the Christian churches in the struggle against evil."

Where did he find that? Every one knows that what brethren believe, is that all the system which exists is in a state of failure, and that it will be laid aside; first, morally, by its own apostasy; then by the judgment of God, who will replace, by the presence of Jesus Himself, the testimony which men failed to render to Him. That there is to be in the course of time a testimony among the Jews is what I believe. But it is not necessary that I should here enter into these details. I only desire to hinder ridicule being cast on an important truth by the false manner in which it has been represented.

CHAPTER 9.

I have finished my task - a task which has been very painful to me; not because I differ from Mr. M. on the subject of elders, a difference which is to me comparatively of little importance: but painful because the principles on which he founds his arguments seem to me immoral; not immoral in the sense of that gross immorality which scandalizes the natural conscience, but in this sense, that they give a false turn to the relations of things to God; not that they undermine the flocks, but that they efface the limits and marks of good and evil, and remove the boundaries of eternal. truth.

It is important that, whatever opinion they may hold, brethren should be on their guard against such principles.

The question is about something very distinct from a sect of Plymouthists.

182 My deep conviction is - and I warn my brethren as to it - that, whether through the wish to subvert certain doctrines, or through worldliness, rationalism is creeping at this moment into the ranks of those who, after having left nationalism, are not willing to walk according to the simplicity of the word of God. The journal "La Reformation," and the tract of Mr. M. shew this very clearly.

We all know, that for a long time since Mr. M. has been making war against brethren as it laid in his power; so that his tract did not take me by surprise, nor has it surprised, I think, anyone else; but I was not aware of the degree to which he had come down as regards his faith and his principles. The descent of the way on which he walks is rapid. Once in movement, the rapidity of the descent increases at each step. Mr. M. avows, alas! that he will not take the path of faith. His pamphlet will have confirmed in their walk those who have faith.

The allusion which he makes to certain German scholars explains perhaps the sad progress which he has made in the path of that infidelity which clothes itself with philosophical vagueness. I know not.

What I do know is, that his pamphlet has caused me deep sorrow. He does not perceive in the least what he hast lost. It matters little to have true principles about ministry and about any other such things, if living and real faith in the power and presence of our God by His Spirit be wanting to us.

It behoves us to be prudent. That prudence which the fear of the Lord gives and subjection to the word are sufficient against the traps and devices of the adversary. The rule of the Christian is "wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil."

Brethren, young and old, are called on to pay attention to this. They will do well to profit by the reproaches of Mr. M. whatever may be the evil source from which they may have passed into his work. But I should prefer to undergo some reproaches, even deserved, in the path of faith, than to avoid all blame in the paths of infidelity.

Would to God I had more energy to run such a risk oftener!

Scriptural views upon the subject of elders, in answer to a tract entitled "Are Elders to be Established?"

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1849.

<04004F> 183

CHAPTER 1.

There is a difficulty in believing that the most precious truths - truths which, when received from God, are a source of joy and blessing to our hearts - should produce controversy and painful conflict.

But we must take it as it is. It is exactly these truths, the dissemination of which meets with all the hostility of the flesh and all the prejudices of souls accustomed to things which cannot hold their ground in presence of those truths. I shall draw the attention of my reader to a new phase of the controversy, to which the testimony of God in these last days has given rise. It is true that the fundamental points have been sufficiently discussed, but since the truth has made immense progress, those who are opposed to it have completely changed the ground on which battle was joined.* An answer then must be given to these fresh attacks directed against the truth and to the fresh arguments intended for the defence of error.

{*The root of the question is not a new one. It is the same principle all that of M. Rochat with respect to the establishment of elders. What is new is, that along with this, they would have a church more or less composed of the multitude of professing Christians. The consequence of that is, that discipline is indirectly put aside, and that, whilst earnestly seeking to preserve a clerical position for themselves, there is an irritable feeling against the true Church for the multitude and against the true clergy, who have openly occupied the ground before them.}

In the case which now occupies us the defence of the old order of things has been entirely given up. The greater part of the things which, for a long time were the objects of various attacks, has been abandoned, as not being in accordance with the word of God, and not only abandoned, but stigmatized as faulty. Those who, for many years, have borne testimony against these things, speak of them more calmly.

184 According to our adversaries themselves, the clergy is of the devil.*

{* This is what the author of the tract "Are Elders to be established?" has loudly declared and professed before a great number of witnesses, in order to take advantage of that point of departure in the arguments by which he attacked, not so much the scriptural principles of the brethren present at the conference, as the writings published to explain and support them.}

Again, according to them, the visible unity of the Church has been lost.

Thus, at least, there is much ground gained; one would have thought that the controversy was at an end.

No! A man does not always receive the truth even when he is reduced to confess that he is in error.

Nothing but the ground of the contest is changed, and in changing to a new ground, it is sought to render a part of that which has been written on these subjects useless. As the actual order of things is no longer vindicated, the attacks upon it, say they, are superfluous. But let us state the facts plainly. If the attacks are no longer vindicated, it is because the conclusions of those who love that testimony have been accepted. Have they been accepted from the bottom of the conscience before God, so as to place them humbly in the position which follows the admission of these principles? Alas! in no way. They only say that, since the early centuries, it is true, all has been corrupted; that the order established by God has been abandoned; and that the order of things which has sprung from it is of the devil. It is true, say they again, that the visible unity of the Church has been destroyed; but they add, "I can re-establish it quite as well as the apostles; and those who do not submit to that which I have established, are the enemies of the unity of the Church."

The facts are admitted intellectually, to give room for the pretentious action of the will of man. The truth has not penetrated their conscience so as to place it in humiliation before God.

CHAPTER 2.

At Geneva it was needful, either to induce certain brethren to join the new Free Church founded under the name of the Evangelical Church of* Geneva, or else to throw discredit on their principles, and thus in one way or another to destroy the testimony rendered to the truth. It may be that the testimony had been borne in much weakness and accompanied by faults and shortcomings in every respect.

{*Note to translation. For a long while they would not say the Evangelical Church of Geneva, but at Geneva, but I think (if my memory serves me) they adopted it afterwards.}

185 It is a thing which the brethren who bore the testimony would not deny. They would confess it all before God and before man. But the testimony was there. The humbler, they who bore it, kept themselves, the better they would find themselves for it.

The details of the steps taken, of the correspondence, and of the conferences which took place, would bring no great profit to the reader. What concerns Christians is the path they have to follow in order to glorify God.*

{*Were it otherwise, I should certainly never have taken up the pen. I have always found that, as regards attacks made on me, the best course was to let them go on and pursue my own work. But, here the question of the Free Church and of the establishment of elders was put forward, with the accusation that brethren denied the authority of the word. These questions preoccupy their minds. In answering them, I shall confine myself to that which is necessary to shew that the accusation is unfounded. Beyond the general question I should never have answered it. Nevertheless, the reader will find the answer consigned to a note, an answer, the contents of which have only to do with the subject in controversy.}

The question is a very serious one. It is admitted, that, as regards its visible unity, the Church is in ruins. They profess that the clergy, with whom this visible unity has rested for sixteen centuries, is not according to God. But it is pretended that, putting the clergy aside, we can re-establish that which existed in the days of the apostles, such as the apostles themselves had established it.

It is, it must be allowed, a pretension which has a very wide bearing, and we should compromise ourselves deeply in giving way to it and submitting to those who put it forth, if after all it is a pretension unauthorized by God.

Are the Christians of Geneva in a position to re-establish the organization of the Church in the primitive state in which the apostles left it, and which state, by the consent of all, exists no longer?

186 Yet, I do not deny, since they have put forward this pretension, it is a solemn thing to reject it, if in truth the thing could be done. We must look deeper into it than the individuals. Even if those who have undertaken it are not capable of it; if the thing be possible; if it is according to the mind of God, one should be very cautious of raising any obstacle to it and of discouraging those who seek to realize it. One thought, which, moreover, will act with power on a conscientious soul, on a soul penetrated with love for the Church, is the dread of limiting the energy of the love of God towards His Church. It is the reproach of the Spirit of God to Israel: "They limited the Holy One of Israel." It is clear that in itself, putting aside every other consideration, and all the recognition of the ways and judgments of God, it would be a thing infinitely precious to see the Church shine forth in all her pristine beauty, in the unity and in the ensemble which it had at the beginning. For my part, I have so little faith, that I always fear to cast a doubt on the path of him who seems to have more. It is certain, at least I am fully convinced of it, that we can and ought to realize infinitely more than we have done of that primitive state. Insomuch that I am far from disposed to raise obstacles to the realization of many things which do not exist, provided that the realization proceeds from faith, and from the Spirit of God.

But here we have to do with positive pretension, and it is that we have to answer.

Yet in this respect I find myself in a rather peculiar position. The ink is barely dry of my answer to an attack coming from the same side,* in which we were accused of making a code of law out of the gospel, and in which we were opposed, by insisting upon the falsity of the principle which considers, as now binding on us, the primitive rules of the apostles. The word of God is no law in like matters, say they, while blaming us.

{*I do not say the same person. Look, in the paper called "A Glance at Various Ecclesiastical Principles," etc., at that which relates to the attacks of the Journal "La Reformation." In the blame which it has lately cast on the "Glance," etc., this journal returns to the charge in these words: "Our answer is easy. Shew us the scripture itself which claims to be an ecclesiastical code, and attributes a universal and binding value to the words which may be contained in it on this subject. Shew us this and we yield. but wherefore give it a character to which it has no pretence?"}

My answer to these reproaches maintained in all respects the whole authority of the word, all the while that I confess the humbling incapacity in which the Church finds itself to recover certain things which it has lost.

187 Is it not then a rather surprising thing to see those who cried down, in the ears of everybody who was disposed to listen, the system of Gospel-code - to see them accuse us at this time of disobedience and even of blasphemy (for to such an extent have they gone) because we do not submit to them, when they insist on the same rules, adding thereto the pretension of being in a state to re-establish them in full vigour?

If we had only to do with controversy, it would be enough to ask them to answer themselves. And why, when, in appearance at least, it is but a simple question of your maintaining your ground, in the midst of a general movement, in a place of authority which is escaping you - why would you wish to impose on us that chapter of what you call with contempt the Gospel-code, and impose that one on us, whilst cancelling all the rest as being no rule, and whilst rejecting, in principle, the continuance of the obligation to that which is found there, whilst denying even the existence of that binding character beyond the occasion itself, which gave rise to the apostolic direction? You should at least have left to the Christian public time to forget that which you alleged six months since, and which you were repeating not six weeks ago.

But the matter is too serious to be treated thus, for the interests of the Church of God are called in question. It is a question of making oneself certain of the truth and of walking in it by the power of the precious grace of God. It is not enough to point out the errors of those who are opposed to it a sad employment of one's time, fruitless to oneself and too often to them also.

After having lost its normal position and its primitive rules, is the Church capable, when it has sinned thus, of re-entering as of right into the old position, and of re-establishing all that which the rules, long ago laid aside, had established, without taking count either of its fall or of the ruin resulting therefrom?*

{*We shall see that it is to this question that the general views of the tract of our brother, M. Foulquier, apply. He maintains that God does not re-establish the primitive state of an order of things, when it has fallen to pieces in the hands of man. We will examine further on the answer of the anonymous author of the tract, "Are we to establish Elders?" whom, for the sake of brevity, we will designate as "The anonymous author."}

188 Another aspect under which the right to establish an ecclesiastical system has been viewed, is that which we have just pointed out, namely, that the word is of no authority in the case,* and that we must take our stand boldly on the platform of human order and evangelical liberty.

{*Notwithstanding the accusations of blasphemy directed against brethren, the Editor of "La Reformation" was not afraid to uphold his point in an article which this journal recently devoted to "A Glance," etc.}

Having strongly contended in the "Glance," etc., for the full and entire authority of the word, I add nothing here on that point.

It is with the first point that we have to do.

But before entering on the subject, I take the liberty of laying before the eyes of the reader some facts relative to Geneva, because these facts throw light on the question of the establishment of elders, and on the position of the brethren of "L'ile"* with regard to these matters.

{*The place of meeting of the so-called "brethren" in Geneva.}

CHAPTER 3

Having gone about eleven years ago to Geneva, because I had been told that I should find there some brethren who met on nearly the same grounds as ourselves, without any intention of labouring in those parts, I found the pastors of the Bourg de Four divided amongst themselves, and the flock on their part holding meetings with the object of judging of the prerogatives of the pastors.* After some hesitation, I endeavoured to bring them together and repair the breach; a work to which, as a stranger, I might apply myself without entering into painful details.

{*I do not doubt at this time that the question of the clergy was at the root of all this. But at that time I had no suspicion of it, and I only interested myself in it for the sake of peace amongst these brethren.}

By the grace of God I succeeded, and peace was re-established.

The principle that the Church was in ruins powerfully contributed to that end, in that I maintained the authority of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, whilst recognizing that the actual state of things placed obstacles to our following out these epistles rigorously and in the details, on the question of elders, which had the effect of calming their minds. I cannot fail here to acknowledge the kindly feeling and affection which I at that time met with, whether from the ministers or amongst the brethren. I enjoyed their hospitality. God is my witness that I sought but their welfare. There was in their system more formalism than I could have desired.* But I bore with it, avoiding certain details which weighed on my conscience, such as voting, in which, as a stranger, I was plainly not called to take a share, although soon much bound up with the flock. During four years I laboured in maintaining peace and unity, pressing on brethren the remembrance that though they might find some things which grieved them, the pastors had been the means of assembling the flock, and that very fact, as well as their work, was a legitimate source of influence, and gave them a right to the respect of brethren.

{*Amongst other things I did not recognize the principle of the election of pastors by the flock.}

189 More than six months before the rupture which took place at La Pélisserie, on the occasion of a conference between the pastors and the flock, one of the pastors let me know that I ought not to be present, seeing I was not one of the flock. This communication was made to me at a moment when I was uncertain whether I ought to be present at the meeting or not. All uncertainty was put an end to, and I answered, "Well! I hardly knew what to do; here is my path plainly marked . . . ." I have taken no part in the course of affairs at La Pelisserie from that day onward. I left Geneva and I withheld totally from all interference.

During a stay elsewhere, and when my relations with the flock were quite broken off, difficulties arose in their midst on the subject of a meeting for reading the word, a meeting to which the ministers raised some objections. One of them himself designated as a coup d'état, on their part, the step they took, which resulted in the withdrawal of brethren; the meeting of whom formed the first nucleus of the meeting at L'Ile. In no way was I informed of what was passing, or consulted on the subject. I had no knowledge of it till later. When I heard of it, I despaired of any reconciliation. After six years' discussion it became a question of a distinct clerical principle on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a formal denial of that principle. Later, one of the pastors addressed himself to me to get me to bring about a reconciliation. The difficulties arose about a platform from which the supper was given out and on which the ministers stood alone. "The platform is a trifle," said he to me. "It is," I answered, "a standard which symbolizes a principle. Let the pastors place themselves at the table with the brethren,* and they may be certain of ensuring more influence than by standing on their rights." I cordially hope for my part that they may have all the influence that their labour may have brought them.

{*Note to translation. This was peremptorily refused. And declined acting, as the principle of clergy was thus deliberately insisted on.}

190 Although it is true that the question since that time has been much developed, I would still hold to this day the same language. And although the flock at Geneva was not all that I could desire, and inasmuch as I could not approve either the election of pastors by the flock or the principle of dissent which was more or less prevalent in its constitution, I can say that the remembrance of my first connection with it, has always rendered this breach infinitely painful. One of the pastors of whom I spoke above said to an English brother, that if I had been there the division would certainly not have taken place. That is very possible. God had other thoughts. And I believe in truth, that with regard to all that has taken place in the religious world, and to the development of the principles which lay at the root of the question which agitated the assembly, the position was not tenable. The division was none the less painful to me in every respect. I was forced to despair of finding any remedy for it. If the pastors had consented to take their places at the table when they met to break bread, nothing would have prevented me from trying it. The question of clergy was at the bottom of it.

This then, as to elders, is the extent to which I have gone. I could have joyfully recognized their existence in practice when they had given themselves up to the work and had received there the seal of God. Will people nominate them? I must stop. Without stopping to question the door by which they entered, I have recognized them according to my principles, when I have found them at the work. If their nomination is to be put forward as a principle, one must be decided.*

{*This is very plainly the position of our brother, M. Foulquier. For he complains that the authority of the elders is made to rest solely on this nomination by men, when they say that without it they could not obey them. And without denying that at first they were officially set up, it is none the less a very evil principle to say, in the case where God had appointed them, that they could not obey them if man had not had a share in their appointment; for that is to substitute obedience on the ground of a human right for the spiritual and scriptural obedience of a new heart. I point out here an inconsistency which has been imputed to me, because, on the one hand, I desire to recognize them when manifested, and that, on the other hand, man has neither the discernment nor the authority necessary to nominate them. There is none. To recognize is a humble, fitting act - it is the duty of every believer, when he sees any work of God. To nominate, is an act of authority. When the thing is manifested, it needs no discernment, and I recognize it; but to exercise an act of authority in placing men in that position, I have need of discernment. If I find in a bad soil splendid harvests, or peace amongst a disturbed population, I at once recognize of course the good farmer, the able ruler. But to choose the manager of an estate or the president of a republic, I must needs understand agriculture or politics; further, I must know men; and finally, I must have the authority necessary thereto.}

191 The whole question of knowing, what the Church is, what is its state, what are the bases of its relations with Christ, what is its responsibility, the path which befits it in its state of failure; all is compromised. If not, my mind turns in preference to subjects totally different to that of the election of elders. Christ is too precious, the times too serious, to dwell on such points.

CHAPTER 4.

I now come to the tract, "Are Elders to be established?"

Its author and those who with him oppose the truth may rest assured that they have something far different to do than to rejoice at the opportunity which the ill-worded sentence of a brother has given them, of falsifying and blackening the principles of "brethren." They have to do with God, who protects His truth - a God who humbles His own when they have need of it, but who knows how to judge those that oppose Him and His truth.

I now approach the root of the question.*

{*Is the Church capable, after abandoning its normal position and its primitive rules, after having committed this sin, to re-enter as of right into that position and to re-establish all that the rules, long ago abandoned, had established, without taking account either of its failure or of the ruin consequent thereon?

The question, as I have stated it (and the whole is there) makes us understand without any difficulty the sentence of our brother, M. Foulquier. "Even had there been a positive commandment, I should not submit thereto, bearing in mind the state of the Church." The form of the statement seems to me faulty, inasmuch as it gives an idea of a refusal of the will to submit; but its sense is very clear, namely, that the actual state of the Church does not suffer the accomplishment of that which such a commandment demands, if it exists in the word, and that in the case where, under the pretence of obedience, elders are pretended to be set up in compliance with such a commandment, he could not submit to it, because of the state of the Church - a reason expressed, moreover, by our brother in a thoroughly explicit manner. The authority of the word is nowise brought in question. That this expression might, for the moment, startle an upright soul, ignorant of what was in question, I can well understand: and it would have been desirable that our brother, M. Foulquier, had paid attention to it. Nevertheless the sense is plain. The manuscript of our brother, M. Foulquier, published by the author of the tract, "Are Elders to be established?" alludes to the passage found fault with, to that which had been said in a public conference, and relates but a portion of it. Further, all are agreed with respect to what was said. Our brother, Foulquier, told me that he added, "It is but a re-establishment of the clergy."

We must remember that those words, on the occasion on which they were so exclaimed against as blasphemous, were spoken at the end of a long discussion on the establishment of elders, as if there had been in the word of God a formal command to that effect. And it was after a discussion on details, on the question of ascertaining if any command to elect elders existed, that Foulquier said, "Even had there . . . bearing in mind the state of the Church." However faulty the expression may have been (and I admit it), I scarcely understand for my part how, if any honestly desired to understand it, he could have misunderstood it, taking into account the subject which then occupied them, and the expressed reason, "bearing in mind the state of the Church." At the very moment, our brother, M. Kaufmann, said that everyone knew that our brother, M. Foulquier, did not reject any command.

Having mentioned the tract "Are Elders to be established?" it is needful to give some statement about the facts.

In alluding to some circumstances, the knowledge of which casts a light necessary to the understanding of the question which we are speaking of, I confine myself to that which is rendered indispensable by the tract in question.

From the opening of his tract the author declares that M. Foulquier has read the manuscript which he answers in an assembly of persons who share, like F., the opinions of Mr. Darby, and he adds, "None of these persons to our knowledge either disavowed or contradicted it.

This silence . . . authorises us perhaps to regard it as the more recent expression in Geneva of the principles of our brethren of L'Ile."

This explains to us what the author means by an assembly, and his desire to make the responsibility of the manuscript of M. Foulquier recoil on brethren.

Here are the facts: -

This manuscript was never read either in the assembly of these brethren, or in any assembly, or in any meeting. Nor only this: the anonymous author had, in the presence of many persons with whom he sides, had conferences with some of these brethren, in which our brother, M. Guillaumet, who was occupied on this subject, had read a totally different treatise, intended to shew plainly the views of brethren on the point discussed. After the conferences the anonymous author had in his own hands the treatise of M. Guillaumet.

This is not all.

The anonymous author, returning on various occasions to the words of M. Foulquier, as unveiling the principles of the system and rendering the assembly of L'Ile responsible for the principle which he pretended to have found there, and which he denounced as a great sin, one who had been the chief organ of brethren in the conferences addressed the following note to him:

"I have just learnt, with much sorrow, that the expression dropped by M. Foulquier, in our last conference, and which is quite personal to him, has been hawked about by many and put forward as a principle, and not only that, but as the principle of the assembly. I declare solemnly, that it is a notable calumny, and that the brethren of L'Ile walk leaning on the word of God and on nought but that word, rejecting all tradition and every human organisation. And, further, our brother has explained to me the sense which he gives to his words, a sense which is very far from resembling that which has been given them. He rejects not the command, but the application made of it. How great the difference! I beg you to give its due weight to this note with brethren, in order to reassure them concerning our brother Foulquier. Adieu! in Him who has said we should pardon seventy times seven times, and who always does it to usward."

This communication was made to the anonymous author long before the publication of his tract.

From the moment when the manuscript of Foulquier had fallen into his hands, he abandoned the treatise which had been read at the conference to occupy himself with this one. He published it, or if he will, he gave it a demi-publicity, without asking leave of M. Foulquier, without acquainting him of it, and stating without proof and without foundation that it had been read in an assembly of persons who shared the views of Mr. Darby, adding that no one had disavowed it or contradicted it.

As to the manuscript of our brother Foulquier, this is its origin and history: -

At the time when the brethren of L'Ile refused to take part in the proposed conferences, a brother, M.L., went to M. Foulquier to persuade them to go there, adding that they would not be clear of the blood of their brethren if they refused to make known to them the light they thought they possessed. On account of those words, Foulquier, after the conferences, shewed to M.L. a manuscript of some pages, to shew his general idea of the ways of God in regard to this question. Later, M.L. asked him if he might shew it to others. Foulquier replied that he might shew it to any one he wished, and that he, Foulquier, would do the same on his part. The anonymous author addressed himself to Foulquier himself on the subject of the words of which so much has been said, asking him at the same time if he followed the inspiration of the Spirit apart from the Bible. Foulquier replied, No; that he maintained nothing but that which he believed authorized by the word; that he did not know how to express himself as well as he could wish. But that as to the root of the matter, he could not withdraw any part of it, and that, whatever might be its form, the objections of the anonymous author would probably be nevertheless the same.}

192 I say distinctly that I believe the root of the thought which has been called in question is perfectly right, and that the whole question is contained in it - a question too serious to be discarded by a mere personal discussion. The expression of it, it is true, was not accurate, and I think some fault may be found in that it had not been sufficiently weighed before God.* But I think that to reject the thought is a mark of want of conscience and of heart toward God.

{* When I speak of finding fault, I have no doubt but that fault may be found also with my words, but the expression quoted having been made so public, it becomes needful to give it its true weight, and not to approve that of which God does not approve.

Thus far had already passed through the press, when I received from our brother, M. Foulquier, without my having in any way desired it, the following confession, entreating me to insert it in my tract. Many considerations made me hesitate to do so. Nevertheless, on the positive entreaty of our brother I did not feel myself at liberty to refuse his request I confine myself then to yielding to his wish, without adding a single observation, but reserve to myself the right to express that which I think with regard to the whole matter, if the occasion demands it.

Here is what our brother, M. Foulquier, says: -

"I acknowledge before the Lord who gives me light, and before His Church, that I have often been the cause of stumbling to many brethren by the inexactness of my words, and I ask pardon for them from all my brethren, publicly humbling myself for this evil which I have wrought, before Christ and all those who confess His name. I ask their prayers.

[Signed] "J. FOULQUIER."}

194 It seems to me to be the pretentiousness of human pride at the time when God calls for humiliation and self-abasement. If, in such a state, one had felt willing to own in fact and in heart those whom God had manifested to be true elders in the midst of all the flock of God at Geneva, I could but have rejoiced at it. Souls alas! have not come to that yet. What has been done is far removed from that. It is said by them that they cannot obey their spiritual leaders, unless a preparatory commission and a popular election had established them as such. On what command is the existence of such commission founded? On what command does the election of that commission rest? And on what does the ancient commission itself rest, which settled matters thus?

195 To insist on the nomination of elders, as if it were an act of obedience, is to betray a want of conscience and of heart towards God, and a plain simile will make it understood. A father desires that his children should go and shew themselves to their grandfather in their clean clothes and in a proper manner, and he orders them strictly to walk on the footpath and by no means to leave it, for fear of dirtying their clothes. The eldest of the boys, whose pride is hurt at the idea of going and shewing himself to his grandfather as a little child, goes and splashes himself with mud whilst on his road thither, and then begins to insist on the duty of walking on the footpath in order to keep himself clean. Is that obedience? Is that conscientiousness? Is that a fitting feeling towards his father? Where, let me ask, is the authority which he claims over his brothers?

The root of the question which has provoked so much indignation is, that considering the state of the Church we cannot act to the satisfaction of those who wish to nominate elders; that this nomination of elders is a proud piece of pretension; that corruption having laid hold on the whole system which God had established by the apostles, men are not capable of establishing anew a similar system, that we cannot now re-found the Church. I speak only of established organization. The Church herself plainly exists at all times.

In reality, what they pretend to do is to lay the foundation of the Church anew.

A fundamental principle in all the argument of our brother, M. Foulquier, is that God never re-establishes the "original state" of things that have fallen into ruin in the hands of man.

The anonymous author denies this principle. Let us see with what success.

He takes the time of the Judges as that of the deepest corruption of Israel, which, under a certain aspect, is so far true that I accept it without raising more difficulties. What then was at that time the primitive state in question? It was that God Himself was their king; just as God Himself points it out to Samuel; 1 Sam. 8: 7, 8; chap. 12: 12. The priest was the point of contact, the bond between the people and God; and God raised up judges when there was need of them.

Has that state of things been re-established? Never. And what is more, it never will be. It would be difficult to find an example more striking and more indisputable of the truth of the principle contested by the anonymous author.

196 In a certain sense, many things will be re-established under the Messiah; but the counsels of God, as regards the Messiah Himself, exclude the possibility of the return of Israel to the state in which they were under the judges. As regards the priesthood itself, not only another family has been invested with it, but the very position of the priesthood has been totally changed. The priesthood has lost for ever the position in which it was formerly. It continues, it is true, and without it man could not stand before God. But God has said, "I will raise up a faithful priest who will stand before my Anointed."*

{*Here is the great lesson which we find at the beginning of the book of Samuel. The people failed in faithfulness, and this want of faithfulness, as is always the case, shews itself the most in that which is officially nearest to God. God is going to establish the only true remedy for the incapacity, in which man is, of keeping himself in the place of blessing. He is going to set up a Chief who cannot fall short of the glory of the Lord and who will assure the happiness of His people. It is the true King, the Christ. Before doing so, and before manifesting to the full the iniquity which rendered that necessary, or at least before exposing it in full daylight by judgment, God raises up the Spirit of prophecy, which communicates to His elect handmaid (the figure of a feeble remnant desponding and without strength) His power, which lifts up and shall exalt the horn of His Anointed. This grand fact changes all. Christ must be manifested as the support, the stay, of the blessing of His people. Then having shewn these things, God judges the priesthood, and assigns it its place before His Anointed. Nevertheless, He lets the iniquity of His people come to the full, by the contempt of prophecy and by the contempt of God Himself as the immediate King of His people. That is the history of the monarchy of Saul. It is not until the people have rejected God as their King, that the Lord puts into execution His counsels in the setting up of His Anointed. Still, as we well know, He placed the monarchy itself in the responsible hands of men. We know what has been the result of it; and that God was obliged to say that Israel was no longer His people. At the taking of the ark, Ichabod was written upon that people, and on the priesthood whose place was before the ark. At the taking of Jerusalem, in consequence of the iniquity of the kings, Lo-ammi (not my people) was written on all that remained standing of the ruins of Israel. The anonymous author seeks thus a proof that God re-established the primitive state of what is fallen! And Nehemiah, did he re-establish it? Is the fact of being the slave of the Gentiles, of those fierce beasts, the object of the final judgment of God, and at the same time a manifestation of that which the judgment of God had poured out on that people whose King He had Himself been, is this a proof that God re-establishes the primitive state of what is in a falling condition? Let the conscience of a man, endued with spiritual intelligence, judge of it.}

The introduction of the Anointed has changed everything. He it is, the King, who became responsible for the maintenance of order in the midst of the people, who governed them, who judged them, and whose conduct determined so to say the judgment which God passed on His people; 2 Kings 23: 26.

197 The anonymous author asks, "At what time did royalty fall?" and he answers at once, "It was under the reign of Saul."

Plainly Saul (asked for by the sin of the people, although allowed of God) is not the monarchy according to the will of God. David and Solomon are those whom we see in that character. It is in Solomon that the fall of the monarchy is shewn. God's patience was longsuffering for the sake of His servant David. The immovable promise of God to the posterity of David cannot fail in the Person of the Christ; but it is quite clear that the monarchy has never been re-established in its primitive state, and that on the contrary, as far as this monarchy was confided to men in the flesh, it has been judged by God; that, after long-enduring patience, God has put an end to it, and that at the same time He has put an end to the relations of His people with Himself.

Does the anonymous author think that the primitive state of the people was re-established in the time of Nehemiah?

In order to present to the people the Messiah, His Son, come in the flesh, and to place Israel under responsibility on that point, as He always does before accomplishing His designs of grace, God preserved the tottering remnant of a people enslaved by the Gentiles. Was this the primitive state of that people? Was it their primitive state to be slaves of the Gentiles? Was it for this that God had redeemed them from Egypt? Was the name of Lo-ammi recalled? The state in which God called Israel "not my people" (Lo-ammi), was certainly not the primitive state of the people of God. At the command of Cyrus, His king, a residue of the people go up to Jerusalem,* whilst Daniel, the type and sign of the true position of the people, remains at Babylon, and at the same time tells before God their history according to the counsels of God. The altar was re-established by faith. It was on the one hand the grace of God, and on the other in man the faithfulness which recognized Him in his difficulties, as his safeguard and wall of defence. Look at that beautiful passage, Ezra 3: 2, 3. The people of God are always in their right place when they adore God and recognize Him as their surety and strength.

{*It is important also to remark here, that if, as the anonymous author affirms, Haggai did not prophesy before the altar had been set up again, Jeremiah nevertheless had previously announced the duration of the Babylonish power, that Daniel had understood the number of years at the end of which the desolations of Jerusalem were accomplished, and that he had received, as the answer on the part of God to his intercession, the revelation of what was to take place for the rebuilding of the city, for which Cyrus himself gives the order in these terms: "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah." Ezra 1: 2. In that I have not the slightest doubt. This just man whom God had raised from the East (Isa. 41: 2, 25; ch. 46: 11-13), acted on behalf of Him who has said of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." God desired that the order should go forth from the place where He had placed the government of the earth (Dan. 2: 37, 38) when he said, "Lo-ammi" to His people. Haggai and Zechariah encouraged the faith of the people in inviting them to build. The order for it had already been given, and given on the part of him, to whom God Himself, in consequence of the unfaithfulness of His people, had expressly confided the care of them. The anonymous author must have forgotten all that part of the word At least, he has not profited by it, and he did not know how to commit himself to the wisdom of Him who, on even this point, has confounded the iniquity of the Jews, who availed themselves of the fruit of their sin to perplex Him, in exhorting them to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. For, according to the providence of God, Caesar was the heir of Cyrus as regards the power of the world, if he was not the heir of his piety in recognizing the commands of the Lord.}

198 It is quite another thing to pretend to re-establish, according to the order of the dispensation, that which has been lost. Could he re-establish the kings? Did he place Zorubabel on the throne? By no means. That would have been to have disowned the judgment which God was passing on His people. Did Nehemiah dare even to put in order the priests who could not trace their genealogy? No; he put them aside.

Read Nehemiah 9: 36, 37 and you will see how far the primitive state had been re-established.

The anonymous author wishes to distinguish between the dispensation and the political state. That is really too bold for a reader of the Bible. Was the subjection of the people of God thus to the Gentiles only a political affair? Had the king of Israel no connection with the dispensation? God had abandoned His temple and His throne, and had confided to the Gentiles the power on earth, in saying of Judah, "they are no more my people" (a word which will not be withdrawn till the return of Christ); and they go on to say that it bears no reference to the dispensation but to the political state of the people! This is too violent! What is the political state of the people of God on the earth apart from the dispensation?

199 Must we then alas! overturn all this to re-establish elders? For my part, I believe that we have the assured promise of the Saviour, who changes not, that He will be always in the midst of two or three met in His name, so that we always have the right to raise our altar. It is our duty. We are always bound to recognize God. Hence by His grace I ought to do all that He may give me the power to do for His glory. To work for Him, He must send us for this object.

As to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of the people, the meaning which the anonymous author attributes to the passage, Haggai 2: 5, is totally foreign to it. God had never withdrawn His Spirit from His people, although He had judged and punished His people (Neh. 9: 20). The Spirit instructed and directed the people still. (Compare Isaiah 53: 14.) But it is certain that, in a sense different to that which we have just given the passage, the Spirit of God has not dwelt in the midst of His people till after that Jesus was glorified.*

{*See John 7: 39; ch 14: 16, 17, and many other passages.}

As to slavery, it is certain that in certain respects the people of God can be in slavery. At the very epoch of which the anonymous author speaks, in saying that Israel was not under the slavery of Satan, "since," etc., Nehemiah says that he was the slave of kings whom we know to have been the instruments of Satan, like wild beasts. Even were I a child of God, if I put myself under the directions of Rome, led away by the seductions of the enemy, I should surely be under the slavery of Satan, wrongly if you will, but I should be there.

The question is to know, if it would not be the same sort of thing in the case where one puts oneself under elders, who have been chosen apart from the will of God. I say neither yes nor no. Nothing is more simple than what is said of it. The idea that a child of God cannot put himself under the slavery of Satan is a dangerous error.

The remark of the anonymous author in section 17 is totally wrong. The priesthood had been the centre of unity, it was so no longer. The monarchy had become the centre.

200 As to section 20, with reference to the difference in the directions of God (Isa. 37: 33; Jer. 25: 8, 9), the force of the argument is not apprehended by the anonymous author. The texts are cited quite fitly to shew the principle in question; and that which the texts shew is that what God authorizes at a given moment, does not necessarily become a rule for those who are in a different state. To apply in this state an order of God, is not to have consciousness of one's sin; it is as if one pretended to walk on the footpath to keep oneself clean, when one had already purposely splashed oneself off the footpath. The worship of Cain was "sin," because he took no account of his fall. To elect elders, is not to obey; it is to pretend to have the power to do that which the primitive Church did, that which the apostles did.*

{*As to the absence of proofs drawn from the New Testament, for which the anonymous author reproaches the writing of Foulquier, a few words will suffice. The manuscript of Foulquier contains only a short statement of principles drawn up for a brother. The anonymous author had heard read in the conference a document which, while the work of a single brother, was clothed with the character of being the answer on the part of all; a document furnished with proofs drawn from the New Testament and which is a recapitulation with quotations of all contained in Acts, and epistles bearing on the question of the ministry. At the request of the anonymous author this manuscript was handed to him and he examined it. Afterwards the writing of our brother M. Foulquier fell into his hands. These facts are the best answer to the accusation contained in the following words of his tract, p. 20: "Thus, dear brethren of L'Ile, you leave us no other alternative than to believe your word, or to suffer by our refusal the most terrible judgments of God!!! We ask of you examples of biblical commands and you give us human arguments."}

As to section 25,* if we take popery as an example, all the weakness of the arguments of the anonymous author is at once apparent. There Satan governs clearly in the Church under the appearance that that form is one approved of God. It is plain that the anonymous author does not understand what the power of Satan is, nor that Satan can exercise a fearful power, even over the children of God, if they remain in a system where this power acts, and the rather because it is veiled from them, and that they themselves conscientiously hold this system to be the Church of God, thinking that to remain in it is to obey the authority that God had established in the Church, and to keep the unity which ought to be found there.

{*It is important that the reader should remember that the division of the tract of Foulquier into paragraphs is not his, and that frequently it injures the sense and cuts the thread of the ideas.}

201 I understand that the anonymous author pretends to escape, in that which he does, from this power of Satan. But to set oneself in principle against the thought expressed in the paragraph of Foulquier, which occupies us, is to deny that which spiritual intelligence ought to understand and recognize as true.

"It is clear that if the adversary gains possession of a thing which God had placed in our hands, to desire to retain it is to remain so far under his power."

That is clear, if we preserve that which Satan makes use of in the exercise of his power; so far we remain under that power. This is so plain that the proposition demonstrates itself.

That nevertheless is not a sufficient answer. The anonymous author may answer, and does answer in fact in one place: I wish to keep nothing. The Church has not kept the scriptural system. The clergy is of the devil. I want none of it. I want to re-establish elders, such as they were at first. I, for my part, want to begin anew the Church at Geneva, on the primitive footing.*

{*This is to contradict himself; for he insists here on the preservation of the institution. The fact is that the institution exists no longer. But we may use the word "preserve" in an equivocal manner, because the institution is mentioned in the Bible, which is of everlasting authority. In fact, that of which the Bible speaks, exists no longer. There cannot be a better proof, than that the anonymous author is compelled at this time to establish it anew.}

One can answer, Your elders will be always the clergy. One can answer also, God has given you no mission for that; an answer which we must justify, as to the first point. As to the second, it is for the anonymous author to produce his title and to prove his mission, or that of those who have undertaken that work. If they do not gather with Christ, they scatter.

Let us examine in detail the anonymous author's objections. Alas! all here is sophistry. He asks when the apostasy begins. Well! we will say with him that the germ of it existed at the epoch which is spoken of in these terms, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work," 2 Thess. 1: 7. After that epoch, says he, the apostle desired there should be deacons. Then our author lets us see that the Church was in a bad moral state in many respects when the apostle directs Timothy and Titus to set up deacons.* Be it so. He asks in consequence, "How does this same disorder impose upon us at this day the obligation of putting aside this institution?" Finally, he adds, as to the setting up elders, "This state of failure does not dispense with our duty of preserving them in our turn."

{*This was not the mission of Timothy, but we will touch on this later. It is historically very probable that the decline of piety caused the institution of elders to become more prominent.}

202 What an argument! The faithful are in a sad state. Officers have been established to reduce it to order. That is the reason why, when officers, having possessed themselves of the rights of the sovereign, have become the source and instruments of disorder, it is needful to keep them. That is a convincing argument! Also the anonymous author must change totally what Foulquier said! He makes him say that this institution puts us under the power of Satan, because we live in a dispensation in a state of failure. Foulquier said, If the institution itself is under the power of Satan, in that case to retain it, would be to put ourselves under that power. To maintain the institution when it was a barrier against corruption, or to maintain it when it became the source, the power, and the expression of it, these are two very different things. But that is not yet all.

They wish not to give up the establishment of elders, and to maintain it in its turn. Ah! I ask, What is it that the anonymous author retains at Geneva? Are elders established? Where is the institution so dear to him? It has no existence, and, according to him, it is centuries since it ceased to exist. The test consists then not in maintaining but in re-establishing it, in creating it anew. On the other hand, there cannot be any question of giving it up; we cannot give up that which has no existence. There is nothing then which we can give up.

This institution is not then to be maintained but to be produced anew. Our author thinks that his colleagues and he have enough creative energy to do that which the apostles did in the Church.

The following facts will shew us how they are in a state to imitate them.

First, There has been a commission charged to draw out a constitution for the Church.

203 Secondly, By this constitution, the Church confides its administration to the assembly of the elders. (Art. 14.)

Those who have given their adhesion to this constitution being considered to compose the Evangelical Church at Geneva, they must needs have elders. They are called together to elect a commission, to be charged with preparing the difficult and important task of the election of elders. There is no enquiry either if there be men fit to be elders, or if the elders desired of God for His Church at Geneva are to be found in the midst of that which takes the name of the Evangelical Church. To obey the word of God, this Evangelical Church is called on to have a presbytery; it ought to choose those whom the Lord calls to be elders or bishops in the flock. What flock? Is there more than a sect there? It is natural that those who have placed themselves at the head of the movement should direct it. Let us suppose even that some will seek to add some persons for the purpose of giving a counterpoise to this establishment of clergy, and that others will oppose it. Is there the slightest resemblance between this and the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus? If not, why speak so loudly of a positive command? Would this positive command be to judge by the facts, to reinstate you in the clerical position, which you have just lost and which you still love? Would this command be to make a trial of a new sect and to attach oneself to it to see if that attempt would succeed? The Spirit of God never makes attempts. Do you think that one who walked after the Spirit would try it? He obeys when he has light; and when he has not, he waits. Do you think that, finding brethren occupied in the midst of Christians assembled out of the world, watching over them, devoted to their service, caring for their souls, and blessed by God in their labour, I should question their service? Never. But, when I see a special class of persons raising the pretension of founding a church, preparatory commissions, and others to install men in their places, and that they appeal to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, whilst accusing me of disobedience to the word of God if I do not submit, I hesitate. I cannot either recognize a like pretence or submit myself thereto, as if it was to yield obedience to the epistles, which they bring forward.

If the author deceives himself, if it is not to assemble with Christ (and if it be a false pretence, it is certainly not to assemble with Christ), it is then to scatter. He presents unity, which we all desire, under the condition of recognizing the elders. He will pardon me if I hesitate. He accuses me of being disobedient in my not recognizing that he has sufficient authority to create them. For it is just this. That I should obey leaders [given of God], well and good. I will do it with all my heart. But that a command to obey implies the power to create that which we are to obey, is going rather too far.

204 What we ask of you is the command to make elders. We quite recognize the biblical command to obey them. But at this time the elders whom we ought to obey do not exist, and that is the point on which we are all agreed. So to demand, as you do, that we should shew a biblical command to reject the institution of elders, when that institution is no longer in existence, is really to say nothing. I repeat it: I reject nothing. Where are the elders? Ah! says the author, there are none. How then reject them? But we want to make them, says he. I answer, That is another question. Has God sent you for that? Where is His command? I await it.

But, that all may come to nought rather than reject the setting up of elders, the anonymous author asks us why, if the ruin of the Church hinders us from electing elders, we preserve baptism and the Supper. I ask him, in my turn, Have those two things ceased to exist? No. I only have to withdraw myself from the additions and abuses which corrupt them. Besides, in putting them in practice, I create nothing; neither elect nor set up anyone; I make use of no authority.

Pardon me, says the Papist or the Puseyite, and even often the Protestant, in consecrating the Supper you use authority. You arrogate it to yourself in preaching the gospel. What authority have you for that?

I stop. The question is solemn. Am I under the alternative, either of rejecting these privileges and blessings, or of accepting them with every sort of corruption and vitiated by grave errors?

I examine my Bible seriously, and that is what I have done, and I find all liberty. I open it, and the clergy which have corrupted all that, is not recognized there. It teaches me that I may enjoy them freely.

I say then, as regards these things and others like them, I have withdrawn myself from under the slavery of Satan. Yet more, I will recognize, as far as lies in my power, those persons who bear, even in the face of many imperfections, the marks of being overseers. If they insist on the clergy, and if they deny the unity of the Church, I cannot walk in such a path.

205 As regards the promise of the presence of Jesus in the midst of two or three met in His name, it is not I who institute anything, if I meet with others. It is Jesus who accomplishes that which He promised. The interpretation of the anonymous author is surely totally erroneous. He strives to deprive us of all.

Happily we, with all the Church of God, have too often, unworthy of it as we are, had experience of the faithfulness of Jesus, to be troubled with this interpretation.

It is a mistake to restrict to discipline the scope of this promise. It is, on the contrary, one reason for which discipline thus exercised is recognized by God; and that reason is, that Jesus is there. But this precious declaration is applicable, and more directly applicable, to requests made in similar circumstances than to discipline. It is a fact always true that, where two or three are met in the name of Jesus, Jesus is there. It is a general declaration given as a reason for which discipline is valid. For, says the Lord, where two or three are met in my name, there I am in their midst. Nothing more simple. I have nothing then to recognize except that the interpretation is wrong.

I have already spoken of Nehemiah's altar. The passage from Jeremiah proves nothing, unless this principle, namely, that the Lord can put aside that which He has Himself established. In fact, that has come to pass as regards the elders. The question is simply this, Is it the will of God that we should re-establish any anew officially? As to the altar, we have it, and we have it restored through grace. We adore with joy around the table of the Lord. We can do the same in everything, which is not a pretension to that we do not possess.

The anonymous author has marred the meaning of section 28, by separating it from the sentence of section 27, to which the section 28 relates, and which shews very clearly that it has reference to the word of God, but that the power and operation of the Holy Spirit are necessary to give us discernment.

Section 27 speaks of the light of the conscience, of the light of the law, of the prophets, and of the light of the gospel.

Does the anonymous author deny that the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary in these very times? If he is of this opinion, nothing will surprise me.*

{*When he says, he will believe until the dear brethren expressly deny it, that these brethren direct themselves by the Holy Ghost in the absence of the testimony of the word; the answer to it is this: At the moment when he was writing those lines, he had already for some time in his hands the formal denial which he demands; and as a proof, in a long letter in answer to this denial he complains of the strength of the expressions in which this denial was couched. The letter, which contains this denial, is in a previous note.}

206 To quote the conduct of Diotrephes as a sufficient proof that he was an elder, is a curious way of attracting us to this species of authority. Let us congratulate the preparatory commission, that a like argument has not a shadow of a foundation. There are, alas, but too many Diotrephes, without its being necessary to have established elders where to produce them. We can hardly believe that our author seriously wished to say that the fact of desiring to be the first, and in consequence not to receive the apostles, proves to him that a man may be an elder. He asks if we should not separate ourselves for the cause of the presence of Diotrephes. And why separate ourselves from the Church, because it contains an evil man? For my part I would never separate from anything, of which I could have an idea that it was the Church after having left it. Besides, I do not believe that 3 John 10 means "When I come I will shew him what he has done." Martin employs, it is true, this expression: but upomneso rather means, I will remember that which he has done, or I will make him remember that which he has done, without precisely stating what the apostle proposed to himself to do when he had come.

As to the explanation of the seven churches of the Apocalypse, this is scarcely the place to give the interpretation of them. It would be writing a book. It is clear that when one states that "the angels of the churches can only be their councils of elders," one can draw what conclusions one wishes. This meaning of the word "angel" is neither that of the word nor that of tradition. It is beyond doubt that, in the word, angel does not mean a council of elders, and tradition also gives a totally different meaning.

The growing failure of the seven churches is a question of interpretation with which I shall not occupy myself here. The anonymous author makes confusion in that which he says of it, for it is evident that the fact of being a candlestick of gold, in no way hinders the fact of failure already pointed out to Ephesus ("remember whence thou art fallen"), and does not even hinder it from being spued out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus, that which was to be accomplished with respect to Laodicea. In that which follows he makes such a confusion between the state of the universal Church, to which the question of failure applies, and the local churches, in which there were elders, that a few words will be enough to shew the weakness of his argument.

207 We may take the seven churches as churches; or we may, with many Christians, consider them as a prophetic history of the Church as regards its moral state here below. The author says, as regards this last point of view, the elders and the churches ought to exist even to the end. But this is complete confusion. For in this last view we have ceased to regard these chapters as being occupied with the seven [local] churches. The Spirit makes use of it to shew the state of the professing Church in the course of ages.

CHAPTER 5.

At last we come to that which we asked. The anonymous author alleges a distinct command. Titus was left in Crete to appoint elders. That is clear. No one denies it. But here is the question.

How does that authorize it, or, if he prefers it, how does that authorize some believers in Geneva to appoint them? It is very certain that it was not believers who had the power to appoint elders; for had it been so, it was needless to send Titus to Crete to do it.

It was an act for which the believers were not competent, and for the accomplishment of which the presence of the faithful companion of the apostle himself was necessary.

What is there that shews that the anonymous author and the preparatory commission have that competency? They say so, but that is not exactly enough to make us receive it. The order of Paul to Titus speaks evidently of a commission confided to a certain person left there on purpose, because the thing which was the object of this commission could not be executed without him. I ask the reader if that is not the natural force of this passage: a conclusion which the character of Titus supports. The anonymous author tells us that it is "a positive order, a very clear command of the Lord, given by His apostle, not only to Titus, but to all those who later would be called by the Holy Spirit to lead the Churches of God." This term "to lead the Churches of God" is rather doubtful. Does the author wish to say that the elders of one town have a mission to establish elders in all towns, and that they have a special mission for that? Now that was undoubtedly the case with Titus. He had been left in a peculiar case to set in order the things which the apostle had begun and was furnished for that purpose with the authority of the apostle.

208 Have the elders a like authority? Are they charged to impose rules on other churches, and furnished for this purpose, with the authority of the apostle? Now that was the case of Titus. And, if one part of the command be binding, why should not the other part be equally so? It is the same authority which is in exercise. The apostle, in imposing on Titus, without any other direction, the task of setting in order that which remained to be set in order, shewed he had confidence in his capacity to do it in a fitting way. It is just the same as to the appointment of elders, which rests exactly on the same foundation. If the author is authorized to appropriate to himself these things, the pope has not less reason to take to himself that which the Lord confided to the son of Jonas.

Many things had been set in order by Paul; others were to be so by Titus; that is, all that remained yet to be set in order. In doing so, Titus used an authority in the exercise of which he could act in a competent way, which gave to his acts the same authority as the acts by which the apostle, whose delegate Titus was, had already set in order other things.* Had all elders this mission? Was this command always binding? The anonymous author cites not one word of scripture to shew us that this command applies to Christians of the present day. But, says he, it is clear it is a binding command at that time, for he tells Timothy in what way one ought to conduct oneself (not "to behave thyself") in the Church of God. This point has been already discussed. But, as it is an important point, and the sole and solitary foundation of the author's system, it is worth while examining it again.**

{*This argument has so much the more power that in Acts 14 it is the apostles themselves who appoint the elders.}

{**This is what I said in my answer to M. Rochat. I take a similar case. My son is chosen a counsellor of state, and I write to him to explain to him how one ought to behave oneself in the affairs of the state. This shews, according to M. Rochat's way of reasoning, that every citizen may at any time exercise the function of a counsellor of state, because I have told my son how one ought to behave oneself, etc.}

209 We do not doubt that elders had been established in the Church. We wish even to realize and respect all that is possible to be realized of their work in these present times. Brethren have always acted according to this principle,** on certain occasions with more energy than on others.

{*Since the beginning (I quote this as an historical fact), those who amongst brethren occupied themselves with souls and looked after them, met together in order that they might do so under the oversight of the Lord, and still do so when the opportunity offers. In places where circumstances have weakened this work I have always sought to give it energy.}

I have frequently declared this in the controversy which had taken place: the question of elders has never been a capital point in my eyes. Nevertheless I have always recognized so much of it as existed, and when the occasion offered, I have sought to give activity and development "to that excellent work." By the grace of God I will do so still, giving to it all the energy which He may grant me. In certain places it has been in exercise happily and with blessing. In others it would be a great blessing if God in His goodness would raise up the instrument. But if, because the name of clergy yet inspires repugnance, it is wished under the name of elders and under the pretext of obedience to re-establish the clergy, I do not let myself be deceived by words. When I am told that I can neither obey the elders nor recognize them (1 Thess. 5: 12, 13), unless men have officially set them up, I cannot trust it, although I am told that it has no more anything to do with clergy. I do not see the action of the Spirit of God in the preparatory commission. This commission takes the place of the Holy Ghost; and in taking it, it denies Him, even if they are not aware of it.

And as regards the command itself, the commission with which Timothy was charged, had not as its object the establishment of elders, nor did the apostle give any command like it. Paul, on going into Macedonia, had begged Timothy to remain at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1: 3), a town in the Church of which elders existed, the establishment of which is never mentioned in the word; 1 Tim. 5: 10, 17-19. And see in what terms the apostle expresses the special object of the mission of his son Timothy, "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine."

210 Then he enlarges on certain points over which Timothy was to watch for the purpose of putting them in order. In explaining himself on various subjects, he enumerates the qualities and gifts desirable in a bishop. But before entering on all the details of that which was fitting for the Church of God, for the Church of the living God, over which he was thus to watch, the apostle says, My son Timothy, I entrust to thee, I give thee (paratithemai) this command, this charge, according to the prophecies which have been made in former time concerning thee, in order that by them thou mayest war this good warfare. It was a charge confided to him, and for which he had been designed by express prophecies; and consequently, when the apostle was to leave Ephesus, he leaves Timothy there to preserve order, in virtue of the charge he had in the house of God. Finally, after having given him the directions necessary, about a certain number of things, he adds, "These things write I unto thee [not to the Church nor to the elders], hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God," etc.

I ask, Was not the commission entrusted to Timothy a special one, for the carrying out of which the apostle gave* him the necessary instruction? The apostle says, "If I tarry long." What matters his return if this instruction concerned at once the behaviour of one particular flock, and that of the universal Church in all times? It is true that since the apostle teaches us in what manner Timothy ought to make Christians walk, this ought also to direct us in the things that concern us, although Timothy was no more there to insist on these things. That is plain.

{*It is, as I think, a bad translation to say "In order that thou mayest know how one should conduct oneself," etc. It might have an appearance of exactness; but in following the spirit of the two languages, this translation does not give the sense. The Greek does not express the word "oneself." It would be more correct to say, "In order that thou mayest know how to conduct thyself," or "what conduct is fitting in the house of God." So it is instruction for Timothy's conduct in the Church, although Timothy had to be occupied with the conduct of others. "That thou mayest know how others ought to conduct themselves," would be complete nonsense if he was speaking of any other thing than overseeing.}

211 If Timothy was to watch that the widows were not to live at the expense of the Church, when they had relations who could support them, that remains a rule for the relations of widows, although Timothy be there no longer, because the instruction which was addressed to him is a means of knowing the will of God concerning those persons. But to say that the mission entrusted to Timothy is a rule for all those who conduct the churches, is to attribute to themselves that charge for which direct inspiration had marked out Timothy by prophecy.

Clerical subtlety will ask of me, Why do you make that which concerns the widows a rule good for all times and not the rule for establishing elders?

And, first, no such order was ever given to Timothy. It was given to Titus, a thing which, we remark in passing, proves that since Paul had left Titus in Crete expressly for that, the churches had neither the authority nor mission to do so. And as the order to establish elders was not given to Timothy, the words, "how he should behave himself," do not in any way apply to the nomination of elders, as has been so assiduously urged on us to believe. Besides, when I find that which concerns widows, the widows of this time can profit thereby, because they are in the position in question. To profit by the directions given to Timothy we must also be in the position in which Timothy was; and if we are not, to pretend to act as Timothy, is not to obey, but to arrogate to ourselves the position of Timothy.*

{*I repeat here that part of my writings which the anonymous author quotes, namely, that to imitate the apostles is not to obey. He quotes that to shew that we may do the same things that they did without being authorized, and consequently in the way we like and without being bound to imitate them. It is wresting my words in a manner unbecoming so grave a subject. I say that to imitate the apostles is to pretend to act with the same authority as they did, and that is not obedience. And the author makes use of these words to shew that we can do it, and do it at our pleasure, according to our views.}

When I find the qualities required by this epistle, and the excellent work in activity, I will recognize and support, with the energy God may give me, that which God has given and sanctioned. I will engage other persons to use to profit all those of His graces which may be found, if God calls me thereto in His grace. The more I see the losses which the Church has suffered, the more I am desirous of turning to profit in her all that which in His long patience and His supreme goodness, our God has left us, to the end that we may glorify Him, by giving thanks to Him with a feeling even still deeper than if I enjoyed all. This is far different from saying, I can do all that which apostles and Timothies did, and from accusing those of disobedience who do not submit themselves to a like pretension.

212 And when even Timothy or Titus had a special mission, and for my part I do not understand that a soul truly subject to the word could deny it, do not other parts of the word cast some light on this question? Yes, much.

The epistles instruct us by their absolute silence. If the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are remarkable for the detailed instructions which shew that a special charge had been committed to them, the epistles to the churches never touch on the question of the establishment of elders, surely a curious thing if that establishment was a general duty of the Church in all ages.

The opportunity of speaking of it was not wanting.

Paul had not yet gone to Rome. He writes to the Christians of that town - Christians whose faith was celebrated throughout the whole world. He speaks of the exercise of various gifts and graces according as God had divided to each. Amongst other gifts and graces he mentions those who were leaders, those who went before the flock, who acted to it as guides and "pillars" (proistamenoi); not one word of elders, not a shadow of a command to establish them as the only means of walking in obedience.

If any allusion to that office should be found anywhere it is in the Epistle to the Corinthians. There was at Corinth disorder, sin, details to set in order. No mention at all of elders, no command to establish them.

In the Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, nothing.

In the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which were the first written, the apostle exhorts the faithful to recognize for their work's sake, or rather to know those who worked, to take knowledge of those who laboured in their midst and who led them;* a proof more than evident that no one had been officially established among them, and that the apostle did not feel the want of doing any such thing, a no less evident proof that one could love people heartily so useful to the Church, recognize them, and obey them in Christian love, without any official nomination having given them the right to demand that obedience officially, nor to impose that obedience on those who had neither faith nor affection; which is exactly the method in which the clergy act.

{*It is the same word which we noticed in Romans 12.}

213 The Epistle to the Philippians mentions bishops without adding a word more. Peter recognized elders, placing himself on the same footing with them.

The Epistle to the Hebrews exhorts to obedience to those who led them by following their faith, because they watched over souls as responsible for that, and not because they were officially established.

Never was obedience placed on this miserable carnal footing: still less is it said that obedience was impossible without it, but just the contrary.

Neither in the epistles to the churches nor in those addressed to Christians in general is there anywhere found the smallest word relative to the choice or establishment of elders, nor to the necessity of choosing or establishing them, whilst one finds in them that there were leaders that the faithful were exhorted to recognize and respect by very different motives to that of an official establishment. What a confirmation of that which we have already abundantly shewn in our examination of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus!

The Acts of the Apostles do not leave on their part any doubt. There the apostles,* Barnabas and Paul, choose elders for the flock in each town. The anonymous author speaks of the want of exactness in the French translations of this passage. He is right, for they wrongly add "by the suffrages of the assemblies.**

{*Our adversaries, driven to an extremity, have wanted to persuade us that Paul and Barnabas were not even apostles. The Spirit of God calls them so in their first voyage (Acts 14: 27). And Paul insists on his apostolate as being independent of all human instrumentality: "not by man." Also we can see in 1 Corinthians 9: 6 the place which he gives to Barnabas, as well as that which he gives to himself.}

{**If I am not wrongly informed, our author has given us to understand that the new edition of the translation of Lausanne will give "to establish by imposition of hands." I cannot believe it; but if it be so, it would be to falsify the meaning of the word. There is some appearance that later at the time when the clerical system displayed itself, this word had been clothed with the sense that they wish here to give it.}

214 Now that word so paraphrased signifies quite simply "they chose." According to the etymology, it alludes to the act of extending the hand, a common way of voting; but its regular meaning is to choose, and in this sense it is twice used in the New Testament (2 Cor. 8: 19; Acts 10: 41, "witnesses before chosen of God"): passages which leave no doubt of its meaning. The authority of the most valuable dictionaries confirms what these passages point out.

The anonymous author speaks of apostles of a lower class, as Junias, Andronicus, and Barnabas, sent by the churches. The word of God gives no room for any such thought. There were, for certain objects, messengers of the churches. But the word of God nowhere says that Junias, Andronicus, and Barnabas had been sent by a church. There is one messenger of a church whom scripture calls "sent." It is Epaphroditus. But the Philippians only sent him to carry temporal assistance to Paul, a prisoner at Rome; Phil. 2: 25.

When Barnabas was sent, Paul was there as well as Barnabas, and it is the Spirit and not the Church that sent them. So there is no question in this passage of apostles of a lower class sent by the Church. It would be needful, to come to that, to say that Paul as well as Barnabas was an apostle of a lower class, and that would only be to play the part of the evil Jews of his time.

That which the author says on the subject of baptism is sufficiently unfortunate. The apostles hardly ever baptized. They left that care to others. Paul said he had not been sent for that; although other persons did it without any need of being authorized thereto. Further, we have already answered all that.

The author says it is no want of faithfulness to entrust to the presbytery the task of establishing elders. The question is, To whom has God entrusted this task?

Moreover, to entrust this to the presbytery is to conceal a difficulty, in a very curious manner. The care of establishing elders is entrusted to the presbytery. But according to the constitution the presbytery is the assembly of the elders; so that they are already established. And who is it who has done this? The preparation of this difficult and important task has been confided to the preparatory commission. Then it is the members of the Evangelical Church who will carry it out, so that it is entrusted neither to the presbytery, nor, according to the teaching of the author, to the evangelist, unless the presbytery prepare the thing so as to name themselves. It seems that what the word says about it is of no importance; one may as well proceed in one way as in another.

215 Here then we see the author thrown upon the same ground as the journal "The Reformation," that is to say, "human order and evangelical liberty," and that too while at the same time accusing brethren of wishing to put the word aside. He has full liberty to do that which he wishes. It is little matter what the apostles said; little matter the fact that they had entrusted the task in question to special delegates, without ever recognizing in the churches any capacity for its accomplishment. Provided elders are set up, no one is bound in any way to follow apostolical ways. Then the Evangelical Church says a thing, does it, and the anonymous author does it with it.

Here they make resound in our ears a word which sounds very well - that of the presbytery. It is "the presbytery" which acts. But when we translate the word all vanishes. "The presbytery" is exactly the assembly of persons who are to be called into existence.

The anonymous author says again that if the choice belonged to the apostles and to those specially sent for that purpose by them, our view might well be conceived; but that we forget it is the establishment, not the choice, of the elders, which was given to Timothy and Titus; that it is nowhere said that the apostles chose them themselves, and that the French translations are false. We have seen, in effect, that they are so, in that they add "by the suffrages of the assembly." And it is the suffrages of the assembly that now they wish to follow at Geneva. That is to say, that the sense of the word has been falsified to sanction the system. Timothy did not, as far as we know, set up elders. Titus was sent for this, but nothing else is spoken of but the act of Titus himself. Titus, and Titus alone, set up elders. The apostle does not suffer the idea of another's acting to appear, outside him whom he had sent into the midst of these Cretans (always liars as they were). Neither does he say that Titus had associated other persons in his work. The anonymous author pretends that scripture says nowhere that the choice of elders pertained to the apostles, nor that they themselves had chosen the elders. Now the fact is, and it has been plainly shewn, that the scripture says very positively that the apostles chose elders for the faithful in each church* (Acts 14: 23). It is true that the French versions have rendered this passage badly in that they have added "by the suffrages of the assembly." The author does not say that the error of the translation consists in making the assemblies here to take a part, as he wishes himself to make a certain number of the faithful to act who do not yet even form an assembly.

{*The anonymous author calls Mr. Wolff to the support of his assertion by saying that those who appeal to Acts 14: 23 are ignorant that the translation is bad, adding, "See as to this matter, 'Le Ministere,' by Wolff, p. 20." I confess I do not understand this. Mr. Wolff rejects, as I do also, the words "by the suffrages of the assemblies"; and insists upon it, that it had no reference to making their vote, and that the apostles had themselves alone established elders. The words, "they had ordained them elders," exclude even the idea that the flock had taken part in it. The fact is plainly that the Greek word, which means choose, elect, means, first, to vote by raising the hand; then, in general, to elect. The apostles chose the elders for the churches.}

216 As regards deacons there is no analogy. When money is in question, the apostles withdraw from occupying themselves with their work; and later, Paul refused to take on himself the distribution of the offerings of the saints, unless there was one with him chosen by the churches to co-operate with him; so that his conduct should not give place to the smallest suspicion that could injure his ministry. What analogy is there, as to the source of the authority there exercised, between the case of tables and of money, and the care and the rule of the flock of God? The apostles desired that the flock should be satisfied as to temporal matters, so that there should not be any cause for discontent, jealousy, or suspicion. This principle is not applicable to elders, to whom money is nothing, and whose authority is exercised according to that which has been given from on high.

At the end of his work the anonymous author avails himself of the fact that Moses does not say who should pour the oil on the head of the priest, when he succeeded his father after his death.

217 The analogy which he wishes us to see in this with the question of elders seems to me to be without force, and for this reason: it is because the eventual successor of the chief priest was marked out by God Himself. The eldest son by clear right was priest after the death of his father. Genealogy confined the right of being priest. In the case of elders, the question is one of nomination, of the choice of fitting persons.

All the law hangs on the principle of hierarchy; Heb. 7: 12. The word "establishing" hides this difference. It has not the same meaning in the two cases.

When it concerns elders, it is necessary that some one should officially name them. If that be done with the authority of God, the imposition of hands will be a matter of small importance. So that the analogy does not exist; because in one case, to establish means to designate, and in the other, this has been already done on the part of God - a difference which goes to the very root of the question.

And as to the other part of the analogy, namely, the imposition of hands, it is nowhere said in the word that hands should be laid on elders. According to the habits of that age, we can well believe it to have been the case, God took care that the fact should not be recorded in the word. His fulness of wisdom knew all beforehand. So that the formal part of the analogy fails also. Thus then the analogy exists neither in the foundation nor in the form.

The designation of priests by their genealogy was of such importance, that, in the time of Nehemiah, as some priests could not shew theirs, they were rejected as defiled. Now what we ask for is exactly this very designation, conformably with what is said in the New Testament. Those who re-establish after the example of Nehemiah ought to respect the New Testament, as that instrument in God's hand respected the Old Testament, when there is a question on the very point to which the analogy in question is applicable. When disorder had broken the succession, and the office was seized upon by persons who, though priests, had no right to exercise the functions of the high priest (which took place in the time of the Lord Jesus), no one thought of raising up other persons to the high priesthood beside those who wrongfully occupied the place. The faithful sought elsewhere the redemption of Israel.

Speaking historically, the anonymous author would find it difficult to shew that after Aaron the sovereign priest had been anointed. In the case of Eleazar, no mention is made of it.

218 The anonymous author goes farther, and thinks "that the apostles were in truth themselves mistaken." It would seem this reassures him about the danger, which he and his colleagues are running, of being mistaken also. But, to say nothing of such an argument (for this anxiety of setting in order a form of government really has no respect for anything), how is it that he has not been arrested by this expression (Acts 20: 28), "The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers"? Was the Holy Spirit then mistaken? Will the author dare to say to those whom he will have established at Geneva, that the Holy Spirit has set them over the flock of God, which He has bought with His own blood?*

{*This sentence is made available "also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things "as if these words were applicable to the elders, to whom Paul was speaking. But it is plain that "of your own selves" is applicable to all the Christians of that place. To make oneself sure of it one need only read verse 29, "grievous wolves shall enter in among you." The words "among you" mark clearly the Christians of whom the elders were in charge; and these words "of your own selves shall men arise" are in contrast with the fact that some should enter within from without, and they apply equally to Christians. For this cause elders should watch, and watch not against themselves. And when the apostle says "I ceased not to warn every one," he does not mean to say that he warned the elders only. Thus the arguments, by which he would insinuate that the elders only are meant in the word "you" employed in this passage, are absolutely powerless.}

That is the root of the question. To correspond to those of whom the word of God speaks, the elders ought to be the elders which the Holy Spirit set over the flock of God. If not, it is but a sect, with the chiefs which this sect would have. And here it is a question clearly of the visible unity of the Church of God, that visible unity which the author allows to be lost. Now the first thing to do is to re-establish it, to form this flock of God.

CHAPTER 6.

I content myself now with the question relative to Geneva, although I believe that it would be impossible to do it in a single place with reality, during the general dispersion of the sheep. But let us confine ourselves to the consideration of one place. If I recognize those whom God has caused to labour in this good work with the needful qualities, I only submit myself to what God has manifested, in supporting and honouring it. But if I said, You cannot obey, unless at least we establish them officially, in this case all depends on the authority which establishes, and on the correspondence of the work in truth with that which we find in the word. Have our brethren of Geneva, and with them the anonymous author, re-established the flock of God? If not, what are their elders elders of? Can they in virtue of their official nomination say, "Over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers"? For they say, "that one can only obey in virtue of this nomination." For my part, I can act without fear or without hesitation on the principle I have laid down, in full recognition of our weakness; and I can do it, because I am on the ground of moral proofs and of the work done by the Holy Spirit; and it is my joy to recognize His work, wherever it may be.

219 You, brethren of the Evangelical Church at Geneva, you cannot do it. You rest solely on nomination and on official establishment. It is, you tell us, for this reason that it can be said that the Holy Spirit has placed them over the flock of God. Where is that flock? Does it consist of you, a mere handful of believers? Where is the authority of the Holy Spirit? It is we exclusively, say you, who exercise it, who put it in motion, and without this there is nothing which you can obey. Now there we are thrown upon the narrowness of the old* dissenters,** and a clergy to boot; and if we do not recognize you, and if we do not recognize that which you do as binding on our souls, we reject the word of God. Which of the two is it, you or we who give a hold to the Church of Rome? Is it you who tell us that obedience is impossible, if those to whom that obedience is due are not officially set up by the Church on earth? or is it we who accept that which God gives us in the midst of the ruin which surrounds us, and who act according to the precious promise that where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus, He will be in the midst?

{*The bodies formed in Switzerland.}

{**Setting congregationalism aside, there is no difference between the principles put forward by these gentlemen and those of Mr. Rochat. That which the anonymous author and Mr. Merle said has been said by Mr. Rochat, only with less pretension. See Mr. Rochat's tract entitled, "Answer to the Anonymous Author's Tract, etc." page 14-18.}

Brethren, know that we have made trial of the faithfulness of our gracious Master, according to His promise, and that in order to enjoy this, weak though we be, it has not been needful for us to await your convenience, nor to adhere to your pretension of re-establishing the Church of God.

220 In order to put out of sight this grievous schism, you wish (and Mr. Merle insists on it) that we should come to you, that we should be one with our brethren. Since when has risen this pressing need of our being in your midst? Since when did you make the discovery that the clergy are of the devil? Since when have you, has Mr. Merle, made the discovery that it was absolutely necessary to have elders, without whom they have gone on till this time? that not to come and submit to them is to sap the foundations of all obedience and morality; and finally, that not to range ourselves as partners in your work, is to make ourselves guilty of all sins? You make elders, I suppose, because you had none. What do you think then of your obedience and morality up to this moment? Brethren, such pretensions and such grand words come rather too late. Is it since your convocation to name a preparatory commission that Christian morality is compromised in this affair?

The anonymous author tells us, "It is for this reason that we raise up again, according to their example [Ezra's and Nehemiah's], as far as we can, that which has fallen."

Ah! what then has fallen? It is no question here of "the brethren's point of view." You do something; you raise up again the fallen Church, and this it is that you take on you to do, as Nehemiah did with regard to Israel. It is the analogy of which you avail yourselves. It is then the fallen Church, it is then the fallen dispensation, which you raise up again.

Ah! you tell me, we speak only "from the point of view of brethren."

We are not speaking of words only. You do something, you are acting. And, tell us, are you acting according to the views of brethren? In that case, this view is true in your eyes. You raise up again. How raise again if nothing be fallen? The Church, its dispensation, you believe to be then in ruins. And you pretend to raise them up again with such an authority on God's part, that if we do not recognize your work, we are unable to obey! or, according to the language of Mr. Merle, we are guilty of every possible sin, according to the principle laid down by James, if we are not subject to that which you do!

My brethren, forgive us if we do not admit pretensions so exorbitant. We find in admitting the ruin (and you admit it, for you cannot raise again that which has not fallen, nor act as Nehemiah, if, in fact, all is not in ruin), you demand too much; you raise pretensions too extravagant.

221 It is Romanism in all its purity.

Obedience, say you, is impossible outside your system; and think of this, of a system which is not yet established! And you hold this language to us - you who up to this day have lived in disobedience, for you had not then the indispensable elders, since you are going to set them up.

I declare before God that, if at Geneva I had found true elders, who without pretension took care of the Church of God at Geneva, so far as the Holy Spirit had brought it together, I would have blessed God for it, and would have submitted thereto with all my heart. As I have already said, I have tried to do it.

But when, in order to draw me into it, they come and tell me that the clergy, to whom, until yesterday, they have so obstinately held, are of the devil; and that besides, they declare that I cannot obey without the human and official establishment of a distinct body of men; when they reason as if those who are acting in this new mode formed by themselves the flock of God; and when they represent all those who do not walk with them as in the sin of schism; I avow that such a pretension awakes in me a deep distrust. I fear that they will raise up again, not the Church, not the fallen dispensation (I hold in doubt their capacity for such a work), but that which has fallen, that which they well know has fallen, and, in the eyes of those taught of God, fallen for ever.

We repeat it, We suppress nothing. The proof of it is that, at the moment I am writing, you have not yet created the order which you are desirous we should submit to.

You create something, and in doing so you have compromised the existence of the Reformed Church from its foundation, for obedience to it has been impossible. That to which it has been subject is of the devil, you tell us. It has been guilty of all sins at once. Christian morality has been thereby compromised. They have touched the apple of the eye, the throne, of God. For these elders (whom you are going to set up, raising up again that which is fallen) were not in existence there. Forsooth, it is the clergy who are found in it, with whom you will have no more to do. I believe indeed that such pretensions are found but in few hearts; but they are none the less subject to those who set them up.*

{*I have never read anything more thoroughly similar to the pretensions of Rome than pages 36 and 37 of the "Report" of Mr. Merle.}

222 Mr. Merle declares, it is true, that he glories in belonging to the Reformed Church. To which? Where is this reformed church? I ask with a deep feeling of grief (for whatever may be the attacks of our adversaries, the state of the Church and the actual result of the beautiful testimony of the sixteenth century, or rather of the faithlessness of man with respect to that testimony, have been for me a lesson learned with tears and in profound anguish).

To what reformed church is it that this brilliant writer of "The History of the Reformation" belongs? He is making a new one. He lends his hand to establish institutions which are opposed to those established by Calvin at Geneva. Does he belong to the synod of the Reformed Church of France, or to those who, from convictions which all respect, have separated themselves from it?

Alas! all is ruin. We depend on the faithfulness of Him whom ruin cannot reach. Mr. Merle has haughtily attacked those who were convinced of it. Now that he believes it, he sets up something new, telling us that we must needs come, and this too while saying he glories in belonging to that which exists no longer, to that which he has abandoned, as far as it exists, and abandoned for conscientious convictions, for which I should be the last to blame him; but which he has in fact abandoned. For, finally, in the midst of the free churches on every side, in order to make the rights of Christ respected, to maintain healthy doctrine, to establish elders who did not exist and without which one cannot obey, where is that reformed church to which Mr. Merle belongs?

No. The truth comes out in spite of them. They wish to raise up again that which is fallen, and they wish that we should confide the task to them and their preparatory commission.

Come to us, they cry, and so you will put a stop to a schism which afflicts the Church. You are then the Church in its unity; and apart from you is schism.

But I do not believe it. The language you make us hear is that of Rome. I have come to Christ. I see no need of going farther; this would be to leave Christ. And who is it who addresses this invitation to us?

223 It is the writer who published not long since that the ministry, that is to say the clergy, was that glory which should remain, mention of which is made in 2 Corinthians 3: 11! and who closes the exhortation of which we speak, by asking things which, notwithstanding his talents, which I most sincerely recognize, betray (as regards God's ways and specially as to that which occupies us at this moment) an ignorance which we should have had difficulty to suppose in him. Here are his words: "When we see how evangelical Christians are firmly bound up in different denominations, we ask if this great union 'of a single flock under a single shepherd' shall ever take place on this earth before some future period yet enveloped in mystery; and if, as it were, to melt all these little bells of peculiar churches into one great bell of the universal Church of Christ, which by its majestic sounds may call the world to believe in Him whom the Father has sent, there be not needed an immediate intervention of Him who, in the day when He shall appear, shall be as the refiner's fire?"

If we add withal the last paragraph of the Report, which calls for the coming of Jesus in the words of the Apocalypse, chapter 22, to come and dwell in the midst of the Church, as He who alone can increase in the midst of us cordial affection, I ask of those who have sober and thoughtful ideas on the revelations of the word of God, What can we think of a declaration which binds together the passages which he quotes, with the desire of merging the separate churches into the universal Church of Christ on the earth, and of producing that great union of a single flock under a single shepherd, to call the world to believe in Him whom the Father has sent? And without speaking of details, I ask if it is not to ignore the first elements of the revelation of God, such as we have it in the word, to confound grace with judgment, the gospel with the personal reign of Jesus, the glory with the patience of the saints and the grace of God, heaven with earth?

And in a critical and serious moment they present themselves to lead us, as if they possessed the intelligence of the ways of God. And they do it while expressing thoughts in which an incredible confusion prevails.

Is this a thing to command our confidence towards those who come forward to raise and set up again that which is fallen, and to give a direction to the movement of the day?

224 Yes, it is a question of raising up again and re-establishing not only elders but the flock of God, over which, according to them, these elders are to be placed. They do not deny that what has resulted from the first establishment of elders is under the power of the enemy. They make a new church, a new presbytery, a presbytery so new that they have set up a preparatory commission to know how they should proceed in it. What can I see there but a sect with greater pretensions than others?

They begin the thing. Those who lay on hands, whence come they? Is it the old clergy who will do it? Can everybody do it? This is important; for it is an authority in question so necessary and so obligatory, that without it elders could not exist nor the faithful obey.

CHAPTER 7.

For myself I am not in this difficulty. The Apostle Peter speaks of elders in a way which by no means implies the idea of an official nomination. "The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." In like manner he adds, "Likewise ye younger [presbuterois, neoteroi] submit yourselves unto the elder," 1 Pet. 5: 1, 5.

In Acts 15 we find also in the assembly at Jerusalem elders, whose appointment is nowhere related, but who are there on the footing on which Peter expressly put them in his epistle.

I find, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, leaders recognized in their work. So that I doubt not at all, that in the midst of Christians of a Jewish origin the eldership was but a moral matter.

In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians I see that the apostle charges the faithful to take knowledge of those who were working amongst them and who went before them, and exhorts them to esteem them much for their work's sake; a motive more moral than dependent on their age, although I doubt not this entered into it, save in exceptional cases.

In the Epistle to the Romans I see persons who go before, faithful ones who in that sense were at the head of others, and who in their turn are exhorted to acquit themselves of it with diligence, in the same way that he had told the Hebrews that they watched over their souls.

225 We read in the First Epistle to the Corinthians 16: 15: "I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas that it is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have addicted devoted themselves in a formal manner] themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth."

I have then in the word of God very clear authorities for recognizing those who are in the position in question; I have rules for my conduct with regard to them, and for their conduct in the midst of the flock. I profit by them; and the flocks are called to profit by them. They can do so without pretending to be the flock of God,* whilst a great number of the faithful remain still outside their meeting, and that number among those perhaps who would be elders in reality if all were assembled; and they can do so without falsifying their position in the very serious way which would be the case if they pretended to be that which they are not. They can do it without setting up that which God would put aside if He accomplished a complete work, for that would make them into a sect. They can enjoy according to God, all that God has given them, without denying the state of ruin of the visible Church - a state which has brought ruin on every side and the forgetfulness of which shews, alas! that the conscience is not reached by that which is near to the heart of Christ, and which ought to be to us deeply painful. The author of the tract "Are Elders to be established?" denies the possibility of obedience to the passages which we have just quoted.

{*I have no objection to the flock being called "church," save the fear that, in imitation of ancient dissent, the idea might be allowed that it is the church of the place. The word recognizes all the Christians of one place as forming the church of that place.}

I am thoroughly convinced that the foundation thus laid in the word is the surest foundation, and that the walk which is directed according to this is the true walk. Thus, I can respect, according to the measure of their labour, those who are not fully manifested in the way demanded for the office, and without elevating, in a manner hurtful to himself, to a position which he cannot fill to the profit of others, one who does not possess all the qualities demanded for the charge.

To demand the establishment of elders, is at once to plunge oneself into all sorts of questions on the subject of their establishment; our powerlessness must be hidden under fine phrases; and then we fall into a labyrinth of gropings which always end in a clergy.

226 Who will choose them? Who will establish them? Who will lay on hands? If every one is not agreed, there is a new sect. From the beginning brethren have acted according to the principle which I have drawn as above from the word of God. Perhaps in some places they do not draw from these passages the profit which they might. I think, besides, that in proportion to the fall of the Church the elders came more into prominence. But since that, all is changed. The proposal is to begin anew; and the official nomination raises the question of knowing who will do it, a question to which the word of God will only give you answer by making you feel the absence of those whose authority could resolve it. Not that they resolved it by a revelation (we possess this entire), but by an authority which had been confided to them, and which you do not possess. The pretension of exercising it is either the yoke of popery, or the disorder of some who impose on others and only on those that follow them.

Beside, are they agreed among themselves?

Far from that. If one consults them, I know not which to listen to. One tells me that all is free - that the word is no rule. Another tells me, it so completely is a rule that I can only obey by naming elders. A third tells me, Pastors and elders are the same thing. No, says a fourth; I assure you that the examination of the word shews the contrary. A fifth declares that the Greek word, which means to choose, means to make others vote. This is a mistake, cries a sixth.

At last the conversation is ended by telling me, that if I do not join them I am disobedient and schismatic.

Whom am I to join, pray?

All of us.

On what principle?

We are all agreed.

On what?

To have elders named and to condemn you.

Now I understand: only I ask what authority the word gives to your acts.

It must be done! it must be done!

227 At last then I understand you; I forgive you, and I pray for you.

Meanwhile, I obey the word in recognizing those who have the rule over us; and I do not pretend to do that which you are pretending to do, without even being agreed amongst yourselves on what the word has said as to this subject, without even being agreed as to whether what it says about it has any authority.

Although they may have not been named, I can recognize those who do a good work, and I would even recognize them in their work, although they had entered thereon irregularly, and although the pretension of reconstituting the Church places them in a position which we cannot recognize as belonging to them.

Examination of a few passages of Scripture, the force of which has been questioned in the discussion on the new churches; with remarks on certain principles alleged in support of their establishment.

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1850.

<04005F> 228

The publication of these pages has been somewhat delayed, although the manuscript was ready some months ago. The author had always hoped to take it himself to Geneva and superintend the printing of it; but beside the impossibility of realizing this intention at the time, sickness and other circumstances came in, and the publication was thus again adjourned.

If this tract is now printed, it is because the author considers that what helps to understand the passages of the word is never out of season, and he presents but little else in these remarks.

The reader may perhaps perceive that the pamphlet entitled "The Seven Proceedings of Mr. Darby," was, in part, the occasion of the publication of this one. But I must warn him that he will find no answer to the attacks which fill the pages of "The Seven Proceedings." I do not answer them, because, first, It is meet the Christian should bear with insults; secondly, Those who take the trouble to read my pamphlets, can easily judge of what is said in them,* and I cannot take into account the judgment of those who do not read them; thirdly, It seemed to me that attacks of this kind do not deserve an answer. Nevertheless, I have examined each accusation, in writing my answer, in order to make all clear to myself, and I have found nothing to alter, except a few things corrected farther on. And finally, I felt that a personal debate can be profitable neither to the Church of God, nor to any one else. It is true that there are a few facts wanting to explain the history of this matter; but I think people will be thankful that I do not revert to them. If there be some humiliation for some brethren, which might be removed by speaking of them, I doubt whether they would be gainers by it, before God. A complete silence will therefore be found with regard to all these things. Farther on, I shall give my authority for one single fact. But there are a few scriptural questions at the end of the pamphlet in question, which call for some explanations that I will give here. I avail myself of this opportunity to acknowledge two or three things in "Scriptural Views" which need to be either corrected or explained; and at the same time I repeat the expression of my convictions as to the main point of the question. First, I think it would have been more exact, chronologically, to say "son of Zerubbabel."** This latter name is prominent in the Book of Nehemiah, as that of a descendant of David and heir of his claim to the throne of Israel; and I had not paid attention to the dates which lead to the thought that he was dead. The argument loses none of its force by this alteration, even if it were the grandson of Zerubbabel. The force of the reasoning depends on this, that it is the heir of the rights of the family of David.

{*One must not suppose that all the passages in italics, in the tract entitled "The Seven Proceedings," and given as the expression of the views it condemns, are quotations from what was really said. There are some on elders, which are so; but several are merely the form which is attributed to the views one wishes to refute. This is so true that "The Seven Proceedings" reproduces a passage textually taken from the pamphlet of the same author "Are Elders to be established?" as being the assertion of Mr. Foulquier.}

{**"Scriptural views," p. 26.}

229 Then it is denied that what is called the Evangelical Church at Geneva is a national church. In the passage blamed, the word "national" is used with respect to all free churches in general. At bottom, I find no moral difference as to the Evangelical Church of Geneva; but I here take note of the protest made in its favour, reserving my own convictions as to the moral value of the difference, and I ought to have made the exception in my pamphlet Circumstances also have prevented those who left the national system in France from choosing the form they would have desired. The movement has taken the form I had predicted in my pamphlet, so that it would be needful also to have made an exception for the new French system. There is nothing else, as far as I am aware of, which I have to correct. I give a passage of the letter which authorized my saying that the author of "Are Elders to be established?" issued the Guillaumet paper to answer that of Foulquier, so that one may not think that I asserted these things inconsiderately. The letter is from the author to Mr. Foulquier. Here is the passage:

230 "I have scarcely had time to copy a few passages of it [of the Guillaumet manuscript]. I was just occupied with refuting these passages in the revised text that I was preparing of the notes read in the conference at my house, when your tract was handed over to me. As soon as I met with the sad declaration 'If even,' etc., I laid aside my first paper, and at once began writing a refutation of your tract."

I fully maintain all I said of the clergy, of elders, of Romanism, and in general all, except what I have just corrected, but without any desire of wounding any one. I will explain the passage which might produce that effect. I never said, nor thought for an instant (and I need hardly mention it), that the elders named at Geneva were impostors; but I said, "Who only deceive those who follow them." This is what I meant - that they impose their authority as elders, without being true elders according to God; that the pretension to be an elder, because one has been chosen and named, is a false pretension, which only deceives those who follow the persons who pretend to be elders. I confess I look upon this pretension to be an elder as false. Those persons, doubtless very good brethren and men, are no more elders for having been named as they have been, than any one you please of the inhabitants of Geneva; and it is very proper this should be understood. One cannot assume official authority in the Church at one's own will, or by a mutual understanding so to do. If the expression I used means more than that, I withdraw it. I have no desire to employ even the appearance of insult. The old clergy had the excuse of hereditary prejudice; the new have nothing but false pretensions. Such is my conviction; but, while expressing it in the clearest and strongest way (and that is what I wish to do), I desire also to avoid all that might wound; and if the expression may have wounded the susceptibility of any one, I withdraw it, asking him with all my heart to forgive me.

But you, my brethren, who have agreed with others who follow you to give yourselves this title, you will not avoid the discussion of the validity of that which you have assumed. We ask you for the proofs of your special authority, for the vouchers. Who is it that named you? Who is it that authorized you to take that title? Who discerned your qualifications?

Whence comes the authority you pretend to in the house of God? How would you exercise it towards any one who might dispute it? When such men as Paul, Timothy (if it was so in his case), and Titus had with apostolical authority established elders in the churches, if the authority of these elders were disputed, it was disputing the apostolical authority that had placed them there. But as regards you, who made you elders? Except it be with revolutionists, authority flows from authority. Thus it was in the Church. Christ named apostles. The apostles named elders. Who is it that named you? Who is it that communicated to you your authority? You know, and you cannot deny, that the apostles and their special delegates established elders at the beginning. You ask for proof "that this was forbidden to any others." Is it thus that one can assume authority? If the right of naming public functionaries was exercised by the king in a state of which he was the sovereign, could each one name as he chose, over a small portion of the citizens, because there was nothing in the laws declaring that none else had a right to make them? Who would listen to such nonsense? Well! it is much more serious and much worse to do so in the things of God. One would not dare to say or to do such things in human society. Alas! one dares everything in the Church of God.

231 Have you a real authority from God over His flock, an authority which you can use over the whole flock? If not, you are the heads of a sect. You are not the elders of the flock of God; but you only bear this title as from those who would have you. It is absolutely and exclusively the will of man that is the source of your authority, and without that will you neither pretend to exercise it, nor to possess it: the moment it is not accepted, it is powerless. For, abandoning it, one only abandons what one has created oneself. It is said that I am seeking for apostolical succession; it is not so at all. I seek for the existence of the authority which conferred upon you your own. Where is it? You tell me the institution subsists. Where? In the word, you tell me. Doubtless, there were elders then; but as for you, say what you please, you are not an institution. Who is it that placed you in the position to which you pretend? That is the question. Tongues we find in the word, and miracles, and we find apostles also. Do those things now subsist because we find their existence at that time recorded in the word? As a fact, the institution of elders does not subsist; this one cannot deny. They act on a revolutionary principle in the Church of God in creating authorities, however perfect the model they would copy in establishing them. I said they wished to have a clergy: where ministry is limited, where authorities, officially recognized, are found, there is a clergy, because ministry becomes a separate caste. According to the word, the members of the body of Christ act according to the energy which is communicated to them from above, each in its place, subject to the discipline prescribed by the word, and to the rules given there; and they exercise their ministry in the whole body, according as God has dealt to each. In a clerical sect, ministry is limited to those who are officially recognized in its bosom. By courtesy those who are elsewhere in a similar position may be received; but those persons officially recognized in the sect itself form the recognized ministry of that sect. Take the different systems, National, Independent, Baptist, Wesleyan, the Free Church of the Canton de Vaud; the principle is recognized in them. Take the constitution of what calls itself the "Evangelical Church at Geneva," there also the thing exists, as clearly as possible. It "recognizes the necessity of a special ministry, as an institution of God and a permanent want of the Church; consequently, it has elders and deacons." Such is its ministry. Do these elders and deacons form the ministry of another body of Christians? Clearly not. The thing is still more limited when it is said, "A distinct part of them [the elders] are the ministers of the word, who, prepared by holy studies, are more specially called to teaching and preaching." What difference is there between this and the clergy elsewhere? It is a separate caste. That this will subsist long practically, is what I do not believe, because the principle of a clergy is according to the heart of man, and one will never communicate to these laymen elders' authority over souls, which one cannot give them as from God. This is the principle I oppose. I think indeed, and I repeat it, that it is to deny the authority of Christ over His own house.

232 There are three other important principles which I wish to point out to the reader before considering the passages I have to examine: principles which are in question in the formation of the different new churches. First, as to discipline at Geneva, I beg every sincere Christian to examine the printed constitution. I do not pretend to judge assurances given verbally in the midst of their assemblies; but I have before me their public profession of principles, and it is without controversy that discipline is either brotherly reproof, or, in extreme cases, the absolute authority of the presbytery, plain and open absolutism. The Church has no part in it, except submission. There is no discipline exercised for the purifying of the conscience of the Church, as Paul could say, "Ye have approved yourselves clear in this matter," 2 Cor. 7: 11. It is true that they do not add "and not otherwise." So that, according to the principle on which they chose their elders, leaving aside Paul and Titus, all the brethren may exercise discipline without looking to the elders and presbytery named in the rules, and take no account of them, without the least infraction of the rules. The absence of the "not otherwise" leaves the door open to every possible mode of acting, and the article preserves all its force and value . . . the institution subsists. Unless it be on this principle, discipline is either simply brotherly reproof or the absolute authority of the clergy. According to the word, pastors, elders, may enlighten the conscience of the brethren, counsel them, exercise a scriptural influence that the body may walk according to God; but according to the word it is the conscience of the Church which is brought into activity, it is the Church that removes from its midst the wicked person. The constitution of Geneva settles the matter quite differently, and the very explanations, which overthrow the article of the constitution, are themselves also contrary to the word. The elders pronounce after having informed the Church. The conscience of the Church has nothing to do with it.

233 There are two more points which I wish to treat briefly, as being general principles of importance, which may exercise the heart on the occasion of the formation of these new churches.

The first point with which I shall occupy my reader, is that of the idea of union on the principle of mutual concession with respect to the divers views which are found among Christians, and of conciliation by these means. This principle has a great repute and a very fair appearance; but it is profoundly evil and presumptuous. It supposes that the truth is at our disposal. Philippians 3 teaches quite a different principle: there is no idea of concession nor of any arrangement in expressing the truth so as to reconcile different views. It is said, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded." It is not, Let us lower down the truth to the measure of him who has not come up to it; it is not two persons ignoring which of the two has the truth, or content to suppose the possibility of error in giving up more or less what they hold, in order to express themselves so as to be agreed: all that is an infringement upon the authority of the truth on us. "And if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." There is no question here of concessions, but of the revelation from God to enlighten him who is not perfect in the truth. "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." There is no question here of concessions, but of walking together in the things we possess, with regard to which, because recognized as being the truth of God, there is no giving up anything, all being subject to it. In that case, there is no concession, either on one side or on the other, for all possess the same truth, having already attained to it in a measure, and they walk together minding the same thing. The remedy for the diversity of mind which may remain is not to make concessions (how deal thus with the truth?) but the revelation from God in favour of him who is ignorant, as we are all of us on divers points.

234 But I shall be told, On that footing, one will never come to an agreement. Where will you find in the word such a thing as coming to an agreement? To come to an agreement is not the unity of the Church of God. The truth is not to be modified, and we are not called to force our imperfect views on anyone. I must have faith, and one must have the same faith, to walk together; but in the things received as the truth of God by faith, I can make no concession; I may bear with ignorance, but I cannot arrange the truth to please another. You will tell me, In that case, how walk together? Why lay down grounds of unity which require either unity of views, or so evil a thing as concession on such or such a truth? As to the things on which we possess the truth, and with regard to which we have faith, we have the same mind, we walk in them together. If I acquire some knowledge more, I bear with the ignorance of my brother, until God reveals the thing to him. Our unity is in Christ Himself. If unity depends on concessions, it is only a sect founded on human opinions, because the principle of the absolute authority of the truth is lost. They will tell me, that true Christians will never yield on fundamental points. I was going to say "I understand"; but it is not so. There are many who are agreed in spite of the errors which affect the foundations; I know that others would not; but this does not prevent the fact that the principle of concessions is in nowise authorized in the word, denies the authority of the truth on us, and pretends to be able to dispose of it for the sake of peace.* The word supposes the bearing with ignorance, but never concessions, because it does not suppose that men could make a rule different from itself, in order to come to an agreement. I receive a man "weak in the faith"; but I do not yield anything to him as to the truth, even on such a point as eating herbs; I might perhaps deny essential truths by so doing. Such a case may happen, where to observe days might lead to doubt of the Christianity of him who does it. (See Galatians 4: 9-11.) There might be another case where I could only say, On this very point, "let every man be fully persuaded," Rom. 14: 5, 6, etc. Sometimes the whole of Christianity depends upon something which can be borne with in other points of view; Gal. 2: 1-4. I repeat, there is no trace in the word of a system which suppresses a part of the truth so as to have a common confession, but the contrary. There was the perfect truth, and God revealed what was wanting, when it was otherwise. They were of one mind and they walked together, and there was no need of concessions. One did not pretend to such things as required them; that is, the Bible does not suppose what one has the pretension to do. It is to mutilate the truth that it may be adopted by many. The word, therefore, and especially Philippians 3, condemns this arrangement of mutilated truth, with a view to get them to be adopted by everyone; for this is to dishonour God and His truth. These are means for forming a sect, composed of those who are agreed on the points laid down as grounds of union. It is never the unity of the Church of God; it will be an orthodox sect, if they are agreed on fundamental points, yet always a sect, even if it should take in a greater part of a nation, because it is a body formed on the agreement to which men have come on certain truths; but it is not the unity of the Church of God. In a confession of faith there is no question of bearing with individuals who are ignorant on certain points, nor of acknowledging together that one is lacking as to the knowledge thereof, nor of enlightening those who are so; but of declaring the truth one possesses, that others may, by agreeing with that declaration, join themselves to such as have adopted it as a ground of union. That all may adopt it, the profession of the truth must be reduced to the measure of ignorance of all those who come in, if they are sincere in that profession; but that is not bearing with others, but persons, as I have said, who dispose of the truth of God by a human compromise. Is that the unity of the Spirit?

{* Here is the thing better expressed than I could do it myself:

"There is something which is more compromised among us than the truth; it is its value and its claims. We are less far from finding the same dogmas in the scriptures, than from giving them the same authority over us; and we may be allowed to affirm that the questions on which Christians are divided would soon be settled, if they drew near to the Bible with the intention of taking seriously all the truths it proclaims. Alas! while we read, the devil murmurs in our ear, All that is not equally pressing, equally obligatory; we are commanded to bear with the weak; Paul made himself all things to all; he consented to offer sacrifice and to circumcise Timothy: on the other hand, edification goes before dogma; the principal dogma itself goes before the secondary dogmas, etc. One voluntarily opens the ear to a language which appears plausible and prudent; which appears not to attack a single truth, but which is only the more calculated to render them all powerless. From afar, one bows before each truth, but if it comes near to us, if it requires us to act, to sacrifice anything, at once the present truth is ranked among the truths that are out of season." Archives, Sept. 22, 1849.}

236 And, again, pay attention to this. If I know the truth and make a concession so as to unite myself to others in a common profession, my concession is just simply yielding the truth to him who will not have it. If I, with others, make concessions because we only have opinions and are ignorant of the truth, or have no certainty as to it, what a monstrous pretension to lay down, in that state of ignorance, a rule to be imposed on others as a ground of the unity of the Church, under penalty of not forming part of it! I may be told, But, instead of this, you impose your views, as being sure of the truth. Not at all; because I believe in a unity which already exists, the unity of the body of Christ, of which every Christian forms part; whereas you establish union on views on which you have come to an agreement. You will tell me, You are indifferent then as to the truth. No; but you have used improper means to guard it, by imposing the profession of a part of the truth as a basis of unity. Some Christians in Paris, already in the truth, as I suppose - these brethren in Paris are gathered on the ground of the unity of the body of Christ. By the power of the Holy Ghost and by discipline the body is guardian of the truth as of holiness. If any one upholds error and we have been unable to make him give up that error, he is not received or he is excluded. It is a duty towards Christ, Head of the Church, and towards His sheep dear to His heart. If it be only ignorance, one bears with it, and one seeks to enlighten. That discipline may be exercised with the divine wisdom which the word supplies, and in the manner as well as in the measure, for which it gives us the necessary instructions. What I complain of is, that men have substituted another unity for the unity of the body of Christ, and thus a truth which is not secondary is compromised, and the true unity is rendered impossible. We shall see presently the proofs of this.

237 See under what conditions I may take part in the union at Geneva. I must accept their system of elders, the popular choice of authorities in the Church of God by majorities, not to repeat what I have said on discipline and on the clergy. These are conditions which must precede. If I believe these things to be contrary to the word, I must force my conscience or withdraw. In France, one must accept a system of delegates, synods, church-inspection, a synodal committee, voting by majority which binds the churches, a proportional majority in certain cases. Suppose I believe that the principle which requires of us to decide in the things of God by majorities, is an utterly carnal principle (necessary in human things, but an abomination in the Church, since the Spirit must reign there, and two spiritual men may be right in face of a whole crowd), here am I, if I do not accept a principle which to my mind denies the authority of the Holy Ghost, excluded from the unity of what is called the Church of France. It is impossible for anyone who believes in the Church and its unity, and who believes that the Holy Ghost has any authority in the Church of God, to accept such a system. And I pray the reader to I observe here, how closely practice is connected with doctrine, and how those who are ignorant of a doctrine may act with great sincerity in establishing a common walk for Christians, without suspecting that they interfere with dogmas of the highest importance. There is no doctrine of greater importance, after the eternal foundations of truth have been laid, than the unity of the Church and the presence and authority of the Holy Ghost in the Church; it is a vital doctrine for these times - the importance of which can scarcely be exaggerated. Now it is evident that a system of delegation, majority of votes, a synodal committee, with regulations for not re-electing immediately all the members of the latter, is a complete denial of the authority of the Holy Ghost. It is founded on human rights and arranged to meet the fear of human jealousies. If I believe in the unity of the body of Christ and the authority of the Holy Ghost, can I join that which binds me to such a system? Again, is it according to the word, or is it a human principle, that churches have rights in virtue of the number of their members? "Member of a church" is not a scriptural idea: a Christian is a member of the body of Christ. The doctrine of the Church, of the unity of the body of Christ, is wanting; and men have replaced it by a system of agreement in fundamental views and of synodal authority. And far are they in practice from having the idea of laying down a basis which would take in all Christians, that if the principle of the profession of the faith is not accepted, the best Christian must remain outside (Archives, Sept. 8.) And this profession of the faith must be exactly according to the creed inserted in the constitution, for all the churches must adhere to that one.*

{*All the Evangelical Churches of France, composed of members who have made a profession, individual and explicit, of the faith, etc., unite themselves together. Article 4. Each church, in order to form a part of the union, must . . . secondly, adhere to the profession of the faith given in Article 2 (Sept. 8).}

238 Here is the defence of this system: "Every one who was desirous of making for that union every sacrifice that can be reconciled with conscience and faithfulness. Here the concessions were genuine, for the question was not to reconcile that which is irreconcilable, the yea and nay on fundamental and distinctive doctrines of Christianity; but to reconcile different views on secondary questions of application and of ecclesiastical government - questions with regard to which the most upright mind and the most scrupulous conscience can consent to submit."

Here is an answer taken from the same journal (Aug. 25): "Yes; they have made of the Church, and of sound doctrine, secondary truths. Our secondary truths are always those which demand our acting and our sacrifices." I leave aside sound doctrine as not being in question here. It is agreed that the Church is not a secondary truth.

Here again is a way of testing the thing. "We will tell you the only way to get yourself expelled: Pass on from theory to application. The worldly churches bear with theory, but are very sensitive as to practice. The world knows very well how to distinguish between what threatens it and what serves it. Make orthodox discourses, but do not touch upon any point of discipline." I have these two points here: the Church is not a secondary truth, and to bring that to the test you must come to practice, to application. Now the unity of all those who are members of Christ, and that by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, is the scriptural doctrine of the Church. Orthodox thoughts will easily be admitted on this point; but touch upon discipline, ask that Mr. Ponson be recognized as member of this union of churches; he cannot be. He is recognized to be a brother. There is nothing to reproach him with, it would appear, whether with regard to his doctrine or his conduct; but the whole synod, without exception, has accepted fundamental grounds, laid down by the Circular of March 31, which have excluded him.* So that it is not enough to be a Christian, known to be such in doctrine and practice; one must besides be a member - not of Christ but of a church - adhere to the constitution voted in Paris, to the principle of voting and deciding by a majority, and to a crowd of other principles. If I cannot accept all that (things which render impossible the unity of the body of Christ), I am excluded from the system. A nationalist is made to say, The Bible condemns a sectarian spirit; it commands us to manifest before all the union of brethren, and to bear with the weak; but it is useful to maintain for the present the divided state . . . . "Sacred interests would be compromised if we were too obedient." Do not these words apply to the synod? Those sacred interests here mentioned are the principles of the Circular of March 4. Outside these, no union. However fine these words may sound, concession and reconciliation, it is a fatal and presumptuous principle. If I accept the unity of the Church of God, I do not need that principle, the weak of the faith are of the Church, and I bear with their weakness; the Bible is my measure; a perfect measure, capable of rendering the man of God "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Unity of views, however desirable, is not necessary to that unity. The body of Christ is one, and whatever be the degree of progress, the Christian is of the body. As a profession of faith, we do not want anything less perfect than the Bible, because we possess the unity which is according to God, without seeking to make one according to man. There are those who, having no idea of the Church of God, will only have the Bible to be enabled only to profess that which reason accepts. Others, to put a barrier to that licentiousness, make professions of faith, to gather people according to those ideas. What is wanting is the unity of the Church of God, which possesses the whole truth, which is the "pillar and the ground of the truth," as the Bible is its perfect rule.

{*"In point of fact, those Christians only were called to the synod who accept the fundamental grounds Laid down by the Consultative Committee, in their Circular of March 31." Archives, Sept. 8.}

240 The last principle I would point out, to which I have already alluded, and which has been largely insisted on for some years past, and which has recently been put forward in a particular way, is this: That which is not prohibited is allowed; or else one must find the words "not otherwise" joined to what is said in the Bible; if not, we may do the thing quite differently. Now the Bible, as far as I know, never says this. Certainly we do not find it in the New Testament, so that it is evident that all that is written therein furnishes no rule of conduct whatever; because, if when there is a walk traced out in the Bible one may act otherwise unless one finds the phrase "not otherwise" it is evident that there is in it no obligatory direction (that is, that the biblical directions and walk are nothing as authority). You cannot find a more iniquitous principle. People felt themselves without any authority in the word for a certain mode of acting; they spoke of a commandment; but after all, they felt that all that was alleged could not serve as a foundation to what they were building. Sometimes they will say that the word has not force of law. Sometimes they will not have a Gospel-code; and finally they do things as they please, alleging that the word has not said "not otherwise." Let the Christian understand fully what this walk is, in order to brand it with all his spiritual might. This is what forms the basis of the whole Romish system. The word does suffice for our direction. If we find things done in a certain way, an authority committed to certain persons, we are quite as free to do it in another way, and to exercise the authority although it has not been committed to us, because it is not said "not otherwise." For instance, here is what we are told with regard to the elders named at Geneva. They cannot deny that the apostle and his delegates did establish the elders. What are we to do now that the one or the others are no longer here? "We challenge our brethren to quote one single text where the Holy Ghost commands clearly to establish elders through the ministry of the apostles or their delegates, and not otherwise." We do indeed find some which clearly say that it was the apostle or his delegates, and the latter with the apostolical authority. We have even proved that, in biblical history, the thing is not done otherwise; and that, when the opportunity presented itself for doing so in Crete, the apostle followed the order which is pointed out; he did not commit this task to the Church, but he left Titus to do this as well as some other things which required apostolical authority. That is to say, the biblical mode of acting is very clearly marked out: we cannot mistake the principle that directed it; and now people stand up to tell us that they will do it quite otherwise, and in a way in which the apostle did not think fit to do it, because it is not said "and not otherwise." What could not be done with such a principle? Where is the prohibition to carry the sacrament in procession? Where do we find that which forbids confessing sins to a priest? for it is said, "Confess your faults one to another," and it is not added "and not otherwise." If the Church is to remove the wicked person from its midst, why could it not be done by act of authority on the part of the clergy, since it is not said "and not otherwise"? Why not have acolytes, sub-deacons, patriarchs, archdeacons, popes? Let us remember that, in point of fact, in the case which gave rise to the discussion of this horrid principle, it is a question of a pretension of an immense scope, namely, the authority to name the officers in the house of God, and even over all the brethren; for if it is not this, they are not elders established by the Holy Ghost over the flock of God. And I would say by the way (for I wish to confine myself to general principles), this horrid principle is the only basis of the whole building of the new system at Geneva; for it is as clear as daylight, that, if the word really authorized what they have done, they would not have had recourse to this argument, that it was not forbidden to do otherwise.

241 They have judged their own cause. They have had the pretension to confer authority in the Church of God on certain persons, and they have been told: You have not that authority; you have had the pretension to create elders and you cannot - they are not really elders. If you have that authority, shew it. In answer, they shew the authority in the hands of Paul, of Timothy, of Titus. We reply to them: But you are neither Paul, nor Timothy, nor Titus. Then comes the fatal principle: But it is not said "and not otherwise!"

242 Such then is the foundation of the authority which is exercised in that which is called the Evangelical Church at Geneva.

After all, to say that a direction given to a superior authority to know how one ought to conduct oneself in the sphere of his action confers on everyone to arrogate to himself that authority, even as a matter of obedience, would be too absurd a pretext to be put forward; and they feel it in spite of themselves, if it were not a question of justifying, when the thing is done, what is required by the principle we are now discussing, viz., that the absence of this "not otherwise" leaves everything free - a principle which sweeps away all that is said in the word, because we may do quite otherwise, without there being an infraction of the rule that is found in it and of the mode of action which is followed in it.

I come now to the discussion of a few passages of scripture.

There is a case of small importance, but I shall notice it, since it is a question of the word. The application of Isaiah 63: 14, and of Nehemiah 11: 20, is perfectly right. It has been alleged that the Spirit was given after the captivity in a more excellent way, inasmuch as it was to abide. I answer: The prophet on the contrary encourages the Jews by telling them that just as the Spirit was with them when they came out of Egypt, God having vouchsafed it to them at that time, the Spirit remained and was abiding still in spite of the captivity; and I quote passages which prove that the Holy Spirit was given at the beginning, and that even after the captivity Nehemiah reminds them of this gift as being one of their special privileges. These were very appropriate quotations to shew that the words of Haggai mean that what had been given when they came out of Egypt was not lost, but still remained with them. That is evidently the sense of the passage, and it shews that the Spirit was also with them at the beginning. This is precisely what it was important to shew. I have perhaps been mistaken in thinking that everyone could lay hold of the force of the passage without an unfolding of it. We must remember that the prophet himself alludes to the time of their coming out of Egypt. "According to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not," Hag. 2: 5. Is it not evident that it is a question of possessing the same privilege as at the beginning without having lost it by the captivity, as the latter might have given rise to the thought that it was? I quote passages which prove that the presence of the Holy Spirit was one of their privileges when they came out of Egypt.

243 As to Acts 20, it is clear that it was the elders of Ephesus that the apostle was addressing. He had sent, calling them to come to Miletus, to avoid the loss of time which a visit to the whole church would have occasioned him (v. 16). Ephesus was a city where the apostle had dwelt for a long time, exercising a most blessed and powerful ministry, so that all Asia (the province) had heard the word, and thus this church had intercourse with all the Christians of the country. He calls the elders to Miletus, and addresses them in the touching discourse that we find in verses 18 to 35. Now it is evident that in sending for them he had on his heart not only those elders, but all the Christians of the place, and even of the whole province. He begins by shewing it. "Ye know," he says, "from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you." It is clear enough already that "ye" does not mean the elders only; but it is in the midst of them all, of those of whom the elders were the representatives. See verse 25. The thing will appear still more evident from this passage; "And now, behold, I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more." "Ye all," does not designate the elders only. "Wherefore, I take you to record this day," this may apply better to the elders, but as representatives of all. "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God "not to the elders only. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock." Here the elders are particularly distinguished from the flock, "over the which," it is stated, the Holy Ghost made them "overseers," to feed the Church of God.* "For I know that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you." Was he then only thinking of the elders? Clearly not. It was the flock that was in danger; he thought of the sheep which the wolves would seek to devour. Not only some were to come from outside; but from among themselves, from the flock, should "men arise, speaking perverse things." "By the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one, night and day, with tears" - not only the elders. All this care, during these three years, was not bestowed on the elders only. Neither was it the elders only that he commended to God, such as should receive "an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." We see then that although the "ye" or "you" applies naturally to all the Christians of Ephesus, and even of the whole country, Paul addressed the elders who represented them.* And thus it always happens in such cases; that is, one addresses oneself to delegates or to representatives, to magistrates, who come forward as if they were the persons they represent, although one may also address to them some special words, just as the apostle points out the elders personally. He distinguishes them nevertheless from the flock, in this last case (v. 28). The expression which speaks of the elders taking "heed," applies evidently to care about others besides themselves.

{*This expression, as well as others, shews that a Church could be called the Church, because it was that practically in the place.}

{**I add here that paraggelia signifies, among other things, a "commission," and it is evidently in this sense that Paul uses it; 1 Tim. 1: 5.}

244 As to the bondage of Satan, I shall also say a few words. The word "Satan" often frightens persons, but the diligent reader of the Bible will not have failed to perceive that the word of God continually speaks of his influence, and attributes all evil to him, not to cover the lusts which open the door to him, but to shew the true source of that evil. All those who make a profession of Christianity, and who deny "the power thereof," are called by the apostle children of the devil. And as to the evil which has been wrought, where the word was sown, it is especially called his work "an enemy hath done this." The apostle calls its instruments the apostles of Satan, as the tares are the seed of the wicked one. Now this evil has been principally done by a judaizing doctrine, and all those who undergo the influence of that doctrine undergo the influence of the enemy. The apostle calls this continually a bondage, as in Galatians 2: 4; ch. 4: 9; ch. 5: 1; so that the idea of bondage, and of bondage under Satan, in reference to Christians deceived by the enemy, is quite a scriptural idea. Moreover, Romans 6: 16 fully warrants the use of the expression with respect to all that in which we obey the enemy, and with respect to all error and darkness in which we live, though we are Christians. I do not quote 2 Timothy 2: 26, because it can be applied to the unconverted. Let the reader remember that if he obeys Satan, he is in bondage to him. Doubtless this cannot be, in an absolute way, the state of a child of God, but (the flesh being always evil) he will be a slave wherever the flesh is at work, whether in doctrine or in practice. When a whole system, founded on the bases pointed out in the Epistle to the Galatians, rules over children of God, as it often happens (for instance, the papal system), it is, according to the Epistle to the Galatians, a bondage; and in that case, one is certainly the slave of Satan, who rules there.

245 I now come to the priesthood, centre of unity to Israel, and to the change which took place at the time of the establishment of royalty. That a remarkable change then took place cannot be questioned. Ichabod had been written upon Israel, and every ordinary relationship with God had been broken, for the ark of the covenant had been taken. Hannah (in the song in which she celebrates, before this disaster, the goodness of God toward herself) had proclaimed that He would give power to His king, and would exalt the horn of His anointed.

The kingly rule is established, but, at first, not such as was according to the will of God, but, in truth, by the great sin of the people, who, in making a king, rejected God who was their King. And from that time the ark was never restored to its place in the tabernacle, but David removed it to the Mount Zion; and having established all the order of the house of God, upon a new footing, he had to leave to his successor (Solomon) the execution of all that which he had received by inspiration, as well as the instalment of the priests in the temple. The order established by David was communicated to him by revelation, just as much as that of the tabernacle had been to Moses. Everything was arranged afresh, although there were elements common to both. It was, then, the epoch of a great change, when grace, acting by means of David, placed the blessing of the people upon a new footing at a time when all had been lost. The prophet comes in between the two states referred to, it is true, as a sort of mediator, in the person of Samuel; but we will leave this for the present. His office was the sovereign means, employed by God, to maintain His relationship with the people, when it was unfaithful and fallen into decay. That I have rightly estimated this standing of the kingly authority of David, is proved by the close of Psalm 78 where it is said: -

"When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel: so that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men; and delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand. He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance. The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage. Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation. Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach. Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph and chose not the tribe of Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved. And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever. He chose David also his servant and took him from the sheepfolds: from following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands."

246 Here we see the sovereign grace and election of God, who raises up David as an instrument to lift up the people, when God had forsaken His tabernacle, and delivered up His people to the sword. This passage is very important, as portraying the true royalty willed by God; but how subject now is the priesthood!

But before giving power to His king, and lifting up the horn of His anointed - of whom the true Anointed was to be the descendant, and who bore, indeed, prophetically, his name of "Beloved" (David, see Ezekiel) - before the existence of that kingly authority, what was the link between God and the people? What, I say, was the link when there was no king? For some link there must have been. He who is ever so little acquainted with the ways of God in the Old Testament will at once answer, "It was the high priest." For after Moses (who was king in Jeshurun), who else could be the link? The only person who could have been so was Joshua; but in the very times of Joshua it was the high priest rather who was so. Let us cite the passages which speak of this. Take Numbers 27: 15-23. There we see Joshua, who was to command, placed before Eleazar and the congregation; and when a portion of the honour of Moses has been conferred upon him, in order that the people might obey him, he must needs remain before Eleazar the priest who enquired of the Lord by Urim and Thummim. At his word (the word of Eleazar) was to be the coming in, and at his word was to be the going out, of him (Joshua), and of the children of Israel with him, and of all the congregation. Indeed, if God was King in the midst of His people, His high priest, who drew near to Him, was, of necessity, the centre of unity. It was he (the high priest), who bore the names of the twelve tribes upon his breast before the Lord, and their judgment, continually, having the Urim and Thummim, sole true centre of unity. On the other hand, when even it was Joshua who directed them, who communicated to them the will of the Lord, it was, nevertheless, always at the word of Eleazar that they were to come in; and at the word of Eleazar, that they were to go out. That Israel was unfaithful to this, in the times of the judges, is true; but what was the consequence thereof?

247 God adds a sad history at the end of this book (but it is a history of facts which happened about the commencement of this period, for Phinehas was high priest) in order to give us an idea of the state of things within the country (for almost all the book is occupied with what passed between the people and their enemies); and therein we see that, in their affliction, it was the priesthood which was their resource and common centre; Judges 18: 26-28. It is the same in the division of the land, as also in all else (Numbers 14: 17; Joshua 14: 1), Eleazar is always placed at the head. This had never been the case in the time of Moses. And I ask any attentive reader of the Bible whether such was the place of the high priest in the times of the kings. I am aware it may be replied: "He always bore the breastplate with the names of the tribes." Be it so, but it is forgotten that God had already abandoned the people upon that footing; that the ark had been delivered up to the Philistines, and that the king chosen of God, inspired by God, saviour to His people through grace, had taken possession of it, and resettled all upon a new footing, as type and representative of the Anointed of the Lord, of Christ the King of Israel, of the King who should establish the kingdom of God and govern all as such. From that time all hangs upon the conduct of the king. When the kingly office failed, the priesthood could preserve nought. Now the character of Christ in Israel, at that time, will be that of King, and, consequently, it is under that same character that His type and precursor has appeared. Although He be a priest, yet it is as Melchisedek (a priest upon His throne), and not as Aaron, entering into the holy place, that He will act in that day. Aaron is the type of that which He is now; and, therefore, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the very act of shewing that Christ is personally after the order of Melchisedek, the apostle, as soon as he speaks of His present services, uses the type of Aaron. On the other hand, when the temple is dedicated, the priests cannot abide there by reason of the glory, and it is Solomon - a remarkable type of a kingly priest who acts. He blesses Israel, and blesses the Lord, as Melchisedek had done when Abraham was returning from the conquest of the kings. David the deliverer, and Solomon established in glory, types of the Lord Jesus, the anointed King in Israel, necessarily take the prominent place, and all hangs on them. For instance, when Solomon sins, ten tribes are rent from his family and from the temple. The fate of the people hangs upon the conduct of the king as leader of the people; 2 Chron. 7: 17-20. The history of the kings, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, shews us that it was thus; and as to the fact, it was the sin of Manasseh brought at length that entire ruin on the people and the house of God; 2 Kings 21: 11-14.

248 The examination of the character of Christ, as Melchisedek, puts the change which took place as to the priesthood in so clear a light, that it is impossible that a Christian instructed in the word should mistake, or say that the sacrificial preeminence of the family of Aaron held the same place in the ways of God subsequent to the establishment of royalty, as it did before. Moreover, we have seen, in detail, proofs to the contrary. In like manner, Solomon sends back Abiathar to his own house, and when David, without troubling himself about the priesthood, places the ark in Zion - an all-important change, he places the priests in Gibeon before the altar; and there were none before the ark (see 1 Chron. 16: 37, to the end of the chapter). We find also (2 Sam. 6: 17, 18) this character of Melchisedek shewing itself in measure in David. If we closely examine the change, we shall see how vast was its import. The expression (1 Sam. 2: 35), "he shall stand, (or shall walk) before his anointed," has already revealed this. The ark taken captive, where is the glory? Ichabod being the state of Israel in such sort that the priesthood was a nullity as to its original exercise (for without the ark there was no day of atonement for Israel), God interposes in an extraordinary manner by means of prophecy, which was a sovereign means on His part, and announces to the afflicted and downcast people, in the person and by the mouth of Hannah, that there was a new means of blessing; that He "the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed," 1 Sam. 2: 7-10.

249 Here, in the presence of the priesthood, and on the eve of the capture of the ark, a new character, that of "the anointed," is introduced. The anointing had before been distinctively attached to the priesthood. The high priest had been the anointed. Now it is another who is distinctively "the anointed," it is the king; and this connects itself with the character in which the Christ was to appear. The king being thus distinctively the anointed, the high priest, who had been so previously, walks before Him. He (the priest) is still in office, but he is no longer the centre of the system. The king, type of Christ, has taken his place.

Let us examine this in another point of view. It is certain that God, in His determinate counsel, designed to glorify His Son, even in the kingly power as regards Israel and the world. But on the other hand, the people ought to have remained before God by the means of the high priest, without a king being needed for the maintenance of its order. The Lord was their King. Consequently God permitted the sin of the people to ripen, ere He established His anointed. Now the priesthood, as we have seen, and as all the Levitical system testifies, was the centre of all the relationships of the people with God - the link of the chain which was near the throne of the Lord. The Lord was Himself King in Israel; but Israel needed to see a king, to be like the other nations. The notion that the sin was simply in desiring a king like the other nations, and that the thing was not evil because it was foreknown of God, cannot be admitted for a moment: "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them," 1 Sam. 8: 7.

250 At the same time, God presents before the people what will be the consequences; but the people say, "Nay, but a king shall reign over us": "Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations," 1 Sam. 8: 5; compare with chap. 12: 12.

Now, already, before this request, the high priest had, if one may so say, disappeared. Samuel offered sacrifices here and there; but at length God established His king, His anointed, as we have seen, and in such a position (for he was the type of Christ), that it is said by the Holy Spirit, "Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king," 1 Chron. 29: 23.

We see here the anointed of the Lord seated upon the throne of the Lord. The high priest walks before him. This it is which will take place when the kingdom shall be established. Without the least doubt Christ will be the head and centre of it. The question here is not of the high priest, type of the heavenly priesthood (a thought which properly applies only to the tabernacle, as we see in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle speaks only of the tabernacle), but of the position of the high priest in the presence of the king. Christ must have that place of king. David and Solomon are the types of this - in suffering, in victory, and in glory - sitting upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel; 1 Chron. 28: 5. Now, previously, the Lord Himself had been their King, and the high priest abode before Him. The people rejected God that He should not reign over them. Their iniquity gave occasion for the accomplishment of His designs in grace, even as it befalls us. But before this act of the people, the high priesthood itself had failed, and all the order to which it pertains was dissolved. The ark was taken, and consequently the relations of God with the people broken, so far as that depended upon their faithfulness. That order, such as it had been, was not restored. The tabernacle never received the ark. The king became the anointed; and he it is who arranges as to the ark, and the high priest must walk before him. Now, to say, in the face of changes of such a kind as this, that external splendour placed the high priest in a more glorious position, deserves no reply. It was worth while developing these things by reason of their intrinsic value.

251 These remarks will already have enabled us to understand what was the royal authority truly willed of God, and what was the royal authority which was chosen by man: but we will cite some passages to make it perfectly obvious.

First, I do not see exactly that royalty was in failure during the reign of Saul. The king fell by the hands of the Philistines, but Saul was no more an unbeliever at the close than at the commencement. Sin came to its maturity in him; his heart hardened itself: alas! this is the history of man. But Saul never stood by faith; and the royal authority was not in worse plight at the close than at the commencement. He was disobedient, and God withdrew His favour from him as an individual; but I see not in what the royal authority, as such, failed. It is true, indeed, that the judgment which we have to form upon this, in measure, depends upon the principal question, viz., that of the character of the royal authority of Saul, and to what point we can call it the royal authority willed of God. This we will now examine.

Samuel sees so distinctively the will of the people in this matter, that he says (in substance in the terms of which I have made use), "Now, therefore, behold the king whom ye have chosen," 1 Sam. 12: 13. This royal authority, was it that which was willed of God? The Spirit of God by Moses had anticipated the occasion in which the people of God would ask for a king, and had given rules to be observed when the occasion occurred; but the will of God is not found there; Deut. 17: 14-29, etc.

It is clear that nothing can happen without the will of God. But it is certain that the establishment of Saul was not, morally, according to the divine will. Several passages in the book of Samuel furnish unanswerable proofs of this. "The thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Now therefore hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them," 1 Sam. 8: 6, 7, 9.

Then Samuel recounts the oppressions which they must needs endure at the hand of the king, and adds, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day," 1 Sam. 8: 18. But "ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the Lord your God was your king," 1 Sam. 12: 12.

252 We see here passages which shew, with the most entire evidence (unless the Lord willed that the people should reject Himself; unless, which is impossible, He willed a great sin, see 1 Sam. 12: 17, 19), that it is not possible that God willed the royalty of Saul. There is a collateral proof that this was not the royalty willed of God, viz., in that the entire responsibility of maintaining its relationship with God is left to the people. (See end of chap. 12.) But the people having shewn that they could not do without that intermediate power - could not walk with God in direct relationship, and God having also manifested the evil, the door opens for the accomplishment of His counsels in Christ: for there was a royalty which had its place in the counsels of God - even that of Christ - whose forerunner and type the Lord Himself raises up, without the will or thought of the people finding any entrance whatsoever. We have already seen the manner in which God (in Psalm 78) passes from His judgment upon Shiloh, by the way He had abandoned the tabernacle for ever, to His own choice, viz., to David and to the place of His throne in the midst of His people the place chosen for His abode. Compare Psalm 132: 17, where it is written, "There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed."

Such was the royalty willed of God. "The Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people," 1 Sam. 13: 14. And again, "Fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse, the Bethlehemite, for I have provided me a king among his sons," chap. 16: 1. Having anointed him, it is David who is the true chief and leader of Israel, even during the reign of Saul. The Lord also said to him, speaking of Solomon, "I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee," 1 Chron. 17: 13. And in Psalm 89, where the bounties of God concentrate upon David, type of the true Well-beloved: -

"Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: with whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him."

253 And in 2 Samuel 7 (of which we have cited one verse) we find all the blessing of the people connected with the house of David. Moreover, his relation with Christ considered, this could not be otherwise. I would quote Hosea 13: 11, but its application to Saul may be questioned. I have quoted passages in direct proof that the existence of the royal authority of Saul was by an act of sin; and that it was not what God willed to maintain as that which He had established according to His will; and that the royal authority of David was established by the very act and by the will of God during the very existence of the other. But, in fact, the manner in which the word expresses itself, as to the relationship between the royalty of David and that of Christ, the allusions of the prophets to Christ under this very name, the manner in which the Psalms speak, the history of David, its analogy with that of Christ, the bearing of all that is said, and the very history, all these things are (for him who takes notice of the ways of God) what manifest the divine thought as to His counsels in Christ; and they are evidence far more powerful than isolated texts in proof that the royalty of David was that willed by God, and that the royal authority of Saul (fruit of the will of the people, who in desiring him rejected God) was not so; although, in a certain sense, all things are according to His sovereign will. It is, consequently, in the royalty of David that the failure of this means of relationship with God is in question, and not in that which took place with the sin of the people, who, in establishing it, rejected God. When we speak of failure, we take for granted there was a state in which God had established man (or, indeed, angels) in blessing; but in blessing lost through the failure, so far as the responsibility of him who was placed in it goes, the sovereign grace of God alone remaining, and capable of re-establishing it according to His counsels of peace. And this proves, in an unquestionable manner, that God never re-establishes, in its primitive state, a thing entrusted to men and placed under responsibility; because, as to that which regards man, all these things are but figures of some part of the glory of Christ, who alone can uphold them. Thus Adam himself was the pattern of Him that was to come; and the blessings of an earthly paradise must needs be replaced in Christ by far better mercies, but could not be so out of Him. So the priesthood, the royal authority, and every other form of blessing whatsoever, can only be realized in Christ. Nevertheless, God places man in positions which correspond to all these blessings, and man has always failed therein. The patience of God has been great (so it is expressed as to the royal authority), "till there was no remedy," 2 Chron. 36: 16. Then man is judged in the failed thing, and it is in Christ alone that the thing is established - in Him who alone maintains, and is able to maintain, all the glory of God and the blessing of man in these things. "And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons," Isa. 22: 24.

254 As to the question of "Lo-ammi "I cannot complain that people do not receive the application without examination. There is nothing in my thoughts as to the Church which refers to this particularly.

The rejection of Judah, at the time of the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and, consequently, the cessation of the application of the title "Ammi" to the whole people, has been the universal conviction of those Christians who have studied these subjects; and this for very simple reasons. One may be astonished that any one should call it in question, but I will briefly here present some of the proofs. To give them in full and in order, it would be needful to transcribe the greater part of the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Before producing some of these, it is well to recall the fact, that Israel is always the people of God; and if the affections of the heart and of the faith of a Daniel and a Nehemiah have called them so, nothing is proved thereby. Israel cannot cease to be the people of God. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance," and it is of Israel that this is said. God never ceases to consider Israel as His people; but He has ceased to govern them as His people, and to have His throne in the midst of them upon the earth. Paul insists in Romans 11 upon this point after their rejection of Christ "I say, then, Hath God cast away his people God forbid" (v. 1).

So that Israel may now be called the people of God, and ought to be so, as beloved for the fathers' sakes, respect being had to the election. Hence this is not the question. If Zacharias (Luke 1) says He has visited and redeemed His people, this is still less difficult to understand, because he speaks of the coming of Jesus, who was, in truth, to establish the people in the enjoyment of all its privileges as the people of God. This, then, proves nothing; for, if this proves that "Lo-ammi" was not applicable, because Israel remain the people of God, it is evident that they never will be "Lo-ammi," because they are always the people of God.

255 It might be said, perhaps, "But this is because Judah always remained the people of God." One could hardly venture to say so after the death of Jesus. But the fact is, that the apostle takes no notice of the distinction between Judah and the ten tribes. He speaks of all Israel, and shews that they are beloved for the fathers' sakes - that God has not cast off the people whom He had foreknown. Now this, evidently, does not apply only to Judah, but to all Israel, as the apostle expresses himself; and the distinction which he draws is between all Israel and the election according to grace. This will suffice for the moment; we shall see positive proofs of it farther on. Here I seek only to shew that the recognition of the people, as a people, applies to all Israel, and that it is entirely to misapprehend the force of the passages, and to mistake as to the whole question, to suppose that the faithfulness of God to His predeterminate counsel, and the precious faith of them that are His in that unchangeable faithfulness, according to which the title of His people is given to Israel, touches the question of the judgment of "Lo-ammi." It is to confound the counsels of God with His government. In all times, Israel is His people, according to His counsels, and the thoughts of His love. This does not prevent their being called "Lo-ammi" (not my people) as to the government of God. Consequently, the fact that Israel has been called "His people" at any given epoch leaves the question entirely unanswered of "When was the sentence of 'Lo-ammi' pronounced?" Only we have made a step in our research after truth, to wit, in that we have found that this concerns the government of God. For "Lo-ammi" certainly applies, as to the government of God, to all Israel, and to the ten tribes, at one epoch or another. And as to the sovereign love and the counsels of God, Israel as a whole are always His people. The question then is of His government, and we can now ask, "When is it that God, in His government of the people of Israel, executes upon that people the sentence of 'Lo-ammi'?" I am about to shew my reader that it was at the time of the captivity of Babylon.

It is certain that the ten tribes bore the name of Israel after their separation from the other two, and that they are presented in general as having the right to the title, the other two being rather an appendage to the family of David whom God would not utterly forsake. Yet the fate of the whole people hung upon that family, on account of the Messiah, who was to be of it, and of the temple, which was at Jerusalem. The perusal of the Book of Kings will shew that the ten tribes held the place I refer to; the Book of Chronicles shews the importance of the family of David. The last chapter of 2 Chronicles shews us that the God of Israel was thoughtful of His house and of His people, until there was no remedy. Lastly, 2 Kings 23 shews us that the sin of Manasseh was the cause of the Lord's saying, "I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem, which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."

256 As Jeremiah had said - "Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight and let them go forth. And it shall come to pass, if they say unto thee, Whither shall we go forth? then thou shalt tell them, Thus saith the Lord; Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for the captivity, to the captivity. And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith the Lord: the sword to slay, and the dogs to tear, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and destroy. And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth because of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem. For who shall have pity upon thee, O Jerusalem? or who shall bemoan thee? or who shall go aside to ask how thou doest? Thou hast forsaken me, saith the Lord, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting."

Compare 2 Kings 21: 13; Jeremiah 14: 7. Thus we learn that in the captivity of Babylon (for that event is the subject of these passages) the Lord rejected Judah as He had rejected Israel. He drove that people from before His face and destroyed Jerusalem, being weary of repenting.

Now, Hosea handles the case of Israel and of Judah, and his prophecy bears date of the reign of the various kings of both countries who reigned in his time. The ten tribes are principally the objects, inasmuch as they formed the main body of the people, and as their dispersion was nearer at hand; but the judgment of Judah is also proclaimed, and the prophet, at times, speaks of the whole together under the titles of "the children of Israel," and "my people": especially in chapter 4, as being the priesthood of God, while at the same time he speaks of the priests separately. The general application here of the expression "children of Israel" is explained clearly by its use in chapter 3: 5. The judgment on Judah is announced in chapter 5: 5, and 10-15; chap. 6: 4-11; that of the house of the Lord, chapter 8: 1; that of Judah, again, verse 14; of Ephraim, Judah, and all Jacob, chap. 10: 11; of Judah and Jacob, chap. 12: 2. The sum of these passages shews plainly enough the object of the prophecy of Hosea; it applies to the whole of the land and of the people, to Judah as well as to Israel; but the ten tribes are chiefly in view. The expression, the mother, includes both, and the restoration of the whole people is announced, chapter 2, when God will again become their husband. The point which is not treated by Hosea is the family of David, if not in chapter 3: 4, 5, in which the subject is the people as a whole, under the title of "children of Israel," and their history in a few striking words up to the time of their millennial restoration.

257 The expression "Lo-ammi" necessarily applies to all the people, and, consequently, could not be announced ere the captivity of Babylon, although great progress may have been made towards its fulfilment by the captivity of the ten tribes. The conduct of the king had, from the days of David and Solomon, been the question with God, in His dealings with His people, who were finally rejected on account of the sin of Manasseh. The impiety of Solomon had already been the cause of the separation of ten tribes from the throne of his family, and then the peculiar iniquity of these ten tribes had finally caused them to be delivered over into the hands of the Gentiles. Still, the house of God, the family of David, the priesthood of Aaron, the ark of the covenant, continued surrounded by two tribes and some other Israelites, in such sort that one could not say absolutely that there is no longer a people. Yet the arm of the Lord was already lifted up to smite Judah. One has only to consult Isaiah (who prophesied at the same time as Hosea), the declarations of the first four chapters, and the magnificent and touching appeal of chapter 5 of his prophecy, to see what was the judgment which God had formed upon the state of Judah.

258 In the midst of these circumstances, Hosea announces, first of all, the judgment of the house of Jehu. Then, under the (symbolical) name of "Loruhamah," he announces that the Lord will entirely remove the house of Israel, that is to say, the ten tribes. But He will yet have mercy upon Judah, and will deliver it, even as He did in the case of Sennacherib, successor of him who led captive Israel. Then He declares by another (symbolical) name given to another child, that at length He will pronounce the sentence of "Lo-ammi"; for, said He, you are not My people. Having announced this judgment in an absolute manner, by a prophetic act, after the judgment executed upon Israel, by means of which it was already entirely cut off, and having declared at the time of this cutting off that Judah should be spared, the evidence is of the clearest kind, that it would be by the judgment executed upon Judah that this sentence would take effect. This is by so much the more evident in that "Lo-ammi," by the import of the term, applies to the whole people, which was the object of the prophecy of Hosea. Immediately afterwards, the prophet, publishing the mercies of God, declares, first, that the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the seashore, and that then the children of Israel - here expressly distinguished the one from the other in order to establish their reunion in one - shall be gathered together, and shall appoint to themselves a leader, etc. We thus see clearly that the answer and the deliverance embrace Judah as well as Israel, both of whom were included in "Lo-ammi," although the judgment pronounced for the latter could not take effect until Judah also should be rejected, and thus there should no longer be a people before God. That God in the meanwhile preserved a little remnant, which He brought back in order to present Christ to it, is evident. The question which we have to solve is this - Did God, as to His government, put in force this sentence of "Lo-ammi" at the time of the captivity of Babylon? for that sentence must needs at some time be put in force.

Now let us bear in mind, that the question, as to this expression, is one of the relationship of God with His people, already broken as to the ten tribes (whatsoever may have been the patience of God, and the messages which He sent to them) by the separation of Jeroboam. For the golden calves did not maintain the relationship of Israel with God. Now, Jerusalem was the place which He had chosen, the temple the place where He had placed His name. The ark of the covenant of the God of the whole earth was there. The family of David, a family chosen for the maintenance of His relationship with His people, the Urim and the Thummim, means of receiving (by the intervention of the priesthood) light and direction from God, were there. Now, not only had Judah sinned, but the family of David, upon the conduct of which all depended, had failed in fidelity. There was no remedy (2 Chron. 36: 16), and God must reject Judah as He had rejected Israel.

259 But in this case the act is more solemn, because the house of God, the throne of God (dwelling) between the cherubim, the royal authority, which was of God, which "sat on the throne of the Lord" (1 Chron. 29: 23), His Urim and His Thummim, were in question. But how preserve them there in order to sanction the iniquity which existed? That would have been still worse, and God executes the judgment which He had pronounced upon His people. The house of God is destroyed, the family of David is led into captivity, and the times of the Gentiles commence. The sceptre of the world is placed in the hands of the Gentiles by the authority of the God of the heavens, an event of immense import, which exists even at this time, and which necessarily prevents the establishment of the earthly people of God, considered in the light of the government of God, because the reign of the Messiah cannot consist with such empire in the hands of the Gentiles. Now it is as clear as possible that the epoch of the restoration and blessing of Israel, when they will no longer be "Lo-ammi," will be that of the reign of the Messiah. For the time being the people of God is a heavenly people, subject to the powers which be, a people which has nothing to seek in the world but the glory of Him who has saved it in order to introduce it into the heavens.

We see then, at the taking of Jerusalem, the judgment of God executed upon His people; the ark of the covenant taken; the house of God burnt; its royal authority taken from the family of David (and this until the coming of the true son of David); the Urim and the Thummim of the priesthood lost; the throne of God removed from off the earth; and sovereign authority placed in the hands of the Gentiles. In a word, all that which, as institutions, formed the link between God and the people is set aside (observe it, reader), and by a means which renders the re-establishment of the people impossible, because the sceptre and authority have been transferred by God to the hands of the Gentiles.

260 Under the old covenant, all was lost; under the new, under the Messiah, all is yet future for Israel. Christ manifested in flesh has not re-established the old covenant, and Israel have not been placed under the new. Christ was personally perfect under the old, and when He shed His blood - basis of the new covenant, the time was past for Israel as a nation. If the grace of God proposed to this people the return of Jesus (Acts 3) if they repented, the people in their blindness stopped the mouths of those who made the declaration. This truth, that it is under the new covenant and under the Messiah that Israel will be recognized as a people, is of all importance in order to judge in these matters. We shall see that the prophets who announce the judgment by Nebuchadnezzar pass directly from it to the coming of Christ. We shall see that, although God acted to bring matters to this point by divers acts of providence, Christ, when the blessing is established, is always in relationship with the people as a whole, and that the existence of two tribes without the ten cannot accord with the accomplishment of the promises in Christ. He may come from heaven to destroy the wicked one; but once united to Israel, it is to all Israel: so that there should have been the re-establishment in the promised blessing at the time of the return from Babylon is impossible, if in that view that event is considered as a continuation of Judah alone as the people of God.

We will now examine the passages which prove that which has just been stated. That the royal authority over all the earth was conferred on Nebuchadnezzar is most clearly stated in Daniel 2: 37, 38; and even that this should continue until the setting up of the kingdom of God (v. 38-44); which renders it impossible that Judah during that interval should be the people of God, recognized by Him, His government being that which we have to consider. Israel is always "Lo-ammi" during this period.

I need not say that the royal authority was not renewed in the family of David. We nowhere find that the ark of the covenant was made de novo; certainly it was not so by the command of God; and, surely they could not make the tables of the law having the writing of God, which rendered the ark the ark of the testimony. We have, further, the assurance that no manifestation of the glory of God, sign of His presence, took place at the time of the dedication of the second temple, as happened when the tabernacle was set up, and when the ark was introduced into the temple of Solomon, and they sounded with the trumpets. So that the testimony and the glory of the presence of God were wanting to the ark, if so be they made one. The absence of these two things made the existence of an ark the plain proof that all that which could have given importance to it was wanting. That there was neither Urim nor Thummim is a fact also admitted by the Jews, and proved by Nehemiah 7: 65.

261 The absence of this mysterious token was a fact of the most serious kind, for it was thus that the high priest bore the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually. That is to say, all that which symbolized the presence of God, and all the links established of old and which maintained the relation of the people with God, were wanting, while the people themselves were subjected to the Gentiles by reason of their sin. God might come in in grace; He might send messengers to the little offshoot of His people which found itself at Jerusalem; He might bear with the mutilated state of institutions, the exterior appearance of which was re-established; He might, further, send His Son: all this He did; but He never cancelled the decree of "Lo-ammi." He could not do so, save by Jesus and the new covenant, when the links of the first covenant were broken, and Israel subjected to the Gentiles. He presented Jesus - the people would not have Him. He presented Him in the faithfulness of His promise; and it is evident that it was not according to the old covenant, under which Israel had been in relationship with God as a people: all was lost according to that covenant. The new covenant could not be established with a people who rejected its Mediator in Jesus.

There remain three things for us to consider. That which the prophets said after the captivity, and that which they said before, as to the means which God would employ in order that Israel might be His people, and, then, the manner in which the New Testament presents this point. I put in the forefront the prophets after the captivity, because we find there all that the Spirit of God could say of the strongest kind to encourage the people on their return. If in examining these passages we find that the remnant which returned from the captivity is not in them called the people of God, we shall also understand that the other prophets and the New Testament confirm this testimony.

262 Let us examine Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Never once is the people returned from the captivity called by any one of these prophets the people of God: contrariwise, in the occasions in which one would have supposed this inevitable, the expression is not found, but they say, that they will be His people in the last days. But in these occasions it is Israel and Judah: proof manifest that they were not recognized by God then as His people. Never do these prophets say on behalf of God "My people." Their prophecies are full of remarkable revelations on the subject of times yet to come, as also with regard to the first coming of Jesus; and they connect the blessings which are to come with the encouragements which they give for the time present; but never at the time, nor in reference to the first coming of Jesus, are the people called the people of God. While Zechariah is very plain in declaring that it will be so in the latter days, never is it said that God should dwell in the temple then, but He promises to abide there in the days yet to come. But it is after the glory that the prophet is sent to the nations who have robbed Israel; then it is said, "I will dwell in the midst of thee." (Compare Zech. 2: 810.)

It is said, "I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies; my house shall be built in it" (Zech. 1: 16); but the promise of abiding there is reserved for another time, when the four carpenters shall have "frayed away," and "cast out the horns of the Gentiles, which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it" (v. 21).

Again, in chapter 8 it is said, "I will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem" (v. 3); but, forthwith, we find the times yet to come in which God will cause His people to come from the east and from the west, and when He will be their God. For the time present, he says, "so again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah: fear ye not" (v. 15).

Precious encouragement! yet leaving the abiding of God and the title of "His people," as a hope for days to come, when (chap. 6: 12), "behold the man whose name is the Branch shall grow up out of his place"; and (chap. 9: 13) Ephraim and Judah shall be united as the bow and the arrow of the Lord.

263 The promises in Haggai are temporal, and the presence of the messenger of the covenant is promised for the house, but for a time yet to come, for it is when GOD shall have shaken all nations, the heavens and the earth - a declaration which Hebrews 12: 26 makes us understand is not yet accomplished. The attentive reader of the Bible will not have failed to observe that God constantly addresses Himself to Judah, or to the whole nation as to His people, by the prophets who spake to them before the captivity. Stronger proof one can scarcely have, that God no longer recognized Judah as His people after the captivity of Babylon, while, at the same time, He was vouchsafing to them the promise that, together with Israel, they should be His people, when He should re-establish them by means of Christ under the new covenant. I will now examine what is the light which the prophets who announced the judgment executed upon Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar furnish, and what is the epoch at which they declare that Israel will anew be called the people of God. They are the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. We have already seen that the Lord, weary of repenting, would reject Judah as He had rejected Israel, and that He would execute, without longer deferring (Ezek. 19: 21-28), the judgment announced. We shall, then, now see at what epoch the prophets place the re-establishment of Judah in the enjoyment of the privilege of being the people of God.

Before clearing up this point, and examining at what moment the name of "my people" is given to Israel (I say to Israel because the two families are always united in this blessing), I will draw the attention of my reader to the solemn judgment which took place at the time of the taking of Jerusalem, which stamps its true character upon this, and gives the true force of the term "Lo-ammi," placed on the forehead of Judah, as well as of the whole nation, when it was led captive to Babylon, and on the import of the transfer of the throne to the midst of the Gentiles. The throne of God shews itself, and the cherubim of glory, with the wheels, the rings of which were so high that they were dreadful to the spirit of the prophet - these wheels which were as a wheel within a wheel; the cherubim running to and fro, according to the appearance of lightning, and the wheels in the rings were full of eyes round about. There was the likeness of a man sitting upon a throne. This was the vision of the glory of the Lord. Then he declares to the prophet the end: "An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations. And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the Lord," Ezek. 7: 2-4.

264 Then, having set a mark upon those that sighed and cried by reason of all these abominations, He visits and smites the wicked according to the glory of His throne, beginning at His house. But a judgment yet more solemn, announced by the most significant action, awaited the rebellious city. The throne of glory, the cherubim which the prophet had seen at Chebar appeared anew at the side of the house of the Lord, whither the prophet had been carried. "Then the glory of the Lord went up from the cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory," Ezek. 10: 4.

Wherefore this solemn visit of the Lord to His house full of imagery and corruption? Wherefore this unwonted glory? Alas! the reason was but too soon evident. Then the glory of the Lord departed from the threshold of the house and mounted up above the cherubim. The temple is void; the glory has departed from it! In vain the cherubim of gold stretched forth their wings over a forsaken mercy-seat, and over a broken law - He who, till within a while filled that throne of glory, had quitted it. Nebuchadnezzar might take possession of the temple as of a corpse. The God of heaven had entrusted him with a kingdom. The glory of the Lord had forsaken His throne upon the earth. "Then did the cherubims lift up their wings, and the wheels beside them; and the glory of the God of Israel was over them above. And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city," Ezek. 11: 22, 23.

The Lord had quitted Jerusalem; the throne on earth was given to the Gentiles. Has the Lord returned to Jerusalem to hold His throne in subjection to that of a Persian or a Greek? We have seen that, whatever may have been His compassion for His people, His presence has not returned to fill with His glory the new building. If God is not there, what meaning in the title - "The people of God"? And when is it that this poor but ever loved people will find again their blessedness? When will "Lo-ammi" be for ever effaced from their forehead, to make way for that precious title "Ammi"? God had already accomplished His word: " And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab; and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down. And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies," 2 Kings 21: 13, 14. As it is said in Jeremiah 12: 7, "I have forsaken mine house, I have left mine heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies." Already, at the moment of quitting Jerusalem, as He did before driving our first parents from Eden, He announced the deliverance and the blessing: "I will even gather you from the people and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel," Ezek. 11: 17.

265 But one sees at once that it is not of the return from Babylon that the prophet speaks, for it is added, "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh" (v. 19).

Now, we know with the most perfect certainty, that this did not take place at the return from Babylon, nor, certainly, since the first coming of Jesus. The prophet passes to the latest days, in order that the people may be blessed. Let us again turn to Jeremiah, who announced and saw the taking of Jerusalem, of which we speak. He declares in chapter 30 that God will bring back the captives of Israel and of Judah, and that they shall possess the land given to their fathers. David their king shall be raised up, "and their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them" (v. 21); and, adds the Lord, "Ye shall be my people, and I will be your God" (v. 22). In chapter 31: 31 we have the new covenant. There is also the question of Israel and Judah in verse 27.

In chapter 32 Judah is again restored by an everlasting covenant; they shall no more draw back from God, they shall be His people, and the Lord will be their God. (See verses 38-40.) Again, in chapter 33: 7, God will bring back again Israel and Judah. "In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David" (v. 15).

266 In Ezekiel 34 David shall be prince (v. 24). "They shall be my people, saith the Lord God" (v. 30). In chapter 36 we have the remarkable promise to which above all others the Lord Jesus made allusion in His conversation with Nicodemus, and which declares the necessity of that work in order that Israel may enjoy their privileges even in the land, and that they may be at the same time "Ammi," the people of God, and that God may be their God. We have also here the proof that this work (which shews that the people were not recognized as the people of God), is applicable to the people, such as they were at the return from Babylon, since the Lord so applies it, and that the promise of being the people of God cannot be fulfilled without this work of grace being made good; a work which was not made good in the days of the Lord, and which is not yet either, as to the restoration of the nation. In chapter 37 we see Judah and Israel reunited in a striking manner - the people of God "Ammi," and God their God - twice repeated and David king over them. They shall walk in the judgments and statutes of the Lord, David being their prince, in their own land for ever. Upon these points chapters 38 and 39 may also be consulted. These passages shew, in a way not to be disputed, that the epoch at which Israel should become "Ammi" (that is to say, should no longer be "Lo-ammi," for "Lo" is but a negation), was not to be realized until the last days, when Christ will be their king; that this was to have its accomplishment by that grace which will write the law in their hearts, when God gives them a new heart according to the new covenant, and all Israel will be there. Judah and the ten tribes will form but one nation which will never be divided nor driven from the land, over which Christ will reign for ever. And all this is said on the occasion of the captivity of Babylon, in which God rejected Judah as He had rejected Israel; as also that the promise of the return from the captivity which would cause "Ammi" to be named upon Israel should be when all these things therein recited should be accomplished; so that the period during which "Lo-ammi" is the name of Israel was to last from the captivity of Babylon until the return of the Lord.

Lastly, to remove all possibility of question, I add that the judgment of "Lo-ammi" was not executed before the captivity of Judah, for in Jeremiah 2 God still calls them His people. And to shew that this was not because the term "Lo-ammi" could not apply but to Israel, I quote verse 4, "Hear ye the word of the Lord, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel." On the other hand, the New Testament shews us, that then also all Israel was thought of, and that God considered it as not His people, making an allusion to Hosea. We have seen the Lord shewing that the kingdom of God, under which the people would be the people of God, could not come but by the fulfilment of the promises of the new covenant. And the Apostle Paul says (Acts 26), "Unto which [promise] our twelve tribes instantly serving God day and night"; so also James, "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad."

267 We have already seen that (Rom. 11) Paul only distinguishes between the election and Israel; the latter, in the last days, when a deliverer should come out of Zion. And the distinction was so lost at that time, that (in Acts 26) the expression of the twelve tribes is a neuter in the singular (to dodekaphulon). So, in citing the passage which speaks of "Lo-ammi," Paul applies it to the state of the Jews, before being called by the revelation of Jesus as Saviour, without distinguishing "Loruhamah" and "Lo-ammi." Peter is still more positive in his manner of expressing himself, and tells us in just so many words, that the term "Lo-ammi" applies to the state of the people before the revelation of Christ, while those who received Him quitted that position. I say "people," for it is without controversy that the expression "strangers scattered abroad" (parepidemois diasporas) belongs to Israel, while at the same time it restricts itself to such among them as believed. So that we have a direct revelation that the state of the people, after Babylon, was the state of "Lo-ammi." See 1 Peter 2: 10.

I believed it might be useful to present this point clearly for brethren who are interested in it. It treats not of the question of the Church, save so far as all truths are linked together; but it treats of an epoch, singularly important, as to the government of God, because God ceased to dwell upon the throne of the earth between the cherubim, and entrusted sovereign power to a chief raised up among the Gentiles - a state of things which is to continue under one form or other until the judgment of the world.

268 The question of particular communications remains - an important subject, and which well deserves to be clearly explained.

I have spoken with precision enough on the two elements of the truth in power in man, namely, the Spirit of God and the word, to be well understood as to what my convictions are on the subject. See "A Glance at various Ecclesiastical Principles," at the beginning of this volume. I have only to say that the pretension to follow the Spirit without the Bible may lead us to take for the truth all kinds of imaginations; and if one takes the Bible without the Spirit, it is making the spirit of man to be equal with God, and even His judge. But the importance of the subject is such, that we shall say a few words on it. I believe in an immediate action on the soul. When I spoke of particular communications, the expression is explained and guarded by what is added, viz., that there are no new truths which are not in the Bible. I gave as instances Luther and Calvin, to shew clearly what I meant. Suppose that any one understands the truth as Luther and Calvin understood it; that he had even learnt other truths also, which they had not laid hold of (such as the coming of the Lord, the restoration of the Jews, and other truths), does it follow that he will have the energy of Calvin or Luther? Was that energy merely natural? Had not the Spirit of God anything to do with it? When God raises up extraordinary men, is there nothing else in them but the understanding of the Bible and the natural character? For my part, I do not think so. I believe in the action of the living God. I do not believe that the sole work of the Spirit is to make me understand the word. Are there any other truths then which might not be in the Bible? Certainly not, as I have already said. But the Holy Ghost worked in those men in a way in which He did not work in others who have discerned the same truths. He made them apprehend in a most special manner the force and bearing of certain truths by communications particular to their heart and mind. He made them understand the application of certain parts of the word to certain things that existed in the world. He rendered them capable of judging these things by the word, and gave them to apply that word to those things with a clearness and a force which others did not partake of. He placed before them the true state of Christendom in the light of the word, as He did not for others, producing thus an effect which was much more than a mere discerning of the sense of the passages. It may be that the flesh came and had its influence. They were not guarded as instruments of a new revelation, because there was already a perfect one; but I believe there was an immediate and special action of the Holy Ghost, who brought them to think on certain truths, who made the application of these to their souls, who gave them a sound and true judgment on certain things by means of the word, and gave to certain acts a greater importance in their eyes by the consequences and scope He shewed them to be there, and which others, not being in the same way under His teaching, would never have seen there. They were to convince others by the word that those things were not according to the truth, but the perception they had of their bearing had been given to them by the Holy Ghost, and that on account of the work they were doing. The evidence of all was in the word; but the Spirit of God acted directly in the mind of him whom He was employing to produce certain convictions, and to employ certain portions of the word according to the times and according to the work He was doing. In a word, there were particular communications, although there were no fresh truths which did not exist in the written word.

269 Such is my conviction, and my adversaries may rest assured that there must be other evidence than what has been said as yet to lead me to give up my conviction. Do they really attribute the energy and work of a Luther, a Calvin, and a Zwingle, merely to a clear discernment of the sense of the word and to their natural character? If it be so, I am not of their way of thinking. I believe in a positive action of the Spirit of my God. If they believe not in it, I have no wish to share their convictions. If they tell me, But it was a particular gift vouchsafed to these. This is treated in the passage of the tract on Ministry, where particular communications are spoken of. I believe in the energy and action of the Spirit of God, and I believe in the absolute authority of the word, sole and all-sufficient to rule and judge of everything. If they doubt with regard to one and to the other it is for them to answer for their unbelief.

I shall be told, But there will be abuses. I believe there will, but abuses which we shall always be able to judge by the word, if we maintain His authority, and if we use it by the Spirit. There will be fanatical abuses, even where at bottom there is sincerity, anyone may see it without having any piety. Even with true Christians there are rationalistic abuses, which undermine the happiness of the Church, and deprive it of energy and life. It is difficult to reconcile the energy of the Spirit and the soberness of spirituality according to the word. This is only to be found, as indeed every blessing, near to God. "Whether we be beside ourselves," says the apostle, "it is to God; or whether we be sober, it is for your cause."

270 But I will go farther, and take the case of ordinary Christians. Does not the Holy Ghost act upon the affections? Does He not reveal Christ immediately to the heart? Does He not lay duties upon the heart in a pressing way? Does He not produce thoughts in the soul? When Christ says, "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him"; is this only effected by causing one to discern the sense of the word? When the apostle says, "Be filled with the Spirit," does this only mean, Understand well the word? When he speaks of a Spirit of power, is it only understanding the word? For my part, I do not think so. I believe that power is something different from the knowledge of the word, although such knowledge is the light according to which this power acts; and I earnestly desire that those who make these objections may understand that I find their ideas false, and having their source in unbelief, in an unbelief most hurtful to the Church; and I can hardly conceive how one can deny or set aside the action of the Holy Ghost in power, unless it be because one has not had the experience of it. For my part, I feel enough that it fails me in many respects to acknowledge its reality. and feel the need of seeking it more and more, while deploring my want of faith.

Observations on a tract, entitled "Plymouthism in view of the Word of God."

J. N. Darby.

<04006F> 271

When the tract which forms the subject of these few pages was published, I did not think it worth answering.

In the country where it was first brought before Christians, the subject of which it treats had been amply discussed in other pamphlets; and Christians were sufficiently supplied with arms to enable them to defend themselves against the errors which it contains. Its intrinsic character was not such as would invite a serious person to answer it.

But in other countries the enemy has taken advantage of the fact of this article having remained unanswered. It has been reprinted in France, and circulated in places where Christians have had scarcely any opportunity for information on the points of which it treats. Triumph is easy where there is but one party engaged in the combat. Besides, one finds by experience that charity should hardly suppose that the mass of the faithful will judge what is presented, as unanswered, to their consideration; and above all if he who presents it has a just claim to their respect. Happily the faithful are for the most part occupied with other things than questions; but when once questions are laid before them, it is well that they should listen to what there is to be said on the part of those who have been attacked.

I will justify what I have said as to the insignificancy of the pamphlet of which I speak, by shewing that, whilst written (according to what those who are well informed say) by an elder of the new Evangelical Church at Geneva,* it gives evidence of such ignorance of the word as ought, it seems to me, to have induced its author to remain silent, as being the most suitable course, if at least he desires the respect which one would suppose due to a person invested with the title of Elder.

{* Since the printing of the first edition of this short treatise one of the elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva has acknowledged himself the author of the article which is refuted in these pages.}

My answer will be a very short one. I do not wish to weary either my reader or myself.

Setting aside all the extravagancies and personal accusations of the author of this tract, I will quote the exposition which he gives (p. 6) of the system which he condemns. He makes out that we say:

272 "Men having failed to meet the intentions of God, by transgressing, or rather by perverting, the laws and ordinances which He had given them for their security, therefore God suppressed the economy which had failed, in order to substitute another for it. There was consequently sin in wishing to re-establish what God had suppressed."

It is not thus that I should present my thought, for God is far from suppressing an economy as soon as man has failed to fulfil his duty under this economy. God uses long forbearance. He employs all sorts of means to recall man to his duty, until, as it is expressed in the word, there is no remedy. This is what He has shewn even with regard to those who did not enjoy a covenant, announcing to Abraham that his seed should go down into Egypt; and God adds that it should not yet possess the promised land, because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full (Gen. 15: 13-16).

The author will forgive my speaking openly; but really he does not know what he says. If God has suppressed anything, would it not be sin to wish to set it up again? The consequence he condemns, in what he imputes to the brethren, is perfectly just, and it would be an utter want of respect towards God to deny it.

The author will say, This is not what I deny; I deny that anything has been suppressed. It is not the consequence that I deny, but the fact itself whence it is deduced. God has suppressed nothing. The proposition therefore is true and incontestable. It is the fact alone on which it is founded that is disputed.

Let us remember, reader, that we are speaking of dispensations, of an order of things established by God, according to which He governs men who are in a relationship with Himself.

Has not God suppressed the order of things called Judaism?

Are we under the Jewish dispensation? Is it not true that God has substituted the Christian dispensation for the Jewish economy, or the dispensation of the law? Every one knows that. And he who would now pretend to re-establish the Jewish dispensation would be guilty of sin. The author has not really understood what he disputes; he gives a wrong expression to my thought. But still, if even my thought were what he makes it out to be, to oppose it as he does would only be folly.

273 Men having come short of God's intentions, God has suppressed or set aside a fallen dispensation, and has substituted another for it. It would be sin to wish to re-establish what God has suppressed, unless we are permitted to become Jews again. But it will be said, It is impossible to suppose that the author could mean to say that the Jewish dispensation has not been set aside and that another has been substituted for it.

And, indeed, reader, no one could have supposed it; but it is what one may read in this tract written by an elder (ordained to "hold fast the faithful word as he has been taught," "to exhort by sound doctrine," and "to preserve the assembly from false doctrines").

This is what he says: "In Leviticus 26: 14-16 we read, 'But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; and if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you,' etc. Then follows the exposition of the judgments reserved for those who shall have rejected the statutes and the covenants, but not a word of the withdrawal of the statutes or covenants which had been Satanized. Isaiah says (chap. 31: 2), 'He will bring evil and will not call back his words.' In Psalm 111 we read, 'He will ever be mindful of his covenant.' 'All his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever.' The holy scriptures are full of threatenings against those who shall pervert or transgress the law; but nothing leaves room for the supposition that, on account of the transgressions, a new law is to be substituted for the first."

One can scarcely imagine such ignorance. The unconditional promises made to Abraham, the covenant of God made with him, the conditional covenant of Sinai, the law in its moral substance, the statutes and ordinances set up for a time amongst the Jews, and the immutable word of God, as well as the words of Jesus, all that, it is true, is jumbled together in this article, as may be seen by comparing what I have just quoted from it with what is said afterwards. But I do not wish to weary my reader by shewing all the confusion that reigns there. I shall confine myself to the main points of the author's assertion: "Not a word about the withdrawal of statutes or of the covenants": "Nothing leaves room for the supposition that on account of the transgressions a new law must be substituted for the first."

274 For my part, I did not think that there was any one, bearing the name of Christian, or any child learning his catechism, who could be ignorant that a new covenant was of necessity to be substituted for the old covenant of Sinai.

I shall now confront the teaching of the tract which I have just quoted, in comparison with the declarations of the word of God.

"But now hath he [Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant, etc." (Heb. 8: 6-10). "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away," Heb. 8: 13.

Do you see? A person desires, as being an elder, to teach and hold fast the faithful word, and tells us that there is not a word about the withdrawal of the covenant made with the Jews.

The attentive reader may perceive that in the chapter of the book quoted by the tract, the Spirit of God says nothing about the covenant of Sinai, and returns in its promises to those made without condition to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. (Lev. 25: 42; compare also Isa. 6: 38.) But it would be useless to enter into such distinctions, in replying to a tract which, in presence of the positive declarations of the New Testament, can hold such language as this one does.

Note that, according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is a first, or old covenant, and that there is also a second; that the first was ready to be abolished, and this was because Israel had not continued in the covenant that God had made with them; and that on every point the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly affirms what the tract denies, attributing it to the system which it calls Plymouthism.

275 The author seems to take pleasure in using all the words which could shew that he stands in open contradiction to the word of God about everything.

He not only tells us that a new covenant cannot take place, but that a new law cannot be substituted for the first.

Here is what the word says: "For, the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," Heb. 7: 12, 18.

The same principle is laid down in chapter 10. "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second" (v. 9).

But the author is not contented with saying directly contrary to the word through ignorance of its contents; he must twist it by omitting, through a prepossession which causes him to mistake the bearing of it, the most essential words of the passage in Matthew 5: 18, which he quotes, "For, He says, 'Verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass till all be fulfilled.'"

Then the author adds:

"Either we are much mistaken, or this really includes the universality of the economies, of the institutions and ordinances of Jehovah as far as they are contained in His word. As to ourselves we do not know of any others."

All this has a defect, and a defect of the most essential kind. The author has omitted the words "from the law." The Lord Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass one jot or tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Then, after this omission, the author insists on its being a question of all the dispensations in this passage.

The truth is, he does not know what is the matter in question. No one doubts but that the law and prophets will be fulfilled some day. This is not the question. The point is to know whether the dispensation under which the law subsisted in its integrity as a rule of the government of God, and under which the prophets exercised their ministry, has not been replaced by another.

If the prophets foretold that there would be a new dispensation and a new covenant, does the setting aside of the old one under which they prophesied, and the setting up of the new one that they foretold, invalidate their word? On the contrary, this event fulfils it. But its fulfilment is in the abolition of the preceding dispensation and in the setting up of a new one.

276 If the law brought nothing to perfection, if there has been the introduction of a better hope founded on better promises, and if God has introduced this better hope (the figures for the present time and the whole system founded on them being suppressed to make room for that which was better), does this weaken the force of those figures? On the contrary, they are accomplished in the reality that was foreshadowed; but the system established on the use of them is abolished.

If the law, looked at even in its moral and eternal power, curses him who infringes it, and if Christ has borne this curse, does this striking proof of the authority of the law weaken it? Clearly not. Nothing gives such a testimony to it. Does it therefore continue to be the principle according to which our relationships with God exist? Certainly not. We should be lost if it were so. We are no longer under law but under grace; Rom. 6: 14, 15. "It [the law] was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made," Gal. 3: 19.

Having thus placed the author's assertion about the withdrawal of the covenant in its true light, I will add a few passages which clearly prove that, historically, God threatened the Jews to set them aside - looked at as placed under the dispensation of the law - and that He did set them aside in consequence of their sins. Jehovah never forsakes the unconditional covenant which He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and He often recalls it in grace. Read Deuteronomy 4: 23-31; chap. 8: 19, 20; chap. 28: 63-68; chap. 29: 28; chap. 30: 17, 18. All these passages shew plainly that judgment has fallen upon Israel by reason of their sins. By this judgment the relationships formed between God and Israel under the law, these relationships, the existence of which depended expressly on the people's obedience (Exod. 19: 5), have been entirely interrupted and even terminated. The first covenant, that of Sinai, has been suppressed - abolished, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, in order to give place to another.

The word declares the same thing with regard to the kingly power, which was the means God in His goodness used to maintain His relationships with Israel. The relationships of Israel with God by its means were broken through the iniquity of the kings; 1 Chron. 28: 7. The kingdom was set up conditionally. Compare 2 Chronicles 7: 17-22, where we see that the whole nation has to undergo the consequences of unfaithfulness. We see (2 Kings 23: 26, 27) that the judgment of Israel was in fact brought on by the iniquity of king Manasseh. And Israel has become Lo-ammi (that is to say, the relationships between God and Israel have been entirely broken off), and that, as the prophets had so often said and repeated to the Israelites, on account of their iniquity. And I would call your attention to this, the covenant and dispensation have been set aside. God used perfect patience; but when even His Son, who could have restored all things, was rejected by the Jews, there was no longer any way for maintaining them in blessing on the old footing. The vineyard was taken from this people and entrusted to others.

277 Perhaps I shall be told, We fully admit this; but it was the husbandmen who were punished: the dispensation was not suppressed; the law was not altered.

Without repeating passages, which have been already quoted on this subject, I shall confine myself to the statements, that if you say that we are still under law, you do not know what the gospel is: if you say that we are under the same dispensation, you are ignorant of what Christianity is. The Jewish dispensation is not the Christian dispensation, and Christianity is in nowise the Levitical system. This system is suppressed. It is suppressed because of the sins of those who ought to have conformed to it.

We admit that this has happened to the Jews (people may perhaps say, giving up those assertions the absurdity of which might be evident to a child), but it will not be true of the Gentile.

I reply again: The word of God tells us the contrary. The apostle says (Rom. 11: 22), "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off" That is, the apostle applies to us what has been fulfilled with regard to the Jews. Notice also that this is on account of sin.

The principles of the tract are therefore entirely anti-scriptural.

In order to be convinced of it, one has only to compare the assertions contained in page 10 of the tract, with the quotations I have given from the Epistle to the Hebrews (quotations in which the apostle expressly contradicts what the author of the tract affirms).

278 Besides, the author advances a principle which it is important to take up: -

"The duration of the dispensation depends therefore neither on the faithfulness or on the unfaithfulness of Christians, but it abides independently of them, maintained by the powerful and unchangeable will of the Lord and visibly recorded in the word."

That God makes everything to serve towards the infallible accomplishment of His will is true; but to make use of this truth in order to deny the consequences of the responsibility of man placed under God's government on the earth, is anything but sound doctrine.

The Christian dispensation will doubtless "fill up the period allotted to it." That is not the point. The question is to know whether God will not put an end to this dispensation on account of the sins and the rebellion of those who ought to have glorified Him according to the principles of the dispensation and the privileges which are granted in it. Now, the revelation of God is positive with respect to this. The second appearing of the Lord, to which the author alludes, has for its object the execution of judgment on the apostasy, which has ripened into open revolt against Himself. The kings of the earth will make war against the Lamb. No one will be permitted to buy or sell unless they take the mark of the beast. This terrible day will not come without the consummation of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin whom the Lord will destroy by His appearing. This day will come as a thief in the night. Jehovah will even plead against all flesh. But the most terrible part of this terrible day, from which the Lord will return having His garments dyed with blood, will be the judgment of the apostates and rebels.

The author says, "faith will be changed into sight, and hope into reality"; but he does not know what he is talking about. When will that take place? We shall go to meet our Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord. But the dispensation on the earth will be ended by the apostasy which will give birth to antichrist, and by judgment, that is, it will be suppressed on account of sin. According to the threat (Rom. 11) already quoted, the Gentiles not having continued in the goodness of God, the system will be put an end to by a cutting off. The passages of which I have just given a summary, are they not clear and categorical? (See Matt. 13; Rev. 19; 2 Thess. 2; 1 Thess. 5; the end of Rev. 13 and Isaiah 66.) Moreover, time would fail me to quote passages which prove that this dispensation will be put an end to by the judgment executed against those who, having been placed under its influence, shall have been found in the apostasy and the rebellion. The whole of the Apocalypse is only a revelation of that which concerns this great truth. The glory mentioned in this book is not the re-establishment of what has failed. That which has failed is judged and an entirely different glory set up.

279 On all these points the tract is utterly opposed to the word of God; and in contending against the truth, the author has shewn to what a degree the system which he maintains is opposed to truth, to the positive testimony of the word.

In the details in which a simple mind might find more difficulty. As to the re-establishment of certain means of blessing which belong to a dispensation, while this dispensation has not yet been cut off, the author is scarcely more fortunate than in what concerns the economy itself. All that is said (page 9) with reference to the Jews has nearly as little foundation. The author says that the ark only was wanting: he is mistaken. He says that the ark was a symbol of the Lord's presence: it was no such thing. The presence of the Lord was, without a figure, in the temple built by Solomon. Jehovah was seated between the cherubim; the ark served as His footstool. The whole of this remarkable object was His throne. The presence of Jehovah was manifested by a visible appearing of glory, which Israel beheld when it filled the temple. This was wanting in the temple after the captivity. The ark also was wanting, and the blood of atonement could not be put upon the mercy-seat. The Urim and Thummim, by which the high priest received the answers of Jehovah, were also wanting. The kingly power of the house of David was wanting. Israel was under Gentile dominion. Now it is not a question of knowing whether, in His patience, God bore with this condition of things and blessed Israel in spite of the absence of those means of blessing; nor of knowing whether in mercy He sent His Son, in whose Person all the blessings and means of blessing were united. No one doubts it.

What the author had to shew is, that it was possible for man again to set up that which had been lost through his failure. He will not dare to deny, that the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the manifestation of God's glory in the temple, the possession of the kingly power by the house of David, were lost through the iniquity of the Jews; and that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was in consequence of the sins of the Jews. Well! was it possible for men to re-establish what depended thus on the power, authority, and grace of God? No; they could not do it. The ark was not again made; the Urim and Thummim were not re-established; the presence of the glory was not restored to the temple. The author may be bold enough to assert that the Mosaic economy was continued in its fulness, although all that was most precious, and even the presence of Jehovah, were lost; but what thoughtful reader will believe him? The Lord tells us of the generation with which He had to do, that the devil would find in it a house swept, garnished, and empty. Was it in its fulness without an ark, without the glorious presence of God, without the Urim and Thummim; that is to say, without the divine communications of the high priest with God as an oracle? without a king, the people being subjected by the Gentiles? The ordinances were not abolished, but the means of blessing had in a great measure disappeared. The Lord's body was the true temple. In order not to offend them, He submitted to what was required.

280 Neither must it be supposed, that what the author puts between inverted commas is a quotation from some writing of the brethren; they are only the author's own words. He tells us that we must resist the devil, and that Plymouthism says, Yield him the victory; but the conclusion which he deduces from this accusation is most remarkable: "Therefore the ordinances and offices which the Lord in His great wisdom had given to the assemblies by the apostles," . . . "exist therefore in their integrity."

I seek in vain the motive of this "therefore." Even in going three preceding pages back the difficulty is not removed.

It can hardly be anything else but that the ark was not rebuilt; that the communications of the high priest with God, by the mysterious means that Moses had appointed, no longer existed; that the sovereignty established by God had been set aside, and was not restored to the throne; it can hardly have been anything but these main facts which prove that, in the Church also, everything exists as at the beginning. The kingly office, so eminently important in Israel, did not exist in its integrity when Christ was rejected and crucified. On what then is this "therefore" founded?

281 However here is the object of all this. Since the word speaks of elders, we must make some. But the word spoke of the ark, of the Urim and Thummim, of a king: nevertheless men were not able to make them. The word mentions tongues: why not speak in them now? of miracles: why not do some? And not only that; it speaks of apostles: why not establish some? This is certainly an office.

These gentlemen cannot do it. The word is not the only thing necessary; but in certain cases there must be authority, in every case power, and this is what they do not possess. They pretend to be quite able to do without it. If you ordain elders, ordain apostles also, or be such yourselves. If the spirit of anarchy is rife, they will be more useful still than your elders; they will even be necessary, for it appears, from what the apostle says in Acts 20, that they were the only effectual barriers against the evil. But you cannot. You pretend to appoint elders, and, in order to do so, you abandon the word of God. According to what we read in the word, they were established when that was done officially, as you pretend to do it, by the apostles or by their delegates. In this, you cannot follow the word. The tract is a useful example of the result of such an attempt. I say this seriously. I believe that God warrants it. He who has been established as an elder to maintain sound doctrine declares to us that a covenant could not be withdrawn and replaced by another.

As to the author's reply to the first objection which he supposes, I say that in taking the Lord's supper, I establish nothing. You admit, "We establish brethren to govern the assembly." Who has given you the authority to establish brethren for this? To the second objection the author makes no reply, except a quibble on knowing and recognizing.* I answer, I can know and acknowledge all those who labour according to God in the midst of His flock. Shew me your authority for establishing them. That is the question. Here are the passages which teach me to know and recognize those who give themselves to the work, by obedience to them on account of this work: 1 Corinthians 16: 15,16; Philippians 2: 29; 1 Thessalonians 5: 12, 13; Hebrews 13: 7, 17. Now shew me the passages by which you prove your authority to appoint and establish them, as I point out to you those which lead me to esteem and obey them. An exhortation to obey is quite a different thing from the authority to appoint.

{* The "re," difference between "connoitre" and "reconnoitre."}

282 To know or to recognize thus practically is quite a different thing from an official appointing. I acknowledge my father, and it is my duty to obey him. Can I appoint or establish him?

In the third place it is asked, If we cannot apply the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to ourselves, how can we apply the other epistles to ourselves? Allow me to tell you, it is by not pretending to be the equals of Timothy and Titus, and by taking your place amongst the number of the simple disciples to whom the other epistles are addressed.

Besides, I am far from saying or thinking that we cannot use these three epistles. I merely say this, that you ought not to pretend to attribute to yourselves the authority which was especially given into the hands of these two disciples on the part of the apostle himself.

I add that what is wanting is, not instructions, as the author makes out we say, but authority. But here also the author is forced to avoid (not to say that he sets aside) what the word says. We have, says the author, the office and the persons.

As to the persons, to say that we have them is to proclaim the complete capacity of the persons known to the author. We may here notice that which under our present circumstances renders the moral acknowledgment so superior to the appointing. I can acknowledge all that exists without going farther than that which exists; and I can acknowledge what is existing even when the qualifications are imperfectly developed; whereas, in order to appoint, one must find that which corresponds perfectly with the apostolical description, as the author pretends to have done.

The author continues: "It is now only a question as to the method by which the assembly is to appoint persons to the office."

Ah! so this is the only question! It is first of all a question of knowing whether it be the assembly whose duty it is to appoint them, by whatever way it may be. "The word is silent," says the author, "with regard to elders." Doubtless it is silent as to the method by which the assembly was to establish them, for it makes it perfectly plain that the assembly ought not to establish them at all. It is not silent as to the method of their appointment. It speaks plainly, yes, very plainly, of their being established by others than the assembly, namely, by the apostle and by those whom he sent. We must be very prejudiced not to perceive that this phrase conceals the truth by an abuse of words. It is just as if I were to say, in a country where the crown is hereditary, that, as the constitution is silent as to the mode of electing a sovereign, the people may choose a king as they think fit. Only the case that occupies us is much more serious, because it is a question of the word of God.

283 However, it is not without importance to notice that, even by the confession of our opponents themselves, they are obliged to act beyond the authority of the word of God, which does not uphold their conduct in any way. They justify themselves by saying that the word of God orders them to do the thing. I reply, On the contrary, it orders persons to do it, the character of whom excludes you from all participation in such an act.

The choice of those who served tables has nothing to do here. The apostles would not meddle with money matters. Paul refused to take with him the money destined for the poor, unless there were some persons with him for this object, chosen by the Church, whereas on the contrary he, Paul, and Barnabas chose elders for the churches.

But here the author evidently feels his difficulty. He says (p. 20), "Each assembly may follow the form which the Holy Ghost may suggest to it." And (p. 21) "There is a way already pointed out by the word of God, for those who desire to conform to it."

He says it is not a question of constituting the Church, but of forming assemblies such as those which existed at Ephesus. What is the difference? For what the apostles constituted are but assemblies.

I shall leave unanswered all the foolish accusations which have been a thousand times repeated, that brethren do not preach the gospel. They are words worthy to be compared to those that a parrot learns, which knows only those, and even then does not know what it is saying.

The author says that it results from the general form in which Paul gave his orders to Timothy and Titus for the formation of assemblies, that his thought was that these orders would be executed everywhere. The author seems determined to shew in all that he says his negligence with regard to the word. There exists no given order either to Timothy or Titus for the formation of churches. Timothy was in an assembly already formed and remained there, and the assemblies to which Titus was sent were of necessity assemblies already formed. As for the subject which now occupies us, it is a question about the orders given to Timothy and Titus, about the conduct they were to maintain in the assemblies - a fact which proves that the apostle did not consider the authority of Timothy and Titus in the matter of elders as belonging to the churches. Had that concerned the churches, the instructions relative to these things would have been given to them.

284 The author acknowledges that "Paul ordered Titus to ordain elders." Why Titus, if, as the author pretends the churches were capable of doing it?

In fact it seems to me that by this tract the author has given us proofs of the worth of his appointing of elders.

The most important thing, perhaps, to be pointed out is the doctrine expressed in page 11, that "the duration of the dispensation depends neither on the faithfulness nor on the unfaithfulness of Christians." Not only is this proposition anti-scriptural, it is also thoroughly antinomian. It affirms that the government of God is exercised quite independently of man's responsibility. According to this doctrine, the sins of men have no connection with the judgment of God, nor God's judgment on earth with their sins. I confess I would not entrust the care of my child to one professing and maintaining such doctrine.

There is one point more which it is important to make plain.

Without being able to recall to my mind all such cases, there is not a single one that I know of in which the corruption of an institution is a reason for abandoning it: so little does the author understand what the question is. What I say is, that neither he nor his friends have the right to take upon themselves and to accomplish that which depends on the power of God and the exercise of Christ's authority in His house; and this is what they pretend to do and to impose on others.

Then I say that (when the sins of men have corrupted and ruined what God has established, so that in spite of His great patience He can no longer use it for making Himself known) He does not re-establish that which has been ruined, but He introduces something better. If the position in which the author and those who go along with him have placed themselves hinders their seeing a truth so plainly demonstrated in the word, I am sorry for them. There is nothing clearer for any one who has not blinded himself.

285 Before the cutting off takes place, it is important to bring the faithful to understand that the principles of the apostasy, which is to break out publicly, already work and manifest themselves, that this apostasy is there in principle, in order that they may not go along with that which will result in it, nor with those who adopt principles which deprive them of the power and discernment necessary to avoid this snare, and to resist it according to the testimony of God.

Perhaps the author will complain of my severity. I do not doubt his being a brother worthy of respect. If this is his feeling, he has to thank the principles and the men who have placed him in a position which has led him to write such a pamphlet - a brother, who, however worthy he may be, can tell us, that there is neither withdrawal of a covenant, or its being replaced by another, nor a changing the law! He will do well to think of the effect that may be produced regarding the truth of the course which he proposes to us, by the fact of his being able to present to us that office with which he is endowed - as consisting in this - presiding in the assembly, holding out the faithful word, as he has been taught, exhorting by sound doctrine, convincing gainsayers, watching over the assembly and preserving it from false doctrines; and that, being called to do this, it is he himself who then comes to us and says what I have just been pointing out, and, further, tells us, that the duration of the dispensation depends neither on the faithfulness nor on the unfaithfulness of Christians, thus destroying man's responsibility and the scope of the judgments of God.

I have nothing at all against him. I can even thank him for having shewn us what an elder of that which is called the Evangelical Church at Geneva is, and the worth of the appointment which has been made of such, by giving us a description of what it ought to be, in a tract which answers in such a way to the description.

What has been acknowledged?

Or, the state of the controversy about elders, followed by a short answer to an article of Mons. de Gasparin.

J. N. Darby.

Geneva, 1852.

<04007F> 286

You need not fear, sir, that in making some remarks on the occasion of your "Dernier Mot" (Last Word) I am attacking you afresh. That which led me to take up my pen again is the summary you have given of the state of the controversy. I wish to assert and state what that state is, and my position with regard to it.

It even appears to me that your pamphlet shews a certain compunction with regard to the contents of the preceding one. The least appearance of such a spirit should be, for a Christian, a signal for abstaining from anything which might hinder the return of the heart to better feelings, and destroy the first germs of such a return by irritating afresh him in whom God acts by His Spirit. This single reason would suffice for my not pursuing the path of accusation, even where you might afresh give occasion for it. It is this which decides me. But, in the second place, if this decisive reason did not exist, I have told you that you should be safe from all attack on my part; and I keep to what I have said.

You boast of the ground gained upon me in this controversy. I leave to you, without regret, the glory of the combat, if there is any. If truth has been manifested in a clearer way by this controversy, all will gain by it. Partisans alone will occupy themselves with the trumpet that a man sounded before him on his return from the combat. At least there will be but one of these trumpets. Whatever the value of these flourishes may be, they shall all be yours; the attention which they attract shall be directed to you alone.

But there are certain points which I am desirous of bringing out clearly, as they are in the subjects which have been treated of, because it is a question of truth, of faith, and of the consciences of Christians.

In doing so I would call upon you seriously to observe how far it may be said that Christian uprightness has been restored by your answer; and I would draw the attention of my reader to some grave omissions which regard what lies at the bottom of the question - omissions which touch the truth that the word of God puts before our consciences - without however entering upon the controversy afresh. Then I would prove where we are with regard to some points to which I have just alluded, such as the apostasy, and others besides. This is my special object in taking up my pen.

287 As to that which concerns the first point, the facts are in general admitted, it is only a question as to the judgment to be borne on these facts. I leave each one to give his own. I weigh the excuses which you make in your present pamphlet, without saying a word which might wound you. I shall do nothing but place the facts in their true light with regard to certain points, so that you may have them on your conscience, the attention of which, I believe, has been aroused.

You said, "It is here necessary to copy the passages from 'Plymouthism.'" You admit that you have not done so; you have only copied (p. 5) the thought, you say. I do not well know what "copying a thought" means. No doubt you had full right to "unfold your thought more clearly and briefly." No one contests it. But have you a right to say that it was copying the passage, when you had altered it much? And allow me to ask you, Do you think that "the thought is strictly reproduced"?

The passage from "Plymouthism" said, "That men having failed to answer to the intentions of God," etc., "from that time God suppressed the economy that had failed, in order to substitute another," etc.

This was the essential point of the passage. You render the passage thus in your second pamphlet, "When men had failed to answer to the institutions of God, and the economy is in fact by the sins of men corrupted and ruined, Mr. Darby asserts that God rejects it to substitute another for it." Is "from that time God suppressed the economy which had failed" the same thing as "the economy is in fact by the sins of men corrupted and ruined"? Is the thought strictly reproduced? You add, "Mr. Darby affirms that God rejects it to substitute another for it, and that therefore it is a sin to wish to re-establish in its primitive condition that which God has definitively abolished." Is "from that time God suppressed the economy which had failed," found in the second version of the passage? The second version of your thought is nearly unintelligible, it is true; but it is so, because it has set aside this sentence, "from that time God suppressed," etc., which is very clear, and substituted another, namely, that "by the fact of the sins of men the economy was corrupted and ruined," a thought which is not found at all in the first version. Now this was a principal point. Then the whole subsequent controversy turns on the question of institutions and their analogy with laws which cannot be corrupted, and you have changed "intentions" into "institutions." In fact, it was a question of the stability of ordinances and of their corruption. And in the sentence "in perverting the laws and ordinances," you have omitted "and ordinances" in order to leave only "laws," which indeed could scarcely be perverted, whilst ordinances may easily be so and in fact even disappear, which cannot happen with regard to the authority of a law. Were there not important changes in precisely the principal points on which the discussion turned? I leave it to your own conscience to judge.

288 Then you assert that you have "reproduced exactly the very text that is the object of discussion." "I have," you say, "copied verbally, between inverted commas, the conclusion that I thought was to be deduced," etc. In fact you wrote that which you copied afresh in your "Dernier Mot." Be it so. I did not complain of the reverse; I complained of this: you have accused me of entirely perverting the form of your thought by the subtraction and addition of words. You have, then, in order to demonstrate it, copied the passage which you have introduced here, and you have added: "Mr. Darby renders that proposition thus"; but you have omitted the half of what I have given, and that which contains the thoughts which you pretend were additions made in my rendering of it. Now I had replied to you that it was not that proposition that I had rendered, but that one and another also which contained the things which you accuse me of having added to the form of your thought, by underlining the words which demonstrated it - a warrantable accusation, if I had given only the proposition which you cited. You answer me now by reproducing the passage without saying anything about what you have omitted. Is this an answer? The question is of that which you have omitted, not of that which you have given; of which I do not complain This passage gives occasion for remarks, but I make none. I confine myself entirely to drawing your attention to the question, if it is an answer.

289 Every one can judge, if he gives himself the trouble of reading what you have written and what I have quoted, whether you have as to the substance said what I make out that you have. I do not trouble myself about the form. I speak of that sentence, page 6: "The author has not said a word of all that: it is Mr. Darby who attributes it to him."

Then you say: "I hasten to acknowledge that I have in fact committed a typographical error, but nothing more." But you take your stand on this typographical error (!) and accuse me of upholding (and that with regard to the conduct of the Saviour Himself) the doctrine of the rationalists. For you interpret this "all" thus: "In fact Jesus submitted himself to the law." If I had said that He submitted to all that was required of Him, I should have understood the accusation. It would still be unjust; for to submit to all that the Jews required of Him, is after all quite another thought from what the law required of Him on the part of God. I did not make this difference appear in my "Appeal," because the sentence entirely referred only to a particular case, and so evidently to that and to no other, that I should have forgotten to reply to this accusation in my last pamphlet as not worth the trouble, had not my attention been drawn to this point. Is it necessary to repeat that the words "lest we should offend them" are the words of Jesus Himself, when He paid the tribute money? I spoke of the people deprived of the glory of God in contrast with His body, the true temple, and of the submission of the Lord to that which the Jews demanded, in reference to this temple, and not of the law of God at all.

The author is mistaken in his interpretation of what the Saviour said. Jesus did not say that He ought to be exempt, as sovereign possessor and creator of all things. This interpretation destroys all the beauty of the passage. He says, "Then are the children free; notwithstanding, lest we should offend them," etc. As to "the accusation of treating this act of the Lord as accommodation, on account of the necessity of the case," I leave it "subsisting in all its force" for the appreciation of every Christian. It is founded on the fact that I said that the Lord submitted to that which was required with regard to the temple in order not to offend them. The author tells us that the "moral character of the Lord is impeached by it." James tells us "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." The author forgets that, if the remark refers only to this single occasion, as he supposes it here, he accuses the words of the Lord Himself of being a just foundation for this accusation; for I have only given them without commenting on them or interpreting them. I know it is myself that he wishes to impeach and not the Lord, but he ought to examine the passage, and know what he is about. I have given the words of our Lord without interpretation, and he says that it is attributing to Him this accommodation, that it is impeaching His moral character. Now in this case it is His own words that would do so. But this is enough on this point.

290 I will now point out the grave omissions in the principal point of which we treat, which are found in this pamphlet. Nothing is said on the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Why this silence? It is the part of the word which expressly treats of this subject. Nevertheless it is impossible to get one word of answer upon it. I do not ask that the silence should be broken. The silence itself says enough. But the reader will remark that this last pamphlet makes further advance in error where silence has not been maintained. We read in it: "It [that is, the temporary curse which hangs over them, the Jews] is not on account of their sins against the old covenant." How can any one dare to say this, when the word says the contrary? When God has said, "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant and I regarded them not, saith the Lord"; how dare any one say, after such a declaration from the word, that the temporary curse was not caused by their sins against the old covenant? I have already called the attention of the author to these words of scripture: to say that which I have just quoted, is only to resist the truth which they teach. I quote yet another passage, so much the more remarkable because it is part of a discourse by which it may be said that the relations of God with this people at Jerusalem are terminated. I speak of Acts 7: 42: "O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them; and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." Note this word Babylon, instead of Damascus, which is used by the prophet. Stephen refers the temporary curse, which now hangs over the Jews, to the idolatry of the people in the wilderness when they came up out of Egypt. No doubt they filled up the measure of their resistance against the Holy Spirit in what they did to Stephen himself, who bore testimony to a glorified Jesus, whom they had already rejected in His humiliation.

291 It is said that what put an end to the covenant of Sinai is grace in virtue of the promises, and not the sins of men. The passages which I have quoted and all those which I have alluded to in my first pamphlets suffice to refute this assertion "and not the sins of men." The word says the contrary, but I quote these words to shew that the contrast which people wish to make between the two things is without foundation. No doubt grace has replaced the covenant of Sinai, but that does not hinder God, who brought in grace, from putting an end to the old covenant, on account of the faithlessness of men to that covenant. The testimony of His word is positive as to this. No one denies that, when the first covenant was to be set aside, grace came by Jesus Christ. The question is: Why did God remove the first? Did not His wisdom find a just cause for this judgment in the sin of men? When Adam was turned out of the earthly paradise, grace took the place of the state of blessing, the enjoyment of which was attached to obedience of a law which was imposed on him. Nevertheless, it was a judgment from God which put an end to the previous condition of man, and did so on account of his sin.

But there is yet another principle concerned in this question. Could God have put an end to a conditional covenant - could He have taken it away - if man had faithfully observed the condition to which he had pledged himself? God had bound Himself to this covenant by a promise, if man observed a certain condition. In case man had observed it, could God have said, I will myself take it away, I will infringe it? I said that whosoever doeth these things shall live by them; but it does not matter; you shall not live by them: I have another means, and you shall live by that means - I well know that man could not. This is what God wished to manifest, so that sin might appear sin, and "become exceeding sinful"; and this is what He has proved. Now the anti-scriptural system which I have been combating will not have it that this has been manifested. It is affirmed that (not the sins of men, but) grace has put an end to the covenant of Sinai. But they overturn all the wisdom and perfection of the ways of God by this doctrine, resisting also thus the positive testimony of the word. "The two sides," they tell us, "of a covenant are perfectly independent one of the other." This is a singular covenant at all events. Man pledges himself by a covenant, and in this respect he is no longer independent. It was infinite condescension on God's part to pledge Himself in it; but once having deigned to pledge Himself, could He fail? If He could, all hope would be lost.

292 It is said that the existence of the economy is not confided to the will of man; it remains independent of him; it emanates from God, and only depends on His sovereign will. This is again an error. The principles of the economy are such as God wishes them to be, but the existence of the economy depends (because God cannot fail to keep His word) on what He has declared in the covenant itself, with regard to the conditions on which it was to depend, as well as of the revelation that God has made of His character in the word. Now in that case He has made it depend, not on the will but on the faithfulness of man, on his observation of the conditions which are imposed on him by the tenor of the covenant. It remains unshaken, they say again, until the Sovereign modifies or suppresses it at the time which He has determined for so doing. God may add blessings, no doubt, of which He has never spoken; but where does one learn that if God has deigned to pledge His word to men, He modifies His engagements at His pleasure? What a difference in the holy reasoning of the apostle in Galatians 3: 15! "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth or addeth thereunto." I do not doubt but that God does suppress the old covenant at the time determined for so doing. Every one acknowledges it. The question is, Why does He so? What is the time determined on for so doing? Is it not when man has failed, and when, in spite of the longsuffering of God, there is no other remedy? They here overthrow the faithfulness of God to establish His sovereignty.

The promises made to the fathers are without condition; God infallibly accomplishes them.

The promises made under the law are made under condition of obedience on the part of the people. "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." The fact is that, properly speaking, the covenant of the law was ended when Moses, at the sight of the golden calf, broke the tables. The relations of God with the people were sovereignly re-established upon the intercession of Moses by Him who said, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." The patience of God has continued these relationships and borne with the people. See Exodus 34: 6, 7, 27. Jehovah said to Moses, "Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." After the golden calf we find God introducing these words "with thee," which refer to Moses who had interceded for the people. He even calls Israel "thy people" in speaking to Moses.

293 The question then is not whether God had determined the time, but whether, at the appointed time, He does not put an end to the covenant on account of the sins of Israel - a point on which the word leaves no doubt, and with regard to which the system which I oppose stands in full contradiction to the express word of God.

But they go yet farther. "God," it is said, "exercised towards His people the right which He had reserved to Himself in the covenant. In virtue of this right He withdrew His glory from the temple, He communicated no more with the people by means of Urim and Thummim; the ark did not reappear. All these things were testimonies of the favour of Jehovah; they were suppressed in virtue of the penal sanction of the covenant. But nothing of all that was a part of the law or necessary to its execution. The priesthood recommenced its functions; the altar was replaced on its foundations; and the burnt offerings, the sacrifices, and the ceremonies were re-established according to the ordinances."

If the truth, which they seek to dishonour by the offensive name of Darbyism, forces its antagonists to place themselves on that ground in order to oppose it; if it is necessary to affirm such things in order to avoid the force of its conclusions (and this in fact is the case), it is impossible to have a stronger demonstration of the truth which they oppose.

When I read "Nothing of all that was a part of the law or was necessary to its execution," I thought that perhaps they were speaking of the ten commandments, or of the summary the Saviour gives of the law. Now the absence of these sacred instruments of Levitical worship had nothing to do, any more than their presence, with the observation of the ten commandments and the love of God and one's neighbour. The institutions do not affect their observations in the matter, unless it be as a means and a help, but in fact they do not depart from the question so far as that. These things, they affirm, were not necessary to the execution of the law, in its ceremonial part; "the ceremonies were re-established according to the ordinances." How can one reply to such an assertion? All the relationships of Israel with God "according to the ordinances" depended on this that the high priest put the blood of the calf and the he-goat once a year on the mercy-seat, which was the throne of the divine glory on the earth, of Him who sat between the cherubim. But there was neither glory, nor throne, nor cherubim, nor mercy-seat - the foundation of all the ceremonies was wanting. The ceremony of ceremonies on which all others depended could never be re-established according to the ordinances. Were the ceremonies re-established; and, yet further, the sacrifices and ceremonies re-established according to the ordinances, without the mercy-seat and without the glory of God to which they offered being there? Was not the mercy-seat necessary for the execution of the law on the great day of atonement? Was "execution of the ceremonial part . . . immediately after the return from the captivity continued according to the book of the law" without a mercy-seat?

294 It is not worth the trouble of entering more into detail, nor of pursuing this subject, in the presence of such assertions which have been made after attention has been drawn to the point.

But let us return to the summary of the state of the controversy.

First of all, it is not the primitive form of the Church which has become the property of Satan, nor, it is needless to say, the true Church itself. The Church has lost its primitive form. I can understand how a person, who thinks that all the ceremonial part of the law has been again set up without the mercy-seat, may imagine that the Church also had found what it had lost. One of these thoughts is worth about as much as the other.

They tell us that God does not reject the economy, but that He punishes the sinner.

The Epistle to the Hebrews, which treats of this subject here presents itself naturally to shew what God says. But they avoid recalling its existence, by saying Leviticus 22 is the constitutive act of the old covenant. This assertion is singular enough. Now the apostle says that the old covenant is set aside; the author does not deny it. Leviticus 26 declares that in case of the wilful sin of the people God would remember the covenant made with the fathers before the law, and keeps silence with regard to the covenant of Sinai.

295 We must seek elsewhere the positive doctrine of the word on this point, and we cannot have a clearer testimony with regard to it.

As to the continuation of the history of the Jews after the Babylonish captivity, God had announced that this captivity would end at the close of seventy years; which was the case. As to our present condition, He has announced that, if the Gentiles do not continue "in goodness, they will be cut off," and that the final result of the evil introduced in the time of the apostles will be the manifestation of the man of sin, whom the Lord will destroy by His appearing.

It is to positive revelations on these solemn subjects that I direct the conscience of my readers. To these solemn truths contained in the word of God, referring to a judgment which hangs suspended over the head of the professing Church, over that Christendom which is the result of the corruption of the truth and ordinances of God - in a word, of the corruption of the Church.

But now as for progress made on certain points: they say, "The apostasy of the Church as an accomplished fact has been abandoned." I repeat what I have often said, that those who teach that the apostasy is an accomplished fact are those who oppose my views. I beg the reader to pay attention to this, because, in remembering it, he will see what is the force of many captious objections. They apply 2 Thessalonians 2 to the passage (as also the 1260 days, years according to them). Now it is there that the apostasy is spoken of, which they believe thus to be an accomplished fact. One has only to ask M. Gaussen, or (if one wishes it) to examine his books, and no uncertainty will remain on this point. Or we may take the History of the Church by M. Guers, and the headings of the pages will point out to you "The apostasy commenced," "The apostasy in progress," "The apostasy accomplished." I do not know if they have been obliged to abandon it or not. As for myself, I believe that this apostasy, in its public and formal manifestation, is future. This is what I have thought since 1827.

296 Instead of having abandoned the doctrine of the apostasy, such as I understand it and as I have explained it, I continue to say that I most seriously believe that it is ever most important to warn Christians of it. The principle, which will end by this terrible apostasy, was already working in the time of the apostles. Jude points out this seed of the enemy as being already entered into the visible Church, and he declares that it is of those that Enoch prophesied when announcing the judgment to be executed at the coming of the Lord. To direct the attention of the Church to this germ of that which is the corrupting principle of the Church, and which is developed in bringing in an apostasy, an open revolt, is of the highest importance. This germ has been so developed since then, that its fruits have been treated by excellent Christians, as the full "accomplishment of the apostasy." I think that they are mistaken; but it is such a development, that morally they are right; and Jude speaks of a much more partial development as being that which was to be judged at the end: how much more then when the evil had displayed itself in such a way as to invade the world, to take possession of its power, and to establish its empire everywhere, as if this world were the Church, and the Church of this world! I believe that those who seek to weaken the impression of the testimony with regard to this evil, and to destroy the thought that it is morally the apostasy itself, are doing the work of the enemy.

I insist then, more than ever, upon this, that the result of that which is passing here below with regard to the Church is an apostasy, and that it is of all importance to point out that which has already taken place, as being this evil, as being, morally speaking, the apostasy, although its public and open manifestation may still be deferred.

Is it a little thing, that the evil which will bring down the terrible judgment of God upon Christendom exists though still bridled? Is it not important to give it its true name, its true character, although it hides itself, and because it hides itself? Now this is why people oppose this. The word declares that if this evil came in - and it shews that it had already come in at the time of the apostles - it would continue its course, would go from bad to worse, and there would be a cutting off, as took place in the case of the Jews. In a word, that judgment awaits the whole of Christendom, excepting the members of Christ who will go to meet Him in heaven before He executes it. They received the doctrine of the apostasy, when they could accuse others of it, and until it touched all the pretensions of the Gentiles, condemned by the apostle; then these doctors would not have it any longer, because their own pretensions and those of the whole of presumptuous Christendom must also fall.

297 I think that the forgetfulness of this solemn truth, or of its application to all that boasts itself of being Christendom, is a profound evil. The page to which we are referred does not speak another language. It is important, I say, to make the faithful understand that in principle this apostasy is there. I still insist on this point, and, instead of abandoning it, I entreat my reader for the sake of Jesus to pay attention to it.

They say that I have been obliged to acknowledge that the economies are not rejected the moment that men have sinned against them.

The author had made out that I said this. It is one of the passages which he has altered in what he said he copied. I have never entertained the thought, except to refute it when it was presented, if, by rejecting, they mean to suppress or to set aside. In the thoughts of God, however, they are indeed rejected; but His patience does not permit Him to suppress them till there is no longer any remedy.

However, if I were anxious to be very exact, I should say that what they say I am obliged to acknowledge I do not acknowledge, for I believe that an economy is really rejected as soon as men have sinned against it. That which I taught in the passage quoted is that God did not suppress it directly, although they have made out that I say the contrary, which I have never thought. The economy which is founded on conditions is, at bottom, rejected as soon as man has failed in these conditions; it is only suppressed (on account of the patient goodness of God) when there is no longer any remedy. That which they make out that I acknowledge, I do not acknowledge; that which they make out that I say, I have never said, but quite the contrary.

As to the re-establishment of the Mosaic economy after the return from the captivity, they do not quote a page of my writings as proof of their assertion that I cannot deny it. I suppose that I said nothing about it. That these institutions were partially re-established after the captivity is true: I do not remember having denied it. I remember having presented the Reformation as having a certain analogy with this event in a little paper which I published in 1827. I have remarked elsewhere that there are many things which could not be re-established. The author of the "Dernier Mot" says that the ceremonies were re-established according to the ordinances in spite of the absence of the ark. I do not think that he will convince a reader who knows what the blood on the mercy-seat was.

298 Finally, that the Mosaic economy was re-established, is what I do not accept, because it was not fully and definitively set aside before the coming and rejection of the Lord. The kingdom had been overthrown; worship had been interrupted, and never was completely re-established; but still there was a formal promise that at the end of seventy years there should be a return from captivity, their oppressors being judged. The author sends us back to pages 18, 19 of my "Observations." Now in these two pages I find quite the contrary to what they affirm, in saying that I cannot deny the re-establishment of the Mosaic economy. For this is what is said in them, in detailing what was wanting in the second temple: "Well, could men re-establish what depended on the power, the authority, and the grace of God? No, they could not." I said, "The ordinances were not abolished," which is quite true; they were not so until the death of the Lord, and as a judicial fact only when Titus took Jerusalem.

They dwell on my having "acknowledged that the economy of the New Testament is not abolished, and that its institutions still exist."

As to the first part (that is to say, the economy of the New Testament is not abolished), I have not given to it that name (page 15 of my pamphlet to which they refer us*). One may nevertheless say, with all safety, that it is not; but I fear that it was not this controversy which convinced me of it. We all form a part of it: at least, so I have always supposed. That its institutions still exist is a question which I have not touched upon in this page of my pamphlet. I have looked through the whole tract, and find nothing which has any reference to it, except that which implies just the contrary. I have treated of it at length in my "Appeal to the Conscience." There I have shewn that one may distinguish between the law of an institution and its practical state, in that the first does not change, whereas the institution itself may be corrupted in the hands of men, or cease to exist practically. I remarked in it that, in pretending to establish elders at Geneva, they have not acted according to the divine law of the institution. Several institutions of the New Testament still exist. There are some of them which have been deeply corrupted. In some places these corruptions have been more or less removed. There are some institutions which suppose the exercise of power in order to their actual existence, and that the functions which they suppose may be in active exercise. Now if this power is not in activity, the law of the institution is not changed; but in fact the institution remains suspended as to its practical official existence. This is the case with the institution of elders. The law about them is not changed; but this law supposes, in order to their nomination, the exercise of a power which no longer exists. It would not be true to say, in an absolute way, that the institutions of the New Testament still exist, or that they do no longer exist. I have said nothing about it that I know of; but this is my thought.

{*Observations on a Tract, entitled "Plymouthism in View of the Word of God," see page 271 of this volume.}

299 They say that I repel the allegation, according to which the system says that the victory must be yielded to Satan, and the institutions of God abandoned to him when he has seized upon them. There is no reference to this subject in the page to which the reader is referred. But I do in fact repel the allegation that one must yield to Satan.

But when they say "From whence it results that one must regain from him the institutions," I reply, It is a question as to what God gives us to do; and if the judgment of God has deprived us of anything, by taking from us the power necessary to establish it, it is not a victory over Satan, but a victory of Satan, when they pretend to do so, and that they thus do it without God and without the authority of His word.

Now, as to the complete retractation, it only exists in the imagination of the author. I have not made any retractation as to any point whatever that I know of I have not yet felt the necessity of making any, as to the principal point, that the apostasy has entered in principle, and that Christendom will go from bad to worse until God judges it. I feel continually more and more the necessity of insisting upon this, in order to awaken the consciences of Christians on this point. If I could cry with a voice which should resound through all the world, and make itself heard by all Christians, I would warn them of this solemn truth; as I have warned them in my weakness in the sphere in which God has placed me. I hope that God would give me grace to retract frankly every error into which I might have fallen, when I made the discovery of it. I do not doubt but that in many details I see more clearly than when I announced that solemn and mournful truth, in the presence of which there is only the coming of the Lord that can raise up the heart; but this increase of light and exactness has only rendered the truth which I announced more clear, more urgent, more solemn for my heart and for the consciences of all Christians. I hope God will give me grace to lay it ever more strongly on the consciences of the children of God. The opposition of the party to which the author belongs, the frightful doctrines by which they seek to overturn the truth (such as that which teaches that the past economy was not set aside on account of the sins of men), only render a faithful insisting on the truth as to this subject more urgent.

300 The principle of the apostasy, of the open revolt of the last day, is in activity; it has produced a system which is in opposition to God. The result of it will be the cutting off of all that calls itself Christian (always excepting the true children of God, who will be taken away), and the Gentiles, not having continued in goodness, will be cut off.

I openly own and assert that God has put an end to the Jewish economy on account of the sins of the Jews. I assert that He will do as much with the economy that now exists (if they will call it economy, perhaps not a very exact term); and that it is important for Christians to recognize the just judgment of God which is hanging over their heads.

A local and secondary question has been raised, only important so far as the solution of it resolves another more general one. It is this: can things which require power, and a special authority which supposes the integrity of the Christian system, be re-established, when this integrity has been practically lost, when the special authority no longer exists, nor the power by which this authority did once accomplish its task?

The question was as to the establishment of elders by the body which calls itself the Evangelical Church at Geneva. As to the author who defended the nomination which took place, this question is in fact decided. He says to us, "I do not pretend that the Church has followed the best course in the choice and installation of its elders and deacons. Perhaps it is possible to do it much better: I even think so in a certain measure. But it has acted according to the light that God has given it; it has been and it is blessed of the Lord. After having made trial of its ways nothing will hinder it from modifying them, according as the Holy Spirit may shew it by the word the course that it ought to follow."

301 The author, the elder who was chosen, thinks that the Church has not followed the best course in the choice and installation of its elders and deacons - "perhaps it is possible to do it much better." This renders it perfectly certain, that the Evangelical Church has not acted according to the word, for, in that case, it would have followed the best possible course, the only good and true one; it would not have been possible to do much better. It is impossible to have a more positive avowal that the choice and installation of the elders of the Evangelical Church of Geneva was not according to the word. This is what I thought, this is what I said, and this is what I still think; and it is because it is not according to the word that I do not accept it. That, when it has made trial of its ways which are not according to the word, there is nothing to hinder it from modifying them as the Holy Spirit may shew it by the word, is no reason for conforming to its course, as long as it departs from the word.

The question of the choice of elders, at Geneva at least, is decided for him who respects the word of God. I do not pretend that it is my arguments which have produced this conviction in the mind of the author. I do not in the least doubt but that he has derived it elsewhere.

As to the principal question, which is whether God has put an end to His relationship with Israel, under the old covenant, on account of the sins of this people, I leave it to the decision of every Christian who takes the word for his guide.

Another general principle is brought out by this pamphlet, which is of sufficient importance. It is, that not only is popular election the source of authority in the Church of God, but, supposing even that someone has been duly established as an elder, the people have only to be discontented and the elder must retire. That which the popular breath has created the popular breath can destroy. "It is now for you," it is said, "to examine before the Lord whether you judge me no longer worthy of your confidence, and if I ought to retire."

302 I have only one remark to add, to express my way of thinking. They accuse me of the omission and subtraction of words. If they believe this to be true, they would do much better to say that there is dishonesty and impiety. I like frankness; I dislike the habit of speaking of things and not giving them their proper name.

P.S. I do not read the religious journals, so that I do not see the attacks which they contain against what is called Plymouthism; but just at the time this pamphlet was coming out of the press, they put the "Archives du Christianisme" of September 11 into my hands, and I was begged to add a word in answer to the article signed "De Gasparin." There is as little pleasure in answering anyone who does not know what the question is, as there is in replying to those who make out that you say things that you have never said, and who, when you repudiate them, triumph in your having, as they say, abandoned your views.

However, I will add a few words.

They say that Plymouthism has tried several theories. First, it was the apostasy of the economies; then it was the corruption and the fall of the institutions; and, lastly, it was the impossibility of establishing elders since the death of the apostles.

Why "first," "then," and "lastly," as if they were different theories? I should not express these things as they are expressed here; but the expressions do not matter much. I believe all the three things together. Instead of one theory replacing another, the latter only prove accessory facts, which are connected with the more general one.

There is an apostasy of this economy (for I find the remark on the expression too trivial for me to employ any other). The institutions have been corrupted without the economy being at an end. And I do not exactly believe in the impossibility of establishing elders after the death of the apostles, but in the incompetency of those who now pretend to do so: their work, according to me, is antiscriptural.

That there is an apostasy, 2 Thessalonians 2 declares it of Christendom. That the institutions have been corrupted every protestant believes. That the method which they now follow in nominating elders, and which M. de Gasparin approves of, is not scriptural, is evident to anyone who reads the Bible, and almost confessed by Mons. de Gasparin himself. What is said of the three theories being tried one after the other, has no foundation whatever.

303 Moreover M. de Gasparin, as far as it appears, does not know what the question is. He says: "The Church and its offices belonging to the economy, and this economy having apostatized, there is nothing more to be said of offices and of elders to be set up." Why? The offices might exist as any other form, although the fundamental principle of the existence of the economy might have been completely denied.

I have already sufficiently answered that grossly antiscriptural idea, that it is not the sin of man which brings about the suppression of an economy. I beg the reader to pay full attention to this. Such an assertion (and it is approved of by M. de G.), is sufficient to judge the whole moral system which it is employed to sustain, and to prove what is the biblical knowledge of those who employ it.

They wish to make it appear that I have acknowledged that my first position was untenable. I am very sorry; but instead of believing it untenable, I believe it more important than ever.

I should have been quite ready to suppose that the first publication of my thoughts on this subject might have contained something inaccurate, as it generally happens when fresh light shines into the mind of man; but I have been led, by the attacks recently directed against this doctrine, to read this first publication again; and I find it more reserved than I should have thought, and very conclusive for whosoever recognizes the authority of the word. They add that I even expressly allow that the evangelical economy has survived the very profound failure of Christendom. Yes, I do allow it most expressly. Until now I have never found an idea to the contrary excepting in the dreams of my adversaries. Where have I said that the economy had come to an end? I have preached and taught by word of mouth and by writing that the coming of Christ will be the term of it.

That fine idea, that the economy of which we form part has already come to an end, is entirely due to the bright imagination of my adversaries.

As to the assertion which follows - that Christians ought to abandon the institutions to Satan - when M. de Gasparin can shew this in my writings, I will reply to it. Further, sin does not suppress the institutions, but the latter may be practically corrupted by men and abandoned by men.

304 The apostles, say they, have not enjoined the abandonment of their institutions. What a profound remark! But if men have abandoned them without its being enjoined - and if in consequence they have not existed practically during seventeen centuries - can M. de G. re-establish them practically, so as to bind the conscience, as the apostles did in nominating elders? If not, he causes divisions. He is guilty of schism in imposing that which has no divine authority, and in excluding those who do not accept that which is not according to the word.

They tell us "that, finally, they have proved that the duration of the institutions of the Church was everywhere fixed so as that it should equal that of the evangelical economy, that is to say, fill up the interval which separates the first and second coming of the Saviour." Where have they proved that? Now there is still the same sophistry here. "The institutions were to fill up the interval," etc. Have they filled it up? The law of the institution has not changed; but has the institution, as a fact, continued to exist practically? If it has, why so much trouble to prove that they have the right to re-establish it? Wherefore "discoveries" with regard to the means of doing so? No, it has not continued to exist, and it is because it has not thus continued that they seek by so many arguments to shew that they have a right to re-establish it by other means than those shewn in the word. Note this well. The law of the institution still exists; the institution does not now exist. It cannot now be re-established according to the law of scripture; and they seek to re-establish it, in fact, by violating the law which ever exists.

But again: Where is the duration of the economy itself fixed in the word? Where is it said that it should be long, and that there should be a means of prolonging its institutions? For my part, I deny that this is said. The scriptures speak of it in a perfectly different spirit. I plainly affirm that nothing is arranged in the word with a view to the prolonging of the economy, unless the sleep of the ten virgins be called an institution. That the Bridegroom has, in fact, delayed His coming, we know; but I challenge my adversaries to shew me any ordinance of God which sanctions the state of things which is the result of this. I assert that the word always treats this state as a state of ruin and of sin, which will bring in the judgment of God. This is the great controversy between us.

305 Now here we have that which, while allowing that it is not proved, is the avowal of the true state of the question. They tell us "that even supposing that the New Testament never presents to us the election by the Church, as interposing in the nomination of elders, it would not be less evident that God, in ordering us to have elders, and in taking from us the primitive mode of nomination and installation, would authorize and enjoin our employing another way. Liberty in the choice of means is the common right of the churches."

First. It is plain that, if there is a mode primitively ordained by God, that is the law of the institution, and there is no question of a liberty of choice.

Secondly. Besides, God has never ordered us to have elders. He has only given us the historical account of their nomination and of their installation. There is no command beyond the institution itself, according to the primitive mode, which (admitting the supposition) God has taken away. The institution itself as a law is nothing else than this mode which God has taken away.

Now has God taken away this original mode in order to establish another? Clearly not. We have not another revelation, and there would be no liberty of choosing if God had established another mode by His authority. Now has God abrogated the law of the institution? It is there in the word as the mode appointed by His sovereign authority. How then has He taken away the primitive method? It is historically the fact; it is the practical failure of the institution in the hands of men, and this to such a degree that it may be said that God has taken it away. For the law subsists, it has not been taken away. It is as an institution virtually existing amongst men: that God has removed it, as well as the means of re-establishing it according to the law of the institution, according to the primitive mode, you may say. That is to say, practically the thing has failed. God, acting in judgment (for He has not changed the law), has removed it. He has by this judgment rendered it impossible for man to re-establish it according to the primitive law of the institution; for (it is supposed) God has taken away the original mode. Then, although God may have removed it in judgment, man will re-establish it by his liberty; and although God may have rendered it impossible to do so according to the law of the institution (for God has taken away the primitive mode), man will follow another mode, will establish a law according to his liking. "It is the common right of the churches." Here is fine liberty! The law of God (I speak of His institutions) is attached to an exceptional fact, transitory in its nature; and consequently man may afterwards thus do what he pleases.

306 The sacred canon, you tell us, has preserved the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Yes, truly; but it is to shew a law of the institution, which you cannot follow, and to prove that, in pretending to re-establish what God has removed, you despise at the same time both the judgment which removed it and the law which established it, by re-establishing it after another mode according to what you call liberty, that is to say, your own will. For God has, in fact, removed the institution, and not the law of the institution, which still exists in these epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament, in all its force, so as to condemn you.

This is a supposition, do you say? It is your own supposition which betrays your principles in the conclusions which you deduce from them. But it is more than a supposition. "The discovery of the means, you say, is not difficult." This is true. Outside the authority of God, there is only the will of man. This is the path that you have followed. It is quite evident, that, if one respects the word, one has not to make discoveries. If you have any to make, it is because you have abandoned the word. If you do the work which you give out, I sincerely exhort you to examine more fully the responsibility of man, and its consequences with regard to the dispensations. This is the true question. It is not right to shake the fundamental principles of the ways of God for a question of elders.

An appeal to the conscience of those who take the title of "Elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva"; and a reply to one of them.

J. N. Darby.

<04008F> 307

Is it not true, sir, that this time it is not merely one of the elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva (for it appears that I was not mistaken as to the author of "Plymouthism," etc.) who has laboured to bring forth these "Remarks addressed to my Brethren in Christ, on the subject of Mr. Darby's last tract"? At least here is my reason for thinking so: I have not, it is true, much acquaintance with him who enjoys this imposing position and has invested himself with a title to which he seems to hold greatly; but it is well known that it is not a person who has lived in obscurity like myself and many others, happy, as I esteem it, amongst the poor of this world. He has lived in public, been deputed by churches and societies to represent them in other countries; in a word, he has taken his place in the annals of the evangelical world. Well, as I suppose, at least, he has always been found upright, straightforward, sincere, incapable of those subtleties, of those roundabout ways, those cunning devices which, when employed in a publication, fix the attention of intelligent men upon the author, rather than upon the arguments directed against his opponent, which bring under notice him who employs them, rather than him against whom they are employed.

I do not wrong you, when I suppose that you have always enjoyed the reputation which I here give you. How then could I attribute to yourself alone the little tract which bears, not your name, it is true, but in its place your ecclesiastical capacity, and which is evidently so far from that integrity and simplicity of heart which are the true glory of the Christian, and even of the man of the world? Must I believe that the system of which you are one of the heads is responsible for the change in the character of the individual, a change which ought so much to be deplored; and that your tract is in fact the expression of the general sentiments, the fruit of the thoughts and actions of the body of elders to which you belong? or should I rather say, do you see what the flesh is even in a Christian? This honourable Christian could not resign himself to being looked upon as beaten. He has associated with himself one who, aiding him in his work, has employed subtlety and insincerity, which the responsible author has not had sufficient penetration to discern or sufficient courage to reject. To confess one has been in the wrong if one is convinced of it, or even if one is not, to remain silent if one does not know what to say, this dishonours no one. But it grieves an upright mind to see the ingenuousness of an honourable person changed into the cunning of an ecclesiastic.

308 It is for you, sir, to explain how this has happened, and for me to give proofs of it, however painful the task may be.

Here are your words, sir: "Mr. Darby, not being able to answer it, entirely alters it (that is, the form of your arguments) by the suppression and addition of words. Here are the two versions in comparison with each other. The text of my tract is, 'The holy scriptures are full of threatenings against those who may pervert or transgress the law; but there is nothing to give room for the thought that, on account of transgressions, a new law must be substituted for the first.' In page 10 of his tract* Mr. Darby words this proposition thus: 'The author says, not only that a new covenant cannot be made, but that a new law cannot be substituted for the first.' The underlined passages point out the alterations." This is it, sir, is it not?

{* Page 10, first edition: page 9 of the second.}

Here is my answer. I have quoted textually, without alteration, addition, or supervision, word for word, what you have said on the subject of the discussion. (See pp. 7, 8 of my tract.) This you know full well, sir. I have done more; by giving it separately, I have pointed out the part which I desired to answer, as being the substance of your assertion. Besides which, the text of your tract gives more than what you say. You have not put your two versions in comparison one with the other; you have omitted and concealed the half of what you said in your first tract, the half of that which is the subject of my remarks. You have not acted uprightly in only giving a part. By omitting the half of what you had said, you have given to my version the appearance of having added to your thoughts, and of having perverted the form of your argument; because the first part of what I say refers to that which you have omitted from the rest of your tract which I quoted. You have acted without straightforwardness, sir, in doing so, or else some one has thus acted in your name. You have succeeded in attaching a character of dishonesty to your title of elder, if you have saved your name from it. I have no regret that this should be the case. I attribute what I deplore to your position, rather than to your nature.

309 You underline "on account of transgressions," as if, because it is not found in the first part of my answer, I had omitted an important clause, which modifies your statements. You know full well that, after having spoken of the change of covenant, I even devoted several pages to the consideration of this point. You cannot, sir, deny anything of that of which I accuse you. I pity you, sir, for having entered on this subject, and for having friends who have made you act thus, and have attached to a name which I believe to have been irreproachable such a mode of acting. Having exactly reproduced your words, it was in my province to explain their bearing in my own, and this is what I did. I have nothing to alter in them: it is you, sir, who have misconstrued my argument, by concealing the half of what you had said on the subject which I treat of in my pamphlet.

Here are the details. Before commenting on your words, I drew attention to the part which I wished to answer, by saying, "I shall, in the main, confine myself to the author's assertion." Nothing could be clearer or more straightforward. Here is this part: "Not a word of the withdrawal of the statutes or of the covenant." "Nothing leaves room for the supposition that a new law must be substituted for the first on account of transgressions." Thus the phrases in your tract on which I comment, are very clearly pointed out. How have you acted, or rather how have you been made to act? You say, "Here are the two versions in comparison one with the other. The text of my tract is, The holy scriptures are full of threatenings against those who may pervert or transgress the law; but nothing gives room for thinking that, on account of transgression, a new law must be substituted for the first."

Then you complain of my having said "Not only a new covenant could not be made," etc. In fact there is nothing in your version to which these words of my pamphlet apply. But why? Is there any addition of words on my part, by which I misconstrue your doctrines? It is not a question of words, for I give my explanation of your thoughts. I express it. I have added nothing. No, sir, the fact is that while pretending to present these two versions in comparison one with the other, you have yourself left out the half of that on which I comment. These are the words of your pamphlet, "Not a word of the withdrawal of statutes or covenants." Is this ingenuous, sir?

310 Then you say, "In page 10 of his tract, Mr. Darby renders this proposition thus." This time, it is I who underline, sir. Well, you have deceived your reader. It is not this proposition that I rendered. The text of your tract gives that which you have not quoted here; and that portion of the words now in question, on which I specially comment, is not to be found in what you have quoted of them. You have not given the two versions honestly as they exist in comparison one with the other. You have omitted a passage which I particularly pointed out as the subject of my comments. Why did you omit "not a word of the withdrawal of statutes or covenants," and then underline the words "not only" and "covenant could not be made," as if there was nothing to which these words referred? This is not, sir, the proposition which you indicate as being "that proposition," as you affirm, that I rendered. I called attention to the withdrawal of the covenant, which I desired to treat of as being at the bottom of the author's assertion, and the portion you designate, by underlining it, as if it were a misconstruction of your statement, plainly and precisely relates to what you have omitted and which I had quoted and pointed out. You have not, I repeat, placed the two versions in comparison one with the other. The proposition which you have given, as being the one which I rendered, is only the half of it; and the principal thing which you point out in my version as being inexact, relates to the part which you have omitted. And if the part which you have suppressed were found there, everybody would see that what I said was perfectly correct. Is the expression "this proposition" truthful? I leave you the task of appropriating the accusation which my question implies, to whomsoever it may belong.

As to the second expression which you underline, I see nothing in it which has been altered, and nothing to alter. You said, "There is nothing to give room for the thought that a new law must be substituted for the first." I gave as the substance of the assertion in your tract that "a new law could not be substituted for the first." You quote Matthew 5: 18, a passage which declares that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle [from the law] shall in nowise pass till all be fulfilled"; and you apply it most explicitly to the universality of the dispensations, of the institutions, and ordinances of Jehovah, so far as they are contained in the word. This is nonsense; but this is not my fault. You have mutilated the passage quoted in its principal point, as everyone can ascertain by comparing your quotation with the passage in the Bible, where it is said, "one tittle shall in nowise pass . . . from the law." But if a single jot or tittle shall not pass from the universality of dispensations, I am perfectly right in saying a new law cannot be substituted for the first. What is the difference, in the main, as to the author's assertion (if the word of God be recognized as an absolute authority) between "there is nothing to give room for the supposition that a new law must be substituted for the first," and "a new law cannot be substituted for the first"? always remembering that the author thinks to uphold his assertion by the declaration of our Lord in Matthew, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass." Explain to us, sir, what the alteration is.

311 I have not had the advantage of the teaching of the elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva, and the distinction is too nice for me. You have said that nothing in the word of God gives room for the thought that a new law must be substituted for the first, that heaven and earth shall pass away before the least tittle of it passes away, and I make out that you say that a new law cannot be substituted for the first. This is the form which I have given to your thought. Have the goodness to enlighten me, sir; for up to the present moment I cannot understand in what I have altered it.

But I full well understand the alteration which you have made when you say that I was rendering a certain proposition when there was another one still, and when you say that the text of your tract contained something, as though that were all, whereas it contained other things also, and it was precisely those that were in question, and which you concealed by omitting them. This distinction, which you point out as an alteration which perverts your thought, is too nice for the perception of those who are not elders.

But do not let us dispute about words, sir. I surrender to you all that you ask with regard to the use of your own expressions. I will put my own entirely aside. I will no longer regard it as sufficient to quote you textually, and then to give a form to your thoughts in my own words; we will take yours as the only just expression of your own doctrine.

This is what you say:

"There is nothing to give room for the thought that on account of transgressions a new law has been substituted for the first." This is exactly it, even to the underlining, is it not? What do you think of it? Is this sound doctrine, or have you indeed talked nonsense? Does not the word give room for the thought that a new law must be substituted for the first? What do you say about it? Pardon me if I use the Socratic form in my argument, and question you a little. You have the whole body of elders, the presbytery, to aid you in your answer. One of the elders will surely not refuse to give account of his doctrine. You will understand, sir, now that, reading in the word "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before," and "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law," "He taketh away the first that he may establish the second," and not enjoying the teaching of the Evangelical Church at Geneva, we, simple Christians (idiotai as they were formerly called) find it difficult to understand how there is nothing to give room for the thought that a new law should be substituted for the first. But you will say to me, You misconstrue my thought, you have omitted "on account of transgressions." But it is not so, sir; this phrase, in my idiotism, shuts me up in still further difficulties. We, who have only the Bible, without the teaching of your elders, have read, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord," Heb. 8: 8, 9. And again, Romans 11: 22, etc. We do not understand how it is not on account of transgressions that a new law must be substituted for the first, and how there is not a word of the withdrawal of the statutes and covenants, at least of the covenant, for it is necessary to distinguish between them. We have seen that it was upon those who fell that God exercised His severity. Now this severity was the cutting off of the unbelieving, the covenant of Sinai being abolished, as we have just seen. Is not this plain, sir? The law was changed, a new one is substituted on account of transgressions; the covenant has been withdrawn because Israel did not continue in it. We have been led to think that the words "because they continued not" fully indicated a transgression, and that it was on account of this that God substituted one covenant for another, and that this is the reason why God regarded them not. I venture to remind you that it is a question of the covenant of Sinai, where the law was given, and blessing under condition of obedience, and that it is also a question of the more excellent covenant.

313 I exhort you to read Hebrews 7 and 8 before again entering upon this subject; because the point is to explain these passages to us; they are an authority for us. But I must return again to detail.

You have underlined these words "on account of transgressions" as if I had omitted this subject in my answer, because it is not found in the phrase which you have quoted from my tract. Have I really omitted this question in my tract? Have I really neglected this thought which you have put forth? You well know that it is not the case.

I devoted pages 12-15 to the discussion of this point. In them I profess, after treating the question as to the fact of the withdrawal of the covenant, to demonstrate plainly that God threatened to set aside the Jews viewed as abiding under the dispensation of the law, and that He set them aside in consequence of their sins, and I end the paragraph thus: "The first covenant, that of Sinai, has, says the Epistle to the Hebrews, been suppressed and abolished, in order to give place to another." I have expressly treated of these two questions. Has the covenant been withdrawn? Was it withdrawn on account of transgressions? I have suppressed nothing, sir: you have deceived your readers, you could not deceive mine.

I have clearly shewn that a new covenant has been substituted for that of the law, and this on account of transgressions, by quoting on this last point Deuteronomy 4: 23, 31; chap. 8: 19, 20; chap. 28: 63 to the end; chap. 29: 28; chap. 30: 17, 18; Exodus 19, for the condition of obedience; 1 Chronicles 28: 7; 2 Chronicles 7: 17 to the end; 2 Kings 23: 26, 27; adding allusions to Hosea 1 and to the parable of the husbandmen, in order to shew that the vineyard was taken away from this people on account of their conduct. Then I discussed the question whether the parable of the husbandmen did not identify itself with the suppression of the dispensation and the change of the law. I also quoted Galatians 3: 19; Romans 11: 22; that is, I fully discussed all that you had said, even proposing, as a particular subject, that which you pretend that I suppressed so as to pervert what you said. But again, sir, the expression which you now give of your thought is not straightforward; what you say of it is not true.

314 You pretend that you wished to shew that God does not change His laws on account of sins during the course of a dispensation. But, sir, this is not what you sought to shew in your first pamphlet. You spoke of the withdrawal of statutes or of covenants which had been Satanized. Now to speak of the withdrawal of a covenant, during the course of a dispensation, would be pure nonsense. Your thought is very plain and evident. The covenant being withdrawn, the dispensation is naturally at an end. If your friends have made you ashamed of your mistake, you would have done better to confess it. The covenant of Sinai and the dispensation connected with it exist and fall together. It is only deluding oneself as to the meaning of words thus to distinguish between the two.

In using Matthew 5: 18 you assert that the truth contained in it comprehends, not only a dispensation, but the universality of dispensations. You affirm that it is an exposition of the judgments reserved for those who have rejected the statutes and covenants, in contrast with the withdrawal of the covenant itself, a withdrawal about which you say there is not a word in Matthew; adding, "He hath remembered his covenant for ever." It is not true that the meaning of your proposition is, that God does not change His laws on account of sins during the course of a dispensation. The dispensation ceases when the covenant is withdrawn. Tell me, sir, was not the hand of Joab with you in all this? And yet you have put your own to it. No one can mistake it; but the mixture of inconsistencies and subtleties has a curious effect.

I shall first point out the inconsistency of the arguments and the groundless assertions, then the subtleties, and lastly, the doctrine of the word. But before doing so, allow me to make a remark to you, which it is possible that you may not understand, although you be an elder. That which is very deep for the spirit of man often conceals something which is very simple in the eyes of God. You complain, as though it were a wrong way of acting, of my having accused you of advancing doctrines which are antinomian in their tendency. Well, I repeat this accusation, sir; and I add that in your present tract you have greatly aggravated that which you had previously advanced. I do not in the least accuse you of sinning deliberately, of saying, "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" I do not say this, because I do not believe it. I am convinced that you do not understand the full force of what you say. If you wish to know my whole thought, I do not even believe you to be the author of this part of your last pamphlet. To be sure, I may be mistaken in this respect; but, in this motley ill-joined piece of workmanship which your tract presents, this portion of it does not give me the impression of having been written by you. I do not doubt your first pamphlet being entirely your own; and it seems to me you might have devoted yourself to a work which would have done you greater credit. But I am far from accusing you of being the sole author of the second, and I shall not lay on you the burden of all that it contains of a bad and dishonourable character. If I have seen more sensible pamphlets than the first, I have certainly seen more honourable, simple, and straightforward ones than the second. Let us now look at the inconsistencies and groundless assertions.

315 You say, It is here necessary to transcribe certain passages from "Plymouthism," etc., in which, as far as one can understand it, Mr. Darby's system is formally expressed. Would you not have done better to transcribe what Mr. Darby said? Perhaps some reader may suppose that the "Plymouthism" is Mr. Darby's; but I beg him clearly to understand that my opponent pretends to quote his own tract as the expression of my principles. "He [Mr. Darby] teaches," says one of the elders, "what he calls the 'apostasy of the dispensations,' that is to say, that when men have failed as to the institutions of God, by transgressing or perverting the laws which He gives them for their security, the dispensation is, by the fact of men's sins, corrupted and ruined. Mr. Darby asserts that God rejects it in order to substitute another or some other thing for it; and that consequently it is sin to wish to re-establish in its primitive condition that which God has definitively abolished. From this principle it follows that the Church having, according to Mr. Darby, apostatized, the Christian dispensation or new covenant is rejected of God, together with its institutions and all that which concerns the formation of churches."

There are two things here: some teaching of Mr. Darby's, and a consequence deduced from it by the elder. Let us examine the teaching first of all. Where has Mr. Darby taught that? Would it not have been well if you had quoted some passages which would shew it? Doubtless, you have none. What could you do? Your sentence is, however, cleverly put together. It seems to me that your Joab has been here. The sentence leads the reader to believe that I teach just the contrary of that which, in truth, I have taught on the question which we are treating, but you do not say so. "When men failed, etc., the dispensation is, by the fact of men's sins, corrupted and ruined. Mr. Darby asserts that God rejects it in order to substitute another for it." "Rejects it"! When, sir? You give it to be understood that I teach that, when men have failed, the dispensation is ruined, and that when it is ruined God rejects it, and that thereupon it is sin to re-establish that which God has definitively abolished. What does this thereupon mean? You will not deny that if God has abolished anything definitively, there is sin in wishing to re-establish it. In that case your sentence has no sense in it; it has no force if it be not connected with "when man has failed," consequently making out that, in that case, I say, as soon as man has failed, God substitutes another economy. It is perfectly true that you have not said so; but in that case, what did you mean to say? God has certainly substituted the Christian for the Jewish dispensation. It would be mere folly to deny it. "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." You cannot deny that men have failed. To deny it would be to justify the transgression of the law, and the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus by the Jews. You would not dare to do so. But, again, if you deny that the vineyard has been taken from these husbandmen, because of their failure; that the covenant has been changed, because they did not continue in it; you contradict the express and positive teaching of the word of God - you did so in your first pamphlet. I will not impute it to you any longer, since you say that you meant to say that God does not change His laws during the course of a dispensation.

316 Thus, of that which you impute to me, I am right in saying that one dispensation is substituted for another which is definitively abolished: that it is abolished because men have failed, have broken the covenant, and not continued in it. Further, there has been failure, both with the Jews and also with Christians. On this we are agreed, and you did not give an exposition of Mr. Darby's system to shew that you agreed with him.

But, in fact, there is yet another thing in the formula, which you give to his system: it is found in the word "when." It is when man has failed, that these things happen. This is the thought which you blame. Is it not so, sir? If not, what you say is only a pure mystification. Now there is this difficulty, namely, that in the pamphlet to which you reply I have said precisely the contrary.

317 In your first pamphlet you openly said of my doctrine what you now state covertly; in the first you made out that I say, that as soon as men had failed, God suppressed the dispensation that had failed. I answered you, that it is far from God to act so; that He is longsuffering; that He employs all sorts of means to recall man to his duty, until there is no longer any remedy. You now repeat this accusation in terms which have no value whatever, if they have not the same meaning, but you do not say so. You present it as a necessary consequence of my system, and you say, "From this principle it follows, that the Church having, according to Mr. Darby, apostatized, the Christian dispensation, or new covenant, is rejected of God with its institutions." You attach this doctrine to my system, as though it were a necessary consequence. Now it is not a necessary consequence of the principles which have been laid down, that it is rejected, unless the dispensation also be rejected as soon as man's failure occurs. You have admitted this, that I acknowledge "that the dispensation of the New Testament will doubtless fulfil the period allotted to it." In that case, I clearly teach that it is not yet rejected.

Moreover, the consequence which you deduce from what you call my principles is no consequence at all, unless the dispensation be rejected as soon as corruption and ruin come in; for the dispensation is not rejected, as an accomplished fact, because of corruption having come in, if it be not rejected when the corruption is come in. Now, I had expressly denied this doctrine. I said, on the contrary, that God was longsuffering, until there was no longer a remedy.

I will recapitulate what I have stated. I have said that the system which God had established has been corrupted, but that God is longsuffering, and uses every means for recalling men to their duty, until there is no longer a remedy, before suppressing the system which has been corrupted, but that, at last, when there is no longer any remedy, He does suppress it and establishes another. You say that, from this principle it follows, that this corruption having come in, the system is rejected with all its institutions. Every one can judge, whether the consequence that you deduce from my principles is a just one. Both my words and principles are in direct opposition to what you make out that I say. But I am wrong to argue, sir. I had begun, I had finished half of the preceding argument, clearly seeing the subtlety of this effort which is made to represent my words falsely. I had fully seen that you spoke of "transcribing here certain passages from 'Plymouthism,'" and I said to myself, Here is surely the elder! He jumps at his own thoughts. Then, as I told you, I saw the subtlety of the transformation which the accusation had undergone. But, sir, I have just been looking at what you pretend to transcribe. My reader will pardon me if, having placed confidence in your integrity, I have therefore wearied him by seeking to unveil the subtleties of your argument. But what shall I say, sir? This confidence has ceased. You complain of my having said that your doctrine has an antinomian tendency. I go yet farther, I accuse you of notorious dishonesty.

318 You say, "It is necessary to transcribe here certain passages from 'Plymouthism,' etc., in which, as far as one can understand it, Mr. Darby's system is formally expressed. He teaches what he calls 'the apostasy of the dispensation,' that is to say, that when men failed, as regards the institutions of God, by transgressing or perverting the laws which He gives them for their security, the dispensation is, by the fact of men's sins, corrupted and ruined. Mr. Darby asserts that God rejects it in order to substitute another, or some other thing for it, and that, consequently, it is sin to wish to re-establish in its primitive condition that which God has definitively abolished." Then you deduce the consequence of which I have already spoken.

Here is the passage taken from "Plymouthism," p. 6. "At first, if our memory is good, he taught the apostasy of the dispensation, namely, as far as the meaning of the proposition can be exactly understood, that, men having failed as regards the intentions of God by transgressing or rather by perverting the laws and ordinances which He had given them for their security, therefore God suppressed the dispensation which had failed in order to substitute another or something else for it, and that, consequently, it was sin to wish to re-establish what God had suppressed." Is this what you call transcribing, sir? You have basely deceived your reader! I have even allowed myself to be deceived by it. The impossibility of imagining such an act led me to reason as I did. You have altered the whole bearing of the sentence. One version says, "The dispensation is corrupted and ruined." The other says, "Therefore God suppressed the dispensation which had failed." You knew perfectly well what you were about, because you introduced the rejection of the dispensation as an accomplished act, as being a necessary consequence of my principle, and you add "God rejects it," in general terms, and "God has definitively abolished it," in order to open the way for the consequence, which, without openly saying so, you wish to deduce from it.

319 But I still admit too much as to integrity. The sentence beginning "From this principle it follows" is one of those which you, sir, have transcribed from the tract called "Plymouthism," etc. Here it is, just as it stands in your first pamphlet: "The Church having apostatized, or, according to the new form of the proposition, the Church having allowed Satan to take possession of the institutions which God had given it, Christians ought henceforward to abandon them to him." - Plymouthism, p. 7. Do you, I repeat it, sir, call that transcribing passages?

I am a poor sinner, and have no other hope but the grace of my God; but I desire, in controversy, to have to do with straightforward persons, and you will pardon me if I cease - it grieves me to say it - having any more controversy with you. I must repeat what I said before perceiving this,* that I do not impute to yourself all that I find in your pamphlet; but it is not for me to unravel what is yours, and what belongs to him or them with whom you are associated. I leave you the task of doing it, and also the intimacy which such a task requires. I shall continue my observations on the subject, at the same time warning my readers against the subtleties which are found in your pamphlet. But, henceforth, sir, you are secure from all attacks or remarks on my part. I leave you to your own reflections and the reputation which you have won for the functions of elder.

{* It must be observed, that the passages which I reproduce in the text as having been altered are not placed in inverted commas. The author says, "It is necessary to transcribe here the passages from 'Plymouthism,' in which Mr. Darby's system is formally expressed." He immediately, in effect, gives the passages from "Plymouthism," in which he had presented, in his way, Mr. Darby's system, introducing most important alterations in it in order to facilitate his arguments. But he avoids the use of inverted commas. And why so? He was conscious of these important alterations: he did not wish to present these passages to the reader's eye as being quotations. He did not wish, by the use of inverted commas, to draw the reader's attention to them as if such were their character. But, in fact, they are passages in which he pretends to give the former expression of Mr. Darby's system, and he expressly says, "It is necessary to transcribe here." I leave to my reader the task of appreciating all this. It was needful for me to notice this absence of inverted commas, because it might have been said he does not pretend that it is a quotation. But, in that case, what does "transcribe here" mean? I feel assured my reader will sympathize with me in the pain which I feel at being forced to have to do with such a way of acting.}

320 I here beg my reader to remark, that the object of the arguments in the second pamphlet, is to bring forward the institutions, as being laws, established by God in an abstract way, and to deduce from this as a consequence, that, since a law once given always remains the same, institutions and laws cannot be corrupted. Men may fail as regards them, but the institutions exist. Here is the reason for "fail as regards the institutions of God." What could not be denied with regard to men has been changed into "fail as regards the institutions of God." This is why, instead of "by perverting the laws and ordinances which He had given them," we simply find "by perverting the laws which He gives them." For no one can deny that men have perverted the ordinances. This is why, when I said "the ordinances were not abolished," they made out that I said "the ordinances of the law existed after the captivity of Israel"; and this becomes, a little farther on, "He does not change His laws, not considering them corrupted and ruined," and then, "if, therefore, the ordinances of the law were maintained after the captivity," etc.

Now it is clear that the laws themselves cannot be corrupted; and if one considers the institutions in an abstract manner, that is to say, the law that institutes them, they are what they are according to that law, and that comes to the same thing; it is a law. But the word "institutions" and above all the word "dispensation" have another meaning. It is a question of an established thing entrusted to man. The royal power in David's hands was an institution of God; the intention, rule, and thought of God have not changed. The institution, speaking abstractedly, is not abolished, for Christ will be King of the Jews. But was not the institution, the ordinance, in point of fact corrupted in the hands of men? Was not the royal power corrupted in the hands of Manasseh, ruined in the hands of Zedekiah? The institution of the Lord's supper, if we take the gospels as an immutable rule, is always the same as to its character, but was it not corrupted when the mass was made out of it? The truth is that the word "institution" has a double signification: the rule which institutes, and the thing which is instituted. Now the rule does not change; in this respect the word is equivalent to a law; but if one takes the thing instituted, as it exists in the hands of men, it may be deeply corrupted: this cannot be the case with a law, because law is essentially what it is. It may be disobeyed. It cannot be corrupted; but a thing instituted may depart from the rule according to which it was established. It may be corrupted and yet not be abolished; it may have ceased to exist, and yet not have been abolished by God. It may finally be abolished by the power which created it. Moreover, a dispensation may be brought to an end by the authority of God, and another introduced in its stead. The condition may be one of corruption, and the patience of God may bear with this condition as long as He can act on consciences in spite of the corruption. When He puts an end to a dispensation on account of the corruption that exists, His purposes are accomplished just the same, although it be on account of corruption that He does so [put an end to it].

321 All this has occurred with regard to the Jewish dispensation, and the Christian dispensation is threatened with the same doom. Now it is a sophism, and a sophism having the most antinomian tendency possible, to say that, because the law that founds the institution or the dispensation cannot be other than it is, therefore the thing that is founded cannot be corrupted. Nothing can abrogate the authority of that which has been said on the part of God; but if man has entirely failed with regard to it, and if thus a thing which required the power of God to establish it fails in the hands of men (the kingly power among the Jews, for example), the pretension to re-establish it is a false pretension, derogatory at the same time both to the judgment which removes the ruined thing, and to the authority of God which alone can establish it. Now, I said in the most distinct manner, that the dispensation is not yet brought to an end, and that it will continue to the end of the period ordained by God, until Christ leaves His Father's throne.

That therefore is not the question; and be sure of it that, if the dispensation were closed, this discussion would not take place. The only question is this: If, on account of the iniquity of man, God has in truth set aside institutions which His authority alone had or could establish, can man, without His authority and power, set them up anew, when it is a question of things which depend either on His authority or on His power? Is it meet for the Church to disown the judgment of God, and without His authority to rebuild what has been destroyed, even though the dispensation still exist?

322 Thus the kingly power, the Urim and Thummim, and the visible presence of the glory, finally prophecy itself, were wanting to the Jews after their return from the captivity. Did the Jews pretend to be able to re-establish them? We well know that they did not. Nevertheless, the dispensation was not definitively abolished.

And now it will be understood to what I apply the word "antinomianism"; it is when, on account of the authority of a law or an institution, regarded as a rule established by God, one seeks to destroy the consequences of man's responsibility, when man has failed in the obedience due to the law, or corrupted an institution which was entrusted to him. The kingly power amongst the Jews, the Lord's supper amongst Christians, are institutions of God; but they are things entrusted to man; both have been corrupted: the one has been abolished among the Jews; the other has not been abolished amongst Christians. He who would have pretended to set up again the kingly power among the Jews would have fought against God; he who purges the Supper from the corruptions which man has introduced uses it with blessing.

Now I say that the Church has failed in faithfulness. Corruption has come in; many things have been lost; the Church is responsible for it. There are things which it can still enjoy, and there are others which it cannot re-establish. It is admitted that tongues, miracles, inspired prophecy, apostles, gifts of healing, and many other things perhaps, are lost to the Church. The institution of elders had been corrupted in the hands of men; looking at it from my opponents' point of view, it had been transformed into the seat of the deepest corruption which has ever existed, and of the most awful tyranny of which the world has ever borne the yoke. By mixing ministry with it, it has become the clergy, hierarchy. Now, not in order to establish the rule of the institution on paper, but in order to invest persons with the possession of this authority which should rest in the institution, there must be some source for this authority, some persons who, according to the institution of God, according to the rule which subsists in the word, are authorized to establish them. For example, there were none at Geneva; they established some. Do I pretend that the law, the rule of the institution, no longer exists? Just the contrary. I take the rule of the institution, a rule given in the New Testament, and I find that, according to this rule there was a source of authority, on which the whole force of the institution depended. This source is wanting now. It is then said to me, The rule, the law, is there. I know full well that it is there; that is why I reject your so-called elders, because they are set up in open opposition to the rule given by the word.

323 I am told that we are agreed as to the fact that certain things have been lost among the Jews; and others in the Christian dispensation. Well: the existence of the law of an institution does not therefore imply the existence of the institution* nor the possibility of its re-establishment. It is added "But the objection does not touch the churches; they never had the least pretension to create apostles; the word does not command them to do so." Now, first of all, Matthias was made an apostle; and, secondly, the word does not command the Church to make elders either.

{* In a note to "Qu'est ce qu'on a reconnu?" it says that the word here rendered (p. 29) "instituteur" ought to be "institution."}

Throughout the New Testament it is proved that there were apostles. The word proves that there were elders; but it also proves that the churches had not the power to make them, for the institution is expressly based on apostolic authority, and instead of commanding the churches to appoint any, the apostle sent Titus to establish them; a clear evidence that he did not commit this task to the churches. Such is the immutable rule of the institution, the law which cannot be corrupted, which, thanks be to God, does not change, and which you have violated - you that pretend on your own authority so to act the apostle, and the deputies of the apostles, as to invite Christians who hardly dared to do so to arrogate this right to themselves, in order to spare yourselves an act which, if directly done in your own names, would have rendered apparent your incapacity and want of power to do. Now in order to strengthen us against the irrefragable proofs that the thing is positively contrary to the rule of the institution we are told "It was therefore needful that the apostles should give institutions to the Church, which might go on after them and without them. It appears to us that, had they not done this, they would have failed in their mission." Happily you are not in God's place to judge them, although it would seem you think yourselves competent to do so.

324 Allow me to tell you that the Church, which went on badly enough with them, has gone on very badly without them, and that the institutions which they gave to the Church have not gone on without them, unless you call the horrors of papacy the progress of the apostolical institutions.

The endeavour is made to persuade us, in the face of the Church's history, that the apostles necessarily gave institutions which should go on without them. Is it possible to imagine such arguments as these? Poor apostles! According to what the elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva say, they thoroughly failed in their mission. At least they had not the pretensions of these gentlemen!

The apostle foresees, with tears, the invasion of the enemy, when the special power with which the Lord had endowed him should be withdrawn. He foretells that there would be an apostasy; and if I am to believe Mons. Gaussen (I do not know if he is one of the elders), that which calls itself the Church will be spued out of Christ's mouth. I do not know whether at that time the institutions will have gone on without the apostle, although they may have been re-established in all their vigour by the Evangelical Church at Geneva.

Hence, therefore, the use of the word law is only a wretched sophism, because a man in whom an institution is realized is not a law; and not only is a law necessary to establish a man in that position with the authority of God, but also the authority for doing so must be vested somewhere, otherwise it is not with the authority of God, unless it be a divine mission which is legitimate itself by its own power, as that of the prophet; but there is no occasion for a nomination.

No; by wearying the patience of God with his sin, man can "not" reduce Him to the incapacity of using His laws. The execution of the just judgment of God is not want of power. When I said "He can no longer make use of them," it is only the expression of the feeling contained in the words "until there was no longer a remedy." Sin has reached such a point that God can no longer bear with it. Is this want of power? No, it is holiness. Such an argument is really not worthy of an answer. Can God use fallen Adam, such as he is, for the kingdom of His glory? Is it imputing to God a want of power to say that it is impossible? Does the apostle accuse God of powerlessness, when He says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and that God has introduced something better in the Second Adam?

325 Corruption is not a law of God. Man, under the law of innocence, was an institution of God; corruption has come in; the institution is marred, corrupted, ruined; it has not been immediately abolished by God, but it has not been re-established: God has introduced something better. Can there be anything plainer or more evident? Well, that is the law of man, one may say, of every creature placed under his responsibility, without being sustained by direct power from God. God was pleased to shew this under every form, without law, under law, under promises, in the priesthood, in the kingly power, in the presentation of His Son to the husbandmen. The institutions were according to God; man has always failed in them, and, save that they are to be made good in Christ, the institutions, as ordained of God, have been set aside one after the other. The weakness of man, of the creature, has been proved. I do not believe that the elders of Geneva form any exception.

But to say that "the dispensations are not responsible for the whole of men's actings with regard to them" is to say, if the phrase has any meaning at all, that even when men have failed, to whatever degree it may be, with regard to the institutions under which God has placed them, their sin will be no reason for God to put an end to the dispensation which receives its form from those institutions. And I say that such a system is iniquitous, antinomian, and unscriptural.

There is another idea which I wish to take up, weary though I be of this controversy. "The written word now designates them [the elders] by making known to the churches the brethren who are fit for these offices." First, it was not to the churches that the apostle made them known, but to those who were employed by him to establish these brethren in the bosom of the churches which were not competent to do it. But this is not all.

326 If the word pointed them out then, there was no need of Timothy or Titus. And if it be the word that designates them, in this case all those who have these qualifications are designated by the word. Every man who is blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one that "ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity"; all persons who have these qualities are designated; and, the word having designated them, there is no election, there is no nomination, that is to say, designation. The system of choosing of elders falls by this very fact. All those who are such are nominated with the same authority as if an apostle had set them apart. Now, if this be the case, the thing is done, and the brethren whom you call Plymouthists, who accept them without choosing them, are nearer the truth.

If the apostle had appointed elders, would it have been the Church's place to choose them afterwards, to nominate them, or do whatever it might be, except to obey? Clearly not. If the word designates them, establishes them with the same authority that the apostles did, you have nothing to do, except that the apostles did something that the word does not do, and which you pretend to do with apostolic sagacity and authority. Paul, Barnabas, and Titus did something besides pointing out the desirable qualifications. They never designated the elders to the churches in an abstract manner by qualifications. Such a designation has never been addressed to a church.

I said that "the New Testament dispensation will, without any doubt, accomplish the period assigned to it." We are agreed that the period is not accomplished. As a deduction, it is said "Consequently the New Testament and the institutions which concern the formation, government, and service of the churches exist in full force." Why so? The period of the Jewish dispensation was not fulfilled before the coming of the Saviour. Were all the institutions of God in full force? The kingly power, prophecy, Urim and Thummim, the presence of God in the temple, the ark with the mercy-seat, on which was put the blood which maintained the relationship of God with Israel, was all that in full force? But I shall be told, The things were found in scripture. Granted; but what does that prove, except that your reasoning from beginning to end is only a miserable sophism, which seeks to destroy the responsibility of man, and the consequences which flow from the fact of his having failed as to it. These things of which I have just spoken were lost, lost on account of the sins of men, although the end of the dispensation had not yet come. Man could not set them up again. The fact that they were to be found in the scriptures was only the humiliating proof that the Jews had lost them through their sins.

327 I almost forgot what is said on the following words of my pamphlet: "In order not to offend them, He submitted to what they required." My opponents shew much holy indignation against such doctrines. They say "In fact, that Jesus submitted to the law, because the Jews required it of Him, is rationalistic doctrine." I was about to answer that I had said nothing about the law "submitting to the law" is not to be found in my pamphlet, and that it is not the subject treated of in the part whence my words are quoted! But alas! on closer examination one finds that this is but another instance of false quotation. "He submitted to all that was required of Him" is placed between inverted commas; but in my pamphlet there is only "He submitted to that which was required of Him" a very essential difference, because it is a question of a particular point, and not of the law; whereas, if it is said He submitted to "all" that was required of Him, that word "all" may be looked upon as including the law and all else besides. If the trouble is taken to read my pamphlet, "Observations on the Tract entitled 'Plymouthism,'" it will be seen, that it is not at all a question of the obligation of the law, but of this particular point, that there was no longer either ark, or Urim and Thummim; that the presence of God was no longer in the temple; that the temple was empty, and that "the body of the Lord was the true temple." In order not to offend them He submitted to that which was required of Him, that is to say, regarding respect for the temple as if God were there. If one has ever so little knowledge of the word, one must know to what this alludes. They demanded the tribute-money for the expenses of the temple; and the Lord, while He testified that He and His disciples, as being the children of the great King, were not really bound to pay, answers Peter, "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee," Matt. 17: 27. He displays Himself as disposing of creation according to His good pleasure, and thus shews that His body is the true temple, although He, the Son, deigns to associate His disciples with Himself as children of the great King. Whilst manifesting His divine glory He submitted, in order not to offend them, to what was required of Him. But what a task it is to contend with opponents who are so ignorant that they discover rationalism in the Lord's own words, not knowing, perhaps, that He pronounced them! Moreover, as I have said, the point was not submission to the law, nor submission to all that was required of Him, but of the condition of the temple, deprived of the presence of Jehovah, whilst the body of Jesus was the true temple of God.

328 Again, they pretend that I say that the Christian dispensation or new covenant is rejected. This is not the place for discussing the extent of the new covenant, nor its relations to the Christian dispensation; but I do not believe that the new covenant is set aside, because the Jews will be brought in again by means of this covenant, when the Church is in heaven. If the covenant were set aside, the dispensation founded on it would necessarily fall at the same time; but God, by taking up the Church to heaven and by rejecting the order of things which has existed in connection with it on the earth, can deal with Israel on the ground of the covenant founded on the blood of Christ. The Church, properly speaking, the body of Christ, is not a dispensation, it does not belong to the earth; but there is an order of things connected with it during its sojourning here below - an order of things whose existence is linked with the Church's responsibility. The dispensation of the new covenant is, properly speaking, the millennium on the earth, as it is easy to be convinced of by reading the prophecy of Jeremiah who speaks of it. But, the blood of the covenant having been shed, Christians enjoy the practical and spiritual effect of what has been done (and this even in a more excellent way than that in which the Jews will enjoy it in the age to come), although the Jews as a nation have refused to avail themselves of it.

But if, according to the general language of the Christian world, we call the present order of things a dispensation or economy, it has not yet been rejected, as I have already very plainly said. It does not follow from this that Christians have not lost some things which they cannot again re-establish, nor that they are not guilty, and already, in the main, guilty of that which, in spite of the longsuffering of God, will bring down judgment and cause Christ to spue the whole system from His mouth.

329 Let us now see how the question is presented through the use of the word "law," to the exclusion of "covenant and institutions." It is said, "God punishes the sinner, but He does not abrogate His laws on account of sins." And who imagines such a thing, if it is a question of abrogating the authority of the law? But God certainly has set the whole covenant of the law aside, and the whole system from beginning to end, viewed as being the principle of God's relationship with man on the earth. No one would dare deny it, not even an unbelieving Jew, who suffers the consequence of it. He expects something better - the coming of the Messiah. To pretend that the change has not taken place is folly, it is the denial of Christianity: to present the thing as if it meant that God abrogates His laws because man has sinned is a wretched quibble, worthy of the cause it is employed to uphold.

Then it is said that, since I acknowledge that the New Testament dispensation is not yet at an end, and that the new covenant consequently still continues, "it is a strict duty of obedience for the churches, to return to what it teaches, no doubt according to the measure of what is possible." Certainly, as far as regards my walk in the position in which God has placed me; but the question is quite different here. This is it: Am I placed by God in a position which authorizes me to establish elders? and where ought I to establish them? In every town? This is truly what Titus had to do. And you, the Evangelical Church at Geneva, you do not pretend to do so outside of Geneva. You are not therefore in the position to which these instructions are addressed. This is what I deny - your authority. Your teaching here is, however, very harmless. Obedience, according to the measure of what is possible, you say, is a duty; and you affirm that it is possible to fulfil it. Be assured that Mr. Darby does not at all deny that it is possible to fulfil duty, that is, according to the measure of what is possible. On the contrary, he is struck with the wisdom of your remarks. There is only one thing you have forgotten here, namely, that the word possible is a relative word, and that it answers to the power of him who acts. It is your power that I question. One may have the pretension to appoint elders; this is certainly according to the measure of what is possible. But the question is this: When you have appointed them, can it be said, "The Church of God," "over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers"? If you cannot say that, what is your appointing worth? What I doubt is your power to do it.

330 You say you do not pretend to re-establish that which may have been lost through your fault; but time was when you had no elders, and now you have some. But this is not all: there is the deplorable indifference to a loss which ought to awaken the conscience of every true Christian. You say, "But it is not a question of knowing whether God withdrew blessings from Israel on account of their sins; that which it is important to ascertain is, whether the Mosaic dispensation continued until the coming of Christ." And, again, "No doubt God, in consequence of the idolatry and sin of Israel, withdrew His glory, as well as the ark, the Urim and Thummim." Although He had withdrawn all these, you say, nevertheless, "If, therefore, the ordinances of the law were maintained after the captivity; if Israel were called to serve God by their means . . . ." But is it possible to treat such a subject with such levity? No doubt, God bore with Israel; but He had from the time of Isaiah made the heart of this people fat. The glory with which all the ordinances were connected had been withdrawn; the ark, over which was the mercy-seat, by means of which Israel as a people were reconciled; the Urim and Thummim, by which the high priest knew the will of God when he presented himself before Him - all these had been withdrawn. And you dare to say that it is not a question of that? Is it not a question of knowing whether the glory, that is to say the presence of God, was gone from this people? This was perhaps neither an ordinance nor a law, but did it not change anything? Is it not important to ascertain whether that glory was there or not? But was not the act of putting the blood on the mercy-seat an ordinance, the most important ordinance of all? Was that maintained? The temple was empty - deprived of the presence of God. If the pretension to maintain that ordinance had existed, it would, in fact, have been like the appointment of elders, for God was not there. But with my opponents, it is not a question of that. What it is important to ascertain is that the dispensation is not at an end. And when the high priest enquired of God by Urim and Thummim, was not this an ordinance of the law? Was it maintained after the captivity? The word in Ezra and Nehemiah proves that these mysterious signs were wanting.

331 All that gave any value to the priesthood of Aaron, the presence of Jehovah to whom he drew near; the ark, which was the throne of God, and the sprinkling of the blood (on the great day of atonement) by which propitiation was made; the Urim and Thummim by which the high priest received the answer of God for the people, and directed all their affairs - all this was gone. But it is not a question of these! the point is to know whether the priesthood of Aaron was abolished after the captivity.

The case is not the same; for if the priesthood no longer existed according to God's order, Israel could not have re-established one; and that is what you pretend to do with regard to elders. Moreover, your remarks throw great light on your thoughts. If you can maintain the form and the official importance of your position without the presence of God, without any of those things which give it force, until the end of the dispensation, you will be satisfied. That the priesthood of Aaron be without the glory in the temple, without the true mercy-seat and without means of atonement, without Urim and Thummim, or the knowledge of God's thoughts, is all the same, according to you; it has its official place: this is what it is important to shew. Remember, gentlemen, that it was this which brought in the ruin of Israel. The tree was dry, the house was empty: what had God to do then? But you come off nearly as badly about the beginning of a dispensation as you do about its end.

You say, "The apostles did not institute a central power in the Church." This is perfectly true, and the reason of it is very simple: they were themselves that power. And when the twelve at Jerusalem ceased to be such, Paul was it. He established elders in every city, he sent Titus to act, because he was invested with central power in the Church assembled from among the Gentiles, invested with this power by Christ Himself. Then, after all, you are in the beaten path from which the Spirit of God is bringing out Christians. The thing becomes clear enough. There is nothing like searching into truth. You long for independent churches. This is the whole secret of the matter. You say, "They, on the contrary, constituted churches independent one of the other." This is your whole affair. You cannot deny that the apostles and Paul, in the sphere which God assigned him, exercised a power over all the churches (that is to say, a central power); you cannot deny that the Church was one, that the gifts were members of the one body, and were exercised in the unity of this body manifested on the earth. The churches, whilst exercising their discipline each in its own locality, exercised it in the name of the universal Church, and there it was valid. Gifts were placed in the Church, not in the churches. The whole body was but one. But that which you uphold is shewn to be only the fancy to have independent churches. He who has drunk old wine does not immediately desire new, "for he says, the old is better." The unity of the body is set aside.

332 You say, Governmental authority resides in the scriptures. A singular seat of executive power! Laws are found there; but governmental authority is not a law, although it may act according to law.

Who replaces the apostles? According to you, all the faithful in each locality replace this central power, which certainly did exist, and to which those who were of God listened. But in vain do I seek for some proof that such authority was entrusted to all. You do not and cannot say now that Christian assemblies have the right to choose them, and that it is their duty to do so, but you do not quote any passage.

"They rightly believe that, in so acting, they do a work pleasing to the Lord." This is all you have to say. And then you proclaim, "We have just seen that the churches have the necessary authority for designating their elders and their deacons." But you must feel the ground slipping from under your feet, and that the whole building is ready to crumble. You wish to prop it up. You say, "The apostles made use of the form of election, they chose Matthias." Is this a proof that we can choose apostles? You overthrow all your arguments by this example, for were this example worth anything it would rightly authorize you to choose apostles; but things did not happen thus. The qualifications were plainly pointed out. It must be men who had followed the Lord from the baptism of John; then they set two before the Lord (estesan duo) who answered, as one must believe, to those conditions. But they did not dare to choose between the two, and they drew lots. You have altered the sense of the word by saying, "They chose Matthias," and "This presentation was then confirmed." They say, "Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship." How dare any one thus alter the word? But all is well, so long as one can maintain one's position.

333 Deacons were elected: we have spoken of them elsewhere. It was a temporal matter, with which the apostles refused to burden themselves; just as Paul, in another case, wishing to remain free from all reproach, refused to take the brethren's money, unless some one from amongst themselves were chosen to take charge of it with him. But what has this to do with the overseers of the Church, who are the servants of God? The deacons were servants of the Church, as Phoebe, servant of the church at Cenchrea. They chose deputies at Antioch. You must be much at a loss for quotations, if you are obliged to quote this passage. These were occasional deputies in order to put a stop to a tumult in the Church, and this has not the slightest connection with the permanent authorities established over the Church, and there is not a word said of their nomination. They decided that Paul and Barnabas, who had argued in vain against the judaizing Christians, should go up, and others with them, to Jerusalem. How were they appointed? There is a perfect silence on this point. I think it very probable that they were chosen by general consent, since they were their deputies. There is not a word which says that they were appointed by lot.

Then you say that the end of 2 Corinthians 8 "shews us also brethren, who laboured for the glory of the Lord, and who were deputies of the Church, being elected and chosen by them." This is a singular paraphrase. How embarrassing when one attempts to prove a thing which does not exist! They laboured for the glory of the Lord. Now, I ask you, for what work were they chosen by the churches? You will tell me, We do not say. Well, neither does the word. And what then do you wish to teach by introducing it? The word is very simple, is it not? It is a pity that you are not so. Doubtless, this cannot be, with the system which you have adopted rightly, as it appears, but without the word. The word says that one at least of these excellent brethren was chosen by the churches for the administration of the money sent to Jerusalem, the apostle having refused to take charge of it unless there was one with him, so as to avoid the possibility of a single reproach. And what has all this to do with the choice of the regular authorities of the Church, with reference to whom we have passages which you have not quoted at all?

334 Why, without multiplying questions, did you not draw attention to Acts 14? It is spoken there of the nomination of elders, and this is not the case in any of the passages which you have quoted. Why not mention the passage in the Epistle to Titus, where the apostle clearly speaks of this? Would it not have been more natural, when it is a question of elders, to quote passages which speak of them, than to multiply quotations from passages which do not speak of them? You dared not do it. These passages say exactly the contrary of what you wish to persuade us. There were churches in Asia Minor: the apostles chose for them. There were churches in Crete: Paul sent Titus to establish some in them.

You tell us that ecclesiastical history leaves no doubt on this point. I do not allow that ecclesiastical history is any authority, but whatever the value of its testimony may be, it very plainly contradicts what you say.

Here are the words of Clement, or rather of the whole Church at Rome, in whose name he writes. There were divisions at Corinth, on the subject of elders. The Church had set aside certain elders, as claiming the right to do so according to the principles which I contest. In his Epistle, 1 Corinthians 4: 2, "The apostles evangelized us on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ did so on behalf of God. The Christ was sent on behalf of God, and the apostles on behalf of Christ. The two things occurred regularly therefore according to the will of God. Having therefore preached through divers places, in the country, and in the towns, they established their firstfruits to be overseers and deacons among those who should believe, having, by the Holy Spirit, found them worthy. And there is nothing new in this." Then he quotes the choice of Aaron by the direct testimony of God in what happened to his rod. "And our apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be disputations with regard to the name of the episcopacy. Therefore, having received a perfect foreknowledge of this, they established those of whom we have previously spoken and then gave a legal* order of succession, how that, when they fell asleep, other approved persons might receive their ministry. Those therefore, who were established by them, or afterwards by other eminent (renowned) men, the whole Church approving them . . . these we esteem wrongfully deprived of their ministry." Here we have the question expressly treated by one who was a companion of the apostle, who acted in the matter, who was a successor of the apostle, as far as anyone could be such, and one who is, in every way, the highest possible authority on such a subject. What he says to be the history of the matter is confirmed by the whole Church of Rome, and he declares that the apostle had foreseen the difficulty, and that, when the Corinthians were pretending to exercise the very authority claimed by the Evangelical Church at Geneva. He declares that the apostle had established elders and a form of succession; then that other men of repute had established them, the whole Church being satisfied with it. It is impossible to have anything clearer or more positive, in ecclesiastical history, to contradict the assertion of my opponents.

{*I translate as well as I can epinome, a word the force of which is disputed. The known use of it is, the act of pasturing, going over a pasturage; but epinomos, signifies legal, a legal form, and I think that the substantive ought to be thus understood. There are some who pretend it was the succession itself which was indicated; thus Le Clerc. I translate the same as Usher, Fell, Cotelerius, and others.}

335 I examine Mosheim.* He tells me that it is scarcely to be doubted, if one considers the prudence and moderation shewn by the apostles in appointing an apostle, and then the seven, that the elders of the primitive Church at Jerusalem were elected by suffrages of the faithful. Then he says that when an elder was needed, the body of elders recommended one or two persons to the assembly; and in a note he says that Titus 1: 5 proves nothing against it: Titus might have consulted, and doubtless did in reality consult, the wishes of the people. This may be so. It is, however, quite another thing from a history which, as you wish to persuade us, leaves no doubt that they acted by way of election. And Mosheim is so far from thinking of an election, that he makes use of what he believes to have occurred in order to justify what he calls the right of presentation, as not being repugnant to the practice of the primitive Church, adding that a similar right was always acknowledged as belonging to the bishops and the collective body of elders, and he alleges it to the end that he may shew that popular election is thoroughly bad. He says, nevertheless, that the people might refuse those presented.

{*Ecclesiastical History.}

336 Neander says that one may conclude, from the choice of deacons and deputies, that the Church chose other functionaries also, but that, where the apostles had not confidence in the churches, they gave the important office of elder to those who were fitted for it. Then he quotes Clement, to shew that it might be the custom for the elders to present a successor in case of death. Where the consent of the Church was not a mere form, this might be very useful. The fact is, if one takes history, the only thing which cannot be doubted is that one must be an episcopalian. The reader who is desirous of studying this subject may consult Cyprian's letter, 67 or 68, where he seeks to attach the utmost importance to the part which the people took in the election of a bishop, in order to make use of it against the authority of the Pope, against whose acts he was striving. As to the priests, it appears from letter 40, that he ordained them himself alone, and that he then informed the people of it, but this was in a time of persecution. In other letters he excuses himself for so doing, on account of that, saying that the testimony of the people was no longer necessary when God had given His, inasmuch as he whom he had ordained had confessed the Lord at the peril of his life, but that, when he had entered on his episcopate, he had imposed upon himself as a rule never to do anything without the consent of the clergy and people. So that what you say of history is entirely contradicted by the data with which the old authors furnish us. At any rate, as regards authority, this has only ecclesiastical authority.

It is a question of commencing the existence of a body of elders. The word and history positively declare that it was the apostles who appointed these, and subsequently eminent men. Clement of Alexandria says that when John returned from Ephesus, he, being invited, went through the neighbourhood inhabited by Gentiles, establishing bishops (say elders), constituting churches, and placing among the clergy every one of those who were indicated by the Holy Spirit (Eusebius 3: 23, quoting Clement of Alexandria, "Who is the rich man that shall be saved?"). That elders were elected by the faithful is certainly what ecclesiastical history does not state. The idea of presentation (the testimony of the people being received, or, at least, the thing being done in their presence) is what is best established.

337 Consequently Cyprian makes all the faithful responsible as to this, and tells them that they ought to separate from a bad bishop little by little; this was the cause of a struggle between the two. For a time the people chose them, at least in Italy; blood was shed, and one may say, that there was a civil war. And mark this, it was on the subject of bishops. I know of no testimony which states the election of elders. Certain is it that we have some who relate their appointment differently. The earliest authorities attribute it to the apostles (Clement of Alexandria), or to the apostles and eminent men, all the people consenting to it (Clement of Rome). In the fourth century the people often chose their own bishops, and candidates often canvassed for the office; there were conflicts between the bishops and the people, as in the case of Martin of Tours; or there were factions, as at Rome, in the case of Symmachus. Between these two epochs, the forms differed according to circumstances, but the episcopacy was established.

I have already said too much about it. I do not at all pretend to possess that kind of learning, but a very little general knowledge suffices to shew that this assertion, with regard to ecclesiastical history, is worth no more than all the others. I believe I have summed up, in an impartial manner, the testimony of ecclesiastical history on the most contested point of all ecclesiastical historical questions. If the learned reader desires to know all the opinions on this subject, he will find them collected in "Bingham's Ecclesiastical Antiquities," book 4, chap. 2, with the indication of the books which treat on the subject. This book has been translated into Latin for the benefit of those who do not understand English.

When I am asked where God said that He could not make use of the new covenant to make Himself known to us; the question does not deserve an answer, because my opponents believe, as I do, that God will put an end to the present order of things by the coming of the Son of man in judgment, and that another dispensation will be substituted for it. No one has said that God cannot make use of the new covenant, no one thinks so. But I have yet to learn, why the subsisting of the new covenant obliges me to admit that the Holy Spirit has established the elders of the Evangelical Church at Geneva overseers over the Church of God. This is a pretension of a pretty high nature. They wish to make us believe that, if one of the elders of this body is not acknowledged in his office, the new covenant is done away with! In matter of argument, this is modesty as well as good sense. Moreover, what I have said is, not that God cannot make use of anything, be it what it may, on account of sin, but that when man has corrupted what God has set up, so that, despite His great patience, He cannot make use of it, He does not restore what has been ruined, but He introduces something better. The whole word bears witness to the accuracy of this remark from Genesis to the Apocalypse. That which is important to all is that the sin, the evil which will bring down judgment, has already come in: God may still have patience, but the judgment of this evil, which has existed for a long time, does not tarry; and with my whole might, I again beseech the children of God, my brethren, to abjure principles which deprive them of the power and discernment necessary to avoid the trap spread by the enemy, and to assist him according to the testimony of God.

338 You three times exclaim against my "very awful threats," "the threats of Mr. Darby," and "his prophetical and threatening language." I do not threaten any one; but the pretensions of the elders, or of any adversaries of the truth, will not hinder me from exhorting men, as far as the grace of God enables me, to wait for the Lord, who is going to overturn all that which is established, and to shun all that might obscure the perception of His coming glory, or the hope of His manifestation. People speak of believing in Christ as the only condition for partaking of the promise. Be it so! But ought one to weaken, by this doctrine, the authority and obligation of the word in everything? It is legitimate to add, "if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." May my brethren learn to keep the word of His patience, whilst listening to the sweet promise, "Behold, I come quickly!"

A letter to Count de Gasparin in answer to a question which he puts to me in the "Archives du Christianisme."

J. N. Darby.

<04009F> 339

You abandon then, sir, as it appears, what lies at the bottom of the controversy, to embarrass your adversary with a question which you think he will find unanswerable. Nothing in fact remains for you to do but that you have nothing more to say on what lies at the bottom of the question. The controversy is exhausted and one sees clearly where the truth lies. This being the case, I assure you, sir, that I trouble myself very little about the success you may have in your effort to shew that I have exposed myself by some inaccurate expression to your attacks against me. I should have preferred co-operating with you, if that had been possible, in some good thing, to meeting you as a volunteer in a controversy of which, for my part, I regret the necessity.

The fact is, sir, you do not understand what lies at the bottom of the truth to which these questions are attached. Nevertheless, I will answer your question. The observations by which you introduce it bear on what God ought or ought not to do. It would be sufficient for me to say that there is very little reverence in this manner of treating the question, and that you, sir, are absolutely incompetent to decide it in putting it thus.

When you say, "Therefore God would have founded and regulated the institution of elders, to suppress it necessarily at the end of thirty years"; these words have no force whatever unless it be this - we cannot suppose that God could have done such a thing. I do not hold you, sir, capable of saying what God could do. You are not at the height of His thoughts or of His wisdom. I keep to the word, which reveals to me on His part what He has done and what He intends to do.

Besides, there are all sorts of suppositions in your argument. For example, it is essentially founded on this one: That God had formed an economy with the design of causing it to continue such as it was for a very long time. Where do you find this? As a matter of fact, this has not taken place in the very case in question: and you know it, or else you are too ignorant of the facts to occupy yourself with this subject. Since the end of the apostolical century, it is this succession, of which you are afraid, and by which you think I am seduced, which has prevailed. It is a fact which cannot be denied. You do not approve of the episcopal system, you do not believe it to be that which the apostles, which God Himself, established. Now, in that case, the economy has not continued in its normal condition. This therefore is how you must turn your arguments: Either God had no thought of causing the condition of the economy here below to continue such as it was according to the principles on which He founded it; or His designs have been frustrated. Now this latter supposition is false and impossible: consequently, it did not enter into His designs to maintain the economy on the footing on which He had placed it in founding it. I say "your arguments," for I can assure you I should not allow myself any such.

340 Your reasoning has an unsound foundation, or rather none at all. You have taken for granted, without any proof, a great general principle, of which the thing you have to demonstrate is only a particular case. That which you have first to shew is what you assume, namely, that God's designs were to maintain the economy as it was.

You do not succeed better as to the points of the dilemma on one of which you wish to catch me. As regards the accusation of suppressing a portion of scripture, it has nothing to do here. The part of the word which treats of the innocency of man remains absolutely without direct application now, as there is not an innocent man. Has this part lost its value? The argument, in assuming such to he the case with three whole epistles, could have no force whatever. Now I do not in any way admit that such was the case with regard to these epistles. Moreover, it is not a question of the value of institutions, but of the power to ordain other persons as elders with the same authority as the first, so as to be able to say, "The Holy Spirit has ordained you." At all events, the institutions must have preserved their apostolical force, as long as persons nominated by the apostles or by their deputies lived. Now, if God foresaw that, by the malice of men, the true spiritual value of these institutions would be lost at that time, or when the oversight of the apostles should be wanting; and that by remaining silent He avoided maintaining unto them this authority, when the spiritual qualifications which should have made its exercise profitable had ceased, and when consequently it would no longer be wise to invest men with such authority - would there be anything strange, inconsistent, or imprudent in this silence; or would it be profoundly wise? I do not here pretend to affirm that what I suppose was true, but what I have said about it entirely takes away all foundation for your arguments. The fact is, sir, that the decline to which I allude happened before that time. Why should I suppose that God took care to invest men with the authority which is attached to those who (thus says the apostle) were ordained by the Holy Spirit Himself, when these men should no longer be in the condition to use it according to the wisdom and according to the thought of the Spirit?

341 You will have it that God had provided for a nomination of elders in the future, and a nomination made with the authority of God Himself, and this you do not prove. Now without this, neither one side nor the other of your dilemma has any force whatever. My natural answer is that there is no such ordinance or arrangement in scripture.

You tell me, "Then God would have founded and established," etc. I blame such reasoning à priori with regard to the ways of God; but as an argument, I ask if it would be wise to invest man, on the part of God, with a complete authority, with an official authority, who would take advantage of the assertion that the Holy Spirit had conferred it on them - a true assertion in the case which you suppose - when the qualifications which made this authority profitable to the Church should no longer be there?

Your argument supposes that the Church would continue in a state to profit by such an investiture; and that its entire moral condition would render it desirable. Your supposition is in itself untenable. You have no right to attribute these thoughts, this supposition, to Him who alone has authority in this case, who alone can foresee what is about to happen. Besides, facts do not help to support your irreverent argument. You know that the declension of which I have spoken has taken place; the apostles themselves predicted it, and more than predicted it; for they declared that it had already begun during their lifetime. You cannot reply "this is exactly why the apostle exhorts the elders to watch over the flock!" Quite true, when he could add, "over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers"; but he did not tell them "for this reason fill up the vacancies that occur in your body"; nor "have others chosen by the assembly." He did say "I commend you to God and to the word of his grace." Where is the place in which a fresh nomination is presented as the resource of the Church? I could shew you several which send you back to the written word, the contents of which, inasmuch as they are above the fallibility of men, are the rule and resource of the Church in all ages. In a word, you assume the perpetuity of institutions (vested in the persons of those who were to fulfil the functions), with the authority of an appointment coming from God. Without that, there is no need of apostolic succession. Now you have not the authority of the word for the assertion that God intended to perpetuate them in this way. You have, moreover, the fact that they have not continued in that manner.

342 Allow me, sir, to tell you, without bitterness, that it is you who, I will not say, detract from, but who lay aside, the authority of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, because you pretend to ordain elders otherwise than the Holy Spirit orders it to be done. This was why it was insisted on at Geneva that, in ordering it to be done so, the word has not said "and not otherwise."

I have now answered you, in the main, in a more true and sincere manner than if I had only attached a consequence to your limited question. But I understand, sir, that this is worth nothing in my case. I therefore come in a formal manner to the categorical question, which, however, is a very small one. I said I "believe - not exactly in the impossibility of ordaining elders after the death of the apostles, but - in the incompetency of those who now pretend to do so," because I did not wish to pronounce on an abstract question, without being sure of the thought of God in His word; nor to accept the version which my opponents made for me, when the practical question was clear as daylight according to this word, namely, that those who have pretended to do so, at Geneva and elsewhere, had no authority for it whatever. Their pretension was contradicted by the word. It always becomes a Christian not to affirm, and especially in the things of God, that for which he has no positive certainty in the word. One is obliged to follow this rule with still greater care, when one is in the presence of adversaries ready to take advantage. You are the proof of this, sir - of the slightest occasion to make objections which might embarrass the simple in the reception of the truth. The only true conclusion is that I have not wished to affirm anything on this point. If you want a more formal answer, I will tell you I do not think it true that it is necessary to be an apostle in order to ordain elders, but I have not pretended to say, whether, or not, the persons individually appointed by the apostle were able to nominate such, after the death of the apostles who confided to them this authority. I have not wished to assert anything about the abstract question of impossibility, nor do anything else than judge what in fact was proposed to me by the word. We were accused of disobeying the word, because we did not submit to their elders at Geneva, and because we did not nominate any. My answer was, not to say what was impossible after the death of the apostles, but that you have not the authority of the word for what you have done. If one does not think of nominating them, one has no need of apostolic succession. The persons whom you blame have not had the pretension to nominate any. The idea of apostolic succession is a consequence which you deduce from your pretension, linked with the supposition that it was in God's thoughts that the Church should continue in its normal condition, and that He knew that it would be thus. Now it has not thus continued, and your pretension is irreverent and presumptuous.

343 Notice, sir, that it is not the Epistles to Timothy and Titus which have conferred on these apostolical delegates the authority to establish elders. These inspired letters, given to the Church for all times, remind one of the fact that this authority had been confided to them, so that, for my part, I do not dare to say what was the extent of the power of establishing elders on the part of the apostles. It is by no means impossible that Paul may have sent several delegates. It is possible that he may have commanded them to do so after his death. The word tells us what he did, so far as that is profitable for the Church at all times, and not all that he did - far from it. What I believe therefore is not precisely that it was impossible to ordain elders after the death of the apostles.

To sum up. Your assertion that God would not have founded and established institutions, knowing that they would fail directly, is entirely without foundation. The principle is shewn to be false by the history of man, of the Jews, of the priesthood in Israel, of the kingly power in this people - by the whole history of the Bible. At the same time this manner of reasoning on your part is a confession that the word is entirely silent with regard to the appointment of elders after the apostolic times, because you are forced to have recourse to an argument, and to allege that God would not have founded else.

344 Your second point, namely, that it is not a question of man's failure, but of a necessity which is connected with the death of the apostles, is only a denial of the omniprescience of God; since, if God foresaw the spiritual declension, He might very well not make mention of an institution which would invest with a positive and scriptural authority from Himself that which would be in this moral state of declension, although He might have given authority for a nomination as from Him to those who were the suitable instruments of His grace, before the Church had declined. Now this declension is stated in the word. There is an appointment of the first elders in the Gentile churches, but no decree for so doing continuously, so that you are forced to argue on a supposition of what God ought to have done.

In fact, your question is founded on the supposition that one must be an apostle in order to appoint elders. "If it is true that one must be an apostle," etc. Your supposition is still false. Timothy and Titus were not such. It is possible that others were employed to appoint elders. It is not impossible that they were so employed after the death of the apostles.

So that the conclusion we must come to is this, that you are incorrect in what you say; that I have been very scrupulous not to assert more than the word authorizes me to say; and the necessity of apostolic succession is a dream on your part.

I leave to you, sir, the choice of continuing the discussion, or of remaining silent. The discussion will only make truth more evident, and your silence will only be the proof that you have nothing more to object to what I put forth.

I am your very devoted brother and servant in Christ,

J. N. DARBY.

Reply to two fresh letters from Count de Gasparin, published in the "Archives du Christianisme," of December 3rd, 1854, and February 24th, 1855. Vevey, 1855.

J. N. Darby.

<04010F> 345

I have no hope, sir, that the sense of the misery of the Church generally will be awakened in the hearts of those who participate in your views, nor of seeing them afflicted with the affliction of the people of God. Though God can work everything in individuals, He employs two means in His word for leading us to judge rightly of the condition of His people: the comparison of this condition with that in which He placed them at the first (Isaiah 5), and then the question, how far this people are in a condition to present themselves before God at the time of the manifestation of His glory (Isaiah 6). People set to work to make churches and elders, because they do not trouble themselves about either the one or the other. To weep over Jerusalem, however certain the safety of the elect might be, was the portion of the heart of Christ. Those who are at ease in Zion, to use an expression of the Old Testament, will always scorn the grief of such as feel how far the holy city has departed from her God. After the first manifestation of the power of God in the establishment of His people, at various epochs, those who were led by the Spirit of God were always a weeping people: not from distrust of the faithfulness of God Himself, but overwhelmed by the feeling that is produced by the consciousness of the little response on the part of the faithful to the power and grace of God. Struck with the beauty of His people, seen (as Balaam saw them) with the eyes of God, they walk mournfully at the sight of their practical condition. A prophet joyful, excepting in the hope of the coming of the Lord, or in the Lord Himself, is not found in the word. I do not touch longer, therefore, on this point; I leave to God, always good, to act in hearts, according to His sovereign grace, to lead them to see the Church and its present condition as He sees them, and to cause them to feel in this respect as His Spirit makes one feel. I shall only occupy myself with what you say. Although grieved and weary with the controversy, I thank you for your articles; you have furnished yet another opportunity for shewing the emptiness of the pretensions which you justify, and the sandy foundation on which you are building. I am glad that you still have courage to broach this subject; you help to make it plain on what errors as to facts, on what mistakes (which I will not qualify for fear of using a hard word), on what arguments, the pretension to do what the apostle did is founded. I will tell you that, if it were not evident to me that the nomination of elders (a novelty which dates back three or four years) is allied with the denial of the weakness in which we are - of the lamentable state of Christians, if it were not a human pretension, a Laodicean pretension in its character, I should not trouble myself about it. If I had anywhere found elders really in operation, I should never have disquieted myself as to the manner of their nomination. Grace and truth, the wonders of the counsels of God, offer me more enjoyment and edification than these human littlenesses, than the questions of deacons and elders, of sad attempts to imitate the outside of the primitive churches, than these official puppets set up by men. I would have left you elders to your liking, provided that you did not weary me with them. But an immense truth, a whole moral condition, lies at the root of this question.

346 I set about answering your two articles.

This time it is no longer an asseveration, sir, it is no longer a reply to my letter. Your cardhouse has fallen, completely fallen; and, thinking that you may still find some buttresses, some props which will give it a little more solidity, you have reformed it, rebuilt it entirely anew. This is why you have been obliged to say, that one must know how to say the same thing over again. In this respect you are right. For such a work one must certainly know how to do so. I acknowledge, to my cost, the truthfulness of your observation. I have been again obliged to read what I have read and refuted so many times; but some love the creation of their own genius, and you do not weary of yours. But what of other people, sir? I cannot say that I am not tired of them. However, I must take your warning not to be weary. One needs it.

You have one advantage in your subject: you flatter the vanity of men. They can constitute churches. To appoint elders who shall be their own, and not those whom the Holy Ghost has ordained, will only make them dearer to the hearts of those who have created them. It is a small matter that there is little reality in all this. It little matters that it is almost blasphemy to say "the Holy Ghost has ordained them," that they are poor imitations, almost caricatures: those who have created them will esteem them all the more for this. Elders ordained by the Spirit would have had an authority proper to them, on His behalf, over the flock: the creatures of the flock will raise the importance of those who created them.

347 But I must reply to your two articles, though I confess that I am almost ashamed of it. It has never before fallen to me to answer such a collection of inconsistencies, such bold assertions so entirely devoid of foundation. One thing gives me some hope that our controversy will not be without fruit: it is that you betray the consciousness of the weakness of what you say. You appeal to the command: you exclaim at the rationalism of your contradicters: but as to the fundamental point of the controversy (and I acknowledge with sincerity and pleasure your candour in this respect), you confess that no other nomination of elders is found in the word than that made by the apostles. Thus it is true you affirm that it is a horrible principle to say, "we cannot do that which they did"; but while you disapprove of this, you thoroughly recognize the fact that the apostles and their delegates alone did it. Farther on I will examine your arguments on this point; I now only state the fact. It is admitted that, according to the word, no one appointed elders except the apostles and their delegates. You say indeed, "In fact nothing is less certain than the ordination of elders and deacons by the hands of the apostles and their delegates alone"; but you add, "because things appear to have happened thus in the two or three circumstances which the New Testament mentions, it does not the least in the world follow that they could not also have been done otherwise."* This is to admit that, according to the instruction with which the New Testament furnishes us, the nomination was made by the apostles and their delegates. Hence you say, "We are not the less permitted to imagine that there may perhaps have been room for other installations of elders besides those which are mentioned in the word of God." Can any one speak more plainly? The word is clear and precise, but one may imagine something beside what is mentioned in the word. Sure enough: there has been no lack of that. We have a heap of things which have been imagined beside those mentioned in the word. But what have they done with Christianity and with Christendom by these imaginations? Was I not right in thanking you for helping me to put things in their true light, sir? And you define the force of your expressions very plainly. You say, "I have said 'perhaps' because I do not pretend to affirm anything beyond that which is written." To say therefore that there were elders appointed by others than the apostles and their delegates is to affirm more than what is written. Only, if one were to listen to you, what is written is not of so much importance, because that might have been done otherwise than as the word tells us: and to do it otherwise you think presents a sight "at which evangelical faith must shudder." It is then clearly ascertained that your ordination of elders is founded on this, that perhaps one may do otherwise than what is said in the word, and that very certainly you have done otherwise.

{*It is Monsieur Demole's famous argument, that it is not said "and not otherwise" an argument which annuls by a single dash of the pen all the rules and directions of the New Testament. It is never said, that I know of, "and not otherwise"; so that in every case one might change everything, and say, it is not said "and not otherwise." It is a complete justification of all the additions and alterations that popery has introduced in christian worship and ordinances. Doubtless that system does not act according to the word, but it is not said "and not otherwise," or, "in fact things may also have occurred otherwise." So that it cannot be reproached with anything on that score. And these gentlemen, who annul all the directions of the word by this single principle, that they may do otherwise when such is not forbidden by a "and not otherwise," accuse us of abandoning the word, and teaching the abolition of the command! I do not know a more fearful principle, or one more destructive of the authority of God and His word, than this, which has now the sanction of Mons. de Gasparin. Remember, reader, that according to him, when the word gives a direction or a uniform example, and that it cannot be proved that it has not been also done otherwise, you have full liberty to abandon the direction of the word and do things as you please.}

348 But you give other examples to support your principle that it is right to do otherwise than what is said in the word; you speak of collections, of the founding of churches, and of other cases. You are unfortunate, sir, in the examples by which you seek to uphold liberty to do otherwise than as the word says. The whole reasoning is a mystification, because it is not a question of acts of authority; but I will only take up your examples. You say, "If the New Testament had only spoken to us of baptisms ordered by the apostles." Now the New Testament has taken good care to shew that such was not the case and that all the faithful were baptized: it even declares to us that Paul was not sent to baptize, and that he did baptize scarcely any one. That is to say, that the New Testament, when it was necessary and suitable to give this liberty to others, gives proofs that there was full liberty for every Christian to do it, and that it was not a question of apostolic authority; whereas in the case of elders, the thing is formally in the hands of the apostles and their delegates. You add, "If the New Testament had only related to us the preaching of Peter and of Paul, should we conclude that, after the death of the apostles, the preaching of the gospel ought to have ceased?" Why again draw a conclusion, sir? This was more important even than baptism, and the New Testament is quite full of examples, instructions, accounts, testimonies of the approbation of God, with rules within the Church which shew (what the elders and their upholders do not like so much), that all, according to the gift and faith that God had distributed to them, preached the word to the world, and in the assemblies. It was done individually without rules; it was done in the assembly according to rule. On the occasion of the death of Stephen all went everywhere proclaiming the word; and in Acts 11 we read, "and the hand of the Lord was with them and a great number believed." Paul speaks of the effect of his bonds on his brethren, and rejoices that some preached Christ though with a spirit of envy.

349 So that we have, in the two cases of baptism and preaching, the proof that, when all was to be free, the Holy Ghost takes special care to prove this liberty undeniably. In that of the elders their ordination is carefully restricted to the apostles and their delegates.

But you present to us the positive cases of collections and the founding of churches. "You are wrong," you say, "to have recourse to supposition." Let us see if you are more fortunate with regard to the facts which you allege. "There are certain acts which the New Testament relates as only accomplished by the apostles." These are, you say, the two mentioned above. "The only collection for the poor, of which it [the New Testament] makes mention, is entrusted to a deputation in which Paul figures." In which Paul figures! But this means that others were charged with it as well as Paul: they figured in it also.

350 Was I not right in saying, in the presence of such frivolous reasons, that I was almost ashamed to answer your article? There is so little truth in calling it an apostolical act, that the apostle declares that, when he should arrive, he would send to Jerusalem those whom they should approve of by their letters, or that he would send with letters those who should be approved of; and, if it were meet that he went himself, they should go with him; and in the Second Epistle he declares to us that he wishes that there should be others for this work, so that no man should blame him in money matters (2 Cor. 8: 20, 21). In a similar way the twelve refused to occupy themselves with it, because it did not become them to leave the preaching of the word to serve tables. And you see, in the case of collections, an example of the acts that the New Testament relates as accomplished solely by the apostles! If you speak of the collections themselves, the apostle ordered that the faithful should lay by in store their offering every first day of the week, and he adds, in writing to Corinth, "so that there be no gatherings when I come." This is a singular way of figuring in the collection, thus to insist on everything being done through pure Christian liberality, and that, in order to that end, all should be done without him that he might not appear in it at all, and to take particular care that others and persons chosen by the churches should take charge of it, so that no one might reproach him with anything, adding that, in case of his going to Jerusalem, they should go with him! He was very willing to be employed in it, because it was for the poor Jews whom the apostles had particularly recommended to him (Gal. 2: 10). If to this we add the case of the other apostles (Acts 6) we have a proof of his thesis, perfectly worthy of the logic of Mons. le Comte de Gasparin and of the cause which he defends, namely, that there are some acts which the New Testament relates as accomplished by the apostles alone. The proof of it is that the twelve formally refused to do it as a thing which did not become the apostleship, and Paul takes good care that others should have the charge of it, and that, in the case of his going to Jerusalem, they should go with him; but as to the collection all was to be done without him. It is perfect in point of proof.

But, before coming to the foundation of churches, you present us with a still stronger example, and it is one which has such an admirable application to the subject of which you treat, and to the pretension which you set up, that it would not be possible to find a more just one. "The only letters addressed to the churches, which we find mentioned in the New Testament, are canonical epistles written by the apostles."*

{*This is questionable. Inspiration does not depend solely on the apostleship; take for example the Gospels of Mark and Luke. Some persons who fully believe the Epistles of James and Jude to be inspired have questioned their having the two apostles of that name as their authors. The authority of the apostle is quite another thing from inspiration; and inspiration, like that of the prophets, is quite another thing from apostleship.}

351 You say, By what right do we allow ourselves to write to a church? There is, it is true, something more in the nomination of elders - the authority confided to the apostles and by the apostles to the elders, which was not merely inspiration. Your elders have no authority. But let us leave that. I think in the main that the elders whom you appoint have a value (apart from authority) in comparison with the elders appointed by the apostles, equal to that which your letters to churches have as compared with those of the apostles. That is to say, they, in one case, are divinely ordained; in the other not - they are purely human. As the letters of the apostles are divinely inspired, those of Christians now are certainly not; on the contrary, they are often sad productions. I will say nothing, sir, of the modesty and seriousness of the comparison of your letters with inspired letters, the word of God. I do not pretend to make you feel anything. Your comparison is ingenious and admirably applicable: it presents (leaving out the question of authority) a perfect picture of your work. Your elders, compared with the elders ordained by the apostles, are like your letters, compared with the inspired letters.

You come, thirdly, to the foundation of churches. You tell us, "More than that; the only founding of churches of which the New Testament contains the history, is of those made by the apostles." Really! You must set to work, sir, to read the New Testament before venturing into controversy about its contents. The church of Samaria was founded by Philip (the deacon), and then the apostles went down to confer the Holy Ghost on the Samaritans. That at Antioch was founded by those who were dispersed abroad at the death of Stephen. Those are the two most important churches after Jerusalem. Antioch, perhaps, was even more important as the starting-point of Paul's ministry. It was only after the apostles had heard say that Antioch had received Christianity that they sent Barnabas, who afterwards went to fetch Paul; then they both assembled together with the church. At Damascus we also find disciples, but dare I point out a church to you which, with all its pretensions, has not, after all, the honour, so far as it is an honour, of having been founded by an apostle?* It is the Church of Rome. The apostle Paul, he who proclaimed sovereign grace in all its extent and in all its fulness, only went there as a prisoner, a living picture of the history of this city. Before going there, however, he wrote an epistle. There is not the least appearance of his having founded a church. So that Samaria, Antioch, Rome, are already lost to you; but this is not all. In the Epistle to the Colossians the apostle speaks of those who had never seen his face in the flesh, for whom he prays. It appears that there were several such, and the apostle speaks of it as a very simple thing; but amongst others he mentions Laodicea, where we know from the last verses of the epistle that there was a church. I do not question your having a very human idea of the foundation of a church. But whatever may be the means of accomplishing it, one thing is very certain, that the assertion, that the New Testament only mentions or even contains the account of churches founded by the apostles, has its source solely in a superficial examination of the word, which must destroy all confidence in what you say of its contents.

{* In the primitive Church the churches founded by the apostles were carefully distinguished from all others. According to the Catholics it is this which gave so much importance to the Church of Rome. They quote a doubtful enough passage from Irenaeus (we have only a bad Latin translation of this passage, and of the greater part of the work of this good and pious father), after having spoken of other similar cases as an argument against heretics, he says, "Go to Rome" propter potiorem principalitatem. Protestants justly allege that it was archen (origin), because the Church of Rome had two apostles, Peter and Paul, as its founders. For my part, the Epistle to the Romans is a proof of the contrary. However that may be, the Christians of the first century would have been astonished to have heard that all the churches were founded by the apostles. It was said that the celebrated church at Alexandria had Mark as its founder. But I do not wish to go beyond the certain proofs which the Bible furnishes. Here is, if you have not already noticed it (and I must suppose so from what you say), that which may be useful to you in your controversies with those who still bear that name.}

353 The result of the examination which we have made of your arguments is, that the cases which you suppose utterly upset your principles; the facts which you allege are no facts at all; and, from your own confession, the elders whom you install have no more value in comparison with the elders whom the apostle ordained, than your letters have compared with those which the apostles wrote by inspiration.

You are quite as well grounded in what you say about my principles and my views as you are with regard to those of the word; but I shall not trouble myself much about it. There are in your article some more points of importance in the controversy which I will take up.

"Note well," you say, "that it is moreover a question of a ceremony, not of an act of discernment or choice. No one can pretend that the election of elders pertained exclusively to the apostles or their delegates."

Here again, sir, you betray your consciousness that this is the weak side of all your pretensions - that discernment in order to choose is necessary. But I do not recognize the same simplicity (I will not allow myself one word of reproach) that you shewed when you confessed that you had no proof in the word of a nomination of elders by the Church.

Why do you suddenly mix deacons and elders together when we are only speaking of elders, with reference to which examples fail you? The deacons (this is the meaning of the word) of tables, of the wants of the poor, of the administration of the funds of the Church. The Church gave money, its servants administered it. The word does not leave any doubt or any uncertainty on this point; it does not confound the offices as you do; it leaves no room for the confusion by which you seek to escape the force of what it says. It shews us those who fulfilled the functions of deacons chosen by the churches; and the apostles desiring that it should be so. It shews us those as elders appointed by the apostle or by his delegates and by none else. In cases where such must occur without his intervention, the apostle took care that it should be done by his delegate. The elders are bishops or overseers, that is to say, authorities in the Church, to guide it, to watch over it, to take care of it; and the authority comes from above, not from below. The deacons are servants, and servants of the Church. It is thus that scripture speaks. There might be, and there even were, women on whom this title was conferred; whilst all authority in the Church was forbidden to women. It is only by trying to introduce confusion that you can avoid the perfectly clear force of the word. You say, "No one can pretend that the election of elders and deacons pertained exclusively to the apostles and their delegates." There is nothing to pretend, sir; one has only to receive what the word says. It says, that in every case those charged with the money-matters were chosen by the churches; and that, in every case where it was a question of elders, they were chosen by the apostles or by delegates of the apostle. In the one case they were servants (diakonoi), in the other overseers of the Church from God.

354 Now here are the proofs. At Jerusalem there were murmurs with regard to temporal helps; the apostles would not occupy themselves with such matters, and they call upon the Church to choose persons to do it; and this took place (Acts 6). In 1 Corinthians 16: 3, persons approved of by the faithful were to take charge of the money derived from the collections. In 2 Corinthians 8 a brother was chosen* by the churches to carry the money which they sent to Jerusalem; for the apostle, though he might go there, would not take charge of it alone, though ready to share in doing so. That is to say, in temporal and money matters the word shews us that the apostles desired men to be chosen by the churches, who should have charge of them.

{* The word used here is exactly the same as that employed by the Holy Spirit to distinguish what the apostles, Paul and Barnabas, did with regard to elders.}

In the case of elders, we find the positive declaration that the apostles Barnabas and Paul chose elders for the churches. This occurred not in one church only, but in every church which they had founded in those countries a short time previously. They returned there, partly in order to do it: it was not a natural consequence of their presence; it was not (as you say would now naturally be done in a similar case) the churches which had called them to their aid; they retraced their steps to visit the churches, and by their own authority they did not install, did not take part in a ceremony, but chose elders for the churches - the word, as we have said, being exactly the same as that which is employed for the choice by the churches of the persons to whom they had entrusted their money. In neither the one case nor the other is it a question of a ceremony, nor of the imposition of hands, but of the choice of him who should fulfil the office - chosen because they had confidence in him for the work to which he was destined. It is precisely that which you said it was not. The faithful were to discern the persons that they wished to have as their messengers and to give them the seal of their approbation (dokimaze). It was not a question of any ceremony, of any imposition of hands; it was precisely a question of choice and discernment, and nothing else. All that you say stands in open contradiction to the meaning and positive and formal declaration of the word. It is impossible to be in more direct and positive opposition to the word than you are in all you say. And how do you seek to elude the force of the positive declaration of the word? "It gives equally detailed directions about the one (deacons) as about the others (bishops); it is, in consequence, quite allowable to believe that election which might be applied to the first, would not become sacrilege with regard to the second." Allow me to tell you, sir, that it is not permitted to those who take their place as defenders of the word, and accuse others of abandoning it by following rationalistic principles, to treat it with such lightness. It is not lawful to trifle with that which is inspired, and to neglect it for some "perhaps," and by such frivolous propositions to say that it is not sacrilege to believe what is not found in it; that which is allowable is to examine the word and to submit to it.

355 What you quote from 1 Timothy 5: 22 demonstrates that, even when it is only the ceremony of laying on of hands which is in question, the reference is certainly to discernment and responsibility. The passage is as simple as your interpretation of it is false. Timothy was not to lay hands hastily on any one. It was therefore a question of discernment on his part, and grave responsibility with regard to the person to whom he gave the sanction of his solemn approval, which shews the very evident meaning of that which follows, namely, that if he did it lightly and the person was unsuitable for this charge, Timothy would have his share in the evil that he might do.

As to that which concerns the imposition of hands by the body of elders, the thing is certain, for the word has said it. I do not in anywise dispute it. I believe it in all its simplicity. The elders laid their hands on Timothy, perhaps at the very time that he received a special gift by the imposition of the apostle's hands, as we learn (2 Tim. 1: 6). That proves - what? Nothing with regard to the subject of which we treat. It has no reference to it at all. Timothy was not a bishop nor an elder of a church: the communication of a gift by the laying on of an apostle's hands is quite another thing from the nomination of an elder. It is perfectly certain that Paul chose Timothy to be his companion in labour, and that it was not the Church that chose him. My opponent has been deceiving himself by the fact that the word "elder" is found in the passage.

356 And this leads me to another point (the importance of which will be my excuse for this anticipation) in which the superficial way in which you have read the word, and the lightness, I say it with sorrow, with which you treat serious subjects, are evident. You say, "If a mysterious transmission were effected by the laying on of the apostles' hands, if this transmission were more than a blessing, more than a prayer, more than an imposition of hands accompanied now by faith in the bosom of a faithful church, it follows that the legitimate episcopacy does not exist outside the regular series of bishops who are connected with the apostles or their delegates; there only could the primitive charisma pass from one to the other," etc. Then you say, "The gifts, that is to say, the influences," "fill the offices because they are gifted for that," "it is granting that the nature of things will take its course."

The frivolity, confusion, and infidelity which are here mingled together, have, I confess, astonished me. The offices, the gifts, the laying on of the apostles' hands, by which they even conferred the Holy Ghost, with that (if there was any, which is not said) which ordained elders to their offices; the gifts, with the devotedness and the influences natural to man; all is mingled together with a carelessness and a contempt for the word, which would be sad enough were they not accompanied with a depth of infidelity which throws the confusion itself into the shade.

The difficulty in such confusion is to know on which side to begin. We must ever remember at the same time that the point of the question was a choice of elders and not the laying on of hands; but I follow you on your own grounds.

You say, "If a mysterious transmission were effected by the laying on of the apostles' hands, if it were more than a blessing, more than a prayer," etc. But the Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the hands of the apostles.* It is this power that Simon wished to purchase at Samaria. It is that which is given (Acts 19) as a proof of the apostolical power of Paul. He calls Timothy, in the passage already quoted, to exercise the gift which was in him by the laying on of his hands.

{*I for a moment thought that these infidel expressions with reference to the communication of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the apostles' hands - a thing that is clearly and solemnly stated in the word - might be attributed to Mons. de Gasparin's prepossession on the subject of the imposition of hands on elders. But, however probable that may be, it is never said nor implied that the apostles did lay their hands on them, and the transmission of the Holy Ghost by this means is very solemnly stated in the Acts and in 2 Timothy; and Mons. de Gasparin himself speaks of the charisma, that is to say, the gift conferred at first by the laying on of the apostles' hands. Charisma is the expression used in the word for all gifts conferred by the extraordinary power of the Holy Ghost and has nothing at all to do with elders. Finally, Mons. de Gasparin speaks in an absolute manner of the laying on of the apostles' hands.}

357 There was therefore a mysterious transmission by the imposition of the apostles' hands; to deny it is nothing else but infidelity with regard to the most explicit declarations of the word. There was a primitive charisma conferred by the apostles, and (outside the sovereign operation of God) conferred by the hands of the apostles alone. If you deny it, sir, your system is easy to be understood, it is infidelity with regard to a principal point of the word. Thus conferred, the gifts were not consecrated to an office. The confusion of offices with gifts and ministry is the source of the clerical system, and one of the principal causes of the sin committed by the Church which has disowned the operation of the Spirit of God.

Do you deny this transmission of the Spirit by the hands of the apostles? Do you deny that they conferred gifts?

You are mistaken with regard to my views on "the legitimate episcopacy." The whole clerical system depends on the confusion which you make between gifts and offices. The choice of elders has nothing to do with this transmission. Offices were distinct from gifts, although the same person might possess gifts and be invested with an office.

I have quoted positive passages in the word, which exhort us to obey those who devote themselves to the work. You treat the directions of the word as a principle similar to those of Mons. Proudhon,* and you confound this devotedness with gifts. But the extent of your downright unbelief on this point betrays itself in what you say of gifts. "Gifts, that is to say, influences." Is that your thought of what gifts are, sir? It is only "that the nature of things will have its course." When Paul conferred a gift on Timothy by the laying on of hands, did Timothy simply exercise an influence in which the nature of things had its course? Are all the gifts, the charismata of which 1 Corinthians speaks, only influences? Is what Christ, when He ascended up on high, gave to men (Eph. 4), only influences, in which the nature of things has its course, which "no one will ever hinder"?

{*Note to Translation. The French Socialist.}

358 It is never said in the word that the apostles laid their hands on the elders. This is probable from analogy, but it is never said. The succession could not depend on it according to the word, but the choice of elders is clearly and positively attributed to the apostles, without a word of the laying on of hands which may have accompanied it; you put aside this choice in order to follow your fancy that it is the Anglican system which influences me; you confound offices with transmission of gifts; then you deny all mysterious transmission by laying on of the apostles' hands, which the word declares in a most distinct manner; and finally, in order to destroy the last trace of the operation of the Holy Spirit, gifts are to you only influences in which the nature of things will have its course.

I repeat, sir, that the confusion would be pitiable were not the infidelity of so serious a character. I confess to you that I was astonished at it. Let it be known that Mons. de Gasparin does not believe in a mysterious transmission by the imposition of the apostles' hands; next, that gifts are only influences in which the nature of things has its course. It is at all events well that the true root of this system should be laid bare by its own defenders. I have never doubted but that it was practical infidelity with regard to the Holy Spirit, which is one of the principal characters of the infidelity of our days.* I did not know that it was a formal infidelity boldly avowed on this point.

{*The other form of infidelity is that which refers to the authority and divine inspiration of the word. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the first form of infidelity. The Theological Review of Strasbourg and all that school present both forms, and particularly the first.}

I have answered all that you have introduced afresh in your two articles to try to rebuild your poor house with more solidity.

359 But you repeat also. I might excuse myself replying to things which I have already answered, but I certainly do not expect that people will again search in my preceding pamphlets to find answers in them to what is in your new essay. I will therefore try, without saying everything over again, to answer briefly anything which might present any difficulty to sincere souls.

With regard to the duration of the institution, and to your accusation that we attribute to God the having set up an organization which was not to last, it is a question of a fact. I know not whether you can ignore that, in fact, this organization ceased after the death of the apostles. If we believe in the interpretation which your party gives of the seven churches of the Apocalypse, this organization had already ceased in the time of the apostle John. It is then a question of a fact. The organization did not last longer than the organizers and their delegates. The facts are hard, merciless. Your theory is that God had absolutely destined it to last and that it was not even the sin of man which caused it to fail. Now, in fact it did not last! That is to say, that in order to uphold your manikins of elders, you say that God destined the thing to continue, but that His design completely failed without even the sin of man being its cause. For I repeat, in truth, this organization did not last longer than the life of the apostles and their successors; which fact is incontestable. That does not astonish us who believe the Bible, for the apostle warns us that after his death evil would invade the Church and that all would corrupt itself. He tells us that already, during his lifetime, all those who were in Asia, the part where he had so laboured, had forsaken him, and that in general all sought their own and not the things which are Jesus Christ's. We have seen in the word, that in all ages the analogy of the conduct of men, whatever may have been the ways of God concerning them, strengthens the conclusion which facts and the apostle's testimony force us to accept. The history of Adam, Deuteronomy 32, the history of the priesthood, the history of Solomon, the whole of the biblical history, teaches us that man has never been able to keep the blessings which God has confided to him. As to you who think yourselves capable of "preserving and restoring" what the apostles established, you are indifferent to all this biblical instruction: you can easily do what the apostles did: it is even your duty.

360 Having again settled this important fact that this organization has not lasted, and weary with repeating what has been said, I will follow you step by step. You say of me, "First he maintains that the instructions given by Paul to Timothy and Titus on the subject of elders do not contain a command." I never said this, sir, nor anything like it; your assertion has no foundation whatever in facts.

All that the apostle said to Timothy or Titus has the force of a command, since it is the direction given by the Spirit of God. What you say is entirely false.

I did not say that what is said in the letters to Timothy and Titus does not contain a command, but that in the whole Bible there is not this command, namely, a command to make elders - that there is nowhere a general command to ordain them. You allege that there is a general command, which consequently concerns you, and obliges every Christian to ordain them, so that they are disobedient if they do not do so. This is what I deny - not that what is said to Timothy has not the force of command, but - that there is such a command to us in what is said there and elsewhere. I say again: Let us re-establish the facts.

As to history, we have the fact that the apostles, not incidentally, not invited on account of their wisdom and their gifts, but led by the Spirit of God, of their own act, return to the churches which they had founded and choose (this is the word) elders for them; and that with deliberate intent the apostle Paul left Titus in Crete to establish them (not incidentally, not by private invitation, but of his own act) in every town, as he himself had done in Asia Minor.

Next, we have several epistles addressed to the churches which treat of all the subjects of interest to Christians, which speak with special detail of the internal order of a church where the need of superintendence was painfully felt; but never a word, an insinuation, a supposition, that churches themselves had to do with the ordination of elders; they were to be in submission to their spiritual guides; but that they were to appoint them, or to ordain them, does not for an instant enter into the thought of the Spirit. On the other hand we have quite confidential epistles to the delegates of the apostle, one of which is addressed to him whom he had left at Crete expressly to establish elders, and in which directions with regard to the proper qualifications for this office abound. And permit me, sir, to tell you here that, when you say that it is a question of a ceremony, not of choice and discernment, you contradict the meaning of the passage. The apostle does not detail all the qualifications necessary to a bishop for a ceremony, but in order that choice may be made with discernment. When it is said "Lay hands suddenly on no man," it is a matter of discernment, of choice, and not a simple ceremony. I confess that I find it wearisome to reply to such arguments - I am wrong - to such assertions, which one grain of common sense suffices to condemn. The historical facts then, which are clear and positive, the complete silence maintained in the epistles to the churches on this subject, the large development on this point given in the confidential letters addressed by the apostle to his delegates, to one of whom the establishment of elders was specially confided, all this demonstrates clearly enough and incontestably what has in fact taken place, and the thought of the Spirit in this respect. The apostle chose, or his delegates chose in his stead, it is to these that the Spirit confides all the necessary instructions for doing it rightly and never to the churches.

361 What is the reply made to these positive facts? to these most clear precepts? A sentence is taken in the confidential letter to Timothy, in which it says, after having spoken of several points, "These things write I unto thee . . . that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God." This is said to be a command for all Christians to ordain elders. The apostle had left Timothy at Ephesus to watch over the church during his absence and particularly with regard to doctrine. He hoped to return soon, but he desired that Timothy should be instructed so as to know how to act suitably during his absence. He speaks of the doctrine of grace in contrast with law; then, this grace being addressed to all, how they ought to pray for all; that men were to do so in such and such a manner; that women, on their part, were to pursue such and such a course of conduct. Then he says, "If a man desire the office of a bishop," he must have such and such qualifications, his wife must be such and such; so with the deacons; and at the end of all this he says, "I tell thee these things that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself." Here is all that can be found in the way of command, positive command, to all Christians to choose for themselves elders in spite of all that is found in the word. A pope (and the apostle had the authority which the pope assumes) writes to a bishop to point out what are the qualifications necessary for a priest, and, as he watches over the whole Church, he instructs him in the order to be followed, and finally he says, "I write to thee, bishop, so that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave in the Church" - and this is a command to all the faithful to appoint priests, without bishops or a pope, or any other authority in the Church! But one must have lost common sense to reason in this manner. And you are conscious of it, sir, for you say after all, "the apostles, who found an institution, impose on us by that very fact the command to preserve or to restore it." If there were a positive command in the Epistle to Timothy, there would be no need of this remark. Why say "by that very fact," if it is a universal and positive command to all Christians?

362 Founding an institution does not necessarily imply a command to restore it, because it is possible for an institution to depend on the authority of the founder, and it may be impossible to restore it. An emperor appoints his son as viceroy, and he sends him instructions with regard to the appointment of magistrates, saying to him, "I write these things to thee that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave in the kingdom": is it a proof that everyone should make magistrates for himself, each in his little coterie, on his own authority, although the emperor might still be living? How often must one expose the futility of such arguments? You say that the apostle alters his language in saying how one should behave. It is not so. He does not change his language suddenly here; it does not alter at all in the sense which you indicate; he had already used the same terms before, but there is a change which you have not remarked. He speaks of the duties and behaviour to be maintained by ordinary Christians; men were to pray, women were to dress themselves modestly, etc. Now in this case he speaks about the duties of all. I desire that men do so and so, and likewise that the women, etc. But when he comes to the question of bishops, which was not the duty of all, he no longer says a word about the duties of Christians in general with regard to this. Here he suddenly changes his language and indicates to Timothy alone the necessary qualifications, and the reasons why they were to be required; having previously applied his words to all, because it was a question of the conduct of all, he suddenly changes his language when he begins to speak of bishops, and says not another word of the duty of Christians; but he ends his remark not by saying, "I write so that the faithful, or I wish that the faithful, should know how they ought to behave," as he had said previously; but "I write that thou mayest know." There is a change. Before speaking of bishops, he said that he wished that all should act so and so. As soon as he speaks of bishops, he ceases to do so and addresses himself to Timothy personally and individually.

363 The thing is very simple. When the apostle gives directions to Timothy with reference to the conduct which he should cause Christians to maintain, every Christian will understand that it is a command for himself concerning the conduct that he ought to follow. When he speaks to Timothy as to an authority in the Church of his conduct as such, this is certainly a command, but office and authority are not attributed where they are not possessed. A direction given to a person in an important office for his conduct in that office, is a command like any other, but to apply it to oneself as if it were addressed to one when one has not the office, is an application which is neither just nor modest.

It is a denial of the distinction of ministry. If directions and exhortations are given to those who exercise any ministry whatsoever with reference to their ministry, are the force and authority of the directions denied, because (not having the ministry) they are not applicable to oneself? or are such exhortations commands which order all to create ministry when it is no longer possessed? The apostle gives directions for the use of tongues and of gifts of interpretation. Is his authority rejected because it is no longer applicable to them? Do those commands oblige you to restore what has been lost, as the Irvingites have pretended to do? The difference lies only in this: one may imitate elders and boast of doing so, whereas the imitation of tongues only gives occasion for ridicule. After all, there have been and there still are more persons carried away by the pretension to the gift of tongues, than by the re-appointment of elders. You say, "The rules which the apostle addressed to Corinth being commands for every church, the rules which he addressed to Timothy are also commands for every epoch." Yes, you feel the weakness of your cause. Why this change of "churches" into epochs? The thing is that the Epistle to Timothy was not addressed to any church. The rules addressed to Corinth concerning tongues are they for every epoch? Yes, you say. I also say Yes, if tongues exist. When there are none, these rules cannot be applied, and this does not affect the authority of the word. The rules given to Timothy with regard to his own behaviour as delegate are applicable to every epoch if there is a Timothy. The rules addressed to Corinth were for every church: be it so. The rules addressed to Timothy were - let us say, without altering anything - for every church: you have not dared to say it. They were in a great measure directions given to a man invested with a special office concerning his behaviour in this office, a light for all, because he was to watch over the conduct of all and so all are referred to in the epistle. But it is not true that the epistle was addressed to all the churches: to affirm this would be to deny a special ministry, to destroy it in its most important parts. If the letter was not addressed to the churches of that time, and if they could not use it with intelligence, without acknowledging the special position of Timothy, it is the same now. The Church uses these epistles, but it uses them as having been addressed to a Timothy and not directly to the churches themselves.

364 Your second point is "Then he maintains that these instructions do not organize offices excepting for the duration of the life of the apostles and their delegates." I have, in fact, answered this assertion. The apostle does not say anything either for or against as to the duration of its organization. He does his duty in the work which God entrusted to him and he leaves the rest to God. As a prophet he announced that it would go on growing worse, and that the mystery was already developing itself. That which he said has been, and still is, being accomplished. What I say is, that the organization has certainly not lasted. You dare not contradict me without giving the lie to the whole of history. The instructions are not occupied with the duration. They give the qualifications suitable to a bishop, nothing else, neither more nor less. What I have said is an incontestable historical fact. God in His wisdom has not spoken in a way to allow Himself to be belied by facts. But, moreover, you think that God has put before us in the word the prospect of a long duration of the Church, for which He should provide an organization. You say it, sir, but the word of God does not speak thus. Quite the contrary. You speak of the whole future of the Church, as if God had proclaimed it, and as if He had prepared everything for a long future on earth. There is nothing of this. The Church is called on high. The word presents the coming of Jesus as the hope of the Church, and teaches the Church always to expect Him. The thought of the long duration was that of the unfaithful servant, "My lord delayeth his coming"; this is what causes him to unite with the world and to usurp authority over the other servants. The idea on which all your system, all your arguments, are founded, is a guilty one. The Bridegroom has, in truth, delayed His coming; the wise and foolish virgins have surely slept. Perhaps you think that they have done well to sleep.

365 It has been said to me, in order to shew that the Church had not failed, that there was no occasion to blame them for sleeping. Perhaps you think that the mystery of iniquity has worked without the Church having failed, that all forsook Paul, that all sought their own interests, without its having been sin. I have already said, sir, that I have no pretension to make you feel anything whatever with regard to this. But here is what is certain. Such has been the conduct of the Church. The word of God does not speak of a long future for the Church, but of the unfaithfulness of the servant who expected it. The organization established by the apostle did not last more than thirty years after his death. He foresaw and predicted the general ruin of his work as a testimony set up on the earth; he even felt it before his death. I leave it for you and everyone to say if there has been sin in what has taken place.

In your second article you give the following expression to the views which you combat. "What was practised by the apostle cannot be carried on by simple Christians." Then there is a long series of declamation and rhetoric upon it, the clatter of which seeks to hide weakness. You waste your trouble on any reasonable person. Marriage was practised by the apostles, as were charity, preaching, and manual labour. The question is entirely a different one. You have yourself in principle made the distinction in the apostolic work which every sensible man must make; but you have not known how to allow it in your rhetoric. You have distinguished between what the apostles did according to their apostolical authority and what they did as any other Christian, common to all by the grace of God. The question for us is to know whether the choice and nomination of elders was not a part of what they did in virtue of their apostolical office. It is really a want of common sense to say that our not being able to imitate them, destroys in its essence the idea of command. The notion of command is effaced before this theory. The theory is a theory of your own imagination; but even if it were not, it has nothing to do with the commands of the apostles. I may obey their commands by my acts without being able to imitate theirs. Does obeying a king or emperor mean that one can imitate his actions? But I am wrong in replying to such high-flown words, the more so as I am agreed on the ground of the distinction which you make. But when you come to its application, you go completely wrong as usual. You point out as exclusively apostolical, "as a part of the apostolical authority which is connected with their qualifications alone, with the unique fact of the apostleship, miracles, the direct testimony of Jesus Christ, the fact of their writing theopneustically the canonical books, of their founding institutions, and giving orders which are the commands of the Lord." These two last acts are the only ones exclusively connected with the fact of the apostleship. Others did miracles. There were at least five hundred other direct witnesses of Jesus Christ. Mark and Luke wrote theopneustically without being apostles; perhaps James and Jude, who left us inspired epistles, were not. There is everywhere the same thoughtless assertion, the same ignorance of facts and of scriptural principles. In the second category of the acts which you enumerate as common to the apostles and other Christians, you say amongst other things the necessary principles of good order and organization. What part of apostolical or other action is a necessary principle? A principle is not activity - is not an act connected with an office. But what is the difference between founding institutions and an organization? The first act is exclusively connected with the apostleship; he has the principle of organization in common with every Christian. But when they founded institutions, the principle of organization received a form which has authority; for their directions are commands. We have no need of other organization than what they left us. The point is to make, to act, to ordain with authority; and you have not touched upon this only question which we have to decide. When one wishes to act on the principle or organization established by the apostles; when one seeks for the institutions which they founded and which have disappeared for nearly eighteen centuries; when this part of the working is wanting, which re-establishes the institutions, which chooses suitable persons, which installs them in their office with the authority of God, so that it can be said "The Holy Ghost has made you bishops"; when the point is to know if conferring authority on the behalf of God was not an act which was connected solely with the office of apostle, that is to say, that on the one and only question not one word is to be found in what you say here. You have nothing to say on the only question of which we treat. We do not speak vaguely of a necessary principle of organization. The elders had authority in the Church, other Christians were to submit to them. Whence had they this authority? From whom did they hold it? It was of suck a character and its source so sure, that one could say "The Holy Ghost has made you." Did they hold this authority immediately from the apostles and their delegates, and in this way directly from Christ, who had given authority to the apostles to act, or did they hold it from the mass of the faithful, or from each little voluntary assembly? The word shews us that their authority was derived from the apostles, that they were chosen either by the apostle or his delegates. We are agreed that the apostle founded institutions, we acknowledge a general principle of organization established by the word. We ask, From whom did the persons who possessed the authority of elders receive this authority? Can a voluntary assembly of Christians confer it? The question here is not of mysterious transmission - we do not speak of gifts; it is a question of conferring authority, for the elder possessed it. Who was it that conferred it? You make the people to be the source of this authority; as for me, I believe that Christ, acting by the apostles on whom He had conferred the power to do so, is the source. You say that the conferring of this authority is not noticed as an exceptional act belonging to the apostle alone. No act is thus mentioned in the word; but most of those which in your haste you have drawn attention to were done by others; and the only one which is presented in the word as accomplished by the apostles and their delegates alone is the choice and nomination of elders. It is the only thing bearing the form of an institution founded by the apostles in the establishment of which there was an action connected solely with the apostleship. There was a revelation about the Lord's supper, but we know that the Lord had instituted it, and that other Christians took part in it. The apostles had an authority by which what they bound on earth was bound in heaven. They gave rules in the Church, but excepting this general principle which everyone acknowledges, the only exclusively apostolical act, and the only one which you omit, is the one which occupies us, namely, the choice and nomination of elders. It is not that the apostles did not have revelations and did not communicate the will of God, but other prophets might have done so, and even did. Authority lay in the apostles' hands.

368 All accusations, such as radicalism and rationalism, seem to me vulgar and unworthy of a man who has sufficient self-respect not to substitute abuse for argument; but I ought to make it plain, sir, that your idea of radicalism is false. Radicalism may have an organization as well as any other system; it has its regulations, its magistrates, its state councils (as is the case in the country of which you are a subject), as well as conservatives and aristocrats. The radical principle does not lie there, but it consists in this, that the people are the source of power, and have the right of placing at their head those who ought to govern them. Now this is precisely the system which you adopt with reference to elders. As for me, I contend that this power comes from above, from authorities constituted by Christ Himself, namely, the apostles.

You have made comparisons, but they fail as to application, because the subject of the investiture of individuals with offices and the question which occupies us is this, "Who has a right to put them there?" Now the comparisons which you make do not affect this subject in the least.

In conclusion, there are directions given to Timothy, that he might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God under every circumstance; but there is no general command to create elders. With reference to bishops, when any one desires to be one, the qualifications required are enumerated in a letter addressed to Timothy delegated by the apostle at Ephesus. Nothing more - nothing less. The expression "how one ought to behave" is not even connected with the appointment of elders. It is at the end of several directions with regard to other points. The deacons and their wives come between the two, and before that prayers and the conduct of women, etc. In the midst of these directions the apostle describes the character required of a bishop, if such a case should happen, without the least trace of a command to Christians to create any. To say that a letter to a superior authority, to a confidential delegate (and Timothy was such), in which it is said, "I write to thee that thou mayest know how one ought to behave" (for what you say of "one must," as being emphatic, has no foundation), to say that it is a command for every person to exercise acts of authority, which are specially confided to this authority, and this at all times, is an evident futility; it is as ridiculous as regards the individual who wishes to apply it to himself as it is dangerous for the whole Church of God.

369 There is only one more point for me to touch on - law. I am not astonished that you forsake truth here; that you do not know what you are doing in placing yourself under law. It is a very ordinary case. That the will of God, wherever it is expressed in the word, ought to govern the Christian, is what every truly converted soul acknowledges. But, sir, the word of God is wiser than you are; it never places the Christian under law, nor under the obligation of the law after the death of Jesus. It was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It speaks of commands: they are dear and precious and not painful to the real Christian. But the word never places a Christian under law; and I repeat, the word comes from a God who knows the heart of man, and who knows what is necessary for him and what is hurtful or impossible for him. He employed the law to convince of sin. The word expressly says that the law is not for the righteous; you say that it is. I believe in the word and in the wisdom of my God more than in you. I believe that He knows how to preserve holiness, without which no man shall see Him, better than you do, better than human wisdom does. He knows; and whoever is taught of Him and knows his own heart knows that the law, every law, is a minister of death and condemnation, and it is impossible that it should be anything else; and that if man is placed under a law in what way soever, either it must condemn him, or the obligation of the law must be weakened.

I see plainly that you are ignorant of this. You speak of the idea of obligation to the law, of the idea of law. Now if, being under obligation, you are bound by the law, you have certainly not truly kept it (though your new nature loves it, and love is the fulfilment of it); and if you have not kept it, and you are under obligation to do so, it condemns you, it justly drives you from the presence of God. If you are bound by the law, and have failed in its obligations (and such is the case), you must either weaken it and annul its obligations, or perish. Obligation to a law requires either that it should be kept, or that one should be condemned by it: there is nothing else. It knows nothing of grace. It could know nothing of it. You have not kept it. Are you bound to do so? You must wipe off this obligation in order to escape. Faith and the grace of God alone maintain the authority of the law, because I acknowledge myself lost if I am under the law, and I see that Christ has undergone its curse, and has placed me in an entirely new position which unites two things: perfect righteousness before God, because it is the righteousness of God accomplished in Christ; and life, the participation of the divine nature according to the power of resurrection. I cannot have the two husbands, two obligations at the same time, the law and Christ. In Christ I am dead. Now the law has authority and is binding as long as we live; but being dead (because Christ died for me) I am delivered from the law that I may belong to another (this is the plain language of the word), to Him who is raised again from the dead that we may bring forth fruit unto God. Are you bound by the law? The law will strictly maintain its authority and this obligation; it must do so, and will condemn you as surely as you are a sinner. If I am dead, it has no more authority over me, for it cannot cross that barrier; I belong to Another. Through the law I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.

370 Christ was under the law during His life, in resurrection He is so no longer. Now the commands, whether they be called of God, or whether they be called of Christ, have another character for the Christian. All that Christ has said, all that His apostles have said, everything in which the Old Testament displays His will, direct and govern the life which we already possess, and have the authority of the word of God, of God Himself, over our soul. I have life; the words of Christ, His commands (and whatever is found elsewhere in the word of the same character is the same in principle), are the expression of this life in Him, its fruits in every respect according to the perfection and according to the will of God Himself, and they are the directions for this life in me. By following them I walk according to the thoughts of God, and according to His will; it is the law of liberty, because I already possess the life of which it prescribes the perfection; and being the expression of the will of God, it is also obedience. But if you "return to the command" under the form of law, you return to death and condemnation. The law does not give life, does not give strength for holiness, any more than it justifies. From what you say, I do not believe you are delivered from the law. If you had felt what the law is, I do not think you would have said, Let us return to the command, or could have spoken of again setting up the observance of the command; because you would feel that on this ground you are lost, because the law has not lost its force, and throughout it is always (for man) a ministry of condemnation and death. I do not in the least reproach you. Many dear and precious souls are under law.

371 There are some who, wishing to teach the law, know neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. Have you read this part of the Epistle to Timothy? But what I know is, that the New Testament speaks to us of the law as of that from which we are delivered. It tells us that we are bound by the law as long as we live, but that we are dead; and it also says that we cannot have two husbands at once, the law and Christ (that is to say, be bound in two ways to two objects). The apostle expresses himself thus, "To them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but ennomos Christo)" - in subjection to, bound by obedience, to Christ. You cannot watch too carefully over holiness, and we are sanctified unto obedience. Independence of will is the principle of sin; but the law is not a means of attaining holiness. It does not give a new will, nor strength when one has one. The New Testament always speaks of it as a means of death, of condemnation, and of weakness; those who are of the works of the law (and these are not bad but good) are under the curse. It is not for the righteous (dikaio nomos ou keitai), nothing is more absolute. It is ignorance of what the heart of man is to imagine that he can be under a law coming from God and live.

As to the opinion you may form of my views on this point, it will be to me a matter of utter indifference; because the word of God is as clear as day. And it is evident to him who knows what man is, that man can have nothing to do with the law without weakening its obligations, except to be condemned by it; and that grace alone maintains its authority, because Another has borne its curse: because the word tells me that I cannot have two husbands at once. And if I put myself under a mixture of law and grace, I must pray God, as the people did with Moses, to hide His glory from me as unbearable; whereas, when I see it in Christ by the ministry of righteousness and of the Spirit, I can contemplate this glory with unveiled face, and be changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.

372 Finally, sir, if I have failed in courtesy in alluding to "the failure of Christians," I ask your pardon for it, as well as for everything for which any apology may be due. I have alluded to it as to a published book, in which one may imagine that your principles are more or less brought out. You have expressed them here, and I do not think more dangerous ones are to be found - namely, to use the expression of doing all in the name of Jesus, and adding that this does not hinder one from having studies and pleasures which have not Christ for their object. I do not believe that you have the slightest thought of using the liberty to which we are called for licentiousness; reproach of that kind would be out of place. But I leave it to every serious Christian to judge whether such a principle does not open a wide door for a life, I will not say, of open sin, but for a life where Christ is forgotten, in order to pursue every other possible thing as an object, and to find one's pleasure everywhere excepting in Him. I am free with regard to everything; but to pursue as an object anything but Christ, to find my pleasures out of Him, and to use the expression of doing everything in the name of Jesus in that sense, is a loose and dangerous principle, if there be such. It is doubtless not law; but an invitation to the heart to leave Christ aside as its object, in order to do everything according to one's own taste and pleasure under shelter of His name.

Certainly this is not a narrow way. This is not "one thing I do," or esteeming all but dross that I may win Christ. Perhaps you may be inclined to consider this as purely apostolical, as a walk connected with that office alone, with the sole fact of the apostleship; nevertheless here, in words which ought to be considered as a command, as a law, if you will - yes, sir, it is here, however weak our steps may be, that we are called to imitate Him. I am not under the law, but if God sanctifies us and directs our hearts to a new object which we pursue by the power of the Spirit, what you say is not the means of sanctification, of communion with God, of happiness - it is using the name of Christ, and the command to do all in His name, to justify one's having other objects than Him, and seeking one's pleasure elsewhere than in Him. You wish to be bound by the law, on the one hand, and to have other objects and other pleasures than Christ, on the other. It is a sad picture of a degenerate Christendom, very different from that which the Spirit gives us. But it is quite in keeping with the constitution of churches and the modern installation of elders.

A short answer to the last article by Count de Gasparin, published in the "Archives du Christianisme."

J. N. Darby.

<04011F> 374

I shall not follow you in the way upon which you have entered, sir, by taking up expressions to which this controversy may have given rise: I might quote some of yours which are stronger perhaps than those I made use of. I disdain troubling myself about them; and should not have perceived those to which I allude, if you had not taken up similar ones of mine. It is a question of serious things, and not of expressions which may escape us in communicating our convictions in a rapid controversy. I do not believe that you bear me any ill-will; if you do, I pardon you and pity you: if the controversy has irritated you, I regret it. I willingly plead guilty as to all expressions which pain you, if you yield to the force of my arguments, or, better still, to the teaching of scripture which I have brought forward. I desire, sir, as you do, that our discussion should not degenerate into a dispute: but you will allow me to present to you some of your own remarks, in order to excuse myself for having used the word weariness with reference to our controversy.

You acknowledge that it would be wearisome enough to discuss anything with one who does not know (certain) things. Here, sir, are those that you point out. "In another place, Mr. Darby is kind enough to teach me that inspiration is not dependent on apostleship - that all the writers of the New Testament were not apostles; that the apostles did not found every church; that the laying on of the apostles' hands conferred extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit; that Christians are not under law."

There is little wisdom in again directing the attention of your readers to these points.

Did you know these things, sir, when in speaking "of what is connected with their office alone" (that of the apostles), "with the sole fact of the apostleship," etc., you wrote these words, "they write theopneustically the canonical books"? (Archives, Feb. 24, 1855.)

Is not inspiration dependent on the apostleship according to Count de Gasparin in 1855?

375 Again, did you not write "the only founding of churches, of which the New Testament contains the account, is that accomplished by the apostles"? (Archives, Dec. 23, 1854.)

I have tried to shew you that this was not the case. Did you know it in 1854?

Later on you said,

"If a mysterious transmission were effected by the laying on of the apostles' hands; if it were more than a blessing, more than a prayer, more than a laying on of hands now done with faith in the bosom of a faithful church": and you were speaking of the original charisma.

Again, you say "Gifts, that is to say, influences." And then you write that "to fill an office, because one is fitted for it, is to grant that the nature of things will have its course." (Archives, Feb. 24, 1855.)

Does Count de Gasparin believe, in 1856, that the imposition of hands done in the bosom of a faithful church, that a blessing, a prayer, are really the same thing as the laying on of the hands of the apostles? Or does he believe, in 1856, that there was no mysterious transmission by the imposition of the apostles' hands with respect to the original charisma?

Had you to learn that the laying on of the hands of the apostles conferred extraordinary gifts? Yes, or No?

If you reply Yes, I had to learn it, you have justified me when I said, that it was wearisome to argue with a person who did not know these things.

If you reply No, I have, sir, in this case, only to repeat (for respect for the word of God is more important than human considerations), that the superficiality and lightness (I say it with sorrow), with which you treat these serious subjects, are evident, and that they are accompanied in you with a root of unbelief; for, knowing that the laying on of the hands of the apostles conferred extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, you put it on the same level with the imposition of hands now in the bosom of a faithful church - on the same level with a blessing or a prayer.

And I ask you, Is it not more than wearisome to argue with one who writes as you wrote in 1854 and 1855, in the passages which I have just quoted; and who then writes as you have done in 1856, in the passage which I have also quoted, and this in articles by which you intend to enlighten Christians on these points, and to confound those who are opposed to your course?

376 This is not all that may have wearied me; but it is not well for me to speak of this any more. Let us come to what is at the bottom of the question. You say that "Paul founded neither the Church of Rome, nor that of Colosse" (say rather that of Hierapolis and of Laodicea): "granted; but it is not anywhere written, that the other apostles were equally strangers to the birth of these churches." Which of the apostles? Do you even think that other apostles had been in these towns? Does any one think so who has studied the New Testament? Who believes that the apostles who remained at Jerusalem had been to Rome before the sending of Paul's epistle to the Christians in that city, or that they had been into Asia Minor to found the churches to which Paul wrote, when it was they who all agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles? I ask every sensible man, if the history of the Acts, the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Romans are not sufficient to shew that the work of the apostles did not precede the sending of the letters which Paul addressed to these churches. But the cases on which you insist are still plainer with regard to this principal point. You say: "Moreover, in the two only cases in which the first work of evangelization is expressly attributed to private Christians at Antioch and Samaria, Acts 8 and 11 mention the immediate mission of delegates from the apostles and the church at Jerusalem. By what right, then, could one in these days found a new church, since there are no longer apostles to preside in the work, nor delegates from the apostle to confirm it by the imposition of their hands on the newly converted and by conferring on them the Holy Spirit?"

This time I will not say that you weary me, sir. You furnish such suitable cases to demonstrate that my views are true that I have only to be satisfied with you.

Do you know what this case demonstrates? That "faithful disciples" went forth to do the work of evangelization without asking what the apostles would do afterwards: then those who were the fruit of their labours took their position as Christians and as an assembly. This is exactly what we do.

The apostles laid their hands on them, and acted in order to confirm them in the faith; and in other cases appointed elders, either personally or by a delegate. The labouring brethren do not pretend to do the apostolical part of the work, because they are not apostles; and it is precisely this part which you have the pretension to do (that is to say, the apostolical part). We make the distinction, which you point out, between the work of simple Christians (I will add, possessing the gifts which God has deigned to allot to them), and the work of the apostles and their delegates. This part the labouring brethren do not pretend to accomplish. You also make the distinction between these two things, but pretend, in that which relates to elders, to do the apostolical part of the work, alleging that without so doing an assembly cannot be founded.

377 It seems to me that the serious and scriptural thing is to carry out the distinction which you make: to do that which private Christians did according to their gifts, and to leave to the apostles and their delegates what was done by the apostles and their delegates.

But you insist on another fact in your letter. You say, as to collections, only one is related in the New Testament, and in that single account the participation of an apostle is positively stated! Must I repeat to you, sir, that the apostle refused to take part in this collection, unless there were other persons with him? But this is not all. I must here thank you for the support which you lend to my views. This case also, as well as the other which you quoted, overturns your arguments. If you give yourself the trouble to read Romans 15: 26, you will find, "For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they are." So that, on this point, the principle recognized in the word of God is that of the full liberty of the saints, and under certain aspects their moral obligation. "It pleased them." Hence, when it pleases us, we do it, acknowledging often that it is an obligation. If you wish to see the spirit in which the thing was done, you can read 2 Corinthians 8 where the apostle says, "I speak not by commandment"; and elsewhere (1 Cor. 16) You will find other collections also. You will see that the apostle speaks of the collection at Corinth, as of a thing which was being made, and of his participation in it as a discretionary thing "if it be meet." He had given orders to the Galatians as to how the collection was to be made. Hence, while quite admitting that there is often a moral obligation (and in this case one does not wait for an apostle), we find perfect liberty, we find spontaneous action as an essential thing, and that the participation of the apostle is a question of seasonableness. The examples which you quote, sir, confirm the principles which I maintain, as well as the distinction, which is intelligible to every sensible person, between acts which are, on the one hand, the fruit of grace, or of a particular power granted by God in the form of a gift, and, on the other, acts of authority which depend on a mission from on high.

378 I am very glad that you openly repudiate the principle "that it is lawful to do otherwise than what is expressed in the word of God"; but in the face of this assertion allow me again to quote M. de Gasparin's writing (Dec. 23, 1854) on the subject of the establishment of elders, etc. "Because things appear to have happened thus in the two or three instances which the New Testament mentions, it does not the least in the world follow that they could not also have been done otherwise." Now the facts are always there - the thing was not done in the Gentile churches otherwise than by the apostles and their delegates. I have already said that there does not appear to have been any nomination of elders amongst the Jews, so that, if you make elders, you cannot escape from the perplexity of "doing it otherwise" than according to the way which scripture presents to us. But this is not all. Whilst openly repudiating this principle in 1856 at the end of one paragraph, you again lay it down at the end of the following sentence. In order not to make elders, etc., you say it would be necessary to find in scripture a passage confining this act exclusively to the apostles and their delegates, a passage declaring that elders must be appointed by them "and not otherwise."

It is you who put "and not otherwise" between inverted commas. To shew that if the passage does not say "and not otherwise," Count de Gasparin has a right to do it in a way different from that authorized by the word, since it is necessary to find these words to prevent your doing it as you list. Finally, you cannot deny that things were done thus in the two or three cases narrated in the New Testament: the elders were established exclusively by the apostles or by a delegate of the apostle. It is an incontestable fact; but there is not a passage to be found which says "and not otherwise." Consequently you are not obliged to follow the example of the apostles; you do it otherwise! And this whilst "openly repudiating the convenient theories in virtue of which it would be lawful to do it otherwise."

379 Since it is not lawful to do it otherwise, why is it necessary to find a passage which says "and not otherwise"? The contradiction in 1856 of what has been said in 1855 may be allowed to pass; but to insist in one paragraph on what has been openly repudiated as a convenient theory in the preceding paragraph, is rather strong. But what is to be done when one struggles against the inflexible testimony of the word, even whilst one acknowledges its authority?

But you also bring in a parable to support your arguments. You say, "A sovereign legislator had promulgated a decree relative to the offices of judges; the decree ended thus: I have promulgated the present ordinance to make it known how persons ought to behave in the administration of the state, the pillar and ground of justice."

It has been justly observed, "Nullum simile quatuor pedibus currit: no parable goes on all fours." But yours limps even more pitiably, sir.

There is an executive power as well as a legislature. How convenient vagueness is! Our question is to know to whom the decree is addressed, and to whom the apostle makes known as a rule of conduct the way in which it was to be executed? The apostle is very precise; but this view at least disappears entirely from your similitude. "To make it known," you say: where is the similitude? The apostle says, "that thou mightest know." He gives to Timothy alone, when he sends his letter to him, the knowledge of what ought to be done. Who then owed obedience to the apostle if it was a command? Did the legislator publish his decree? Thanks be to God, we have it; but the apostle addressed his letter to Timothy alone, who enjoyed his confidence, in order that he might know how to behave.

Your similitude entirely falsifies facts as regards the epistle. Why have confidential delegates, if all could do that of which the apostle speaks? There is authority - executive power as well as a legislature: if every one undertakes to fulfil the part appertaining to the executive power, because the legislator has made laws, he is acting rebelliously, and encroaches on the rights of others. There is an authority and a mission, as well as decrees and laws. When you say the apostles obeyed their own laws, you alter facts and betray the weak point of your argument. They exercised an authority on the part of Christ; you have not this authority, the churches did not possess it, nor do the assemblies either; and if the apostle sends a confidential delegate to accomplish this very delicate task, and if he writes to him in particular, in order that he may know how he ought to behave, it is nonsense to say that this is an authorization, and even a command for all to do the same. By saying so, one denies authority.

380 In your parable you speak of the appointment of judges; if judges represent the emperor's authority by executing justice, and if their nomination be placed in the hands of a confidential person (and that is the case here) to arrogate to oneself the right of appointing a judge is to usurp the rights of a sovereign. The mission of Timothy and Titus was an act of authority on the apostle's part; can you not understand this, sir? And the exercise of the authority which had been confided to them, as well as instructions for the application of this authority, do not belong to every one. Do you deny the mission of these delegates of the apostle to have been an act of authority; and that what Titus and Timothy did, they did in virtue of that authority? Have you that authority? No, you have not. Let me once more place the expressions of the apostle before you - "These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself," etc. These words of the apostle are only addressed to his confidential delegate; they served to direct his conduct in a task which the apostle had himself entrusted him with. He was not bound to shew the letter to any one. Even if he did so, no one was bound to act according to its contents excepting himself. Thanks be to God, there would be light for us all in the letter; by it also the behaviour of Timothy might be judged; but not one word of the letter is addressed to the assembly. Why "If I tarry"? What would his delay mean, if it were a question of an absolute command for all Christians and for all times? Would it be a command for the Christians of that time, to whom the apostle's letter was not at all addressed, and to whom Timothy was not obliged to communicate it, to whom also he probably never shewed it, since this letter was confidential? Is it thought that Titus shewed to the Cretans the letter which confidentially declares that the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies; and that consequently he was to "rebuke them sharply"? When the apostle says to Titus, "exhort and rebuke with all authority," is this a command for everybody? It is destructive of authority to say it is.

381 Is it not evident that all these communications are confidential ones, made by the head of the executive power to his delegates? I acknowledge that, as inspired epistles, they are always valid; but this supposes that I make use of them according to the Spirit, and not that I appropriate to myself, rightly or wrongly, the things which Christ has not entrusted to me. Then you say, "Hence there is not only a command, an absolute command for all Christians, and for all times (how one ought to behave oneself in the house of God); but this command is declared essential as regards the Church." Where, sir? This is pure imagination; there is not a single word nor a single thought which affects this point.

Finally, the main and principal point of your assertion is that there is a command, and a command for all Christians and for all times. I reply, that there is not a command for all Christians, since there was none for the Christians at Ephesus; the letter was not addressed to the latter, and there is not the least reason for supposing that it was communicated to them.

At all events this communication would have been purely voluntary, so that the words addressed to Timothy could not be a command for them - the Christians at Ephesus. The reason of this is plain: the epistle was addressed to a single individual.

But further still, there was no command given to any one to establish elders, not even to this individual. Timothy did not receive any command to establish elders at Ephesus; the apostle teaches his beloved disciple what were, in the case of any one desiring to be a bishop, the qualifications which ought to characterize him; but he gives no command to Timothy to establish any. He was left at Ephesus for another purpose. It is very probable that elders had already been established there, since the apostle speaks of them and gives no command to establish any. Besides, the essential thing is that the apostle's letter is addressed to Timothy, and to Timothy alone, in order that he, he only, might know how he ought to behave. Consequently, the words of Paul were not and could not be a command for the Christians at Ephesus. Add to this, that the apostle wrote epistles to churches, and under circumstances in which the action of elders would be of the highest importance, and never in any case does he suggest to Christians or to any one amongst them, the idea of choosing or establishing elders; whilst we have one epistle addressed to a confidential person who, as well as Timothy, is a delegate of the apostle; and in this epistle the apostle entrusts to him the task of establishing some, and gives him rules to this end.

382 To sum up the subject. We have found in the account of the apostles, and in the writings which regulate this point, the commission to establish elders exclusively entrusted (if the apostles did not establish them themselves) to confidential delegates of the apostle, and where there were churches, this mission was entrusted to those persons to the exclusion of those churches; for the letters were not addressed to the latter; and when the apostles were on the spot, it is said, "they chose them." In other words, the choice is attributed exclusively to the apostles and their delegates. Only it is not added "and not otherwise." Ought we to do it "otherwise" by neglecting the authority of the word, whilst we openly repudiate "the convenient theory" that it is lawful to do otherwise? Is it right to acknowledge what is said in the word, while pretending to repudiate these convenient theories which allow one to do otherwise; and to do it otherwise all the time, because the words "and not otherwise" are not to be found there? Let us add that in the letters addressed to the churches, one does not find a single word on this point; but that there are, in more than one of them, moral directions, and they are therefore valid for all times, formally addressed to all Christians and applicable to submission to rulers, even when there might be no elders.

The thesis of Mons. de Gasparin and his associates is, on the one hand, the denial of authority in the Church of God, if one regards this authority as derived from Christ, and existing in the persons of those whom He has sent for that purpose, namely, His apostles; and on the other, the destruction of submission founded on the moral precepts of the word addressed to all the faithful, even when there might be no authority formally appointed, and submission in which the word and grace of God exercise all their power, and have all their rights.

Mons. de Gasparin and his partisans wish to attribute to every babe in Christ, and to women, the discernment and authority which the apostle took so much trouble to use for the profit of the Church in the disciples whom he had chosen for this.

383 I do not think that there is any other point in Mons. de Gasparin's article which is worth taking up, and I desire to be brief. I will only again remark that in what Mons. de Gasparin calls his motives, he avoids touching on the question of authority. He speaks of ordinary actions, such as eating and drinking, etc., and of religious acts, as preaching - actions which are common to all Christians. He speaks of founding new churches; he speaks of collections, etc. Finally, we have treated of these points. But it is a question of executive authority. On this point Mons. de Gasparin maintains complete silence, and instead of speaking of executive authority, he gives us the parable of a legislator.

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL VOL. 2]

On Gifts and Offices in the Church.

J. N. Darby.

Originally written in German.

<14001G> 1

It is far more happy to be occupied in considering the riches of the grace of God and of the love of Christ than to be discussing questions of offices and of institutions. It is however at times necessary to speak about these also, when they are put forward with a view of troubling the peace of Christians and of exciting their minds, as if their Christianity were defective, as if they were walking disorderly, and as if, before God, something were lacking to them. It is, then, in order to clear up these contested points, and to tranquillize the minds of Christians, that I would say a few words upon offices and gifts. I do so, however, with the most fervent desire that each one, after being really enlightened upon the subject, may turn from these questions and leave them entirely alone, so as to be occupied with Christ, and His exhaustless love and immeasurable grace. For it is that which nourishes and edifies, while questions tend to dryness and barrenness of soul.

There is a great difference between gifts and charges. Gifts flow down from the Head, which is Christ, among the members, so as to assemble, by their means, the Church outside of the world, and to build it up so far as thus gathered together.

Those to whom charges were entrusted, were as such "overseers," or "servants," established in each locality by the apostles, and who received from them their position and their authority. They might have gifts, and it was desirable that they should; but very often they had none. In either case, when they were faithful and devoted to their service, they were blessed of God. We will now examine the instruction of holy scripture concerning gifts.

Everything which is good is a gift, and comes from God. But here we speak of gifts in a rather more restricted and more limited sense; namely, the gifts bestowed by God for the gathering together of His Church and for its edification, according as it is written: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men," Eph. 4: 8. That is, the gifts of which we speak are those which, according to scripture, Christ received from the Father, after having ascended up on high to be Head over all things to the Church.

2 Man, through sin, has brought many a thing to a close in ruin. Without law he was lost in dissoluteness, in independence, in towering violence and corruption. Under the law he became a transgressor and despiser of the authority of God. God visited man in mercy there where he was lying in misery, vile and disobedient; and man has rejected God. He was a sinner, driven out of the earthly paradise. God came down into this miserable world of man's; but, so far as it lay in man's power to do it, he drove God out of the world. There remains thus for man - as altogether the servant of the prince and god of this world - nothing but judgment. God will not however, in any, even the least respect, fail to accomplish His own designs. Every hope for the first man, as such, is lost. But God has glorified the second Man, Adam, even Him who was obedient (the Lord from heaven), and has taken Him up into the heavenly place predestined for Him. Yet He still acts in grace upon the hearts of the children of men to give them a new life, and to gather the objects of His grace outside of the world, uniting them to Christ glorified, so that they may enjoy, together with Him, all blessings, and, which is more precious than all else, that they may rejoice together with Him in the Father's love. Thus those that are born again are also members of Christ, of Him who is the Head of the body. But there is still another truth which connects itself with the object we have in view; namely, that Christ has won that position by the accomplishment of the work of redemption. We were captives of the devil and of sin: now we are set free. Christ has led captivity captive, and He fills those whom He sets free with the power of the Holy Spirit that they may serve Him. Having overcome Satan and finished the work of redemption, He is ascended up on high, and, as Head of the Church, He has received of the Father the Holy Spirit of promise for the members of His body.

The Christian being redeemed receives the Holy Spirit in two manners. He is sealed with the Spirit, the earnest of our inheritance, and thus is one with the Lord, and united to Him; then he has received the Holy Spirit as power for service to Christ. Such is the way the gifts connect themselves with these truths. The work of redemption is accomplished; and believers are perfectly purified from their sins, so that, by virtue of the blood of Christ wherewith they are sprinkled, the Holy Spirit can dwell in them. Christ, having glorified God, His Father, upon earth, has sat down, as man, at the right hand of God, as Head of the Church, whose everlasting righteousness He is. As such, He has received the Holy Spirit for His members, that is to say, for those that believe in Him; Acts 2: 33; Eph. 4: 8. We are the righteousness of God in Him; 2 Cor. 5: 21. Already the Holy Spirit - sent by the Father in the name of the Son - and come down from the Son, dwells in believers as the witness of His glory and the Spirit of power, as the Spirit of liberty and adoption, on behalf of the Father, and as coming from the Father, in order to communicate to them the certainty of salvation, and also to accomplish on the earth, as power and wisdom, the work of the Lord, in the members of the body.

3 All important and precious as is the first-named point, we will for the present leave it in order to say a few words on gifts. The Holy Spirit is upon earth, in virtue of the finished work of redemption, and of the session of Christ at the right hand of God. There He acts, by means of the gospel, so as to proclaim the love of God, to gather together the elect, and to form of them one body, the body of Christ. Every converted soul, which has received the life of Christ and been sealed with the Holy Spirit, is a member of Christ, of the heavenly Head. We can consider then the gifts as either the gifts of Christ, or as the operation of the Holy Ghost now upon the earth. The holy scripture gives us both of these aspects. In Ephesians 4 it speaks of the gifts of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 it speaks of the unity of the body, and of the gifts as produced by the Spirit in the different members. In each case, the gifts are in connection with the unity of the body, as may be easily seen by reading Ephesians 4.

Before going farther, let it be remarked, that the gifts are of two kinds: first, such as serve to awaken souls, and to gather the Church; and, secondly, such as are signs to the world, signs of the presence of God in the Person of the Spirit in the Church. The Epistle to the Ephesians speaks to us only of the former; the Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of both. The word of God itself makes the above distinction, when it says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, and prophesyings are for believers (1 Cor. 14: 22). This distinction is important, because it is impossible that anything should fail which is necessary for the conversion of souls, and for the building up of saints; whereas it is easy enough to conceive that God should withdraw that which was an ornament to the Church, and a token of its acceptability, when the Church is unfaithful, and when, instead of honouring God, she has grieved the Spirit. Nevertheless this external testimony remained, according to the wisdom of God in the Church, so long as it was needed, in order to confirm the preaching of the truths of the gospel.

4 All gifts proceed immediately from Christ the Head, and have their existence in believers by the energy of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 12 present to us these two important truths very clearly and very explicitly, while at the same time they give us their principle and their development. Ephesians 4 treats exclusively of the gifts which serve for the gathering and edification of the Church. Christ is ascended up on high, and has received gifts for men, who, in the enjoyment by faith of the work of Christ in redemption, by the which they are completely delivered from the power of Satan, to which they were previously subject - having also been made vessels of the grace and power, which flows down from on high, of Christ, who is the Head - become instruments of the Christ who is absent, by means of the gifts which are communicated to them. The Lord laid the foundation by the apostles and prophets, who are (says the apostle Paul, Eph. 2) the foundation, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. There yet abide evangelists, pastors, and teachers; and, so long as Christ loves the Church, and is the alone source of grace - so long as He desires to nourish the members of His own body - these same gifts will remain for the edification of the Church. But whereas - while the healthful action of these gifts is by means of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit - Christians are unhappily often unfaithful, and neglect His rebukes, it comes to pass that the development of the gifts, and their public efficacy, are little apparent, and their activity is diminished. This is true in general; and that both as to individual Christian life, and as to the practical state of the Church. But it is not the less true, that Christ always faithfully cares for His own body. On that care we can always count, though as to details we may be humbled on account of our own unfaithfulness. Also the Lord has said, The harvest is plenteous, but the labourers are few; and that we should pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth more labourers.

5 Every one who has received a gift has thereby become servant of Him who communicated it to him. In every case we are the servants of Christ, who alone is Lord of our souls; but every Christian, in particular, is His servant, as to any gift He may have conferred upon him; and, because He has conferred it on him, each one is responsible both to use it and to trade with it - I mean to trade with it, with the view for which Christ communicated it. Without doubt, each Christian is subject to the general discipline of the Church, or of the assembly, both as to his whole life and as to his service. But he serves Christ, and not men. He brings forth fruit for the assembly, because he serves Christ; he renders service to Christians, because he is the servant of Christ the Lord. Also, he must needs serve, because he is the servant of Christ, and has received, for that end, a part of his Lord's goods. Such is the doctrine of the parable of the three servants, whose lord went into a far country, and gave unto them of his goods; to the one more, to the other less. With what view? that they might be idle and listless? No; he committed to them the talents in order that they might trade with them. We do not commit materials and tools to men, in order that they may do nothing. Not only is such a thought senseless, but, if the love of Christ and His love to souls energize in our hearts, idleness and inaction are altogether impossible.

The presence and the activity of Christ's love in our hearts is thus, in truth, tested. If the love of Christ be active in my heart, would it be possible for me to remain inactive in any case in which I could be of use to one soul beloved of Him? Certainly not. The power to act thus, the wisdom needful to do it, in a way which would be agreeable to Him, comes always and directly from Himself, while the love of Christ in the heart is that which keeps the heart lively. In order to have courage for action, I must have confidence in Christ: otherwise the heart will say, "Perhaps He will not accept what I do"; "it may be He will not be content with me"; "would not this be too rash, too hasty?" "it might be proud to attempt that." The sluggard says, "There is a lion in the way"; whereas love is not inactive but intelligent, because it confides in Christ. Love apprehends what love wishes; it yields itself to the will of Christ, and follows the example of Christ, its guide. Such is the action of that very love which is in Christ, and which acts with humble and true wisdom. It is obedient and intelligent, understanding from grace its duty, and drawing out of the love of Christ courage to fulfil it. And whose conduct did Christ approve of and accept? Was it his who, out of a heart's confidence, laboured without any other commandment, or his who was afraid to do so? We all know the answer. The approbation of Christ suffices for the heart of the Christian, and suffices for his justification in his deed.

6 Brethren, when we have His acceptance manifest and declared, we may leave all the rest alone. This is just what to be faithful to Christ means. Let us have patience. He will judge everything ere long. Till then let us walk by faith: His word is enough for us. At the time appointed He will justify us before the world, and will put full honour upon His own word and our faith.

The Lord Jesus has, then, received these gifts as Himself a man, and has given them to men, for the effectuating the work of the gospel and of the Church; those therefore who have received these gifts must needs turn them to their full profit, according to God, to Will souls, to edify Christians, and to glorify their Lord and heavenly Master. In Ephesians 4 we have seen the gifts of edification represented as being trusts made here below by Christ Himself ascended up on high, while the members of His body upon the earth are being gathered, and while, by means of an activity which acts the one upon the other, the body grows, and is at the same time kept from every wind of doctrine, until it come unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

The gifts are looked at in 1 Corinthians 12 rather according to the energy of the Holy Spirit upon earth, who distributes them to each as He will. Therefore we find here, not only gifts of edification, but all those which are the result of the power of the Spirit and signs of His presence. This chapter examines everything which can be considered as a spiritual manifestation; and while it distinctly speaks of the action of the power of demons, it shews us the means of distinguishing these from divine gifts. It sets forth, in the very clearest manner, the doctrine of the body and members of Christ, drawing our attention to this: that there is but one only Lord, by whose authority those who have gifts labour - whether in the world, or in the assembly of saints - to accomplish the work of God by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. Each member is dependent upon the action of the others, because all have been baptized by one and the same Spirit.

7 In Romans 12 and 1 Peter 4: 10 the gifts are briefly enumerated. In Romans, again, as the members of the body of Christ, and, in general, with the object of exhorting those who possess gifts not to go beyond that which has been given to them, but to keep within the limits of their gift. In 1 Peter 4 the Holy Spirit exhorts Christians to use the gifts which have been bestowed upon them, as the immediate and faithful t stewards of God Himself; to speak as the oracles of God; to serve as by the ability received of God. In all this teaching, we find nothing about office; the subject is simply the members of the body of Christ who all take their part in the edifying of the body, and who are held responsible to do so. All do not speak - all do not preach the gospel - all do not teach, because all have not these gifts; but all are obliged, according to scripture, to do (according to the scriptural order of the house of God) that which God has given them to do. When once it understood that all Christians are members of Christ, and that each member has his own proper work - his own service in the body, all becomes simple and clear. We have all a duty to fulfil, and that in the strength of God; and the less seen is perhaps the most precious, while exercising itself before God and not before man. But all have something to do. To say that all have office is to deny that there are special offices. Nothing can be clearer, if we examine history and the instruction of scripture upon this point. We see in it that, in that which concerns either the preaching of the gospel in the world, or the edification of Christians in gathering, the question is never about office, but that all depends upon gifts.

Let us turn to a few passages in proof of this assertion.

We have already called attention to Matthew 25. In the parable of the talents committed to the three servants, the Lord lays down this principle, that two of them are worthy of praise because they had traded, without being otherwise authorized than by the fact itself that their lord had committed to them his money; while the third is blamed and punished for having expected a warrant, because he had not confidence in his lord, and had not dared to trade without some further obligation. This means, that the gifts themselves are, for the workman, a warrant or authorization fully sufficient to trade with the gift which he has, if the love of Christ constrain his heart; but, if this love is not there, he is under responsibility; and the proof that the love of Christ is not in action in him is, that he has not served by means of his gift - he is a bad and a lazy servant. Christ gives not gifts with the object that we should not turn them to profit; He gives them, rather, that we may use them with energy. We find also, that, in point of fact, so it was among the early Christians. When the persecution which ensued upon the death of Stephen had dispersed the Christians, they went everywhere preaching the gospel (Acts 8: 4). And we read (chap. 11: 21) that the hand of the Lord was with them. But is it possible that if I know the means by which a soul may be saved, I ought not to announce that way, though God may have rendered me able to do so? In private anyone can do such a thing; but the ability to preach in public is precisely the gift of God in this respect.

8 Paul finding himself in prison at Rome, many of the brethren in the Lord waxed bold on seeing his bonds, and fearlessly dared to preach the word; Phil. 1: 13, 14.

When false teachers go forth to seduce the Lord's people, the receiving them or the not receiving them in no wise depends upon any office they have, or upon the absence of an official character. Even a woman is directed to judge for herself by doctrine (2 John). It did not for an instant come into the thought of the apostle to use such a means as the possession of office, in order to guard a woman on the occurrence of a time of difficulty; he simply writes to her to judge each according to his doctrine. It does not even come into his head to counsel this woman to ask of him who presents himself as preacher whether he has office, or is consecrated or ordained. On the contrary he praises the beloved Gaius, because he had received the brethren who were gone forth in the name of Christ; and he exhorts him to bring them on their way in a manner worthy of God. In so doing Gaius would become a co-labourer with the truth (3 John 8).

So far as the preaching of the gospel is concerned, the word of God then confirms this doctrine, that each, according to his capacity, and the opportunities which God in His grace affords him, is obliged to announce the good news.

The scripture is quite clear also as to the edification of believers. Not only does it present us with this general truth, that Christ has given gifts, and that the Holy Spirit acts thereby, in order that we may fulfil the work of God in every way (Eph. 4 and 1 Cor. 12); but, moreover, it speaks with exactness and clearness of the duty of those who possess gifts. The Holy Spirit says by the mouth of Peter (1 Pet. 4: 10), "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards. of the manifold grace of God." Then in 1 Corinthians 14 we find the order according to which the exercise of gifts should take place, "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." James shews us distinctly the true limits of this service, without reference to office, when he says that believers should not be many teachers, because that the responsibility thereof would be all the greater, and that (since we all in various ways offend) they would suffer a so much the greater judgment. It is, then, perfectly certain that gifts, and the service which believers render by gifts, are completely independent of the possession of office; and that those to whom God has communicated these gifts are obliged to use them for the edification of the saints. The scripture gives the rules according to which the exercises of the gifts ought to take place; it requires that the spirits of the prophets be subject to the prophets, and that all be done unto edification, in such wise that there be no disorder in the assembly. As to office, the scripture says not one single word upon this subject in this respect.*

{*It is remarkable that in the epistle to the Corinthians elders are never once mentioned; and there, where there existed so much trouble and evil, the apostle nevertheless does not propose to the assembly to nominate or establish elders; but he acts upon the conscience of Christians by the word, in order that they may be roused to remove the evil.}

9 Now, on this subject, we beg that it may be remarked, that between gift and office there exists a great difference, and that this difference depends upon the nature of the two things. The gift has its course, it is available everywhere. If I am an evangelist, I shall preach the gospel wheresoever God may call me. Am I a teacher? I shall teach believers according to my ability, wheresoever I may chance to find myself. Apollos teaches at Ephesus; he is also of use to believers at Corinth. But if any one has received an office, he fulfils the service which is connected with it in the determinate place where he has been nominated thereunto. Is he an elder, or a deacon at Ephesus? he ought to fulfil his office at Ephesus; his official authority is valid at Ephesus. At Corinth he would have none. The possessors of office are not, as such, members of the body of Christ; though those who are installed therein are themselves individually such. The gifts, as gifts, are the various members of the body (see Eph. 4, 1 Cor. 14, and Rom. 12), who ought to render their service according to the will of God, wheresoever they may find themselves. The scripture never says that an evangelist is the evangelist of an assembly or of a flock; neither does it recognize a teacher or a pastor of a flock; but God has put such gifts in the Church, in the body of Christ. "And he 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, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love," Eph. 4: 11-16. There were, without any question, at the commencement, offices in the assemblies; we find two kinds of them in the holy scriptures; overseers and servants, and if any one is pleased to make the distinction, sisters in service. The first-named were ordinarily (presbuteroi) what are now called elders. The others were deacons or deaconesses. We do not find, however, that elders were established in any determinate manner among the Christian Jews. Among the Christians who had been called by grace, from among the heathen, we see very clearly, that they were chosen and installed in their charge by the apostles or their delegates. We read in Acts 14: 23 that Paul and Barnabas choose, in each town, elders for the assemblies; and in Crete the apostle left Titus, in order that he might establish elders in every town. As to Timothy, although that was not his service, having been left by the apostle at Ephesus, to watch as to doctrine, yet he received from Paul instruction as to the qualities suitable for an overseer. Nevertheless, the apostle did not enter into conference upon this point with the assemblies; but he did everything himself personally, or else he entrusted this service exclusively to his delegate; even there where assemblies were already formed.

11 We find but little in scripture about the servants (or deacons). In Acts 6 we read that the apostles, not wishing to have any more to serve tables, require the Christians to choose seven from among themselves, who should fulfil the duties of deacons, though they are not called by the name; and, to say the least, they had in many respects the suited qualifications which are enumerated by the apostle Paul to Timothy and to Titus.

It may be asked, Now that there are no apostles, what ought we to do as to elders? Our God, who has in all times foreknown the wants of His beloved Church, has given us the answer in the word, and has taken sufficient heed of these wants. We read, "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves," 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13. At the same time, the apostle distinctly sets forth the common responsibility of all the saints. "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, 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.

In Hebrews 13 he speaks of the real leaders of the assembly. "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation," Heb. 13: 7. The word is the same as that used in Acts 15: 22 of "Judas and Silas, chief men among the brethren."

Such ought to be esteemed among them. We see in the same chapter, verse 7, that some of them were dead, and we learn here what had been their disposition; but the rest still lived.

The duty of elders is that of oversight. In Acts 20 the apostle gives them this name (in our language, bishop; in Greek, episkopos). We find this title again in the Epistle to the Philippians. In Acts 20: 28, 31, we see in what their duty consisted - to nourish with sound doctrine, to be watchful against false teachers, and attentive to everything. The passage in 1 Peter 5: 1-3 speaks the same thing.

12 The duty of deacons is also, as for the elders, expressed in their name. The Greek word diakonos signifies servant. They served the assembly as its servants; there were also sisters (as Phoebe) with the same title. If we examine Acts 6, the seven who cared for the poor widows as deacons had this service specially allotted to them for their portion.

These were the offices then in the various assemblies, which the apostles, and Paul in particular, established when all was yet in order. There were in each assembly several elders.

Nevertheless all the elders had not gifts. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine," 1 Tim. 5: 17. The deacons, like all other Christians, had to exercise them when they possessed them. The deacons, where they fulfilled their charge faithfully and carefully, found also their own spiritual profit therein. "For they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 3: 13); as we may see most fully made good in the cases of Stephen and Philip; Acts 6, 7 and 8.

We see too elsewhere how Christians, without losing their proper responsibility according to grace, had to be subject to those that were at the work. "I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to everyone that helpeth with us, and laboureth," 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16. The Christian can never lay aside his individual responsibility. The discipline of the assembly recalls to a walk according to that responsibility, when the Christian has forgotten so to walk. Brethren, then, who by the Lord's grace are called to the work, labour to maintain the Christian walk, to strengthen the feeble, to instruct the ignorant, to exhort and to encourage all, to nourish by the word and to render all able, by that divine nourishment, to honour God and the doctrine of the Saviour-in short, to be in every way a help, the common responsibility being in view.

The Christian can say: All things are mine - the activity of the workman of God, as much as his efforts to remove every kind of evil. "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's," 1 Cor. 3: 22, 23. The apostle says, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake," 2 Cor. 4: 5.

13 These two public offices then are now entirely wanting to us; no one can restore them officially according to holy scripture, after a divine sort, because no one has received, in order to do so, authority or commission on the part of God to do so. But the scripture provides morally for subjection to those whom God raises up to service: and inasmuch as Christ is infallibly faithful toward His body, and inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is always in the Church upon earth, the gifts necessary to the edification of the assembly are always there. The feeble state of the Church of God shews itself, it is true, in this respect as in every other; but Christ ever remains faithful, and cannot cease to nourish His members.

The doctrine of scripture as to gifts has been almost forgotten; or else it is altogether set aside by assigning the right to edify men to those who have been placed by men in their positions - positions which men have for the most part invented for themselves. And when even it is conceded that God furnishes the gifts, it is not any the more permitted to those who possess them to exercise them without a sanction from man.

The confusion arising from the mixture of gifts and offices, which men have invented, has resulted in what is ordinarily called "clergy," and even worship; and it is carried so far as to maintain, that, if this confusion is not recognized, the service due to God is denied. But the true service to God is there, where each member of Christ serves God also (be it in the word, or be it for the edification of the brethren, and thus of the whole body of Christ) with the gift which Christ has communicated to him by the power of the Holy Spirit.

If in the existing state of the Church the public re-establishment of the offices which scripture recognizes is not possible, God has nevertheless previously ordained all that is necessary, all that is good for such a state, sad as it may be; as also He will infallibly give all that is useful to those who ask it of Him.

As to the imposition of hands to authorize the exercise of gifts, the scripture owns no such necessity. When hands were laid on the apostles Paul and Barnabas, they were simply recommended to the grace of God for the work which they then fulfilled. But both of these had now for a long time exercised their gifts; it was not then, on the part of the prophets at Antioch, anything else than a commendation to the grace of the Lord for a special work. The twelve apostles laid their hands on the seven who are ordinarily called deacons; and (though that is nowhere said) it is likely enough, from analogy, that the apostle Paul, or delegates, laid hands on the elders. But as to the exercise of gifts, it is spoken of everywhere as exercised without that ceremony, even in such a manner that (if it were necessary) all Christians ought to have the imposition of hands. It is as clear as the light of the sun, that, as all might "prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted" (1 Cor. 14: 31), all, in effect, might preach; and that, many having spoken with divers tongues, the imposition of hands for the exercise of gifts was completely impossible.

14 The scripture is ignorant of any official ceremony for the administration of the Lord's supper, as men speak; and God nowhere therein declares, that it is the privilege of a person consecrated, or set apart, to administer it. "The disciples came together to break bread," Acts 20: 7. Probably those who were esteemed among them began the breaking of bread with prayer before distributing it, because it is evidently comely as a general principle that such should have this place and not a service, and charity does not behave itself unseemly: nevertheless scripture has said nothing upon the subject The blessing used in worship is but a giving of thanks, as we see in 1 Corinthians 14: 16, "Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" Even the Lord gave thanks before breaking the 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," 1 Cor. 11: 24.

The House of God; the Body of Christ; and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

J. N. Darby.

<14002E> 15

You have asked of me some account of the historical development of a false notion on which I have often spoken, and already written briefly in the "Present Testimony." The practical importance of this notion had caused my mind to be occupied with it, and led me to entertain the thought of pursuing its history. The false notion which I refer to is the confusion of two distinct aspects of the Church, given us in scripture: that of the house of God, and that of the body of Christ. Since I first proposed treating this point, the subject has been taken up in the "Bible Treasury." But, having the wish to go farther into the statements of scripture than is there done, and, having long had my mind occupied with it, this does not hinder my pursuing it myself. The ground of the view there given, and of the following paper, I apprehend to be the same; but it will easily be seen how entirely independent they are one of another.

The thought that admission into the house conferred the privileges of the body has been the root of the systematic corruption of Christianity, which has acquired the reverence of ages, was not shaken off at the Reformation, and is now corrupting the Protestant systems, which were thought to have freed themselves from its fetters. All the members of the body of Christ are living members, quickened of the Spirit, or born of God; they are forgiven all their sins, and perfected for ever by His one offering of Himself; they have received His Spirit, and are heirs of the inheritance of glory. If the body and the house are the same thing, then all that are admitted into the house, be they adults or infants, have part in the privileges which belong to the body. On the other hand, being true members of the body of Christ secures nothing; for its true members may perish. The very idea of being born of God is destroyed; for, after having been born of God, they lose what they had, and have to be born over again, without the alleged means of being so, or they enter the kingdom of heaven, as they say, without life; the abiding efficacy of Christ's sacrifice is annulled - for they that are sanctified are not perfected for ever; and the sealing of the Holy Ghost for the day of redemption is applied to those who will never be there, and has no effectual value in this respect.

16 The first general idea, that of which we are to speak, is the Church (e ekklesia). The word, however, I shall at once drop, and employ the literal rendering of the Greek word so translated: the Assembly. Technical words obtain a conventional meaning, which introduces great confusion into people's minds; for, though the local growth of thought produces language, in moral education, words become names, and create rather than express ideas. Take, as an instance, this word Church. It is applied, as all know, to buildings appropriated to ecclesiastical services. But the church is the house of God; and the building is treated as the house of God, though God has expressly declared that, under the Christian system, He will not dwell in temples made with hands; that where two or three are gathered together in His name - the true church so far, and so called in the passage - there Christ is in their midst.

I shall speak therefore of the Assembly, the real meaning of the word. Only this is God's Assembly. Take the passage which I have referred to, and see the effect of this. If a brother trespassed against another, he was to tell it to him alone; if that were useless, to take two or three more; if that failed, to tell it to the Assembly. What has not been made out of this passage? And how many delusions are dispelled by its plain and simple language, when it is taken as it stands? It is related, that king James forbad the translators of the Bible into English to change this word "church," which, in the previous Geneva translation, had been dropped. The bearing of such a prohibition is evident enough.*

{*In this and a few other cases the charge of intentional departure from a plain translation, through prejudice, or a fear of doing mischief perhaps, cannot be escaped, in respect to the (generally-speaking) admirable translation which we possess in English. I know of none better, unless perhaps the Dutch, which, made about eight years afterwards, has evidently profited by the English; perhaps by Bengel's of the New Testament, which is done with very great care, but not in use. The reformed German translation of Piscator is a very good one. It has alas! even in the reformed churches, given place to Luther's, which is the very worst translation I know. The French are all very mediocre; Diodati's, the most exact, but old and even incorrect French; but the truth is, that the French language is singularly unfitted for the translation of scripture. It may be exact, and no doubt is; but it is the narrow exactitude of man's mind. Diodati's, being far more exact to the original, is consequently intolerable as French. I may cite as examples, not of mistaken translation, which human infirmity is, of course, exposed to, but of false. Acts 1: 22, "Must one be ordained to be": ordained to be, is not the original at all. Acts 3: 19, "When the times," instead of "So that." This may have been from not knowing what to make of it; but it is a false translation. 2 Thessalonians 2, The day of Christ is "at hand," instead of "is come," or, "come upon" [you]. The word is used more than once for "present," in contrast with things to come, and always for present. The whole teaching of the epistle, I hesitate not to say, here depends on it. Again, they have been afraid to put "heavenly places" in Ephesians 6: 12, in the text. The avoiding the word bishops ("overseers"), Acts 20, is of the same character. I mention only such as occur to my memory at the moment.}

17 The word Assembly is one known to Old Testament language and thought. Yet it had there a very different character and foundation. Two words are there employed, which, it seems to me, give somewhat different ideas, hedah and kahal. The former seems to me to present rather the corporate unity of the congregation; the latter, the actual gathering, pretty much the difference which we might understand between an Assembly and an Assemblage. Moed is another thought; the meeting, the tent of meeting; because there they met God, and, indeed, one another; but the thought in the word is an appointed place of meeting. Israel was the assembly of God, but they were it by birth; though excluded, if not circumcised. All this for the time was set aside we may say, by the death of Christ, though the patience of God lingered, by means of the intercession of Christ upon the cross over the beloved people (compare Acts 3). The prophets had indeed spoken of all this beforehand, and he among them who unfolded the destinies of Israel, and their several causes more fully than any one, Isaiah, tells all through of a remnant that should be spared, the children and disciples given to Messiah, when all was darkness in the nation, and the testimony of God shut up, save to that remnant, thus separated from the people, while God Himself hid His face from them. This remnant would in future days return; and for their sakes Israel be spared, and the glory of the nation be established in them (see Isa. 6: 9-13; ch. 8: 15-18; ch. 10: 21, 22; ch. 65: 8, 9, and ch. 66). Chapter 8 shews us that, when the nation was set aside, this remnant came distinctively on the scene. They were for signs to both houses of Israel.

There were two grounds for Israel's rejection; one, viewing the people as witness of the unity of the Godhead against idolatry; the other, as visited by Jehovah in the Person of the Lord Jesus. In chapters 40-57, these two points are treated. The captivity of Babylon was the judgment of their failure as to the former: hence we have Cyrus mentioned in connection with their deliverance. Their present state is the result of the rejection of their Messiah, the time the unclean spirit, after the Babylonish captivity, was gone out of them. Still it was but a remnant, preserved and brought back. That God would not look merely at the fact that they were His people, but would distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, is also clearly stated in chapter 48: 22, where the pleading on the question of idolatry closes; and chapter 57: 21, where the pleading as to the rejection of Christ closes. And their wickedness, and the Lord's coming in power, and the intervening gospel-times, are then spoken of. At the end of their history, the unclean spirit, which had gone out, returns with seven others, worse; they are idolaters; and not only is Messiah negatively rejected, but they accept one who comes in his own name. The last state is worse than the first, and wickedness ripens up into terrible judgment, which will yet be deliverance for those who will have called on the name of Jehovah, who will have refused the idols, waited for Jehovah, and, in looking on Him whom they had pierced, see Him come in infinite grace for their deliverance.

18 But our enquiry now refers to the condition of this remnant, spared from the judgments of Israel, while God is hiding His face from the house of Jacob. The first witness we have is only the binding up the testimony, and sealing the law, among His disciples, and waiting on Jehovah, who hides His face from the house of Jacob, and looking for Him. But this, though all blessing be founded on the death of Christ, does not bring in His death as a matter of knowledge. The instructions in Matthew, such as the sermon on the mount, and still more, chapters 10 and 24, answer to this; though, of course, increased light is thrown on their position, both as to spiritual apprehension, and the introduction of the Father's name, which Christ as Son, as in the sermon on the mount, could do, and by the prophetic light afforded them by the Lord. Besides this, the introduction of the thought of the coming King does cast a special light on all the instruction given.

In Psalm 22, however, where the circumstances of the blessed Lord's death, and the immense truth of His enduring the forsaking of God, are brought before us, we have more definite light as to the position into which the remnant enter in virtue of it. The Lord had borne the forsaking of God, and was now heard from the horns of the unicorn. All the unspeakable and full blessing of the inshining of God's delight, when sin was put away - a delight, which, though everlasting, was enhanced by the value of that sacrifice - expressed in the names of God and Father - enjoyed as man, as Son - all burst unclouded upon His soul. This He declared to His brethren, to put them, these poor disciples that followed Him, into the same place with Himself. He can now call them His brethren, for the work of redemption is accomplished. Go, tell my brethren, He says to Mary Magdalen, that I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. But this was not all - He raises the song of praise in the midst of the assembly. Thus, the remnant already manifested, the disciples are set on redemption-ground, and gathered with Christ in their midst. The assembly, composed (as yet) of the remnant of Israel, takes a definite and true ground. The assembly of God was there, His presence there. We have the remnant, the brethren, gathered into an assembly (kahal, that is the actual gathering of them together), and the gathering founded on the sacrifice and atonement of Christ, and the power of His resurrection as to life. God was a Saviour-God in the power of eternal life; He was known in peace, and grace, and glory - was rejoiced in hope. The instructions of the New Testament will carry us farther than all this; but this much was laid as a foundation. For Christ died, not only to save, and not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

19 The first great element promised in scripture, and given after the exaltation of Jesus, was the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The assembly being now formed, the Lord added to it daily the remnant of Israel whom He was sparing from judgment. Hereafter they will form the body of Israel itself - now they were added to the assembly. The hundred and twenty were, by grace, together in practical kahal, though as yet they had no definite object which rallied them, save the consciousness of a common faith, strengthened doubtless by Jesus visiting them the day of His resurrection and following first day of the week. But the baptism of the Holy Ghost constituted them a real hedah, a corporate body, a true ohel-moed, a tent of meeting, where the Lord was. He owned it formally as His assembly on the earth. A temple there was which God yet bore with, but it was not where He dwelt. It was somewhat as when the tabernacle was at Gibeon without the ark, and the ark, by delivering grace, in Mount Zion. The title of "Assembly" became the generic name for this assembly formed amongst men. Its state or privileges, relationship with God or with Christ, be they one or various, and the dealings of God and Christ with it, remain to be searched out. We shall find that it had more than one aspect and relationship, to which God's dealings with it corresponded.

20 But the assembly of God was formed. It was not yet brought out in the faith of its members, though it were so in the counsels of God, and in that on which the assembly was founded and formed - that Jews and Gentiles should form one body without distinction. Nor did other truths connected with it make a part of their faith; but there was an assembly of God formed on the earth.

I will now consider some of the aspects in which it is presented in scripture.

First, the Lord's prediction that He is going to build it, and on what, in Matthew 16. Christ, to the end of Matthew 12, had presented Himself preaching repentance and the kingdom to Israel, not hiding Jehovah's righteousness in the great congregation; above all, He had presented Himself as Jehovah- Messias to Israel, and sought an answer and fruit in His vineyard. Then He breaks entirely with His relationship with Israel after the flesh. His disciples are His mother and brethren and sisters. The nation is judged: its state worse than all before (Matt. 13). He sows; He does not seek fruit: and, when the kingdom of heaven is set up, the field is the world, not Judaism. All this is very significant; but it only leads us on to one further point (chaps. 14, 15). He unfolds many moral points on which the rejection is founded, as indeed predicted, and shews grace bearing with and rising above the evil, as to Israel.

But in chapter 16 He elicits from Simon the confession of His own Person; which indeed the Father had revealed to him. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this rock He would build His assembly in the world, in the power of divine life itself in Him as the Son of God. He existed, as Son, in the power of the life which is in God. And what should he who had the power of hades, or death, be able to do against it? Christ was the very expression of the power of the living God, and that in life, as Son: what could the power of death do? This was shown in resurrection - "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead." It was no longer to be announced that He was the Christ in Israel. This was closed: but as He was going to build the Church, He must, as Son of man, suffer and die, but rise again; and then, in the power of that resurrection which was beyond the power of death, build it. Some would see (in the transfiguration - hereafter, fully) the Son of man coming in His kingdom. Now He was to suffer, relinquishing His then Christ-relationship with Israel, and, before finally taking the kingdom in power, build the Church on the title of Son of the living God. Thus we have His three titles in this respect: Christ as Messiahship in Israel no longer announced; Christ, the Son of the living God - a title He was never given elsewhere - on this He would build His assembly: Son of man - in this He would now suffer, but afterwards be seen coming in His kingdom. He announces His death, but builds His assembly on the acknowledgment of His Person. For Son of man see Psalm 8, Daniel 7, and Psalm 80: 17. The kingdom of heaven is another subject, mentioned in the chapter, but not one which occupies us directly at this moment: I may speak of it farther on.

21 Christ then declares, that upon this - that is, the truth of His being the Christ, the Son of the living God - He will build His assembly, and the gates of hades should not prevail against it. This is a remarkable statement. Over Adam innocent, over men consequently everywhere, over Israel under the law, the gates of hades had prevailed. Death and ruin had come in. Satan had gained the upper hand, as having the power of hades; but this was on the ground of human responsibility. But Christ, who, perfect in Himself when responsible, went there in grace for us, could not, as the Son of the living God, be holden of the power of death. He went there, not that the prince of this world had anything in Him, but in love and obedience to His Father; and He not only was not holden of it, but He totally broke its power, rendered wholly void the power of Satan in it. This was grace then and power - the resurrection, the completion and witness of that power, though not the full result in righteousness. It was the great proof of this grace and power in Christ, on which the assembly was built; not on responsibility and failure, as human hopes were, but, in grace and power, on the Son of the living God. Not that there is no responsibility; but the safety of the assembly, its being carried to its divinely-purposed result, is not in question in it.

22 We shall see aspects in which what is called the assembly is cast off; but not the assembly as built by Christ, that is, His own house; and He builds it for His own purposes, for our blessing, according to His own heart and His glory. This is all we have of the Church or assembly here. Remark, there are no keys to it. Christ builds it - builds - the keys are of the kingdom of heaven. Not only has Peter not the keys of the Church, but there are no keys to it. It has no keys; nor has anyone any keys of it. There are none. It is what Christ is building. Building is not done with keys. The whole thought of keys of the Church, in any and every sense, is a delusion. There are none.

But, to return. The assembly, viewed as built by Christ Himself, is built in grace and power. It is founded on the Rock of Jesus being the Son of the living God; and till that power be subdued by the power of Satan, as having that of death, it cannot be shaken; but that power of life in resurrection has been proved entirely triumphant over Satan, over the gates of hades. Hence, whatever phases, through false brethren come in, the assembly may go through, in its outward state be it so corrupt that Christ will spue it out of His mouth, His building is as secure as that on which it is built, and this is Himself He carries His work on through all that comes from man; and this is the carrying on the work and purpose of God on earth.

But, remark here, we have not the smallest notion of the body or bride of Christ, nor of the indwelling of God by the Spirit. All this is foreign to the view here taken. It is life; that is, Christ, as having, as Son, life in and from the life of the living God, life divine, life in Himself (proved in resurrection), which is the foundation and security of the assembly built by the heavenly Architect, against which he who has the power of death, Satan, cannot prevail. The result will be in assured victory over him, whatever the vicissitudes of the combat in man, according to the purpose of God. Hence, also, though there is an assembly, yet it is an assemblage of individuals, not a body, the Holy Ghost forms. Thus Peter, in full unison with this revelation, declares we are "begotten again to a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"; and then, "unto whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." They are together as stones in a building, and as a priesthood; but it is not a body growing in itself with joints of supply.

23 Thus far, however, we have the assembly as built up by Christ on the earth (though for heaven; but it is not built in heaven, nor presented as connected with a head there), in contrast with the presenting Messiah to the Jews, on the ground of their own promises, as come in the flesh, the seed of David according to the flesh. Peter (in Acts 3) proposes, indeed, to the nation to come in and enjoy the promises on this ground, and Christ would return on their repentance. This is founded on Christ's intercession, "Father, forgive them"; but they resist the Spirit, as their fathers had done; and this part of their history closes.

The assembly was formed and publicly inaugurated by the descent of the Holy Ghost: the Jews, as a nation, reject its offered blessings in the persons of their chiefs. Another truth now shines out: God accepts in every nation. There is no word of the unity of the body here yet; but Gentiles could be received. The reception of the Samaritans seems not so much to have surprised the disciples. That we can understand; they had been there with Christ: they pretended at least to Jewish privileges. The witness of the Spirit in Jerusalem is finally rejected; a saint takes his place in heaven; and Christ now can definitely sit down till His enemies (alas! the word) are made His footstool. Hereupon the assembly outwardly is dispersed. The Jewish mission of the apostles (of going from a city where the persecution assailed them) disappears; they are the only ones who remain. The action of the Holy Ghost takes a free course by whom He will in all this scene, and carries the testimony to the Gentiles. Meanwhile an event of the utmost importance takes place in connection with the ways of God. What had scattered the assembly, formed as we have hitherto seen it, brought out upon the scene, in connection with the death of Stephen, the bitterest of those rejecting enemies; and he, through sovereign grace, by a distinct and new revelation, which did not connect him with Christ after the flesh, nor make him dependent on the apostles previously called, sees Christ in heaven and supreme glory, and learns that all the saints are one with Him - are Himself. Confounded, converted, taken up by power, he becomes a witness of the great truth that Jesus is the Son of God (which Peter is never recorded to have taught, but that He was made Lord and Christ), not conferring an instant with flesh and blood. After a salutary setting aside - which man ever needs, if he is to serve - he comes forth, as we have all read, not from Jerusalem, not of man nor by man, but sent forth by the Holy Ghost from Antioch, a Gentile city, dependent on Him alone who sent him under the authority of Christ, and by the moving power of the Holy Ghost, to preach the gospel of the glory to every creature under heaven, and to be a minister of the assembly, to complete the word of God. But that assembly, he had learnt in his conversion, was one with Christ Himself in glory.

24 Hence we find, in the writings of the apostle Paul, very distinct additional light on other important aspects of God's assembly (Eph. 1: 22). It is the body of which Christ is the Head, the fulness of Him who fills all in all. True Christians, viewed as a whole, are "the body of Christ, and members in particular." This is fully unfolded in 1 Corinthians 12; "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ." We are taught also how this most important truth is made good: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." The apostle unfolds and insists on this in the following verses of the chapter. In Ephesians 4 we learn, that the body makes increase of itself to the edifying of itself in love. The mutuality of membership is dwelt on also in Romans 12. In a word, the assembly (which, remark, already existed, for Jesus had spoken to him of the saints he was persecuting) is looked at in its true living character, the body of Christ; and it is so through the baptism of the Holy Ghost. In the Ephesians, however, when the body is fully spoken of, the apostle refers to the elect saints, who are created again in Christ Jesus, and are sealed for the day of redemption; that is, he sees the assembly, when speaking of it as the body of Christ united to the Head, as God knows it; quickened, raised, and seated in heavenly places in Christ the Head. That which has wrought this unity is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, under which the elect and manifested remnant were brought on the day of Pentecost. Of course, all since called of God have their part in it; and, when the body is fully formed, will be found in it with heavenly glory. God's mind as to the assembly is, that it is Christ's body, and Christ its Head: whatever is not this is the fruit of man's work; who, when blessing from God has been committed to him, has always marred it. This my readers will have often seen insisted on. All entrusted to man, Satan being unbound, has been lost and spoiled; all will be taken up in perfection in the last Adam. Still the assembly - viewed as God's assembly, and so in the first instance it is, and ought to be, in its normal state, and as it will be hereafter - is the body of Christ. But in that body all are living indefectible members. Christ has no dead members, nor a mutilated body. The same power that wrought in Christ - this is the express doctrine of Ephesians 1 - in raising Him up, and setting Him at the right hand of God, has wrought in them. They believed also and were sealed. This it is which is always spoken of when the body is spoken of No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it as the Lord the assembly, for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. The assembly is the gathering of the children of God on earth into one, the assembling them; but, viewed in its reality, this assembly is Christ's body; they are quickened with Him raised up, sitting in Him in heavenly places. As it is said, man is the image of God, speaking of what he is as from the hand of God, in the epistle of James, as in Genesis 1. But the state and position of man was entrusted to him on his own responsibility; and he is at enmity with God, and ruined.

25 Israel is the object of divine favour, God's firstborn in the earth; and, as touching election, beloved for the fathers' sake, yet, outcast and enemies, the branches are broken off; that is, besides that which God has set up being viewed as in His mind and thoughts, it must be viewed also in the result produced under the responsibility of man. Israel were all baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink; evidently referring to baptism and the Lord's supper, the outward ordinances by which Christian association, the assembly, is distinctively maintained. But, with many of them, God was not well-pleased; they were not Israel, though of Israel, as the apostle expresses it. We must examine this character of the assembly too - that is, the assembly as it is formed on earth under the responsibility and by the activity of man. And here we return to the image of the house and building, even in the writings of Paul. The members of the body are members of Christ, and livingly secured in Him. Indeed, even in the other point of view, that is, looked at as the house as established of God, the assembly cannot fail; only, as Israel did, it will give place, on the earth, to another order of things. We have already seen, that Christ declared, He would build His assembly, and the gates of hades should not prevail against it. Nor will they When the due time is come, what He has wrought will be transferred to heavenly habitations, and be the house and city of God there, as the remnant of Israel were transferred to the assembly, and the apostate body, who had made profession to be Christians, cut off, just as the body of Israel were cut off: only that with the assembly, the Holy Ghost having been there, it is a final thing (heavenly, or entire and final excision and judgment), while Israel is reserved for future dealings of grace.

26 This house we will now consider. The Lord speaks of His own building, and Peter of the stones coming to Jesus, and as living stones being built up a spiritual house. In both we get the real work of grace and of Christ, without allusion to any human failure and dispensational dealings, save the fact that the assembly has taken the place of Israel on the earth. It is viewed in its natural normal state; and so it is as to discipline in Matthew 18, where the without and the within, the heathen position, is referred to the assembly, not any longer to Israel - if he neglect to hear the assembly, he shall be to thee as a heathen man and a publican. But Paul takes us higher, and hence forces us to distinguish, and in a certain sense to descend lower. He has seen, not merely an assembly formed by Christ on earth, to which souls were adjoined and built up as a house (and holy priesthood), here on earth, which is the view of Matthew 16 and Peter, but Christ in heaven and the saints one with Him, members of His body, and a vast ingathering here below. Of these he is to tell us, as minister of the assembly, on one side, the wondrous privileges in every respect, and, on the other side, its actual earthly history as in the hands of men. Hence, in building, man is introduced in the work; he does not speak of Christ's building. It is the actual fact before him in blessing and in responsibility of which he will teach us - facts which abide in the widespread scene of Gentile profession to this day.

27 Ephesians 1 may first draw our attention. The individual saints are the first and primary object: what they are in relationship with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and, the purpose of God being revealed, what they are as sealed by the Holy Ghost, and heirs of the inheritance to come. The power that sets them in their place with God has been exemplified in the exaltation of Christ. This introduces a further point, the counsels of God in their union with Him. Christ, thus exalted, God has given to be Head over all things, but to the assembly which is His body. We get thus, in the second place, the union of the assembly with Christ, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all. It will be remarked here, that the assembly is viewed in its normal condition with the divine eye. The doctrine in hand is the exercise of the same power in a believer's quickening, as was exercised in Christ, when raised and set at the right hand of God; a power by which He shews they were quickened together with Him, raised up together (Jew or Gentile), and made to sit together in heavenly places in Him - created again in Christ Jesus; not only so, but what more directly and immediately shews it.

It is the assembly, seen as the individuals previously, as they are in the thoughts and counsels of God in full future result. The individuals are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blame before God in love, and predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself Hence, we (believers), it is said, where present time is referred to, have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins; and the saints (Gentiles) are, after they believed, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, for and until the redemption of the purchased possession. So as regards the assembly, God, who has exalted Christ, has given Him to be Head over all things to the assembly, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all. Now this, though faith seizes it now, is the full counsel of God as to it, when the whole body complete shall be united to the Head in His then dominion over all things - the true Eve of the heavenly Adam; Lord, not only of this lower, but of the whole, creation. It is a citation of Psalm 8. It is not yet fulfilled. He is now sitting at the right hand of God, till His enemies be made His footstool; and, as the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us, citing the same Psalm, we see not yet all things put under Him. We see Him crowned with glory and honour. Meanwhile He is gathering the Church; and those who are sealed with the Holy Ghost, brought into the unity of the body, appropriate, justly, all the privileges that belong to union with Christ, which is effectuated; though the outward results are not yet accomplished, and Christ has not yet received in fact this dominion as man over all things, while all things are His of the Father. They know they are reconciled, but that the purpose of God to reconcile all things in heaven and earth is not yet accomplished. As regards the passage, then, which occupies us, it presents to us the full result of the counsels of God on this point, when Christ shall exercise His universal dominion as man, and the whole assembly be complete; and hence looks at it as in the mind of God, not in its administration on the earth in the hand of man.

28 Allow me to present a general truth as to God's ways; not a new one, I dare say, to many of my readers, but important to notice here. That all the glories which are to meet in Christ - that is, glories which He is to take as man, not the essential glory of His Person - and all connected with them in us, have been first tried in the hands of the first Adam, and his failure proved. Adam, as man, failed: the last Adam is true Head over all things. God is glorified in Him victorious over Satan in trial, as the first succumbed. Man in Israel is tried by the law given as a proving rule of life; hereafter the law will be written in their hearts, and the statutes of God kept by them. Priesthood was set up in man, and failed: Christ will present all saved to the end by His. Royalty in David's son failed, and the kingdom was broken up. It will be set up, never to fail, in Christ. Sovereign power in rule over the Gentiles and the world failed in Nebuchadnezzar, who set idolatry up for unity of religion's sake, and consequently persecuted God's saints. It will be set up in Christ in perfectness, and in Him shall the Gentiles trust. The assembly has been set up in its responsibility, that God might be glorified in it, and a glorious Christ fully known. It has failed in this; but when Christ comes, He will be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe. True redemption is accomplished; and we know the whole counsels of God founded on them, as they never were known before, because the Lord Jesus has come and laid that blessed foundation. But it is not the less true that the assembly has been set to glorify God and the Lord Jesus by the present power of the Holy Ghost, and that it has failed in its responsible place here below, and has taken a place in flesh, out of which it has been called; but the sure counsels of God will be accomplished in the assembly united to Christ in glory.

29 It is in this last way the assembly is viewed in Ephesians 1, as is the case in respect of the subjects of the whole chapter, though that which the true heirs and members of Christ possess meanwhile is doubtless stated, but only in view of this ultimate purpose of God, and not what refers to the sphere of their earthly responsibility: of that there is nothing in the chapter at all. The thoughts, purpose, and counsels of God are its subject. The beginning of chapter 2 shews that by which those once dead in trespasses and sins are brought into the blessed place which these counsels have bestowed on us. From verse 11 of chapter 2, though still addressing saints, he speaks of their actual condition and position in fact down here on the earth - their present actual place. The Gentiles were made nigh, the middle wall of partition broken down in the cross, that Christ might reconcile Jews and Gentiles in one body to God; then the message of peace sent to both, so that we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. They are fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, Christ being the corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord, in whom they also were builded together for a dwelling-place of God through the Spirit. Now doubtless the thought here presented is the normal state of the assembly upon the earth: scripture would thus, speaking of it in principle, so describe it (it could not do otherwise); but we are here on quite other ground than in the first. We have not the purpose and counsel of God, but facts wrought and a system established upon the earth, in which men have their part, such as they are here below. Those whom he addresses were builded together to be a dwelling-place of God on the earth. The temple had been such in another way. Now it is another, a Christian dwelling-place, which God has by the Spirit.

The more Ephesians 1 and 2 (to the end of verse 10), is examined, the more it will be seen that the view there taken on every point is God's counsel and God's work, and its blessed result in us: no trace of dependence on man, or connection with man's responsibility, is found. First, His purpose as to us individually in Christ; further, we are accepted in the Beloved, and we have redemption through His blood; then His will is made known to us; and in this place, for Christ's glory, we have an inheritance according to the purpose of Him who works all things after the counsel of His own will. This, with the revelation of that will, characterizes the whole passage. He prays for them that they may know it, and the power that brings into it. This is according to the power which wrought in Christ, raised Him from the dead, and set Him at the right hand of God. The same has wrought in us (before that dead in sins), and raised us up too, and set us sitting in heavenly places in Christ. Now it is evident, that all this is, as expressed at the end of the passage, a work of God, forming the real members of the body of Christ. We are God's workmanship, sealed, after believing, by the Holy Spirit of promise, earnest of the inheritance which belongs to us in Christ through grace.

30 Now our union with Christ, as His body, forms a definite part of this work, and, indeed, that in which the positive work and power of God operating in us, as in Christ, when it raised Him and set Him at His right hand. Thus the body is composed of the true members of Christ, united to Him by the power of God and the effectual presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, while He is sitting at the right hand of God; and they are sitting there in Him.

In verse 11, as we have seen, the apostle begins with the dispensation of this mystery on earth. But some passages must be referred to before we enter on this. Were this all, the doctrine (current from Augustine downward) of an invisible Church would have to be admitted as the thought of God, and, consequently, no recognized body on earth, or the whole system of corruption introduced by Satan recognized as the body of Christ, and its outward administration accepted as the channels, and only legitimate channels, of grace, and all the privileges of the body itself admitted to belong to it. But this is not the case. We have still to consider the body as presented in 1 Corinthians, that is, in its outward manifestation on the earth in unity. Here we shall find the recognition of the power by which unity is formed on earth. The sign which constitutes the visible expression of that unity, and the distinct declaration that we may partake of the signs of Christian profession, or of unity and spiritual life, and yet be rejected. When he treats men as saints, he treats them as one body on the earth; but warns them, they may be outwardly incorporated into this in every way, and God reject them after all. Nor, indeed, would participation in outward power prove the contrary.

31 In chapter 12 we have the power of unity - "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." In chapter 10 we have the outward sign of it - "For we being many are one bread [loaf], and one body: for we are all partakers of that one loaf." The baptism of the Holy Ghost forms the body in unity. The Lord's supper is the external sign of it. It may be remarked here, consequently, that the apostle addresses the sanctified in Christ Jesus - all who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus, theirs and ours. Thus the unity here spoken of embraces the universal body of the sanctified in Christ Jesus, yet it recognizes the local assembly of Christians - saints by God's calling - as representing locally this unity.

"The church [assembly] of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints [that is, saints by calling]." They are distinctly addressed as having the testimony of Christ, and that confirmed by the gifts of the Holy Ghost. They were waiting for Christ's coming, who would confirm them to the end, so that they should be blameless (chap. 1). So he treats them all through, though warning them (chap. 10) to see that it was real. At the end of chapter 5 this body of called saints are to put out the wicked person from among them, that they may be a new lump (in fact), as they are unleavened in their place and standing before God. There are those without, and those within; those within, judged; those without, in God's hands. The one assembly of the place, looked at as unseparated from the whole company of saints, acts as the body of Christ. In chapter 12, after clearly speaking of the whole body, he says, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." They are placed corporately in this position, while all in Christ are included in it. There is no body but one, that of Christ; a local assembly acts as such, and can exclude none of His members.* The verse which follows clearly shews that the whole assembly is in view, as apostles and all gifts are placed in it. God hath set them in the assembly, first apostles, then prophets, etc. Apostles and prophets are clearly not in any particular assembly, as such; locally, at any given moment, they may be. Paul was acting as a member of the assembly at Corinth, yet not apart from his position at that time.

{* I am not speaking here, of course, of the exclusion of guilty ones by discipline.}

32 Further, it is proof that it is the assembly on earth. Healings are not in heaven, nor the exercise of gifts either. That of which they are members, as exercising their gifts, viewed in the true light of their place according to the thought of God, is the body of Christ; that in which they are placed is the assembly, the sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints.

Further, the apostle supposes the possibility of a person possessing tongues, prophecy, miracles, and being still nothing. He does not say, such are members of the body. We have thus (Eph. 1) the body according to the counsel and work of God; and (1 Cor.) the body, as formed in this world by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and publicly manifested in its unity in partaking of the Lord's supper. In the first, Christ is Head to the assembly, which is His body; in the second, the various members of the body are wrought in by the Holy Ghost to perform their various functions, and God is said to have set them in the assembly. That is, the assembly is called the body, in Ephesians 1, in the full result of God's counsels; and the members of the body, as seen on earth, are set in the assembly, in 1 Corinthians. In the perfection of both, the assembly is said to be Christ's body. On earth, in God's mind, they are practically identified, but one is not said to be the other. But those addressed are the sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, and always viewed as such.

Other passages shew that false brethren could creep in among the rest, and apostatize from among the rest; but this, though there are warnings and hints which lead to the possibility of it, is not contemplated here. We have nothing to do here with sowing tares among the wheat. It is the kingdom which is there spoken of, and in the field - the world. In Romans 12 we have the same general idea as in 1 Corinthians. All are assumed to be true saints; the members are looked at, not in union with the Head, but in their mutual relationship and individual service. "We being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another." It is not necessary more particularly to refer to that passage. In Ephesians, the true saints, quickened with Christ, are the body of Christ, Head over all things; in 1 Corinthians, "so also is Christ," seen on earth in us; in Romans, "we are one body in Christ."

33 I now turn to the second aspect in which it is viewed in the Ephesians. In a dispensational way, Christ builds an assembly, secure in result from the prevailing of Satan's power. In the counsel of God, the saints raised with Christ by divine power form His body. This body is formed and manifested on the earth by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But the apostle who has given God's counsel and work, as to it and its outward formative power, will also give it to us in its actually ordered condition, and what it will become in the hands of man as existing here below. Having taken the general fact which existed in the dispensations of God, he is given of God to reveal it as it stands in the counsel of God, and as formed by His workmanship, and what it becomes in the hands of man. And here he enters upon the domain of facts, not views - facts, in the first instance, happy and pure enough, answering to God's mind; still facts taking place in the sphere of man and his condition and state here below, though God may be working in and through it, and in result securing the accomplishment of His own counsel. But we are in the sphere of facts and circumstances, not of the counsel and thought of God; nor (however, at first, the work may answer by grace, by His working in and by man) to His mind is it simply and absolutely His work. Hence, though in general the subject be the same, in general what is spoken of is not called the assembly any more than the body.

Such a way of treating leaves room for the work being by grace most blessed, and much according to God's mind; but also, man being the workman, for awful departure from it too. Still we shall see, in most material respects, God has a place in it, but another and a distinct one; we shall find no members of a body, but the sphere of work is God's in the world, and His presence is found to be there in what is built up. The apostle, in Ephesians 2, states the facts. Thus, the Gentile believers at Ephesus had, once afar off, been brought nigh by the blood of Christ, for Christ had broken down the middle wall of partition, abolishing in His flesh ordinances, to make of twain (Jews and Gentiles) one new man, and reconcile both in one body by the cross, and having slain the enmity, preached peace to the Gentiles afar off, and to the Jews nigh. Through Him by one Spirit Jew and Gentile (believers) had access to the Father. All this brings out the great principles on which the work was founded.

34 Verses 19 and 20 further describe this new position. In Christ all the building, fitly framed together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. Thus Jew and Gentile are brought together to be the temple or dwelling-place of God; they grow up to this. In this sense, it will be perfect - a holy temple. But beside this, there is the present work which was going on. They were then builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit. God dwelt there by the Holy Ghost. Now the thought of God, founded on the death of Christ, was to have a holy temple, in which He should dwell; and so He will. But there was a work going on now upon earth which corresponded to this. Jews and Gentiles were builded together to be God's habitation by the Spirit. That which is definitely presented here is the dwelling of God there in the Person of the Spirit. There is no head, no union, no body. What God has to say to it is, not to animate the members and unite them in one body to the Head and one another, but to dwell there.

No doubt the house, in the mind of God and in result, will be a holy house of true Christians; nor is there a doubt that at the first it was practically so, when the Spirit took up His abode in it. The apostle addresses them as saints: the body and the house were in fact the same. They were built on the foundation; but who had built them? Of this nothing is said. Although the present fact is assumed, that the building is in its normal state, yet we do not find the work of God perfecting His counsels, but a warning following, founded on the responsibility of man, of which we read nothing whatever in the first chapter and first ten verses of the second. "I beseech you," says the apostle, "that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called . . . endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." On this the triple unity spoken of in a former paper; one Spirit, body, and hope; one Lord, faith, and baptism; one God and Father of all, above all, through all, and in them all. When we turn to the actual accomplishment of the work on earth presented to us in 1 Corinthians 3, it takes an aspect characterized wholly by man's responsibility, not to the exclusion of the truth that all the true work is of God, and man nothing; but that, in the work actually wrought on earth, man's working enters with all its consequences. Paul had laid the foundation as a wise master-builder. The true foundation was laid: none other could be; but every one was to take heed how he built thereon; he might build gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. The enduring of the work depended on the materials. It would be tested. The teaching brought in souls according to its own character; and the superstructure of the building, of that which was raised up on the foundation of Christ in the world, was according to the materials. Here we have the outward result in the world; yet God's building, as to its standing and position in the world, but man building it, and his responsibility in play, and the result according to the materials employed. It has been sought to justify the evil result of man's bad building; but of this there is not the smallest trace: the very man that had so built was himself saved only as through the fire, and all his labour lost. Here I need hardly say we have nothing of the body.

35 But the instruction of the word goes farther. God has allowed and ordered, since evil was to be, that the principles of that evil should work before the eyes of those that scrutinized it with divine sagacity were closed; and if the coldness of the saints towards Christ, and the working of the mystery of iniquity pressed upon the heart of Paul; and if the flowing in E of iniquity under the garb of Christianity roused the glowing indignation of Jude and Peter; and if the departure of some to take an antichristian position awakened the warning voice of John, they have afforded us a divinely-given inspired judgment, in the word, of all that did so. False brethren crept in unawares; wickedness came in; and those not really of the Christian commonwealth went out. But Paul - that wise master-builder, who above all had the ministry of the Church committed to him - would, above all, judge by the Spirit, the bearing of this work of the enemy, and give the needed warning and direction to the saints. And so he does. One passage in particular will attract our attention, because it refers directly to our subject, and gives explicit direction for the conduct of the saints in a state of things which has so ripened since he first, by the Spirit, spoke of it; 2 Timothy 2: 17, 22. Heresy had come in, and the faith of some was overthrown. Here the apostle brings out distinctly the difference of the two aspects of God's people now on the earth, of which we have spoken. The sure foundation of God standeth. And these are the two devices of the seal: the Lord knoweth them that are His (this is the sure security of God's purpose); then man's responsibility - as naming the name of Christ, they should depart from iniquity. But this is not all. The actual condition of the house, the Lord's house as confided to men, not merely its nature, is looked at. "But," the apostle continues, "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." We are to expect vessels to dishonour in the house. The direction of the apostle is to purge oneself from these, and to follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. The general result will be found in 2 Timothy 3, the form of godliness, but not the power; and, 2 Thessalonians 2, the falling away which introduces the man of sin.

36 These various passages of scripture give us a pretty clear insight into the way in which the assembly is contemplated in scripture. We have, first, the body according to the purpose and work of God. Its members quickened with the Head, raised up and sitting in heavenly places in Him. This, in full result, will be the body of Him who is Head over all; the fulness thus of Him that filleth all in all. Next, we have the body manifested on the earth by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and outwardly expressed by union in partaking of the Lord's supper. Hence those doing this together are so far looked at as the body, all saints being however associated in thought. With this water-baptism has nothing to do. We are one body with an ascended Christ. Baptism never reaches ascension; it is confined, in its signification, to death and resurrection. Thirdly, we have the house in the thought and purpose of God, built on the foundation of apostles and prophets of the New Testament. It grows up a holy temple to the Lord. This embraces the whole assembly, and is not yet complete. But the union of Jews and Gentiles under the gospel in the assembly formed the habitation of God on earth through the Spirit. This is treated as a fact; but it is not said in Ephesians, what would become of it. It is - not a work of divine power, quickening individuals out of death, and then uniting to Christ by the Holy Ghost; but - new relationships formed by a divine work, which are entered into. The assembly takes the place of Israel as the dwelling-place and habitation of God. Now, doubtless, at first those who entered did so by the power of God. But it was a position on earth in which man was responsible, not union with the Head in heaven. Fourthly, we have the building of this house in fact by the labours of man; Paul, the wise master-builder; and the danger of others not building with good materials. Fifthly, we have a great house with vessels to dishonour in it, from which the faithful have to purify themselves; along with this, perilous times, when professing Christians would have the form of godliness and deny the power of it, and were to be turned away from; and, lastly, the actual apostasy (the true saints being caught up to heaven), and so the revelation of the man of sin, judgment closing all.

37 Two passages should be referred to here, 1 Timothy 3: 15, and Hebrews 3: 6. The latter passage refers to the care of Christ over His house, and looks on to the house being owned in its true sense, and according to the divine purpose hereafter. God would have a house, a dwelling-place, and, though the heaven and heaven of heavens could not contain Him, yet dwell with men. This dwelling of God with man reposes on redemption, by which they are made His own in a divine right, and unalterable title, not merely by creation. He did not dwell with Adam, or with Abraham; but, when Israel was redeemed out of Egypt and become His people, He dwells there - redeemed them in order to dwell there. See last two verses of Exodus 29 (compare chap. 15). When the house was empty, swept, and garnished, the Blessed One came and could say of His body "this temple." Then the Lord formed the assembly for a dwelling-place; nor does this blessed truth cease even now, any more than the other fruits of redemption. In the new heavens and the new earth, the tabernacle of God (the assembly) will be with men. Meanwhile it was formed on earth, a habitation of God, through the Spirit. In Hebrews 3, the apostle, as in all the epistles, was warning the Jewish professors against turning back and giving up the beginning of their confidence. If they did, they would form no part of Christ's house, over which He Himself was. He had indeed built all things as God, but, in a closer relationship, He had His own house; and of this, as a divine building, those who abandoned Him of course formed no part. 1 Timothy 3 views it in a somewhat different light. The point on the apostle's mind is not Christ over His own house, but the servant's responsibility in God's house. The assembly of the living God is that house. There is the place where the truth is professed, and its profession maintained in the world and nowhere else. If anything calling itself the assembly of God loses the profession of fundamental truth, it ceases to be an assembly of God. On the other hand, the servant of the Lord has to learn, when the truth is professed, how to behave himself as in the assembly of God (that is, the house of the living God). This is its character, and our responsibilities are according to this character.

38 What has been said will, I apprehend, by drawing his attention to the passages, sufficiently introduce my reader into the thoughts of scripture on this subject. Many most important consequences may be drawn; but this, as yet, I reserve. We have the general idea of the assembly of God upon the earth. This assembly, founded consequent on the exaltation of Christ on high, has a double aspect, considered in its normal state. It is the body of Christ, looking at it in its union with Christ on high; the house of God, if we consider it as the dwelling-place of the Holy Ghost sent down consequent on Christ's exaltation. In these characters the Epistle to the Ephesians presents it to us; in either case it is first of all viewed as composed of true believers, and will in result be composed of such. In general the building of the assembly, viewed as going on to its ultimate result, is Christ's work founded on the power of His resurrection; and Satan's power cannot prevail against it. It is never called Christ's assembly but here (Matt. 16) (particular assemblies are, Romans 16: 16), and is viewed as one built by Himself, and in result secured by His power. He considers it in its reality, without dwelling on its privileges, or what the outward temporary form of it remains in man's hands. The body of Christ is spoken of as being on earth, but always assumed to be composed of living members in whom the Holy Ghost works in power. Scripture does not say that a man may not have this power, without being a member of the body (for the scriptures, 1 Corinthians 13, Hebrews 6, and many passages analogous in the Gospels and even in the Old Testament, suppose that he may); but, in speaking of the body, the members are all supposed to be living saints. The house is first viewed according to its institution and result in blessing; but, at the same time, human building is spoken of, and in result on earth a great house, in which vessels to dishonour have their place, as well as vessels to honour; though we are called to purge ourselves from them.

39 I would refer the reader, in order to complete this review, to Ephesians 5; where the love of Christ towards the assembly, viewed as the object of divine counsels and the bride of Christ, with allusion to Eve's relationship with Adam, is unfolded: first, in its whole character and results He loved it, gave Himself for it that He might cleanse it for Himself by the word, and present it to Himself (as God did Eve, when formed, to Adam), glorious and spotless: secondly, in His tender care over it, He nourishes and cherishes it as a man would his own flesh. In chapter 4 we find the gifts coming down from Christ as Head; these gifts being represented as the members themselves ministering, first, to the perfection of the individual members; and, then, with a view to the work of the ministry and the edifying the whole body by the supply of every part. I would recall the triple unity heretofore spoken of: the body, the Spirit, and the hope; the one Lordship of Christ to which faith and baptism correspond; then, one divine being, God and Father of us all, who is above all, and everywhere, and in us all. Wonderful privilege! There remains the question, What has historically become of the assembly thus formed? and what form did the thoughts connected with it take in the minds of Christian men? Of this in another paper, the Lord willing.

In essaying to accomplish the task which I had undertaken, of giving, in its main element at least, an historical view of the doctrines progressively held regarding the Church, the assembly of God, I was, I confess, hardly aware of the poverty of the resources to which I should be reduced when once I left scripture. As doctors, I had no great confidence in the Fathers; I had consulted them, at any rate, too much for that. But I thought that, on the subject of the Church, I should find (not surely what had the truth and depth of scripture, it would have been alike unjust and wrong, but), at any rate, an energy of thought and apprehension, which, if flowing in a channel traced out by human thought, and occupied with an earthly establishment of divine things, would still rise above temporary questions and difficulties, and have an elevation not to be reached by views arising out of them; and, by which the actors of the moment sought to meet them. I judged that a corrupt and human state of things had been clothed, by a discoverable process, with titles and privileges which belonged to a divine creation. My faint recollections of Tertullian* and still more of Cyprian,** and in general of church history, coloured, perhaps, by habit and general opinion, led me to this; and to suppose that there existed at first a mere practical apprehension of the Church, as seen before them; and thereafter a gradual corruption, and larger use of now-collected scripture; a positive (soon an habitual, and, at last, a doctrinal) application of divine prerogatives to human failure, such as we see in full display in Romanism. But the Fathers are petty even in error. There is in general nothing to relieve the poverty of their local and occasional pre-occupations; and when divine life had seized, as in St. Augustine, some deep and blessed truths, which could not mingle with corruption, and gave some enlargement of view even as to ecclesiastical subjects, practical corruption was now at such a height that the whole produced a confusion, which has, at least, the moral dignity of not passing over evil, or, still worse, not seeing it so as to maintain a hierarchical system which gives importance to self, or which habit has made respectable.

{*Particularly De Praescriptione.}

{**De Unitate.}

40 Still, the Fathers will give us their own history, which I will briefly follow, and in it the opinions of active men in their day.

The present system of Romanism must be sought elsewhere. It is simply, as regards our present subject, the use made of general principles met with in these fathers, and forged passages added to their writings, to carry out, by political ability, a scheme which has connected the exclusive appropriation of the claims and privileges of Christianity with the most constant opposition to its truth, its spirit, and its practice; and made, what claims to be exclusively the Church of God, the seat of Satan's power. As to catholicity, it is well to remember that it is a simple fable. As, when the royalty of Israel became corrupt, the kingdom became divided; so, when the professing church became entirely corrupt, and the papal pretension became a definite matter of history, God took care that the Church ceased to be catholic, and the very term "Roman Catholic," for anyone who knows the use of words, carries falsehood on its face. The pretensions of the papacy revolted the Greek patriarch. What set up Rome destroyed catholicity. The most ancient churches and the imperial city became an antagonistic body to it. Roman pretensions, the political influence of Rome, were greater; its evil and unscriptural antagonism to, and supremacy over, civil power, which is ordained of God, marked it more distinctly as the seat and throne of wickedness; but Rome never was catholic. The act by which it was born, its dawn of supremacy, destroyed for ever catholicity. The providence of God has not allowed catholic corruption. At this moment the majority of professing Christians and most ancient churches are outside the so-called catholic (that is, universal) Church. No such thing exists as a catholic (that is, universal) Church. The claims of each portion of Christendom to be a church or assembly of God, must be tried, not by its own pretensions, but by scripture, and then they are easily disposed of, unless corruption and Christianity are identical.

41 But I return to the history of the doctrine. The Fathers may be divided into three classes, Apostolic, Grecian, and Western. We may also distinguish the Alexandrian, though they write in Greek; but they hardly enter into the sphere of our enquiry, though one considered such comes under the class Apostolic, Barnabas, who, however, affords us no light on the subject of enquiry. He, with Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hermas, constitute, what are commonly called, the Apostolic Fathers; but, since the publication of the canon of Muratori, Origen's supposition that the latter was the Hermas mentioned by Paul is maintained by none; I shall speak of him, therefore, after Justin. Justin and Irenaeus will give us those next succeeding the post-apostolic age. Tertullian, Cyprian, and, later, Jerome and St. Augustine, may furnish us the doctrine of the Latins; and Chrysostom, instar omnium, the views of the later Eastern churches; Origen and Clement of Alexandria, philosophical Christianity; Leo and Gregory the Great, Roman views of the matter.

As regards any spiritual or elevated view of the Church of God, as we see it portrayed in the Ephesians, or even the earthly manifestation or development of it in the power of the Holy Ghost, as in 1 Corinthians, it must not be looked for. The declaration, that salvation is not to be found out of the Church, and that if a man were not in the body, he could not be connected with the Head, and the application of this necessity to a large corrupt hierarchically governed body on earth, in order to condemn all who were not subject to it, and all who separated from it, through conscience or self-will - this will be found, as schisms flowing from will, or a conscience tormented by the horrible corruption that characterized the Church, took place. But the thought of the presence of the Holy Ghost animating living members, or His unfolding the riches or fulness of blessing, flowing from living union, never crossed their minds.

42 Of the Apostolic Fathers, Barnabas, as I have remarked, furnishes us with no light. His object is to spiritualize Moses. All the ordinances of the law are mere figures; their taking even circumcision literally was all wrong. Clement does not help us much more. He refers to the Old Testament hierarchy as a motive for order in the Christian services; but does not apply the analogy to a Christian hierarchy. Still, we see how already the mind of the Church was sunk below the urgent taking, by contrast, these analogies out of earth, and raising the thoughts of saints up to heaven and heavenly things, which we find in the Hebrews, the object of which is to detach from all earthly Jewish hierarchism, and shew its fulfilment in Christ in heaven, to which the partakers of the heavenly calling belong. This is the more remarkable, as Clement was familiar with the Hebrews, to which he refers, and the present form of it in Greek was by some attributed to him.* His epistle, the best of those of the apostolic fathers, serves to shew the sudden and utter declension from spiritual apprehensions which followed the departure of the apostle of the Gentiles. It helps us thus to understand the state of the Church, though it teaches nothing doctrinally about it. It is an amiable effort to make peace at Corinth, where they had turned off some of their elders. But a heavenly, spiritual, and elevating use of Jewish forms is unknown to it. He brings us back to earth where the Hebrews had taken us to heaven, though he refers to Hebrews. I have dwelt thus much on this, because it is the true key to all that follows.

{* The epistle called of Clement is written in the name of the Church of Rome. Yet, afterwards, for three or four centuries, the Roman Church did not receive the epistle to the Hebrews.}

Ignatius next draws our attention; and some important elements of history are here afforded us to consider. And, first of all, what a proof of the propensity of the orthodox in these early days to commit pious frauds! What a mass of toil has been imposed on sagacious Ushers, very orthodox and much read Pearsons, and keen Dailles, to unravel what is genuine and is not genuine of the martyred bishop! We have universally acknowledged forgeries, longer interpolated editions, shorter stoutly defended ones, and then Syrian MSS adduced to prove that five more out of the eight, admitted by many to be genuine, are also forgeries, and that the greater part of the three genuine ones has been added by the forging hand. It is a poor foundation to build on. It is curious enough, and is to the credit of his sagacity, that Usher declared the letter to Polycarp, which is admitted to be genuine, to be spurious; the style was so very different from the others then supposed to be genuine. He saw the difference, and that both could not be from the same author; and, assuming the others to be genuine, rejected this. What the Syriac leaves of the others, as far as matter and style of thought go, does not militate against that to Polycarp. For myself, while not pretending to be learned in such matters, I do not doubt, in spite of Hefele and Jacobson, that Cureton has come to the right conclusion. The plea made, that what is found in the Syriac MSS was an abridgment made for the use of the monks of the convent for pious uses, seems to me without the smallest foundation, as there are three distinct letters and not the substance of eight or of three either, and nothing monkish in them. They are parts of the three larger, not the substance of three made a pious treatise of. I take therefore the Syriac edition as genuine. Their local origin confirms this; but for my present purpose it is not very material. In Ignatius's letters, even in those as I believe not genuine, or in the interpolated portions of the genuine, the catholic Church is not the subject, nor catholic unity, but local unity in subjection to the bishop - unity with him. He is to be viewed as God, the presbyters as Christ, the deacons as the college of the apostles. I take the strong expressions of the whole eight in the form defended by many. The point insisted on is the union of one local flock with one local bishop, and in everything. He who leaves that is outside everything. Diocesan episcopacy does not appear in Ignatius; in truth, it was unknown in that age.

43 In the epistle of Smyrna, on the martyrdom of Polycarp, the holy catholic (universal) Church in every place is spoken of the particular Church is spoken of as paroikia paroikoises, sojourning. The catholic Church which is in Smyrna (sec. 16). Christ is shepherd of the catholic (universal) Church in the whole world. Except the fact that the whole existing Church in the world is one universal one, there is little doctrinal to assist us in this epistle. It is received as genuine; how far it is to be considered free from interpolation must rest upon the general confidence which one has in these remains of antiquity, where the system of pious frauds and fabricated gospels and writings was so abundantly at work. I know of no suspicion cast upon it.

44 This is all the testimony of the apostolic fathers on the point. Polycarp to the Philippians affords no additional light. He was a connecting link in point of time between those who succeeded the apostle and the third generation of Christian writers.

First of these Justin presents himself, but he affords us little light on the doctrine of the Church; he views it as embracing men in one, in contrast with Judaism. He applies Psalm 45 to the Church (Dial. with T., 287 b), saying, that the word of God addresses her as a daughter, as one soul, one synagogue, one assembly. He quotes (Dial. with T., 261 a) Isaiah 53, according to the LXX, to a similar purpose. That all the apostles would be as one body, as is to be seen in the body with many members, all one, however, and are called and are one body, and adds, For, also, the people and assembly, many men in number, as being one thing, are called and named with one name. The "Expositio Fidei" goes farther and quotes Ephesians 2 and 2 Corinthians 6: 16, speaking of the temple of Christ. But this is not of Justin. The Church in Justin is the external body or gathering on earth which he sees as one, as he does the apostles. This is the more striking, as he alludes clearly to 1 Corinthians, has it in his mind, but does not go further than the fact of one set of people on the earth called Christians.

In Hermas, in the treatise called "The Pastor," we find largely developed views on the subject of the Church. I apprehend it is pretty generally agreed that he was brother to Pius II, A.D. 164. He is, it appears, quoted by Irenaeus. His writings were read in many churches, though not exactly as scripture; yet almost quoted as such by some writers, though not of weight on such a point, as Origen, who says he considers him inspired. But the acceptance of "The Pastor" will shew whereabouts the primitive Church was. The modern professing church speaks of the earlier Christians being a guide to truth, inasmuch as they were nearer the apostolic source, because it believes as little in the need of the Holy Ghost's power and of His working as the early Church did, or less. Paul had the power of the Spirit of God: he knew by it that after his decease grievous wolves would enter, yea, and that within the Church perverse men would arise. The incapacity of the early Church to discern is plain from the reading of these visions, etc., of Hermas, and the respect in which they were held. I have little doubt that they were well-intentioned, and that there was a personal desire of godliness in the writer's soul. But they are ill-conditioned and unseemly fables, fostering the most disgraceful practices of commencing superstition and asceticism,* and teaching doctrine heretical in itself, and unworthy of all the dignity of divine things. But we shall get historically a then accepted view of the Church by their means. Passing over the unseemly introduction, the Church is for him simply a building in the world. It begins by forgiveness, not repentance (Command. 3). After that repentance is allowed once. The name of the Son of God is necessary, but all depends on conduct afterwards (Sim. 9: 13, 14), yet he allows people to be saved who are rejected from the Church (Vis. 3: 8). But this is contradicted (Sim. 9 :14). He speaks of the Church's becoming one body when purified, and the evil ones cast out. But there are one understanding, one opinion, one faith, and the same charity. The nations have believed and received the seal of the Son of God (baptism), they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and knowledge; and their faith and charity have been the same. And they have carried the spirits of certain virgins of whom he speaks, that is, of different graces, together with His name. After they agreed thus in one mind, there began to be one body of them all; however, some of them polluted themselves, and were cast off from the kind of the righteous, and again returned to their former state and became worse than they were before. Angels build the Church.

{*He is forbidden to live as a husband with his wife, but in a figurative way sanctions the system of pareisaktoi; as devil-devised a piece of infamy and wickedness as ever was called sanctity in the primitive Church, and characteristic of it. I am aware these seem harsh words; but they ought to be used for such things.}

46 I do not enter into details of green rods becoming dry, or splitting, or partly dry, getting green again; or, of rich men being round stones who must be squared and lose all their riches to be able to be put into the house, and the casting out of stones from the building, when viewed by the Lord - save to remark that the whole is a matter of outward profession, of present moral state, and of this earth: a heavenly body, or a head in heaven, or the Holy Ghost, who unites us to Him and His work, is wholly unknown to him. His doctrine is as follows. The master of a vineyard confides a vineyard to a servant, who is to stake it, and he will thereupon be set free. But he does more, and weeds it. On the master's returning to visit it, he is very content, and takes counsel with his son and with the angels how he should reward him, and, as the chosen body into which the Holy Spirit which was created first of all served that Spirit, nor ever defiled it, it was made heir with the son. He explains the son to be the Holy Spirit, and the servant to be the Son of God. Yet he explains elsewhere the rock higher than the mountain on which the house (the Church) was built by the angels to be most ancient, and yet a new door which he had become in time.

I apprehend, though not openly stated, that his doctrine as to Christ was the common patristic one of his age, that Christ though eternal, as the word-mind in God, only became a Person (prophorikos) when God was about to create the world.

Some have sought to prove him orthodox. Bad as his doctrine is, I hardly feel it needful to prove such poor and unscriptural nonsense unorthodox.

What is material to us is to see that the Church is for him a mere outward visible thing, built on the earth, into which men are brought, and often afterwards cast out, becoming worse than before. Christ is a foundation on the earth of this outward thing, He is no living head in heaven; this was wholly lost. It was not unnatural that, scriptural spirituality not being there, that wonderful thing - the new thing in the earth produced independently of Jew and Gentile, national difference, and all earthly power - should occupy and possess the mind. They saw the house, viewing it in its origin as built of God; but made no difference between the divine principle of its constitution, God's work to establish that, and man's actual work in it (on which the apostle is so distinct), seeing only the latter, confounding the human with the divine, and, in the case of Hermas, attributing it to angels.

47 Irenaeus sees the Church, in contrast with heretics, as an external thing in this world. That in which the apostles were set, the Church at Jerusalem, is that from which all churches draw their origin (3: 12, 5). The Spirit dwells in it: the communication of Christ is in it (3: 24, 1). They who do not receive Him, nor are nourished by the Church, do not receive that brightest fountain flowing from Christ. The Spirit of God and every grace are in the Church; but it is always the external body contrasted with heretics, particularly the Valentinians. In one place he speaks of Christ as caput ecclesiae, but only as the Father is caput Christi; shewing he has no sense of the union of the body with Him.

In pleading against the heretics, he uses the faith of the sees which the apostle had founded, as a proof of the truth they had taught; the particular churches are witnesses in his point 3 of view. It is on this occasion that he gives the list of bishops at Rome.*

{*It may not much interest my readers; but I have not the least doubt that the potiorem principalitatem (till Massuet it was read potentiorem) is hikanoteran archen, a more excellent origin, because he attributes the founding of the Church of Rome to two apostles. The use of these words in Irenaeus, connected with the context, here puts it, I think, beyond doubt.}

The fullest statement, perhaps, on the subject of the Church is in 3: 25, 1, where he says, the Church has with constancy kept the faith it had received; that this office was committed to it, that all recipient members may be vivified (the Latin is excessively obscure: ad inspirationem plasmationi, ad hoc ut omnia membra vivifiantur); and that the communication of Christ (that is, the Spirit) was there.* He refers then to gifts (1 Cor. 12); adding, for where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church; and the Spirit is truth. In the Church are the gifts, apostles, prophets, doctors, and the whole remaining operation of the Spirit, of which none are partakers who do not run to the Church, but deprive themselves of life. He says, the Spirit is as an admirable deposit in a vase, always youthful, and making youthful the vase in which it is; and then goes on to speak of the life-giving office committed to it. But all this shews entire confusion on the subject which occupies us. The Spirit is in a vase, of which it maintains the youth: that is intelligible, if true; but he adds, that the recipient members may be vivified. Are they, then, members before they are vivified? And if he mean the maintenance of life, something gives it previously, not the Church, and the argument against the heretic fails. The fact is, the members have life, not the Church; but this would not do for his argument. The dwelling in a vase is all well, because the vase has not life, and his speaking of its making it youthful is a delusion. That the presence of the Spirit preserves it from decay is a question of which the affirmative cannot be assumed, save through the confusion of the living body and the dwelling-place. In man the breath of life is the life of the whole body and of all the members; and the Spirit may, in a vague way, be so looked at as corporately animating the whole body, when viewed as such in union with Christ; but then it is not that it may give them life, as the heretics cannot, because then they (the so-called members) are looked at as dead, that is, as no part of the body. Hence the figure is changed, and even so is faulty; they are not nourished as by the mother's breast unto life. Where did they get it to be nourished? and is the Church a thing apart from the members who compose it? "Where the Spirit is, the Church is," is not strictly true; for He is in individuals; but for Irenaeus's purpose it may be so taken; and where the Church is, the Spirit is. But the Church, as the body, does not communicate life; it has life, speaking in figure; for, in truth, life is in individuals. Further, the dwelling-place and the body being confounded together, no thought of the Head is in Irenaeus's mind; but the indwelling of the Spirit in the house is life. Indeed, the body, save by comparison with man's creation, is not spoken of; but the external thing taken to have the power of life in it, in virtue of the Spirit's dwelling there, in contrast with heretics. There is the conscious blessing of living faith; but by confusion of all scriptural thought of life, house, and body, or rather the neglect of this last, the ground is laid for the worst pretensions of Romish apostasy.

{*We have only a wretched Latin translation: according to this, "there" cannot refer to the Church, it may to the vase (the figure he uses for it) or office. I can only give the general idea, which is pretty plain. The inspirationem plasmationi I take to be the breathing into Adam's nostrils the breath of life; so the Church has the Spirit, the communication of Christ, that all the members may have this communication of life. It is, he says previously, the accustomed operation as to the salvation of men, which is in one faith; it may be effectual operation, as some read it. It is added, "Wherefore, those who do not participate in Him (the Spirit, who is truth) are not nourished by the mother's breasts into life, nor receive the bright fountain proceeding from the body of Christ." Here remark: Irenaeus, who is occupied with the heretics, states, that heretics are not the Church at all, and hence have not what is found in the Church; she alone nourishes into life. The good father reasons in an evident circle. The Church is where the Spirit is, and where the Spirit is is the Church; but there is the honest earnest consciousness of faith. They are not the Church, for they have not the faith; therefore, they have not the Spirit. But the faith was proved by the Church's traditions too.}

49 That the Holy Ghost keeps young the vessel in which it dwells is never thought of in scripture; indeed, the contrary is taught. That it maintains eternal life in the saints, members of the body in union with Christ, is quite true. But we see that the Church in contrast at first with heathen, and now with heretics - that is, the earthly corporation, is absorbing, in the mind of doctors, the privileges of the body, while the scriptural idea of the body and union with the Head is lost; and as the external thing was already corrupt, and soon became more so the way was laid for appropriating the privileges to the extreme of corruption. But, as I have said of all, Irenaeus does not get beyond a reference to present circumstances and difficulties; uses what doctrine he has as to the Church to meet them; and does not enter into it for its own fulness and blessing. Hence the thought of the Head is lost. That must have brought truer thoughts and ideas; but when the thought of the Head was lost, the Church had no longer the definite idea attached to it of the body of Christ. The prerogatives and privileges belonged then infallibly to the corrupt external things, and especially for him who had faith in the grant of them; and that Irenaeus, I do not doubt a moment, had. But let the reader note, that the heavenly Head of a living body does not in any way enter into the thoughts of Irenaeus; nor our being in Him, and He in us. Could the pope, for example, be that? Even in speaking of Adam, he makes Adam the Church; and the breath breathed into him is what animates. No Eve is here, no Adam to represent Christ. All these truths are lost. There is only the Holy Ghost in the external thing, and that supposed to communicate life - as to which indeed, also, all is confusion.

Clement of Alexandria treats little of such subjects: he only tells us, as respecting temples built with hands, that the Church is the congregation of the elect.* But the elect, with him, means nothing here. In a passage in the "Stromata" (7, p. 885), where he is describing the Gnostic, or Christian according to knowledge, he says, he does not indulge his flesh. The rest are like the flesh of the holy body; for the Church is allegorically the body of Christ - a spiritual and holy choir, of which those who are called only by name, but do not live according to knowledge (ek logou), are the flesh; but this spiritual body, which is the holy Church, ought not to consist with fornication . . . but fornication against the Church is living like Gentiles in the Church. We see thus the corruption come in, and how theoretical mysticism gets out of it.

{*It has been suggested by Montague, that it should be ekkleton, "called out," but query.}

50 In replying to heretics (p. 899), he says, that the most ancient and true Church is the one, the others recent and adulterers from it; that God approves what is only the true catholic Church, founded on the two Testaments, or rather the one in divers times, in which God by His will gathers by one Lord those who are already ordained to it (tetagmenous), whom God has predestinated, having known that they would be righteous before the foundation of the world. Before, his conscience was working; here, he is theorizing against heretics.

The baptized are washed, illuminated, perfect, etc.; and so stated in a passage which shews, as do his writings, very little respect for, or knowledge of, the Person of Christ. To say the truth, if converted at all, philosophy had far more influence over him than Christianity. In poor, wild, persecuted, but sincere Origen, we see confusion and unbridled imagination indeed; but, in spite of all, marks of genuine living faith. But Origen furnishes us with little which throws direct light on the progress of church opinion, though he may have largely influenced it. He studied scripture, and was not occupied in the government of the Church; indeed, his own diocesan would not ordain him, but drove him away. In interpreting scripture he gives on these points pretty much the contents of the text itself as it is: only the spouse in the Canticles is the Church; the tabernacle represents everything in detail; the ark is the Church; Noah was in the highest story - that is, Jesus, the true rest - at the top; ill-conditioned Christians, like the unclean beasts, at the bottom.

His spiritualizations are elaborate; and, with the simplicity, have the foolishness, of a child. He was a great stickler for free-will. On the other hand, in replying to Celsus, to prove the union of the word with man, he takes up the Church as Christ's body - He animating and giving motion to what was otherwise lifeless and inert, and each member only moving as set in movement by Him, as the life and soul of it as a whole. He calls it also the bride and the body of Christ. He applies even the temple of His body, in John, to the Church; but here he states, that it will be one when it is brought to perfection in resurrection; till then, it is, like the scattered dry bones in Ezekiel, comparatively dry, scattered in persecutions. Here also he calls it the body; and, after Peter, the house built of living stones; and then goes on to apply the numbers of overseers, builders, etc., of Solomon's temple, and dates connected with it, to mystical senses. In a word, we find a large consideration of scripture by one well versed in it, and hence far more divine thoughts flowing from it; but with this an unbridled imagination, and very little founding in, or even acquaintance with, fundamental truth.

51 These two last, with Barnabas of an earlier date, are the Alexandrian or intellectual school. We may now turn to more practical Latins, occupied with things - business, not ideas.

Tertullian and Cyprian first present themselves, and bring us back to the history of the dogma. The first, however, helps us but little as to the notion of the Church (all, as I have said, being occupied with their particular difficulties and the evils of the day). He gives no view of the Church. He once says, it is the house of God. But his great and incessantly repeated topic is the churches, not the Church; though he once says, they are one church. He dwells on the succession from the apostles, or apostolic men, securing the truth, asserting they are one in doctrine (he speaks of conferences in Greece maintaining this). When he speaks of passages in Ephesians which relate to the Church, it is only against Marcion; and uses them to shew the Creator was the supreme God, and that flesh was not despised. Some judge this treatise was after he left the body called the catholic Church in that day; as was probably another remarkable statement of his, that the authority of the Church alone had made the distinction between laymen and ordained persons; that all Christians are priests; and wherever two or three are gathered, even laymen, there is a church - they can celebrate the Lord's supper, and baptize. In sum, his teaching is the value of apostolic churches, as securing sound doctrine: it was merely a Roman legal reasoning against heretics.

52 Cyprian insists much on the unity of the Church; but it is in opposition to the schism of Novatus and Novatian. Hitherto unity had been assailed by heretics, and the defenders of catholicity had carefully denied their being of the Church, as they had not the faith which could be proved to be that of the apostles. A new thing now arose in the professing Church. Its corruption was so great (as, indeed, Cyprian himself testifies), that rigid discipline was insisted upon; and in default of it, as they judged it was called for, persons admitted to be orthodox separated from it, and the authority of the bishop was called in question. Hence Cyprian's idea of unity is simply local unity with the bishops; and of all bishops as being together one bishop, one episcopacy, he quotes the promise to Peter (Matt. 16: 18). Bishops have all like honour and power; yet Christ begins from one, that the Church may be shewn to be one. The episcopate is one, of which a part is held by individuals as a part of the whole. The Church also is one, which grows out into a multitude. He compares it to light and the sun, to a tree and boughs; if one of them be broken off, it is lost or dies. Such is the Church of the Lord exclusively. Her light, her branches, extend far; but there is unity of light and of body. There is one Head, one origin, one body, one mother. ("De Unitate Ecclesiae," 106, seqq.) We are born of her, nourished by her milk, animated by her spirit; the spouse of Christ cannot be corrupted, she is incorrupt and chaste. He cannot have the rewards of Christ, who leaves the Church of Christ; he is a stranger, profane, an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. There is a great deal more to the same effect. He compares it to Noah's ark, Christ's vest, Rahab's house, the house where the paschal lamb was eaten. God makes men of one mind in a house. In God's house, the Church of Christ, men live in unanimity (see "Epistle to the Lapsed," 33: 66). He again refers to Peter; thence, through the course and times and successions, the ordination of bishops and the principle of the Church has had its regular course; so that the Church should be founded on bishops (Ep. 49: 93, 95). Cornelius, bishop of Rome, says, in the correspondence, there is one bishop in the Church; the catholic Church is shewn to be one, and cannot be split and divided. The tares are in the Church; we are not to leave, but to seek to be wheat; and he quotes 2 Timothy 2: 20, vessels to dishonour, but says nothing of purging ourselves from them. The Lord alone, he says, can break the earthen ones. (On the confessor's return, Cyprian, Ep. 54: 99, 100.) They cannot be with Christ, who are not with His spouse and in the Church, referring to Ephesians 5: 31. Still all refers to Novatus, who had separated because of loose discipline, as he judged, with the lapsed (96).

53 As the one Church is divided by Christ in the whole world into many members, so one episcopate is spread abroad by the concordant number of many bishops. Ep. 112 refers to the exhortation in Ephesians 4. The tares, he says, the apostles were not allowed of the Lord to discover; they pretend to separate (2 Tim. 2: 20). They pretend to despise and throw away these wooden and earthen vessels, whereas it is only in the day of the Lord they will be burnt or broken with a rod of iron 168). The Church does not withdraw from Christ; and for Cyprian the Church is the people united to the priest, and the flock adhering to its pastor, even if the multitude go away-when, says he, thou oughtest to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any are not with the bishop, they are not with the Church; since the Church, which is catholic, is one, not split or divided, but connected and joined by the glue of priests mutually adhering to one another. All this, it will be seen, is directed against Novatus at home, and Felicissimus who headed a party against him, and Novatian at Rome. He says, the Church cannot be corrupted; yet he declares, that, morally, bishops and all, it was thoroughly heathenish and worldly; so that the persecution of Decius was only a most gentle dealing of God with it: it cannot be corrupted, but it was full of tares and vessels to dishonour.

I have the rather gone into Cyprian's statements, because he is known as a great writer on the unity of the Church; and his system, for the short time of his own activity, characterized the Church at large pretty sensibly; but it died with the energy which created it. He added the idea of a united diocesan episcopacy, forming a single episcopate in many members, to Ignatius's idea of the unity of the flock to a local president. Though he uses the scriptures, the idea they give of living members united to a Head in heaven does not seem to cross his mind as a truth in itself. But he attaches the importance and claims of that of which the apostle speaks to a body which, he admits, is full of the tares of Satan's sowing, and of vessels to dishonour. But it is to be left so. That is, we have now in view outward unity, that is, really (for the clerical authority of priests who stick together like glue), the attaching the credit of Christ's spouse and body to a vast mass of admitted corruption and evil.

54 Augustine will give us another phase. Yet his views of personal religion and election involve him in the greatest contradiction and difficulty. They are, however, important; for if Cyprian has formed hierarchical views short of Romanism, Augustine has in a great measure been the source of reformed doctrines, save in the point of justification by faith, on which certainly the Reformation was somewhat clearer. But his difficulties, if they were not to be wept over for the sake of the Church, would really amuse from the way he is perplexed. Like all the rest, though searching scripture for himself as a godly man, he is occupied in his reasonings with the circumstances of the moment. In his case it was the Donatists. A quarrel having arisen in Africa as to the episcopacy of Donatus's predecessor, a very large party indeed was formed with a very considerable part of the episcopacy. It was alleged, that Cecilianus was ordained by one who had been unfaithful in Diocletian's persecution, having given up the sacred books - a traditor. They chose Majorinus, to whom succeeded Donatus. The others complained of a fanatical love of martyrdom. The Donatists appealed to Constantine; and, after two appeals from the first sentence, they were condemned and violently persecuted, which they returned by violence and, as is alleged, by assassination; so bright is the history of the primitive Church! But another circumstance must be mentioned here. Cyprian and most of the Eastern bishops had re-baptized those baptized by heretics. Rome, and those under its influence, had opposed this. Cyprian and the East, however, held good; but, in the course of time, the Roman opinion prevailed in the West, and it was orthodox to receive heretical baptism. In the East it was generally rejected for a long while after this.

I refer to this, because it was a great source of Augustine's perplexity; he received the Western view. But then he had to acknowledge, that by Donatist baptism those who were not in the catholic Church received forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost. This, of course, was a terrible difficulty. I will now give his statements, in which the conflict of his views will easily appear. They gave formal rise to the thought of an invisible Church. He is very fond of insisting on one text, and citing it repeatedly everywhere; thus Ephesians 5, as to the unity of the body and Head, spouse and Husband.

55 Because, therefore, a whole Christ is his head and body; therefore, in all the Psalms let us so hear the words of the head, that we may hear the words of the body (Ps. 57: 754, C, D). Hence, all nations in the Church are like the day of Pentecost. It is always with him unus homo, caput et corpus, one man, head and body (Ps. 18: 122, C). Hence, when statements in the Psalms do not suit Christ, as God, or even as man, he says, I dare to say Christ speaks, but Christ speaks because Christ is in the members of Christ (Ps. 30: 211, A).

He says (vol. 9, Ed. Ben. 587, B) no one ever arrived to salvation itself and eternal life, unless he who has the Head, Christ; but no one can have the Head, Christ, save he who is in His body, which is the Church. Then he does not reject the Donatists for all their deeds: these would be straw, but not hurt the wheat, if they held the Church fast. Nor does he accept the Church for any good, or opinions of men. What is done right in the catholic [Church] is therefore to be approved, because it is done in the catholic [Church]. We acknowledge, he says, the Church, as the head, in the holy canonical scriptures. He insists on searching the scriptures. They speak of a universal Church. This cannot be the Donatists of Africa. He then seeks to justify persecution; when rightly used. But here, as I have intimated, he was greatly puzzled, because it had been decided that the baptism of heretics was valid. Hence, his adversaries alleged that the baptism of Donatists was accepted, and that, consequently, he must admit that they conferred the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Ghost, as was believed to be the case in baptism, and that their admission into the Church of those baptized by them was owned; that is, the Donatists were the Church too. He replies, many who are publicly outside are better than many, and good catholics. But God also knows His predestinate ones - knows what they will be. But we, who judge from present things, say, His love does not own them, and the Lord will say, I never knew you: depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. I answer, he says again, Do the avaricious or other wicked persons forgive sins? If you regard the sacrament, yes; if himself, no. We own what is of Christ, but it does not profit; but when the evil is corrected, then it will. One baptized in heresy does not become the temple of God, nor is a baptized avaricious man the temple of God either, unless he leaves the evil. (This puts one in mind of the Assembly's Catechism.) Still, he says (9: 168, B. C.) they are generated to God, but by that which they (the Donatists) have in common with the catholic Church; separated from the bond of charity and peace, but found in one baptism. And not only they who are in open separation do not belong to her, but those who are mixed up with her unity are separated by a very bad life. He takes the case of Simon Magus, and says, he who has no charity (cui defuit) is born in vain, and, perhaps, it were expedient for him not to have been born (!). He is greatly puzzled, also, by "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," and that, as he quotes it, then follows "baptize all nations in the name," etc.; "and whose sins ye remit," etc. He answers by saying, "He who hates his brother abides in death," but schismatics do. And what is being re-born in baptism but being renewed from one's old state? yet he whose old sins are not put away is not so; and if not re-born has not put on Christ; and if he has not put on Christ, he is not to be considered baptized in Christ. But it was replied, as many as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. He acknowledged one baptized in Christ has put on Christ. It was then naturally alleged that he owned their baptism; therefore, that they were regenerate; therefore, their sins put away. He answers them only by Simon Magus; forgiven, yet having no part or lot in the matter. Then 271, B, C. and foll.), in the ineffable prescience of God, many who seem outside are within, and many who seem within are outside. Of all those, he says, who, as I may so say, are intrinsically and secretly within consists that garden enclosed, the fountain sealed, etc.; but he supposes them by heretics or others baptized into the ark (218, B.). The water of the Church is faithful, saving, and holy, to those using it well, but out of the Church no man can. It cannot be corrupted; so the Church is incorrupt, chaste, pure, and therefore avaricious men, etc., do not belong to it, of whom Cyprian himself testifies, there are not only without but within (466, A). If thou groaning seest such crowds (of wicked) around your altars, what shall we say? that they are anointed with holy oil; and, as the apostle clearly establishes with clear truth, they will not possess the kingdom of God. Discern, therefore, the holy visible sacrament, which can be in good and evil - for those, for reward; for these, for judgment - from the invisible unction of charity, which belongs only to the good. But the true Church (578, A) is not covered or hidden, nor can it be (466, B); hence Donatists are not it. The Lord has compared the Church to a net. The bad fishes are not seen under the waves by the fishers, but on the floor, judgment, are manifested evil ones. So the separation of the fishes was only when the net was drawn out. Thus, before the fan is applied, they are mixed in the Church (48, C). The 7,000 did not separate from Israel.

57 According to Augustine, the Old Testament saints belong to the Church (6: 454, 455, 480, C; 5: 25, C, D)

The confusion and contradiction are evident; and the conflict of a mind, which, having learnt what true holiness was, and the electing grace of God, had an outward system to maintain, and made the outward corrupt thing the incorruptible body of Christ, though groaning at seeing crowds of wicked around its altars. Jerome is much more vague; he holds Old Testament saints for members of the Church (Com. on Epis. to Gal. 4: 1; 7 (1) 446); applies the tares to the Church, and the ark of Noah as receiving all sorts. So, 2 Timothy, gold, silver, wooden and earthen vessels in church, he uses against the Luciferians, a sect strict against Arians, more strict than the public catholic body (2: 195). The day of judgment will settle it. Yet none are saved out of the Church. The Church is universal, and cannot be the Luciferians. He complains bitterly of its state. He applies Jeremiah 23: 11, 12, to the Church; assuming it to be Christ's house (4: 999). He takes Christ, our Head, only as a common Lord; so, when he says Christ is the Head, it is Abraham, Phinehas, etc., who are spoken of.

Chrysostom affords us little; he was a preacher, eloquent, a practical man, resisting public evil with earnestness, and died in banishment, deposed from his see. The Church is Christ's body (Hom. 30 on 1 Cor.), and this is clearly developed. According to him, baptized by the Spirit refers to baptism, and so drinking into one Spirit to the Lord's table. The former he refers to regeneration, and by one Spirit, into one body. One by which, and one into which, he says; but he was much more occupied with the actual state of the Church. He complains that they have only signs or symbols of what they had at first, as, two or three speaking.

58 But, during all this doctrinal discussion, another system had been forming itself. The emperor who first professed Christianity had transferred the seat of empire to Byzantium, from him called Constantinople. This had a double effect. It left the Roman prelate in a position of far greater political consequence, which became still greater when the barbarian inroads made the imperial power evanescent in Italy; though where it remained, in Ravenna and even Milan, there was independence of Rome, with which, through Turin, historians seek to connect the Vaudois. At any rate it was for centuries independent. The other effect was the making the see of Constantinople (which had not been even metropolitan, and was not of apostolic foundation) of such public importance, that it sought to rival Rome - as the city was called Nova Roma. For the reader must understand, that the boasted primitive Church was a sea of raging politics, avarice, and ambition; the general councils - assemblies of bishops called by the emperor to quiet the violent and seditious disputes of ecclesiastical and doctrinal parties, which disturbed and tore up the empire.

Strange to say, councils, held when the Church was at liberty from the secular power, are not held to be general. In much later years the popes held them. At first the emperors alone called them; indeed, in the council of Nice, the emperor, who had had some experience of ecclesiastics in Donatist matters, managed it all. The holy fathers brought their written complaints, or libels, against their episcopal brethren, and put them into his hands: he took them, exhorted them to peace, and burnt them all; approved, we are told, those that were right; flattered them all, rather grossly indeed; exhorted them, and, bringing all but a few to agree, settled the contest, and then banished the few refractory ones. In this council, the place of Rome is very obscure; she was represented by two presbyters, perhaps by a bishop, Hosius. It is also alleged the pope was absent from old age - I suspect rather from policy; at any rate, as we find in the letters of Leo on the council of Chalcedon it was made a precedent of, but it is not to be doubted she would have had the precedency of rank (alas the word!) had she been there. It is, indeed, for this point, that I have introduced the matter. Alexandria, Antioch, Rome were (till the seat of empire was transferred to Byzantium then subordinate to the metropolitan at Heraclea) the three great ecclesiastical centres as the chief cities: Antioch, the ancient capital of the great Syrian monarchy; Alexandria, of the Egyptian, or the Ptolemies, and the most famous seat of learning and commerce in existence (Antioch withal, alleged to be founded by Peter, and to have been his see; and Alexandria, too, through his disciple Mark); Rome still more, being the metropolis of the world, and as alleged, founded by the two apostles Peter and Paul. I am not making myself answerable for all this tradition, which, in many points, is extremely doubtful, but it had full influence at the time we are speaking of.

59 As long as the emperors were heathen, the influence of these sees was increasing from various causes; but still the independence of the bishops was maintained to a very great degree, particularly in Asia Minor and Africa, where Ephesus (afterwards made metropolitan) and Carthage held respectively a large share of influence. In the matter of re-baptizing heretics these two provinces maintained, in the third century, their entire independence of Rome, and Cyprian used very strong language indeed. But Alexandria swayed practically over Egypt and Libya; and Antioch over Asia, till Jerusalem became, in subsequent times, a patriarchate. Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, I may add, and the British Christians were also free from Rome's metropolitan sway, which extended over the suburbicarian provinces, now the estates of the Church, the kingdom of the two Sicilies, and Sardinia. But there was no great see in all the West to counterbalance Rome; and it gradually extended its influence over Gaul and Spain and Illyricum (which remained, however, a contested sphere till much later times), by appointing some leading bishopric or metropolitan in Gaul, not the regular local metropolitan, as its legate. By this, and some cleverly interpreted and extended canons of a packed Sardican council,* appended to the canons of the council of Nice, and a forged addition to the sixth of Nice itself, the influence of princes, and an unceasing practical use of good opportunities, until the West came under its influence. The almost total destruction of the British Churches (which had been founded from the East, as their way of keeping Easter proved) by the Saxons, and the conversion of these latter by persons sent from Rome, brought England under its rule, though the northern Church, which had meanwhile extended itself to middle England, only submitted to Rome e after the controversy of Whitby, between Wilfrid and Colman, about 654. It was only at the council of Trent, and with the strenuous resistance of the Spanish prelates, that the bishops were declared to derive their authority from the pope. The supremacy of a general council over him was decreed and acted on in the fifteenth century at Constance.

{*This was a very small provincial council of adherents of Rome, the remains of a larger assembly. Rome published these canons as part of those of Nice. They gave a kind of appellate jurisdiction to Rome. But the council of Chalcedon would not insert them in the received canons of the universal Church; and the African bishops, under Augustine's influence, reproved and forbade these appeals. The pope's legate pleaded the canons of Nice; they did not admit it, had authorized copies sent for and refuted it as false, and maintained their protestation.}

60 I have just run through the history of the Western or Latin hierarchical prelacy, to complete it; I return to the general history of patriarchs. The profession of Christianity by the emperor, and establishment of the capital at Constantinople, raised up, as we have seen, a rival to Rome. But the Greeks disputed about words; the Romans pursued unceasingly their end - the establishment of hierarchical supremacy; advancing a claim which no one knew; using opportunities to act in it, which others afforded them; and then making the ancient claim the proof of an ancient right.* Another circumstance favoured this. Constantinople sought to extend, and did extend, its influence over the eastern empire, by arbitrating in disputes between bishops and between metropolitans. In the council of Constantinople, Rome, as Old Rome, was allowed the first rank; but Constantinople, as New Rome, the second. At that of Chalcedon, Constantinople was given the same rank, isa presbeia, as being the emperor's city. But this pressure of Constantinople on Antioch and Alexandria, threw these rather into the arms of Rome. Leo speaks of the three sees of Peter in a remarkable manner; and, in the endless theological disputes of the East, the quiet and steady good sense of the Roman west made Rome a continual arbiter as to doctrine. This (as in the case of Leo, a really able man, and, I am disposed to think, with right intentions, but, as a true Roman, always seeking political influence) gave them a decisive weight in all these questions. In Leo's person it took somewhat the form, in his letter to Flavian, of dogmatical authority. Still Constantinople and Rome contended for influence; and one had it in the West, because there was no emperor; the other in the East, because there was. But evil bore its fruits in judgment. Constantinople, in the purpose of John the Faster, put forth the claim of oecumenical bishop, on charges brought against the patriarch of Antioch which were tried at Constantinople. Pope Pelagius annulled all the proceedings on this account; but John used it again when he acknowledged the accession of Gregory. Gregory denounced him as a forerunner of Antichrist, and then took the well-known papal title of "servant of the servants of God." Though Rome (he would have it believed, on the authority of the council of Chalcedon) had a title to be called universal pope, he refrained through humility. But it did not end here. Gregory pursued his efforts to hinder the pretensions of Constantinople, and renounced communion with it. Maurice, the emperor, who resisted the influence of Rome, was murdered with all his family, and his murderer was congratulated by Gregory in the most fulsome way. Photius, the new emperor, in return for this made a decree, that, as Constantinople had claimed to be head of all the churches, Rome should be primate of all the holy churches.

{*See note at the end of article.}

61 This recalls somewhat to mind the disputes, on a smaller scale, between York and Canterbury; which resulted in York being primate of England, and Canterbury, primate of all England. In Ireland the same question arose between Dublin and Armagh; the point being, whether Dublin could have the cross (which preceded the archbishop) carried upright within the jurisdiction of the see of Armagh! Dublin is now primate of Ireland, and Armagh of all Ireland. And this is Christianity!

To pursue the sad history: in the eighth century, the territory, called now the estates of the Church, or the greater part of them, was given to Rome by Charlemagne, though he reserved his imperial rights; and the pope became a temporal prince. At the same time, however, the Grecian or Eastern emperor took away southern Italy, Sicily (the kingdom of the two Sicilies), and Illyricum; depriving the see of Rome of vast estates it held in the former. Hence, of course, bitter animosity. In the ninth century the emperor, refusing to restore the estates and authority, the pope took up the cause of Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, whom the emperor had deposed, and they excommunicated each other. The emperor was murdered; and his murderer and successor recalled Ignatius. Meanwhile the pope and the patriarch contended for supremacy over the newly-converted Bulgarians, and then Rome was accused of heresy. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, was restored on Ignatius's death, the pope agreeing, if Bulgaria was subjected to him, which was agreed to and not executed. A legate was sent from Rome to Constantinople, cast into prison, and then, becoming pope, said Photius was properly judged and degraded before. In the eleventh century, Cerularius of Constantinople charged the pope with various heresies. Leo IX excommunicated all the Greek churches. The emperor, who needed his influence in Italy, sought to heal the controversy, and papal legates were sent to Constantinople; the Greeks would not submit. The legates excommunicated the patriarch and his adherents; and the patriarch excommunicated the legates and theirs. And thus the final schism of West and East took place.

62 In this century it was that the popes, who, after the gradual increase of their power, had become infamous in their conduct - so that the Romans had deposed them, and the Emperor of Germany named new ones, and then there had been two fighting for the place - enforced, in the person of Gregory VII, called Hildebrand, universal celibacy on the clergy. It had been long nominally required; but the great body of them being, in fact, married, were now forced to put away their wives: and, though Gregory died an exile from Rome, he succeeded in depriving the emperors of the right of confirming the election of the pope, and established the celibacy of the clergy. Another very important change commenced in this century was the election of the pope by the cardinals, instead of by the whole clergy, nobles, and people. The confirmation by the emperor was however reserved, and of the people; that of the emperor was set aside by Gregory VII, indeed, by Alexander II, in whose time however there was an antipope. Gregory was chosen by acclamation, and confirmed by the emperor, and then began his work of setting the papacy above all human powers. He claimed from all kings their holding their crowns from him. William the Conqueror and others refused; some were glad to act on it, as Naples, Croatia, and, strange to say, Russia.

I am now arrived at the full establishment of the papal system resisting the imperial right to the investiture of bishops into their sees. The history of the independent Scottish Church is full of interest; it was the great evangelizer of Germany and Switzerland. But Boniface, the apostle of Germany, having put himself under the pope, and become Archbishop of Mayence, it all fell under papal influence; or, by the vast estates attached to the sees, gave occasion to the question of investiture, as they were real principalities, and held as such.

63 The Greek Church was shorn of its glory by the inroads of the Saracens, before whom Antioch and Alexandria became extinct as to influence; and the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, in the fifteenth century, seemed to close its importance too. But such was not altogether the will of divine Providence: for (the conversion of Russia to Christianity having taken place in connection with the Grecian patriarch, in the tenth century, by the baptism, first of the grand duchess, and then of the grand duke, which was followed by that of the nation) the influence of Russia is now used in favour of the Greek Church. They were first under the patriarchate of Constantinople. In the sixteenth century the Archbishop of Moscow became first a dependent, and then an independent, patriarch; and in the reign of Peter the Great, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Czar made himself the head of the Church as in England; and the patriarch and synod became subordinate to his power. The late Russian war had for its earliest pretext the rights of Greeks or Latins to the so-called holy places in Palestine.

Such is what is called Christianity and the Church; my object is not to pursue it as a history, or go farther into detail. The Reformation, in the great and precious mercy of God, brought the bible forth from obscurity, and announced justification by faith, delivering many countries from the yoke of the papacy; but it left, in all the national churches, the germ of the system in baptismal regeneration, from which most indisputably it was not delivered; and a clerical exclusive right to ministry, denying the sovereignty and work of the Holy Ghost, as still carried on in regeneration and gift; and (though many, very many, have freed themselves from the first error, and we see a wonderful energy now at work for deliverance from the second) that energy works to the breaking up of the system. The new wine cannot be put into the old bottles. I have only to speak briefly of the results of this rapid survey.

What I have given is practically the history of the great house, and at the close in its worst and most appalling forms - surely not of the body of Christ; yet this, in its very worst form - the papacy, it pretended to be, and that exclusively. Such was the result of confounding the building of God upon earth, placed under the responsibility of man (1 Cor. 3), with the body composed of living members united to Christ. We have seen, that the urging of unity by the various Fathers was always interested, and bore only on their own position. First Ignatius presses unity of a local assembly with its bishop: episcopal thought went no further then. Then, as the inroad of heresies took place, the same apostolical doctrine, held by all, was proved by the uniform doctrine of the apostolic sees; and, as the truth proved the Spirit and the Church, the heretics could not be it, for they had not the truth. The order of this argument is to be noted, however; for it is entirely anti-Roman-catholic: they prove the truth by the Church; while the Irenaeus and Tertullian school, the Church by the possession of the truth. The truth they find from scripture, or the continuous doctrine of the apostolic sees as a fact. This is not a fact now; for Rome has changed or added in important points, as the addition of Filioque in the doctrine of Procession, and changes of prayers for the dead to prayers to the dead, the addition of purgatory, and in many others. Alexandria and Antioch are Monophysites, that is, they hold only one nature in Christ.

64 But to return; at this time, if the Church was referred to, it was only to hold their ground against heresy. In the next struggle it was only to hold it against schism, and maintain common episcopal rights against schismatic Novatians on the one side, and arrogant popes of Rome on the other. This was the Cyprian school. Augustine's was partly the same against the Donatists; but the personal sense of divine truth in him made all confusion, and led to the invention of an invisible Church known to God. After this it was merely a struggle for the destruction of the oligarchical power of the body of bishops, first by patriarchal power; and then between Rome and Constantinople for pre-eminence; the result being, as I have noticed elsewhere, the making a Roman-catholic church a falsehood in fact, as it is in sense. For the setting up of the pope as supreme over the churches (and that by imperial power), which Constantinople had been attempting to be, occasioned an entire breach; and the Church, as an outward body, ceased to be catholic everywhere when Rome attempted to make it Roman-catholic. It was split into two great camps, the Roman and the Greek, the Roman indeed the larger, but after all dependent on the rulers of the West, as the Greek on the rulers of the East; and now unable to boast even of any superiority of numbers, for the Protestant secession has made the numbers of professing Christians outside the Roman pale greater than those within it. Rome has one thing exclusively - the apostate pretension to power, setting aside the one headship of Christ, and opposing and falsifying His word; but that is all.

65 But our concern is with doctrine; and here mark another thing. The blessed unfolding of the truth of the Church was thought of by none. Some used the idea, attributing its privileges to the outward body - the house (yet thereby denying them; for wicked members of Christ is nonsense); and they quoted some scriptural passages as to it, but merely as a means of confounding their adversaries. None, that I am aware, ever laid hold on its blessings to unfold them. They walked by sight: that which had been founded on earth was before their eyes. It was indeed the important thing - the great fact of God's sovereign intervention in the world; what belonged to Him in the earth, His husbandry, His building: but, as they did not distinguish the body from the house, this latter only, which was the visible thing, was before their eyes. The consequence was, first, the allowance of the possibility of evil in the body of Christ, which bound men to the continued walking with evil; practically sanctioning it, or forcing them to break with the body: and, next, the attributing the title of divine and spiritual power to the evil itself - all under the claim, that the Church was the body of Christ; that, if you were not member, you could not have the Head. Salvation was there alone. This was true; but it is not true that they are that body, or that Christ has dead members. Further, baptism was held to be, as the introduction into Christ's assembly (which it is) that by which we become members of Christ, and children of God. So the Romanist; so the orthodox Protestant; so, in general, even the Baptist. But baptism has nothing to do with e the unity of, and admission into, the body even in figure. It goes, even in figure, no farther than death and resurrection - the individual passage into new life, and death to Adam existence. But the unity of the body depends on the exaltation of the Head into heaven; who, when exalted, and not till then (as He Himself said, "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come"), sent down the Holy Ghost; and by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. As Peter declares to his hearers in the Acts: "he, being exalted by the right hand of God, and, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, has shed forth this which ye now see and hear." This was the baptism of the Spirit as we see (Acts 1: 5); and it is thus by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. In this body there are members in which the energy of the Spirit displays itself in various gifts (1 Cor. 14: 11-14). The Spirit does not dwell in the body but in the house; "builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." The stones are not as such members of Him who dwells in the building. This was all confounded by the Fathers.

66 The result is, the claims of popery, and the confusion of Protestants as to baptismal regeneration and membership of Christ, with which baptism has nothing to do,

We have noticed another terrible result - the allowance of evil, connected with Christ. The Church is the ark; no salvation out of it. The unclean beasts are at the bottom story; Christ, like Noah, at the top: this is the Origen and Clement doctrine. In a great house there are vessels to dishonour, wooden and earthen; but, with a rare confusion of thought and scripture doctrine, Christ will burn or break them when He comes: this is Cyprian. The tares are mixed with the wheat in the Church: this is Jerome and Protestantism. At last, the corruption was so great, that, as Augustine expresses it, they were groaning at seeing crowds of wicked persons surround the Church's altar: there they are to leave them! The resource of His Spirit is the predestinating prescience of God, and an invisible Church; many better outside the Church than those in; but God will settle it! They are invisibly united in the bond of charity; while those outwardly within have no real bond; such is often now the resource of high Calvinism, acquiescing in the Establishment - acquiescing in evil, because God will have it all right. Conscience makes men schismatic in form when corruption and evil characterize what is called the body of Christ; and separation from the general mass of Christianity endangers the soul's stability, and its faith in any unity; and often produces, by not seeing the house, an opposition to it, which exposes to wild doctrine and heretical associations.

67 Such is, alas! the history of the Church, and the process of dogmatical creed as to it, under the exercises which the state of things produced in connection with the current theory. If the outward assembly was in fact the body of Christ, separation from it was schism; and, as far as man's act went, ruin; but true union of the members with the Head was really not known. If the outward assembly was nothing, then the whole corporate responsibility was destroyed; and the judgment of the evil servant had no place; there was no corporate responsibility of Christendom, in virtue of the Holy Ghost having been given to the assembly on the earth. No spiritual conscience could recognize the corruption as the true body of Christ. Some would reform, some separate; and the very idea of the Church in unity was either lost on the one side, or made perfectly compatible with the grossest corruption and Satan's power, on the other; and what was so corrupt was called His body, and the claim of divine authority attached to the administration of that corruption. The notion of an invisible body was invented to conciliate spiritual conscience with such a state of things. Scripture foretells failure, yea, recounts it, and foretells its becoming yet worse; it tells of corruption and perilous times, it tells finally of apostasy. But it never speaks of a corrupt body of Christ. It does not deny a corrupt general state of things, which it compares to a great house, and enjoins a man's purifying himself from the vessels of dishonour, and walking with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. It tells of a building of God in His purposes; and, in fact, at the commencement, and at the close; but it speaks with equal clearness of man's responsible building. The existing confusion is no difficulty for one who has scripture in his hand and heart, who owns its authority. The word of God makes all clear: the body united to its heavenly Head in sure and richest blessing; the corruption clearly described and judged; and, in the mixture which is to be expected in a great house, the path for uprightness, and obedience, and purity of walk, clear and distinct: the house, as it should be, well ordered; the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3): when it is filled with vessels to dishonour, as the great house, the distinct command of separation from evil and from them (2 Tim. 2). And the reader will remark, that it is in this last epistle, when the house is thus spoken of, that the word of God, the scriptures, are insisted on as the sure and effectual refuge of the soul in the perilous times of corrupted Christendom.

68 I add, as a sad but useful appendix, some facts as to the boasted primitive Church. First, as to doctrine, the statements which I have given from Hermas, whose book was read in many churches - quoted by Irenaeus and believed by Origen to be inspired - is the plainest possible proof of the gross ignorance of the primitive Church, and utter incompetency to judge of doctrine.

But, further, the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers is anything but satisfactory as to the divinity of Christ. Justin peremptorily denies that the one supreme God, the Creator, can appear as a man in this world; and the doctrine of Christ's not being distinct, as a person, till creation was about to take place, though not without an exception, no one acquainted with them can deny to be general, as expressed by endiathetos and prolhorikos. From the desire to meet the heathen's ideas, and the influence of Platonic philosophy, their teaching on the logos, or word, and what is expressed by the word Trinity is extremely loose and objectionable, to say the least. But if loose and unsound on so fundamental a point - on that which is the very truth itself, and foundation of all truth, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ - on what can we trust them? The final judgment is treated by one as a means of purifying the imperfect. And Augustine speaks of the Lord's supper as thanksgiving for the good, propitiation for the bad, and, though it cannot help the wicked dead, a comfort to the living (that is, by deceiving them): elsewhere he says, it may allay their pains in hell. As to the grace of God, it was hardly known amongst them.

The reader will remember that I am not speaking of souls and their personal faith, but of doctors. None are more untrustworthy on every fundamental subject than the mass of primitive Fathers.

Now, as to practice, Cyprian, in his treatise "De Lapsis," gives the following account of Christian morals, about two hundred years after Christ, while the empire was yet heathen. He says, "that they were treated mercifully in the persecution; so that it was an investigation or trial of them (exploratio), not a persecution; and that they must not be blind to the causes." Whereupon he then describes the state of the Church. Individuals were applying themselves to increase their patrimony; and, forgetful what believers either had done under the apostles or ought always to do, they were bent, with an insatiable ardour of avarice, on increasing their fortunes: no devout religion in priests; no uncorrupted fidelity in ministers (deacons); no compassion in works; no order in morals. The beard was plucked away* among men; the face painted among women; the eyes adulterated, after God had made them (post Dei manus); the hair coloured with falsehood; cunning frauds to deceive the hearts of the simple; a deceitful will in circumventing brethren; the bonds of matrimony joined with unbelievers; the members of Christ prostituted to heathens; not only rash swearing, but, besides, even perjury, despising those set over them with proud haughtiness; speaking evil with poisoned lip; mutual discord with pertinacious hatred. Many bishops, whom it behoves to be an exhortation and an example to others - their divine commission despised - become commissioners of secular affairs; and leaving their sees and deserting the people, wandering through other provinces, haunt the fairs and markets, trafficking for gain; no help to hungry brethren in the Church; the desire to have money largely; seizing on estates by insidious frauds; augmenting interest by multiplied usury.

{*I say plucked away, because in Ad Quir. iii. 84 (Testimoniorum) he gives it as vellendam, which in the text in Leviticus 19: 27 is corrumpantur, as here.}

69 Such is the picture of Christian morals afforded by a bishop who had lived in the midst of them.

I may next give Augustine's account of saints' festivals, after the emperors were Christians. He had resisted, in a very godly and courageous way, the people coming and getting drunk in the church; having preached against it, and only few being present. There were many murmurs in the mass of people against it. Their fathers, they said, were very good Christians, and they did it; and why should it be put a stop to now? He pressed Christian precepts on them: and adds, however, lest those, who before our time either allowed or did not dare prohibit the manifest crimes of an ignorant multitude, should seem to be subjected to some reproach on our part, I laid before them by what necessity those things seem to have arisen in the Church. Namely (after so many and so vehement persecutions, when peace having arrived, lest crowds of heathens, desiring to come under the Christian name, might be hindered by this, that they were accustomed to spend festive days with their idols, in abundant feasting and drunkenness, nor could easily withhold themselves from their most pernicious and very ancient indulgences) it seemed right to our ancestors, for the time, to wait on this part of infirmity, and that other festive days, instead of those they left, should be celebrated in honour of the holy martyrs, at least, not with the same sacrilege, although with like luxury. And then he shews how they hope, by connecting them with Christ, to wean them off by precepts; that what was granted them that they might be Christians, when they were Christians, they might reject (Aug. Lit. ad Alypium, 29, Ed. Ben.).

70 It is hard to say whether the fact, or Augustine's excuse for it, is the worse. It was, however, the real motive. So we in England may justly say; as directions were given by Pope Gregory to act on that principle in converting the Saxons. See, for example (lib. g; ep. 71), his recommendation to Mellitus on going to Britain.

Nor was this way of settling saints' days local merely. Christmas was fixed at the Saturnalia - a word passed into a technical one for unbridled license - because they could not bridle their feasting, and would Christianize (?) it.* The day of purification was substituted for the Lupercalia, which had this character; and so on.

{*Nobody knows what time of the year Christ was born. There is some small probability, from the fact of the mention of the course of Abia, that it was in autumn; the Greek Church celebrates it on Epiphany.}

The following is Eusebius's account of the state of the Church, which had brought on the persecutions that preceded his time: rulers raging against rulers, and people in tumultuous conflict with people; lastly, when unutterable hypocrisy and dissimulation had gone on to the highest pitch, then divine judgment began, he says, measuredly, as it delights to do, and first with trial among soldiers. But when they went on then to act like atheists, and added one wickedness to another; when our most esteemed pastors, despising the bond of piety, burned in contentions one with another, increasing only in strife and threats, jealousy, enmity, and hatred, one against another; then, he says, according to the saying of Jeremiah, the full tide of trial broke in. Such was the primitive Church of the third century (Euseb. 8: 1).

Jerome will tell us if they had improved when the empire became Christian. Here is his account of the clergy. Valentinian had passed a law forbidding the clergy getting inheritances by watching the death-beds of persons who had property Jerome gives an account of the state of things; he does not complain of the law, but of its being necessary. It shews, in truth, as all such laws do, a general public state of things "The caution of the law is provident and severe; yet, even so, avarice is not restrained. We mock at laws by means of trusts, and as if emperors' decrees were greater than Christ's; we fear the laws and despise the Gospels. It is the shame of all priests to study their own wealth. Born in a poor house and in a rustic cottage, I, who could scarce content the loud cry of my belly with millet and coarse bread, now am nice about fine flour and honey. I know the kinds and names of fishes. I am knowing as to the shore on which a shell-fish is gathered. I discern provinces by the savour of birds, etc. I hear, moreover, of the base service of some to old men and old women without children." He then describes, in language too disagreeable to translate, the disgusting servile attentions of the clergy at the bedside of the sick, and continues: "They tremble at the entrance of the physician, and with faltering lips inquire if they are better; and if the old person is somewhat more vigorous, they are in danger, and, while feigning joy, the avaricious mind is tortured within; for they fear lest they should lose their pains, and compare the vigorous old person to the years of Methuselah" (Ep. 52, ad Nepotianum).

71 Augustine, at the same epoch, complains that in his day, if anyone would live godly, he was mocked, not by heathen simply, but by professing Christians. He complains that the devil had sent so many hypocrites in monks' habits on every side, going round the provinces, sent nowhere, fixed nowhere, standing nowhere, sitting nowhere; others hawking members of martyrs, if they are of martyrs; others, etc. All exact either the expense of a gainful need, or the price of a pretended sanctity (De Opere Monachorum).

These extracts will give an idea of the state of what is called the primitive Church. Greater research and examination would only increase the evidence; and, as to doctrines, in a way calculated to distress every sober and godly mind. This does not prove there was no hidden religion, no true faith; but that the authority of what we possess of the primitive Church is worse than nothing as to doctrine, and its general practice in both clergy and laity a disgrace to the name of Christ. What I have given will give its traits. It is all I seek here, that the consciences of my readers may know what the primitive Church was, and not be under any delusion through the speciously-sounding title. There was no time when there was so little orthodoxy, as before the council of Nice (I speak of the Fathers and doctors), unless in the universal Arianism of the reign of Constans and some other emperors. For the catholic Church, pope, and all, veered round with the emperor like a weathercock. Athanasius died condemned by the council of Tyre; Arius in the communion of the universal Church: only he perished the night before he took his place - his foes say by the judgment of God, his friends, by poison.

72 I add a short note, referred to in the body of the paper, as to the epoch of the dogma of papal supremacy. The first I find, in the midst of much vague deference and admission of rank, who formally makes the pope the one and sole centre of unity, is Optatus of Milevi. In his second book* (not having his works, I quote from the Centuriatores Magdeburgici) he says, "The episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter in the city of Rome, in which he sat as head of all the apostles; whence also he was called Cephas, in whom alone the unity of the chair should be kept by all, nor the apostles lay claim each to one for himself (singulas sibi quisque); so that he would be a schismatic and a sinner who should establish another in opposition to the one single chair." But this is said in opposition to the schism of the Donatists. When the African synods, in Augustine's time, had condemned the Pelagians, they sent their decrees as usual to the bishop of Rome. Innocent I tells them they had manifested a proper sense of the submission due to the apostolic see, whence all episcopal power flowed, and must ever flow, as from one single fountain-head, to fertilize the whole world by its manifold streamlets. He had, he said, of his own authority condemned these heresies, and severed their authors from the Church. However, the following pope, Zosimus, approved the statements of Pelagius, as sent to him from Palestine, and condemned all the previous proceedings against Pelagius. But, under Augustine's influence, a council of Carthage, A.D. 418, condemned and anathematized Pelagius, and decreed that anyone shall presume to appeal beyond sea (that is, to Rome), "let none among you receive him into communion." They sent to the emperor, who condemned and banished him from Rome, and then Zosimus condemned too, what he had approved; and the Africans being content, Zosimus claims Peter's universal jurisdiction as before, and all goes on smoothly. Augustine, in his treatise on the Gospel of John, expressly declares that Christ was the rock on which the Church was built - on the rock which Peter had confessed. Elsewhere, if I remember, in his Retractations, he says, people may take it otherwise if they prefer it.

{* I do not quote the seventh, though the subject is referred to, as its authenticity is more than questionable, though it is undoubtedly very ancient.}

73 Leo, an able man, connects the two thoughts with much cleverness of manner. I quote them, as they will give an idea of the way Roman pretensions were put forward in his age:-

"For the solidity of that faith which is praised in the prince of the apostles is perpetual; and as what Peter believed of Christ ever remains, so what Christ instituted in Peter ever remains." He then quotes Matthew 16: 16 in full. He continues: "The disposition of the truth therefore remains; and the blessed Peter, persevering in the received strength of the rock, has not deserted the undertaken helm of the Church. For he is in such sort placed before the others, that while he is called the 'rock' (petra), while he is pronounced to be the foundation, while he is made doorkeeper of the kingdom of the heavens, while he is set up as arbiter of what is to be bound and loosed, what is defined by his judgments being to remain in the heavens - we might know, by the very mysteries of his tides, what his association with Christ is, who now transacts more fully and powerfully the things which were committed to him, and executes every part of the duties and cares in Him and with Him by whom he has been glorified. If therefore anything is rightly done and rightly discerned by us, if anything is obtained from the mercy of God by daily supplications, it is of the works and merits of him in whose see his power lives and his authority is pre-eminent. For, beloved, that confession which inspired the apostolic heart by God the Father rose above all the uncertainties of human opinions, and received the firmness of a rock, which may be shaken by no impulses obtained thus. For in the universal Church Peter daily says, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' This faith conquers devils," etc. (Ser. 3). Again, on the assumption of Peter (Ser. 4), "All are kings by the sign of the cross, all consecrated priests by the unction of the Holy Spirit," etc. "But Peter was chosen," etc., "that, although in the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, yet Peter should as by proper title belonging to himself (proprie) rule them all whom Christ also rules as prime and chief (principaliter). A great and wonderful community (consortium) of His power, beloved, has the divine esteem (dignatio) bestowed on this man; and if it has willed that anything should be common to other chiefs with him, it never gave but through him whatever it did not deny to others." Then he quotes Matthew 16 again, interpreting thus: "As I am the inviolable rock, I the cornerstone who make both one, I the foundation besides which none can lay any other, yet thou also art a rock (petra), become identified with my virtue (that is, power and strength, as we say virtue of a medicine or herb), that what things are proper to me in power should be common to thee by participation with me." See also Ser. 62 (11 de Pass. Dom.). Again (Epist. 10 ad Episcopos per provinciam Viennensem constitutos): "But the Lord willed that the mystery of this function should so belong to the office of all the apostles, as placed by Him first and chief (principaliter) in the blessed Peter, head of all the apostles, and as being His will that from him, as from a kind of head, His gifts should flow into the body, that whoever dared to get away from the solidity of Peter should understand that he was deprived of any portion in the divine mystery; for He (Christ) was pleased that he, taken into the community (consortium) of [His] individual unity, should be called that which He is saying, 'Thou art Peter,'" etc. - " that the building of the eternal temple by a wonderful gift of the grace of God should stand in the solidity of Peter, strengthening His Church by this firmness, that neither human rashness might reach it, nor the gates of hell prevail against it."

Here I close my note. The place given to Peter speaks for itself to every Christian. As to doctrinal claim, it would be needless to pursue the papacy any farther. With its political influence I have here nothing to do; I have sufficiently given its history already.

74 A most interesting but difficult subject of research in connection with this sketch would be - How far the workings of divine light and conscience were connected with some of the heretical movements of different ages, even though the craft of Satan may have marred and corrupted the movement of these unguarded souls? And this interest would apply to various sects, so-called, which arose from the sixth century onward, at least as much as to earlier heretical bodies. But the facts are very difficult to estimate, and even to ascertain, and the greatest part of the testimony to be sifted as coming from enemies. Take, for example, as obvious instances, Tertullian and the Paulicians.

What is the Church, as it was at the beginning?

and what is its present state?

J. N. Darby.

<14003E> 76

We may consider the Church in two points of view. First, it is the formation of the children of God into one body united to Christ Jesus ascended to heaven, the glorified man; and that by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the second place, it is the house or habitation of God by the Spirit. The Saviour gave Himself, not only to save perfectly all those who believe in Him, but also to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Christ has perfectly accomplished the work of redemption; having offered one sacrifice for sins, He is seated at the right hand of God. For by one offering He has for ever and perfectly purified those who are sanctified: whereof also the Holy Ghost witnesses to us, "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The love of God has given us Jesus; the righteousness of God is fully satisfied by His sacrifice; and He is seated at God's right hand as a continual testimony to the accomplishment of the work of redemption, to our acceptance in Him, and to the possession of the glory unto which we are called. From heaven, according to His promise, Jesus has sent the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who dwells in us who believe in Jesus, and who has sealed us for the day of redemption, that is to say, of the glorification of our bodies. The same Spirit is, besides, the earnest of our inheritance.

But all this would be always true, even if there were not a Church upon earth. That is, it is one thing that there are individuals saved, children of God, heirs of glory in heaven; quite another is their union with Christ, so as to be members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones; and yet another it is to be the habitation of God through the Spirit. We will speak of these latter points.

There is nothing clearer in the holy scripture of truth than that the Church is the body of Christ. Not only have we salvation by Christ, but we are in Christ and Christ in us. The true Christian who enjoys His privileges knows that, by means of the Holy Ghost, he is in Christ and Christ in him. "In that day," says the Lord, "ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in me, and I in you." In that day, that is to say, in the day when we should have received the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Accordingly we are in Christ and members of His body. This doctrine is largely unfolded in Ephesians 1-3. What is there clearer than this word, "He gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body"? Observe, that this marvellous fact began, or was found existing, at soonest when Christ was glorified in the heavens, even though all that is found contained in these verses is not yet accomplished. God, says the apostle, has raised us up with Him, and has seated us together in Him in the heavenly places - not yet with Him, but "in him." And in chapter 3, "Which [mystery] was not in other ages made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel . . . that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be known, by the church, the manifold wisdom of God."

77 Here, then, is the Church formed on earth by the Holy Ghost descended from heaven, after the glorification of Christ. It is united to Christ, its heavenly Head; and all true believers are His members by means of the same Spirit. This precious truth is confirmed in other passages; for example, in Romans 12, "As in one body we have many members, and all the members have not the same office; so we who are many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."

It will not be necessary to cite other passages: we will only call the attention of the reader to 1 Corinthians 12. It is clear as daylight, that here the apostle speaks of the Church on the earth, not of a future Church which shall be made good in heaven, and not even of churches scattered over the world, but of the Church as a whole, represented however by the Church at Corinth. Therefore it is said, at the beginning of the epistle, "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." The totality of the Church is clearly seen in the words, "And God hath set in the church: first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then gifts of healing," etc. It is evident that apostles were not in a particular church, and that the gifts of healing could not be exercised in heaven. It is the Church universal on earth. This Church is the body of Christ, and the true believers are its members. It is one by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. "For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of this one body, though many, are one body; so also is Christ," v. 12. Then, after having said that all these many members work, each in its own function, in the body, he adds (v. 27), "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in particular." Bear in mind that this is come to pass by the baptism of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. Consequently this body exists on earth, and embraces all Christians wherever they may be; they have received the Holy Spirit whereby they are members of Christ and members one of another. Oh, how beautiful is the unity! If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it together.

78 Here the word teaches us besides that the gifts are members of all the body, and that they belong to the body as a whole. The apostles, the prophets, the teachers are in the Church, and not in a particular church. Consequently these gifts, given by the Holy Ghost, are exercised in all the Church where the member is found, because he is a member of the body. If Apollos taught at Ephesus, he teaches also when he is at Corinth, and in whatever locality he may be.

The Church is, then, the body of Christ, united to Him, its Head, in heaven, and one is a member by the Spirit who dwells in us, and all Christians are members one of another. This Church, which will be by and by made good in heaven, is at present formed on earth by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, who abides with us, and by whom all true believers are baptized into one body. The gifts, in the next place, are exercised as members of this one body in the entire Church.

There is, as we have said, another character of the Church on earth; that is to say, it is the habitation of God on earth. It is interesting to see, by examination, that this had no place before redemption. God did not dwell with Adam even while innocent; nor with Abraham, though He visited with much condescension both the first man in paradise and the father of the faithful. Nevertheless He never dwelt with them. But no sooner was Israel redeemed out of Egypt than God comes to dwell in the midst of His people. As soon as the building of the tabernacle was revealed and regulated, God says, "I will dwell in the midst of Israel and I will be their God; and they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, who hath taken them out of the land of Egypt to dwell in their midst," Exod. 29: 45, 46. Thus the dwelling of God in the midst of the people was the end of the deliverance: the presence of God in the midst of the people is their greatest privilege.

79 The presence of the Holy Ghost is what characterizes true believers in Christ. "Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. 6: 19. "If any man hath not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Christians taken together are also the temple of God; and the Spirit of God dwells in them; 1 Cor. 3: 16.

Not to speak more of the individual Christian, I will say then that the Church is God's habitation on earth by the Spirit. Most precious privilege! The presence of God Himself, the source of joy, strength, and wisdom for His people! But at the same time there is very great responsibility as to the way in which we treat such a guest. I will cite some passages to prove this truth. In Ephesians 2, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and pilgrims, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Here we see that, though this building is already begun on the earth, the intention of God is to have a temple formed, made up of all that believe after that God had broken down the partition-wall that shut out the Gentiles; and that this building grows till all Christians are united in glory. But meanwhile the believers on earth form a tabernacle of God, His habitation through the Spirit who abides in the midst of the Church.

In 1 Timothy 3 the apostle says, "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." By these words we see that the Church on earth is the house of the living God; that this epistle teaches Timothy how to behave himself in this house. We see also that the Christian is responsible to maintain the truth in the world. The Church does not teach, but the apostles taught. Teachers instruct, but the Christian maintains the truth by being faithful to it. It is the witness of the truth in the world. Those who seek the truth do not seek it among Pagans or Jews or Mahometans, but in the Christian Church. It is not authority for the truth, but the word is its authority. The Church is the vessel that contains the truth; and where the truth is not, there is no Church. Such is the Church, the body of Christ, who is its heavenly Head.* Such is the house of God by the Spirit on earth. When the Church is complete, it will join Christ in heaven, clothed with the same glory as its Bridegroom.

{*This is an incontestable proof that the pope cannot be the head of the Church, because if Christ is the Head, one body cannot have two heads.}

80 Now it is necessary, before speaking of the state of the Church as it was at the beginning, to notice a difference which is found in the word of God as to the house. The Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." It is Christ Himself who builds His Church; and consequently the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.* Here it is not man who builds, but Christ. Wherefore the apostle Peter, speaking of the spiritual house, says nothing of the workmen, "To whom coming as unto a living stone . . . ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood," 1 Peter 2. This is the work of grace in the heart of the individual by which man approaches Christ. Accordingly, once more, in the Acts it is said that "the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved." This work could not fail, being the work of God, efficacious for eternity, and manifested in its time. We read, moreover, in Ephesians 2, "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." This building which grows may be manifested before the eyes of men; but if the effect of this work of efficacious grace is not manifested in its exterior unity before men, God will not for that fail to do His work, gathering His children for eternal life. Souls come to Christ and are built upon Him.

{*Be it observed that there are no keys for the Church. One does not build with keys. The keys are for the kingdom.}

81 The apostles John and Paul, and more particularly the latter, speak of a unity manifested before men in testimony to men of the power of the Holy Ghost. In John 17 we read, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Here the unity of the children of God is a testimony borne to the world, that God has sent Jesus in order that the world may believe. Now this truth is, consequently, the evident duty of God's children. All know how the state opposed to this truth is a weapon in the hands of the enemies of this truth.

The character of the house and the doctrine of the responsibility of men are still more clearly taught in the word of God. Paul says, "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. But let every one take heed how he buildeth thereupon." Here it is men who build. The house of God is manifested on earth. The Church is the building of God; but we find there not only God's work (that is, those who come to God moved by the Holy Ghost), but also the effect of the work of men, who have often built with wood, hay, and stubble. Men have confused together the exterior house built by men and the work of Christ, which may indeed be identical with the work of men, but it may also differ widely. False teachers attributed all the privileges of the body of Christ to the great house composed of every sort of iniquity and of corrupt men. But this fatal error does not destroy the responsibility of men as regards the house of God, His habitation through the Spirit; any more than it is destroyed in respect of the manifestation of the unity of the Spirit in one body on earth.

I considered it important to notice this difference, because it throws much light on questions of the day. Let us now pursue our subject. What was the state of the Church at the commencement when it began at Jerusalem? We find that the power of the Spirit of God was wonderfully manifested. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," Acts 2. And in chapter 4, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands, or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need," Acts 4: 32-35. What a beautiful picture of the effect of the power of the Spirit in their hearts! an effect which was too soon to disappear for ever; but Christians ought to seek to realize it as much as possible.

82 The evil of the heart of man soon appeared; and Ananias and Sapphira, as also the murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, manifested that the sin of man's heart joined to the devil's work was still working in the bosom of the Church. But at the same time the Holy Spirit was in the Church and acted there, and was sufficient for putting out evil and changing it into good. The Church however was one, known by the world; and one could say that the apostles, having been let go, went to their own company. One only Church, filled with the Holy Ghost, bore testimony to the salvation of God and to His presence on earth; and to this Church God added all those who were to be saved. This Church was all scattered abroad because of the persecution, save the apostles who abode at Jerusalem. Then God raised up Paul to be His messenger unto the Gentiles. He begins to build the Church among the Gentiles, and teaches that in it there is neither Gentile nor Jew, but that all are one and the same body in Christ. Not only the existence of the Church among the Jews, but still more the doctrine of the Church, of its unity, of the union of Jews with Gentiles in one body, is proclaimed and put in execution. It was the object of the counsels of God already before the foundation of the world, but hidden in God; a mystery which had been hid from the ages in God, to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God: which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets* by the Spirit. So also in Colossians 1: 26, "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints."

{*Be it observed that the apostle speaks only of the prophets of the New Testament.}

83 All Christians were known, all admitted publicly into the Church, Gentiles as well as Jews. The unity was manifested. All the saints were members of one body, of Christ's body; the unity of the body was owned; and it was a fundamental truth of Christianity. In each locality there was the manifestation of this unity of the Church of God on the earth; so that an epistle of Paul addressed to the Church of God at Corinth arrived at a single assembly; and the apostle could farther add to it "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Nevertheless, if we speak specially of those at Corinth, he says, "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." If a Christian member of Christ's body went from Ephesus to Corinth, he would have been equally and necessarily also member of Christ's body in this latter assembly. Christians are not members of a church, but of Christ. The eye, the ear, the foot, or any other member which was at Corinth, was equally such at Ephesus. In the word we do not find the idea of members of a church, but of Christ.

Ministry, as it is presented in the word, is likewise a proof of this same truth. The gifts, source of ministry, given by the Holy Spirit, were in the Church (1 Cor. 12: 8-12, 28). Those who possessed them were members of the body. If Apollos was a teacher at Corinth, he was also a teacher at Ephesus. If he was the eye, ear, or any other member whatever of Christ's body at Ephesus, he was also such at Corinth. For this subject there is nothing clearer than 1 Corinthians 12: one body, many members; the Church one, in which were found the gifts that the Holy Spirit had given - gifts which were exercised in any locality whatsoever where he might be who possessed them. In Ephesians 4 the same truth is set forth. When Christ ascended on high, He "gave gifts unto men . . . and he 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, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive: but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love."

84 This unity and the free activity of the members are found realized in the time of the apostles. Each gift was fully owned as efficacious to accomplish the work of the Lord, and was freely exercised. The apostles laboured as apostles, and likewise those who had been scattered on the occasion of the first persecution laboured in the work according to the measure of their gifts. It is thus that the apostles taught ( 1 Peter 4: 10, 11; 1 Cor. 14: 26-29). And it is thus that the Christians did. The devil sought to destroy this unity; but he was not able to succeed as long as the apostles lived. He employed Judaism for this work; but the Holy Spirit preserved the unity, as we read in Acts 15. He sought to create sects in it by means of philosophy (1 Cor. 2), and of both together (Col. 2). But all these efforts were vain. The Holy Spirit acted in the midst of the Church, and the wisdom given to the apostles to maintain the unity and the truth of the Church against the power of the enemy. The more one reads the Acts of the Apostles, the more one reads the Epistles, the more one sees this unity and this truth. The union of these two things can only take effect by the action of the Holy Ghost. Individual liberty is not union; and the union of men does not leave the individual his full liberty. But the Holy Spirit, when He governs, necessarily unites brethren together and acts in each according to the aim which He has proposed to Himself in uniting them, that is to say, according to His own aim. Thus the presence of the Holy Ghost gathers together all the saints in one body, and works in each according to His will, guiding them in the Lord's service for the glory of God and the edification of the body.

Such was the Church: how is it now and where does it exist? It will be perfected in heaven. Granted: but where is it found now on earth? The members of Christ's body are now dispersed; many hidden in the world, others in the midst of religious corruption; some in one sect, some in another, in rivalry one with another to gain over the saved. Many, thanks be to God, do seek unity; but who is it that has found it? It suffices not to say that by the same Spirit we love each other; for by one Spirit we have been baptized into one body. "That they all may be one . . ." says the Lord, "that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." But we are not one; the unity of the body is not manifested. At the beginning it was clearly manifested, and in every city this unity was evident to all the world. All Christians walked everywhere as one Church. He who was a member of Christ in one locality was so also in another, and he who had a letter of recommendation was received everywhere, because there existed but one society.

85 The Supper was the outward sign of this unity. "We being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread," 1 Cor. 10: 17. The testimony the Church gives now is rather that of proclaiming that the Holy Ghost with His power and grace is unable to surmount the causes of the divisions. The greatest part of what is called the Church is the seat of the grossest corruption, and the majority of those who boast of its light are unbelievers. Greeks, Romanists, Lutherans, Reformers cannot take the Supper together; they condemn each other. The light of God's children who are found in the sects is hid under a bushel; and those who are separated from such bodies, because they cannot endure the corruption, are divided into hundreds of parties who will not take the Supper together. Neither the one nor the other pretends to be the Church of God, and they say that it is become invisible; but what is the value of an invisible light? Nevertheless there is no humiliation or confession in seeing the light become invisible. Unity with respect to its manifestation is destroyed. The Church - once beautiful, united, heavenly - has lost its character, is hidden in the world; and the Christians themselves - worldly, covetous, eager for riches, honour, power - like the children of the age. It is an epistle in which one cannot read a single word of Christ.* The greatest part of what bears the name of Christian is the seat of the enemy or infidel; and the true Christians are lost in the midst of the multitude. Where can we find one loaf, the sign of one body? Where is the power of the Spirit who unites Christians in a single body? Who can deny that the Christians were thus? and are they not guilty for being no longer what they were? or shall we call it well to be in a state totally different from that in which the Church was at the beginning and from that which the word demands from us? We ought to be profoundly grieved at such a state of the Church in the world, because it no way answers to the heart and love of Christ. Men rest satisfied in being assured of their eternal salvation.

{*It is not said that we ought to be the epistle of Christ, but "ye are the epistle of Christ."}

86 Do we seek what the word says on this point? Here is what we read there, in a general way, for what concerns every economy or dispensation, and the ways of God with the Jews and towards the branches from among the Gentiles who were substituted for the Jews (Rom. 11). "On them which fell, severity; but towards thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Is it not a serious thing, when the people of God on the earth are cut off? Certainly the faithful are and will be kept; for God has no thought of failing in His faithfulness; but all the systems in which God glorifies Himself on the earth may be judged and cut off. The glory of God, His real visible presence, was once at Jerusalem, His throne was over the cherubim; but ever since the Babylonish captivity His presence abandoned Jerusalem, and His glory as well as His presence were no more in the temple in the midst of the people. And though His great patience endured long, until Christ was rejected, yet God cut them off as regards that covenant. The remnant became Christians, but all the system was terminated by judgment. Such will be the issue of the Christian system, if it continue not in the goodness of God. But it has not continued in God's goodness.

Therefore, though I believe firmly that all true Christians will be preserved and caught up to heaven, yet for what concerns the testimony of the Church on earth, the house of God through the Spirit, it will exist no more. Peter had said already, the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God. And in Paul's time the mystery of iniquity was already working and was to be continued till the man of sin appeared; already in the apostle's time all sought their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. The apostle tells us farther that after his departure there should enter among the Christians in the Church grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; and that in the last days perilous times should come, men having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof; that evil men and seducers should wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived; and that finally the apostasy should come. Now is all this continuing in God's goodness?

87 And this unfaithfulness, is it a thing unknown in the history of man? God has always begun by putting His creature in a good position; but the creature invariably abandons the position in which God set it, becoming unfaithful therein. And God, after long forbearance, never re-establishes it in the position it fell from. It is not according to His ways to patch up a thing which has been spoilt; but He cuts it off, to introduce afterwards something entirely new and far better than what went before. Adam fell; and God will have the last Adam, the Lord from heaven. God gave the law to Israel, who made the calf of gold before Moses came down from the mountain; and God will write the law in the hearts of His people. God ordained the priesthood of Aaron, but his sons from the very first offered strange fire; and from that moment Aaron could no more enter the holiest with his garments of glory and beauty. God made the son of David to sit on the throne of Jehovah; but, idolatry having been introduced by him, the kingdom was divided, and the throne of the world was given of God to Nebuchadnezzar, who made a great image of gold and cast the faithful into a burning fiery furnace. In every case man was faithless; and God, having long borne with him, interposes in judgment and substitutes a better system.

It is interesting to observe how all the things in which man has broken down are established in a more excellent way in the second Man. Man shall be exalted in Christ, the law written in the heart of the Jews, priesthood be exercised by Jesus Christ. He is the Son of David who is to reign over the house of Israel; He is to govern the nations. Likewise as regards the Church, it has been unfaithful; it has not maintained the glory of God which had been confided to it. Therefore shall it be cut off as a system on the earth, the order of things established of God shall be closed by judgment, the faithful shall go up to heaven into a state much better to be conformed to the image of the Son of God, and the kingdom of the Saviour shall be established on the earth. All this will be an admirable testimony to the faithfulness of God, who will accomplish all His counsels spite of the unfaithfulness of man But does this take away the responsibility of man? How then; as the apostle says, could God judge the world? Ought not our hearts to feel that we have cast the glory of the Lord into the dust? The mischief began in the times of the apostles: each added to it his own; and the iniquity of ages is heaped upon us; and soon the house of God will be judged. The blood of all the righteous has been required of the Jewish nation by Jesus, as also Babylon will be found guilty of the blood of all the righteous.

88 It is true that we shall be caught up to heaven; but, along with that, ought we not to mourn over the ruin of the house of God? Yes: formerly one, a beautiful testimony to the glory of its Head by the power of the Holy Ghost; united, heavenly, so that the world could recognize the effect of the power of the Holy Spirit who put men above all human motives, and, causing distinctions and diversities among them to disappear, made believers in all countries and of all classes to be one family, one body, one Church, a mighty testimony to the presence of God on earth in the midst of men.

But it is objected that we are not responsible for the sins of those who have gone before us. Are we not responsible for the state in which we are found? Did the Nehemiahs, the Daniels, excuse themselves for the sins of the people? Or rather, did they not mourn over the misery of the people of God as belonging to them? If we were not responsible, why then should God put them aside, why judge and destroy all the system? Why should He say, "I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent"? Why does He judge Thyatira, replacing it by the kingdom? Why does He say, "I will spue thee out of my mouth"? I believe that the seven churches furnish us with the history of the Church from the beginning to the end; in all cases we have there the responsibility of Christians as to the state of the Church. It will be said perhaps that there are none but local churches which are responsible, and not the Church universal. What is certain is that God will cut off the Church as a system established on earth.

Still more to demonstrate responsibility continually from the beginning to the end, let us read in Jude, "There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." They had already slipt in. "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints to execute judgment upon all." Thus those who in the time of Jude had already crept in would bring the judgments on the profane professors of Christianity. In this epistle we have the three classes of iniquity and their progress. In Cain there is purely human iniquity; in Balaam ecclesiastical iniquity; and in Korah rebellion, and then they perish. In the field where the Lord had sown the good seed, while men slept the enemy sowed tares. It is very true that the good seed is gathered into the garner, but the negligence of the servants has left the enemy the opportunity of spoiling the Master's work. Shall we be indifferent to the state of the Church, beloved of the Lord, indifferent to the divisions that the Lord has forbidden? No;* let us humble ourselves, dear brethren, let us own our fault and have done with it. Let us walk faithfully, each for his part, and endeavour to find once more the unity of the Church and the testimony of God. Let us cleanse ourselves from all evil and all iniquity. If it is possible for us to gather together in the name of the Lord, it is a great blessing; but it is essential that this be done in the unity of the Church of God and in the true liberty of the Spirit.

{*In 1 Timothy we have the order of the Church, the house of God; in 2 Timothy we have the rule to follow when the Church is in disorder. For our God has provided for all difficulties. that we should be faithful and depart from all iniquity.}

89 If the house of God is still on the earth and the Holy Spirit abides in it, is He not grieved at the state of the Church? And if He abides in us, should not our hearts be afflicted and humbled at the dishonour done to Christ and the destruction of the testimony that the Holy Ghost is come down from heaven to bear in the unity of the Church of God? He who will confront the state of the Church, as it is described to us in the New Testament with its present state, will feel his heart profoundly saddened by seeing the Church's glory dragged into the dust and the enemy triumphing in the confusion of the people of God.

Finally, Christ has confided His glory on earth to the Church. It was the depositary of that glory. There the world ought to have seen it displayed by the power of the Holy Ghost, a testimony to the victory of Christ over Satan, death, and all the enemies that He has led captive, triumphing over them in the cross. Has the Church preserved this deposit and maintained the glory of Christ on the earth? If this has not been done, tell me, Christian, is the Church responsible for it? Was the servant, to whom the Lord entrusted the care of His house (Matt. 24), responsible or not for the state of his Master's house? It will be said, perhaps, that the wicked servant is the outward church, which is corrupted and is not really the Church: as for me, I am not a member of it at all. But I reply that, in the parable, the servant is alone; and the question is whether this sole servant is faithful or unfaithful? It may be true that you are separate from the iniquity which fills the house of God, and you have done well; but is not your heart bowed down because of the state of that house? The Lord shed tears of grief over Jerusalem; and shall we shed none over that which is still dearer to His heart? Here the glory of the Lord has been trampled under foot: shall we say that we are not responsible for it? His only servant is held accountable. Even though, individually guided by the word, I may be apart from all the iniquity which corrupts the house of God, nevertheless, as Christ's servant, I ought to identify myself with the glory of Christ, and with its manifestations to the world. It is in this that faith is shewn: not merely in believing that God and Christ possess the glory, but in identifying this glory with His people (Exod. 32: 11, 12; Num. 14: 13-19; 2 Cor. 1: 20). First, God entrusts His glory to man, who is responsible to maintain himself in his position, and to be faithful in it, without leaving his first estate; by and by God will establish His own glory according to His counsels. But, first of all, man is responsible where God has set him. We have been set in the Church of God, in His house, in the habitation of His glory on the earth: where is it?

The Church - the House and the Body

J. N. Darby.

<14004E> 91

It seems to me that a few words now as to the Church, though not bringing forward anything entirely new, will be opportune. The question of the Church is agitated in every sense; and those who favour the popish or high-church view of it profit by certain expressions which some find it difficult to explain. My notice of the subject will be brief.

There are two points to be considered which comprehend all that with which I am at present occupied. The first is one which I have heretofore noticed, and on which the confusion and discord rest that agitate believing protestantism; namely, the identifying the house with the body, or the outward thing here on earth (including all who profess Christianiy and all baptized) with the inward thing, or that which is united to Christ by the Holy Ghost. The other is taking the figure of a building (as scripture does), and then confounding what Christ Himself builds with what is the fruit of the work of building externally - here on earth entrusted to the responsibility of man.

Confusion on the first point seems to me to have been the origin of the whole system of popery, in its leading feature; and the Reformation did not get clear of it. I mean the attributing the privileges of the body to every one who was externally introduced into the outward profession of Christianity - to every baptized person. At the beginning it was so in fact: the Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved. There was no principle involved in this. It was the Lord's own work; and, of course, was done really and perfectly. What He did with the spared ones at the close of the Jewish dispensation was, not to take them to heaven, as He will at the close of the present period, but to add them to the assembly which He had formed. There can be no reasonable doubt they were added outwardly by baptism, as it was the known regular way of doing so. These as introduced by the Lord, surely, had really part in all the privileges which were found in the body they were added to. The sacramental and the vital system remained undistinguished; and indeed in certain respects undeveloped, for there was no Gentile yet received, nor was the unity of the body taught. All was there that was given; for the Holy Ghost had come down, but was, as a fact, confined to Jews and Jerusalem; so that, if the nation had repented, Acts 3 might have been fulfilled as well as chapter 2. But if here all was developed, if the distinctive characters of the Church, as the unity of Jew and Gentile in one body, were not brought into evidence, all was at any rate real. The Lord, who added to the Church, brought men into the privileges which the Church possessed, and brought in those who were to possess them.

92 But this soon ceased to be the case. The Simon Maguses and false brethren crept in unawares, and sacramental introduction and real enjoyment of privilege became distinct. All who were introduced by baptism were not members of the body of Christ nor had really eternal life. I do not say they enjoyed no advantages. They enjoyed much every way, but it only turned to increased condemnation, and, according to Jude, they were the seed of judgment as regards the Church: of this scripture is thus witness. Such remains as we have of the primitive Church shew that this question, or difference, was wholly lost. They contended for truth against heresy, as Irenaeus; for unity, in fact, in what existed, as Ignatius (though most of what is ordinarily read of his is clearly, I judge, spurious). Both were right in the main, but that doctrine which Paul upheld with difficulty against Judaizers, and, in general, the doctrine of one body (of which Christ was the head, and those personally sealed with the Holy Ghost the members), was lost; and, in general, the rights of the body were attributed to all the baptized. I say in general, for the true privileges of the body had disappeared from their minds altogether. If they kept the great elements of the faith, and Gnosticism (the denial of the humanity, or of the divinity, of Christ) were warded off, they were glad; while Platonism (through the means of Justin Martyr, Origen, and Clement) corrupted sufficiently within. But the effect was evident. The outward body became the Church, and whatever was held of privilege was attributed to all the baptized.

This has continued in the reformed churches. Thus, "baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven"; so Luther, so Calvin: only the latter affirming in other teachings that it was made good only in the elect; so the Scotch Church - the degree only of privilege differing. Many important consequences followed from this in Anglicans and Lutherans; such as that a person had really eternal life, was really a member of Christ, yet was finally lost. I do not dwell on these things; but the immense bearing of them is evident. Now there was a double error in thus attributing, to the external sacramental rite, the actual vital introduction into the living possession of divine privileges; and, in the utter confusion of thought which followed, the attributing the privileges of one sacrament to participation in the other.

93 I do not deny that the sign is spoken of as the thing signified. Christ could say, "This is my body which is broken," when it was not yet broken at all, and while He held the bread in His own hand alive; "This is the Lord's passover," when God was no longer passing over at all; "I am the true vine," and so of a thousand others. It enters into all language. I say of a picture: "That is my mother." Nobody is misled by it but those who choose to be misled. "We are buried with Christ by baptism unto death"; yet we are not buried, and we do not die: that is certain. Hence we find in scripture, in a general way, this use of language as to baptism and the Lord's supper. Only, singular to say, we do not find the communication of life attributed to baptism, nor eating Christ's flesh nor drinking Christ's blood attributed to the partaking of the Lord's supper. The nearest approach to it is the washing of regeneration.* There may be passages from which it may be sought to prove it, as John 3 and 6 (which I should wholly and absolutely deny apply to the sacraments); but direct passage there is none. Baptism is used figuratively as our burial unto death, and it may be alleged of our resurrection with Christ. Saul was called to wash away his sins; but no one is said to receive life or be quickened therein.

{*"Regeneration" is not the same word as "born again," in 1 Peter 1. It is a change of state, as in Matthew 19: 28, not a communication of life.}

Scripture recognizes a sacramental system (that is, a system of ordinances) by which men are professedly gathered into a system on earth, where privileges are found. The Jewish and the Christian scriptures have both this character; but scripture carefully distinguishes personal possession of privileges from admission to the place where these privileges are. "What advantages hath the Jew? Much every way; chiefly, that unto them are committed the oracles of God." And elsewhere we have an enumeration of these privileges which is carried on even to Christ being of them according to the flesh. But all were not Israel that were of Israel, nor were those Jews who were such outwardly.

94 The same is true in Christianity. In 1 Corinthians 10 the apostle insists that men might be partakers of the sacraments and perish after all. And this may go very far: a person may have all the external and real privileges belonging to the Christian system and not have life. This is the case in Hebrews 6. One may speak with the tongues of men and angels, have; faith to remove mountains, and be nothing. These things may be there, and "not accompany salvation." Hence, in the case of the Galatians, he stood for a moment in doubt of them, though the Spirit was ministered to them; and we have the Lord admitting that men had cast out devils in His name, yet that He had never known them (Matt. 7). And though this (it is true) is directly connected with His sojourn on earth, one may be a branch in the vine, and be taken away.* I confirm the general truth merely by this. In the Christian order of things, we have admission to the Christian system by ordinances recognized, and even outward privileges enjoyed and yet no divine life or union with Christ.

But the Anglican system goes farther. It attributes to the baptized that of which baptism is not even a sign. That baptism should be a sign of regeneration, I have no wish to deny. It is according to scripture specifically unto death, and, in general, to the name of Christ. But it is as a sign of death, and coming up out of it may be held as resurrection; but this is individual, and has nothing to do with the body of Christ. Baptism is not even a sign of being, or being made, a member of Christ. It goes no farther than death, and, at the utmost, resurrection. It is individual. I die there: I rise up again. The unity of the body has no place in it. We are baptized alone, each one for himself. But it is by one Spirit we are baptized into one body, not by water. The Lord's supper is the sign of that; we are all one body, inasmuch as we are partakers of that one loaf. The alleging that all baptized persons have life even is unscriptural and untrue. The ascribing the possession of vital privileges, eternal life, to them is a fatal error, and that which leads to the judgment revealed in Jude. The attributing membership of Christ to them is not even in a figure found in baptism.

{*"If a man," not if ye, "abide not in me": the Lord knew them, and that they were already clean.}

95 The sacraments or ordinances, for there is a sacramental system, are the earthly administrations of revealed privileges, an outward system of professed faith, and a visible body on earth. Life and membership of Christ are by the Holy Ghost. We are born of the Spirit, and by one Spirit baptized into one body. To say we are members of Christ by baptism is a falsification of the truth of God, by confounding (directly contrary to scripture) the external admission to the earthly profession with life from God; and it is the falsification of the meaning even of the sign. It is the other sacrament, not baptism, which (even externally) exhibits the unity of the body. The Lord's supper is in its nature received in common. The assembly or Church participate. Hence we have (Eph. 4), "one Spirit, one body, one hope of your calling." This belongs to the Spirit and spiritual persons. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism"; such is the outward profession and faith of Christ.

The confounding the outward administration by ordinances with the power of the Spirit of God is the source of popery and apostasy. It is pitiable to see how Augustine (a truly godly man personally, who felt what life and the true Church were, when the outward thing had become grossly corrupt) writhes under the effort to conciliate the two; and quails and is boggled in his answer to the Donatists - which is none. It had been determined that the baptism by heretics was good; it was held that the Holy Ghost was given by it (another egregious blunder at any rate, as the Acts plainly shews): consequently the Donatists had it, consequently were of the true Church. In vain Augustine seeks, flounderingly, to get out of the net he had spread for himself or got into. It required another remedy. In fact the bishops and Constantine had used other means than arguments.

Let me add here, what is not unimportant to remark, that baptism imports, not a change of state by receiving life, but a change of place. There are two things needed for fallen man. He was at enmity with God, in the mind of his flesh, and he was driven out away from God. Both these had to be remedied. We are born of God, get the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus; but the fact of having life does not change our place; we become conscious of the sinfulness of the flesh - that there is no good thing in us (that is, in our flesh); but if we bring this into the light of God's requirements, it is only "O wretched man that I am!" A change of place, position, standing, being reconciled to God, is needed also. But that is by Christ's dying and so entering as man into a new place and standing for man in resurrection, according to the value of His work. He died unto sin once: in that He lives He lives unto God. Now it is of this that baptism is the sign, not of His simple quickening power as Son of God. We are baptized to His death, buried with Him unto death, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we also should walk in newness of life. No doubt, if we are risen, we are alive; but we are quickened together with Him. Death has taken us wholly out of our old place; we have died out of it, as Christ died out of the world, and to sin; we are dead to the law by the body of Christ; we are dead to sin, have crucified the flesh, are crucified to the world. Now baptism represents death, and hence, when come out of it, a new place and standing before God - death and not quickening. We have put on Christ as in this new place, and have done with the world, flesh, and law, by death. This would be true, were but one Christian saved in the world. The unity of the body, which follows on it, is another truth. The doctrine of the Epistle to the Romans does not touch on this, though the practical part takes it up as a well-known truth.

96 I now turn to the building. Christ declares (in Matthew 16 that He will build the Church and that the gates of hell (hades) - Satan's power, as having the power of death - shall not prevail against it. The title given to Satan's power clearly shews what the rock was. Christ was the Son of the living God. The power of death (which Satan holds) could not prevail against that. The resurrection was the proof of it: then He was declared Son of God with power. Peter's confession of the truth revealed to him by the Father put him, by Christ's gift, in the first place in connection with this truth. The reader may remark that keys have nothing to do with the Church: people do not, as I have heretofore remarked, build with keys. Besides, the keys, those of the kingdom, were given to Peter. He had nothing to do with building: Christ was to do that. "I will build," says Christ. The Father had revealed Christ's character. On that rock Christ would build; Peter might be the first stone in importance, but no builder. Besides that, Christ has Himself ("also" refers to this: "I also," that is, besides what the Father has done) an administration to confer on Peter, that of the kingdom whose keys are given to him. But beyond all controversy, the kingdom of heaven is not the Church, though they may run parallel at the present time. Accordingly, when Peter refers to this, he does not speak of himself as building in any way. It was Christ's personal secret work in the soul carried on by Him, a real spiritual work, applicable individually and only to those who were spiritual, and, though by grace in their hearts, their own coming to Christ. "To whom coming, a living stone disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God and precious, ye also as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore, also, it is contained in the scripture. Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. To you, therefore, that believe he is precious"; otherwise a stone of stumbling. Now here there are no ordinances, but faith; living stones coming to a living stone. All is spiritual, personal, real. Christ is precious to faith. They have tasted that the Lord is gracious: otherwise it is not true, Peter does not build, nor any other instrument. They come by faith and are built up. Against this, most assuredly, the gates of hades will not prevail; but man's building has nothing to say to it. The body or membership of the body forms no part of Peter's revelation. Nor does he speak of the Church or assembly at all.

97 Let us now turn to Paul. He is full upon this question. He was a minister of the Church to fulfil or complete the word of God. Hence the doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ is fully developed by him. In Ephesians 14, in 1 Corinthians 10 and 12, in Romans 12, in Colossians, we have large and elaborate instruction on the subject; but of course there is no talking of building a body. Christ is risen to be the Head of the body. In Colossians 1 He is exalted to the right hand of God. And God has given Him, in that position, to be Head to the body which is His fulness who fills all in all. Christ has reconciled both in one body by the cross. And, as to its accomplishment, it is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost: by one Spirit we have been all baptized into one body. And, further, when he speaks of the building in its true perfect adjustment, he has no instrumental builder either. "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord." This, though somewhat differently viewed, is Peter's building. We may find the same in Hebrews 3, Christ's house, "Whose house are we." But Paul speaks in a different way elsewhere, and shews us the house raised by human instruments, a public ostensible thing in the world. "Ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon." And then he shews the effect of fidelity or infidelity in the work Now in this we have the responsibility of man, and the instrumentality of man directly engaged in the work. Christ is not the builder. Paul is the masterbuilder and lays the foundation which is Christ; others build on it; nor is the building, consequently, fitly framed together. Wood and hay and stubble are not fitly framed in a building with gold and silver and precious stones: the work is, in such case, to be burned up: Christ's work never will. Now this gives, evidently, another character to the Church than that of Matthew 16 or 1 Peter 2.

98 It is on this confusion and error that popery, Puseyism, and the whole high-church system is built. They have not distinguished between the building which Christ builds, where living stones come to a living stone, where all grows to a holy temple in the Lord (that is, where the result is perfect), and that which man avowedly builds, though as God's building, and where man may fail and has failed. I am entirely justified in looking at the outward thing in this world as a building, which in pretension, character, and responsibility is God's building; yet it has been built by man, and built of wood and stubble, so that the work is to be burned up in the day of judgment which is revealed in fire. Yea, more, I may see that corrupters have corrupted it; and that, if any have dealt with it in this character, they will be destroyed. In a word I have a building which Christ builds, a building in which living stones come and are built up as living stones, a building which grows to a holy temple in the Lord. I have also what is called God's building, as that which is for Him and set up by Him on the earth, but which is built instrumentally and responsibly by man, where I may find very bad building and even persons corrupting it. The foundation well laid, and a good foundation, but all the superstructure to be in question. Thus the whole professing church stands in the position and responsibility of God's building; the actual building or work is the work of men and may be wood, hay, and stubble, or the mere corruption of the corrupter. It is not that of which Christ says, "I will build." It would be a blasphemy to say that He builds with wood, hay, and stubble, or corrupts the temple of God. Yet such the apostle tells us may take place; and it has taken place; and he who sets the title of God upon the wood, hay, and stubble, or upon the wicked corruption of His temple, dishonours God by putting (as far as they are concerned) His seal and sanction upon evil, which is the greatest of wickedness. What our path in such a case is, Paul (2 Tim. 2) tells us; but it is not my object to pursue this here, but to distinguish between those admitted by baptism and the body; and between the Church which Christ builds, and what man builds when God's building is entrusted to him. All that has been entrusted to man, man has failed in. And God has put all into his hands first, to be set up perfect in the second Man who never fails.

99 Adam himself fails and is replaced by Christ.

The law was given, and Israel made the golden calf; hereafter, when Christ comes, the law will be written in the heart of Israel.

The priesthood failed, strange fire was offered and Aaron forbidden to enter the sanctuary, save on the great day of atonement, and then not in his garments of glory and beauty; Christ is a merciful and faithful high priest even now in glory.

The son of David set up in person wholly fails, loving many strange women, and the kingdom is divided. Nebuchadnezzar set by God over the Gentiles makes a golden image, puts those faithful to God into the fire, and becomes a beast. Christ shall take the throne of David in unfailing glory, and rise to reign over the Gentiles.

The Church was called to glorify Christ. I, says He, am glorified in them. But antichrists and a falling away are the result: even in the apostle's time all seek their own; and the last days (John), the objects of judgment (Jude), were there. After Paul's decease grievous wolves would come, and from the bosom of the Church those who turned away the disciples would arise, and perilous times and evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse, and if they did not continue in God's goodness, they would be cut off: but He will come, for all that, to be glorified in His saints and admired in all them that believe. The Church has fallen like all the rest. Grace will produce and perfect its own work. Christ's building will be complete and perfect, but be manifested in glory. Man's building is ill built and corrupted, and will come under the worst and severest of judgments.

Matthew 16

J. N. Darby.

<14005E> 101

Whatever may help to make the mind clear on passages used to support the errors of popery and Puseyism, is of use at this moment - at least to supply an answer to those whose minds are less exercised on such subjects, even though their own faith may be settled by positive truth. God's goodness may preserve a soul from popish error; but as to doctrine, where redemption is not clearly know, I have always felt that there was nothing to secure the soul from its inroads. Its positive superstitions and errors may suffice under mercy to lead the mind to reject it, and for this we may thank God; but as to peace and acceptance, a vast portion of the evangelical world is so little removed from the popish faith that one can never be surprised (in the present confusion and prevalence of superstition) if people fall into the snares its agents lay for souls. Even the doctrine of the Reformation, "assurance of salvation," held then by all, and condemned by the Council of Trent as the vain confidence of the heretics, is condemned by a vast body of protestants nowadays as presumptuous, and is possessed by few in simplicity of well-grounded faith, though the number of these be, thank God, increasing. Where redemption is clearly known, where what Christ positively promised is possessed, "In that day ye shall know that I am in the Father and ye in me and I in you," the whole system of popery and ritualism falls to the ground, having no possible place in the mind. Popery and ritualism profess to patch up continually the conscience for those who are still far from God, leaving them to answer for themselves in the day of judgment: the true believer is with a perfect conscience in the presence of God. He is accepted in the Beloved, and has boldness to enter into the holiest now, and knows that God will remember his sins and iniquities no more.

Where this is the case, all the appliances of popery have no possible place. But how few of those opposed to ritualism are there! A Jew had his sacrifice for every sin; a Roman Catholic has his absolution when occasion arises; the Christian has by one offering been perfected for ever, though he may humble himself and make confession to God for every failure. But the evangelical world will speak of re-sprinkling with the blood of Christ; or, if Calvin be listened to, be taught, where failure has occurred, to look back to baptism, or will account the Lord's supper a means of forgiveness (for forgiveness of sins is attributed to sacraments in reformation theology). On these subjects the protestant theology is too vague and too inconsistent to meet the positiveness of the deadly and faith-denying errors of popery. The cardinal point of complete redemption, of Christ's having by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified, of our being accepted in the Beloved, of Christ's appearing in the presence of God for us our abiding righteousness, is unknown or feared; and you have the pretension of positive priestly absolution in an uncertain conscience: in both an uncertain salvation; the doctrine of scripture is lost. We cannot insist too much on the godly life of the redeemed, but scripture will never use it to weaken the truth or completeness of redemption. Sacraments are most precious in their place, but not to undo or neutralize the efficacy of that of which they are the signs. Warnings and exhortations are, thank God, abundantly given for our path, as redeemed, through the wilderness, and as to our dependence every instant on grace to carry us through, but never to make us doubt the faithfulness of Him who exercises it in bringing us to the end of our journey, confirming us to the end that we may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our sin and condemnation have been learned, but also Christ's substitution for us, and the truth that we are made the righteousness of God in Him; so that the question of our righteousness before God never can be raised again, for Christ is it always, and always before God for us. Our weakness we learn every day, but to know that Christ's strength is made perfect in weakness. Failure, alas! may occur, but it gives occasion to Christ's intercession, to His washing our feet; chastening may be needed from our not judging ourselves, but it is applied that we may not be condemned with the world. There is abundant exercise and testing and trying of the life given; but because Christ lives we shall live also.

102 My object is not now however to pursue the testimony which scripture gives of a complete and accomplished redemption into the enjoyment of which in its sure efficacy we now enter by faith (in itself a far more interesting subject), but passages and subjects which might perplex the mind in reference to forgiveness and ecclesiastical authority. It will lead us into some enquiry as to the government of God and the discipline of His house; the kingdom of God and the so-called power of the keys. We may take the well-known passage in Matthew 16 as our point of departure.

103 The essential difference of the synoptical Gospels and John's is that the three former shew us Christ presented to the responsibility of man, and especially of the Jews in this world, with the result; while John's assumes the Jews to be reprobates, and developes sovereign grace and electing love in connection with the person of the Son of God as a man in this world, which, and not merely Judaism, is now seen as its sphere, and the gift of the Holy Ghost consequent on His going away. There is this peculiar to Luke amongst the first three, that in the first two chapters we have the deeply interesting picture of the godly remnant in Israel; then Christ traced up to Adam (not from Abraham and David) and grace comes out as revealed to man in Him more fully.

In the Gospel of Matthew (which especially speaks of Christ as Emmanuel, Messiah), the narrative, which develops great principles more than facts in historical order, is arrived, in the chapter I refer to, at the point where the Jews had practically rejected the Saviour; so that (verse 20) He charges the disciples that they should no longer tell that He was the Christ, and proceeds to shew His disciples that He must suffer; and the substitution of the Church and the kingdom of heaven for the Jewish system (in chap. 16), and the coming glory of the Son of man in His kingdom (in chap. 17) are brought before us by the Spirit of God. The Church and the kingdom of heaven form, consequently, the weighty revelation of the Lord in chapter 16. On this let us dwell for a moment.

All is founded on the revelation of the Person of the Son of God. Various opinions were formed by men as to Him, but the Father Himself had revealed to Simon Barjonas that Jesus was the Son of the living God. On this rock Christ would build His Church. The true force of verse 18 is, "and I also say." That is, The Father had told Simon what Christ was, Christ tells him what he, Simon, is. He is Peter, or a stone. But on the doctrine of His person as Son of the living God Christ would build His Church. It was on a risen Christ; for this was the public witness that He was Son of the living God, and all the power of Satan, who has the power of death, should not prevail against what Christ thus built. The important thing here to note is, that Christ and Christ only is the builder. No man has anything to do with it, nor is that which Christ builds yet finished. It is a building which continues till the whole temple is complete according to the mind of God. So, when Peter speaks in his epistle (1 Pet. 2: 4, 5), he says, Unto whom coming as unto a living stone, ye also as living stones. are built up a spiritual house. We have no human builder. So in Ephesians 2, Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In all this we have no builder save Christ, and the building is only growing up to a temple in the Lord. I have spoken elsewhere of the contrast of this with 1 Corinthians 3, where we have the agency and responsibility of man. Paul is a wise master builder; some might build with wood, hay, and stubble, but be themselves saved; others corrupt the temple of the Lord and be themselves destroyed. Into this I do not enter farther here. But they are looked at here as the temple of the Lord already, and God's building, not merely growing to it.

104 What we learn from Matthew 16 is that in the building against which the gates of hell do not prevail man takes no part - it is Christ who builds; while in that in which man's responsibility is engaged, wood and hay and stubble may be built in and the work destroyed by fire. To confound these two things (a confusion on which the whole pretensions of popery and Puseyism are built up) is most mischievous, and makes God answerable for man's evil work, and bound to maintain and sanction it. It is a very wicked doctrine

Further, there are no keys to the Church. It and its building have nothing to do with the keys. Christ builds and does not build with keys. The keys are the insignia of the administration of the kingdom. These were in a special manner entrusted to Peter individually; but the passage gives him nothing to do with building the Church at all, nor does he pretend to it when he refers to this passage in his epistle. He partakes in a remarkable manner of that on which the Church is founded. He is a stone, has part in the nature of the living stone, the Son of the living God, the truth on which the Church rests; but that is all. Of the kingdom of heaven he had the administration specially entrusted to him. The kingdom is not the Church, and never will be. In a general way, we may say, those who compose it have a part in the kingdom, and will hereafter reign in it as they now suffer for it. It is the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ now; hereafter the kingdom and glory. Christ, as John the baptist, had preached the kingdom of heaven as at hand, as did the twelve (Matt. 10: 7). When at length it was set up, though in no outward power, Peter had in an especial manner the administration of it, as we see in the Acts. The Lord added to the Church daily (then openly) such as should be saved. This was His own work; but we see Peter, whether in testimony to Jews or Gentiles, or ordering the choice of deacons, or dealing with Ananias and Sapphira, having the administrative lead in the work. And what he preaches is the Lordship of the ascended Man as a present thing (in chap. 2), and His return in power to accomplish the prophecies (in chap. 3). The assembly was there, and the Lord added to it; but the testimony was to the Lordship of Christ, made Lord, and returning in power. In the case of Cornelius the Church does not come in question. Peter never preaches once that Jesus is the Son of God. He is exalted, made Lord and Christ. In this administration of the kingdom, Heaven put its seal on his acts. Whatever he bound or loosed was bound or loosed with an authority which Heaven sanctioned. I will speak of forgiveness in a moment; but in general what was established by Peter's apostolic authority in the administration of the kingdom had Heaven's seal put upon it. But in Matthew 16 the keys have no connection with the Church, and Peter has nothing to do with building that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Scripture never confounds the kingdom and the Church.

105 Further, binding and loosing is not confined to forgiveness, even if, in a collateral way, it may include it, and it is only in such a way that it does. Whatever Peter establishes by the authority committed to him was sanctioned in heaven, as was also whatever two or three did as really met in Christ's name. That too was sanctioned in heaven as much as Peter's administrative acts; but only what was within the competency or left to the service of the place he was put in, or of the two or three gathered in Christ's name. Heaven's sanction on what they did does not mean that they could determine all that heaven could. The sanction of all that an inferior authority does is not saying that that inferior authority can do all that its superior is entitled to do or has to do. Many things may not be left to it. It is a question of what is rightly left. Thus, "What you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" does not include binding anything in heaven. Whatever in Christianity belonged to heaven itself, whatever was done there, Peter and the Church had no power whatever. He bound things on earth and only there; his commission did not go farther; what he did in these, that Heaven sanctioned; but he had nothing to say to what was bound or loosed in heaven itself. And this is of all importance when we come to certain points. He, Simon Barjonas, had the administration of the kingdom confined to him, backed by Heaven's authority: a most important and solemn charge, but that was all.

106 The same, in its own sphere, is committed to any Christian assembly - two or three gathered together in Christ's name, for such is the assembly spoken of in Matthew 18: but no one dreams that such an assembly can bind beyond its own sphere of action, and determine things in heaven. What it does according to Christ's institution Heaven holds for good, but that does not confer a power of binding beyond the reach of its commission. Heaven's sanction of what is within is not the same thing as giving a power beyond its limits. I come now to the case of forgiveness.

All true Christians are forgiven, have received the forgiveness of their sins; and God will remember their sins and iniquities no more. God has quickened us together with Christ, having forgiven us all trespasses. "I write unto you," says John, "little children [addressing all Christians], because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." This can neither be bound nor loosed by any one, for God has settled it Remission of sins is the portion of every one who has the true standing of a Christian. He is accepted in the Beloved. We have redemption through Christ's blood, even the remission of sins. Through Christ (we read) all that believe are justified from all things. Christ is made righteousness to us of God. In the Old Testament this was not made clear. There was occasional forgiveness, and the full acceptance of the person was not revealed, any more than the full character of sin. A sacrifice could be offered to atone for faults committed: for some there was no remedy. A prophet might be sent to proclaim the putting away of sin. It was administrative forgiveness. The righteousness of God was not revealed. In the gospel it is. There was the forbearance of God, who did know, of course, why; but the end of Romans 3 makes this point quite clear, that the actual remission of sins according to the revealed righteousness of God came in by the gospel: "Whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." This is a most important sentence on this subject. God had been righteous in forbearing as to the sins of the Abrahams and Davids and others, because of the sacrifice of Christ; and that righteousness was now declared, and the ground of it seen. It was by Christianity God's righteousness (we read in Rom. 1) is now revealed; and Christ has been made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence peace and remission of sins were to be preached in His name; all who believed were justified. The prophets witnessed that, through His name, whoever believed in Him should receive remission of their sins, and this was now come and announced in the name of the Lamb slain, with the blessed testimony for those who received it, that their sins and iniquities would be remembered no more; that, sitting at the right hand of God, Christ was the perpetual witness there that the work was accomplished and owned of God, of which the Holy Ghost testified down here, come forth in virtue of Jesus being up there, and that Christ sits uninterruptedly there, because by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity those who are sanctified.

107 It is not at all a question as to sins committed today or tomorrow, but of a work done before we had committed any, into the present efficacy of which with God we enter, an efficacy which is of perpetual witness before God: that, further, we are in Him, accepted in the Beloved, of which our life will be the practical proof for others, seeing that, if we are in Him, He also is in us. This is not an administrative matter. It is the condition and standing of every true Christian. Peter preached this, and Paul preached this, as we may read in Acts 2, 10 and 13, and the passages I have quoted from Romans 1 and 3, and Hebrews 10. They preached it, and so far as causing heathens or Jews to be received by baptism, administered it externally, though the latter act was accomplished by any and every Christian when the occasion presented itself; the apostles did it very rarely indeed. But a Christian was a forgiven accepted person according to the value and efficacy with God of Christ's work, which never varied. He was accepted at all times in Christ according to the abiding value of Christ's work. We have forgiveness: "all that believe are justified" are apostolic words. Once a person was a Christian, Simon Bar-jonas had nothing to do with administering this.

108 This leads me to another point in connection with this passage. It is a personal matter with Simon the son of Jonas. He was blessed by the revelation from the Father, and the keys of the kingdom were given to him; he was Peter, he only so designated of the Lord. To him, and to him only were given the keys or administration of the kingdom of heaven; what he, Simon, bound on earth would be bound in heaven, what he should loose would be loosed. He was the first confidential and divinely guided servant of the Master of the house. That was wholly personal to him, as the revelation of Christ by the Father to him was.

But the sanction of Heaven on loosing and binding on earth is declared, in another place, to belong to another depository of power where it is not personal, which does not refer to the kingdom but to the Church, and which (if granted of God's grace) may be found at any time while Christianity subsists, namely, wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, because Christ is there in the midst of them. This is no personal authority of any or all the members, but of an assembly because Christ is in their midst. The language of the passage is so plain that there would be no difficulty to any one, if habits of thought had not clothed it with a meaning which its language leaves no room for. If a brother should offend, the offended one was to seek to gain him; if this failed, he was to take one or two more, so that it might not rest on the injured one's statement alone, if it had to come into judgment. If this failed, he was to tell it to the assembly; if he refused to hear the assembly, he was to be counted as a heathen man. The Christian assembly took the place of the synagogue, and, where the assembly had acted, the judgment (till repentance) was final; the offender was held to be outside as a heathen. First, one was to go, then he with others, then the assembly to be informed of it. It was the discipline of the gathered saints in any given place; and, to make the matter precise, we are told that, wherever two or three are gathered in His name, Christ is in the midst of them. Nothing really can be simpler. There is not a word of clergy, nor ministers (however useful these latter may be by their gifts for service), nothing even of elders, though these had their local functions also. The point is that, where two or three are gathered in Christ's name, Christ is. This then is the abiding seat of the exercise of that authority in its due sphere whose acts are sanctioned in heaven. The same authority given personally to Simon Barjonas was that authority conferred on the two or three gathered together in Christ's name, and exists wherever two or three are so gathered This is a very important point. The perpetuity of the loosing and binding power is in two or three gathered together. It was personal in the chosen apostle and continued in none. It is a mistake to think that forgiveness alone is binding or loosing. What the apostle wrote was to be received as the commandments of the Lord.

109 A special case in connection with this is that of forgiving sins, only collaterally connected, after all, with the general authority of binding and loosing conferred on Simon. Forgiveness is much more directly connected with the communication of the Holy Ghost and the mission of the apostles in John 20. Matthew 16 has no direct reference to it. In Matthew 18 it comes as necessarily administratively involved in it, of which anon. John 20 was the general mission of the apostles, which, as we have seen, had the forgiveness of sins for a principal object; indeed, as to the individual's state, repentance and remission of sins embraced the whole circle of its testimony, both of course in the name of Jesus. The apostles acted with the Lord's authority in this matter, Paul (as is fully declared by himself) coming in to partake of it from Christ Himself. But this forgiveness had a double character.

All Christians (as we have seen) were a forgiven people. They had redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. John would not have written to them but that they were all forgiven. "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." God has quickened us with Christ, having forgiven us all trespasses. We are personally forgiven and accepted, our sins remembered no more, we are perfected for ever. Either this is true or scripture is not so true that there is no more offering for sin; if they are not forgiven completely and for ever (as regards the imputing of sin to us, and just divine wrath against the sinner as to judgment), they never can be, because there is no more offering for sin, and without shedding of blood there is no remission. I do not talk of sins past, present, and future, for I ought not to think of sinning in future; it is a misapprehension, leading to a reference to the time of the fault and the then change of the state of the individual needed for forgiveness, but shuns its meritorious cause, instead of seeing one perfect work accepted of God as its ground, a work perfect and complete as accomplished by Christ for believers before or believers after, before believed in a hoped for, now accomplished and believed in, righteousness, revealed and accomplished propitiation. If I will speak of time, all my sins were future when Christ bore them. But the true way is to see a complete work accepted of God, in the acceptance and sweet savour of which we always stand. God for Christ's sake (in Christ) has forgiven us. This was the grand testimony of Christianity. Called thereby to repentance, men had received the remission of their sins by faith in Christ and they were to be remembered no more. They were justified. But, besides reconciliation with God and man by the precious blood of the cross, there is the government of God's children.

110 God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous, says Elihu to Job and then enlarges upon the ways of God in chastening the righteous, and their restoration to blessing on their humiliation under His hand - just the lesson Job had to learn, and which is taught us in that book. The three friends insisted that this world was an adequate witness of the dealings of God with man as to good and evil, and hence that Job was a hypocrite. But we learn in it that when a man is righteous in God's sight, then it is that the dealings of God have their place for his practical profit and the acquirement of self-knowledge; that whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives. This connects the idea of forgiveness or the contrary (not at all with imputation of sin as guilt, and condemnation as the consequence), but with the present infliction of chastisement, in displeasure doubtless, wrath if you please, in the righteous. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord, but when we (Christians) are judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we might not be condemned with the world. When this chastening, or the forgiveness which is connected with relieving any one from it, is confounded with the forgiveness by which we are accepted and reconciled to God, redemption is not known at all: I do not say, intentionally denied, but not known at all. A conscience purged by the blood of Christ has no more to do with guilt, or with the question of salvation. If he is not cleansed, forgiven, justified completely and for ever, he never can be, for Christ cannot die again; and, as the apostle reasons, were it not so, He must suffer often, for that only puts away sin. He suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust. Christ is his righteousness, and he is in Christ before God. But for this very reason God will not allow any evil in him. He chastens for our profit that we may be partakers of His holiness.

111 Let us see what scripture says of forgiveness in respect of these dealings of God with the righteous, whether using the word forgiveness, or practically referring to the thing. The whole book of Job is a history of it. I quote particularly chapter 33, "He openeth the ears of men and sealeth their instruction, that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit . . . he is chastened also with pain upon his bed . . . . If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand to shew unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious to him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom . . . He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him, and he shall see his face with joy." Here the man is not spoken of as righteous; but the dealings are in grace for correction; and when set right, the hand of God is removed from upon him. In chapter 36 it is expressly the righteous man who is dealt with. Again then He opens their ear to discipline, and if they obey and serve Him, they shall spend their days in prosperity; if they obey not, they shall perish with the sword and die without knowledge. The Psalms are full of this principle; it is, so to speak, their main subject, though founded on atonement. "Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Jehovah, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity," Psa. 94. "Jehovah hath chastened me sore, but he hath not given me over unto death," Psa. 118. "Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions."

In the New Testament we have a positive intelligent intervention of the saints in the administration of this forgiveness. First, indeed, men are called upon to judge themselves that they may not come under chastisement (1 Cor. 11: 31, 32). But we have two cases where other saints have to say to it, besides apostolic power: discipline, and the supplication of brethren, or the elders' prayer of faith. And first, in respect of discipline, the wicked man had been put out from the midst of the assembly. This, while purifying the assembly from evil, had brought the offender to his senses, and he was profoundly humbled about his sin. The apostle directs the assembly to forgive him; the punishment had been sufficient, and they were again to shew their love to him. It was no question of his being the righteousness of God, or of his part in it, but of the government of the Church, and the maintenance of its holiness here below. The wicked man could not enjoy in his wickedness the blessed privileges that belonged to it. He was excluded; now, humbled and penitent, he was to be forgiven. It was the present administration and government of the Church down here, and sanctioned of heaven. At the same time the apostle uses his apostolic authority; and as he had judged the case himself, so now he forgives (2 Cor. 2: 7, 10). He had the same authority as that given to the apostles in John 20, and the assembly at Corinth was to exercise concurrently its own in dealing with the case. The apostle was careful there should be no jar between the two. This is the force of verses 10, 11.

112 The intervention of any Christian, in favour of a sinning brother, we find in 1 John 5. A sin may bring death on a Christian, bodily death in this world, and that in a twofold way irremediably, so that he cannot be prayed for because of the character of the sin (such were Ananias and Sapphira); or, it may result in death, if he be not humbled; as we find in Job, "because there is wrath beware, lest he take thee away with a stroke." If they obey not, they shall perish; that is, when He opens their ear to discipline. The Christian is expected here to discern where the sin has a character which draws out terror and indignation, not intercession. But if it is a sin not to death, though unrepented of, it may lead to the sinning brother's being cut off, taken away with a stroke; then prayer is to be made, and the life of the sinning brother will be spared. He is in this sense forgiven. The threatened result of His sin is turned aside by the intercession. So, in Job 42: 8, the effect of God's displeasure is to be averted by the intercession of Job. In James it is the elders' prayer of faith. A Christian was sick, he was to send for the elders of the assembly, and they were, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, to pray for him, and the prayer of faith would restore the sick to health, the Lord would raise him up, and, if he had committed sins, they would be forgiven him; evidently implying that if those sins had been the occasion of his sickness, it would not hinder the efficacy of the prayer, but the sins would be forgiven, and the man restored to health.

113 We have thus the various phases of administrative forgiveness. God, in His government, no longer held the offender liable to judgment according to that government exercised here below, not as a question of acceptance in Christ, but the government of His children. It might be chastening from Himself, or it might be also the assembly's discipline. It does not refer to final judgment: the believer has boldness for the day of judgment, because as Christ is, so is he in this world; but he is (as calling on the Father, and knowing he is redeemed by the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without spot and without blemish) to pass the time of his sojourning here in fear, for the Father judges every man according to his works. Now, as regards the final judgment, the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son; but there is the judgment of our ways in the path towards the glory obtained by Christ for us. There is a judgment of the ways of all. The unrepentant are heaping up wrath against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, but God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous, and it is our God who is a consuming fire. Where true gold is, it purges away the dross. There may be tribulation for good, in which we can glory; there may be chastening for actual transgression, under which we have to humble ourselves; there may be discipline which applies correctively to our state, and even, as in the case of Paul, anticipates the evil for our blessing. We have to distinguish the absolute forgiveness and acceptance of the believer from the forgiveness which applies to divine discipline, or even church discipline when we are accepted, the effect of the eyes of God being on the righteous. The denial of the fulness of the former is the great plague of modern Christianity. It will be resisted and calumniated as every important truth will; but if the word of God be true, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, and are purged, have no more conscience of sins, by one offering are perfected for ever. This the Old Testament saints did not know. Christianity is the revelation of the righteousness of God. It is that that made the apostle boast of it (Rom. 1: 17). It was then that righteousness was declared. God's discipline, and the assembly's judgment (for it judges those within), forgiveness as to present displeasure with the conduct of the children, come in when acceptance is perfect and apply to the righteous and accepted children. In the Old Testament these were not distinguished with the same clearness, because the full remission of sins was not yet revealed,* nor divine righteousness; so that this distinction could not be brought out, for it depended on that remission and standing in righteousness, our entrance into the holiest through the rent veil. Hence even protestants who have not the consciousness of this standing are at a loss as to forgiveness.

{*Nor was wrath from heaven against all ungodliness revealed.}

114 Some remarks may have their just place here. First, it may be remarked that all the chastening is from God's hand, even when wicked men are the instruments urged on by Satan God it is who has set Satan at work as an instrument, as we see in the book of Job. The interpreter, the man of prayer, may be the means of removing the evil, but no human authority imposes any. Chastening discipline is the judgment of the Lord, a Father's hand upon His child; it has nothing to do with the Church, nor the Church with it. The Church or assembly only acts on proof of evil by putting out from itself, and so clearing itself, and bringing back when the person is humbled. It judges those within, and forgives when there is just ground for it. The Lord chastens in love, to make us partakers of His holiness. He forgives and removes the chastening, when there is just occasion for that. An individual's prayer may avert death when wrath is there, or the prayer of the elders of the Church, if the prayer of faith may restore to health when sickness is discipline, and forgiveness be granted. God may see occasion to inflict permanent chastisement, as Jacob halted all his life. Full remission of sins was not known under the Old Testament; its announcement is of the essence of Christianity, and peace with God through justification. An unjustified believer is a contradiction in terms: all that believe are justified; but justification, if it be more, is certainly imputing no sin. Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is pardoned; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no sin; but to him that believes in Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is imputed to Him for righteousness.

Let me add that delivering to Satan is an act of power; putting out a wicked person is a duty attached to the faithfulness of the assembly. No doubt exclusion from the assembly of God is a very serious thing, and leaves us exposed to sorrow and just trouble of heart, and that from the enemy: but direct delivering to Satan is the act of positive power. It was done in Job's case for his good. It was done by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, though acting in the gathered assembly, for the destruction of the flesh; and again, without reference to the assembly, in 1 Timothy 1, as to Hymenaeus and Alexander, that they might learn not to blaspheme. All discipline is for the correction of the individual, though to maintain withal the holiness of the house of God, and clear the consciences of the saints themselves.

115 We must not confound what the Church binds being bound in heaven, with the Church being able to bind and loose all that Heaven can. What the Church (that is, two or three gathered in Christ's name) binds in the sphere committed to them according to the word, that is sanctioned by Heaven. But the Church has nothing to do with forgiving sins, in the sense of not imputing guilt, or making a person righteous; this Heaven (that is, God Himself) has done as regards the believer, and the Church can neither bind nor loose it. It has no power or jurisdiction in this sense at all. It has a sphere of discipline in which it forgives or judges, and its righteous acts in that sphere are sanctioned on high. And it is important to remark, that the binding and loosing is, in Matthew 16, conferred on Simon Barjonas in the administration of the kingdom of heaven. He has nothing to do with the Church there. That Christ builds. When the Church forgives, it is an assembly, it may be of two or three gathered together in Christ's name. The apostles could administer forgiveness, and did, in receiving into the Church of God persons called in by grace John 20). Paul acts in the same power, and owns it in the assembly then in respect of discipline; the distinction of which from not imputing guilt I have already noticed. Simon Barjonas binding and loosing had nothing to do with the Church. Two or three gathered in the Lord's name do it in church matters. It has nothing to do with any supposed authority of the Church as a whole.

Reply to the remarks in two leading articles of the Christian Journal entitled "Our Separating Brethren."

J. N. Darby.

<14006E> 116

Address

The following tract, the occasion of which is most deeply regretted by the writer, has been hastily written merely in answer to the two articles in the Christian Journal to which it alludes, and in no way as any formal tract on the subject; as the second article consists chiefly of arguments from scriptures which have been referred to in reply, and the length of the latter has been so extended by the insertion of the first, it was not thought necessary to insert it, especially as this tract will come chiefly into the hands of those who have opportunity of reference to the Christian Journal.

The writer has only to repeat his entire regret at the occasion of it. He has refrained from any statement of, or invective against, the flagrant and painful abuses, which must and ought to shock the conscience, connected with this subject; or attributing motives to those implicated in what the tract charges as evil; nor has he attempted to ransack history to prove the evil connected with the settlement of the Church of England. He has merely stated the principles on which it and its state must be a continual reason for the righteous and bounden separation of conscientious persons from it, in reply, as has been stated, to the two articles in which those who have done so have been attacked as evil doers. The Lord must judge between them and the Church of England, and those who, as the editor of the Christian journal, defend it and its principles.

"Our Separating Brethren"

The above is the title of a leading comment of the Christian Journal. It is painful to be drawn from the simplicity and fulness of Christian enjoyment to contend with those who would reproach us for following our consciences. We do not doubt the editor of the Christian Journal is both wise and prudent; but, though he knows the world in all ages and the Church in all ages, there are often things which the simple are taught which are hid from the wise and prudent. That the evils of a depraved nature are attached to and to be contended with by the "separating brethren" is certainly not new; that they have to contend with the snare of the enemy, who would take advantage of their ignorance and weakness but for One who helps them, is equally true, and they are in a measure conscious of it. Of this part of the subject the editor of the Christian Journal in all his writings seems to be profoundly ignorant; and it is not to be wondered at, as he continues in a system of which he has seen the evil - which he has rejoiced at being shaken to the foundations, as a heretical system inconsistent with the progress of the gospel. The "separating brethren" believe this, and therefore they are dissociated from it. The editor of the Christian Journal believes it, and he is not dissociated from it. It cannot therefore be a matter of surprise to them if his eyes are dim to other and greater evils. Acting on what we know is the real power of faith. Could the editor of the Christian Journal condemn any one for not being subject to that which he declares to be "inconsistent with the progress of the gospel"? One would suppose the answer to be easy: to a simple Christian it would be easy - he would not condemn them. The answer is, that he does condemn them, and approves of those who remain connected with it and supports that which he says is so. What can his "separating brethren" see in this but the spirit of the world? Nor is it anything else. And since the editor cast off so distinctly his "separating brethren," from whom he was not always so alienated, to throw himself into the hands of the worldly party in the Church, it has been quite manifest to a discerning eye that the spirit and character of the Christian Journal have quite changed, that it is become less spiritual and more worldly, less pressing separation from the world, and more sanctioning continuance in known evil; that it has ceased, comparatively, to press conformity to Christ in order to press conformity to the Church of England. The latter purpose it may do well, and we will not compete with him in the pursuit of it; we would desire in peace to seek the former: to this the Christian Journal has ceased to be available. We should not have had formerly as we have in the number, on the leading article of which I am now commenting, a sermon on the text, "Be ye [not] conformed to this world," signed "A Clergyman." I do not deny that occasional articles of measured difference from the world may be introduced to suit the taste of all; but the character and tendency of the Journal are in this respect wholly changed, and the reason is obvious. The editor, or others with whom he is associated, found that he could not press thorough nonconformity to the world, without its producing nonconformity to the Church of England, because the spirit of the world was in the Church. Not having faith to get over human support of circumstances, he chose to hold by the Church, and resume the spirit of the world it carried with it, rather than give up the world and the Church that had identified itself with it. The article alluded to is adequately illustrative of this, and is very aptly signed "A Clergyman." It is the expression of the claim of conformity to the world, and worldly station, which is implied in the maintenance of the system symbolized by the signature of the paper; and I cannot but think that the pressing of that point in such a way would not at one time have met the approbation of the editor of the Christian Journal; but descent is gradual. I have but little hope of his present emerging from the system. When "Ephraim is joined to idols," the word is, "Let him alone." But I do think if the editor read the paragraph in that article "Our Gracious Saviour," his conscience would smite him on recurring to former thoughts; if not, I should grieve.

118 The "separating brethren" have felt differently as to the question, and acted differently; they have felt and sorrowfully felt, that they must (the necessity was not of their own making) leave the system the clergy sought to maintain, if they wished to leave the spirit of the world and to walk as Christians. They did so at cost and sorrow to themselves, the loss of friends and fortune, often of situations in life, and in many instances of home; and always at the cost of bitter and cutting reproach, none of which, but wisdom and prudence, is the character of those who remain: "so long as thou doest well unto thyself, all men will speak well of thee."

I know it will be answered, The Church is abused on all sides. But this is a far different thing from personal reproach, and merely produces esprit de corps. The Lord's denouncements of Jerusalem were far different from the reproach which He suffered, because He was a stranger to their ways, of which He says (how little we bear of it now, I well know), "Reproach hath broken my heart." May we abound in it if it is for His sake! Sufferings the Church is undergoing; but the question remains to be asked, Is she suffering for righteousness' sake? Is it for the abundance of her labours, her bold testimony, her separation from the world, her intolerance of its evil? We may suffer for evil, and the hatred of the nations accrue. I read, for other reasons against a corrupt church than for its righteousness, "These shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God hath put it in their hearts." The clergy have suffered in Ireland; they have also suffered in France; they are suffering in Spain and Portugal. Is it for righteousness' sake? I do not believe it is for righteousness' sake; but for unrighteousness' sake. The exertions of those who violate their own system and break through its authorities - in which exertions we may in a great measure rejoice, for every way Christ is preached - are not the cause of its sufferings, but quite the contrary; nor have they at all arisen from the order on which the system is based, but on an entire violation of it, as they will surely end in its destruction. But I would advert, as a passing service, to the article, whose title is at the head of the present paper; and the fairest way would be to give it

119 "Our Separating Brethren." - 'The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done, and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us,' Eccles. 1: 9, 10."

"The world is the same in all ages; the same evils, and the same amusements, and the same manner of spending time, with very little variation, have obtained at all periods of the world. Horace's description of the upper classes in his day would serve to describe, with tolerable accuracy, the habits of the upper classes in the present day: hunting and shooting, and theatres, and feasts, and exhibitions of various kinds, occupied the time of the upper classes then as they do now. If this observation is true with respect to the world, it is equally so with respect to the Church: the same evils, the same follies, and the same extravagances, are recorded in the pages of Church History, as occurring in each century, from the time of our Lord to the present moment. This fact has been forcibly impressed on us lately by meeting a little work entitled 'Good Thoughts in Bad Times,' by Thomas Fuller, in which we find the same evils which trouble the Church at the present day, causing reflections to the mind of that acute and pious minister, corresponding with those which might occupy the minds of thinking persons now. Take for instance the following contemplation headed

120 "'Atoms at last'. - I meet not, in either sacred or profane history with so terrible a rout as Saul gave the host of the Ammonites, under Nahash their king (1 Sam. 11: 11). They which remained were scattered, so that two of them were not left together. And yet we have daily experience of greater scatterings and dissipations of men in their opinions. Suppose ten men, out of pretended purity but real pride and peevishness, make an awful separation from the Church of England, possibly they may continue some competent time in unity together. Afterwards upon a new discovery of a higher and holier way of divine service, these ten men will split asunder into five and five, and the purer moiety divide from the other as more drowsy and feculent. Then the five, in process of time upon the like occasion of clearer illumination, will cleave themselves into three and two; some short time after, the three will crumble into two and one, and the two into one and one, till they come into the condition of the Ammonites, so scattered that two of them were not left together. I am sad that I may add with too much truth that one man will at last be divided in himself, distracted often in his judgment betwixt many opinions - that which was reported of Tostatus, lying on his deathbed: "in multitudine controversiarum non habuit quod crederet" - amongst the multitude of persuasions through which he had passed, he knoweth not where to cast anchor, and fix himself at last.'

"Who can read the above, without perceiving its applicability to the state of things in the Church at the present day? Let us examine a few of the sentiments contained in the passage. The writer speaks of pretended purity causing separation from the Church of England. We hasten to say, that as far as our experience reaches, we have not met with any instance where the brethren, to whom we conceive the above passage is so applicable, can be accused of extraordinary pretences to purity. It is true that in many of them, we believe, the depravity of human nature has much the same uncontrolled operation that it has amongst unconverted professors in the Church of England. But we believe that in the majority of instances they are 'Israelites in whom is no guile'; and that, like the beginners of all other Christian sects, they are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good. But we must remember that purity of life and conversation is no certain preservative against error in judgment; it is no preservative against mental derangement; nor is it a preservative against any of its degrees such as follies and eccentricities of various kinds, which we cannot but observe amongst many whom we acknowledge to be saints. We are particularly anxious that our readers should be well informed on this point, that holiness of life is not a sure preservative against error in judgment on points that do not affect the vitals of Christianity; because it is an argument which is commonly used, and particularly calculated to deceive unstable souls. As we have already hinted, the framers and beginners of every new sect must necessarily be, or appear to be, holy people: otherwise they would have no followers. Baron Swedenborg, we have reason to believe, was an eminently devoted man. It is said of him, that, 'he affected no honour, but declined it; pursued no worldly interest, but spent his time in travelling and printing to communicate instruction and benefit mankind.' He had nothing of melancholy in his manner, and nothing in the least bordering on enthusiasm in his conversation, yet he was not preserved from the grossest fanaticism. We are told by his biographer, that he professed himself to be the founder, under our Lord, of the New Jerusalem Church. His tenets are drawn from scripture, and supported by quotations from it. He asserts that in the year 1743 the Lord manifested Himself to him in a personal appearance, and at the same time opened his spiritual eyes so that he was enabled constantly to see and converse with spirits and angels. Then zeal and apparent spiritual-mindedness do not preserve from error: indeed it does not. Again and again we have heard Christians speaking of what they have termed truths which God had taught them, which we believe to be as simply the product of their own fancy, or the fancy of those from whom they learned them, as Baron Swedenborg's supposition, that his spiritual eyes were opened to enable him to converse with angels. Again, George Fox, the founder of the sect of Quakers, together with his immediate followers, were most unquestionably deeply pious persons. 'They were pious persons, who were dissatisfied with the settlement of the Church of England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.' We are told that 'the tenor of Fox's doctrine was to wean men from systems, ceremonies, and the outside of religion in every form, and to lead them to an acquaintance with themselves. Drawing his doctrine from the pure source of religious truth, the New Testament, abstracted from the comments of men, he asserted the freedom of man in the liberty of the gospel against the tyranny of custom, and against the combined powers of severe persecution, the greatest contempt, and keenest ridicule.' Yet neither Fox's piety and zeal, nor that of his followers afforded any good reason for embracing their various extravagances.

122 "But we have, in our own day, perhaps, the most remarkable union of apparent piety, talent, knowledge of scripture and fanaticism, which has ever appeared in the Church of Christ. Mr. Irving we believe to be a very holy man; the generality of his followers we believe to be very holy people, and indeed they apparently surpass all others in devotedness, and I will say in their knowledge of the letter of scripture. But that is no reason why sober-minded persons should embrace their unaccountable follies, any more than the fact of George Fox and the first Quakers being holy people would have been a good reason for joining them. We would add for the truth's sake that the converse of this position is true. We would say, that the unholiness, the violence and strong language (to use no harsher term) which is used by some of the separatists, is no reason why we should not join them. No later than yesterday we heard the following very inconclusive argument used by an ardent and sincerely devoted Christian: 'At one time I was very well inclined to join them, but the violence and abusive language used by Mr. -  and Mr. -  has decided me against doing so, and I know others upon whom it has had the same effect.' Now, though we quite approve of the decision which this servant of Christ arrived at, yet we think it was made upon wrong grounds; for if continued attachment to the Church of England depends upon the real or apparent holiness or unholiness of every zealous, eloquent, talented, wild eccentric opponent who arises, attachment to it rests upon an unsteady foundation, and the membership of such while it lasts is not worth much. No, the apparent holiness or unholiness of men is no reason for our adopting or rejecting an unscriptural line of conduct, which separation from the Church of England appears to us to be. Fuller says that 'pride' caused separation in his day. Richard Baxter seems to have been of the same opinion in his day. He says, 'I have ever observed the humblest men most tender of making separations, and the proudest most prone to it. Many corruptions may be in a church, and yet it may be a great sin to separate from it, so that we be not put upon an owning of their corruptions, nor upon any actual sin. There is a strange inclination in proud men to make the Church of Christ much narrower than it is, and to reduce it almost to nothing, and to be themselves the members of a singular Society, as if they were loth to have too much company to heaven': Can the separations at the present day be attributed in any degree to the same cause?

123 "We believe that in some instances (perhaps unconsciously to the individuals themselves) pride has had some influence in producing the evil which we deplore; at least dissent has a tendency to gratify pride, and that feeling of individual importance which is so natural to man. For instance, in a large Church of England congregation, ministered to, we will suppose, by a good man, but a minister who is unenlightened as to the nature of a church, the services of individual Christians are seldom recognised as being of the importance to the welfare of the whole which they really are; in many places, nay, in most instances, the evangelical minister is the doer of everything himself, and no use whatever is made of the less honourable members; souls are converted to God, and the minister rejoices in their conversion, but they are not valued and cherished, and made much of, as if each were of vast importance to the well-being of the whole Church. But when they join a new sect, they are valued by their new associates; they are spoken of as belonging to them, whereas before they were not spoken of as belonging to any body; consequently they become conscious of their own individual importance to the body to which they attach themselves: and thus we say that at least there is an occasion afforded for the workings of pride. It is true that the grace of God may hinder its operations (and we are sure it often does), but still it is not less true that there is a temptation thereto; and if men or women have a little talent or imaginative powers, the temptation is very great. In some instances it is more than probable that in this matter the enemy may have gained an advantage.

"As to the peevishness spoken of as operating in the seventeenth century, it sounds rather too strong an expression for any thing that has come under our own observations, in connection with the evil of separation now; but it is not really so. According to Johnson, 'peevish' means, 'full of expressions of discontent,' 'hard to please, easily offended.' In all these senses our separating brethren seem to us to be peevish to an extreme; we speak in love, but we must say they appear to live in the use of expressions of discontent with every thing. They appear to take a kind of melancholy pleasure in contemplating the false fact that everything is growing worse and worse; and again and again have we perceived, or at least thought we perceived, the symptoms of Jonah's character. Jonah had preached to the Ninevites, and his word had been attended with power. This, instead of exciting cordial acknowledgment of the good done, filled Jonah with discontent, lest that, in consequence of the judgments with which he had threatened them not being executed, he himself should appear a false prophet. Reader, we know very little of ourselves if we do not recognize in Jonah more or less of our own characters; self-love, a desire that our predictions should prove true, often swallowing up our gracious feelings; and we greatly mistake if this failing does not manifest itself amongst our dissenting brethren. In this matter we should gladly find ourselves mistaken; but again and again have we feared, that if what the author of Fanaticism justly calls 'interpretations the most excessive, expectations the most dire, comminations the most terrible,' proved to be erroneous, there might possibly be feelings of discontent ('peevishness' in fact) entertained in the breasts of those, the most naturally amiable, kind-hearted saints of our acquaintance.

124 "If we were asked to state the cause which operates more generally perhaps than any other in producing divisions in the present day, we should say it arose from a diseased mind, or a certain morbid sensitiveness of the conscience in one speck to the exhaustion of all sensibility in a far larger portion - sensitiveness about corruptions to be deplored doubtless and remedied, and insensibility to the great dishonour done to God, and the widely extended injury done to souls by divisions amongst Christians. Yes, I say unaccountable insensibility of conscience to such passages as that to the Corinthians: 'I beseech you, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment'; or, as that to the Philippians, 'whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.'

125 "What one controverted point concerning church government is nearly so plainly revealed as the duty of avoiding divisions in the Church? What corruptions are there in the Church of England nearly so dishonouring to God, as divisions amongst those who have left the world and are living to God? None that we know of. What does nearly so much injury to souls? Nothing that we know of.

"But what appears to us as the most extraordinary feature in the system is, the general agreement which there seems to be to set common sense and stubborn facts at the most open defiance. If there is one fact more indisputable than another we think it is that within the last twenty years there has been an extraordinary spread of true religion throughout this country, so much so as to produce a great and beneficial influence over those who are not savingly influenced thereby. Now if this statement should meet the eye of any who deny that this is the case (as doubtless it will), we would ask pardon of such for not attempting to prove the same, and our brethren will forgive us for saying in all Christian sincerity, that any little knowledge which we have of human nature, and the manner of God's acting on the minds of men, forbids our entertaining the remotest expectation of convincing those whose minds have been brought into such a state as to deny the fact. We shall merely state what appears to us to be the cause of their not seeing it. It is briefly this: Our dear brethren see (in common with ourselves) that wickedness is spoken of in the scriptures as being great, and to increase at some period between the time of the apostles, and the second coming of Christ. But our brethren have determined in their own minds (what we have not determined in ours) that the present is the time alluded to by the inspired writers as the time of increasing wickedness: instead of the facts of the case leading them to doubt the correctness of their interpretation of the prophecy, with a degree of boldness worthy of a better cause they fly in the face of facts. The stubbornness of the fact is nothing in their estimation; their interpretation of the scriptures must be true, and therefore they do and will maintain to the end their position, that the world now is worse than it ever was and will grow worse and worse!

126 "We scarcely wish to give an opinion concerning the future, as to whether improvement or deterioration is to be expected; but as to the present, we must say in the retrospect, 'the Lord hath done great things, whereof we will be glad.' Reader, 'Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this,' Eccles. 7: 10.

"In closing our observations we feel drawn out to express the most unfeigned love for those to whom they apply; and we know their love to be such, that they will not reckon us 'their enemy because we tell to them' what we believe to be 'the truth.' In a future number we may state the grounds upon which the duty of adherence to the Church of England, notwithstanding the gross corruption of its hierarchy, rests, and also point out what we conceive to be the duty of Christians who reside in parishes over which ungodly clergymen are placed, and who are not within the reach of the churches of any Christian ministers."

I cannot but remark that the style of our judges is very much altered. Heretofore we were "schismatics," and "enthusiasts," and the Epistle of Jude applied to us, and the like; now we are "separating brethren": and though there are some hints, in italics, about mental derangement, yet the great point to be pressed is, that holiness of life is not a sure preservative against error in judgment! a statement of most ambiguous and doubtful character. But surely the editor of the Christian Journal should at least, wise and prudent as he may be, hesitate before "pride and peevishness," if not pretended purity, be taken as the causes of the separation of those of whom he declares the great majority to be Israelites doing good. "We should have supposed there must have been something of the Spirit of Christ, not a "proud or peevish spirit" surely, though full of heaviness and scarce bearing the evil around Him, in those who are of such a character and activities. He was an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile; and He went about doing good: and He was "separate" too from His brethren, and blessings descended upon His head. He was not indeed approved by the wise and prudent none of the rulers nor of the Pharisees believed on Him - only the foolish people who through grace would not call evil good and good evil, nor put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter; to whom fellowship with guileless Israelites, who went about doing good, was more valuable, though wise and prudent people thought it error, than the charge of error from worldly-minded people was the occasion of fear: the rest saw that, if they let Him thus alone, the Romans would come and take away both their place and nation. Little, little indeed have we of His Spirit, but if we are of this character surely it is from His Spirit; and they who condemn should be cautious, where the fruits are such; lest, where the Spirit of Christ so dwells, the separation may not come from the same cause. It is a circumstance singular and fatal to the established system, that those who separate from it should be habitually such.

127 But the editor of the Christian Journal seems habitually, I do not mean intentionally, to neglect the idea of the Spirit of Christ on the one hand, and the power of Satan on the other; and thus, while prudent as to circumstances, to be very little informed of God's estimate of the causes of things and of their real character. Thus in any selected articles, in the present number, you will find "Divisions of parishes," "Man contemplated," "The power of the press," "The calls are many," "Sales in a great city," "Hints to clever people," and a caution to Clergymen not to let poor people to their table but not one (save a feeble allusion of Coleridge's) of the selected articles, in which there is the smallest allusion to the Spirit of God or of Christ. Here is the real source of the difference between us. He looks to means of mending the world of human devisement, declaring it to be "a false fact" that it is not actually getting better. We, foolishly no doubt, would desire to be Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, and are content if our Lord finds us so, and seek for His Spirit to enable us to be so, while we cannot help thinking the world, as it ever was, an evil and an ungodly one, which is judged because it rejected Christ - crucified the Lamb of God. But smooth as the article may appear and kindly wise, it is indeed very bitter; and I regret to add very ignorant, or else full of what must be called chicanery - I do not doubt the former.

I shall merely comment, I trust very calmly, on some of its statements. It disclaims the charge of pretended purity, but does charge real pride and peevishness. This his "separating brethren" must leave to God, conscious that there is everything in them which would lead to it; and thinking it probable that in the abounding of evil they may have been sometimes guiltily weary in spirit, we will take courage from the warning, and be bolder and more decided, more cheerful in our opposition for the future.

128 But there is a remarkable confession contained in the account: "In the majority of instances they are Israelites, in whom is no guile; and, like the beginners of all other Christian sects, they are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good." The character given them I pass by here, though we might fancy there was a little of that sort of 'peevishness,' which is 'hard to please,' in the characteristics of "proud" Israelites in whom is no guile, who are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good; neither can we say that the Christian Journal, while hard to please if such Christians as these he describes do not satisfy it, is empty of expressions of discontent at the "separating brethren," though it may live more in expressions of self-satisfaction, and at the world which denied Christ around it. But it is not this I would dwell on but that the beginners of all other Christian sects are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good. Now this is surely an extraordinary circumstance - that invariably those who leave the church are more assimilated to Christ than others, than those who do not. Is not this an appalling circumstance in the character of the Church of England, that those who are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good are somehow or other driven out of it, or, in other words, beginners of sects? Is the selfishness of the system insensible to the fact; that as men become in all ages animated by the Spirit of Christ, they cannot remain in it? They may have failed in continuing their system in the same character it began. So did the apostles, because their work hung on the presence of the Spirit of God, and the spirit of the world came in and the Church sank. So did not popery; so did not the Church of England, because in various degrees they joined the world, and were of its spirit: and the world owned them; and they went with the world, and continued as long as the world bore them, and was satisfied with them. Hence when the Spirit of God wrought, discontent arose, because it would not bear with the spirit of the world, men became more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, and the Church would not bear that (it was irregular), and they would not give it up, because the Spirit of Christ and the love of Christ constrained them; and they were the beginners of sects. The same platform soon held them again when they became worldly together. But, indeed it was very evil, that they separated from the established system: they troubled the ease of worldliness. This could be the only reason, for "they were Israelites, in whom was no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good," and therefore, not, it is to be supposed, worse Christians. They were better Christians, but worse Churchmen, and that was a very great evil.

129 But, indeed they were like to be reduced to "atoms." If so, the Christian Journal should have in the use of its motto turned to old Gamaliel, and taken his advice, and (after quoting kindly Swedenborgians and Quakers and Irvingites as the parallel cases of those Israelites in whom is no guile), have refrained from these men and let them alone: for if they are going to atoms by themselves, it is foolish to bind them by external compression and immortalize the ephemeral existence of the "separating brethren" in the Christian Journal, when they will be so soon gone to atoms. I trust that when they cease to be Israelites indeed in whom is no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, they will be remembered nowhere else and by no other testimony and go into atoms, heard of no more, even as two together. Such is my earnest wish and sincere prayer to God, save as their portion is with Him, who coming shall not reject such as He finds so doing. Whom He would estimate, we would be; and not say, "My Lord delayeth his coming": let us go on and live with the world.

But I repeat, that it is a remarkable fact for the Christian Journal to attest, that such has been the spirit of all separated from the Church of England, and what does she care? We agree entirely, "they went out from" her, because they were not of her. But of the instances.

And we must confess, besides the spirit which would associate the "separating brethren" with Swedenborgians, there is not only no reference to God's Spirit in this article, but a very fearful trifling with scripture.

As to Thomas Fuller, I will not question his piety, though much more remarkable for a very tenacious memory, and a strong adherence to all the corruptions which the editor of the Christian Journal would reform. His acuteness in the paper in question at any rate entirely failed him; for, having resisted all reformation such as the editor would seek, he was deprived, and when the gross corruptions were entirely restored, got his share of them again, and was only prevented from being one of the hierarchical system (inconsistent with the progress of the gospel) on account of his staunch support of the corruptions, by death. A reformation, however, of the Church of England took place, such as the editor desires; and it lasted about ten years. When it ceased to exist (which it did soon after their close), the atomic separatists remained on the restoration of Charles the Second a widely extended body, to which the remnants of the reformed Church of England of the day, being turned out by the new Church of England, under the monarchy, by the Bartholomew Act of 1666, attached themselves; and were lost amongst them under the general title of nonconformists, those who were distinctively such having for the most part in late years turned Socinians - the ultimate result of the improved Church of England. On Thomas Fuller's character, I do not think it necessary to comment. But it is beyond controversy, that the reformed or improved Church of England was lost, or remains in Socinian deputies, and the atoms of separatists form the active extended bodies of Independents and Baptists - a result I have no desire the "separating brethren" should ever arrive at. Thomas Fuller's sentiments may be excellent, and none can read them without perceiving their applicability, but unfortunately, though they may serve the editor of the Christian Journal as a prophecy, they have been sadly falsified. At any rate it is too bad to be blamed for studying divine prophecy, which is surely true, and given us to study, and to bring out human prophecy which has proved all false, and helps only to prove the present editor's prophecies false with it, which I pray the readers of the Christian Journal to note.

130 And now of the other instances. First of the Swedenborgians, to which the editor so kindly compares his "separating brethren," he has reason to believe Baron Swedenborg was an eminently devoted man. "His tenets are drawn from the scriptures, and supported by quotations from them." What does the editor mean? The Swedenborgians deny the Trinity, the atonement, and almost every sound Christian doctrine, and draw their notions from a vision of Baron Swedenborg in a coffee-house in London, and subsequent revelations. Was the editor aware of these things, when he said his tenets are drawn from scripture and supported by quotations from them? Surely, his jealousy of his "separating brethren" has carried him beyond the bounds of prudence, when he asserts that the tenets of those who deny the Trinity, the atonement, and the like Christian doctrines, and hold Swedenborg's revelations exclusively as to the other world, are drawn from scripture and supported by quotations from them. Probably he was quite ignorant of what he spoke; but scripture ought not to be thus trifled with, however, his "separating brethren" may.

131 As to George Fox, I do not doubt he was a pious man; wrong as I think the system he founded. But here we are told again, "drawing his doctrine from the pure source of religious truth, the New Testament," etc. Does the editor believe this? Does he know that the Quakers, though the Lord is now working very extensively amongst them, would not as a regular thing read the New Testament; and trusted to everything spoken (as they supposed) by the Spirit as of equal authority, looking to the living word and the inward light and not simply to the New Testament for guidance; though they thought that might be uttered or written from the same inward light, and therefore so far had authority with them, but in fact was very little attended to by them as the shell of the letter; the disregarding of the letter of scripture being a distinguishing mark of old Quaker habits? But wild as many of them ran (as surely they did, when following this supposed light), as separating from and testifying against the Church of England, very few of their testimonies failed to take effect. The system they might afterwards set up might be very defective, as it undoubtedly was, and their doctrine most defective as not founded on scripture; but their open testimony against the Church of England was often with much serious power, and the things took place. No one can read George Fox's Journal but must see, that he was remarkably sustained before the persecuting magistrates of the day, who sought to support the Church of England against them: and this it is in their great declension that has kept the Quakers together: they might be without a rudder, but the shore they had left behind them was in a ruin from which they had escaped.

As to Mr. Irving, he is too much present as it were amongst us to say much. I believe their great defect to be, as it is of the editor, and all he has quoted, that he does not take scripture as his guide, but modern utterances as equivalent to it, as with the Quakers, and my experience of Irvingites is that (though full of particular passages there used, and interpretations upon those current amongst themselves) there is very little unborrowed study of scripture, very little reading of it for themselves, looking for the guidance of the Spirit. The peculiar characteristic of the system, to my mind, is the withdrawing people from this; and I never find them give simple heed to scripture. I think the editor treats holiness with very little ceremony. Holiness, real holiness and subjection of heart according to the word, can proceed only from God's Spirit; and this is not what will lead into darkness and mistake. The form of it may, I admit, but spiritual subdual of evil is not the way of error, but a single eye the way of much light: and I do not think the editor is doing much service to Christianity in so carefully separating real holiness and truth. I believe there are many Christian amongst the Irvingites: I do not believe they are a holy people, but a deceived people.

132 Fuller, the editor tells us, complained in his day, and Baxter in his day, wise and holy men no doubt, and in every day along with the editor they have to complain of the same thing. But perhaps the editor would have the kindness in his next Journal to tell us, what the different days were in which Baxter and Fuller lived. It is hardly honest to make a parade of names at different eras, if the editor be ignorant whether they lived at the same or not; nor to state that the tenets of Swedenborgians are drawn from scripture, if he does not know what they are, and to make the scriptures an uncertain source of truth, that the infallibility of the Church of England, just going to be reformed, may be the resting place of some weary Tostatus.

As to dissent producing pride, it is very likely. The editor must settle that with his dissenting brethren: wherever the Spirit of the Lord is not, there will be pride, be it in the Church of England or in dissent; his "separating brethren" have nothing to do with either. I believe, his dissenting brethren think for the most worse of them than he does; for, as for this sect, it is everywhere spoken against: may it ever remain so, and if they are called Nazarenes, be found to be Nazarites indeed!

"The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their house in the rock."

133 With regard however to raising some to importance, we will not affirm that either adequate wisdom, or (we would add) adequate humility is shewn in those of this world's honour, who have separated from an evil state of things; but as to exalting the importance of individuals, they do not deny or shrink from the charge. Some are exalted and some brought low. If as the Church and the clergyman in this Journal would have it, the high are to keep their place in the world, we grant it may often do it; but if they mind not high things, but walk with men of low estate in the simplicity of Christ, great blessing follows. We read, "let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted, and the rich in that he is made low, because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away." They do not say, that there is not trial of grace in these things; but they believe when done in grace, the approximation of these to each other is accompanied with great blessing.

The use, as to us, the Lord made of His glory was to empty Himself, give it up, become poor that we by His poverty might become rich. He could not but be superior and different after all from those to whom He came; but He hid it, shewed it only in the glory of continued and more abounding service, and knowing that all things were delivered unto Him of His Father, and that He came from God and went to God, He took a towel and girded Himself, and washed His disciples' feet, shewing us that if He, our Lord and Master, washed their feet, we ought also to wash one another's feet, for He had given them an example that they should do as He had done to them. In a word, He took the privilege of His glory to be among them as one that serveth. May we be like Him! The only advantage I know of earthly glory is the privilege of giving it up. The poor man's grace will be shewn in a wholly unassuming spirit, giving the other double honour because of his willing lowliness; but the principle our Lord gives is, "he that is great among you, let him be your servant." The real secret is to give its value to Christ's grace. If it be the value of adding to numbers without the power of grace, it is purely evil.

But the great sin, the peevishness, of the "separating brethren," their hardness to please, seems to consist in their not thinking that the Christian Journal and the like is mending the world. This is a terrible thing - this "false fact." But the editor seems to forget that the great body of godly clergy in this country believe in this "false fact" too; while his dissenting brethren quite agree with the editor that their Lord delayeth His coming.

134 But, indeed, it comes out a little after that there is a general agreement to set common sense and stubborn facts at the most open defiance; and that too in spite of all the pains of the editor of the Christian Journal.

"If there is one fact more indisputable than another, we think it is this, that within the last twenty years, there has been an extraordinary spread of true religion throughout this country; so much so, as to produce a great and beneficial influence over those who are not savingly influenced thereby," etc. If any deny this, he asks pardon for not attempting to prove the same.

We do not think it a good thing continually to seek to make people pleased with themselves. It argues a low and a falling standard; but this, of course, must mend the country, and improve it, and given reason to think prospects are indeed brightening. We will not listen to these Micahs, that are always prophesying evil concerning us, and not good. And now, gentle reader, what is the blessed result of this amazing improvement, which proves that the world is growing better, and not worse and worse, as these foreboders would say, who determine in their own minds that the wicked times, prophesied of, are our own times?

The Christian Journal shall tell.

"Party violence, we are sorry to say, appears not to have diminished since we last wrote; on the contrary, the tendency of things at present is evidently towards a more decided separation between the two great bodies into which the population of Ireland is divided. This is a melancholy fact: we only state it without entering into the question of its immediate cause. We can hardly conceive any country worse circumstanced in this respect than Ireland. The frame of society is just kept from coming to pieces, and that merely by the action of an external force. Such is our view of the subject, that we do not know what is to keep any person who loves peace, in Ireland, except utter necessity, or a sense of duty." What! when such immense improvement has taken place in twenty years. These are stubborn facts.

As to the common sense, which would argue from it, that the amazing influential spread of religion which has taken place will mend the world, I leave it to the editor of the Christian Journal. It seems to me very uncommon sense. I have but turned the Journal round: both are its statements as to this country; one side "stubborn facts"; the other, the "editor's arguments," or "common sense," I suppose I should call it, who thinks the improvement immense and progressive. We are apt to think, that the ripening of the wheat may be accompanied by the ripening of the tares, but will not turn them into wheat, but leave the field just what it was, only more manifested, and ready to be cut down: but perhaps we are very foolish and the editor very wise, and that the frame of society being only kept from coming to pieces merely by the action of an external force, is a very plain sign of the universal and happy effect of religion in the country at present; perhaps it is wrong to say, it is growing worse and worse, as the editor of the last page can hardly conceive "any country worse circumstanced." We fear he has much sorrow to learn, and we doubt not much joy, for we trust the Church may be as much improved, as the evil of the world will be magnified; but the closing page of the Journal is a sufficient answer to all the words of the leading article on the subject. This country, at least, which has been so much blessed is growing worse; just as we expect, just so it has happened.

135 The truth is, that the effect of the Christian Journal on all who hold its views, and seek to put off the consideration of the growing evil and sorrow of the world and approaching judgments, is to daub up hollow walls, and corrupt systems with untempered mortar. They cannot bear to have it detected: the Christian Journal is merely an effort and an instrument to do this. It is taken in hand by those who know that things are not getting better, but who would wish to hide the fact that they are getting worse; who to keep the place that they have dung to, and the value of their judgment for a moment, are seeking to hide from others the impending ruin they themselves well see. But their "separating brethren" have no hostility to them, though they see the evil coming; they are guided by moral reasons, and not by that reason, which must be therefore everlastingly stable, when all that may be attempted to be supported by the efforts of man shall have passed away frittered in his hand. They believe that the Christian Journal is doing great sin in beguiling souls, and alienating them, through ignorance, from very important truths - amusing them with toys and plans, while judgment is crowding around them, and filled often with as much nonsense and what is merely human as any other thing going. They believe indeed, though they give little credit to much of the religion that is going, that the saints are ripening for separation to God; they believe for the same reason the tares are doing so too, and the hope of turning tares into wheat they believe to be just the folly of the editor of the Christian Journal. When many were called in the days of the apostles, how would modern calculators of results have concluded that the nation would have been blessed and brought in? What did it prove to those who knew the truth? That the nation was going to be judged. The judgment of human experience is the judgment of folly; but human experience is the wisdom of man set up as an idol by the name of common sense. This it is the editor of the Christian Journal worships. The abounding of testimony and evil together are the sure sign of judgment, if scripture wisdom is to be taken as guide.

136 The last point I shall notice is that which brings the question to issue.

"If we were asked to state the cause which operates more generally perhaps than any other in producing divisions in the present day, we would say, it arose from a diseased mind, or a certain morbid sensitiveness of the conscience in one speck, to the exhaustion of all sensibility in a far larger portion - sensitiveness about corruptions to be deplored doubtless and remedied, and insensibility to the great dishonour done to God, and the widely extended injury done to souls, by divisions amongst Christians. Yes, I say unaccountable insensibility of conscience to such passages as that to the Corinthians, 'I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, that there be no divisions amongst you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment'; or as that to the Philippians 'whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.'"

We shall have to see where the unaccountable insensibility lies, where the guilt of division. In the first place, as to morbid conscience, the editor is simply sanctioning sin against Christ in sanctioning sin against a weak conscience. That there are many things that affect weak consciences, worse than eating herbs, is confessed; nay, it is now the fashion to confess, that there are gross corruptions in the system of the establishment: abominations is the usual word. Now morbid consciences are ill at ease about these. Well, of course, they are removed, and the weak conscience is left unoffended, "straight paths made for their feet lest that which is lame be turned out of the way" but that it rather might be healed, and these strong wise men bear their infirmities, and remove the difficulties? Not the least. The morbid consciences may go and get comfort where they can, not with these: they may be shocked if they stay, and reproached if they go: what do the strong ones care for that? They have got the world with them, and morbid consciences may comfort themselves where they can. They are Christ's sheep: but what do these shepherds care for that? They have disabled themselves from, or are unwilling to seek, their good, and they may go and get comfort by the roadside. Who would trouble themselves with morbid consciences save to reproach them, if they act on them, which they are bound to do unless they commit sin? In thus doing what offends the weak conscience, they are confessedly sinning against Christ; and in order to gain the world's help, they have sold or given up to the world the deposit of Christ with them, of acting upon the necessary exigencies of the Church - they confess they have done so; they have petitioned the State to get leave to amend themselves - the open confession, that they have sold their Christian power of fulfilling a direct known duty in the Church of Christ. The "separating brethren" feel this, and they leave the evil, which the clergy confess they cannot amend; but these things which morbid consciences are uneasy about were the subject of the greatest uneasiness, and were entirely objected to by the English reformers at the Reformation, and were imposed by the queen against their wishes, and in spite of the earnest entreaty and remonstrance of many, I might almost say all, of them. The queen wished to win the papists, and loved her supremacy, and she insisted on them.

137 It is often said, Can you not acquiesce in what these saints shed their blood for? My answer is, they shed their blood for no such thing, but remonstrated against these things, and secular authority alone enforced them. It is but an example, how the piety of good men becomes continuing sanction for any evil they continue in, and so the snare of Satan; as the piety of Fénelon, Pascal, Arnauld, and De Sacy, is used as an authority for continuance in the Roman-catholic church system: and what is more, the editor's friend, Baxter, in his day (having in vain endeavoured to get them altered, much as he disliked separation and thought it an evil to separate) did separate, when these things were enforced by an Act of Parliament, and with him between one thousand five hundred and two thousand godly ministers,* who all left their cures, rather than acquiesce in the things, dissatisfaction at which is now sneered at as the sign of a morbid conscience. I do not doubt that the editor and his friends are much better and wiser than these men, these separatists, whose piety however they are generally content to feed on and to minister for the present food of the Church. But how comes it, if this same Baxter was so averse to separation, he felt it necessary to separate, when these things which constitute the uniformity of the Church of England were imposed? Or will the editor allow me to ask, is it honest to adduce Baxter as an enemy to separation in his day, when Baxter did actually separate because the things objected to now were insisted on? The editor should remember, that the Church of England had ceased to be "a hierarchy inconsistent with the progress of the Gospel" when Baxter objected to separation, but when it was, he separated from it - got, I suppose, a morbid conscience, along with the hundreds of fellow ministers, for which they were fools enough, many of them, to beg their bread with their families. Morbid consciences are very troublesome things sometimes easy consciences very seldom. There is a day coming in which they may be more occasion of sorrow.

{* By the Act of Charles II in 1666, whoever did not conform to the liturgy of the Church of England, by St. Bartholomew's Day in that year, was to be deprived. Nearly all the godly ministers in England left house and home, and wandered some in severe trial, where they might find relief.}

138 The editor is probably also ignorant, that the imposition of the same things in Scotland produced sadder effects, even in many morbid consciences there.* These, morbid as they were, were more constant and more valuable to many there than their lives; and the beauties of the Church of England liturgy were enlivened and exalted by the blood of martyrs, and the torments of the iron boot, on those whose consciences preferred temporal death to the imposition of that they believed to be evil. The prayerbook has been the occasion, and its ministers the instruments, of other blood of martyrs, than it is perhaps aware of, or accustomed to boast. But what is that to the editor or the rest of the body here? They have not morbid consciences; they acknowledge it is full of abominations, but no giving up livings, or iron boots for them: they will protest and stay in them, and blame those who leave them for making divisions. No wonder, their consciences are really ill at ease, and they tread a testimony to it; and the editor knows this.

{*Archbishop Sharpe and the Duke of Lauderdale carried on a most bitter and relentless persecution against those who opposed, and in order to enforce, the liturgy of the Church of England and her hierarchical arrangements; and there was episcopacy in Scotland till the Revolution.}

139 I cannot help thinking, and my experience has led me to the same conclusion, that if there were a little more morbidness, or (if I may be allowed to change the expression) activity in the consciences of some brethren who do not separate, it would have been no harm. And I cannot help thinking that the state force put on the consciences of all the early reformers, and the surrender of beloved flocks, by one thousand five hundred and upwards of the godliest ministers that ever breathed, and the surrender of their lives, and the endurance of torments by the saints of Scotland, might have called for something more than the reproach of morbid consciences from anything but the Church of England. But the unjust knoweth no shame. The infection has certainly not reached them. But perhaps some modern Baxter may reform all this, and it shall shine in spotless purity, such as shall satisfy his mind, if not God's; and some pious and acute prebendary, who can give good thoughts in bad times in these days, may acquiesce in the reformation and its arrangements, results which he may regret, but which he cannot control. We would only hint, for we do not judge (we acknowledge) of the future from the past, of which we are very ignorant, but from the word of God, which is very sure; but only remind (as an argumentum ad hominem) Christians that do, that this reformation of Baxter's of old, godly though he was, and disliking separation, lasted ten years, and then everything became worse than before, and he was obliged to separate; nor could in these days, we would suggest, any modern prebendary, when the ten years were closed, feel so sure of recovering his prebend, as the pious and acute Thomas Fuller; for they are, we will agree, evil days - they will hardly afford (may we prophesy?) in any such sense, "mixed contemplations in better times." We did once to such an one, and the things have not been untrue, though despised.

140 But widely extended divisions amongst Christians are caused by it. Let me ask, if there are divisions between Israelites indeed in whom is no guile, who are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, and others who are continuing in connection with, and support of "gross corruption," how is the division to be healed? by those who are not in the corruptions returning to them, or those who are leaving them? But there is no need of the corruptionists joining their separating brethren - let them only get rid of these corruptions, and division would immediately cease. Will they forgive one proposing such a remedy, or think it "proud or peevish"? They know they cannot, and therefore they rail at their "separating brethren" as proud and peevish, and promise that at some future time they may state the grounds on which the duty of adherence to the Church of England rests in spite of the gross corruptions. In the meanwhile prejudice has been excited against the guileless Israelites, and people maintained in connection with the corruptions, and the point is gained. It is a very hardening system. The closing paragraph speaks with the most perfect coldness of whole districts not within the reach of a Christian minister by virtue of the system; and of those who in such places, led by God's Spirit, may labour and suffer reproach, and gather out souls to Christ, and if any be wicked enough to watch over them, or seek their continued good, they are to be branded as schismatics and proud and peevish. There is certainly no morbidness in the conscience of a modern corruptionist, save that which may consist in having lost its feelings altogether - a mind, I suppose, as diseased in God's eye, as one which would refrain from eating herbs, if it thought it a sin.

As to "unaccountable insensibility of conscience, to such passages, as 'I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,' or as that to the Philippians, 'whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing'" as to the first we say, the Church of England has made it impossible. She is bound up in positive error, and so most of her active ministers think. They do not believe for example in baptismal regeneration, though they sign their consent to it. As to "no divisions among you," divisions among whom? among believing disciples? Does the editor of the Christian Journal mean at sent to persuade us that the Church of England is a body of believing disciples, among whom we make divisions by leaving it? We leave it, because it is no company of believing disciples at all, but a very wicked and nefarious union between the Church and the world; because its essence and essential distinction is the chief of all iniquities, the mixing the Church in the world, the holding of apostate principles if not a ripened apostate state. The editor of the Christian Journal must know that the majority of Christians in the world think the Church of England a system of great abominations; and are apt to charge upon men, such as the editor himself, the sin of division, because they force upon the morbid consciences of weak brethren that which, by the apostle's rule, it would be a sin for them to do. The editor too knows, as to divisions, there was a time, when many were willing and desirous to work with and be servants in the activities of godly members of the Church of England, though they could not sign what they did not believe. They were all cast out as an unclean thing: what could there be but division? and who made it, unless we are to quench the Spirit of God for the fancies of the assumed functionaries of Christ?

141 At this time, and the writer is not unacquainted with Ireland, I know scarcely a single active devoted Christian layman in the Church of England. There may be a few readers in parishes paid by the clergymen, and I trust God will bless their labours; and there may be a few gentlemen patrons of religion in their neighbourhood, but otherwise I do not know such a thing in existence. I did know one, as an active devoted labouring Christian layman in the Church of England: such as begun so, and were more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, speedily left it. Of those, not in it, there are multitudes, but I suppose they are beneath the notice of those with whom it would be wrong to have them at the same table. But I can tell the editor, there was a time when many a mechanic was ordained because he would conform, and the ablest ministers in England shut out because they would not. The clergy delight, I do not doubt, to rest in their solitary self-sufficiency, and maintain their dignified association with the world; and they are welcome.

142 As to "whereto we have already attained, walking by the same rule." As regards other Christians, we would subject ourselves to brotherly judgment as to our failure. As for my part, though the progress of Christians who have separated from the Church of England has, speaking of the mass, been very marked and decided in principle and practice, certainly not less acquainted with scripture, as indeed seems to be implied in the comparison of them with the Irvingites, and confessedly more than ordinarily engaged in doing good - yet compared with the standard that is before them, they know nothing, yea, ever will it be so; and as to doing, I suppose the most of them would confess with sorrow of heart that they come altogether short. They see a standard in every sense in Jesus, and even in early Christianity, but especially in Him which humbles them and keeps them in the dust at every step They only pray for more of the Spirit of God to conform them as one body to Him; and may it be so with them and with others!

But as regards the Church of England, they confess the attainment is beyond them; they have not reached to this point in practical conduct - to wait for reasons in future to adhere to a thing, in spite of gross corruptions, where God has said "withdraw thyself from every brother that walketh disorderly." They have not so learned Christ, and they confess that they cannot walk by this rule. It may be their weakness, but the strong should have compassion upon them, and remove the difficulty. No, they have not attained to this; they have not attained to cast their conscience and the testimony of the Spirit behind their back. They know that the Lord will judge His people, and they fear His judgment more than the reproach of a morbid conscience, when they cannot do this great wickedness and sin against God. The Spirit of the living God urges them not to abide in or to bear with evil; and they do not, taking scripture as their guide, understand (it may be their folly) a Christian's adhering to gross corruptions. They leave the palm of prudence to the editor of the Christian Journal.

Attainment in knowledge they know little about only that if a man think he knows anything, he knows nothing, yet, as he ought to know it. But they count a good conscience a thing for a Christian to keep, and they have been accustomed to apply the passage in Philippians to humbleness of mind as to knowledge, and not, as the editor of the Christian Journal has done, to a question of continuance in what they account the greatest moral evil under the sun; a system calling itself a church, but really "inconsistent with the progress of the gospel," the continuance of the Church in the world grieving the Spirit of God. If the editor does not apply his quotations to this, he is talking beside the question. His "separating brethren" do not separate because of attainment in knowledge, but because the light has broken in upon their souls, that the system he belongs to is a system of ungodliness - to use other words, if he please, though very inadequate words, of "gross corruptions." I say inadequate words, because corruption implies the spoiling of something good: and the Church of England was never something good, but a modification of popery, brought about under Providence by Henry VIII, and good men who held justifying truths for their own souls, and who got rid of as much of popery as the sovereign of the day allowed them.

143 "The protestant church system is nothing but a continuation of the catholic church system, on a less extensive scale. I would add, with more thorough subjection to the world. I have spoken of this upon the ground that the conscience of these who are drawn out by the Church of England is morbid and weak, in which case it is manifest, that the sin is with the Church of England entirely, and the editor of the Christian Journal partakes of it, if the rule of scripture and the apostles be heeded.

But are the objections to the system merely those of weak consciences? We admit the palm of strong consciences belongs entirely to the clergy of the Established body. But there are grounds of objection, which might strike an indifferent observer of a Christian spirit, and, without evil weakness of conscience, may be accounted objects of the Lord's judgment. The first great objection I would urge against the Church of England is that (instead of being in any sort the gathering of the children of God upon the foundation of a heavenly calling, sitting in spirit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; being filled with His Spirit; and by the supply of His spirit manifesting the life of Christ, and the power of His grace and presence, in the unity of His sanctified members) it is essentially, as the Church of England, the opposite of all this: and that is, the union of the Church and the world. This makes it the Church of England: for that is the Church, not which God owns, but which the world owns, and of that world Satan is the prince; and the consequence is that if men be all that God owns but not what the world owns, they are accounted schismatics and evil doers, not because they separate from Christians, but from the world presumptuously calling itself the Church, and the Spirit of God and the path of Christ is blasphemed. The Church of England is not the Church of God; but the merging of disciples - of the Church in its members, in a great worldly system. It is that peculiar sin, which pollutes, nullifies and renders void the last great witness of the holiness of the Lord, previous to the coming glory: and therefore along with other similar bodies, constitutes the great final sin of the Church, the substitution of the power of the world for the support of the Church, in lieu of the power, presence and Spirit of God, the consequent necessary desecration of the Church, the grieving of the Spirit of God, making the Church of God the sport of its enemies, and causing the weak sheep of Christ, whom the presence of the Spirit in the grace of the Lord alone could comfort and feed, to be scattered to the winds and to wander on every mountain.

144 But they have the world and that is the point. And here is the grand sin of the godly clergy: they are using their godliness to sustain this, and let them not say the Church has not the world. I repeat, it is written, "these shall hate the whore." The system means, its name means, the union of the Church and the world, that is, the union in sin of what God has separated, the putting the Church into the world which God had taken out of it, and the grieving, in consequence, of the Holy Spirit of God. And He gave Himself for our sins, as of the world, that He might deliver us out of this present evil world. The Church of England is the putting the saints into the world again, the sanction of an unholy meretricious union with it. It buries the sanctified ones in the world and takes unsanctified ones, and alike calls them Christians, and the life and distinctive character of Christ is lost. I do not say God's Spirit does not act in spite of it; I know it does often in the necessity of His love. I do not say that infidelity, the wickedness of the world may not seek to pull down and deprive of its temporal goods the wickedness of the Church. I do not doubt, and the word of God teaches us, that such things will be: one need not be a prophet to discern it now; but the word of God teaches us the character of that which is so wronged. The spirit of the saints of God has nothing to do with either. It may wonder at, nay, be bowed in spirit at the thought, that that which ever had the name of the Church or form of it should be in such case; but it can have nothing to say to either.

145 The objection of the saints to the Church of England is, that it is the union of the Church and the world; this is what constitutes it the Church of England. The necessary consequence of union with the world is grieving, resisting, and denying the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God cannot bear with the world, and the world cannot bear the Spirit of God, cannot receive it, for it seeth it not, neither knoweth. The Spirit of God may be in individuals in the Church of England, because in fact it is no Church at all; and, so far as they act from the individual indwelling of the Spirit, they may be blessed, and may they be abundantly so! But the system is nothing else (it may sustain the flesh and so be not thought to be so) but a hindrance to them and every one else in whom the Spirit dwells, so far as it constitutes the Church of England. It is a system which the world has prescribed to prevent hurting the feelings of the world, and disallowing all that would, and must do so while on regular terms of alliance with it. Oh! it is a great sin. Hence, wherever the Spirit of God acts, it is discountenanced, or if this be feared from its power, attempted to be confined to the channel of entire dependence on the world. Its energies thus cramped and crippled within the bounds of the system the next consequence is that, when men are not tied up in the system, they do not yield to this effort to connect them with the world and receive its sanction, and they still continue to work, and though blessed and labouring hard in the Lord's cause by the strength and help of the Spirit of God, they are counted separatists and dividers of the Church. Then Satan raises up some scheme of his own, perhaps of active labour with pretence of the word, and not connected with the Church nominally, and those who have been working simply, as Christians not connected with it, are identified with this by the jealousy of those who are, and every pains taken to discredit them, and thus (by virtue of the system of the Church of England) the Spirit of God is hindered, polluted, and mixed with the world; crippled on one side, discredited and dishonoured on the other, and the sole cause and doer of all this is the Church of England. Satan gains his point and laughs at them doing his work. It is impossible that those who are united with the world can love the unhindered working of the Spirit of God.

146 The editor of the Christian Journal has recently united himself to the worldly part of the Church in hopes of doing more good, or of being sustained by them, and hence these articles; for I do not doubt, nor ought I, that his original purpose was to do the Lord's work. Union with the world, the grand distinctive sin and the power of apostasy in the Church, and that which is identified with it, the blaspheming and denying the Spirit of God, and refusing the word as the simple guide, is that which we object to in the Church of England: and let it leave this, all difficulty will cease. Dissenters will quarrel little, I suspect, about episcopacy, and the separatists will be forgotten, for all the saints will be separatists from the world; but while the nominal Church is in it, it may be persuaded that there will be separatists from it. It however is the necessary cause of the division, and this must be while the Spirit of God is grieved and the character of Christ lost by its worldliness.

The truth is, the power of Christ's resurrection and the presence of the Comforter are lost and unowned; and hence the evil and thence the separation. Now it is quite true that every believer may not attain to the same apprehension of heavenly things, but originally the Church held the place suited to them; and it, being heavenly, led onward the less full-grown saints, and the Church as a body held the position. The stronger were a guard and a help to the weak, and the Spirit was ungrieved in the Church (though individuals might be in feebleness), and found its resting-place there, and the Church, its comfort in its presence. Now Satan having beguiled the Church, the Church is in the position of earthliness, and united in system with the world: he has got it while it was in its low state, tied down by its own will first, then by actual bonds into the unhallowed union which makes it a bar and a hindrance to the Spirit of God, and, the bonds being on it, whoever becomes really spiritual and heavenly-minded, and holds his course on, becomes a separatist from it; and it is grieved and complains of division. But this arises, not from the evil of the saint pursuing heavenly-mindedness, but from the helpless union of the Church with the world.

I will freely make a further admission. The leaving many saints behind tied by ten thousand bonds which Satan and circumstances have formed around them, and the feebleness of faith, which long bondage in Egypt has occasioned, weaken the ranks of those who are out, make gaps in their spiritual advantages which they fully feel, and make them more liable to the inroads of Satan; their labour more abundant than it would otherwise be. The question is, are they to go back to those who are thus behind, or march on looking for them to follow? It may be, their want of courage for war has caused them a more toilsome journey through the wilderness, but they are learning faith in God who supplies every need there, which their long worldly supply in Egypt, since they left their strangeness in a promised land, had taught them almost to forget entirely. Leeks and onions were there, but there was not the supply and the care of their own God, and they were in bondage under hard and cruel masters, whose enmity was against their firstborn. They trust that, if journeying through the wilderness to the Canaan left of old, it is now not to be as strangers, without so much as to set their foot on, but to the rest and to the inheritance which God hath prepared for them; they prefer indeed the path of faith, feeble though they be; they are sorry for their brethren behind.

147 There are other things in which these, which constitute the great principles, are shewn in practical detail. The whole arrangement of ministry is from the world, and not from God. All the chief pastors of the Church and a great body of the inferior (but it is sufficient here to note the chief as the fountain) are appointed by the world in its worst forma perfectly monstrous notion, under which the godly men are themselves groaning, but which is much more important, as shewing the practical dependence on, and identity of the whole system with, the world. The letters patent of the king, that is, the fiat of a worldly minister, perhaps an infidel, are the credentials and appointment of all the bishops in Ireland. All the parochial cures or non-cures are secular livings incident to a profession, and a large portion of them not even in the gift of men who have the moral control of the Church, however they got it, but come directly from the world. It is perfectly ridiculous to talk of godly appointed ministers, or of this being ministry.

Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge, and others, used to buy up livings in order to get godly men into them: has this the smallest resemblance to spiritual pastorship in the Church of Christ? The result is, that in the very best of time a large majority of the pastors, so-called, are not Christians at all, but serve only to make everything but themselves schismatical (and the best comfort one can get is, that there are often no Christians under them), and where a godly man has been, in the majority of instances the effect of the system is, that the person who shall follow shall have his only business in sedulously rooting up the principles taught, and scattering the flock. We have a promise, in this number, of instruction what Christians are to do when a Christian ministry is not within reach, although there are plenty of pastors brought there by the system of the Church of England.

148 If it is not the fault of the Church of England, whose fault is it? I shall be told the bishops'. The bishops are to take care - and who appoints the bishops? are they appointed according to God's order? No, but according to the system of the Church of England, by what as to church matters (however to be obeyed in civil) we must say is the devil. All this then is the system of the Church of England, and is destructive of the nature and possibility of a Christian ministry. People may talk of books and regulations in the Prayer Book. They do not let out the great secret of the whole. The source of the ministry is in the world, with the ministry of the country, and not with God, by the system of the Church of England There can be no regular Christian ministry in it. It is impossible that any order or discipline should be in it. The Spirit of God may be too strong for the system. So it is; and therefore there are both godly individuals and separatists; and such is the case, partly by virtue of their being separatists. But the system is irreclaimably destructive of the being of a Church. In the same way there is, and can be, no legislation - no provision for the emergencies of the Church by any meeting assembled as a Christian one for the purpose. They have signed that they have no right to meet unless by the king's calling them together, not the Lord's. They had to do with the world, and it was jealous of their doing anything without the prerogative authority of the world - they belong to it, and therefore are regulated by it. In lieu thereof they are legislated for by infidels, dissenters, Socinians, Roman-catholics, and everybody else that may be; and to such extent is this, that at one time half the chief pastors of the country were cut off, when the leader of the Commons has considered the circumstances of the Church, and the arrangement of their pastoral care settled by him: and there is not a pastor in the country but derives his authority from them, and there is now a commission in the country to examine the inferior ones. How ridiculous to talk of the divinely ordained ministry of the Church! And are the sheep of Christ to be subjected to this - to own such a system at all? This then is another objection to the Church of England, that its ministry is entirely the appointment and arrangement of the world, because it is of the world.

149 I have not here spoken of the monstrous and horrible abuses which are the consequences, but of the principles of the whole system. It was an ominous circumstance when the image of Christ, which was always in the roodloft of the church, was taken down at the Reformation, and the king's arms were set up there instead. This is the symbol of the Church of England, the sign of what it is. It is not formed then to act as a Church, but to obey and be arranged by the king and the parliament. They could not legislate for the spiritual welfare of the Church of Christ; they are the only legislature for the Church of England. Why? Because it is of the world, not of God. These are not abused - not corruptions; they are its principles, its system.. The Home Mission is a disorder - a corruption like the separatists; the system is orderly subservience to the king and parliament, generally not, and never acting as, Christians. This is an objection moreover which acts upon the circumstances of almost every private Christian, and is felt in the grieving of the Spirit to the utmost corner to which it reaches, or where it precludes another from going who might be a blessing.

And hence another deadly evil in the Church of England: the ministry itself becomes a worldly ordinance - a clergyman is a clergyman without reference to grace or gift in him. There is an entire separation between gift and nominal office in the Church. Nominal office is not founded on the exercise of gift, as it was in the primitive Church, and hence becomes and is an authority entirely independent of gift, and necessarily hence apart from and independent of God, whose part in the office is conferring the gift. It becomes simply derivative from man, and thus the nominal authority of God's offices is attached to every error, unbelief, and evil doing that can be in the Church; and this is the Church's apostasy in office; and this is the meaning of the Church of England as to its offices. They are derivative without grace, not the recognition of gift in any case, but the conferring of authority with or without it. A man has them because of his human derived authority, and what is merely human becomes an exclusion of God's Spirit, and a divine warrant attached to evil. The authority is derived from the appointment, and is as good in the Church of England without grace as with it; and yet there is the awful assumption of actually conferring the Holy Ghost, and this is so entirely and avowedly the case in its worst form, that a clergyman of the Church of Rome, ipso facto on his coming over, is a clergyman of the Church of England without any reference to gift or office at all, for then gift and office cannot be, proving the whole force to be in the humanly derived authority. Their orders are identical in their source. Whence then is the mission and authority of the Church of Rome? Thence are the boasted orders of the Church of England. They are the human substitute for divine grace, and thus the constant security of mischief and evil in the Church, the seal of apostasy.

150 Hence a man with less grace - less of God's Spirit - less knowledge - less holiness, would be received and trusted to, because he was a clergyman; because the world owned his fleshly order, while he who had all of them would be slighted. It is the denial of the exercise of all gifts, and the substitution of a clergyman (be he even no Christian at all) in their place. He and no other may speak, though he may be totally incompetent to edify the Church, and God may have specially qualified someone else to do it, and there is no remedy in the system for this, no provision for the exercise of any gifts; for, were he even ordained, he must go elsewhere. The clergyman is the person to give his half-hour's instruction, bad or good, and no one else can be allowed to speak. Let him be an apostle, it would make no difference; let God send him expressly, it is no matter. It is irregular for the Spirit of God to act in the Church of England. It would not suit the world, and therefore it does not suit the Church of England; unless therefore the Spirit of God be quenched, there must be divisions. While the system of the Church of England remains, it is the grand bar to the operations of the Spirit of God; and so I have ever found it in this poor benighted land. Oh! the loads of guilt it will have upon its head in this country.

The next thing shewing its connection with the world, and rejection of the Spirit of God, is indiscriminate communion: thus it becomes the positive witness of the compatibility of unholiness and all Christian privileges. Sacramental communion is the seal and symbol of the participation of all Christian privileges. We are identified with every person who partakes these, not as to his being a child of God as known to God, but as to his being one as known to us with all due spiritual investigation. "Looking diligently," says the apostle, "lest there be among you," etc. "Inasmuch then as ye are partakers of that one loaf, ye are all one body," 1 Cor. 10: 17. It becomes then the solemn sanction of unholiness, making Christ the minister of sin. This is the universal practice of the Church of England; it makes her, the National Church, no church at all disciples in it is simply ridiculous. The moment it is exercised, it ceases to embrace the nation: the King and the bishops must be the first persons excommunicated, and then where is the Church of England? So in the colleges, the education for the Church, all the fellows and students (Christians or no Christians is no matter) are canonically and by the regulations bound to receive, at least, three times a year. Thus it becomes, by embracing the world, the grand sanction for ungodliness in the Church of God, the nursery of apostasy. It makes no difference in godliness as to the privileges of Christianity. It is essentially and practically antinomian.

151 The next thing that may be mentioned is entire unsoundness of doctrine; the want of liberty which flows from this association with the world; assurance without discipline must be antinomian; and next the ascribing to ordinances an efficacy which makes the world without faith on the same ground as the believer; thus putting the ordinance in lieu of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to doctrine, we read in the second article, "That Christ died to reconcile His Father to us" - a statement quite inconsistent with the gospel on its fundamental principle, which flows from the Father sending the Son out of His own voluntary and uncaused love. This mission of the Father from His own mind is of the very essence of the gospel; the error is an abuse of one part of the gospel, in which Christ made satisfaction for sin, to destroy another, the fountain from which it flowed, in which God gave Him so to make the satisfaction. It strikes at the root of all the liberty and settledness of peace of the people of God. It is false doctrine, and all the liturgy is founded on the bondage. The litany especially, much as people admire it, is what no simple holy Christian could use. Can a body of Christian worshippers continually be saying, "Spare thy people and be not angry with us for ever"? If these are joint supplications, is the Church always to be under the sense of God's anger? There is a continual confusion in these supplications between God's people and the people of England or Ireland as being a Christian nation; and they treat the world even as in a Christian state, and are no prayers of the Spirit of Christ and for the Church at all. The fact is, it is a relic (as any one may see in the treatises on the common prayer) of superstitious processions, begun about the seventh century, to arrest evils. But it is not a Christian supplication at all, though there may be Christian things in it. I do not think any part of the Prayerbook recognizes the Church in the place in which God has set it of redeemed liberty in Christ, and because it is identified with the world, and therefore always labours and tends to keep down the Church to the level of its association with the world. In the assertion of provision for everything there is the assertion of fitness for nothing. If I make the common supplication of the congregation to say, "be not angry with us for ever," it is foolish to say beforehand, "let us rejoice in the strength of our salvation."

152 The fact is, the Church is labouring under kingly prohibition to the Reformers to act upon the light which had opened upon their consciences. We have this statement in the homily for Whitsunday, "The true church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine; the sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution; and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline."

Will the editor say that there is the right use of ecclesiastical discipline in the Church of England? If not, it is not the Church of God at all; and for the plain reason that holiness ceases to be a characteristic of it. Truth, fellowship and holiness constitute the Church: take away either, and the Church is gone. The two latter the Church of England has not at all: the former, defectively.

I have noticed one point, I shall mention another in which they are mixed up.

153 In the homily on "Common Prayer and Sacraments," we read, "And as for the number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness, and joining in Christ, there be but two; namely, baptism and the supper of the Lord. For although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin; yet, by the express word of the New Testament, it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign (I mean laying on of hands), is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible signs in baptism and the Lord's supper are, and therefore absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise; yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore, neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are."

Now here we have the annexing and tying of promised forgiveness to the visible sign, and this is habitual in the minds of most, as to the eucharist, where a man ought not to come except in full forgiveness. It is taught in the most objectionable way as to baptism. Thus "it is certain that children baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."

Now I am not here questioning the point of infant's salvation, but adduce it to shew that salvation is annexed to baptism by its own efficacy under all circumstances. Children who are baptized are undoubtedly saved: no wonder, if they are regenerate and have their sins forgiven them. As to both then we have the prayer, and the assertion, "Dearly beloved, ye have brought the child to be baptized. We have prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to receive him, to release him of his sins, to sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to give him the kingdom of heaven, and everlasting life. Ye have heard also that our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised in gospel to grant all these things that ye have prayed for, which promise He for His part will most surely keep and perform": and then: "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate," etc., and afterwards, "we yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit; to receive him for thine own child by adoption and to incorporate him into thy holy church." And he is asserted thereby to be made partaker of the death of God's Son, though not of His resurrection.

154 And in the Catechism the statement is made broadly that the child was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, which last indeed is made a matter of hope in the baptismal service. So in confirmation, "Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water, and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins." And so much is this the case that in the sixteenth article we read, "not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost and unpardonable." Why after baptism, but that baptism was regeneration and the forgiveness of sins? The whole statement is utter confusion, but it shews the place baptism had in the system. The prayer in the eucharist service is equally strange. "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ; and to drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body, and our souls washed through His most precious blood, and that we may ever more dwell in Him, and He in us."

Now these things really involve most important points of doctrine; they show a continuous system, by which though Christ has died "to reconcile his Father to us," the Church is still praying God may not be angry with it for ever, and seeking by the use of ordinances to make daily available to itself the security of averted wrath. I do not believe this is a correct view of the gospel, but puts the gospel and the Church in a false, an unchristian, position. It arises from the necessary sense of unknown and unascertained love and craving for mercy, which its identification with the unbelief of the world imposes on it. Let it have as much love towards the world as it pleases, but let it have the joy of forgiveness for itself. I repeat then, it is but the systematic perpetuation of unbelief, I do not say intentionally, but in fact. By asserting every one to be regenerate and in a state of salvation, it has lost for itself what it is to be regenerate and saved.

The next point is the want of spirituality of worship. This must be the case in its utter mixture with the world, because of the grieving of the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God is not looked for in worship, but instead of it prayers which must suppose the thoughts of the Spirit of God in the Church, and the wants of the saints to be invariable every Sunday in the year and all years; and capable of being appointed beforehand; and the incongruity of which to the real expression of spiritual wants is proved by their never being by any chance used by Church of England men at any other time than that in which they are prescribed by law. As a matter of fact, the worship of the Church of England is not the worship of the Church of God, not therefore spiritual worship, and consequently unacceptable to God. They do not reckon on the presence of the Spirit of God to enable them to worship, but have substituted the Liturgy in its stead, in which there are many holy things doubtless, but which are not the Spirit of God, nor are they necessarily the wants of those who may be there, nor are they gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They meet as the parishioners of a parish, not as Christians. The service goes on just the same whether there be a single person who knows the Lord or not, whether they are Christians or not, and if there be such there, they have not been gathered together in His name. Whatever form of piety, no stranger nor any spiritual Christian going in could feel that there was dependence there on the Spirit of God, nor consequently His presence there, because two or three were gathered together in Christ's name, unless for judgment on the form of it; and the general answer is, they go for communion between themselves and God. They confess that the communion of the saints is lost; but for the other home is a better place. But think of the whole congregation, taking them in their best light, getting publicly absolved every Lord's day! and I say it now not in reproach, but as showing the character of the service, and again, as a whole congregation of Christians, saying, "Be not angry with us for ever." Where is the peace and liberty of saints in this?

155 But the great point is, they do not meet as Christians leaning on the Spirit of God, but as men trusting to a form. It is vain to attempt to bring it to one's self, as the spiritual worship of believing people, the joint spiritual worship in whatever feebleness of believing people. Is there such a thing called for in the Church of God? Is it not its special character? The Establishment destroys any such thing. Hence the whole enquiry is, Is the gospel preached there? I want spiritual worship with the saints. I believe it the supply of God's goodness for our weakness, and the special privilege and comfort of the Church. The other is a form of godliness for the world, but indeed denying the power of it. Extempore prayers need not be spiritual, but the leading of the Spirit is the power of prayer and spiritual worship, expressing thereby its necessities; and daily reiterated forms cannot be assumed to be the expression of the Spirit's mind, though it may serve for the world who do not want it. It serves perfectly to prevent the ascertainment whether men are spiritual or not - the great object where the church is joined to the world.

156 I would ask godly Church of England men, why on every other occasion, they make use of what is called extempore prayer. Is the meeting of the saints, the Church, the only place where such guidance and assistance of the Spirit could not be? Or is it that indeed there is such mixture of the Church with the world that it cannot be; that is, that it is no meeting of the saints at all; and that dependence on the Spirit of God is given up, as in a place unsuited for His presence and help? The truth is, it is framed for meeting the world, and hence it is public worship: that is, of the world and the saints in the world, not the gathering into one, in any sort, the children of God which were scattered abroad. And here, while I acknowledge there are many saints in the Church of England, as we find Jonathan the beloved of David mixed up with Saul, I would notice what appears to me a very fatal consequence as to them, of this state of things, and of the whole position of the clergy - an habitual disregard to convictions of mind. The system being inevitably and infallibly tied to all these things, they meet every conviction with the feeling, "If I give way to this, I must leave the whole system." The consequence is, they endeavour somehow or other to repress, or else to quiet, the conviction by some subtle reasoning or general comforting persuasion - "I shall do more good by being here" - but the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and the honesty of their conscience and judgment impaired in its principles. If we suppress our conscientious convictions in one thing, it is not in that alone we suppress it, but we suppress the conscience itself, and we weaken the godly spring of judgment in it. There is not the same nearness to God of our conscience, the surface of it is hardened by the resisted conviction, and nothing tells upon it as it did. It does not tell so speedily, as by the presence of the grieved Spirit of God, the presence of good or evil. It is not, in the discernment of the healthful Spirit of God, God's index to the soul; the man ceases comparatively to be of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord. I have known a clergyman tell me, "he had no conscience"; another, "things were true, but he had no faith" - another, "that he thought he did more good by preaching against the principles of some of the services, than harm by using them"; and multitudes, "that though they did not agree with everything," though they signed that they did, "they thought they did more good, by staying where they were, than leaving it"; some that "the sixth article neutralized their signature to all the rest." I never found anyone, any believer that is, but a clergyman, say such things. I have known persons stay where a measure of actual evil was, which they had not signed, which they opposed, in the hope of getting rid of it; but I have not known any but clergymen sign what they did not agree to, or twist their consciences and judgment together in some way, so as to let their consciences slip through the difficulty for the sake of gaining an end. It seems to a simple Christian "doing evil that good may come"; for I am putting the best case for the clergy, and that no temporal motive actuates them in the least. I do not believe that one godly clergyman in the country until lately (for this wrenching of conscience has now, I believe, obscured many a spiritual thought) believed in baptismal regeneration - at least they preached against it. I do not believe, if left to themselves, ten christian clergymen in the country, until it became a matter of partisanship, would have used the public baptismal service as it stands; but they signed the approval of it, and used it, thereby not only grieving God's Spirit in their conscience but wronging the people by an untruth. They taught continually and repeatedly in their black gown contrary to what they used and declared continually in their white; and this has had a most fatal effect upon the conscientiousness of the whole body, and a most visible one to those who are free; and they may be assured that the perception of this is not confined to "separating brethren." Acting upon conscience they are pleased to call a morbid conscience. The tendency this will have in bringing in popery, I believe they are very little aware of: dulling the conscience is the great secret of that system, and in connection with the necessary value and power of formal ordinances. Dark as they may be, the high-church clergy are more honest in this. How deep a sin it is against the people, they must answer in that day.

158 But the editor of the Christian Journal has established us in the conviction of the rightness of our principle. If he tells us that we are weak and feeble, we acknowledge it altogether as thrown upon the Lord, but not without His guidance. He tells us, we are "separatists," "Israelites indeed in whom is no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good." I read that Christ the Lord "gave himself for us, that he might purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works." We accept the designation and crave of the power of His presence and Spirit, that we may abound more and more, that we may be more nothing, and His presence everything among us. We are not satisfied, nor shall be till the resurrection, if we are saints; but, apart from evil we see to be more every day, preparing to meet the Lord; and we would remind the editor that to continue in gross corruptions may be human wisdom, but we read "The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; to depart from evil, that is understanding."

We believe that the editor of the Christian Journal has signed many things which he does not believe, and is what he is by virtue of doing so; we cannot think that is right. I have refrained from entering into actual abuses; but when we look around, we see the effect of the Church of England system to be the destruction of pastorship as to the great body of Christians, and the large majority of them called so, not Christians at all; the abuse of ordinance to a frightful degree; the destruction of spiritual worship; the sanction of abounding iniquity, and the casting the reproach of schism and disorder upon the saints of God who labour in His name, or seek to keep a good conscience. And we do not think it requires a morbid conscience to have done with this. As to ourselves we are feeble and weak, but we are not careful to answer them in the matter: our God is able to deliver us through the fire we may be brought into, and He will deliver us; but if not, we will not serve their gods, nor worship the golden image which they have set up. They have taken the graving tools and got the gold (while our Mediator has gone on high, receiving the commandments of His grace for us) and put it into the fire, and fashioned it with the tools; and when we would ask, with the broken word in our hand, what did the people, or what the king that thou didst do this? we are answered, Providence, Providence. "There came out this calf." The principles of the Church are gone in it. The spirit of obedience is gone in it. They know not what is become of Him who guided them, and they have left the principle of obedience, the only guide meanwhile, and they have formed a guide for themselves, and called it a feast to Jehovah. They may be saved (indeed we would intercede for them), but their idol must go to the ground - it must be made dust of, not by man's hand, save the wicked "the men of God's hand," but by God's. "They have not continued in God's goodness," the Church has not; and the word runs, "otherwise thou also shalt be cut off"

159 And now I have only to add, what perhaps may seem an odd conclusion, that I look for no effect merely from these reasonings. If there be not spirituality enough to give up the Church on the highest principles, it is of little avail that reasonings convince; though, as a positive hindrance to truth and the opening out of real spirituality in the soul, I do sincerely desire every Christian to be out of it. I have only to add, that the reforms in the Christian Journal lead, as we have seen, to no real result. I do not believe the editor would now insert articles he did some months ago, while they plunge at present persons who act on his provisional plans into the worst principles of dissent. Thus in this Journal "On Hearing Sermons," we have this recommendation as "excellent advice." "As the gifts and talents of ministers are different, I advise you to choose for your stated pastor and teacher one whom you find most suitable upon the whole to your own taste, and from whom you are likely to learn with the most pleasure and advantage."

Now this is merely passing, from the confessed ruin which the church system presents of efficient worship and ministry, into the very worst principle of dissent, and that upon which more of dissenting and real evil is founded in the Church of God than perhaps any other - choosing teachers suited to our taste. It is in fact, much as the Church of England dislikes dissent, the only real principle of conduct it has left, but such a one as from one end of scripture to the other shall be hard to be found unless in "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." Unity I believe to be the most desirable of all things, but unity founded on godliness, the unity of the faith, the unity of the Spirit in a good conscience, and, as the apostle describes, "the wisdom from above, first pure, then peaceable." But Jehu's reformations will not save Israel from the judgment that is to come; no getting rid of mere abuses, though it may protract awhile in the patience of God. But the temple of God is lost: it is not Judah, nor ruling with God, nor faithful with the saints. May the Lord grant us to know our own feebleness, and purge us from all evil!

160 Before the above could be printed, the November number was seen late in the month, and the December number with an additional article appeared on the subject. It will not require many words. The early part of it strikes us as low, but so timid of the prophecies of the last proving true, that it convinces us rather of the uneasiness of the writer's mind on the subject than of anything else. In the close of it he recommends us (by a simile, if possible, more kind than even the early Quakers or Swedenborg) to be prayed for as apes. All this I would pass by; only hinting in all friendliness, that as to the Church of England, wherever it has been brought (it is his nurse-child, not ours), we hope he may get safe down without killing himself or his nursling. We simply disclaim all care of it. I am not aware of any dying Tostatus amongst his "separating brethren." But he has now ventured into scripture, and I cannot help feeling that as in the former part he must have been ignorant of the facts he spoke of, so here there is very great ignorance of the mind of scripture; but when it is quoted, it must always be met. The first part is so little to the purpose, from the character of the worship of the time, that it is difficult to deal with it; but the evidence it does afford is conclusive against the editor. It is perfectly clear, that separation from the public worship of Israel was a bounden duty, and there is express commendation of it in scripture. Does the editor mean to say that it was right for Israelites to continue in the worship of the golden calves - the sin of Israel; or to make the Church of England the answering analogy to the sin of Jeroboam who made Israel to sin?

The commendation of the seven thousand is that they had refused to join in the national worship, because it was corrupted with worldly practices. There were no such things as religious communities then: it could not be; it was not the form of divine worship to have churches. But they separated from the public worship of the country when it was corrupted, and were commended for doing so. And when even much less corruption than Baalim was practised; when the golden calves were set up in Bethel and Dan, pretended to be the worship of Jehovah but mixing for worldly reasons Egyptian practices with it, it is mentioned with honour that out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel separated from them and left the country; and if the editor had ever read the prophets, he would have known that their testimony was incessant against having any such worship. As to Jerusalem, no person could have gone from the Temple, or he would have had no sacrifice at all. When it was corrupted, they were bound not to join. As to Ezekiel, he prophesied in Babylon, and the people of whom he speaks were shut up in the city of Jerusalem besieged, but they were to be marked, because they sighed over the abominations. But the editor seems not to be aware that they were commanded by the prophet Jeremiah to separate themselves and leave it, because the judgment of the Lord was coming on Jerusalem, and that so their lives would be spared, and that all the princes and king, etc., were very angry because thereby they said Jeremiah was weakening the hands of all those who were striving to save Jerusalem and resist the Chaldeans. There is indeed nothing new under the sun; so that, far from there not being in a single instance anything like separation, it was commended or commanded in both the instances to which the editor alludes; when the church had become corrupt, and that even at the risk, nay the certainty (for they could be performed nowhere else, which is not at all our case), of losing the ordained and regularly necessary sacrifices of God. Thus we see, in the case when we might least expect it from the nature of the worship, it is exactly the opposite to the editor's statement.

161 Does he seriously mean to tell us, that the Israelites ought to have worshipped the calves in Bethel and Dan? It is quite clear, they ought not, and sinned if they did: ought they not to have owned therefore any God? ought they not to have owned, thanked and worshipped Jehovah? It is clear it was their very point of faithfulness to do so; and they were separatists from corrupt national worship for the Lord's sake, and worshipped as well as they could by themselves. Evil having got possession of public worship, they were hated just as much as, or more than, modern "separating brethren," hid perhaps by fifty in a cave, where of course it would have been a sin to worship Jehovah, or they would have been "separating brethren.

162 I protest, I cannot see what the editor means, but that Baal and the calves were like the Church of England, and that people ought to have worshipped at them. The former part may be true for aught I know; but certainly the scripture totally condemns the latter and makes it the very point of faithfulness that it had been refused, in spite of acts of uniformity by kings and queens; and this makes a wide breach in his argument. He says, "in their several places in the Church, protest" what Church? Were they to worship the calves, and protest against them? They did not worship with the nation at all, and could not: this was their protest, and the whole point in question, as it is now, and the Lord specially owned them because they would not, but did form a separate communion, and there were worshippers of Baal and worshippers of Jehovah, so that Jehu could separate them for the slaughter of the former. So it is now. It is not I who have drawn the comparison; but the conclusion is manifest - the protest of refusing to worship with them, and worshipping Jehovah by themselves at all cost, constituted the point of Israelitish faithfulness.

And now as to the New Testament: first, the Jewish Church in our Lord's time. It is a mere subtlety to call it a church; it was no church, but an outward prescribed form of legal sacrifices and ceremonies, ordained by God Himself, from which no one could wilfully deviate without sinning. As our Lord says, "not a jot or tittle should pass from the law, till all was fulfilled"; and our Lord being made under the law, having graciously humbled Himself to this, was bound to be, and would not have conformed to all righteousness had He not conformed Himself to it. Was a Jewish Messiah (as such, though much more, He then came) to have been the first to break the law God had given to the people He was of and came to? Who ordained the pattern of the Established Church? On what mount was it shewn unto a mediatorial Moses? We are getting into popery in earnest now. The church of Judaism, if he will call it so (for church it was not), was not corrupt, but the people were who ministered in it. The state of things in the ordinances was exactly what God had ordained, even to the tithing of mint, rue, and cummin: and therefore the Lord says, "these ye ought to have done." Conformity, therefore, was a plain duty: therefore the Lord says, "the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." They were prescribing Moses' enactment, by Moses' authority, and therefore, what they commanded was to be observed; but their works were not to be followed. There is no such seat unless we come to popery, or legal prescriptive ordinances in the Christian dispensation.

163 The confessed inventions of man we do not feel it necessary to follow: the works of those who assume the place we would for the most part avoid; but the simple answer to this is, that the temple was a divinely ordained system, and that the structure of the Church of England is not. Our Lord Himself therefore could not separate Himself from it. "He came to be the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God," to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and of course came in connection with them, would not go to a Gentile, and commanded His disciples not. But, consistently with this, He was as separate as He could be, living in despised Galilee, and choosing His disciples thence, from whom Jews were a distinct designation, as is manifest to any one well acquainted with the Gospels: but the moment our Lord died and rose again, the whole thing changed. The Church became partakers of "the heavenly calling," and the character of His priesthood, and consequently of worshippers under it, was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens. He was to be known in the Church, "not after the flesh," in which He was connected with Judaism, according to the faithfulness of God, but "the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." It was then not Messiah walking blameless under the law, but "what communion hath light with darkness, Christ with Belial, or a believer with an unbeliever?" The world was a condemned world, having rejected Christ; "wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

The Church of England and the editor of the Christian Journal will not obey this primary command, constituting the spiritual character of the Church as one with Christ. They will not "come out, and be separate," but say, under the sanction of the Irvingites whom they despise, that Christ can have communion with Belial. "Be it ever so corrupt, people ought to stay there." They have destroyed and corrupted the foundation principle of the Church of God, stated in that passage, that a believer cannot have communion with an unbeliever, that it is Christ and Belial. They would rather justify the worship of the golden calves, or Baalim, or Ashtaroth the abomination of the Sidonians, than have the trial of losing the support and comfort of the world. For my own part, I have no hesitation in saying, that were it to come to this, I would rather worship with two or three in a house separate from evil, though it were in every street of Dublin, than be deliberately mixed with evil, which the Lord must judge and set aside when He shall appear.

164 Such a state of things may be an evil and sorrowful state, but it is not the deliberate and haughty sanction of wickedness. They might have been destitute of the order and beauty of worship, and hidden in their caves on bread and water, but not sanctioning a system, in which whosoever would, people that were not priests at all, the king consecrates to minister to the calves, which are called Jehovah - the departure from the covenant of God. But I trust that the readers of the Christian Journal will remember that the principle on which the editor calls on them to continue in the Church of England is avowedly that which is built upon the sanction of, and continuance in, the worship of the golden calves of Bethel and Dan. I desire no other evidence of what the principle really is.

As to the principle of Jerusalem worship, it is simply this: the Lord had recorded His name there, according to His promise in Deuteronomy 12, and other places, and there He had promised to meet them, and there to bless them. The place where He has promised now to meet them is, "wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, there he is in the midst of them," Matt. 18. This is the constituent difference of the dispensation, the Lord taking care first to shew the order of discipline, by which a wrongdoer is to be put out as a heathen man and a publican. This then is the promise of this dispensation, that on which it hangs - the presence of the Lord "wherever two or three are gathered in his name." So even, while the temple was standing, the apostles went up there to teach, and broke bread (Acts 2: 46) from house to house, or at home. The Lord has provided comfort for His poor saints, seeking holiness in these promises against the haughty scorn of the sanctioners of corruption, of wickedness in the place of judgment. They know that however weak, yea, or failing in particular instances, it may be through their foolishness, gracious as the Lord is, they rest upon the basis of the whole dispensation; their adversaries, upon the corruption of its principle and alliance with evil and the world, which the Lord will judge. We would meet then in the Lord's name, and hail everyone, even though not perfectly one in opinion, who loved the Lord Jesus, and was led by His grace in truth and righteousness, resting in His atonement and resurrection, and subject to His will.

165 I do not believe that in any church of the Church of England, although I freely admit there are individual worshippers, they meet as two or three gathered in the Lord's name at all, or that His name consequently is recorded there to bless. The sermon may be blessed, or the individual may very humbly intend to worship God, but there is no blessed common spiritual worship; they are not met at all according to the Lord's commandment as Christian believers, nor are they addressed as such, when the clergyman speaks for himself, though he may do so when the Prayerbook speaks for him, thus making the whole thing a sort of mockery; in which the Spirit of Christ speaks one thing in the minister, and the form he reads another thing in the congregation.

And now to turn to the parts of scripture which do apply, that is, subsequent to our Lord's ascension.

"We find," the editor says, "the apostles and all the Christian Jews observing them with scrupulous exactness." I do not see any such thing. I see considerable and natural slowness in dropping what had ceased to be obligatory on those who had been brought up amongst them, and difficulties arising in the Church in consequence of their adherence to them, the attempt to maintain what had nothing to do with Christianity, and impose it, as the editor and his friends would now, but strenuously and steadfastly resisted by the apostle of the Gentiles, as marring the progress of the gospel, with one exception which we shall see just now. First Peter did not observe them, though he dissembled evilly about it, just shewing the effect of such things. Let us turn to Galatians: "but when some sought to spy out our liberty," says the apostle, "which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

166 This was the apostle's way of dealing with what was sought to be imposed; and we say, we cannot be subject to, nor worship your golden calves, though you may call it Bethel, and it may be set up where the pilgrim of God once was, with his staff in his hand, and God the portion of his inheritance, a wanderer for the sake of the inheritance and promise; yea, though it be the king's chapel, and the king's court. "Again when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; for before that certain men came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself [here is another sort of separation - separation from saints, not from evil], fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with them, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation."

Well it was for the Church of God, that there was one even then to stand out against these imposers of Jewish observances, that the truth of the gospel might continue with them. But what a picture of the effect of this continuance in the church ceremonies! dissimulation that jeopardized the truth of the gospel. But where was all the exactness of their observance? Not at all, till the fear of man and dissimulation came in; the two things which ever go together, and of which human ordinances, assumed to be divine or obligatory, are ever the instrument. Are there no Peters at Antioch now? Paul was a foolish man not to conform to harmless ceremonies! He knew they were the parent of dissimulation, and the destruction of the truth of the gospel, the moment they were made obligatory. And he withstood it to the face, and would not be in subjection for an hour. But it is clear, that the Christian Jews did not observe them with scrupulous exactness. Hear the bold apostle. "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

What does the editor mean by scrupulous exactness, except in the way of dissimulation? But let him hear the same Peter again, and he might learn a wise lesson about what creates separation. In the chapter he has referred us to, I read this: "God [says the apostle, now unburdened by his fears] which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as to us: and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? But we believe that, through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." And it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to lay no greater burden than certain necessary things, from which I suppose few "separating brethren," led of God, would be anxious to be free. Would (but God is wise) it had seemed good to others to observe the apostolic rule! To us, indeed save in love, it matters little, but we should have heard little of "separating brethren."

167 The editor states it was decided that the Jewish ceremonies were obligatory on Jewish Christians. This is quite untrue: there was no such decision whatever; if so, Peter was wrong at Antioch in eating with Gentiles, and Paul and Barnabas and all. Indeed, so far from being true, it would have been destructive of the whole order and unity of the Church, and is merely ignorance of the progressive actual freedom to say so, as it is contrary to the matter of fact in the scriptures.

But there is an instance of Paul's acquiescence in their prejudices, which the editor refers to. Not acting from the guidance of God's Spirit to himself, he takes counsel with flesh and blood. James and the elders advise him to volunteer in shewing conformity to the customs of the Jews, who were all zealous of the law of which, it is clear, Christ had been the end as to this. However (whatever Paul's full concurrence was with their counsel, which does not appear) he acted on it - acted on conference with the flesh and blood deliberately for the first time. But what was the consequence? It brought him into all the difficulties from which he had been praying and begging the church's prayers to be delivered. If Romans 15: 30, 31 be compared with Acts 21, it will be found that this very act was the source of all the difficulties which he had foreseen and deprecated, and besought them to deprecate so earnestly. God in His overruling mercy might turn it to good, as ever He will with His children. But it is a remarkable instance of the danger of temporising with fleshly conformity to prejudices, and not acting from the simple guidance of God's Spirit and word. They caught him in the temple where he, the apostle Paul, went to purify himself with the men, as if God had not accomplished these things, building again the things destroyed, tending to make "Christ the minister of sin." Two years' removal from all ministry, and deliverance to the will of the Gentiles, under God, was the fruit of his acquiescence in the advice of conformity to the Jews. It is wonderful while they so often deny Jewish hopes, how fond churchmen are of Jewish manners, and the rudiments of this world, which is all their ways are now. The apostle teaches in Galatians 4: 8-10, that for Gentiles to return to Jewish ordinances, habits and observances (now that God's sanction has been removed from that system, and it is consequently merely the world), is to go back to heathen idolatry and evil. They were desiring to be again in bondage to the weak and beggarly elements, from which, as idolatrous Gentiles, they had been delivered: for Jewish ordinances without divine sanction were the same thing, human inventions sought out, and the principle of heathenism and idolatry in the sight of God. For the rest, we have seen, it clearly was not Paul's habit among Jews, for it was Peter's dissembling led to it in Antioch, and to it Paul would not yield. As to "imposed to the time of reformation" we shall see its use just now. Only meanwhile we would recommend the editor's reading Colossians 2.

168 Now as to the Corinthians, the apostle's command was to come out from the midst of evil in the world; our word is the same now to Christians mixed with the world in what is called the Church of England; because there can be no communion between Christ and Belial. And till the Church had proved itself clear in this matter, the apostle would not go at all, but sent Titus to see how it was, and when he proved their entire subjection in the matter, and that they were clear, went then, for he wished to spare them; but he would not hear of what the editor now defends, nor go to the place until it was remedied. This is the instruction we have from the Corinthians - the instruction expressly that we are never to bear the mixture of known evil in the Church; that it is the horrible lie of the possibility of the communion of Christ and Belial, that they must separate from the world and not touch the unclean thing, and then God would receive them, and they should be His sons and daughters. "He would walk in them and dwell in them." "The old leaven being purged out." The apostle separated between the guilty and not guilty, and kept the Church pure. He did make separation, but it was by turning out the evil which the Establishment keeps and clings to. "If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No." "If one that is unclean by a dead body, touch any of them shall it be unclean? And the priests answered, and said, It shall be unclean. So saith the Lord is this nation, and so is this people before me, and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean."

169 As to the Galatians, there was nothing corrupt in the Church at all: they received false doctrine from other teachers which the apostle corrected; so of the other evils which arose in the churches. The apostle corrected them, and so held them together - an example in the matter, of course. When corrected, they had no need to separate. It would have been sheer madness to have corrected the evil, and told them to separate at the same time; a provision for separation, while the Church was planting in holiness, would have been simply denying His apostolic work, which was to form the churches on those principles which have now been departed from, so that which is called the Church is nothing but another aspect of the State.

But the Seven Churches "furnish cases exactly in point." They do no such thing. The Seven Churches exhibited churches formed thoroughly on sound principles - principles of not allowing evil; and because they did not act upon them, they were to be judicially removed out of their place, which they were accordingly. They formed the next step in church history to the epistles of the apostles, the parting warning from the Lord. The Epistles afford the example of apostolic energy in maintaining churches rightly planted in their right position of separation from evil, the apostle warning that he knew, that after his decease things would go wrong, and evil arise. The Seven Churches' epistles are the judgment of Christ on this subsequent state of things, the Son of man, but judging in the midst of the candlesticks - churches rightly founded, having generally ceased to be rightly ordered and therefore removed out of their place by the Lord's judgment, making way for the apostasy as "things that should be." Removal for practical corruption of a holy thing is the tenor of these epistles, the setting aside the church as standing in its first planting. But they were "things that are." As prophecies, if such, they have nothing to do with this question. The Church of England never stood on such ground at all - never was the subject of such judgment. It never was planted as a colony of believers in the midst of the world - removed when it ceased to act on the principles of separate holiness. It was the result of the union of the Church and the world in the outset; or rather the Church never came out of the apostate world at all, and therefore there were no principles on which to judge it, except general professed principles in Christendom. It never reached the point, nor sought it, nor understood it, in which these churches began, and on which therefore Christ judged them, for their departure from them. It never stood on their ground as to moral position at all. It is a perverted attempt to apply "things that are," as if it applied to "the things that shall be," which is a perversion of scripture. Christ's judgment was on "the things that are"; His prophecy of "the things that should be." If the churches be taken prophetically, I may apply the Philadelphian to the separate saints and Laodicean to those who are not. If this be set aside, and on which I do not now rest, then I say it was the Lord's judgment on the things that were, and the removal of them, because they did not conform to the principles on which the Spirit of God in the apostles, etc., had founded them, and which thereupon ceased to exist and made room for the apostasy; and that no subsisting church rests, or can pretend to rest, on the ground on which this judgment rests at all, for they are founded on the union of the Church and the world, which is the moral principle of apostasy, which resulted from the failure of the judged churches to maintain the principles on which they were founded. It was the warning of what led to the consequences which followed since, under which we are now suffering. In the Acts of the Apostles we have the founding of the Church on the principles on which Christ established it; in the epistles, the sustaining it by the apostolic energy of the Spirit; in the epistles to the Seven Churches, the judgment of Christ upon their subsisting state, as not continuing upon the ground on which they were planted; and, consequent upon that, the apostasy out of which we are commanded to come, from which it is our clear business to keep separate. Separation from evil - a peculiar people - the gathering together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad, are the meaning and purpose of God in the Church. In its institution, separated from evil, and secured by the energy of that preached; and death, or immediate rejection for inconsistency by the presence of the instantaneously detecting power of the Holy Ghost, that its meaning and character might be adequately exhibited as pattern in the outset; then the apostles, watching, guarding, preserving, judging, and calling them effectually to correct themselves, as we see in the epistles. Thus evil was separated from them, when manifested among them. Then, this being inadequately performed, the judgment of the Son of man rejecting the churches, and threatening their removal if not corrected, which happened; and then the whole being in a fallen evil state, in which it was not only evil, but in the world (during which God has ever maintained a separating witnessing people, that it might be seen, He gave no sanction to evil) and, when fully discovered, the actual command - "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues" - separation then being so far from wrong that it becomes the test of obedience and faithfulness.

171 And now as to separating from the Jewish system, and the adherence of Christian Jews to it, we have seen the practice not to have been at all what the editor states it; but this is not all. There is upon the very ground of the Church being of a heavenly character, and having no portion in this world, a direct summons to go forth out of its now unacknowledged sanctity. "Christ, therefore [as the sin-offering was burnt without the camp of God] that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate "of what? of the world? Nay, of the holy city. "Let us, therefore, go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach." It is, when the Church thus is worldly and not heavenly, bearing Christ's. reproach to go forth without the camp. The camp was not Egypt, nor the city the world in form; but it was in character; and they, being heavenly "partakers of the heavenly calling," could have no more to say to it. This then was the positive direction to the Hebrew: separation from evil - separation from the world, both which are "enmity against God"; but we being "reconciled to God" is the essential character and meaning of the Church. It was for this Jesus suffered. "For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth." It is in this character He is our risen head and priest, "separate from sinners," "no more in the world." It is in this people walk, for this the martyrs suffered; it was for this John Huss was burned, and Wickliffe was persecuted. When it was reproved by apostolic discipline, the Church was kept separate from evil. When not, it was judged. When the Church coalesced with the world, it ceased to have any such character, and separation from it was separation from the world and, where this is not, righteousness cannot be. It must be maintained at all cost.

172 As to Jude, the editor's professed love to his "separating brethren" proves that he does not himself believe in its application to them; but our answer is this - separation from the Church of God we admit not only to be an evil but a totally ruinous evil. It is to leave the only holy sanctuary of God in the world, and it is the reckless doing and blasphemy of this of which Jude speaks. Does the editor really believe that the passages in Jude or Peter apply to his "separating brethren"? If he does not, why does he quote them? If he does, let him fairly state so. Either we are not Christians but totally lost persons, or Jude and Peter do not apply at all. These are the passages he quotes to condemn separation. They condemn separation from the Church of God - to mock, and walk after their own ungodly lusts and speak hard words against Christ. Does this apply to the guileless active Israelites? If not, it is entirely another conclusion which must be drawn from it - that the Church of England is not the Church of God at all: if it were, the consequences in Jude would follow; but if not, separation from it, so far from being evil, is but a bounden testimony against the pretences to be such, by which the saints of God are so deceived. The editor has spoken a bold word in saying that all who separate from the Church of England "are sensual, not having the Spirit." Is this his opinion of many of them? if not, is he not blaspheming them? much rather, incurring the charge of hard things spoken against Christ in His people? I count him much more a separatist in truth, who (when saints are trying to walk orderly, devotedly, and in grace) separates himself from them or them from him; because of lying and worldly ceremonies, most of which had long had the sanction of Satan in an evil world, but never that I could learn of God.

As to the only remaining passage which he could cull from all scripture against his "separating brethren" (besides these, which do but fully ascertain that the Church of England is not the Church of God at all, and which he knows are not applicable), to that from 1 John 2: 19, they plead or I plead entirely guilty. "They went out from the Church of England, because they were not of it." They have not left off being Christians, but though once many of them were in the Church of England, they were not of it - they did not really in spirit belong to "a hierarchical system, inconsistent with the progress of the gospel"; and consequently sooner or later they went out from it; a system where practical abuses (as the editor has taught us in a previous number) flow not from casualty but from the source of all its appointments being corrupt and worldly. I repeat, they have agreed with him, and they have acted on it, in humble trial and sorrow - he has not. He, perhaps, may be of what he has thus designated, and therefore has not gone out from it; they were not, and consequently have. Whether they are sensual, not having the Spirit, God, and not the editor, must judge. If not, the editor has not a single text of scripture to plead against it, nor could he (while the holiness of God remains) find from His word a sanction for continuance in known evil. The editor may speak of remedies, and mend the Church in connection with the world. His "separating brethren" will seek by grace to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man, and to keep themselves, waiting for His appearing, unspotted from the world. They rejoice that in all the word of God the anxious care of the editor can find nothing to charge them with but these passages in Jude and Peter, the application of which may prove apostasy in the Church but not in those who separate from it. We would recommend to the editor 1 Samuel 22 and he may see, though unowned, where God's king, God's prophet, and God's priest may sometimes be found, and what sort of people are around the king What a judgment would have been forming of David's cause by the world then!

173 As to things imposed till the time of reformation, it is hardly worth while to any Christian acquainted with scripture to refer to it. But I need only remark that, instead of sanctioning the Jewish Christians in the exact observance of their ordinances, the apostle (as is the tenor of the whole epistle) is pressing on them that they had no obligation on them at all, now Christ was come, their calling being heavenly in union with Him, as their High Priest not in this world at all: that they were merely carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation, figures for the time then present; and that they were identified with the way into the holiest not being yet manifested, but that, Christ being come, they had passed away. He having entered not into holy places made with hands, figures of the true, but into heaven, they had no longer anything to say to Him. The Church of England, by the editor's confession, just returns to and imposes them, witnessing that to her the holiest is not made manifest, and that, in lieu thereof, she is imposing carnal ordinances, not having come to that "time of reformation," in which the glory and high priesthood of Christ took the place in the Church of these things. This is exactly our complaint against her; and we do not wish to be bound down in this confessed evil bondage. It is exactly the editor's confession; she has not entered into the heavenly calling and priesthood of Christ. Her services are bondage; her ordinances carnal; the time of reformation in a heavenly calling has not reached her soul; she is still seeking a priesthood on earth, not a portion in heaven; she was founded in what was earthly, and never got out of it.

174 As to the degeneracy of the age, which is noticed and denied in this number, we believe the editor is most awfully and guiltily misleading the Church. As to Ireland, we have noticed the inconsistency of his statements; and (while it is against the direct testimony of scripture, declaring that things shall go on, as in Noah's days and Lot's days till the Son of man come, days in which men despised warnings as much as the editor does now) nothing but the grossest ignorance of the state of England could lead him to such a statement. He confesses that crime is largely increased, but he says it is among the rabble. Yet how comes wickedness to have increased so much among them? But, in truth, this is the least part of the evil; the universal degeneracy of principle with much profession, and the great progress of infidelity, of atheistical principles, and the spirit of rebellion against lawful power, which is identified with these principles, and the slight of testimony and judgment, the "where is the promise of His coming" (in which the editor takes his part), are far worse signs of apostasy and judgment than the petty acts of evil which are but accompanying results.

The editor makes it his business to prove the world better, the world that rejected Christ. In this we believe he is most ruinously and desperately deceiving the Church of God. It is this which would make us decided. He rejoices in the increasing circulation of his Journal: I fear, and I say so sincerely, in proportion as it is of the world, the world will love its own. The editor rejects and slights, in ignorance we are assured, the warnings and judgments of the Lord, and therefore recommends continuance in evil. He denies, as a thing in which the Church of Christ has any present concern, the coming of the Lord, and therefore must be the instrument of darkness and of error. I do not doubt his desire to serve the Lord generally. In this point he is surely in utter and mischief-working blindness; and his labours can but serve to bind the blind in the error they are in.

175 Separation from godly persons I deprecate as much as he; I desire union with them as earnestly, much more earnestly than anyone I know; but to go into ungodliness to be one with them is impossible for the saints of God.

I look for better things for Ireland than I do for England as to its state, but not by the saints continuing to sanction and be mixed with evil, as he would advise.

If they do not discern "this time," let them at least of their own selves judge the things that are right. We would just refer those who have the Christian Journal (I have but my Bible with me here and a borrowed liturgy) to the "Ten Bishoprics," in No. 14 of the Christian Journal; the leading article on Church Reform in No. 6; the two leading articles in No. 10; and compare the petition with the "Ten Bishoprics" in No. 14.

The claims of the Church of England considered;

being the close of a correspondence between the Rev. James Kelly, of Stillogan, Ireland, and J. N. Darby.

<14007E> 176

Introduction

The only thing necessary to be explained in the publication of the following correspondence, is the fact of its having been published after so considerable a lapse of time. It will be seen by the correspondence itself, that one of the parties declined pursuing it farther.* The other disliking contention, and weary of it, much preferring direct edification, had this additional motive for not taking any positive step namely, an unwillingness, unless by what was identified with direct edification, to raise questions in public on what had the reputation of protestant truth, in the presence of error, which lifted up its head high enough.

{*An additional letter has since been sent, which is added at the request of Mr. Kelly.}

Some brethren in Christ who had seen the MSS of the correspondence, urged by the actual state of things in England, desired particularly the publication of the last letter, adding the last of Mr. Kelly's,* that it might be understood, or of all if that were demanded. Under the circumstances he wrote to Mr. Kelly, acquainting him with what has just been mentioned, and asking permission to satisfy the wish expressed of publishing the last two letters. At first Mr. Kelly required the publication of the previous part of the correspondence, which was acquiesced in, as indeed the other party was naturally bound thereto if demanded; but in a subsequent letter Mr. Kelly declared his mind changed in this respect, and acquiesced in the publication demanded, the following communication being annexed.

{*Now the last but one.}

177 TO THE REV. J. DARBY.

Stillogan Glebe, Dublin,

January 28th, 1842.

My dear Sir,

In reply to your letter from Lausanne, which has just reached me, I hasten to say that since our last correspondence I inquired after you several times as to whether you had returned to this country, with a view formally to decline pursuing the subject of controversy between us any further; but hearing you were still abroad, I did not think the matter of sufficient importance to communicate with you by a foreign post. I now avail myself of this opportunity to let you know my decision. The grounds on which I have come to it are these: first, the inutility (in many of my respected brethren's estimation) of disputing with you; second, the accession of care and occupation connected with my appointment to this parish, which I was led to reflect afforded more profitable exercise of my little talents than carrying on a discussion with the leader of an extravagant class of schismatics; third, the little hope I entertained, after reading your most diffuse and incoherent reply to mine of February 8th, 1839, of being able to bring you to the real point at issue between us.

As to the publication of the letters to which you allude, I have no objection if you see fit, although I must confess I do not attach to them the importance which you do. I have only to request that you will annex to them the following observations by way of explanation of some passages in my letter which you have misunderstood, and of final comment on some sentiments of your own.

I remain, my dear Sir,

Yours in Christian truth and love,

JAMES KELLY.

The observations themselves, alluded to in this letter of Mr. Kelly, are placed at the end, as coming then naturally in their place after the letter on which they comment.

With this brief introduction, acquiesced in by both parties, as to what has led to the publication of them, these letters are now submitted to the reader, with the desire that the Lord may use them for the establishment of truth, the strengthening of souls in it, and the refutation of error.

178 THE LETTERS

TO THE REV. J. DARBY

Liverpool, February 8th, 1839.

MY DEAR SIR,

Though I might recount many other adequate causes of my silence since I received your last, yet I must say my chief reason for not being more prompt has arisen from the very uninteresting reply you have given to mine of December 12. It really appeared to me evasive of discussion. I asked you, in order that we might come to the argument of the subject at once, to allege your grounds of separation from the communion of the Church of England - a very straightforward question methinks, and the import of which was very obvious. But instead of a plain answer, as might have been expected, you occupy a considerable portion of your letter in making reflections on me as "an adversary," as you call me, of whom you add "nothing" (Christian, I suppose, you mean) "is to be expected." You then quarrel with my assuming that you have forsaken the Church of England, as though this was not the case (remember, I did not say the Church, but the Church of England); and, lastly, you give out your impressions against the character of the Church of England, erecting them into assertions, and dilating upon a new and better way, as you are pleased to think, adding in the meanwhile not one syllable, not even professing to do it, of argument to bear out your assertions. Now, my dear sir, I feel from this, as well as the loose character of your former communications to me, that it is vain to expect from you anything like an orderly and intelligible vindication of your views. In this respect you seem to write as you speak. I therefore propose for the future, without waiting for such, taking up just as they come your aspersions of the Church of England, and the peculiarities of yourself and brethren as dissenters, sifting them as the Lord may enable me, and bringing out the truth as distinctly as I can, for the perusal of all who may see our correspondence.

First, then, you say that the world is in the Church of England. What do you mean by "the world"? Is it the openly profane and ungodly? This we deny. The Church recognizes as her members only those who are baptized into and make a solemn profession of "the truth as it is in Jesus"; and all those who scandalize their profession by evil lives, are, by the discipline of the Church, to be excluded from her communion. Do you mean earthly-minded professors? In sorrow we assent to the sorrowful truth of this. St. Paul wept over such in the Philippian Church, and the same, we have reason to believe, abounded in the Church at Corinth. There never has been, and there is nowhere upon earth a pure Church in the sense of excluding false, worldly-minded professors. Or do you say that the constitution of our Church, looking at our articles and formularies, is worldly? This I deny, and call upon you to prove the statement, if you make it.

179 Worldly professors, then, being in the Church of England, which is all the amount of meaning that your charge has in it, what is the duty of God's children who are also within her pale? This is the fundamental point of difference between us; this is the question which, troubling the consciences of our dear people, gave you the occasion - which, alas! you have industriously improved - to separate them from us. You hold and teach that it is imperative on the faithful to come out from the communion in which are the unfaithful. To use your own words, they are "to cease from the evil": to more than this, in the first instance, it appears you do not aspire. Mr. Hargrove says, "Do you see the evil? Then cease from it; let that be your first step - God will shew you the next when you have taken that." In other words, we are to take a leap in the dark from the Established Church, not knowing where we shall land, nor why this course. Is there no evil bound up in the body of flesh which you carry about with you? is it not even hindering the regenerate spirit, lusting against it, "a vile body," as the scriptures call it, and to continue to the last? And yet you do not recommend the withdrawal of ourselves from the body, that is, suicide that be far from you; but why not, according to your principle above laid down? Are we not afflicted with an evil companionship, so that by reason of it we often "cannot do the things that we would"?

To such a proposal as this, of course, you justly reply, The word of God says we are to bear this conflict between the flesh and Spirit, wrestling with the former, though in the flesh not walking according to it, which, so long as we attend to, we are told it is no more we that do the evil, but "the sin that dwelleth in us." Precisely similar, then, is what the scriptures say in the case you put of Christians being in a church in which there is worldliness. Look at the declension on the part of the Jewish Church throughout their history. Behold also the prophets testifying against the evil, but yet remaining members of that church: and if we turn to the New Testament scriptures, what do we find there? The account of churches which had become grievously corrupt; even exhortations to the faithful within their pale; but in no instance separation enjoined. Take the churches of Thyatira and Sardis for examples. In the former it appears a false prophetess was allowed to assume to herself a commission from God, and to teach men to commit fornication, and judgment is denounced in consequence. But what is said to the remnant that preserved their allegiance? Is it, Flee out of her form yourselves into a new Church? This would be your remedy; but such is not the injunction of Jesus; it is simply, "That which you have already, hold fast till I come," Rev. 2: 25. As to Sardis, we read there were but "few names left which had not defiled their garments"; but even here there is no recommendation to separate (Query - Is not this the secret why you and your party deny the Church of England to be a Church at all, to get rid of such passages as these?)

180 We do find separatists indeed spoken of elsewhere (Jude 13); but it is in a bad connection - in company with "murmurers, complainers, and mockers," the inscription over whom is "sensual, having not the Spirit." I can readily receive separation to be the easy course to take - easy to flesh and blood; just as in the degenerate Christian family, for the member who walks close with God, and is anxious that all the domestic arrangements should be characterized by the spirit as well as the form of religion - for him to withdraw himself from the sphere in which his bearing and longsuffering tenderness, alternately with his faithfulness, is exercised, and either live by himself in solitary communion with God, or unite with more kindred spirits - all this would be comparative enjoyment, but then it would be a selfish enjoyment; it would be a pleasing of himself - a "looking on his own things, not on the things of others." He has left the family circle which he should have dearly loved; in which, as it was his duty, so God might have made it his privilege, to witness for His truth, and promote a revival of the power of vital godliness. Of course, if there were rules laid down for the regulation of the family, or doctrines professed by them at their family altar, at variance with the word of God, separation would be lawful, though even then it should be resorted to only after the most patient zeal in striving to effect a reformation. But I have supposed the family only to have declined in spirit, and that their professed reverence for, and outward observance of, piety still existed; and under these circumstances it is plain that the rending of unity of the domestic circle would be quite inexcusable. Though separation might spare the individual in question many an exercise of his grace, yet it would be wrong.

181 Now this, I conceive, aptly represents the case of the Church of England and you separatists. There has been a lamentable degeneracy among us, though, praised be the Lord, a considerable alteration for the better is taking place. But as a Church we profess God's truth, which, handed down to us in our venerable formularies from apostles and martyrs who have gone before us, we have neither added to nor taken from. The deposit of Christian doctrines is with us as a Church, and our people (however wayward they may walk) yet profess adherence to it. But how have you separatists acted? Instead of resting the lever of your brotherly love and Christian devotedness upon this important fulcrum of the church's still faithful profession, and bending all your energies to effect a revival in the family, you have selfishly withdrawn yourselves from us, and, aggravating the degeneracy in which you should have sympathized as members of the body, have contemptuously left us under God's judicial sentence - "unnatural sons," says Bishop Hall, "that spit in the face of the father that begot them, and the mother that bore them."

Thus, my dear sir (I trust speaking the truth in love), I have alleged selfishness of conduct against you and your party: may it not be possible, I would add, that there attaches pride to your procedure also? We know how insensibly it works; "a sin," as some one observes, "that rises from the ashes of other sins," mingled among a company whose title, many of them, to the Christian character is almost defaced, except to the eye of charity which "hopeth all things." The shining graces of individuals are obscured; but when they come out and stand apart in a little body by themselves, ah! then they attract notice. While they remain in the church, serving the Lord with humility, supporting the weak, comforting the feebleminded, restoring the offender "in the spirit of meekness," Christians are like the convalescent patients we sometimes see in an hospital tending their fellow-sufferers; but these persons, we can imagine, might get impatient of their charitable office, and, revelling in the consciousness of strength themselves, might not brook being confounded longer with the diseased and dying, and so depart from the asylum that had been so blessed to themselves. Alas! my dear sir, while I write it, the apprehension of something similar having to do with the course you are pursuing, and persuading others to, growingly presses on me. I do not say this is the case, and I heartily pray it may not be the case with any of you; but you must see how incident the evil is to the procedure you have adopted; and as one who is in the flesh himself, I cannot but remark it. Would to God the people who have gone out from us would reflect upon this! They felt the cross of having to witness for Jesus, and keep their garments in the midst of declension and inconsistencies around them, which was the school for them, and they were thriving in it; but alas! they forgot that this might be the case; and enamoured of the prospect of purer communion (apart from the embarrassing presence of the worldly), and of the conspicuous position they would then stand in, they embarked in the enterprise of dissent. They know, perhaps with bitter disappointment, the result that, while the tares are more like wheat, they are bound up with them still, only closer than before; and that the liberty of ministry which you have among you is a sorry substitute for the solemn responsibility of office in securing edification. Would to God, I say, that with the experience to which I know some, not unlike your party, have been brought, you would all "search and try your ways," and see if the flesh, with its ten thousand labyrinths, has not betrayed you into your present position.

182 Having thus briefly vindicated the Church of England against your sweeping accusation of being a worldly system; shewn - and that even when there has a tide of corruption set in upon a church - separation is contrary to the mind of God; and having suggested some dangerous motives which may be operating upon you, I come to analyse for a moment your improvement, as you think, upon ordinary dissent. For you must know I cannot suffer you to disclaim altogether affinity with common dissenters: the only difference I see between you and them is that, according to the genius of the day, you are more latitudinarian. Until your views came out, it was thought that the dissenting bodies in this country had become grievously lax in their principles in order to effect unity: the followers of John Owen, for instance, changing pulpits with the followers of John Wesley - each party, for the time being, keeping in abeyance those doctrines which were obnoxious to the other. Even the heterogeneous materials of Calvinism, Socinianism, and popery, appeared not long ago combined on the subject of political agitation; and at this moment, in the national system of education for poor Ireland, we see the sad spectacle of representatives of these several classes sitting in conclave to determine how much of what each maintains to be truth is to be sacrificed at the shrine of the popular idol, unity. I, for my part, did not think that latitudinarianism could go beyond this. But you and your brethren have found out a still more comprehensive ground of union. You propose to unite all classes, not by the old-fashioned way of endeavouring to banish "erroneous and strange doctrines" - the fruitful parent of strife - but by cushioning them, and inscribing upon your standard only one or two articles of faith as essential: and really while I admit this, that you have set your seal as a body to any truth, I do not know that I am altogether right, for where is your confession of faith to be found? If you say, In the written word - well, the Socinian professes to find his there too: is he therefore admissible to your communion? I believe not; how then do you exclude him, since you have no defined standard of truth? Why, it is by using a standard stealthily and in private, by secretly defining what is truth. You have your touchstone of error in each of your breasts. The leaders among you appeal to it as occasion requires, and thus the Socinian is excluded; but, by the way, where is the security for your continuing to exclude him? That touchstone of unrecorded opinions within you may change, so that the sentiments which are not congenial to you today may become so tomorrow. Not to diverge, however, from the point - you do exclude the Socinian, though in an unsatisfactory way: do you exclude any others? Roman Catholics? How do I know this? Pascal and Fénelon - and doubtless they have their successors in our day - would be as devotional as any of you in speaking of and extolling Jesus. If you have no other test than this, why the wafer-idolaters may come among you, and be called brethren! If indeed you have your mental touchstone to apply to their views, you are free, I will suppose, from the intrusion of both these obnoxious classes, though I leave it to you to shew your consistency in recognizing what is truth in their cases, and then stopping short. Do you not see, my dear sir, that at the very point your recognition of truth ends, there your admission of error begins? And here is your latitudinarianism. Let men but profess their belief, as your phrase is, "in the blood," and then, whatever be their heterodoxy, they are admissible among you - Baptists and Paedobaptists, Arminians and Calvinists, Millenarians and Anti-millenarians, Quakers, etc. Your cords of union are indeed lengthened, but alas! how superficial the truth they circumscribe! The ordinance of baptism, though a command, cannot be administered among you; the doctrine of God's electing love, the second advent, the agency of the Spirit in the Church, cannot be introduced at your meetings, forsooth, because the moment you touch upon these topics your boasted unity is at an end. Doubtless, it has happened because of the paucity of your numbers, and their select character, being chiefly from the one communion, that you have had somewhat more of liberty than I have described as the tendency of your system (though, by the way, I saw myself the elements of discord working among you at Clifton); but according, I repeat, to your latitudinarian principle, coming together only as believers in the atonement, this liberty you have had does not legitimately belong to you. Just as in the national system of education, when the teacher goes beyond the books of extracts, he transgresses the rule, so when in your assemblies for worship you touch on ground other than what is common to you as Christians of all denominations, you violate your principles. The only way you can fairly get out of this bondage is by determining your views of doctrine, and authoritatively setting them forth. Then indeed your ranks will not present so party-coloured and motley a group, but they will be sadly thinned; and if you have not your Thirty-nine Articles, like the Church of England, which you affect to despise, yet will you have some "Shibboleth" which will get you the character you are now giving others. You see how involved you are in a dilemma: either you meet on the common ground of one or two truths, and then you cannot go beyond them in your teaching; or you have a regular system of doctrine, conformity to which is expected, and then you are inconsistent, for you repudiate all confessions and creeds.

184 But now to another subject. You say that the Holy Ghost is not honoured in the constitution of our church. Your letter does not explain where the hindrance lies; I guess, however, what you mean, from your addresses which I have heard, and your brethren's publications. It is because, it seems, we admit an ordained ministry among us; that is, by ordination we give authority in the church to those whom we believe endued with the necessary gifts, and called by the Holy Ghost. Mark, we do not arrogate to ourselves in the first instance, as our liturgy testifies, the selection of our ministers; but those who appear by their solemn profession and examination to be called by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the office, we ordain to it. Why, my dear sir, you do yourselves something similar. Those who commend themselves to you by their gifts, and as apt to teach, you yield submission to; and they act as pastors among you. I remember, at your late meetings at Clifton, asking Mr. Hargrove how he took upon him to expound scripture to his assembled brethren one morning, and his answer was to this effect, "You and some two or three others had arranged it previously." You see, then, you have authority exercised among you, though in a covert way. The difference is, that we demand from all candidates for the ministry among us, Do they believe they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the solemn office? And so far as man can go, we see that we are not imposed upon, by requiring that they be persons well reported of, and of competent knowledge in the word of God. Whereas you, by a sort of whispering debate among those who are the managers of your party - irresponsible persons, determine who are fit to teach, and who not. There is with you no solemn examination of the individual by those who have authority given them in the Church; there is no fasting or prayer previously, to implore the guidance of the Holy Spirit; but just according to the way the individual pleases his hearers, and it might be by sparing their sins, your selection is made; and then it is only for the time being, for you may supersede him on the morrow; and all this most inconsistently, for he may affirm that the Spirit has moved him to speak, just as confidently as you affirm you are moved by the Spirit to silence him. I ask, my dear sir, Is God a God of order? and can you say that amidst this confusion the Holy Ghost is honoured among you?

185 To sum up in a few words this part of the matter, there must be authority used in the ordering of the Church; and while is conformable to the general rule laid down in the word, it is as absurd to say that this introduction of it hinders the Spirit, as it would be to contend that the use of types, ink, and paper is officious meddling on our part to preserve the scriptures, and that it interferes with the agency of the Spirit. Authority, I repeat, must be had recourse to; and we maintain that ours is conformable to the general rule laid down in the word of God; but while you have authority among you in a covert way, it is capriciously exercised according to no open acknowledged standard; and thus, while our dear people whom you have got among you are taught to flatter themselves that they are free from the yoke of man, you and the other managers of your party are virtually their lords; and if your own minds receive an evil impulse, God knows what mischief you may inflict upon them; or if you are preserved (and I pray the Lord you may, and, further, be reclaimed from your present schismatic course), other leaders may arise among you, men of parts and ambition, who may become the worst of spiritual despots.

186 On the whole, my dear sir, I think I have proved that your system has not originated in obedience to the word of God, and that its tendency is most pernicious. Here I would be content to close my letter - beseeching the Lord to open your eyes, and the eyes of our dear people who have been decoyed away from us by your vain (though, I admit, sincere) representations; but your letter turns to personal matters, upon which, lest you should be offended if I were silent, I beg to spend a few words.

First. You reproach me for challenging this discussion; but this I leave. If I were in the strict sense of the term "the challenger," as I said before, it would be only conformable to my ordination vow.

Secondly. You go back to what transpired at the Clifton meetings. All I shall say to this is, that I am surprised at your venturing to allude to the subject, after your shrinking in the manner you have done (I allude to our correspondence) from, on the one hand, the vindication of yourself from the uncharitableness which (on the testimony of your own brother, Hargrove) I alleged against you; or, on the other hand, the honest confession of your fault as a follower of Jesus.

Thirdly. You do not understand, you say, my regretting that this is not a viva voce discussion - time, manner, and place being left entirely to me. On this I beg to observe that, independent of my unsettled circumstances in the ministry at that time, and which occurred to disturb my original design and wish, and of this you were duly apprised, when I came maturely to reflect upon the novel position I should occupy in going to Hereford, or any other place where your party was, to argue against you, as though my brethren in the ministry stationed there were not fully competent, if they approved of such a course, to enter upon it themselves, I recognized it as providential that the alternative of the press, through which without indelicacy I could meet you, was suggested by you instead of the platform. Not but that if, in the providence of God, you or any of your party broaching your schismatical views came within the sphere of labour under my control, I would for a moment hesitate to challenge you to oral discussion. I think it a sad pity when it is a legitimate course to adopt, that my reverend brethren do not pursue it, though, as I told you, a most valued brother said he thought it would be making too much of you.

187 Fourthly. With regard to the publication of our correspondence, I shall go as far back as you please. It was really for your sake - your first letters were so unchristian and slovenly, as well as that they related to personal matter - that I proposed omitting them; and if you name any medium in England through which the whole correspondence can appear, I am perfectly content. I think the Statesman would be available for Ireland.

I remain, my dear sir,

Yours in Christian truth and love,

JAMES KELLY.

Stafford, February 26th, 1839.

DEAR MR. KELLY,

I am glad we are at last launched in the subject; it is a great relief to my spirit, though not a pleasant task in itself I received your packet from Dublin in London, I suppose by private hand, and sit down at once to answer it, having run it over as I came down again here.

Your letter has completely justified to me the ground I took in my last letter to you; satisfactory, if not to you, at least to others, whose minds were anxious on the subject. All your present letter goes on the assumption exactly of what I refused to acknowledge in my last - no attempt being made on your part to prove it. In replying to the question, Why I left the Church of England? I replied, Not that the world was in the Church of England, as you say no such thing at all; but that I found the system I was mixed up with to be the world, and not the Church of God at all. This is a very distinct thing from worldly people being in the Church.

188 I said to you very plainly that your question assumed that the Establishment was the, or a, church, which I did not admit. Now this is a very plain ground. It is to me precisely the ground of importance; and a plain truth which, when once apprehended, frees the conscience of many an anxious person. The position in which you desired to place me is also evident from the expression, you will take up "my aspersions of the Church of England." I have no pleasure in casting any aspersions on it: to free my own and others' conscience from all that may be or tend to evil, I do desire. Further, sir, I have to admit that the manifested progress of Popery, of which the system of the Church of England is the instrument, renders me less jealous and less anxious to avoid the plain expression of what one may feel painfully, and yet, from ten thousand associations, be unwilling to declare, lest some rude Edomite might suppose for a moment one felt with them. My mind has long admitted its tendency, and I have acted on it. The signs of it are too publicly apparent not to call forth at least some additional warning voice. If mine be so very feeble and despised, as I am sure it is, may the Lord give it truth and affection, and therefore His own force. The Oxford Tracts and their prevalence cannot but have drawn your attention, as they have of Bishops and even newspapers; and recently we have had a very remarkable sign of the times - the highest ecclesiastical authority in the country pronouncing a definite judgment that prayers for the dead are not inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church of England. You may say this is not right: her godly ministers protest against it. Be it so. They cannot help it; and if they say, We declare it is not right, then is the judgment of God on them, because they will not plainly act on and abide by what is right, and renounce what is wrong. What is the resource from the evil proposed by the Record? - An appeal to the Privy Council! What a condition for the Church of God to be placed in, that, when a heresy comes in and is sanctioned, its appeal is to the Privy Council to get rid of it! But I allude to this merely as a sign; and whether the church exculpate herself or not, a sign it is to them that have eyes to see.

189 I believe, dear sir, this, that at the time of the Reformation two great elements entered into the composition of the Church of England, as it is called: one, the power of the Spirit of God in the preached word, which was directed against the Church of England (or of Rome in England then subsisting) and which was carried on by a system of irregularities - Latimer, Bernard Gilpin, and a host of others, many whose names are better known in heaven than on earth, preaching and teaching all about the country, without regard to parish or anything - but which was the power of light against the power of darkness, and that was blest. The other element was partly through the fears of churchmen, and mainly through the interference of the Crown and secular power - a system in which, in order to maintain unity in the whole country, and that even to conciliate Roman Catholics for political purposes under Queen Elizabeth, a vast mass of association with Roman Catholic forms and the value of ordinances was preserved and asserted, by which a connection with the great apostasy was kept up; which, although the power of truth and the providence of God may have a long while hindered its effect, is now beginning distinctly and publicly to show itself, and will, I have no doubt - woe is me that I should have to say it - result in this once comparatively happy country being immersed in and given up to darkness and opposition to God. Can you suppose, sir, that this gives me satisfaction or pleasure in saying it? The Lord knows who grieves over it most - those who sanction the system that leads to it, or such as in sorrow of heart have gone out without the camp, though bearing His reproach, and in word and work become a witness, however feeble.

A man cannot, while acting in and sanctioning a system which involves these evils, honestly bear witness against the evils he partakes of and upholds. The whole system is thoroughly woven together. He subscribes his assent and consent to all and everything contained in it. Satan, under divine permission, has been allowed to force the adoption of all or none; and makes the single sentence, or word, or even form of appeal, as necessary to unity, or to living honestly in the church, as justification by faith or anything else. This is the position of a minister of the Establishment. It cannot be denied. Mr. Head, near Exeter, is a public instance lately of the truth of what I say. But though the truth might be preached by individuals, which I do not controvert, the consequence of the preservation of this popish parochial unity was the entire forfeiture by the Establishment of the title to being a church at all - not merely by accident, but by its very essence and system. There was a transfer of all the inhabitants of a parish to a protestant form from a popish, but no gathering of saints at all. It was matter of legal penalty not to go to church. The parochial centre was there; the minister the law provided was there; the legal right to seats was there; the whole framework of ordinances for the whole parish was there; and, I repeat, there was a legal penalty for not attending. These are matters of historical fact. The whole population, as such, were transferred in geographical divisions to another form of worship; and there was no gathering of the saints, though there was to a considerable extent the truth preached.

190 That was the system of the Church of England, not its abuse. Those who refused to come were termed popish recusants, and dealt with as such; and those whose consciences refused submission were very extensively subjected to punishment and imprisonment. And this is still the boasted principle of the Establishment. The toleration that there is, forced on by the consciences of others, has in nowise altered the principle of the Establishment. Her boast is that she provides religious instruction for the whole population of the country: into the truth of this we may shortly inquire, but it is her boast; but when I begin to seek what is meant by religious instruction, I find this a most deceptive and inadequate statement. Her system, be there instruction or not, be there bad or good, is a system of ordinances by which the whole population are received as Christian, whether they believe or not, and are dealt with as such by her ordinances, with which, according to her directions, they are all bound to comply: so that those who do not are called recusants, dissenters, and schismatics. Thus it is really a provision, not for the instruction of all, but for calling all Christians, whether they are so or not. Do I go into a town or country parish, if there should not be any dissenting body, it would be the boast that they were all Church of England people; though a Christian minister within her pale would perhaps avow he was satisfied there was not one who was a Christian, or knew the Lord, amongst them, and would preach to them as entirely unconverted people, and often does so very faithfully.

191 You say that discipline is to be exercised. In fact, it is not, nor could be, scripturally; if it were, it would be merely to make the world decent, not to keep the Church holy; and discipline with unbelievers is merely entirely deceiving the souls of all, the height of confusion and absurdity. My assertion then is, that the Establishment is not, unless in self-assumed responsibility, the Church, or a Church, at all - is not a body that God owns as such, save for judgment. And yet she treats as schismatics those who separate from her pale.

This short remark sets it clear. If a man left the Church of God, he was out of the manifested body of God's saved people altogether. But further, if a man at Corinth left the Church of Corinth, he left the Church of God - he left God's assembly. Could this be said of the Church of England? I find no such thing as a national church in scripture. Is the Church of England - was it ever - God's assembly in England? I read of the churches of Galatia, which was a province or country, that is, God's assemblies in that country; but the very idea of an assembly of God is lost in the claim and boast of the Establishment.

Now, dear sir, instead of this being an aspersion on the Church of England, it is her boast. In her effort to build new churches now - may the Lord turn it to blessing by sending the truth into them, for He is sovereign, and not tied to our ways or any but His own - her plea is to keep pace with the population, not with the growth and extension of the Church of God. Such is the practical evidence of a fact too notorious to require much proof.

If you refer to the Irish canons, I think the sixth (I have but my Bible with me here and a borrowed liturgy), you will find that the parishioners are to go to the sacrament so often, or to be forced by penalty of law. An analogous canon, not quite so violent in form but the same in principle, will be found in the English collection. What has been the consequent history? For I may be told that these are obsolete: when we turn to facts, we are told that they are abuses; when we turn to documents, we are told they are obsolete. But facts and documents alike prove that, in the principle of the Establishment, "the Church and State are but different aspects of the same body," to use the expression of one of her distinguished defenders. Hence I am relieved from the thought altogether (save in sorrow for the saints in her pale) of leaving the Church of God, when I cease to be of the Establishment. If you are not the Church of God in England (and such a pretence is idle), then, save the importance of avoiding the deceiving myself and others, my having nothing to say to you can be of no sort of consequence. You tell me to remember that you did not say 'the Church.' If you are not, as far as England goes, the sooner I have done with what pretends to be and is not, the better. It seems to me to be an awful thing to pretend to be the Church of England, if you are not the Church of God there. Whose church are you? or what new thing have you introduced?

192 These are questions which ought to be answered before charges of schism and dissent are launched out so readily against those who cannot form their consciences on the model of a church which is not the Church of God. How is it schism to leave you, if you are not the Church of God? What is schism? Would it be schism to divide Turks, or to divide Christians from them? Would it be schism to seek the unity of all saints, apart from the world? Were the Establishment blameless, to force a weak Christian's conscience on an indifferent point would be schism. But what do I find in the history of the Establishment? Why, that in order to enforce unity, or rather uniformity, and that even in apparel (and that can hardly be necessary for the unity of the Spirit), nearly two thousand of her godly parochial ministers were rejected at once. If it be said, This was by Act of Parliament, not by the act of the church, I answer, then you have for secular reasons made yourselves the slaves, the helpless slaves, of whatever the world chooses to impose upon you; and that in the most important point of ecclesiastical discipline. And the unhappy excuse (what a plea for one who is jealous for the actual real maintaining of Christ's honour in the Church!) that the parliament and king are part of the Church! Who made them its judicial visitors? But even this poor excuse is taken away now, and we have the modern evidence that Roman Catholics, Socinians - in short, the world, can dispose of the whole ecclesiastical arrangements of the country; and a Chancellor of the Exchequer can get up and say he has considered the state of the country, and it can spare ten bishoprics, and they are taken away. This may seem to your minds order; but to us the authority of Christ over His Church seems cast to the winds by it, and His honour despised. And I cannot but feel it preferable in ever so lowly and despised circumstances, and that without the camp, in ever so much acknowledged weakness, to wait humbly for the guidance of the Spirit and the word of God, in the sorrow into which all this worldliness has cast the Church of God.

193 If I be asked by what authority I do these things, my answer is an appeal to the plain righteousness of the case, and the refusal on such a charge as schism to reply to the inquiry whether the Establishment is the Church of God or not, or even give a plain answer whether they consider her baptized children regenerate or not. If I be told as to the Act of Uniformity that it has ceased to be binding, I ask by what authority? Is schism to be permitted by Act of Parliament? When the Act of Uniformity, that great public act of schism, was found politically intolerable, the authority which had tried to force unity in a worldly way sanctioned, according to church notions, schism in a worldly way.

Such is the history of the Church of England. To turn to scripture or its idea of a church, no one thing the least like it can be traced in the New Testament, or Old either. When you speak of the world being in the Church, in the sense of it as referred to in scripture, it could not be in the Establishment. I admit there were false professors - but how was this? While the Church was in a state which scripture recognized at all, I read of false brethren coming in unawares: this could not happen in the Establishment. There is nothing for them to come into unawares. All, false and true, are bound to go there; and if they preserve a good worldly character, welcome in theory, and without it even in practice. In scripture I find a within and without - a direction to judge them that are within. This state of things does not exist in the Establishment. Her aim and boast is to have the whole population within. I repeat, there is no pretence of being a church at all.

And really, sir, when you deny that the openly profane and ungodly are in the Church of England, in your own sense of it, you make an assertion of a very strange character to those who are familiar with facts. People's consciences must answer this for themselves. Will you allow me to ask you, and beg you to read it over, Is the Commination Service intended for the members of the Church of England, or for those without? for believers or unbelievers? for people under the law or the gospel? But I will not suffer myself, in the Lord's mercy, to be led away from great principles. I believe it was meant in honest hatred of sin. I honour this. But on what ground it can be defended by a minister of the Church of England now, it is hard to tell. Were I to use an argumentum ad hominem, I could remind you that, in the homilies, the right use of ecclesiastical discipline is one of the three marks whereby the true Church may be known. How this consists with the Church of England being a true Church, and avowing what it does in the Commination Service, is hard for a simple mind to tell.

194 You can now pretty well understand why I speak not of the world being in the Church of England, but of its being the world and not the Church at all. It is notorious that, if they be not actually dissenters, the population of a parish, town, or county, if they be in pitch darkness, are all members of the Church of England, so called. They would call themselves so. They are called so, and boasted of by their ministers as such. They are entitled to be received as such, if not notoriously profligate, though they may not be able to tell you who Jesus was, and deny in their ignorance every truth of the gospel. And that this is a fact, and not a fiction, is known to every one acquainted with the state of the country. That is, the world, behaving themselves so as not to shock public decency, are entitled to be received at communion, because the system rests on ordinances, not on faith. And a minister faithful as to the truth he preached would address the whole congregation in the services of the Church of England as his brethren and as the Church; and when preaching to them, perhaps honestly and faithfully tell them they were all unconverted, and unless they repented they would all perish. In a word, he would address them, when he told his own mind as faithfully serving Christ in the Spirit, as unbelieving sinners; and when he recited the church's forms, and told hers, as congregated saints. Which is right? But, first, which is true? Who is the faithful minister (I put it to your own conscience), the man who in a dark parish, or as to the great body of every parish, preaches the gospel to them as sinners, poor lost sinners, or the minister who treats them all as the congregated Church of God? The latter minister, on your own statement, and the clear avowal of the Prayer Book, acts in the mind of the Church of England.

195 The truth is, you have two irreconcilable elements at work within her pale - truth in the hearts of many of her ministers, and in a feeble measure in her Articles; and a system of old bottles, which cannot bear the new wine of the kingdom. In these times of God's dealings they cannot both go on together.

I say, then, that the constitution is worldly, because she contemplates by her constitution - it is her boast - the population, not the saints.

If circumstances have driven many outside her pale, she treats them as dissenters and schismatics, and so do you, and therefore in principle avow and admit the charge. The man who would say that the Church of England is a gathering of saints must be a very odd man, or a very bold one. The parishioners are bound to attend by her principles. Are they all saints in theory? If you say, Yes, I answer, then it is not God's theory, and judgment is pronounced on the question.

But there are other points connected with this point of theory and discipline, which are to me very important.

We are habitually told not to judge, and this sounds well; but it is a very awful and anti-gospel, and at the same time a very hollow, principle. True it is that I am not to pass a human judgment on a brother, as regards God's final estimate of him; nor to speak, he being before me as such, as to God's present acceptance of him. This is clear; but to treat all as Christians, because they have been baptized in their infancy and connected with the formularies, is a very uncharitable deception, and you know that as a Christian minister you do not. The system of your church may do it, but I am persuaded your heart does not; it could not if the Spirit of Christ's love be there: neither then should our acts or words. They forget that Christianity begins with this, "The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." And if a system of ordinances have concealed these truths, if the Church has learnt to rest in the ordinances in lieu of life and its necessity, it is just in the practical state of apostasy from which I have to flee, in love to my own soul and that of others.

Next, I believe that the notion that I cannot recognize brethren as such is an abominable delusion of Satan to the destruction of the grand witness of Christ on the earth. I am told not to judge who are and who are not. I answer, the practical recognition of them is the principle of the dispensation. Knowing that all are dead, the recognition that any are alive is the joy of charity. Their corporate union and worship is Christ's witness in the earth, "that they may be one, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." And though the disregard of the unity of worship of the saints, known to each other as such, may seem to a carnal man as charity, it really destroys all the first springs of holy affection. What would come of family affections if all were reduced to uncertainty as to who was a brother and who was not? How can I greet with cordial affection as of one heart and one mind my brethren in the Lord, if I do not and am not to know who they are? Is there not, according to scripture, to be some set of people who are all of one heart and one mind? Is not charity injured, and God's witness of love from each injured and destroyed by this cold and heartless doctrine, that I am not to judge who are brethren and who are not? Love the brethren, says the Spirit of God. Nay, I am told you must not judge who are and who are not. The first precept of charity is annulled by this system, "Hereby shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." How can this great witness and test of discipleship be manifested if there be not a mutual recognition by the disciples of the Lord as such? This fair form of worldly charity is, I believe, a very evil delusion of the enemy. And is it not the fact that you do judge, preaching to many as unconverted, and conversing with others as saints? You must do so if you have the Spirit of Christ.

196 Further, as to discipline, there is not otherwise a body capable of discipline as led of the Spirit of God, by which alone it can be rightly exercised. Discipline by a body of unconverted persons is ridiculous. A remark of your friend Mr. M'Neil is an evidence of this. He says, speaking of those who complained of mixed communion, "Have you followed the scriptures? If your brother has driven you from participating in this ordinance, he has certainly trespassed against you." This is a poor and strained way of taking a brother's trespass against me, and it is besides a piece of sophistry; for my difficulty is, not that my brother has trespassed, but that you have by your system gathered a heap of people who are not brethren at all, and would reject and scorn the title of saints in heart and life, so that it is a very poor sophistry. But let that pass. "Have you gone to him alone?" says Mr. M'Neil, "then taken two or three more? and, if that failed, then told it to your minister?" Why "your minister"? because the use of the scriptural direction would have laid bare the inconsistent and absurd position he was in. If he had said, Tell it to the Church or assembly, every straightforward person would have seen its absurdity: there was really no Church to tell it to. But to be in a position which obliges one to change the word of God is just the expression of unwilling consciousness that the word of God condemns my position. It condemns it in the very point at issue between us. Thus holy discipline is destroyed, as well as charity, by the world being called the Church; and "put out from among yourselves that wicked person" is as impracticable as "love the brotherhood." Everybody knows the fact.

197 Now as to one or two objections you make. First, you refer to Israel. There was abuse, you say, but they were not to leave it. In the first place, we are not Jews but Christians. Judaism was an elect nation; there could be no such thing as leaving it: Christianity is not, but a gathering of saints. God has not recorded His name in the English nation; but wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, there is Jesus in the midst of them. What the temple was to a Jew, the gathering of the saints is to me. My complaint of the Establishment is that it is not, and never was, a gathering of saints. If a man ceased to be a Jew, he ceased to be of God's people altogether. That nation and its ordinances were wholly, solely, and exclusively God's people, sanctuary, and place: to leave them was to apostatize from God. They were gathered, not in spiritual worship, but to carnal ordinances, imposed not by conversion of heart but by Jewish parentage. The Church of God alone is analogous in one place. The Establishment has no pretence to be what Israel was as God's only place of abode. Where Judaism and Christianity are entirely different from each other in principle, in naturalism and obligation of carnal ordinances, there it has followed Judaism, and then uses this as an argument why it should not be left. If this argument proves anything, it proves its apostasy. Two or three gathered together in Christ's name have the authority of unity which Israel had of old, not a sorry imitation of that which the gospel treats as beggarly elements, and now equivalent to idolatry (see Gal. 4) and carnal ordinances. Israel, I repeat, was a national election; Christianity is not. The laws of the country were God's own laws, the presence of God was there, and the abuses and corruptions did not alter that. A person could not leave it, and be in the place of God's worship and God's ordinance. Now the place of God's worship and God's ordinance is where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name; and this the Establishment is not, but a provision of ordinances for the population in confessed imitation of Judaism.

198 Next you refer to the seven churches. This there is more occasion to answer specially, as it is the common resort of argument on the question. The simple answer is, they were God's churches or assemblies in the place mentioned, and they could not be left; corruptions are no ground for leaving the Church of God. The Church of God cannot be left, and a man be in the path of salvation in so doing. These were the churches of God, the assemblies of God, in those different towns-gatherings of saints, although carelessness had introduced corruption. The Establishment is not this at all. Were the apostle to address an epistle to the Church of God which is at Liverpool, or London, there is no gathered body distinct from the world who could receive and act upon the letter. Where the epistle says, Ye have among you such and such, and calls for repentance, were they not to put them out, or would they otherwise have repented? Where is the body, then, which could act thus, when you are preaching to an indiscriminate heap of unconverted people? In a word, there was a known body which could act by the leading of the Spirit of God. There was no direction to leave these churches because they were churches. The Establishment has no such claim; and I do not leave it properly, but have nothing to say to it, because it is not one. The Establishment does not, nor ever did, stand on the ground of these churches or local assemblies of God at all, and has no principle of their structure, order, or constitution. I should think it a great sin to leave a church of God because corruptions were found in it; but the Establishment is a great national, secular system, and not the Church of God at all.

Another assertion you make is, I have evil in myself, and that I cannot leave, and therefore it is a hopeless thing to seek purity. This (forgive me for saying it) is an ugly argument. There is no hope: we will continue to do evil. But it is a poor piece of sophistry. I cannot leave the evil in my flesh, so I remain in the body. I can leave the evil around me, so I am to remain in that too. You will admit this is not very strong reasoning. But more plainly, the Lord says, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." He does not say, Come out from your body. The Lord says, "If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel made unto honour, fit for the master's use." I cannot have done with my body, though I may mortify it and treat it as dead through grace and infinite mercy. The Lord says, "From such withdraw thyself": I cannot from my body. The Lord says, speaking (I believe you will agree with me) of these latter days - days it may be not fully ripened, still they are now the last days, "From such turn away." From my body I cannot turn away. The answer simply then to this is, that the Lord has commanded me to come out and be separate from the world; He has not commanded me to come out of my body. Is your argument really a righteous one in this?

199 One only remark, I believe, remains in this part: your objection to ceasing to do evil before we know to do good - taking, as you call it, a leap in the dark. Is it taking a leap in the dark for a Christian ceasing to do known evil, because he does not yet know all the Lord's subsequent will concerning him? Are we to say, I will not act on what I do know, till you tell me all my course on to glory? I have seen the Lord thus continually exercise His children, giving light enough to make a thing a matter of plain Christian obedience, and not shew all the happy and blessed and full consequences, till faith acted on that. It is just a holy and excellent trial of faith. He says in principle, I am the door. The mind may say, Where to? The Lord answers, I am the door: and wherever the soul finds Christ or the will of Christ, it, if walking in faith, trusts that, and the blessing follows. It soon goes in and out and finds pasture. You seem to forget the praise of Abraham's faith was, He went out, not knowing whither he went. It is better to trust God in doing His will, than the consequences which doing His will may produce, however blessed. Now surely it is of Christ and the will of Christ to cease from known evil. If you call this taking a leap in the dark, Christ's will - and surely it is His Will to leave known evil - is not darkness to us, but light, for which our poor foolish souls are thankful. Nor shall he that follows Him walk in darkness, though he may only know that in the very next footsteps Christ has gone before him. And if you would know our experience, sir, we have not found it darkness but blessed light; we have found our own weakness, and the poverty and ruin of the Church; but we have found marvellous and abundant light in the Lord, though light affliction for a moment might accompany it.

200 As to the Corinthians, though the principle is unaffected by it, it is perfectly plain that the worst among them was a Christian, though a fallen one. The habits of the Establishment seem to have confounded decency of morals and deportment with the very faith of the Church of God. As to the Philippians, that corruption and apostasy were then rapidly flowing in on the Church of God is unquestionable. I do not see that these people were at Philippi, and therefore there is no consequence to be drawn from the passage. With regard to Jude (if you do not believe that we are wandering stars, reserved for the blackness of darkness for ever, ungodly men before ordained to this condemnation, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness), you are not - forgive the saying so - quite honest in quoting it. Do you believe this? But there is a little circumstance in this epistle to which this convenient word "separate themselves" seems to have blinded those who quote it in the Establishment; and this is, that these persons had crept in, not gone out. This you will admit is a material point. They were corrupters come into the once pure Church, not saints gone out. They feasted with them. They were spots in their feast of charity. Your charge against us is that we have gone out. Yea, and because we feared to feed ourselves without fear where evil was. I think if you examine the word for "separate themselves" (apodioriz) with the context, you will find a very different force in it from that which you attach to the English phrase, as a convenient placard to the eye against those whom you condemn - to a well-instructed mind one of no great difficulty.

And why do you say you find separatists in bad company? I read, "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." Do you believe in fact, as an honest man, that these latter characters apply to the greater majority amongst ourselves, or the professed members of the Church of England? And just allow me to ask you also, why you state in the outset that I complain of the world's being in the church, when you, in speaking of the seven churches, give a reason why "our party" say the Establishment is no church at all? All the character you give yourself of alternate tenderness and faithfulness, and our comparative enjoyment by selfishly quitting the family, I pass by; great comparative enjoyment indeed I believe we have had, not in selfishly pleasing ourselves. But the point is, What is God's will? One charge is, that you have called that the family which is not the family at all. And if you have lifted up your eyes and seen the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, and then found yourselves in Sodom vexing your righteous souls (for such I admit there are), you have nothing to boast of in that sort of patience. We prefer the place of Abraham, and give it all up to you, trusting that the Lord will deliver you too; but see no motive to follow your example, or to associate ourselves with that on which the Lord's judgment is coming - and coming on it you yourself, I bless God, do not deny that it is.

201 I have now, in reply to the earlier part of your letter, spoken of the great principle on which I rest, as an obedient servant of Christ, in not recognizing the Establishment as the Church. I must now - a much more disagreeable and painful task - refer to the plainer facts of the case, and some of your own documents, shewing its working, and how it is mixed up with the canonical principles of the Establishment. I have preferred resting first on the great principle, partly because I am replying to your letter which does so, and partly because the plea of there being abuses does not enter into the question. The real subject is fairly before us; and effects, what you call abuses, act most directly upon the conscience, and therefore are most material in this question; for all healthful action is action by a conscience led of God's Spirit and the word. And if, in the whole arrangements of a system, there be a constant violation of the laws of Christ and His will and righteousness in the Church, it becomes impossible for a righteous man to act in it or with it. This, I repeat, is a much more painful part of the subject. It is pleasanter far - oh, how much so! - to keep the soul in the unsullied regions of Christ's blessedness; and one has to watch one's treacherous heart, lest one should begin to rejoice in iniquity, because it proves one against whom we are contending to be in the wrong And I feel that one is not fit to speak of evil to another, unless we can bear its burden in sorrow of heart before the Lord as our own burden in their behalf, at least for those that are saints, beloved of God, the pure and holy One. Controversy tends to destroy esteem, and to make us prove rather than cover the sins. Still you have compelled me to state the facts, which are plainly inconsistent with God's righteousness in the Church of God.

202 In the first place, then, pastorships, or what hold their place in the system, are publicly bought and sold, or at least the right to appoint to them. At this moment the Corporation livings are on sale. I remember a town where the next presentation to a living was sold to enable the Corporation to build (or pay for) a theatre. I have one now with me copying this, for whom a living was bought as provision for him as a younger son, and he then of course was to be brought up at a University for the ministry. But the placards of auctioneers and the advertisements of newspapers are evidence that the pastorships of the Church of England are bought and sold in the market like other property; nay, if I am to believe Mr. M'Neil, they are consequently appointed because they are unfit (see his Letters on the Church, in a note, I think, to page 104). Do you think this consistent with the order of the Church of God? You will tell me this is an abuse. Is it not sanctioned by the courts of law, by the ecclesiastical courts, by the institution of the bishops, so that the Church of England treats anyone else but the person so holding it as an intruder and schismatic? It is the consequence of that organized connection with the State which makes it the National Church - the Establishment.

There is another thing besides that. Some one has a legal secular right so to present, giving secular advantages, and therefore temporally cognizable as a right by the State. It is the horrid price you pay for your specific and formal character. I do not understand how, if all the spiritual and temporal authorities of the system treat as an intruder and a schismatic anyone else than the person so appointed, the appointment can be called an abuse. If you say it is, comparing it with the Church of God as displayed in the word, we are agreed indeed; but then it is in this abuse that the system and order of the Establishment are entirely, and fatally for its character as a Church, at variance with what we find in the word of God. But this is exactly what presses, and justly presses, on the consciences of the Lord's people, and compels them to disown her authority and her state. You may tell me that such or such instances are abuses; but I say that it is just as abhorrent to the principles of the Church of the living God to have a good man or a society buy up livings as to have an infidel do so. Do you think an infidel ought to have the right to present anyone to the pastorship of a place? Perhaps indeed by the system of the Establishment there may be no saint there, but by the system of the Establishment it is perfectly competent for him to do so: he may be seized of or purchase the advowson, and the bishop must admit his right, and institute his nominee, and treat all else as schismatics and intruders. You will say his nominee must be a clergyman. Be it so; but by reason of the system of national advantage, the bishop is bound to ordain, if there be no legal reason to the contrary. And supposing the clergy to be all faultless, do you think it is the system of the Church of God that an infidel should have the right of choosing the pastor of a place? How would such a system have appeared at Corinth or Ephesus? Is it in principle - I do not talk of abuses - the system of the Church of God? But it is the system of the Church of England. Her system is a system of parochial geographical divisions, to which certain legal rights, privileges, and emoluments are attached. This is her boast as contrasted with what she calls dissent, by reason of which the appointment to these geographical divisions is vested as a right or privilege in some one or another, it matters not who. Now I say this, let it be ever so well ordered, is not the system of the Church of God at all. Mr. M'Neil says this is a disgusting ingenuity of abuse. How is the legal authorized system of the Church as such? I leave the hard words with him; I have only to say if this be the system, it is not the system of the Church of the living God.

203 And now, sir, will you shew me one document or formulary of the Church which says the patronage of livings and other benefices, or the sale of advowsons, is an abuse, or disallowed by the Establishment? If you can, I can only say, to gain the world's advantages you have reduced yourself to an impotency of doing right, and this is no place for a Christian to remain in. Further, I have heard it asserted, as a matter of triumph by evangelical ministers, that there are probably near three thousand evangelical ministers now in England - that is, ministers who, they reckoned, held the gospel of Christ, and were Christian men. There are, I suppose, about twelve thousand* ministers in England, more or less. Now what is the nature of the system which, under plea of providing instruction for all, and charging all not within her pale as schismatics, has, when her state was boasted of as remarkably improved and under blessing, provided that three-fourths of the population should be taught contrary to the gospel? and that whoever did, under the blessing of God's Holy Spirit, go and preach it, these should be denounced as schismatics and intruders? - that three-fourths of the pastors of the Church of God, according to them (if not, avow you are not the Church of God, and cease to talk of schism and dissent), should not be Christians at all.

{*[There may be now nearer twice the number. Ed.]}

204 These are things inexplicable as a state consistent with being the Church of God, to one who has read the word of God, and drawn his ideas therefrom, and not from habit or tradition. Indeed, sir, there are little expressions habitual with ministers of the Establishment which shew they are not conversant with the idea of ministering in the Church of God. I read, "our people," "our dear people," and hear, "my flock," and "why do you intrude on my flock? "Who made them your people, or your flock? An apostle would not, nor the Spirit of God, have called them so. He would have spoken of the Lord's people, and the flock of God. How could a servant of Christ, ministering holily in whatever gift God had given him - an Apollos at Corinth, or Priscilla and Aquila at Ephesus, or anywhere else - have been intruders on the flock of Christ? They were part of it, wherever they were, and to serve in it as able and bound so to do. But all is altered with you. You have not even - forgive the word - the ideas connected with it: your speech betrays you. And why? Because you are a minister, even if true, of such a parish in the Church of England (your flock perhaps not Christian, nor the Church of God at all), not a minister of the Church of God.

Again, sir, who appoints the chief pastors of the Church of England? In fact, the Prime Minister of the day, for any reason perhaps that suits his convenience; the fact is well known, and facts, sir, are important to conscience. The Church of God ought not to be trifled with by theories, while the sheep of Christ are actually scattered. It seems to me to be a very evil sign, when the spirit is pressed by the actual scattering and wrong done to Christ's sheep, to be told there is such a document which shews the theory of my system is quite right: these are abuses. The Spirit of Christ cares for the sheep of Christ, dear sir, and not for neglected scraps of paper. But I take the theory; for I wish to avoid resting at all on abuses. The king appoints them. If you tell me there is a congé d'élire, Mr. M'Neil shall answer you in the note previously quoted, that the king does really appoint, for by the theory he nominates the person to be so elected. In Ireland they are appointed directly by the king's letters patent. What part of the system of the Church of God is this?

205 And let me here remark, that an appeal to Church of England documents is in many respects a very fallacious mode of judging, for the most material and distinctive characteristics of her system are not found there at all. The work of ordering, governing, and directing the Church is entrusted to persons chosen by the head of the secular authority of the country; and here, again, the whole principle and theory of the Church of God is contravened and set aside, not by the abuses but by the order of the Establishment. How can I own them as bishops (supposing me a rigid Episcopalian) appointed by God, when I know they have not been in theory so appointed - that the whole is a mere secular affair? You tell me they must be clergymen, and be thirty years of age. Is every clergyman of thirty competent to be the chief director of the Church of God? Is that God's theory, or is He the endower with needful gifts for His own work? One who believes, then, God to be the author and gatherer of His own Church, and the divine Orderer of its government, can find neither the body nor the guidance or order of that Church in the system of the Establishment; and, as Mr. M'Neil justly says, no reform remedies this, while the principle continues. The effects shock the conscience; the principle is judged by the spiritual mind taught by and formed on the word of God.

Supposing a child of God in a parish where the system of the Church of England has placed a minister who does not know the gospel, but preaches quite the contrary; and in the communion of the Church there is no one who owns the gospel on which communion is founded: here are the effects which try the spirit. But the person is bound to abide and hear error taught and souls deceived, and to own as one body (and thereby help to deceive them) those who are entirely unconverted, because by the theory of the Church of England he is Christ's minister and they are the Church. If such a person does not, he is schismatic and a dissenter. Supposing two or three in the same circumstances, and they cease to own those who by their profession of doctrine are not believers, as ministers and the Church, and they meet because Christ has said, "wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," they would be set down as wilful schismatics; but according to the word of God, they would be really the Church of God in that place, let them be ever so feeble, and have no minister at all - despised perhaps by those who had thousands to fill their aisles, and the respectability of ecclesiastical associations to clothe their forms, but not of God.

206 The promise of the Lord outweighs to faith all these charms on the imagination - these goodly stones and gifts; and how strong they are my own heart well knows.

I speak not, then, of abuses; but will you say that it is the theory of the Church of God that the king should appoint the chief pastors or bishops of the Church of God by his letters patent? or whether it be the system or principle of the Church of God, or compatible with it, that the appointment of the pastors should be in Landlords, Corporations, Universities, the Crown, or whoever may buy them? and whether you are to be content with the scattering and grieving of Christ's sheep produced by such a system - a system sought to be enforced by the secular arm, to the expulsion of thousands of devoted ministers; and then what is called schism tolerated by Act of Parliament, because the social effects were mischievous - a system which contemplates not the Church of God but the population, and secularizes the Church of God, by forcing the population to be all one with it? And let me add this question: Can you, while I do not admit the propriety of staying a day in connection with such evil in a system, by your own confession not the Church of God - can you give the smallest rational hope of the change of the principle and theory from which all the evil flows - that the king, or the landlords, shall not nominate the pastors, or advowsons be sold? Can you say that such a system is the system of the Church of God according to the word of God?

But I have said enough to shew the principle on which, in conscience before God, I act, and must disown the system before me as the Church of God; and to dispel, I trust, however feeble my thought (and I admit it humbly and sorrowfully before God), the prestige of a sort of hallowed obscurity, soon to merge, I am fully persuaded, in the darkness of popery, which perhaps, by its claims and influence, may deliver the nominal church from the incubus which presses down the Establishment as it is, and satisfy the desires of the Puseyite schoolmen who, though I believe honest (for I know their views well), are as inconsistent as they are mischievous; for the secular bondage of the Church is a very Babylon in the mind of an honest theoretic successionist. I would add a little word to them as well as to you, that it is all but perfectly certain that the root of the English succession was an unconsecrated man; I once pursued the point with a good deal of research. And thus by their system they will be easily thrown, when it is pressed home, and they ripen a little, into the necessary arms of undisguised popery. Such is the prospect which your cherished Establishment is engendering for us - not willingly, I freely admit, in the minds of many of her members, but helplessly, because she has tied herself to the car of the State, not to dependence upon God; and wherever its interested or careless wheels roll on, she must go, or cease to be the Establishment. Her efforts, therefore, are to control the State, not to follow God, because she is bound and governed by it - not obedient in freedom and simplicity to Him. "She is my sister, not my wife," acquired for Abraham cattle and Egyptian riches in abundance.

207 I would now turn to the documents of the Establishment on the two main points connected with the subject I am upon - the constitution and membership of the body, and the ordering of the ministry. I have already referred to the Canons, with which the Rubrics concur, which require the attendance of the parishioners - "every parishioner" at the Lord's supper so often in the year, and treat as recusants and schismatics all absenting themselves or impugning any part of the system. But there is a point which lies deeper than this, and gives not its relative but positive character to the system - those documents which describe its members, those within, not those without, the assumption of which was quite necessary to the other. Now these documents shew that the ecclesiastical system of the Establishment is founded on the efficacy of ordinances, not of faith, and thus is enabled in theory to embrace the whole population, and treat them as Christians, without reference to faith at all; and that any operation of the Spirit of God in the heart, save as communicated by an ordinance, does not come within its scope of instruction, or introduction to full membership. If I am told it cannot judge but by fruits, be it so; but these do not either form any part of the question of membership: a member who is a notorious evil liver is refused communion in theory, but that is all.

208 First, as you are aware, the child is pronounced regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it is attempted to say that this is a change of state, not of personal condition. This is an idle effort. Were I told, according to the fathers, regenerate means baptized - though abuse of words produces much mischief: if it were merely meant to say they are baptized, and thereby personally admitted into the pale of the visible Church - my present argument would not hold. Baptized persons are certainly baptized. But I say this is an idle effort. The congregation are to pray that God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with the Holy Ghost - an expression itself full of confusion, but certainly something positive, and personally spiritual; again, that he may be sanctified with the Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered from God's wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in faith, etc.; again, "Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation." The congregation are told they have prayed God to release him of his sins, sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, and give him the kingdom of heaven and everlasting life; and Christ, they are told, has promised to grant them. And passing by other consistent expressions, after the rite, it is stated, the child is regenerate; and they pray he may lead the rest of his life accordingly, and then give hearty thanks that it has pleased the Father to regenerate the infant with the Holy Spirit, and to receive him for His own child by adoption. What other terms could you use for a saint quickened by God, and made actual partaker of divine life? The prayer is changed when there has been previous private baptism into "that he being born again - Give that he may be"; and it is then stated that he is by baptism regenerate. In the former service the expression is used, that he may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration - again, confusion of thought as to an infant, but definite in the extent of what is attributed to baptism. The baptism of such as are of riper years seems to me to seal the confusion, but that is not the question now to occupy us.

In the Catechism the child is taught that he was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and that by baptism; and therein it was promised he should believe - the scripture saying we are children of God by faith, not by ordinances. The child confesses he is bound to believe, and keep God's holy will and commandment, which he will, and thanks God he is in this state of salvation. Now here faith in certain articles, and keeping the commandments, are obligations on the child, he being (on the proxies undertaken for him) made a child of God by the baptism itself already, where he assented too unqualifiedly that he would keep the commandments. And the promise of faith afterwards they are stated to be bound to perform. The Sacrament also he is taught expressly was the means by which he received the inward and spiritual grace (are not these words plain?) of a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness; and this, anomalous and inconsistent as it is, is clearly the doctrine of the framers of these services and this system; for the strict sense and definition of a sacrament is declared in the homilies to be, that the forgiveness of sins is annexed and tied to the visible sign. It is there said that absolution is not a sacrament, because though there is forgiveness of sins, there is no visible sign instituted by Christ; ordination is not, because though there is a visible sign, there is no forgiveness of sins; and that there are only properly two sacraments, because there are only two where the forgiveness of sins is annexed and tied to the visible sign.

209 Let me call to your memory that I am not adducing these statements to prove the faults of the liturgy, but the principle on which the Establishment incorporates the whole population into Christian membership, believing or unbelieving, affirming them to be regenerate by the ordinance, and then making the belief of certain articles incumbent on them on another's promise.

Next, the child is to be brought to be confirmed so soon as it can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and is able to answer the Catechism set forth for that purpose. That Catechism sets forth and has taught him that he is a child of God by baptism already, and acknowledges he is bound to believe and to do as has been promised for him - articles which, though of course containing facts of Christianity, tell him nothing really of the way of a sinner's salvation at all, for even in the interpretation he is taught that all mankind are redeemed, and clearly they are not all saved; and he is made to rest on the promises which ruined Israel under Mount Sinai: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" an undertaking which, because of its perfection, works death to the sinner; and he is taught the Lord's Prayer.

210 I would remark, in passing, that the instruction as to what he learns in the articles of his belief is objectionable even as articles, because creation is ascribed to the Father only as His act; and then redemption to God the Son, as if He had no part in creation, but had only a distinct act of redemption as His. But this by the bye. The instructions as to duty I have nothing to remark on, save that the knowledge of the Father, as His child should know, is nowhere found in the Catechism. In a word, what is properly Christian faith is found in it nowhere, though many topics of Christian truth are referred to.

The sacraments I have already spoken of, save to note that it is stated that the promises of God are made to them in the sacraments, and whatever articles may be given credence to, promises in a sacrament are the only personal resting-place which is proposed to the child: he is to believe in promises made in that sacrament. This preparation being made, he is to be brought to the bishop, he having there asserted that he is bound to believe, and that he will keep the commandments. It is repeated that they had been regenerated with the Holy Ghost, and been given the forgiveness of all their sins; and thus after Confirmation they are introduced to the Communion, being now in full membership (and why not, if they are regenerate of the Holy Ghost?) and now confirmed. And all her members are called upon by the Establishment as Christians, as Mr. M'Neil justly agrees, to partake of the Lord's supper - the very people to whom the same person would preach, I believe very faithfully, as sinners to repent and turn to God, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that they might be saved.

Thus we have evidence as to the body, how the population - the parishioners - are fictitiously made the Church; and while individuals may preach the gospel, the body rests on a system of ordinances which makes the whole body, the whole population, by a fiction preserved to their burial, a body of regenerate Christians. If these services be compared with the system of popery, and the order of their administration, then not a moment's hesitation can be entertained of what (though doubtless purged of many details) the meaning and principles of them are. Of the fact that the body of communicants are not really Christians, no question is or can honestly be maintained: but the principle of the Establishment being that all parishioners should come, and orderly provision by her previous services being made that they should, it becomes not wrong that they should be there, but their positive fault and sin that they are not - they are bound to come, believers or not; and thus is the principle of the Church of God laid prostrate altogether. And Mr. M'Neil presses it as the first act of obedience, should there have been previous disobedience all the week; and the rule of the Establishment would apply to an infidel who was not a notorious evil liver, and the fiction be kept up by his presence being taken as profession. This then is the principle of the Establishment as to the body; the effect is to scatter the saints of God, grieve and gall their consciences, and then reproach them with dissent and schism.

211 I am now to refer to the documents, upon which I would only remark as to the former point that all the daily services go on the same principle of all the parishioners being good Christian people. It is vain to allege that a service is to be made, and must be for Christian people. The fact of the Establishment is, that they have made the Christian people for the service, which is a matter generally left out of sight in their plea for this. Who warranted them in doing this? or what does such a making amount to? A reference to the Homilies and Canons will abundantly confirm the statement that this is the principle of the Establishment. But to apply myself to the documents as to the ministry, we have seen, as I said, the facts (these are notorious) that the Crown and secular persons and bodies present to livings and bishoprics, and that young men are brought up to them as to a lucrative profession, and that they are bought for that purpose. And you cannot shew a single document by which these things can be shewn to be an abuse: they are strictly legal by the system of the Establishment.

But the two documents I shall refer to are the twenty-third and twenty-sixth Articles, which give the authorized form to the ecclesiastical part of it. The first states that those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called by men. Do I quote this wrongly? Here then we get a principle formally laid down which makes men the choosers and callers to this work. They have authority given to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard. Now I see the Lord directing the apostles to pray the Lord of the harvest to send labourers into His harvest; and it was the householder who hired the labourers into the vineyard. It is further stated, that it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office without it. Provision is made for the consequence of this human calling in the twenty-sixth. Sometimes evil men have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; and though it may be right to see to this, yet if it be not seen to, they minister by Christ's commission and authority, and are to be attended to even in hearing the word of God, though perhaps what they preach is contrary to all God's truth. And thus, to maintain the authority of the system, and the validity of ordinances where there is no grace, as far as man goes, souls are jeopardized, and the people subjected to all manner of false teaching as of Christ's commission! Do you believe that Christ has really sent a man to preach who is not a Christian, and does not preach the gospel at all? If not, what is the meaning of Christ's commission? and why this care to maintain the authority of those called and sent by man, even when they are evil, but to maintain the validity of a system of ordinances which rests on man where there is confessedly not the grace of Christ?

212 I may be referred to the Ordination Service, where the person says he is called by the Holy Spirit. Be it so: but there are articles, on the one hand, to hinder anyone from acting on that, unless he has man's sanction and authority for doing it; and, on the other, if it be quite false, and the man a pretender, or careless, or a hypocrite, there are articles to maintain his authority, as of equal validity by Christ's commission, as if he really were; otherwise it would be clearly impossible to regard him as the minister of the parish, which by law they must, and treat those as dissenters and schismatics who have been perhaps called by the Holy Ghost, but have not submitted to avow their receiving the Holy Ghost from a bishop, whom the king or his minister has appointed. Do you believe every bishop the king appoints has power to confer the Holy Ghost? If not, surely it is an awful thing to pretend to receive it at his hands. We are told, first, the bishops are securities against any not really ministers intruding, and that we are liable to this evil; and then, where the fact is notorious that the vast body are not ministers, and are absolutely opposed to the gospel are not called by the Holy Ghost but enter it as a profession, we are told that, they having avowed they are led by the Holy Ghost through their own hypocrisy and fault, the Church has done all she can. Well, then, the plea of this security is folly - save, observe, to authenticate as ministers, and the only lawful ministers, of the place those who are not ministers at all. This is all it does. The call of the Holy Ghost does in itself necessarily remain in the bosom of him who asserts it, but by his ordination the man is authenticated before the truth of his calling by the Holy Ghost is proved.

213 I have now, I believe, dear sir, gone through what the documents of the Establishment present, and her legal authorized proceedings, which do not appear upon the face of her documents, but which are just her form and constitution as an Establishment, in order to judge as to my continuance within her pale as recognizing her as the Church of God. If you avow she is not the Church of God, then I feel no claim upon my soul on her part at all; but your assertion of schism or dissent in not being of her assumes a very important character indeed, because it pretends that she is. The framers of her canons and constitutions (who took, if unfounded, very clear and decided ground as to this) were well aware of this, and therefore honestly denounced and excommunicated all who questioned or impugned it. And this is the point you must meet, if you mean to hold the consciences of God's children. That party feeling, early habits, and natural associations, and in many cases personal attachment, may hold a multitude within her pale, I do not question.

I do not think you can charge my letter with aspersions, nor with evading the discussion. The ground I have taken is clear and distinct, on which my mind rests, not without sorrow - I should grieve if it did - but in perfect, joyful, thankful peace of conscience as to the position in which divine mercy and grace has placed me, and a clear though very sorrowful judgment as to the point at issue. Save as to the responsibility which every false assumption casts on the party making it, I cannot own it as "the Church," or a Church at all, but as a system by which the saints of God have been and are scattered, and which (I firmly believe) is the channel of the country into popery, by the importance it gives to ordinances, and the sanction of that which is in word and not in power, and the hindering the corporate manifestation of the children of God, and their fully following the light. The providence of God in this, and the judgment which it will close in, though matter of undoubting certainty to my mind, confirming my faith, and, where occasion is given, matter of mine and others' testimony, is not directly the ground of conscience, and to that in direct argument I have here confined myself.

214 As to selfishness and pride and the like, as being merely a question of motives, I feel it not to the point to argue them. As to your appeals to our brotherly love to remove the degeneracy of the Church of England, my answer is, I cannot spend my strength on correcting what is in principle wrong - it is lost labour. It is not degeneracy; it is the system and principle of it as to its incorporation, government, and principle of ministry (though individuals may be good men and Christians who minister), which I believe contrary to the mind, word, and will of God. This was not the case with Israel - the principle and system were God's own there: not the case with Sardis and Thyatira - the principle and system were God's own there too; and therefore degeneracy claimed service, and not departure; for it would have been departure from the principles of God's gathering and assembly in the two dispensations. By being of the Establishment, I feel I should be in a state of departure from the principles of God's gathering, not by being out of it. Nothing, I think, can be clearer than this distinction.

When you talk of the Establishment being a company whose title to the Christian character is almost defaced save to the eye of charity, I can hardly think you serious. Do not you, do not all real ministers of Christ acting in charity, preach to the mass of them as unconverted and unbelievers? Do you think them uncharitable? I do not. But when you state that the shining graces of individuals are obscured by this company, but that they attract notice when they come out and stand apart in a little body, you just state the grand excellency of doing so; and God's principle of dealing with a poor, ruined, sin-darkened world. God does not light a candle to put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick: "A city set on a hill cannot be hid." "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." The method and principle you accuse us of following, then, are God's own, with this precise object. The ascribing of motives to us in acting on it I leave in your own hands.

215 As to staying in the hospital, it sounds fair, but our objection, dear sir, is to staying in the tombs. You are preaching to them, at least to the great mass of them, as dead in sins. Are you not? Certainly in charity and truth you ought to be. Well, we agree with you as to the mass that are in the great broad road: only we do not then come down and join them as brethren actually in the road to glory, bound to avow that they are heirs of it in partaking of that one loaf at least three times a year, and assuring them they are children of God, members of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. An hospital is for a people that are alive: is it not? Do you believe that the mass of the Establishment are alive to God? In fact, your statement about the hospital is merely playing on our feelings.

I hardly know how to answer your exhortation to us to search and try our ways. You tell us that we were "thriving in the Establishment"; then, "that though the tares are more like wheat, we are only closer bound to them still"; and "where people not unlike our party have been brought." I can only say they are all pleasant assumptions or suggestions on your part. We have deeply felt and found our own weakness and the condition to which the principles of the system of which you form a part have reduced the Church of God. But in this weakness we have found God faithful, and very merciful and gentle with us too; and in spite of our infirmities, enlargement and comfort of heart, and growth and liberty, and ability in some increased measure to feel sympathy, deep and conscious sympathy, for the whole Church of God - even for that part of it which is in the Establishment, and a safeguard too, through His mercy, from the many ruinous principles, which are flowing in from different quarters, both in the Church of God and in the world. Our own weakness and imperfection I trust we are freely and fully ready to admit, and be humbled for; for my own part I avow it without hesitation; but in the path of righteousness and God's will we know at least where strength lies. But enough of ourselves: you have compelled me thus far to be a fool.

I might have appealed to Mr. Kelly at Clifton for the refutation of some of your suggestions; but I pass on to the charge of latitudinarianism, and it is only striking to my mind how evil and systematic habits hinder simple understanding and subjection to God's blessed word and ways. But first as to one or two charges. You charge us with having Baptists, Paedobaptists, Arminians, and Calvinists, Millenarians, Anti-Millenarians, and even Quakers. Well, are there not Paedobaptists, Arminians, Calvinists, Millenarians, Anti-Millenarians in the Establishment, and teaching too? And Quakers have been received there too: also they have been with us, and have been baptized as became them from the circumstances they were placed in. The only difference, then, on the point, is as to the existence of these various views in the minds of these amongst us. They being real Christians, we should undoubtedly feel it wrong to shut them out, and rejoice we can walk together in love. There is only this additional difference, that there is not, through mercy, amongst us a vast body of members who have no faith at all. And I think you would find more unity of mind amongst us than amongst yourselves. Nay, it was your complaint at Clifton, that we were all so made up in one mind that, wherever you met us, you just heard the same testimony from us all; and when you had heard one, you had heard all. Others have made the same complaint. We are thankful the Lord has kept us thus hitherto, and lean on His mercy to be preserved in this unity. As to not being able to baptize, I have only to say you are quite mistaken, and that we do so when the occasion arises. That some are Baptists, so called, and some Paedobaptists amongst us, is very true; but by the Lord's mercy we have felt the unity of Christ's body more important than the unity of judgment on this point; and each person, without any hindrance to charity, acts in this as he believes according to the mind of God. Would you exclude a Baptist from the Lord's table with you, were he disposed to go? We have acted on the principle of this word, "Whereto ye have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal this also unto you." We have found most happy peace and flow of charity in it; we do not pretend to have attained perfect light in all that God reveals.

216 Next, sir, you should have been surely more guarded, on reading chapter 17 of John's Gospel, in talking of "the popular idol, unity." I think, sir, deference to the word of God should have made you attach more importance to it. That the world is imitating it by latitudinarianism I know: such is Satan's guile often, and I am not now denying (for I fully believe) its existence; but the allusion is rather an unfortunate one. Are Churchmen or the "Brethren" engaged in carrying on this latitudinarianism of which you cite Irish national schools as the example? I believe the latitudinarianism you speak of is the principle of infidelity and atheism; but I know that the authorities of the Establishment were the means of its introduction into Ireland. Somehow they were able to exclude near three thousand godly men for a garment in 1662, but unable to hinder the introduction of public latitudinarianism in 1828. Was it the "Brethren" or the public supporters and champions of the Church who announced that the reading of the scriptures in the schools was a vital defect, because it was contrary to the principles of the Roman Catholic religion? I do not introduce these things I trust as recriminations.

217 I have already said that I believe modem latitudinarianism is just atheism and infidelity in its worst and perhaps basest shape; nor am I aware of its existence amongst the "Brethren," but, on the contrary, the strongest testimony I know against its real evil. But I believe the narrow sectarianism of the Church as to rules of forms, and its extreme latitudinarianism in introducing by these forms a mass of unconverted, careless persons - careless unbelievers - within its pale, has given occasion to the existence of this latitudinarianism, and a plea for those who have the worst spirit of it to attack that of which the Establishment bears the name as more conscientious than it. Do you think, sir, an infidel cannot act on the minds of men in charging bigotry where godly men are excluded from Christ's Church for the shape or form of clothes - clean contrary to the apostolic rule? and that a handle is not given such to ridicule the picture of holy pastorship when the sale of their appointments and the education for them as one of the professions are notorious facts, however the advocates of the Establishment may excuse or colour them?

It is an awful time, and, I would press upon you, a time near judgment, when the conscience or moral judgment of infidels is in advance of the practice of that which carries the name of religion as the Establishment. Such is its effect; and thus while it feels the effect of latitudinarianism as inconvenient, it strengthens its hand by the position and character which it holds before them. It is this want of godliness and heavenly character in the Church which has given the world the occasion to legislate for it. Persecution there might be, but not legislation for a body who only sought heaven and renounced the world really. You may charge us, as they did Jeremiah, with weakening the hands of all the men of war in the city, but, by the help of the Lord, we would not cease from our testimony, nor join the Edomites, but be alike strangers to what you call your Zion, and keep aloof from all that at bottom hate it, not because it is corrupt, but because it is nominally the house of God.

218 But, having thus far replied to the charge of latitudinarianism, your statements as to the possibility of going beyond the foundation in teaching have to be noticed. And here it is remarkable how habits contrary to scripture obscure the judgment; and, while we are judged as if to set aside ministry, the real value of ministry is lost in the mind of one who rests on Establishment and creeds. The truth is, sir, Establishment - that is, men's support and a creed - has taken the place in your mind of the Holy Ghost and of truth. One would suppose that the person who made the remarks you do did not really believe that there was any Holy Ghost really to guide, animate, control, order, and provide ministry in the Church; no Saviour to nourish and cherish it as His own flesh. This is our dependence (however feeble and faltering our dependence may be), that He will guide us into all truth - truth treasured up in the word of God, but into which we have daily to be guided, and all of which is before us in the word. You might say of yourselves, who have a limited standard of truth which you subscribe, "Where our creed ends, error begins." But we have no limit to our creed, but the whole wisdom of the Bible; unless our own want of spirituality, which must ever hinder. We are open to receive and thirst for all truth. If you say, What is to keep you from error? we should watch against it on the very same principle that an apostle did (I do not say with the same power), but we can lean only on God to keep us from it; and we trust He will, and are sure He will while we humbly wait on Him. You have, on the contrary, trusted a creed: so have the foreign ecclesiastical bodies; and what is the consequence? Error, justification by works, and neology - here in three-fourths of the pulpits of the country, abroad in eight-tenths. Creeds cannot give living truth to the soul, nor can they secure truth beyond the compiler of them, even in form. You have kept a measure of truth in a book, but nothing more: your body has fallen into error ruinous to souls just as much as even those you declaim against; and remember that even Neology and Socinianism prevailed more where creeds were than where they were not. I have not found the advocates of liturgies and creeds quite honest on this point; and if they boast of this country and the wisdom of its churchmen (not the continuing grace of God), the answer is, It was dark as others; and it was grace, not creeds, which revived the Lord's work, and that not quite within the regulations and limits of the Establishment, I think you must admit.

219 As to ourselves, if you cannot distinguish between the unity of God's saints on one foundation, and that, if you please, as you rather slightingly say, "in the blood" - yes, the precious blood of Christ - and latitudinarianism; if your system of uniformity without unity have reduced you to this state of mind, I can only sorrow for it. If you call the unity of God's children a popular idol, we are sorry you are in such a state of mind. With us it is a cherished, deeply cherished, object, because, in heart and principle at least, we are led by Him "who gave Himself not for that (His own) nation only, but that He might gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad": and that the Holy Ghost leads us to seek to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, in that by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body - all one body, as partakers of that one loaf; and the prayer of Jesus has sounded in our ear a voice that subdues our thoughts, "that they all may be one, that the world may believe." We may fail in the object - we cannot be wrong in the desire. But that the unity of God's children (this alone we desire) is a popular idol sounds to us like a stranger's voice, not that of the Good Shepherd, and we flee from it.

If you speak of confining ourselves to one truth, and teaching no more, this assertion must be meant for strangers. Have you found this to be the case? One truth, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, I trust, will ever hold undisguised prominency; but do you think those who have been much amongst us are less taught than those who have not been? - are less acquainted with scriptural truths? This is not a usual charge, whatever the value of knowledge may be; for I believe grace is far more important, though truth be most blessed. But our principle is this, sir: whenever the first great truth of redemption - in a word, whenever Christ has received a person - we would receive him. That false brethren may creep in unawares is possible. If the church be spiritual, they will soon be made apparent, but as our table is the Lord's, not ours, we receive all that the Lord has received, all who have fled as poor sinners for refuge to the hope set before them, and rest not in themselves, but in Christ, as their hope. We then afterwards teach them as they are able, according to the grace and knowledge and wisdom we have received - all the truth we have received at God's hands; and here it is that ministry comes in. We do not make a creed but Christ the ground and term of union; but trusting to the help and ever-watchful and ready care of the Lord over us, and to the true and real presence of the Holy Ghost the Comforter, we seek and give all the instruction, exhortation, comfort, and (when need arises) rebuke in love, we are enabled. One may lay the foundation (and all that are on it we receive), and another build thereon; and they must take heed how they build thereon.

220 You may say, But there will be false teachers. So God has taught us, and all your plans will not prevent it. But the grace of God will overrule it, enable us to detect them by the word, and turn it to good. And your plans only hinder your leaning on that which is effectual - a spirit of constant dependence. There will be heresies - there must needs be, says the apostle - that they which are approved may be made manifest. In a word, sir, your plan is to take the Church of God out of the field of faith and dependence, and thereby lead it away from the constant and blessed energies of the Holy Ghost, and make it lean on something else. But the truth is, God is most gracious and faithful, and blessed in His careful mercy, though you may not trust Him. He knows that we have but a little strength; and, though He has graciously permitted that which may exercise and strengthen our faith, He has never suffered us to be tempted above that we are able, but rather set before us an open door. The Lord keep us in the word of His patience, and men or Satan shall in vain seek to shut it.

We do then receive on the one great truth of Christ's salvation all that through divine grace believing it are converted to God. And we then, having ministry of truth, build them up according to what God has given us. That there is imperfection in the teaching I do not deny, for we are all imperfect. But I do not think, dear sir, if you are acquainted with scripture, and your mind is based on it, you can object on principle to this as unscriptural. I think you would find amongst us the very opposite to latitudinarianism - a strong desire and prayer for and search after unity among the saints of God; and the careful and diligent teaching of the measure of truth we have received. And if you say no good thing can come out of Nazareth, we will count it only prejudice, and say, "Come and see."

221 As to our banishing of error, we have abundant provision in the word of God, if we have grace to do it; and on this we lean: without it clearly we can do nothing. You assert that the scripture is insufficient for this, precisely on the same ground as the Roman Catholic does. We have no stealthy standard at all; we openly condemn every discovered error. We believe not in the infallibility of the clergy, and the insufficiency of the scripture, and the sufficiency of humanly composed creeds, which is your ground. You say, with the Roman Catholic, that a Socinian could appeal to the written word. Could he? Do you say he could? - But we believe in the sufficiency of the scripture, and the grace, energy, and power of the Spirit - the Comforter, to keep out error from the Church, so as to guide us in the truth.

This is a very grave question - I believe, the question - between us; yet I would not willingly say so; for I believe it to be the question between apostasy and the special point of truth now. But you have put yourselves on this ground: you deny either the sufficiency of scripture, or the grace of the Spirit to use it under the faithfulness of our blessed Head's love to the Church. On this, in all our weakness, we lean. You say, "If you say in the written word," well, the Socinian professes to find his there too. Did you never hear this from other mouths, arguing against Protestant platforms, or clergymen elsewhere? I tremble - nay, but it confirms my faith - when I see arrows drawn from such a quiver. You say, "Would you receive a Roman Catholic?" If a Roman Catholic really "extolled Jesus" as a Saviour, and His one sacrifice of Himself as the sole putting away of sin, he would have ceased to hold the error and delusion by which the enemy has misled some souls (who are still, I would trust, precious to Jesus), he would have ceased to be a Roman Catholic in the evil sense of the word; and on these terms only could he be with us.

222 I repeat, then, we receive all that are on the foundation, and reject and put away all error by the word of God, and the help of His ever blessed, ever living, and ever present Spirit. If you have neutralized the Church's energies by mixing it with the world, so as to be unable to do this, it is matter of sorrow surely, not of boast. Justification by works is preached in the majority of pulpits to souls. You refer me to a scrap of paper which the poor people have never read, so that your provision against error is null. Such preaching would not be borne for one time by one single person professing to be a minister amongst us; and to your suggestion, "God knows what mischief you may inflict upon them," my only answer is, "God knows what mischief you have inflicted upon them." The stranger's voice, sir, has been heard in hundreds of pulpits of the Establishment. Has it not? Well, the sheep have fled from it. Do you rebuke them? You may tell them to stay and hear it. They dare not, by virtue of their weakness and timidity. It is not the Shepherd's voice: their safety is in flight, not in pretended strength or artificial reasonings. You have scattered the sheep by your system, and as yet your conscience is not awakened. I have little hope that it will be, or rather the change is impossible. Parliament is your legislator, not yourselves - a body I suppose you would charge with evil enough now: I thank God I have nothing to say to it.

It is really a little too bad to be told we cannot testify the second advent, and the agency of the Spirit. Forgive me if I ask how you could really honestly say this, when they are the two great topics to which testimony among us has been specially directed to urge which meetings have been held both yearly and wherever God has opened a door; so that our adversaries have charged us with being a Millenarian Church, and Irvingites, on account of these two topics being so much held up before the saints? But I need hardly answer this charge. A charge that the "Brethren" cannot teach the second advent, and the agency of the Spirit, will have but small weight, unless to shew that you were a little hard set for an argument.

As to "Where is your security for continuing to exclude error?" I reply, In God alone is continuance. We have found error in your teaching, which is excluded from amongst us now. So far we have clear gain, for we were continuing in error while with you. Yet nothing but grace will keep us onward. This may seem a poor dependence to you; it is our only one. I press this point, sir. When Paul said that after his decease grievous wolves should enter in, not sparing the flock; yea, that of their own selves men would arise teaching perverse things, to draw away disciples after them; he desired them to watch, and remember how he had not ceased night and day with tears to warn every man; and then, stating that his own hands had ministered to his necessities, and that he had shewn them how that so labouring they ought to support the weak, he commends them to God and the word of His grace, which was able to build them up, and give them an inheritance among them that are sanctified. To what he apostolically commended them we look, to God, and the word of His grace; and we would endeavour as far as possible, so far as we have grace, to watch, and by His own blessed mercy we have in our feeble measure done so. Without His grace we are sure we should go astray; but we lean upon it, and in the trial consequent on the absence of apostolic energy, here forewarned of by the blessed and zealous servant of the Lord, we have endeavoured in principle to turn to and use that to which he has directed us. If you think creeds more efficacious, our answer might be, they have not proved so. Witness all the different Protestant Establishments, and indeed the whole professing Church in its departure from the faith once delivered. But my answer goes farther, and I say the ground of your appeal to them is that of the insufficiency of scripture, a recurrence to other means of securing truth, or therewith a practical denial of the presence of the Spirit of God - the Spirit of truth, the Comforter - to use it. Here we openly take a plain ground against the principles or apostasy of Catholicism, and the identically same ground taken by the defenders of the Establishment. We are on ground of the very last importance to the Church of God now. You rest in tradition in some shape, ancient or modern, it matters not: I do not. I rest under divine grace - my only hope for unworthy and helpless sinners - in the perfect sufficiency of the word, and the presence of the Spirit in the Church, according to the faithfulness of God. This, I believe, is a cardinal point for the Church of God now - this great and blessed truth being taken in connection with it, that the Holy Spirit is present with the Church, abiding for ever. Popery and the Establishment take ecclesiastical succession and creeds, and assert together that the Bible is not an all-sufficient guide, leaving quite aside the continual presence of the Holy Ghost. Tradition and successional authority are their resource; and let me add that you cannot even plead here that you refer to tradition, or authority, or some other resource than scripture and the Holy Ghost, merely for rites and ceremonies; we are discussing creeds here. Your argument is, that it is insufficient in practice for matters of faith, and to banish error - assuming, as I have surely title to do, the faithfulness of God by His Spirit. If you deny it, do so openly. I see no reference to it in your letter, or that on which your system rests. As to this, my answer then to the charge is, we admit of no heterodoxy, but all Christians. If you ask, How can you do this? I answer, By the word, and Spirit, and grace of God. Your system receives the population, and calls unity a popular idol, and (Mr. M'Neil being witness) is arranged so as to appoint pastors, because they are unfit. The fact he admits; and I have already asked you, Is not the person so appointed recognized as the only lawful minister of the parish, and all else as intruders? instituted by the bishop as such, recognized by the ecclesiastical court as such, and by every authority (except the Lord's) in the country?

224 If you say the bishop cannot help it, I say, "Just so, because it is the legal system, and not an abuse of it at all."

I can apprise you, if public rumour has not, that the members who have increased our fellowship latterly have been, I think I may say, chiefly (at least in England) from among dissenters, feeling the evil of their system as well as of yours - at any rate quite as large a number, and of the Establishment very many, by the conversion to God often of those long accepted as members among you; in other cases of poor neglected souls, whose ears the truth had never reached by that which claims to provide for all as of the Church of England. But the most remarkable accessions, and the action of our testimony among Christians, has been de facto chiefly among dissenters. Two dissenting ministers who came to the Clifton meeting to get all the good they could, and not to challenge us all and banish away all our errors, found happy and joyful liberty in fellowship with us, and we with them; and this testimony, I trust, will spread. Many Christians from the Establishment also have found their joy and fellowship along with us.

When you speak of our violating our principles by teaching other than what is common, as I have already stated, it is only that you do not know them. If you mean "by authoritatively setting them forth, as lords over their faith," certainly we disclaim it. As helpers of their joy we teach all we can; we will teach or be taught by you, if you can edify us in the Lord, and be thankful for it. If God has given you any gift, we are there in no dilemma at all; we meet on the ground of the foundation - Christ; and we learn, and, as God has enabled any, teach all that is in the Bible, trusting God to keep us from error; and if "there must needs be heresies," trusting it shall be through His grace that they which are approved may be made manifest. This continual responsibility of the Church in its perpetual conflict with Satan, not yet cast down and bound, you seem to have lost sight of, or to suppose that you can provide for the exclusion of. But then the Church must lose its heavenly-mindedness and character, for we do wrestle with spiritual wickedness in heavenly places; and all the profit of the exercise of faith, and the deeper acquaintance with the whole armour of God, and the faithfulness of the God who gave it, and gives it to us still.

225 I believe only one material point remains unnoticed still, on which indeed many preceding facts and statements bear: honouring the Holy Ghost, which introduces in your letter the question of ministry. The facts to which the system you advocate leads have been already noticed, and if you think the sale of advowsons, the giving of the appointment of the chief pastors or bishops into the hands of the Crown, honouring the Holy Ghost's rule in the Church, certainly there are many (such as the Irish Christian Journal describes as having morbid consciences) who cannot. This, I say (which is the regular order of the Establishment, the constitution of it) is not honouring the Holy Ghost. It is not merely there being the fact of an ordained ministry. I see nothing like an appointment of elders in an existing body of Christians, in the ordaining young men of twenty-three or twenty-four, in the nomination of a pastor who has got an appointment from some lord of the manor, or his being made a priest, presbyter if you please, on the same appointment. You do not arrogate to yourselves, you say, the selection of your ministers, but you give them authority to exercise their gift, when they say they are called, and the bishop has ascertained by certain testimony they are of good morals, not heretics, and can answer in Latin. Now supposing this sufficient and right (both of which I entirely deny, and say that it is entirely unscriptural, and opposed to scripture, but it would lead me into another large question), you do in the appointment of this person to some cure - not by the Spirit, but by a landlord - preclude others from exercising their gift there in the Church, and thereby, as the appointment is secular, you dishonour the Holy Ghost in that; so the direction of the word of God, "as every man hath received the gift, so minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God," is set aside. It is not, "he that teacheth, let him wait on his teaching, he that exhorteth, on his exhortation." All gifts must be assumed to be in the secularly appointed minister, or the Church is deprived of them. This is what I call dishonouring the Holy Ghost.

226 Again, when you speak of not selecting ministers, what is your system? You have divided the country into ten thousand parishes. Who has authorized you to say that the Holy Ghost would raise up just ten thousand ministers at all times to minister by His help and power in these parishes? Yet by your system you are bound to provide for them, and in order to the attainment of this, secular advantages are attached, and titles of nomination put into the hands of interested persons. This I call dishonouring the Holy Ghost, "who distributes to every man severally as He will." It all hangs on the same great system, that it is the world, and not the Church. Suppose your ecclesiastical authorities sincere, though I do not admit their title at all, they are administering a system which sets quite aside the sovereign Ministry of the Holy Ghost in distributing as He will. The ten thousand parishes are to be filled; men have a secular right to fill them, or to sell their title. This is not waiting on, honouring, or owning the authority and only power of the Holy Ghost to bless and minister by vessels of His appointing and qualifying in the Church. And then, when thus filled, the Holy Ghost's title to raise up one to teach in one of them, or to exhort in one of them (though indeed they are not churches at all), is positively denied, such an one is disorderly and schismatic. The Holy Ghost is limited by your system to the ten thousand clergy, and their curates perhaps, and is assumed to provide them for the nomination of the owners of advowsons, and none else. I am not speaking this lightly, for I believe it is a most horrible and crying dishonour done to the Holy Ghost. If I were to speak to the majority of your clergy of the "Holy Ghost distributing to every man severally as He will," they would account me an enthusiast and a fanatic; or to the owners of advowsons, of His raising up elders and pastors of His selecting and appointment, they would treat me as wild and dissenting. Their affair was their rights, and they exercise them.

227 Where there are ten thousand offices specifically to fill, and an education to fill them provided as a qualification, it is a profession, and not a ministry depending on the Holy Ghost, distributing as He will. The statement that a man is moved to it comes in by-and-by, and itself lumps all possible ministries, to the exclusion of all others, into one, nominally a deacon's, and then an elder's - very excellent offices in their place, but neither of them really undertaken, or ought not to be, at that age; neither of them properly or necessarily ministries of the word, though they may be united with them. But this may be called confusion, not dishonour to the Holy Ghost, and is only collaterally connected with the question. But while I might turn to abuses enough to drive almost an infidel from the professed Church in disgust were I to turn to the preparation for the ministry at the universities, I confine myself to the plain facts and arrangements of the system. These abuses indeed are its genuine consequences, because it has been made a regular, settled, lucrative profession: it must be if the Church goes by a geographical division of the population, not the gathering of the saints. But the plain facts and arrangements of the system permit no one to preach save those called by man, and who have received authority from man; so that in the principle of it Paul could not - for he asserts the contrary principle - provide livings for so many, say ten thousand ministers, whether the Holy Ghost has called them or not, and forbid any else to exercise it, so much so that a bishop cannot ordain without a nomination, though the man would profess that he was called and moved by the Holy Ghost still. They are educated for it, without possibly knowing whether they will be so moved or not, being as boys designed for the ministry or for a living by their parents; and when placed there, their one gift, if they have any, must exclusively be exercised - a pastor with perhaps no saints, or a young evangelist with old Christians to feed, and this regulated by secular appointment.

There is not then the least reference to owning or following the Holy Ghost as the source of authority, and various gifts in the Church of God; and if a person should act without this secular system, his work is treated as disorderly. I say, then, that the Holy Ghost is not really honoured at all in this system. To make a parcel of young men, educated for the purpose, come and say they are moved by the Holy Ghost, when it is in nine cases out of ten secular and family arrangements which have induced it, I do not think this honouring the Holy Ghost; nor, if all really were, do I believe that it would be honouring His authority, His paramount authority in the Church of God. I challenge you to shew me anything in the scripture the least like the organization of the Church of England - a parochial arrangement of the population, justified by a set of written documents that they are Christians, which all are called on to use.

228 As regards what you state of the Clifton meeting, you must know that it was not an assembly of the saints as a church for teaching or worship at all, but a private meeting to which we were all invited by the two persons who arranged it, and yourself in like manner. I see nothing inconsistent in their asking such as they thought likely to edify to lecture and pray at a morning service, or indeed any other arrangement they might make, provided those individually called on felt disposed and led to do it. No such thing is ever done when the brethren meet for worship; all who can edify the church may speak, subject to the apostolic rule for order. If any taught error, or acted in the flesh, it would be subject to righteous discipline, as any other fleshly act. The scripture, if we have grace to use it, we find abundantly sufficient for this. We recognize, moreover, distinct and ordinary abiding gifts, as it is said "there were certain teachers in the church." If you think the Spirit of God cannot make good His power by the word spoken in the conscience, or detect error and the pretence of the flesh, you have a blessed truth to learn.

How do you know we have not fasting and prayer when any special work may be on hand, or any brother to be commended to the Lord for any special service? Is it right to assume the truth of such charges? We may have been deficient; but had you been among us, you would have known that fasting and prayer have often and often been the resource and comfort of our souls before God in any various circumstances, and sometimes merely to seek more of His presence and blessing. I dare say we have not done it sufficiently, nor as we ought.

229 We have no election of ministers at all, so that all your remarks on this are gratuitous. God in His mercy has provided us with many who have been a comfort to our souls, and spread, I trust, much truth by them. We find still the harvest plenty, and the labourers few, and therefore earnestly pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into His harvest. Whatever He gives we shall receive thankfully, and if any special work arises to which they may be called, be ready, I trust, to recommend them to the grace of God for it.

The way you speak of authority hindering the Spirit shews you understand our principles in nothing. True authority is by the Spirit just as much as any other gift, and, instead of hindering, is one service of it. That the church is in the same order and energy as to this as in apostolic days, we do not pretend, as you do; though the majority of your authorities, from the nature of their appointment (which Mr. M'Neil says is by an iniquity of abuses truly disgusting), are not from the Spirit at all, and generally opposed to the truth. We believe the church to have fallen and gone astray. Your condition is the plain evidence of it. We do not pretend to have competency to set it all right, but to act in righteousness, strengthening those things that remain ready to perish, and to walk in love, which is the bond of perfectness. We do not say we can restore the Shechinah, or the Urim and Thummim, or the Ark of the covenant; but we will do all we can that the word of God authorizes and enables us, by the Holy Ghost even yet with the Church, to do. You pretend to all these things, but we say they are false; and that is worse than nothing - a wretched picture which the spiritual eye detects as not even like the scriptural originals.

I believe I have answered all the questions, charges, and observations in your letter. If I have not tired you, I certainly have myself: but I could not answer your questions and charges lightly, and a short question perhaps involved the investigation of important principles; but I have endeavoured to confine myself to what was properly in answer to your statements, and not diverge into others, though perhaps important topics. Though you have in nowise followed your proposed plan of certain questions which I was to answer, I have fairly, I trust, gone into all which your paper suggests, not as a mere arguer, but on the substantial grounds of the merits of the question, for it is not a mere question between us. The enemies of the Establishment might be displeased with me that I have not run through its abuses, and I have not wished to do so. It is hard to be occupied with dirt, and not get dirty. I am persuaded we have not much business with evil, save in direct spiritual denunciation of it when actually before us, or warning against it. I have dealt with the principles of the system, which I believe deprive it of the title to present itself to the consciences as the, or a, Church of God, and make it guilty of much dishonour done to His name.

230 I am not conscious of having used an ungracious or harsh expression, nor even ascribed motives to any. I believe there are many saints within its pale. You will not have any aspersions to answer, unless stating acknowledged facts are such. You will hardly accuse me of evading discussion, though I have endeavoured to confine myself (under the Lord's guidance) to what I proposed, answering your questions. At any rate, I have stated the ground on which my mind actually rests, as regards the particular points you have referred to. That the gross and palpable consequences met with in everyday life act on the conscience, I admit, and so in the Lord's mercy it will be with multitudes unable to trace the principles. But any poor saint conversant in scripture is soon convinced by practical comparison that the Church of England is not the Church of God, by what he meets every day in his own parish; and it requires an uncommon deal of theology and tradition to shew how it is, and many a chain put upon plain conscience: as when I go to the parish church on what is called Sacrament Sunday, or Easter, and am told I am bound to own all I find there as Christians, when I know well all the other days of the year they make no pretence to it; and am perhaps plainly told by my minister, if he knows the truth, all the other days in the year that they are not, and the difference pressed upon me. However, you have the principles and system here, not even its consequences.

And I ask you, Does the Establishment contemplate having all the population within her ordinances, or distinctly gathering together in one the children of God which are scattered abroad? The latter I would desire and seek, preaching to all. In whose hands is the appointment of the pastors of the Establishment as instituted and recognized by the bishops themselves? If the Holy Ghost be He who gives and orders the gift of pastorship, and their exercise, on what authority do you divide the country, without reference to the actual presence of living faith, into ten thousand and some one hundred portions, and assign a pastor to each, to the exclusion of all other spiritual gifts? Do you de facto acknowledge the mass of members of the Establishment as really Christians? Ought there to be anybody to whom it could be said that they should love one another with a pure heart fervently, seeing they had obeyed the truth through the Spirit, to the unfeigned love of the brethren? Ought the saints of God to be gathered together in unity? I have written offhand, trusting to the Lord my God to direct and guide me, as indeed my letter will witness. I do not think I have omitted any point in your letter.

Believe me truly,

Yours in the Lord,

J.N.D.

231 I have written to the Record, I confess with little hope at any rate of their putting letters so long as these in. I do not write to the Patriot, not wishing to have the appearance of identifying myself with what I have seen of its spirit; I shall hardly be suspected of this with the Record. But if you will write to the Patriot, who will be above suspicion on that side, I should have no objection. The Patriot is more opposed to us at this moment than the Record.

THE REMAINDER OF MR. J. KELLY'S LETTER, DATED DUBLIN, MARCH 18TH, 1842, REFERRED TO IN THE INTRODUCTION, WITH SOME NOTES IN REPLY BY MR. J. N. DARBY.

I did remind you that in my former letter putting you on the defensive, as you wished, I asked you not why you had left the Church, but why you had left the Church of England. What I wished was to avoid "begging the question." You knew what body the phrase "Church of England" denoted, and that you had left it. I wanted to ascertain your reasons for leaving it; but although I used the common term "Church of England," I did not intend to give up the point that the body thus denominated was the Church of God in England; and, however you are disposed to exclaim at my intolerance, this is my position. I cannot allow the title "Church"* to apply to your union as Plymouth Brethren, as you are called, or to any class of separatists; at the same time when I unchurch you collectively, I do not unchristian you individually. I may admit that those members of Parliament who attend political unions are bonâ fide members; but this is a very different thing from admitting that the meeting is a meeting of Parliament. Thus my belief concerning you and all dissenters is that you may individually be Christians, but your meetings are schismatical - a sinful rending of the body of Christ;** and a meeting of this kind, though composed of Christians, is not to be confounded with the Church of God meeting in the name of Jesus.

{*I feel it to be of little importance what name is given to those who meet in the name of Jesus, provided they follow faithfully the word of God.}

{**According to this, the Church of England is the body of Christ, and those not of the Church of England are not of the body of Christ. "Rending the body of Christ" may alarm timid consciences, but neither the expression nor the idea is scriptural. The body of Christ cannot be rent - His sheep may be dispersed; and the national system has abundantly succeeded in that.}

232 I would now briefly touch on the contents of your letter in general, calculated as they are to make unreflecting Christians impatient of what is their path of duty, namely, adhering to the Church of England.

And first allow me to say that you confound the question of the establishment of the Church with its constitution. The establishment of, that is, in other words, the receiving the State:* into the Church, with the interference naturally allowed to the State in certain ecclesiastical arrangements, has, I admit, through the unwatchfulness of the Church, led to many evils; just as the accession of men of rank and fortune creeping into your little community might operate unfavourably upon it, and hinder its efficiency for good. But establishment is not the essence of the Church; its truth and apostolicity, as it came not from the State, nor is maintained by it, so neither can it be taken away by the State. Should the State, that is, the Queen and her executives, tomorrow forsake the Church of England, and adopt** one of the sects of the day, suppose yours, making the profession, etc., you require - and I see not how you could decline this union - the Church of England would not cease to be the Church of God. Her endowments might be rapaciously seized on, her buildings for worship alienated from her use, the different orders of her ministers proscribed, her members reduced to meet in a "little upper chamber," but still might she, and I trust would she, be God's chosen witness in the land: unestablished she might be, but not unchurched. Parliament, with its vaunted omnipotence, could not reach to this. You may perhaps take an exception to this assertion, from the fact to which you allude of ten bishoprics in Ireland having been extinguished by Parliament; but, I maintain, this could not have been done had the Church herself been faithful, and for her disloyalty to her glorious Head in this matter much chastening has fallen, and (I am persuaded) will fall on her. Her language to the State, when this aggression was threatened, ought to have been what many, though not alas! the majority of her members, felt "You may confiscate our properties, though it is personal robbery; you may grasp our diocesan and parochial revenues throughout the country, though it is sacrilege; but you must not dare to lay your hands on the ark, or spiritual functions: as the Church of God, we shall, despite of all pains and penalties, maintain the succession of our ministers." Such, I say, should have been the language of the Church on the occasion in question, followed up, if necessary, by the election of bishops to the condemned sees as they fell vacant. Her sin has been that she submitted to the usurpation of the State, in not keeping up the succession of her chief pastors; yea, that she did not exercise discipline in excommunicating the perpetrators*** of so presumptuous an act, even though the highest personage in the realm might have become thereby involved.

{*It is singular how false systems darken the intelligence. To a person who has learnt to think with scripture "receiving the State into the Church" presents no conceivable idea. Put the assembly of believers, or "the assembly of God," in place of "the Church," and what is the meaning of receiving the State into the assembly of God"? God may add such as should be saved; three thousand souls may be added to the church; false brethren may creep in - in a word, men or souls may be received in, but how the State can be received in it is impossible to conceive. And what is the interference naturally allowed to the State, when the Holy Ghost can alone really govern and act in the power of God? It is easy to talk of ecclesiastical arrangements, and "naturally allowed," when the title of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost are forgotten; but that the State should interfere in the work of the Holy Ghost is very unnatural to those who are accustomed to look at the Church as the Church of God, where all that is real is of the Holy Ghost.}

{**The Queen could not adopt the "Brethren," as they are called. If through the grace of God the Queen be converted, and take her place among God's children, she does it not as Queen, but as any other sinner saved by grace, though God's children will render her, and even every subordinate magistrate, all honour in the place in which God has set them as rulers.}

{***And among the rest all the bishops, who, as lords spiritual, figure among the enactors of the bill.}

234  But I ask, did not the church of Thyatira act somewhat after the same manner, when her great Head thus speaks to her: "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols" (Rev. 2: 20)? Yet you admit Thyatira to have been a true church of God. I do beg the attention of our readers to this. The Church of England, it is acknowledged with sorrow, does suffer the State to encroach too much on sacred things, but the church of Thyatira connived* at similar evil. And if you say that this was consistent with the latter being a true church of God, why not say the same in regard to the former?

{*How the church of Thyatira connived at similar evil I am at a loss to discover. That assembly of God was fearfully culpable in not exercising discipline when seductive errors were taught by one pretending to be a prophetess. The Establishment makes all the unconverted Christians in a lump, and ascribes to the State and other authorities, as a civil right, the nomination of all those who have places of pastors and other authorities in her pale. The church of Thyatira was very guilty, but was a guilty church; the Establishment is all the world in England, having substituted a civil arrangement for the power of the Holy Ghost. I cannot discover the analogy. To use the expression of an eloquent foreigner, "the Establishment has made of unfaithfulness an institution."}

Let our readers remember you have subscribed to this scriptural principle, that we are not to leave a true Church because of corruption in her; and I fear not the effect of your letter upon them, for the denial that the Church of England, whose martyrs are before the throne of God, is a church at all, is so monstrous, and the reasoning to prove it from the adventitious circumstance of her being established so inconclusive, that every one must see the untenableness of the position which reduces its defenders to such shifts, such revolutionary assertions.

I consider that, with these observations, all your allegations concerning the appointment by irreligious statesmen to offices in the Church are fully disposed of They relate, I repeat, to the question of the Church's establishment,* the arrangement of which may be more or less prejudicial to her; but they touch not her essential character as a true apostolic church; and moreover let it not be forgotten that, though an infidel minister may nominate to bishoprics, yet he must select for the dignity from amongst those whom the Church herself has sanctioned with her confidence,** so that, if the Church were faithful to the word of her God, the bishops laying hands suddenly on no man, she might, notwithstanding her connection with the State, defy its deteriorating influence.

{*Establishment or not, it is the fact that the bishops and priests are presented to their places by the persons alluded to. There lies the whole point. That act of revolt against the authority of the Spirit is the legate, the only legal, position of a member of the Establishment, and he treats, according to the writer, as schismatics all who do not acquiesce in it.}

{**The Church has sanctioned with her confidence - for what? to be a bishop or the pastor of such a flock? If Nero or Domitian had appointed Diotrephes bishop of Ephesus or pastor, would that have been the sanctioned act of the Holy Ghost? or John, whose surname was Mark? or Luke? or any other? Would not such an act have a deteriorating influence?}

235 I come, secondly, to your strictures on the Baptismal Service of the Church. And here I would request our readers to observe the important place the ordinance occupies in the New Testament, standing as it does in relation to every blessed feature of the divine life in the souls of believers. For example, as to the forgiveness of sins, we read, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," Acts 22: 16. As to our identification of Christ in His death, "we are buried with him by baptism unto death," Rom. 6: 4. As to the participation with Him in His resurrection-life, "wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God," Col. 2: 12. As to the "unity" even of the Church, about which you say so much, we find it also associated with baptism, "for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,''* 1 Cor. 12: 13. Now is not this continual connection of baptism with the operations of the Spirit of God an ample warrant for the importance assigned to it in the Liturgy of the Church of England, whilst strongly contrasting, I must add, with the liberalism of your party, which leaves its reception or rejection an open question?** As to the efficacy ascribed to the ordinance by the Church of England, in that after its administration we "thank God for regenerating the person baptized" (and I take these words in their plain obvious sense), it is quite consistent, I conceive, with the word of God, for the foregoing passages, tracing back as they do the spiritual life of Christians to baptism as its source,*** certainly indicate the efficacy of the ordinances in their case - that is, of the real Church, the elect of God. But who are we, to discriminate between them and the non-elect? We cannot do it, and therefore in the judgment of charity we speak of the visible Church in terms that belong to the elect Church, because we cannot distinguish them, and, that this is scriptural, see the apostle's language concerning the Israelites of old:**** "They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and they did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: but with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness," 1 Cor. 10: 3-5. Here we perceive the participation of Christ, which belonged in reality only to some, predicated of all, because all partook of the sacramental sign. It would be well, my dear sir, if, before you revile the Church of England for the vocabulary she employs in this and her other formularies, you had examined the scriptures more accurately; it might have changed your scorn into reverence to observe that invariably the receiving of the sign is spoken of in language belonging to the reception of the thing signified.

{*"Baptized by one Spirit" is not the baptism of water, but of the Holy Ghost, which is the true power of unity.}

{**There are those among the "Brethren" who are not content with the baptism which they received in infancy, and have thought it more scriptural to have adults baptized on their believing; thus the manner or circumstances of baptism have been differently judged of by many amongst them; but, instead of its being an open question, I never heard of baptism itself being a question at all among them. A few who left the Quaker body naturally passed individually through this question, that body not receiving the sacrament; but it was only to lead them to attach due importance to it.}

{***None of these passages traces spiritual life to baptism. They speak of the position in which believers were placed by baptism as their formal entrance into Christianity by a public confession, but none attributes life to baptism as its source: "Of his own will begat he us by the word of truth." It would be singular, if it were the case, that the apostle should thank God that he baptized none, God having sent him not to baptize (not therefore that life might be received) but to preach the gospel, the reception of which in the heart, it appears, by the quickening power of the Holy Ghost, does not communicate life, though it be the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. "He that hath the Son hath life." It may be true that he who refuses to confess the Son in baptism, is not to be counted as having life; but to speak of baptism as the source of life would be quite a sufficient error to oblige the rejection of the Established system, as in its root papist and heretical; it is an essential and vital point. It is a source of life too, hypothetical on the secret of election it appears, without any action on the conscience, or testimony of the word of God. Hence also every case of conversion or regeneration of adults in these countries, at least in the pale of the Establishment, is absolutely false. Such a thing cannot exist, for being proved elect by their fruits and the seal of the Holy Ghost it is evident, according to the writer, that they have been regenerated at their baptism. All his preaching of the truth, that souls may be begotten to God by the word, is false from beginning to end, for all the elect who are there have been already regenerated in their baptism. Would he tell them so - the drunkards, fornicators, avaricious - that, if elect, they have been regenerated already really at their baptism, and of course cannot be so again? they have only to mend their ways? Where faith comes in it is hard to tell; but these regenerate persons are as to their hearts unbelievers, and perhaps oppose the truth of God strongly. But to what a labyrinth does error introduce us. Or would he say that these unhappy sinners, or the self-righteous, who are really just as bad, can never be regenerate, and cannot be among the elect? Alas, alas, where does systematic error lead him to whom the system is truth!}

{****Why does the writer omit the part of the verse that relates to baptism which does not hint at anything spiritual? "They were all baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea." To apply figuratively - and in the part of the passage quoted it is avowedly a figure - the name of the thing signified to the sign is altogether another thing from affirming its efficacy in the individual who partakes of it. This latter is what the writer attempts to justify as to his use of the passage he here quotes for it, having omitted, as we have seen, the part relating to baptism. The Article of the Church of England itself will be a complete refutation; it takes pains to make the distinction Mr. Kelly would do away. Article 28 is entitled, "Of the wicked who eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's supper." Although they carnally press the Sacrament with their teeth, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ. The writer's view is merely the ex opere operato doctrine of the Papists applied to the elect - not a tittle else. The passage in the Corinthians is to shew that men may partake of sacraments and not of life. Mr. Kelly uses it to shew that we may rightly affirm life of all those who partake of the sacraments. It is a singular perversion of the passage to the exact opposite of its intention.}

237 The next thing to which it occurs to me to allude is your reference to my expression "the popular idol, unity," by which you seem greatly shocked; but why? Is there not such a thing? Are not men of all classes endeavouring to coalesce for the promotion of their favourite object, by foregoing the assertion of inconvenient truths? and is not this a characteristic of your party? Look, for instance, at the ordinance I have been just speaking of, baptism; because its scriptural use, as introductory to the Church, is adverse to the sentiment of some among you, it is omitted. The same, if you were consistent, would apply to your preaching, for there being no agreement among you as to what constitutes "the truth," beyond the elementary point devotionally held that Jesus is the Christ, to proceed further in the Christian faith would tend to hazard the maintenance of your unity, and so there could not be edification. But you are inconsistent, happily for this end. Accordingly, though in a covert way, uniting to undervalue baptism, on which God lays such stress, you have a secret Shibboleth,* I repeat, made up of other things, which gives you a sort of latitude in your teaching. Were it not for this secret Shibboleth, you could not exclude even the popish priest, if he chose to be one of you, for he could say he believed in Christ as the Saviour of sinners, the Lamb of God; but then you have set it down in your minds that the doctrines of popery are an abomination; that is, you have your Thirty-nine Articles, your interpretation of truth, though not printed; and therefore, if he got up to teach you about the sacrifice of the Mass, you would silence him, and put him from among you. In short, if you acted consistently with your boast that you have no creeds or interpretations of truth among you, then you could have no unity - at least it would only be that of different colours in the dark; and thus whereinsoever you have unity, by acting inconsistently, it is obvious your system cannot get the credit of it.

{*We have a public Bible, the sufficiency of which the writer seems exceedingly to call in question.}

238 As we are upon the subject of the unity of the Church, allow me to add that the passage in John 17: 21, upon which you lay such emphasis, I mean our Lord's prayer that they may be one, etc., does not contemplate the Church in her present state, dispersed through the world,* but rather in her future glory which awaits her at the coming of her Lord. Then indeed shall she be manifestly one in union with her glorious Head, and then will the world believe that the Father sent Him. Your interpretation antedates this consummation.

{*"Dispersed through the world." But the Saviour gave Himself to gather into one the children of God which are scattered abroad, or dispersed through the world. The Lord does not speak there of gathering into one in heaven, for no question could be as to that; He speaks of an economy distinct from the nation. He gave Himself for the nation, and to gather the children of God into one. "There is one Spirit, and one body," which applies to this world, because the Apostle speaks of what the joints supply for the increase of the body, as elsewhere of the members suffering with each other. Also the passage in John is in contrast with the unity in glory; the Saviour prays that those that believe through their word may be one, that the world may believe, and then adds, "The glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be made perfect in one, that the world may know."}

239 One remark more, and I shall have done. You misrepresent me in saying that by my plan, or rather the Church's, "I would take the Church of God out of the field of faith and dependence on the energies of the Holy Ghost." Such is not the case. I would have the most implicit faith exercised, and the Holy Ghost honoured in all His offices by the child of God, but I see not that the use of means is incompatible with this. The Holy Ghost works by means. Paul, who, as you quote, in the prospect of perverse men arising after his decease to deceive the Ephesian church, commended "to God and the word of his grace" as the real safeguard, omits not to instruct Timothy, who presided over that Church; thus, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. 2: 2. In like manner Peter says, "Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." According to you, no provision ought to be made for future exigencies in the Church of God, but all should be left to the Spirit when the crisis comes; and, consistently with this, we should not multiply copies of the word of God by printing, using that human invention, type;* but the Holy Ghost should be expected to speak orally in the various assemblies of believers, using some individual as His organ, and thus superseding our ingenuity!

{*Does the writer mean to place the use of the word of God on the same ground with human arrangements, and learning, and academies, and the education of young men for a profession who perhaps are not faithful at all, as if that was the ministry of the Church of Christ?}

Let me tell you, my dear sir, it is not honouring the Holy Ghost to disdain the helps which prudence and experience suggest for preserving the precious deposit of the faith, and maintaining the unity of the Church; it is rather tempting and grieving Him. Satan would have honoured thus when he plied Jesus with his artful reasoning, that if He were the Son of God He should cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple; but Jesus replied, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."* True faith will depend on God in the use of all lawful means; and, in regard to the edification of the Church, will not risk it by abolishing all form of sound words, and preparation for the ministry, and then leaving that ministry open to all who may choose to take it upon them, running before they are sent; but putting into requisition** every reasonable precaution, will then wait upon God for His blessing, which alone can prosper; and this is as compatible with dependence on God's grace, as the culture of the soil and the scattering of the seed is with the dependence on His providence.

{*Tempting God was making essays to try whether the Lord was among them, saying, "Is the Lord indeed amongst us?" not a humble confidence that He was, and therefore doing His will being based on that confidence.}

{**It is hard to see how educating young men for the ministry, without knowing whether God has called them at all, and then waiting upon God for His blessing, is a reasonable precaution. In the national system young men are educated for the ministry, and afterwards called upon, when their life has received this direction as a profession, to declare that they are called of God. I find it hard to call this a reasonable precaution, if I believe the Holy Ghost to be the only real source of ministry. Besides, reasonable precautions are a very precarious ground, when our point is to follow the word of God. There is no precaution like obedience. All that this sentence means is, that when man has arranged things according to his own wisdom, then he will expect God to bless. That which is condemned by the writer puts God's blessing and will first, and looks to that as the source of comfort and edification. The fact is, that every one who wills enters on what is called the ministry of the Establishment, if he has a decent education in a college, and a decent character, or three persons to say he has; whereas what is condemned admits no ministry but that which flows from the gift, and presence, and power of the Holy Ghost. Which is most scriptural?

240 I perceive that, whereas I intended only a few short notes, I have been drawn out to write a long letter; I shall now close, leaving you to have the last word, if you please, before going to press.

If you like, by the way, you may answer to our readers the following queries:

1. Where was the Church of God in England at the time of the Reformation?* and was that Church identified with the use of creeds, and an ordained ministry separate from the people? If so, are you not separatists from the Church?

{*Scattered by the wickedness of men and the unscriptural intervention of princes, having been never in Saxon England founded on any true basis, it was buried under the heaps of popery, from which it never half emerged.}

241 2. How are teachers appointed among you?* Is it competent to any one who feels he has the gift to stand up and minister in the word, and then if he teach Socinianism how can you consistently silence him? May he not say** he speaks in the Spirit as well as you; and thus are not all your meetings for worship and edification liable to become arenas of controversy? And

{*As in the Ephesians, Christ gave some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers. What passage warrants their appointment by men? "Let two or three speak," says the apostle, "and let the rest judge."}

{**The Socinian, as well as the Church of England, so called, is to be judged by the word of God. "If a man come and bring you not this doctrine, neither receive him into your house, nor bid him God speed." The writer seems to forget that there is a word of God by which what men say, and all their pretensions to the Spirit, or to be the Church of God, are to be judged of.}

3. Is it a hindering of the Spirit of God to provide against this confusion by submitting the pretensions of gifted persons:* to such an officer in the Church as Titus, appointed "to set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1: 5)? And, [See 4 below.]

{*It was not to such an officer that this task is allotted in the word of God. Next I deny that Titus was any constituted officer in the Church, or other than a temporary delegate of the apostle. Acts 20 proves that all application of the title of diocesan episcopacy to Timothy is utterly false, for the apostle puts the elders on their own responsibility, without the smallest reference, and to the exclusion of any such officer. Such delegate of apostolic authority does not exist, because the apostle is not here to delegate him, whatever the various measure of gift may be. Episcopal pretension to it is to be avoided for a very simple reason, that the power does not exist; and the kingdom of God is in power. If those who are called bishops in the Establishment, or in popery, examine the qualifications and source of mission of Timothy and Titus as given by the apostles, a very small share of modesty, not to say of truth, would make them resign all pretensions to being in the same position. Their service after all was very different in its character, but in both instances temporary. Do the archbishops or bishops seriously pretend to confer the Holy Ghost on men marked out by prophecy, when a bishop named by the prime minister is consecrated? It is serious trifling with these subjects - a grave thing to pretend to give, or to have received, the Holy Ghost, and above all to take one's place in the Church of God as doing so. I tremble in thinking of the responsibility and the facts: the Lord keep me from judging.}

4. Pray who is this officer among you?

242 A clear and concise answer to these questions will, I am sure, be acceptable to our readers.

Praying that in these times of temptation through division, God may render the perusal of this correspondence (so humble at least on my part) profitable to His children,

I remain, my dear sir,

Yours in Christian truth and love,

James Kelly.

Review of a sermon preached by the Rev. G. M. Innes,

in the Quebec Cathedral, on Sunday, April 5th, 1868, and published in the Quebec Mercury, April 9

th

J. N. Darby.

<14008E> 243

Dear. Mr. Innes,

Had you confined your sermon to the church in which it was preached, I should never have taken any notice of it. You were within the sphere of your own labours. If you thought we were an evil people, you were right to warn your congregation against us. At any rate, I have no thought of answering the thousand-and-one attacks which are made upon us. The best way is to work on and take no notice of them. If we are according to God in our doctrine and walk, the Lord will answer for us; if not, it is well we should be judged. I am convinced that, though failing, as every Christian will own he does, in carrying his convictions out, and admitting that all who advocate the truth are not wise in their way of advocating it, I am convinced, I say, we are right in principle and practice; that our position is the only true scriptural one; but that it should be spoken against can neither surprise nor much distress me. It has been the fate of the most undoubted truth ever since truth was published. I have not even read the attacks in the Record and Echo; I never see them unless someone sends me some special numbers, and I go on my way and work quietly. But you have put your sermon in a common political journal, and made it public property, not a pastoral address. This paper has been sent me from Quebec; and some statements in it lead me to take notice of it, because truths important to all Christians are canvassed in it; and it does not merely consist of attacks on "Brethren," which I should have left unnoticed. I believe you to be a servant of God. I trust not a trace of unkind feeling is in my heart, I am not conscious of any; but as the truth of Christ is in question, I shall speak plainly. I cannot but think you have been misled by the flattering demand of hearers in thus bringing the episcopal body into prominent notice as a security for truth. I will say more: seeing the inroads of popery (I may now add infidelity) long after I left the Establishment, I looked to it as a providential bulwark against these inroads. I satisfied the claims of my own conscience; but I would not have lifted a finger, had I had power to do it, against it. I have not the remotest sympathy now with the coalition of dissenters in England with papists and infidels to put it down. They are seeking to do so. It is part of the blindness and infatuation of these last days, and they will find it so to their cost. But everything is called in question in these days, whether we will or not, and it is of the utmost importance to know on what the soul can rely as sure ground with God. It is this which is now driving hundreds of souls into the snares of Romanism. It proffers certainty, and in this sense gives quietness to the spirit which has no hold of truth, nor sense of its importance for itself. Is the Anglican body such a security? That is the question Mr. Innes has brought before the public.

244 To come more directly to his sermon: - there are three points it suggests to me. He is thankful for a fixed standard of doctrine. The preacher's words are these: "Never before, beloved, has my mind been more deeply impressed with a sense of the value of such a fixed standard of doctrine as we possess as members of the Church of England in our scriptural formularies, as of late." This, then, is the first point I shall speak of: does the Anglican body afford a security for sound doctrine?

The next I shall notice is the false doctrines he ascribes to those whom his sermon denounces.

The third question raised by Mr. Innes is that of an ordained ministry.

The first point, were I an enemy, an infidel, not a Christian, would furnish subject for laughter and mockery. As it is, I feel far more inclined to weep . . . as I believe a Christian ought in these evil days. Who are opening the high road to popery? Is it not the sticklers for the formularies of the Anglican body? Is Mr. Innes ignorant of the monastic institutions of Anglicanism? Is he ignorant that transubstantiation is taught by a vast and increasing body of the English clergy, perhaps I might say a majority? Is he ignorant that the Eucharist is worshipped by a vast and increasing number, on the ground that Christ is there, and, wherever He is, He ought to be worshipped? If he has not, let him get a book called "The Church and the World," and he will see, not perhaps how many have embraced it, but what they embrace at any rate. He may be aware that at the Pan-Anglican synod, the prelates could not venture to touch the question, and that a royal commission has met on ritualism, which I adduce only as shewing that the gangrene affects the whole Church, so that it is felt something must be done: only they know not what to do, and meanwhile time is gained by the ritualists for the wide spreading progress of their popish errors. And I beg Mr. Innes to remark, all is founded on the rubrics and formularies of the Church, which have tied the hands of the prelates so that, when inclined, they cannot act; their popishly inclined defy them. But many of them concur.

A large meeting was held at Salisbury of clergy and laity, and parishioners were recommended to go to another parish church if they could escape the popish leaven thus; if not, to some godly dissenter's chapel, provided he did not speak against the Establishment.

245 Does Mr. Innes recollect the last election of a diocesan in a town called Quebec, where the laity would not have Puseyism and the clergy would? and the present prelate, of whom I would speak without the least idea of disrespect, suddenly found himself such in a way as unexpected to himself as to everybody? He might almost with truth take the Archiepiscopal title, "by divine providence," in lieu of the more modest Episcopal one, "by divine permission." Is Mr. Innes aware that the patents (for that is the authority for episcopal preeminence now of all the colonial prelates) have been judicially declared void wherever there was a legislative assembly? And if rumour be not false, he who, as I suppose, ordained (certainly was the diocesan of) Mr. Innes, declared to his clergy, on his return from England, that he did not know whether he was their bishop or not. I dare say Mr. Innes can inform us how far rumour was e act. I do not know whether an Act of Parliament has not been passed, regulating this. I am thankful if it is so, for peace is always desirable, and doubtless the clergy, from higher considerations, would have submitted to prelates who had no legal title at all, and they would have done well while they remained in the system.

But we are considering the comfort of having a fixed standard of doctrine. It is really going too far to speak of such a thing when the whole empire is reeling under the effects of the question whether what is substantially popish is not most truly Anglican, and the prelates are unable to interfere, and seek with hopeless anxiety to tide it over, while in the meantime the tide is carrying the clerical body into popery - not all, I admit, but this I reserve for further on. But meanwhile crowds, tired out, join the Roman-catholic body, and crowds leave the Establishment to be Christians unattached. But the formularies are what Mr. Innes refers to: I turn to speak of them. Come.

246 Does Mr. Innes believe that by baptism, every infant baptized is "made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven"? Mr. Innes does not use the Catechism perhaps; but it is surely a formulary of the body he belongs to. But he does say "that this child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." He gives thanks to the "most merciful Father that it has pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thine holy Church"; and this after having prayed "that he may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration," and exhorted all to pray "that God will grant to this child that thing which by nature he cannot have."* I believe the whole of this to be false doctrine as to baptism, which does not refer even as a sign to the membership of Christ's body but to Christ's death; but this I leave. Does Mr. Innes think this formulary gives us a fixed standard of doctrine on which our souls may rest?

{*The Presbyterians and Lutherans also teach that a child is born again in baptism. Only the Presbyterians confine it to the elect.}

Again, if Mr. Innes uses the Visitation of the Sick, he has occasion to say - must, if he uses the formulary, say - "and by His authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name," etc. Nor is this a vague matter. In the ordering of priests the formulary says "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of my hands; whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained." Does Mr. Innes believe this, that he has received the Holy Ghost, giving him this authority, by his ordination? And this is the more distinct and definite; because when the deacon is ordained there is nothing of the kind. It is merely, "Take thou authority to read the gospel in the church, and to preach the same if thou be thereto licensed by the bishop himself." So that it cannot be pleaded that the pretension to confer the Holy Ghost is merely communicating an orderly authority. That is done to the deacon so called. But in the case of the priest the ordaining prelate professes to confer the Holy Ghost so as to make a priest competent to forgive sins. Hence the deacon, when he reads the morning service, is not allowed to read even the declaratory absolution which follows the confession of sin. Alas! does Mr. Innes accept all this as a fixed standard of doctrine? It was not these things which drove me out of the Establishment, but the discovery of what the true Church of God was, and consequently that the Establishment was not it. But can we be surprised at the nation's running into popery, or at the perplexity of souls attached to the Establishment when the fixed standard of formularies fully authorizes the clergy, yea, binds them, if they are honest, to believe such things as these? It may be alleged that this practically only concerns the clergy, and that the laity do not enter into these questions. It is an unhappy state of things, if that were true, that all the teachers are bound to doctrines which are popish in their character, even if the taught do not find it out. But it is not so. Every one knows that it is infecting the whole Establishment, or dividing it. And as regards the Catechism and Baptismal Service, it concerns the flock as much as the pastor. I have no desire to seek objects of attacks, or I might say much on the Liturgy. I notice only the second of thirty-nine Articles. I suppose it means to affirm the vital doctrine of atonement, or propitiation, the just appeasement of God's wrath by the blessed sacrifice of Christ - a vital doctrine assuredly; but it is put in a way in which no intelligent Christian could sign it, "to reconcile his Father to us." As if atonement was not something which met the immutable righteousness of God and glorified it, but meant that the love being in Christ changed the Father's mind where that love was not. This is a most evil way of putting it, though I am willing to think they meant right, and erred through ignorance and tradition. But scripture affords no ground whatever for such a statement.

247 But I have said that there is not in all the clergy that tendency to Romanism, and adoption of its essential principles in baptismal regeneration, priestly absolution, and the worship of the Eucharist.

248 But what is the character of the other chief part of the Anglican Establishment? The name of Colenso is in every mouth, and the Essays and Reviews familiar to every person acquainted with current literature: that is, open infidelity in the highest authorities of the Church. But this is not all. Suits have been instituted and decided in the highest court of ecclesiastical appeal. And as to the Essays and Reviews it has been decided that no English clergyman is bound to believe in the inspiration of the scriptures or in eternal punishment, and Colenso remains recognized by the same authority, and we have had the scandal of his shutting his cathedral against the Metropolitan of the Cape, and the latter breaking it open with axes and hammers; the said Metropolitan having deposed Colenso and determined to consecrate another, and the English prelates remonstrating and declaring it illegal if done in England. I do not blame the Metropolitan, who, however, has the reputation of semi-Romanism. But what are we to say as to the certainty of a fixed standard? All this is notorious from the public papers. It is a very serious thing its having been decided that no clergyman is bound to hold the scriptures to be inspired, and that infidelity has full swing in the clergy. A very large body of them indeed are known to be rationalist.

Let no one suppose that I say all this without profound sorrow. I believe the Lord is soon coming, and that all this is the power of evil allowed to rise up rampantly before judgment comes. But our enquiry is whether, in this uprising of evil, such a system can afford any security or standard of truth. I might in conscience leave it on ecclesiastical grounds, yet believe it was in the main a bulwark against error and the power of evil. But it is not so. It is torn into popish and infidel factions, a few pious earnest souls in vain struggling in the stream. It is no security for one single truth (save such as it holds in common with popery) and is the sanction for a great deal of popish error. I have stated above from its own formularies in what that conformity to Romanism consists. I think we need some sure fixed standard; but it is not to be found in that which allows denial of the inspiration of scripture and infidel chief ministers on the one hand, and on the other holds the baptized child to be regenerate by the Holy Spirit in baptism, and the power of the priest to absolve from sin by an authority distinctly committed to him of God. I mourn over such a need; but I do feel, in the present upheaving, that it is well to know what we can trust to for truth. I believe the word of God, the scriptures, with the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit, to be the only standard or fixed rule, while the gifts of teaching and the faithful confession of the Church of the living God may be useful as means of acquiring and holding the truth fast - the word of God the only rule, and grace the only power. Self-will will go astray, the humble soul be kept and prosper; and God means it should be so.

249 I may now take up a far less important part of the subject, the points on which "Brethren" are attacked, some of them by name. Mr. Innes says, Mr. Mackintosh practically denies the entire humanity of the blessed Saviour. This is simply (I may say it as it does not concern myself) a foul falsehood. He holds, and states he holds, the full true humanity of Christ. I do not charge Mr. Innes with inventing the false statement. But he who picks up dirt, made by the wheels of others, to throw at his neighbours is likely to get dirty hands at least himself. I dare say Mr. Innes may have the statement second or third-hand. Mr. Mackintosh called the Saviour a heavenly man and, I think, a divine man too. I think the words most seemly of a man who was also God, and divine in all His ways, of One who could say "the Son of Man who is in heaven." The charge was made in an attack by one in the greatest spiritual ignorance; and, two pages beyond that in which the accused terms occurred, there was the denouncement as vapid and worthless theories of the very thing he was accused of holding, and the true humanity of Christ fully insisted upon, and in the clearest terms.* Either Mr. Innes knows this, and it has been fully pointed out, or he has taken up a false accusation against an active servant of the Lord at secondhand without giving himself the trouble of ascertaining whether it be true or not. It is for Mr. Innes to say which it is. Mr. Mackintosh's writings are too widely spread and too well known, more especially that very one to which Mr. Innes's accusation applies, to make Mr. Innes's judgment of him of much moment.

{*Mr. Mackintosh's words are these: "It was a real human body - real flesh and blood. There is no possible foundation here on which Gnosticism or Mysticism can base its vapid and worthless theories. The early promise had declared that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and none but a real man could accomplish this prediction, one whose nature was as pure as it was incorruptible," and he continues largely to the same purpose. This was not only published before the attack was made, but is in the publication which forms the subject of accusation.}

250 Mr. Innes's statement as to myself and imputed righteousness is not much more honest. I have published four considerable tracts on the subject, as it raised a great deal of enquiry at the time, and the subject itself was important. Either Mr. Innes has read the controversy or he has not. If he has, he is personally dishonest in his statement. If he has not, he has no right to say what I hold.* I have stated there and I state here, I have no idea of any one being righteous before God but by righteousness being imputed to him as contrasted with inherent righteousness, though never actually separated from it, or the life that produces fruits of righteousness. I hold the statement in the articles of the Establishment to be sound and just. What I deny is the doctrine that, while the death of Christ cleanses us from sin, His keeping the law is our positive righteousness, and that His keeping the law is imputed to us as ourselves under it, and that law-keeping is positive righteousness. I believe that Christ perfectly glorified God by obedience even unto death, and that that is to our profit in such sort that, while His death has cancelled all our sins who believe, we are accepted according to His present acceptance in God's sight according to the value of that work, being held to be risen with Him, that our position before God is not legal righteousness, or measured by Christ's keeping the law, but His present acceptance, as risen, in the whole value of the work, and we accounted righteous according to the value of that.

{*My words in "Brethren and their Reviewers" are these: "A man is held to be righteous in God's sight. Here it is the estimate God forms judicially, not the intrinsic state. If the state be such, He will hold it such; but this is impossible for sinful men. Hence if a man partakes of the divine nature, loves righteousness, and, as to the new nature, nothing else, yet relatively and judicially because of the old man he cannot pretend to be, is not in himself, truly righteous in God's sight, because of what he is.

"Because of Christ God holds him relatively and judicially to be perfectly righteous, according to His own divine estimate: righteousness is imputed to him."}

The statement of Article 11 I hold to be perfectly sound, that we are accounted righteous before God only for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own merits or deserving. What I object to is the doctrine of such books as Theron and Aspasio, and the imputing Christ's keeping the law to us as our positive righteousness; we being under it and not having kept it, and Christ having kept it for us.

251 The controversy arose out of a statement of Mr. Molyneux, a clergyman, in Exeter Hall, that if a man was cleansed from his sin in the blood of Christ, and sanctified by the Spirit of God, he cannot then go to heaven; and that there was written up over the gate of heaven, "Do this and live!" To this I demurred. I hold, then, righteousness imputed without works to be a vital truth: Christ's work being of course the sole ground of it. I do not hold that a Christian is under the law, and that his keeping it is the righteousness which entitles him to heaven, but that, he not having kept it, Christ has kept that law for him, and thus has given him the title. I hold that he is in Christ, risen and Himself as man glorified according to the whole value of His work, and accounted righteous (the true sense of righteousness being imputed), according to the price of that blessed work in God's sight, and withal as in Christ Himself Yet I have no quarrel with any Christian who holds this legal righteousness to be his title. All I think is, he is not clear on this subject, and deprives himself of a very blessed and glorious privilege in connection with a risen and glorified Saviour.

The next point is the Lord's prayer. Here, too, I have no quarrel with any; I leave every one perfectly free to use or not to use it. No Christian, in his senses, but thinks whatsoever the Lord did or said was absolutely perfect in its place. The question is, what is the place He gave it? I add, further, I think the argument against its use drawn from asking forgiveness is weak. The forgiven state is the witness of our being that in which we have forgiveness, like all other proof of life. But, for all that, the demand of it is generally a proof that true forgiveness is not known; but this is a question of spiritual perception and judgment. But Mr. Innes is singularly unhappy in his way of insisting on it. He takes the Lord's prayer, in Luke, because it is said: "When ye pray, say!" But nobody says the Lord's prayer as it is in Luke, but as it is in Matthew.

But more than this: probably Mr. Innes's military education has given him little opportunity for critical enquiry; nor is this any blame if he attends to what is more important; but if he had attended to it, he would know that the superstition as to the Lord's prayer has led to the interpolation of Luke, in order to assimilate him to Matthew, and that in fact we have two Lord's prayers, both assuredly perfect in their place, and given by inspiration. The prayer in Luke really runs thus: "Our Father, Thy name be hallowed; Thy kingdom come; give our needed bread for each day; and remit us our sins, for we also remit to every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation." Now, for the purpose for which the Holy Ghost gives this version of it here, I believe this to be perfect, and for that for which it is given in Matthew it is perfect there: only there too "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever," has been added from ecclesiastical use of it, and is interpolated. But this makes sad havoc of its use as a prescribed formulary; for which are we to use, Luke's Lord's prayer, or Matthew's Lord's prayer? for they are not the same.

252 I repeat, no Christian in his senses, doubts of the perfectness of the Lord's words; and in principle every desirable thing is summed up in this prayer. But there is a very important feature in the nature of this prayer which Mr. Innes has overlooked - it is 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." 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.

But the truth is, that the "Brethren" assailed 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, generally, I believe, save among Romanists and Episcopalians.* Just as we never find it in the prayers of the New Testament after Pentecost, because the Holy Ghost led them 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. The use of it as mere paternoster, having some virtue in it, is a superstition and nothing else. Mr. Innes's statement is a pure blunder, because nobody ever says it as it is in Luke, and it is, in fact, not simply recited, as it is in Matthew, but as tradition has given it from the Church use, the passage in Matthew having been interpolated to suit this, and nearly half added in Luke to make it in some measure agree with Matthew. Tampering with God's word is the constant and sure effect of ecclesiastical traditions, when that word is not set aside by them.

{*I have met providentially with an unlooked-for confirmation of what I have here said as to other Christians, in "The Worship of the Presbyterian Church, by Samuel Miller, D.D., extracted by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia"; so that it is accepted so far by the Presbyterian body: -

"The Lord's prayer, given at the request of the disciples, forms no objection to this conclusion. It was evidently not intended to be used as an exact, and far less as an exclusive, form. It is not given in the same words by any two of the evangelists. As it was given before the New Testament Church was set up, so it is strictly adapted to the old rather than to the new economy. It contains no clause asking for blessings in the name of Christ, which the Saviour Himself afterwards solemnly enjoined as indispensable. After the resurrection and ascension of Christ, when the New Testament Church was set up, we read nothing more in the inspired history of this form. And it is not till several centuries after the apostolic age that we find this prayer statedly introduced into public worship. Accordingly it is remarkable, that Augustine in the fourth century expresses the decisive opinion 'that Christ intended this prayer as a model rather than a form; that he did not mean to teach his disciples what words they should use in prayer, but what things they should pray for.'"

Poor unhappy Augustine!}

253 The third point which calls for remark is an appointed ministry. Now, that God has appointed or given a ministry in His Church for its edification and for the evangelizing of the world, is as certain as the word of God can make it. The question does not lie there, but in this: Is the clergy that ministry? Mr. Innes would permit irregular ministrations. He is very kind, no doubt, if God sent them. But there is another question: Is not his position the false and irregular one, and a hindrance and denial of true ministry? If there be a ministry given of God, and man has set up another, it is this which is in fault, this that is false and evil, worse than irregular.

I will make what I mean very plain. If Paul were to come to Quebec, he could not preach, according to Mr. Innes' system. He has never been ordained. It will be said this is ridiculous. He is an apostle, and would preach of course. I agree: sovereignly ridiculous. But the ridiculousness is in those who have concocted a system which leads to such a result. Paul would preach assuredly, and no thanks to Mr. Innes or his clerical system, because God sent him. And so would every one sent of God. The irregularity, according to the word of God, is in the clergy, not in the preaching of those whom God has sent. I will put another case, one which Mr. Innes knows to be quite common, alas! the most common: an unconverted clergyman in a parish, and the parish spiritually in the dark; or, if the clergyman be converted, a determined Puseyite, teaching to worship the Eucharist, as hundreds do now in England. Well! an evangelist sent of God is blessed to the conversion of many souls: that is, the Holy Ghost has wrought by him, and souls are brought to Christ. Which is irregular - I appeal to Mr. Innes' conscience - the evangelist who has wrought with God, or the unconverted clergyman? Who brought the latter there? Not God: it were a heinous blasphemy to say so. Who brought the evangelist there? God's grace. But this on Mr. Innes' system is irregular. Well! in this world it is so. But it is a mercy there is such. But perhaps Mr. Innes will say, let him keep to his place as evangelist, and put these unconverted souls under the existing orderly pastoral care. What pastoral care? That of an unconverted man, or a worshipper of the Eucharist, or a rationalist? ay, or even a man who, if he is honest, believes he was made a child of God and a member of Christ by his baptism? Is this regular?

254 What is the real state of the case according to the system, imperfectly carried out perhaps in a colony, because they cannot help themselves, and are happily more irregular? The country is divided into parishes, and universities and other schools supply incumbents, without the smallest or most distant reference to the Church of God, or gift fitting on God's part for the office. If they are good men, so much the better - if indeed it do not help on delusion; but, good or bad, the ordaining prelate gives, if they are priested, the Holy Ghost to all alike, in order that they may have power to forgive sins. Is this what Mr. Innes calls regular, and the free action of the Spirit of God, according to the word, irregular ministry? A sober, godly mind, a mind taught by the word, let me tell him, will count such a system worse than irregular. He may - ought - to mourn and weep over it, not expose it, save as the growing power of evil forces us to enquire what can be trusted in as true, and what cannot. This feeling alone makes me speak thus. An Edomite "Down with it, down with it," I have no sympathy with whatever. But we are forced, and, as an occasion, forced by such statements as Mr. Innes's, to enquire what is of God and what is not - to separate the precious from the vile. I would receive every saint, episcopal or anything else, with my whole heart; but the system is leading souls by thousands into popery and falsehood on one hand, and infidelity on the other, because there is no plain solid truth in it. Evangelicals do not believe what they sign and acquiesce in. Can Mr. Innes be surprised if I doubt that he believes Dr. Cronin conferred the Holy Ghost on him that he might have the priestly power of forgiving sins? And it is a serious thing to trifle and make empty forms of serious things - a serious thing for the state of the soul. The state of things is forcing all this into view. It may be so best in God's wisdom, for all is surely hastening to the end; but at any rate it is sorrowful. Whether it be wise in Mr. Innes to draw attention to it, he must judge. I should have a great deal more to say on this head, but I refrain. The great principles are what we have to enquire into. I turn to more general points, and I will state some general principles, I am bold to say, incontrovertible according to the word of God. Mr. Innes will see it is not against his system more than another, but that I speak of what the word of God teaches.

255 Member of a church is a thing unknown to scripture. The words, the thing, the idea are unknown there. Christians are members of Christ, and, if you please, one of another, and of nothing else. And membership of anything else is only schism, and denying the true meaning of the word.

A flock other than God's flock is equally unknown. God's flock alone is known in scripture, of which Christ is the chief shepherd. There is one flock, and only one, meeting it may be in different localities, and elders belonging to those localities; but all the faithful there at any time were of it, because they were of God's flock. A pastor and his flock, in the modern sense, is wholly unknown to scripture, and an utter denial of its contents, if it be not of the words: "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos," etc. These statements I leave for every honest-minded saint to see whether they are according to scripture or not.

I will now take up the proofs by which Mr. Innes attempts to justify the ecclesiastical forms of his system. I only press the fact, that these forms say nothing as to the substance of the system - namely, sacramental birth to God, priestly forgiveness of sins, pretending to confer the Holy Ghost by ordination in order to that power. Anglicans must accept this, they must pretend to do it; at any rate they all sanction it. It is important to keep this clearly before us. A man may prove meat to be good; but if poison is in it, the proof of its goodness means nothing, or a snare.

256 But I will take up the alleged proofs of the forms, and shew what scripture teaches as to the ministry. In doing this, I must apprise my reader that there is a constant confusion in most minds between ministry and local office. I do not reproach Mr. Innes, in particular, with this; I remember when, from habit, I made the same confusion. But for all that, the difference is important. Nay, my own conviction is, that the gradual decline of gift led to the confusion of the two, ministry and office; and thus establishing the clergy led the way for papal anti-christian claims. The elders and deacons were local officers; ministry, in the sense of the exercise of gift for edification, was not. It was a given member (eye, foot, ear, as is said) of the whole body of Christ. Elders were ordained in every city, but God set in the Church various gifts. This difference is all important as to the nature of ministry, and the whole clerical and denominational system crumbles together under the unquestionable scriptural fact. Let me add a question here, which I have often and long ago put, as shewing the practical result: - "If Paul were to address a letter to the Church of God which is at Montreal, who could get the letter?"

It was necessary for me to begin with this distinction, because Mr. Innes' first question involves the denial of it. His question shews, indeed, ignorance of what he might see all over Canada and Europe and everywhere else. It is this: Has God ordained a divinely appointed ministry to rule and teach in the Church? Now, it is perfectly clear that scripture recognizes teachers who do not rule, save as far as general influence goes, and rulers who do not teach; that teaching was a desirable qualification for those who ruled, but that all had it not. The whole Presbyterian body, whatever their other defects may be, recognize ruling elders who are not teachers. But further, Mr. Innes, having his mind filled with the identity of ruling and teaching, supposes that the admission of a divinely given ministry is rested by those whom he opposes on 1 Timothy, and that they think that 2 Timothy has set it aside. He deceives himself and his hearers altogether. It is because we believe in a divinely given ministry, that we do not believe in the geographical system of parishes, and a ministry ordained of man and not of God. Some clergymen may be ministers; but a divinely given ministry sets aside the clerical system, in which Paul and all the early labourers of scripture could not have been permitted to exercise their ministry.

257 I shall quote the passages which speak of a divinely appointed ministry, quite distinct from local elders, that we may know how scripture presents the ministry to us. In Ephesians 4, which Mr. Innes quotes when condescending to sanction what he calls "irregular labourers," we shall see what ministry is. Christ, who descended into the lowest parts of the earth, is ascended above all heavens, and has led captivity captive, and received gifts for men; a glorious origin and source of ministry. And He gave some apostles and prophets, some pastors and teachers, and some evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ, till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. We cannot conceive a more full or glorious expression of ministry than this; complete in every possible respect - in its source, in the sphere it belongs to, in the completeness of its objects, and in the enduringness of its character. And note, we have no miraculous gifts, no tongues, no healings, no miracles. It is proper ministerial service. The apostles and prophets, we read in this epistle, were the foundation; they have had their place, but pastors, teachers, evangelists abide.*

{*I cannot stop to notice the wild fanaticism of those who pretend that we are all come to a perfect man, etc.: they are the striking proof that we are not.}

Nor is there an idea of ordination: Christ gave. They are, Mr. Innes being witness, the irregular labourers, though Timothy, he tells us, proves there were regular ones. And note, these are the talents conferred when the nobleman went away to receive the kingdom, and to return; and woe be to that servant, who, in order to trade, waited for any other authority than the possession of the talents committed! And it is very striking here, that so distinct is the character of gift by an exalted Christ that the apostle knows nothing here of the apostles till Christ was gone on high. He recognized, of course, as we know, the fact; but he cannot know them other than endowed from on high, as he did not, in the same sense, know Christ after flesh. But this is certain - we get the regular ministry in the Church (pastors and teachers), to the world (evangelists), by gift from on high, without the most distinct hint of bishop, presbyter, or ordination. It speaks, Mr. Innes does not deny, of the irregular labourers on his system, I should say, of a divinely appointed ministry in its fullest character, and without any so-called merely supernatural or miraculous gifts, but that by which the Church was to be edified till we all come to a perfect man. I pity the regular ministry somewhat, if this was the irregular.

258 But let us search if scripture warrants this view elsewhere.

We have a more general list, in 1 Corinthians 12. Here the Spirit divides to every man severally as He will, and the gifts are given to every man to profit withal. These are various members in the one body. God has set in the Church - the sphere of action is the one body, the Church - apostles, prophets, etc., amongst which we have gifts of government distinct from teachers. Some of these gifts are lost, others not; but I suppose what remains are to be used; yea, I might almost dare to say it is not irregular to use them, to trade with the talents, if they are given to profit withal. Scripture will surely, and does, regulate their use, both as to order and morally. Not more than two or three were to speak. That is a wise rule of order. "Be not many teachers" is a moral instruction and warning. But neither could have any application at all in the clerical system. They could have had no application to the system Mr. Innes belongs to. We are not talking of what are called extraordinary or miraculous gifts but of teachers, of divinely appointed ministry. Or does Mr. Innes intend to tell us that the Holy Ghost is no longer in the Church to give teachers, but to make priests for the forgiveness of sins? Is that what he considers regular? But I proceed.

We have in Peter positive orders on the point. 1 Peter 4: 10: "As every man has received the gift, so minister the same, one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." Here again it is the irregular labour, but within, one to another.

259 Evangelical history tells the same tale, as Mr. Innes admits. "They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." And "the hand of the Lord was with them." Philip, one of the seven, purchases to himself a good degree, and an evangelist. Stephen has a still brighter crown - at least as far as man can say, and so in numberless instances. It is the history of the evangelizing the Gentiles. Paul boasts that he was neither of man nor by man. John in his second epistle has no rule for a woman to go by but the doctrine brought. Gaius and Demetrius are commended for receiving these irregular labourers. Diotrephes, indeed, objected. Such are the instructions, rapidly reviewed, which the word gives us of divinely appointed ministry. We may add, Romans 12, in which each is directed to confine himself to his own gift.

I now turn to Timothy. This does give us order and care of the Church, and watching over sound doctrine; which last was the immediate object of his being left at Ephesus. But it does not give us anything of appointment of ministry. Indeed, though scripture may and does regulate the use of gift, if God has given a teacher or other gift, he cannot, he dare not, wait on man to exercise it, and hide it in a napkin till then. Scripture does regulate, and where prophets were to speak, the rest were to judge; but the gift of God is to be exercised and not wait for the permission of man, as to the general fact of serving by it, though all of us have to be subject one to another, and we are to obey God rather than man, if man forbid us to speak in Christ's name. Timothy was left specially to watch over sound doctrine, and watch against false teachers; but the general order of the Church is unfolded. Yet there is no establishment of a ministry. He was to communicate to faithful men the things he had learned; but here there is not the remotest hint of appointing to office, and its absence is most significative. He was to instruct, not ordain. No such thought was or could be true. We have seen that the ministry was in full exercise and its order established in 1 Corinthians. It depended on gift, and gift had its place in the whole body. If Apollos was a teacher at Ephesus, he was a teacher at Corinth, and so of all. Indeed every Jew was familiar with this, and the rulers of the synagogue were distinct as to office from the teachers. Christ could stand up to read and teach; so Paul and Barnabas were invited at Antioch. As to the form, there was thus a wellknown liberty of teaching, and the distinction of teaching and ruling thoroughly understood. They might, doubtless, be united in one person, but they were distinct. It was the habit of our blessed Lord, of Paul, and of Apollos to teach and preach in the synagogue; none pretended to be ruler there. And in the Christian assemblies elders were local. Thus Paul and Barnabas chose* elders for them in every church (Acts 14). So Titus was to establish elders in every city. Gifts were exercised everywhere, as such or such a member of the body: so the whole history and doctrinal teaching of the New Testament shew. Elders were local officers. For this office it was desirable that they should be apt to teach; but their business was to oversee and guide the flock of God where the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. And we know that some recognized elders did not teach, though they might rule well. The apostle in this same epistle distinguished those among them who labour in word and doctrine; 1 Tim. 5: 17. But, so far from ordaining teachers, or the elders alone being the regular teachers, there is in the epistles a prohibition which makes such a notion ridiculous. "Let your women keep silence in your churches." "But I suffer not a woman to teach." Can any one in his senses conceive such a phrase where the only orderly teaching was in the hands of elders? But it is certain that in the synagogue and in the early churches all who could do it to profit were to teach. Elders there were. It was desirable that elders should be apt to teach; but of their being the teachers there is not a hint but exactly the contrary. Women were not to teach; all men who could were free to do it, according to their gift, and bound too so to minister the same as good stewards. No honest man can doubt if he takes the word of God. In France, Switzerland, Germany, it is not now denied by those who have considered the subject. It was considered a whole day at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance at Berlin. Do not suppose I mean that they act, or mean to act on it. That is a very different thing. One German professor, after an evening's discussion with a third person, said to me: It is impossible that any upright Christian can deny it is so in scripture; but think of the folly of acting on it after eighteen hundred years!

{*'Ordained' is a mere ecclesiastical perversion. In Acts 1: 22 it is a wilful interpolation; all that is in the Greek is "must one be a witness."}

261 But Mr. Innes appeals to the word. Let him produce the appointment of any one to preach by ecclesiastical authority. Timothy is directed to communicate the truths he has learned to faithful men able to teach; but to ordain teachers, never either he or any one else. Having gone through the teaching of scripture, let us now see what Mr. Innes has to say. He will already have perceived that I believe in a divinely appointed ministry, and (because I do) I do not own his office, his system, which denies wholly that of scripture. He will have seen that it is not from 1 Timothy I draw the proof of such a ministry, for there is nothing about it, but about the order of the house of God, in which the ministry of all is supposed possible to the exclusion of women, aptness to teach being desirable in an elder. All the New Testament shews there was such a divinely given ministry. 1 Timothy gives the order of the Church. It is not even said that hands were laid on elders: I dare say they were, as it was the common expression of commending to God, and communication of blessing or curse; but it is not said. Such has been the wisdom of God. He knew what was before the Church in the way of clergy. We have how Timothy was to behave himself in the house of God, to have it in order: as to elders, deacons, widows, etc., 2 Timothy altered no principle as to ministry, as 1 Timothy established none; it gives individual guidance in the last days and perilous times when the Church should be in disorder.

Mr. Innes, I cannot help saying, shews much ignorance on scripture questions, and even as to what he is attacking. He takes Bishop Lloyd's chronology for gospel as to the date of the two epistles to Timothy, and even founds on it his argument as to the differences he supposes we make between the two. I do not pretend to decide any question in so intricate a matter as chronology, still less so vexed a question as that of the two Timothys. Some have thought the second the earlier: I cannot conceive why, I confess. At any rate it involves the question of Paul's release from captivity, on which volumes have been written. He speaks in 2 Timothy of events which it is impossible to find in the history of the Acts. Hence they are to be supposed to have happened after the end of that history. Thus he had left Trophimus sick at Miletus, but when last at Jerusalem, Trophimus was there, and he did not touch at Miletus on his way to Rome. On the other hand, in Acts 20, at Miletus he did not expect to see their face again. However, now (in 2 Tim.) he saw his end to be close. In Philippians he expects to get free from his first captivity, and in Philemon tells him to prepare a lodging. It would rather seem that 2 Timothy is the very latest of all his epistles. If so, it is at least four years later than the first, for we have four years of imprisonment in the Acts, perhaps eight or ten or more later, unless the first was written after getting free from his first imprisonment, which is full of difficulty if we take Acts 20 as a divinely given presentiment; but this is partly met by the direction to Philemon to prepare a lodging. These questions I do not pretend to solve here.

262 On the face of the epistles, one gives us the order of God's house, the other tells of departure and perilous times; all the beloved ones of Asia, whose order he had established, had turned away from him, and, while insisting more than ever on Christian courage, grief comes out in every passage. The scriptures and immediate apostolic teaching are the resource when the power of godliness was gone and its form there, and the house, once set as the pillar and ground of the truth, had become a great house full of vessels to dishonour from which a man had to purge himself, as well as to honour. Nor has Mr. Innes paid attention to the directions of this last epistle touching the last and perilous days. To this I beg his attention, and that of every one who may deign to read these pages. The second epistle to Timothy states that in the last days perilous times shall come, which it describes, when there would be a form of godliness denying the power of it. 2 Timothy does not contemplate the godly order of the first epistle, but a state of things in the professing church analogous to the state of the heathen as described in the epistle to the Romans. And it does direct us to have done with it. "From such turn away." It is not a question of breaking up the Church. Alas! what Mr. Innes calls the Church is breaking up by its own decrepitude, by the contradictory principles it contains within itself and by the absence of all power of self-government, leaving us exposed to, or rather dragging us unto, the deadly evil of popery and infidelity; so that we have to enquire where the resource of the individual is when he has to turn away. In 2 Timothy that resource is declared to be in the scriptures, not in the professing church, and not in the clergy. If Mr. Innes cannot find out the difference between the directions for godly order (1 Tim.), and the directions to individuals when false profession has brought in perilous times in 2 Timothy, his position must have singularly blinded his eyes.

263 Nor is this all. In chapter 2 we have a totally changed state of the Church contemplated. In the beginning of the Acts we read, "The Lord added to the Church* daily such as should be saved." To that one well-known assembly at Jerusalem, where the whole Church then was, souls were added. In 2 Timothy how different the language! False doctrines are overthrowing the faith of some; but the sure foundation of God abides. There is this comfort: "The Lord knoweth them that are his." They may not be brought out into the blessed unity of a manifested assembly as at the first; they may be hidden in the recesses of Rome, or the dark ignorance of Greece; but the Lord knows them, and that is a comfort.

{*[Or "together" (which comes to the same thing in effect) according to the more ancient MSS. Ed.]}

But there is a direction addressed to our responsibility also. "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ* depart from iniquity." If a godly man thinks it iniquity to say that a person has received the Holy Ghost, perhaps from an unconverted man, so as to have the power of forgiving sins, and such like - if his conscience tells him it is iniquity to establish crowds of unconverted men who hate the gospel, as ministers of God in parishes, what is he to do? Mr. Innes may call it breaking up the Church, but the word of God commands him to depart from iniquity.

{*[Rather, "the Lord," which only strengthens the case, as it is the best supported and the most appropriate reading. Ed.]}

But while this is a direction of the plainest kind for individual conscience, the passage in 2 Timothy goes farther. The apostle gives what I may call ecclesiastical teaching. When the Church becomes a great house, we must expect this evil. In a great house there are all kinds of vessels, and some to dishonour too. What is to be done? The great house is Christendom: no one thinks of leaving this. We turn neither heathens, nor Jews, nor Mahommedans, we renounce not Christian profession, but are called to purge ourselves from the vessels to dishonour who are in Christendom. Mr. Innes may object to this, and call it breaking up the Church; but the word of God directs us to purge ourselves from these, and we must follow it. But if Mr. Innes cannot see the difference between this and the beautiful order of God's house as depicted in 1 Timothy, I repeat, his position must have sadly blinded his eyes.

264 A divinely appointed ministry is then not only admitted but insisted on, in contrast with the apostate and anti-christian principle of a clergy which calls the blessed action of the Holy Ghost, and what is admitted to be such, irregular, and puts a human establishment in its place. The first epistle of Timothy does not speak of the appointment of ministry, nor does the second epistle take it away. A divinely appointed ministry subsists to this day. The first epistle of Timothy shews the order of the house of God, the second epistle tells us what to do in the perilous times of the last days, when we have to say, "The Lord knoweth them that are his." There was order in 1 Timothy. There is disorder everywhere now. The clergy mean that the title to ministry depends not on gifts and teaching the truth, but on human establishment, in the immensely vast majority, of unconverted men by unconverted men. The Romish priest or Greek pope is a clergyman. So is Mr. Innes. Mr. Innes is bound to own as a brother minister an ordained man who teaches the contrary of what Paul taught. Why? Because he is a clergyman. But he cannot own the one sent of God as a brother minister, because he is a clergyman. He may condescend to own from on high the Holy Ghost's irregular labourers. Let him not be offended by my referring to Romish priests as clergymen. So far does this principle of clergy go that, if a Romish priest came over to the Anglican body tomorrow, he is owned as in holy orders and a fellow-clergyman. If the greatest instrument God had in the world, who was not a clergyman, were to come, he could not be owned. It is this horrible wickedness that I reject, and from which I withdraw, the principle of clergy; and I do so, just because I believe in a divinely appointed ministry. I know there are good men among the clergy, and I love them; but the system is a denial of the Holy Ghost and His work, and a substitution of man in His place. Nor did I ever see one who was a good man, who had not suffered in his soul by being of the clergy, by falsifying his conscience in solemn things.

A few words will suffice for Mr. Innes's select passages. He tells us Christ ordained twelve apostles. No doubt: what Christ ordained, we own of course. Yet even this most assuredly was not the Christian commission, nor the Church of God. When they were sent out, they were forbidden to go to the Gentiles or to any but Jews; they would not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man were come. Is this what Mr. Innes presents to us as ministry in the Church? It was after Christ's death and resurrection that they received their commission for the world, and were then told to tarry at Jerusalem till endowed with power from on high. It is in this character accordingly Paul owns them as apostles in their church character. "He ascended up on high and gave gifts unto men, and he gave some apostles," etc. But it is natural for those imbued with the idea of clergy to overlook all the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.

265 As to the seventy being deacons, it is a new notion, not, if I am not mistaken, very long got up, and as absurd as it is new, or, if indeed not new, an old absurdity. "The seven" are not called deacons, but Mr. Innes cannot reject their being so, for the Anglican Service for the ordination of deacons treats them as such, and they are generally so accounted; they were to serve tables, as contrasted with the word; as every one knows, they were the ministering servants of the Church. The seventy were sent before Christ's face, wherever He was coming, as a last warning to Israel, on Christ's last journey up to Jerusalem, to warn their cities that the kingdom of God was come unto them, the devils being subject to them as a testimony (Luke 10: 9, 11, 17). No one, I conceive, but a clergyman, could have dreamed of connecting this with deacons. I am aware that the idea has been put forth by a Scotch Episcopal examining chaplain of the name of Farquhar: whether he is the father of the bright idea, I know not.

The next proof is that the apostles ordained a successor to Judas (Acts 1). This is an unfortunate example. Peter takes up Psalm 109 to shew that the word of God expressly taught that another was to take his office; of ordination there is nothing. "Ordained" is an interpolation, with what good faith others must judge. All that is said is "must be a witness." They (the hundred and twenty it would appear, for no others are spoken of in the plural) set forth two as answering Peter's description, and then they cast lots which it was to be (after the Jewish manner, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given), and he was numbered with the twelve.  The choice was given to the Lord by lot, and there was no ordination of any kind, nothing regular.

266 Deacons are set apart, if so we are to call them, to serve tables, that others might give themselves up to the ministry of the word. Was this setting apart to rule and teach, ordaining to serve that others might have full time for teaching? It is the only express case of laying on of hands for office we have in the New Testament. True, some of them who had gift became "irregular labourers"; but no wit, even of a clergyman, can make out of it an ordination to rule and to teach. We read that they that use the office of service well, would acquire a good degree and great boldness in Christ Jesus, would be efficient irregular labourers, as Philip and Stephen were in Jerusalem and Samaria, and in the desert of Gaza, according to the power of the Spirit of God.

In Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas chose elders ("ordained" is really a false translation), who ruled in a true scriptural sense; but of teaching there is no question. There is no doubt that the apostle appointed several elders as overseers or bishops, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, in churches which he founded. I say, "by the authority of the Holy Ghost," because in Acts 20 Paul says of the elders of Ephesus, "the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops." They were to "shepherd" the flock of God ("feed" is a different word). It is poimainein, not boskein. Yet, as we have seen, it was desirable they should be apt to teach; and in such case they doubtless did so; but we also know, by the same apostle, that some did not.

As to Timothy's being the first bishop of Ephesus, it is a mere fable. Every one who has enquired into these things knows that the superscriptions of the epistles have no authority whatever. Some, as on the face of it 1 Corinthians, are notoriously false. All of them were sentences tacked on by late copyists. But Acts 20 is a clear proof that Timothy was not so; for the apostle calls for the elders of Ephesus on his last voyage; and there is not the smallest hint of any Timothy, or any other bishop. On the contrary, language is used which excludes such an idea. "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops"; and then he commends them to God, and the word of His grace. It is not merely the word bishop applied to them, though it does shew those whom he owned as alone made their "bishops" by the Holy Ghost, but he looks to them as the ones to watch for themselves and all the flock, and the fancied bishop is ignored in the most absolute and unceremonious way. No man in his senses can suppose that there was another superior functionary to whom the chief care of the flock was entrusted. Besides, Timothy, and so Titus, was called away when his special service was ended. They were employed as confidential agents by the apostle to complete needed order in new churches, but permanent bishoprics they had none. Gifted saints they were, and the apostle's own sons in the faith, in whom the apostle, as he declares, reposed especial confidence.

267 As regards "the angel of the church," who told Mr. Innes that he was the presiding officer? It is quite certain that, where all is plainly stated, there were several presiding officers or elders. The angel in the Jewish synagogue was not the presiding officer; this is well known. If the angel was the presiding officer, that is, if the original constitution of the churches had been changed, the Spirit of God would not own directly and openly any such change from His own constitution, but give a symbolical name. And it was when the Church had left its first love, and was already threatened with having the candlestick removed; while its history is preserved till, having had opportunity to repent, it had not done so, and was threatened with the sorest judgments on one hand, and on the other was found pretending to be rich, and was just about to be spued out of Christ's mouth. I do not believe that the angel was a presiding officer, but a symbolical representative of the Church viewed in those responsible in it. For this reason, that is the way the plural is used in Smyrna, Thyatira, and the interchange of it with the singular, as in chapter 2: 10, 24, so indeed the language to Pergamos and to Philadelphia  - in truth, I might say, to all the churches, makes it impossible to apply it to an individual presiding officer, and obliges us to see a symbolical representative of the Church. This is certain that, if it was a single presiding officer, the Holy Ghost would not own him as such, by any direct name of office, and it was so only when the Church had left her first love, and was now threatened with being cut off.

I cannot enter into a discussion of the interpretation of the seven churches here; but the plain declarations of scripture present several bishops in a Church, never one. That this crept in early no one denies, when all sought their own, not the things of Jesus Christ. But it is certain that it was not so at first. Acts 20 demonstrates the contrary; and we have the best ecclesiastical authority, Jerome, confirmed by other so-called Fathers, telling us that there was no such difference in the beginning, no such presiding officer, but that it was introduced for peace' sake, when the presbyters or elders began to seek to make separate parties for themselves. Clement, the earliest post-scriptural authority we have, knows only presbyters in Corinth, and if we have Ignatius, who boasts abundantly of them, we have not only interpolations, but forgeries, as has been fully proved, to make good the ambition of men. It is a sad history, but a predicted one. Paul's remedy for the very case Jerome speaks of was not Jerome's: of this the papal abominations have been the gradual and legitimate growth. Of this we have too many remains (in the pretension to confer the Holy Ghost in priesthood, which as a distinct order is the denial of Christianity, in priestly absolution, in baptismal making members of Christ, where episcopacy prevails, to say nothing of making the whole population the Church), to feel any confidence in substituting such presiding officer for the word of God, to which Paul commends us in the perilous times of the last days, and for the Holy Ghost by whom alone the humble soul can rightly use it, and who alone can give a true and effectual ministry.

268 For my own part, then, I am so far from rejecting a divinely-given ministry, that it is because I believe in one that I reject the clergy, which is not a divinely-given one but the fruit of the Church's departure from the faith. I beg Mr. Innes to believe that I have no enmity against him or any godly member of the body he belongs to. I receive them as members of the body of Christ; but in these last days, these perilous times, we are forced to see where the sure foundation is. Paul, that is, the Holy Ghost, assures us it is in the scriptures, not in the professing body. This would come, and it has come, to have the form of godliness and to deny the power of it. The part of the professing body he belongs to is of all others a scene of confusion and incompetency which confounds beholders. Presbyterianism - with its deserted Kirk, and United Presbyterians, and Free Kirk almost split upon the point of which they would unite with - has little to boast over it. I assure him that I say it with profound and unfeigned sorrow. The breaking up of these protestant bodies will only let in, and is letting in, popery and infidelity; and I have not one atom of sympathy with the worldly-minded ambitious dissenters who are joining papists and infidels in seeking to pull it down. I must leave all this in God's wise and holy hand.

269 But saints must in such a time look for some sure foundation. They have it, thank God, in the word of God, in the faithfulness of the true and exalted Head of the Church, soon coming to take us to Himself and set all things right in heaven and in earth - blessed time to think of! They have the Spirit of God to guide and help them if they are humble, and provision in the word of God for the very times we are in, moral provision for godly rule and order when official has been perverted and corrupted; not, perhaps, the order of the external Church restored, but the presence and faithfulness of Him who can never fail it, an ark of God which, if its ordered place was in the midst of the camp, can go a three-days'-journey in condescending grace before the host, to find in the wilderness a place where we may rest.

I have done. The clergy I reject, because the system denies in principle and fact the title and prerogatives of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, the unity of the body, and the gifts by which Christ, its Head, edifies the Church and calls sinners; and it has substituted geographical divisions for faith, or sectional membership for membership of the body of Christ - has substituted human arrangement of one kind and another for a divinely-given ministry. There is no scriptural ground of any kind for church membership other than the unity of the body of Christ; none for a pastor and his flock; none for the divisions which have resulted from the attempts to rebuild the church when, three hundred years ago, excessive ecclesiastical corruption in the great professing body led masses, under God's mercy, to break loose from its galling and degrading chains. But the energy of faith which brought about that result has passed away, and the result is fallen into decrepitude, giving occasion to the energetic recrudescence of popery and the widespread influence of pretentious intellect and infidelity. It is under this we are now suffering; but we are forewarned in the word.

I cannot close this without pressing on my reader's attention, though briefly, the warnings I allude to. We have the solemn declaration in Romans 11 that if the Gentile Christendom, which has taken the place of Judaism, did not continue in God's goodness, it should be cut off. Has it so continued? Was popery continuing in God's goodness? If not, Christendom will be cut off, Laodicea spued out of God's mouth, as Thyatira punished with grievous plagues, both to give place, as you may see, to the throne and sceptre of Christ, and, it is added in Thyatira, heavenly possession of "the morning star." The mystery of iniquity, begun in the apostles' days, would continue till it resulted in open apostasy, and the man of sin to be destroyed at Christ's coming. Evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse.

270 Is there fear then for the saints? None - not more than for the saints of Judaism, who, when it fell, were transferred into the Church of God. But their external props will fail them; they will have to walk by faith as they were ever called to do. The Lord is coming, according to His promises, to receive them to Himself that where He is they may be also. He will gather the wheat, not into a church on earth as the remnant of Judaism, but into the heavenly garner. Meanwhile they have the word of God, and the Spirit of God; God Himself and the word of His grace; a word able to make them wise unto salvation. Let them recognize every gift God gives for yet calling sinners, or edifying His saints. These will continue in virtue of the faithfulness of Christ Himself, till all the work He has to do is done. The denial of gifts is the denial of the sovereign title of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ's authority in the Church, just as the clergy is.

Appointment to office is lost, the Church on earth being in confusion and ruin. If elders are to be appointed, I ask, not only who is to appoint them with authority (and there is no one), but where is the church over which they are to be appointed? A sectional body may choose for itself, an act of mere human will; but they can have no authority beyond the will of those who have chosen them. They cannot be what elders were in the early Church - bishops whom the Holy Ghost appointed over the flock of God. It is a mere unlicensed powerless imitation by human will over a little self-constituted corner of the church, perhaps indeed of the world. But scripture has provided for this case also, not officially, but morally, not only in the gift to rule, but in faithful service. (See 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16; 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13; Heb. 13: 17.) In none of these is official authority given as the ground of subjection and obedience. It is an exhortation involving the spiritual state and duty of the saints themselves, founded on moral grounds, always true and available, and which, if the sorrowful need arise for it, can be enforced by the saints themselves according to 2 Thessalonians 3 :14-16, and Romans 16: 17, 18.

271 My object now is not to enlarge on this. I notice it only to shew that the blessed Lord has provided in His word even for the ruin in which our unfaithfulness has involved the Church. Only I beseech every saint to look in the face the confusion and ruin which exists, to see how surely we are in the perilous times of the last days, to be ready for the Lord, loins girded and lights burning, waiting for God's Son from heaven; to arise and trim their lamps, and to see what is the sure foundation of God which will abide, and thus build up according to the grace given to them, and leave to the enemies of the Lord and the selfishness of men and sects to pull down. We shall have enough to do in these days to deliver souls from abounding error, and help them in the path of grace and peace. Only may they remember that, wherever there is a priesthood, save that of all children of God, there is the denial of Christianity. A priest means one who goes to God for you - is between you and God. Christianity is the blessed truth that the veil is rent, and that through the efficacy of the precious blood of Christ we can go boldly into the holiest ourselves, that through Him we have ourselves access by one Spirit unto the Father. An ordained consecrated priesthood is the denial of true Christianity.

Since writing the above, a Montreal episcopal journal has reported Mr. Hooke's teaching a number of doctrines against which it warns its readers. Most of the statements are unfounded; the principal one arises from the ignorance of the writer, who evidently does not know what justification is, and is the result of confounding the perfect putting away of sin by Christ for us, and the absence of sin in the individual. But the statements do not deserve any further notice.

What the Christian has amid the ruin of the Church;

being a reply to certain articles in the

Jamaica Magazine

J. N. Darby.

<14009E> 272

There is no harm done by the renewed attacks, made in various places, on those called Plymouth Brethren. It furnishes an occasion to bring scriptural truth before those who are honest enough to hear what they have to say. The questions stirred in the Jamaica Magazine have been discussed long ago in Switzerland, and quite recently in Canada. But Jamaica Christians know little of what passes in Switzerland, and not much of what passes in Canada. The papers in the Jamaica Magazine cannot be charged with being intemperate or abusive. They have taken their account of Brethren's principles at secondhand, and, save a few important elements, that account is quite false; but I have no reason to suppose any bad faith as to what they have borrowed.

It gives an occasion to state more correctly what the "Brethren" attacked do hold, or, rather, what scripture teaches on the subject, which is the only really important point, and, as to that, the principles of the Jamaica Magazine are (as those of the English ecclesiastical system) wholly at variance with scripture, as I shall shew. Colonial ecclesiastical polity is, however, in theory, and in many places in practice, different from English ecclesiastical polity. Where democracy prevails, it enters practically into the church system, and the ecclesiastical polity has to be made popular. It is not so in England.

Here are the Jamaica Magazine's views on the subject: "There are three conditions commended to us by apostolic precedent which are necessary to the proper adjustment of the respective relations of laity and clergy in the church. The first is that the lay element shall have a free share in the deliberative assemblies of the church; secondly, that ministers should not be placed over a church without the consent of the members; and thirdly, that the whole body (not the clerical element only) shall have the power of inflicting church censures. All history teaches that, where this has been exercised by the clergy exclusively and without control, the result has been an oppressive spiritual despotism."

273 Now I do not agree with all this; but where were our adversary's wits in writing it? Not one of these elements is found in the Establishment of England. They are wholly absent, wholly excluded, so that the system is not commended by apostolic precedent, and the result has been an oppressive spiritual despotism. Such is the Magazine's judgment of the English Establishment. It is contrary to apostolic precedent, and is a spiritual despotism. Now the question with me lies far, far deeper. I do not think it has resulted in England in a spiritual despotism, but in a total incapacity to act. It has not the spiritual despotism of popery, nor the popular democratic energy of dissent. It is governed, even in doctrinal points, by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who have decided that no clergyman is bound to hold the inspiration of the scriptures, or eternal punishment: on which decision the clergy are freely acting, and no one can tell what they hold. One judge holds they may have lighted candles in the daytime; another, that they cannot; and the Privy Council has now to decide.* The truth is, being tied to the State, the episcopal body has no autonomy, no power of self-government whatever; and the popish clerical principle struggles against the government of the Church by the State, so as to threaten a separation within the ecclesiastical body, and nobody knows where it will end. The controversial articles were framed against popery. Other and vital questions, really infidel notions, have now sprung up; there is no power to deal with them, because the ecclesiastical body can do nothing The courts will decide, taking the Thirty-nine Articles as law. But questions vital to the Church of God are not touched on in the Thirty-nine Articles - many that are raised now are not, and the ecclesiastical courts have no law to go by, and everybody holds what he likes, is an open infidel if he pleases, and remains a prelate in the system, and defies them all; as Dr. Colenso, and plenty of the inferior clergy less generally known. It is not spiritual despotism, as the Puseyites perhaps might wish, but a tending to utter dissolution, from want of bands and self-controlling power; a state of things which may now perhaps soon cease by the progress of democratic principles abolishing the Establishment as such altogether. It will then split or become Puseyite, as now threatens the system in the United States. But this is for England a revolution, to which I have nothing to say, in which I have no pleasure; but which is in the hands of a wise and holy God, who will make all things work together for good to those who love Him. It will lead England into popery and infidelity, and, I have little doubt, lead to her losing practically her independence, and with it, in more ways than she is thinking of, what remains of her boasted national glory.

{*The candles have now been decided against.}

274 The Establishment is not a spiritual despotism, but, as every one sees, is inefficient for everything requiring self-judgment. But it is breaking up, such as it is, under the conflict of popish and protestant principles contained within it - a mixture once accounted its wisdom; pushed by infidelity it cannot meet, and the helpless object of a democratic revolution, which, as everyone sees, increases its force daily. It is strange that I should have to defend it against the charges of the Jamaica Magazine. But by the confession of the writer it is not commended by apostolic precedent; a serious thing when we speak of what is ecclesiastical. The principles would be despotic; but the control of the State has taken away the power, and with that made it inefficient for everything that is vital to a church. But the colonial or democratic theory of the lay and clerical element supposes the clergy, and this is the real point. But it depends on a more fundamental one: What is the Church?

These are the questions we have to solve: What is the Church? What is the ministry? And now to clear the way by correcting several mistakes. As far as I can answer for "Brethren's" views, and certainly I can state my own, I do not deny a human ministry. I hold to it as God's ordinance, as an essential part of Christianity. The word of reconciliation is committed to men, and if in the highest sense this were apostolic, still there are gifts, "evangelists, pastors and teachers, till we all come," etc. The question is as to the scriptural character of this. Again, I fully recognize that there was an organization in apostolic and scriptural times, but affirm that what exists now is not the scriptural organization at all, but mere human invention, each sect arranging itself according to its own convenience, so that, as an external body, the Church is ruined; and though much may be enjoyed of what belongs to the Church, I believe from scripture that the ruin is without remedy, that the professing church will be cut off I believe that there is an external professing Christendom, holding a most important and responsible place, and which will be judged and cut off for its unfaithfulness.

275 The true body of Christ is not this. It is composed of those who are united to Christ by the Holy Ghost, who, when the professing church is cut off, will have their place with Him in heaven. It is the Church Catechism, not the Plymouth Brethren so called, which confounds these two things when it says, "Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But the Church, as we find it in scripture, was externally one united organized body; that is, Christians were one set of people, known as such on earth; and elders were locally appointed to guide and oversee - at any rate among the Gentile churches, for any formal appointment is not so clear among the Jews. But there was only one church, one assembly as a whole; and in each place one body with its elders, God's Church in the place; and only one really in the whole world, visibly, externally one. If Paul in his day had addressed an epistle to the assembly of God which is at Kingston, there would have been no question as to who would have received it; if he addressed one now, there is no such body to get it; it must go to the dead letter office. Membership of a church is a thing unknown to scripture; what scripture speaks of is a member of Christ, as of one body, a hand, an eye, etc.

It is not that there was no organization. There was, but it was not a number of voluntary self-constituted sects as now. God's organization is lost in the world, supplanted for centuries by popery. Men have escaped from the horrors of this, each in his own direction: first, in national churches formed by the civil magistrate - a thing unknown till the Reformation; and then, when this was judged unscriptural, diverging into countless sects, each organizing itself in its own way, and having its own members. This kind of organization, which is wholly contradictory of the scriptural one, is what we reject; and we do not pretend to begin and found the Church over again, but believe that scripture gives us full guidance in these last and perilous days for the position which the general ruin, fully prophesied of in the New Testament, has brought us into. There are saints scattered in all denominations holding the faith of God's elect. But Christ gave Himself to gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad. Why are they scattered now? They were to be one that the world might believe. Now they are the scorn of men for their divisions. The Church, as responsible on earth, is in ruins; its organizations, for they are many, are not God's. Paul could not anywhere call for the elders of the Church, and say to them, "The flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Where that exists, I will joyfully fly to submit myself to it.

276 I will not refer to Acts 2 and 4 to shew how fearfully we are departed from our first estate, solemn as the testimony is. When the Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost, He formed the Church into one body. That, we know from the Acts, was the promised baptism of the Holy Ghost. And we learn from 1 Corinthians 12 that by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. Now that this body was a public, manifested, external, perfectly united body, is manifest from the chapter. One could not say to the other, I have no need of thee; if one member suffered, all did; if one was honoured, all rejoiced. The various gifts were various members of this body, the Holy Ghost distributing to every man severally as He would; and there were diversities of administrations, but one Lord. The gifts were set in the Church (the whole body). There were gifts of healing, and tongues, and interpreters of tongues. All this is on earth; it has no sense at all save as applied to the Church on earth. Individuals might pass out, as soldiers who had served their time, others be recruited into it; but it remained the army - the one Church on earth - by one uniting Spirit; the body of Christ as manifested on earth, with apostles, prophets, helps, governments, healings, tongues, in it as a whole, given as the Holy Ghost willed.

This is incontrovertible. Whatever may have become of it afterwards, this was God's institution, the one manifested body, with its various gifts or members. If I am told, It will be perfect as the body of Christ in heaven. Be it so. I bless God for it. I believe the end of Ephesians 1 shews that it is to be so. But this does not set aside 1 Corinthians 12, that it was established as one, known, visible body on earth. If I am told on the other hand, That did not last; it was but a momentary expression of power which passed away. Although, as to external unity, this is hardly true until the middle of the third century, when the Novatians sprang up through the dreadful corruptions of the professing body admitted and described by Cyprian, yet substantially I do not deny it. The apostle says, the mystery of iniquity did already work (2 Thess. 2); that all sought their own, not the things of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2); and he tells us (Acts 20) that after his decease grievous wolves would enter in, not sparing the flock; and that from within also perverse men would arise to draw away the disciples after them. As long as apostolic energy remained, though the evil was there, it was met and restrained; but after that was gone, after his decease, the evil would break out and in; for he knows no apostolic succession, but that his absence would open the door to the activity of evil. And he tells us prophetically that in the last days perilous times would come; there would be a form of godliness, denying the power thereof: from such he who had an ear to hear was to turn away.

277 But 1 Corinthians 12 fully describes the original constitution of the Church as the body of Christ on the earth, God's constitution. If that has passed away, then God's orderly constitution of the body of Christ on earth has passed away through the sin of man. The wolf has come and scattered the sheep, because the shepherds were hirelings. Let no saint fear because of this, for no man can pluck them out of the great Shepherd's hand; but the sheep have been scattered, viewed as a flock.* We forget that we have passed through the dark ages of popery, the corruptest and foulest evil, under the name of His Church, that ever God's holy eye rested on.

{*"One fold," in John 10: 16, is a false translation; it is "One flock."}

But who can say that we are arrived at the last time? The Apostle John can. Already, he says, there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. So Peter: "The time is come that judgment should begin at the house of God." Jude tells us he was compelled to write of the evil already crept in, the very persons as a class that would be judged by Christ as corrupters and adversaries when He appeared. In the seven churches we find Christ judging the state into which the churches had got. Has the Church improved since? Let the dark ages tell the tale; and divided, infidel, bewildered Protestantism!

Nor let the Christian be astonished that the failure began so soon. It has been always so. God's patient love has borne and saved, yea known seven thousand, that one, who was faithful enough to go to heaven without death, could not find; but the external state of things was under the corruption of evil, and the time come for judgment. The first thing we read of man, after his being placed in paradise, is his fall; no child was born to an innocent Adam. The first thing we read after Noah's altar of thanksgiving is his being drunk; the reins of government entrusted to him were loosed, and scandal and shame and the curse came in. The first thing we have after God spoke out of the midst of the fire to Israel, before Moses came down, is that Israel made the golden calf. The written law never reached man in its own simple character: he had broken it already. The tables were smashed at the foot of the mountain and never came into the camp! How could they come beside a golden calf? The first day of service after their consecration the sons of Aaron offered strange fire, and Aaron never went into the holiest in his robes of glory and beauty! (See Lev. 16.) The first son of David turned to idolatry, and the kingdom was ruined. The Gentile king, to whom power was transferred, made his golden image, and got a beast's heart; and the whole times of the Gentiles were characterized by this.

278 I do not doubt that all pictured here - man, law, priesthood, son of David, rising to reign over the Gentiles - will be, or is in some measure accomplished in the second Adam, the Christ; but that is another matter, most interesting, but which I cannot follow here. As entrusted to man's responsibility, everything set up by God has failed; that is, man has failed in it and failed immediately. The Church as the body of Christ on earth is not an exception, and if in John's time there were many antichrists so that they knew it was the last time, and Peter declares that the time was come for judgment to begin at the house of God, and Paul that evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, it was nothing new; it was the sad course of man with everything God had entrusted to him. The first man is the failing man. But this does not alter the fact that God made man upright, nor that the Church as the body of Christ was set up in unity, with all the gifts needed by it, and suited to its good and prosperity, as 1 Corinthians 12 bears witness, and that it has sunk down into popery, divisions, and infidelity. No so-called church can pretend to be the body of Christ now; the one universal Church as described in scripture was then. They have no pretensions to be an unfallen body.

279 My reader may remark, though we shall come to ministry just now, that in the very full list of gifts for the ministration of all blessing in the body, given in the chapter referred to, neither bishops nor deacons appear. Nor do they in Ephesians 4, where the gifts for the permanent edification of the body and perfecting of the saints are spoken of; but of this anon. The Church was established as the body of Christ, one in the earth: no such body or unity can be found now. It is in ruin.

But the Church thus formed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven has another character in scripture - the house or temple of God. And this is presented in a twofold way, which I beg my reader to remark: one infallibly secure, Christ's own work not yet finished; the other connected with man's responsibility, a present thing on earth.

Let us see what the word of God says on the subject. "Thou art Peter [a stone], and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Here we have Christ building, and no power of Satan shall hinder His building it up to completion. In this building Christ is the Builder, and in the work no human instrumentality is ever spoken of Peter tells us, "Unto whom coming, as unto a living stone, ye also as living stones are built up." Men may minister the word, but the work is Christ's (man disappears) "unto whom coming ye are built up." The work of building is not man's, and the building is not finished yet. Living stones may be added from day to day till the topstone is laid on. This in a certain sense is invisible, an individual work to produce a temple at the end. So Paul: "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." It grows up by grace; it is not finished. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament were laid as the foundation, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The apostles are stones, not workmen.

But in 1 Corinthians 3 we have another aspect of the house: "As a wise masterbuilder," says the apostle, "I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon; but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon." Here man is builder, and man's responsibility immediately comes in. We have a visible external building "Ye are God's building"; but, though such, man was the builder; he might build in gold, silver, precious stones. All well. But he might build in wood, hay, stubble, and his work be good for nothing, and be all burnt up and destroyed. Three cases are supposed here. The first is where the builder and his work are good: both of course are owned. Secondly, where the workman is true, but the work bad: he is saved and his work destroyed. Thirdly, there is a corrupter: he is destroyed himself, by God, as evil. Here I have not all perfect, fitly framed together, growing to an holy temple, Christ being the Builder; but men the builders, a present building seen on earth, called God's building, but liable to have all sorts of stuff built in, yea, to be corrupted by those who intend evil. Has nothing of this happened?

280 I do not doubt Christ will have in the end His holy temple; that what He builds will never be thrown down, but grow to an holy temple; that it is in this character an invisible - not Church, indeed, as a present ordered thing, for it is not yet complete, but a work to form it such going on, the living stones added; growing up, in spite of the gates of hell, to be a holy temple, I do not deny. In that temple I trust I am, by grace, a stone; I trust our critics are too. But what we have to deal with responsibly - what occupies us now - is what man has built; not the invisible Church which Christ builds - this is sure to be perfect; but what men, since Paul the wise masterbuilder, have built or even corrupted; what you are building who call yourselves the Church of England, or the Presbyterians, or the Independents, or Wesleyans, or the Baptists, who are all very visible indeed. Is your building such as a responsible man down here can own? I do not doubt for a moment there are living stones in all of them, whom Christ will have in His temple, and has placed there already - beloved brethren, whom I own cordially and joyfully as such; members of that Church which Christ loved, and for which He gave Himself, and whom, as part of it, He will present to Himself glorious. I rejoice with all my heart to think so, and am assured it is so. But you see, Mr. Editor, I do distinguish between you and what Christ is building for final presentation to Himself; and my responsibility attaches, as to present church questions, not to my relationship to the invisible Church, but how far the word permits me to own you, and the various sects which have split off from you, who are not, and do not pretend to be, that invisible Church.

And here another part of scripture comes in. If corruption has set in, as we have seen it had in the apostles' days, and the state of the Church has to be judged, and every one that has an ear is to hear what the Spirit says to him, have we no scriptural directions for such a time? We have. 2 Timothy treats of this time of confusion and evil, as 1 Timothy of the order of the visible Church. In 2 Timothy 2 I read, "The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." This supposes, in a great measure, at any rate, that the true Church, the members of Christ, are invisible. The Lord knows them. It was not so originally. In the beginning, "the Lord added to the church [together] such as should be saved." They are publicly manifested as added to the Christian Church, the assembly at Jerusalem. Now we read, "The Lord knoweth them that are his." We admit then the invisibility, of, at any rate, many members of Christ. The Lord knows them. But is that all? No, we have to do with the visible profession, and the Spirit of God continues, "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ [the Lord] depart from iniquity." Whatever is iniquity I must depart from, and surely not least in the house of God. This is the responsible side of the seal. With the Lord's knowing them that are His I can no further meddle than to bow to it as a truth. But the second part directs me as to my path in the visible Church - those who name the name of Christ: I am to depart from iniquity. But there is, further, what I may call ecclesiastical direction. In a great house I am to expect vessels to dishonour, and I am to purge myself from them, that I may be a vessel to honour, fit for the Master's use. I am to make the difference in the great house between one vessel and another, and follow faith, charity, patience, with those who call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. Thus, when the Church is become like a great house, I am to act individually, as to avoiding evil, and seek the pure in heart to walk with them. And, in the third chapter, where there is the form of piety, denying the power, I am told "from such turn away."

281 It is in vain to tell me I am not to judge. I am called on to hear what the Spirit says to the churches, bound to depart from iniquity, bound to purge myself from vessels to dishonour, bound to turn away from the evil vessels, bound to turn away from the form of piety in the professing body where the power is not. And though I admit that judging individual motives is condemned, yet I must judge evil for my own walk, or I cannot turn away from it. If popery be evil, I turn away; I do not judge all that are in it; I dare say some may go to heaven. I do not doubt many will from protestant sects; but if they are unscriptural, I turn away from them.

282 But it is really a very evil principle to say, in an absolute way, we cannot know who are Christians. Many we may not know from the darkness and confusion which exists, and we must leave it to the judgment of God who does; but to preclude knowing any as such is a disastrous principle, because I cannot love as my brethren those whom I do not recognize as such. "By this," says the Lord, "shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." And they tell me I cannot know who are to be thus loved! If so, the testing proof of being Christ's disciple is gone. Where would family affection be if we were to tell our children they could not tell who were their brothers and sisters?

But this in itself shews the total difference between the present state of things and the apostolic state sanctioned of God. There, love of the brethren as a distinct set of people, is given as a test of Christianity (see John's epistles), as much as practical obedience and righteousness. By this "we know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren," 1 John 3: 14; so 10 and 16. "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." It was not all the world, but a known set of people. An epistle is commanded to "be read to all the holy brethren." They were to greet one another with a holy kiss. So "all the saints salute you." False brethren soon crept in unawares; but there were true ones among whom to creep unawares. Some apostatized and left also, that it might be made manifest they were not all of us. They were gathered in every place into an assembly, so that they could put a wicked person out from among them. No one can read the New Testament without seeing that these were a wellknown distinct class of persons, known to each other, known as brethren; and he who belonged to them in one place belonged to them in all, took a letter of commendation as such if he went where he was unknown. Among whom, as contrasted with the world, brotherly love was to continue. To say we cannot know each other, even if some are hidden, is to deny all the Christian affections to which we are bound, and to say that the whole condition of Christianity has entirely and fatally changed. There was a company of people, "their own company," who met as a united body in the whole world, believers in Christ, though false brethren might creep in. The internal power of their unity was the Holy Ghost. It was the unity of the Spirit - one Spirit and one body. The symbol and external centre of unity was the Lord's supper. We are all one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread; 1 Cor. 10.

283 Now what is the position of the English Establishment, Dissenters, and the so-called Plymouth Brethren as to this? The Magazine says the two former take people on their own profession, and that he does not know an instance where a discovered adulterer or fraudulent person has been permitted to go. But this is a very false representation of the theory of the English Establishment. They do what they accuse the Brethren of - confound the external professing body and the invisible Church in the worst way. They teach (and so does even the colonial system, though circumstances modify the state of things) that "in baptism I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." These members of Christ, who have received, we are told, remission of sins by spiritual regeneration, are to be brought by their godfathers and godmothers to the bishop to be confirmed, so soon as they can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and have learned what is briefly set forth in the Church Catechism. That is, they are members of Christ and children of God by baptism, and, as such, being confirmed, they are to take the Lord's supper. They are members of Christ by baptism to start with, when they know nothing about it, and are carried on to the sacrament when they have had adequate instruction. And in theory all the population are supposed to belong to it, passed over to it at the Reformation from popery, for a long time were forced to be of it, and, if they are not, it is by their own act and they are reckoned to be in schism and dissent. The way of being a member of Christ is not by faith and the Holy Ghost, not by profession, but by a sacrament! To talk of discovered adulterers, feeble and delicate as to evil as such a precaution is, is nothing to the purpose. They are made members of Christ, children of God, members of what is called the Church of England, not by faith as scripture teaches as to being a child of God, not by the baptism of the Holy Ghost as scripture teaches as to members of Christ; but by a sacrament. Discovered or undiscovered they are members of Christ without any professed faith of their own. The truth is, all the reformers held baptismal regeneration, falsely so-called, for 'regeneration' is not so used in scripture - English, Lutherans, Presbyterians, much as the last kick against the proofs of it, which are perfectly clear both in Calvin and their own symbolical books. Scottish, Dutch, and others all have the doctrine in their documents. The only difference is that the Presbyterians hold that the invisible grace is not so absolutely tied to the sign as to be true of any but the elect. But this only proves the more that they do hold it to be so conferred where it is effectual. Luther insists on it for all in his Catechism, and the English one in the worst terms possible.

284 Further, as distinguished from this, the gathering of companies of believers is nothing new. This all Dissenters profess to do. They may have thrown themselves into the world and politics more rabidly than the Establishment, and in a large measure fallen into rationalism; but they profess to make churches of believers, unless we except the Wesleyans who have a peculiar polity of their own. But they make churches to be voluntary associations, of which so-called churches those who associate are members - a thing wholly unknown to scripture. A member of a church is a thing unknown to scripture. All Christians are members of Christ, and there can be no other membership. We, all who have the Spirit of Christ, are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Baptism even as a figure has nothing to do with giving life, or membership. It is baptism to the death of Christ for one previously a child of sinful Adam. The Lord's supper is (besides other precious truths) the expression of the unity of the body of Christ. Every saint is a member of it; and this is the ground "Brethren" meet on, supposing of course that the person is not justly subject to discipline.

The Establishment makes all the nation (if it can) members of Christ by baptism when infants. Dissenters make members of churches by voluntary association, with various particular conditions. The so-called Plymouth Brethren recognize the one body of Christ formed by the Holy Ghost, and meet to break bread on that ground, owning no membership but that of Christ, believing that there are many in all sects who hold the doctrine of Christ, but that they meet, the national churches by a sacramental process for all the world, the dissenters as voluntary members of particular churches formed by themselves; neither of which systems is in scripture. "Brethren" do not confound the outward professing church and that which Christ will present to Himself: the former will be judged and cut off; the latter be with Christ in heaven. But they see in scripture one recognized body on the earth. They see all to be in ruins; that, on the principles of existing professing bodies, they must continue in the Establishment, which is false in all its principles, or join one sect and not be of another - be a member of it, which is not in scripture: that the state of things is a state of ruin, but that God has provided for it in His word; and that they can meet on the ground of the unity of the body of Christ, if only two or three, and find Christ in their midst according to His promise, glad to see any child of God who is walking godlily, who calls on the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. They cannot compel unity, but they can act on it. God alone, they well know, can, by making Christians unworldly and Christ precious and all to them, bring it about.

285 But what about ministry? They are as far from the Establishment and from the denominations on this ground as on that of the unity of the body, while owning that real ministers may be found, even if in a false position. Indeed the two subjects cannot be separated. For all ministry is the exercise of the gifts which are in the members of the one body. And now I must beg to say, that what the Magazine denies is, alas! (for I say it with unfeigned sorrow) true as to the English system. It has a mediatory absolving priesthood. The deacon cannot say the Absolution, the deacon cannot consecrate the sacramental elements; it must be a priest. In the Visitation of the Sick it says, "By his authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins." And in the Ordination of the priest it is said, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest . . . whose sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain they are retained." Nor is this for orderly ministry; for the same man as deacon had received authority to preach the word when licensed by the bishop. Not only so: in the last Conference on the Liturgy, the Presbyterians asked that "priest" might be put out, and "minister" used throughout, and it was peremptorily refused. And where the question was of importance on the very point, it was changed from "minister" to "priest," that there might be no mistake. Where the people are to join, as in the Lord's Prayer, the "Amen" is printed as the prayer; but, as has been carefully noticed by liturgical authorities, in the other prayers it is printed differently that it may be understood that the priest is to say it for them as a mediator, and they are only to signify their assent by saying, "Amen"; and that it is quite out of place for them to accompany him. The English system makes an infant a member of Christ and a child of God by a sacrament, and has a priest on whom the ordaining prelate professes to confer the Holy Ghost that he may have the power to forgive sins, which accordingly, as the service reads, he does. What more could the most regular mediatorial priest do?* The English priest forgives sins: it is the distinctive point of his ordination. The English priest says the prayers alone for the people, who are only allowed to add, "Amen." Priesthood supposes the other worshippers cannot approach God in the sanctuary themselves; this belonged to Judaism. Ministry is the outgoing of God's love to others through the instrumentality, according to their gift, of those who know it; this belongs, I hold, distinctively to Christianity. So far I am from denying ministry. On the continent of Europe the liberty of exercising gifts is called universal priesthood, but the term is a blunder. Priests go to God for men, ministers to men from God. However, the principle of a universal title to minister is admitted; in theory the battle is won on this subject. Competence to do so is a question of gift.

{*The only additional act would be offering a sacrifice and that high churchmen insist is really done.}

286 But we have now to enquire what is the scriptural view of ministry and gifts, and whether ordination is required for their exercise. The Magazine makes the common confusion between gifts which are exercised in the whole Church, or in the world to call sinners, and local offices which might be without any gift at all, though one particular gift was perhaps desirable for one of these offices. A teacher was a teacher everywhere; an elder was an elder only in the city where he was appointed.

Let us first take the gifts. The Lord gave talents to his servants when He went away; the point of faithfulness - of being a good servant - was to use them without any further authorization. The mark of unfaithfulness was the not doing so through want of confidence in Him who gave them, and looking for some other security and warrant in doing it. Peter tells us, "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God," 1 Pet. 4: 10. If we do not minister the same one to another, we are bad stewards. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12, gives us a full survey of the whole question. The Holy Ghost distributes to every man severally as He will, and the administration resulting from the gift is under the authority of the same Lord. Each member fills up its own place in the body - another very important truth. These gifts are set in the Church - are not local; but act as such or such a member in the whole body. He hath set in the Church, first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; and so on. Some have disappeared; but all are alike set in the Church, the body. A worker of miracles was not such in a particular church: he wrought them where God pleased he should, nor an apostle, nor a prophet, nor a teacher, a bit more. They were alike gifts which were set in the Church as a whole. If Apollos taught at Ephesus when there, he taught at Corinth when there; as a prophet was a prophet wherever he might be. Gifts and ministry were not localized; they were not in a church, but in the Church, and so set by God. In Ephesians 4 we have a list where, unless we except apostles and prophets (which the same epistle tells us were the foundation), the gifts are the ordinary gifts of ministry. Christ ascended up on high, and gave them (not as local offices, but) for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. In Romans 12 it is the same thing. "We, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching," etc. They differ according to the grace given, they are in the one body. He who has a gift is to labour in his own gift. There is nothing local, no hint of ordination, nor of anything but the gift. In none of these passages is there a hint of any other authorization than the possession of the gift or talent; in none is there an idea of their being local, or in a church. As a man has received it, he is to minister it, to wait upon it, to trade with his talent, not to go beyond his measure; and in none of them is there a question of elders or local offices. They are exercised in the whole Church. This is singular, if the later local system is the true, original, godly order.

288 But are there not elders and deacons in scripture? There are. In Acts 6 they are not called deacons, but they answer to that office, and the Anglican Services treat them as such. Now what are they? They serve tables in contrast with the ministry of the word. "It is not meet," say the apostles, "that we should leave the word of God to serve tables; wherefore look out from among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." That is, they are appointed to quite another business, in contrast with the minister of the word. Two out of them, to use the language of Paul, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in Christ Jesus, and set themselves of their own zeal to minister in the synagogues and elsewhere. Philip goes to Samaria, giving up consequently his office - "this business" - at Jerusalem (we afterwards find him as an evangelist); and the other five ordained to serve tables we never hear of ministering the word at all. That is, deacons were established over temporal matters that others might be free to minister the word. Two of them, gifted and earnest, set about preaching of their own movement: one certainly leaving his local office for it, and becoming an evangelist; the other, sent to heaven, the first and blessed martyr.

Ordination for the ministry of the word we have not found yet; but ordination to serve tables. The next chapter but one gives us the ministry of the word, so as to preclude all idea of ordination: "They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word." Was the whole Church ordained? But would God sanction such proceeding? I read in Acts 11: 21: "And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned to the Lord." The solitary case of Cornelius, as an all-important testimony to the principle (as to the admission of the Gentiles), excepted, the gospel to the Gentiles began and was established by the voluntary zeal of unordained men, who preached everywhere.

As to Paul, who soon appears on the scene, and stamps his character on gospel activity, he is careful to tell us that not only he was not of men, but that he was not by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. But did not he ordain? For we have no hint of the twelve ordaining any but the seven to serve tables.* First, as to the ministry of the word within, for we have seen it was wholly free without. We have that ministry carefully regulated in 1 Corinthians. Every one had a psalm, an interpretation, a doctrine; there was disorder to be corrected. I think it is evident that sometimes two spoke at once. At any rate there was disorder - a disorder impossible if the apostle, who had been some two years at Corinth, had ordained a regular ministry. The disorder was corrected, but how? Not more than two or three at the utmost were to speak, and in succession; that they might all prophesy one by one, that all might learn and all be profited. The prophets were to speak two or three, and the others judge: if they had not the gifts, of course they were to be silent; but of an ordained ministry not a hint. The use of gifts is ordered for common edification; no symptom of an ordained ministry appears. If they tell us, All gifts (teachers, pastors, evangelists), have ceased, I answer, from Ephesians 4, Then all that was given for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, has ceased. But the apostle says there they were all given till we all come to a full grown man in Christ, not blown about by every wind of doctrine.

{*Nor were hands laid on Matthias. "The lot fell on Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles" a most lame induction to office on the ordination scheme. (See next note.)}

289 But the directions for the exercise of gifts exclude the idea of an ordained ministry. The passages I have quoted from 1 Peter 4 and Romans 12 confirm this same truth. But do these directions exclude elders? They do not. Elders were local officers appointed by authority; for whom indeed one gift was a desirable qualification, but not indispensable. In Acts 14 they returned to the cities where they had preached, and they "ordained [chose] them elders in every church," v. 23. Gifts, we have seen, are members in the whole body. A real teacher was a teacher everywhere. An elder was chosen for a particular church. I say "chosen," for the word "ordain" is false.* It is never said in scripture that hands were laid on them. I dare say they were, for it was the common sign of imploring and commending to blessing, or healing the sick, or conferring gifts (the last an apostolic privilege); the Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the apostle's hands. But it is never said that hands were laid on elders. I think it is fairly judged to have been so; but scripture is silent as to any direct statement. God knew what the clergy would come to. But elders were chosen in every church. And the word "chosen" is of importance here; the false translation by "ordain" is a mischievous one. The people did not choose their elders. Barnabas and Paul chose them for them - cheirotonesantes autois. (Compare 2 Cor. 8: 19; Acts 10: 41, where "chosen" is the only possible sense.) Elders were local officers. In Acts 20 we find they were the same as bishops, where again the English translation has hidden the fact of bishops and elders being the same by translating it (which it has not done in Phil. 1) "overseers" an excellent word, for it tells us their office very clearly. They were overseers of God's flock, shepherds in this sense, not ministers of the word as such. It was desirable they should be apt to teach: such divinely given power in the word evidently increased their efficiency in oversight. But all did not. They were worthy of double honour, we read in Timothy, "specially such as labour in the word and doctrine." But this shews the ministry of the word and doctrine was a distinct thing from their office; very desirable, but not the elder's work. The addition of this made it more efficient. Hence we see that the main qualifications for elders in Timothy and Titus are gravity, a well-ordered family, children in subjection, self-government - qualities for ruling and guiding, and such already demonstrated in practice, so that they should be shewn to be fit to guide the church. Ministers of the word might be young or not; elders and deacons were to be grave, approved, fathers of families. Elders in one place were not elders in another. Titus was to establish such in every city. Gifts were gifts everywhere. God had set them in the Church.

{*In the end of Acts 1 it is a falsification of the text (there is no word at all in the Greek), which runs "must one be a witness." This is serious.}

290 A few collateral proofs may be cited of this scriptural character of the ministry of the word. "Let your women keep silence in the churches." What can such a direction as this mean if an appointed minister alone was there - "For I suffer not a woman to teach"? Here I have a limit, but not where modern theology has placed it. Again, John, in writing to the elect lady, tells her not to receive those who did not bring sound doctrine as to Christ. The only test of preachers going about was their doctrine. Gaius did well to receive them; Diotrephes did not like it. Ministry then was gift; there was no ordination for it at all. Whoever had the gift was bound to use it - "to profit withal." The word regulated the use of these gifts as to the orderly exercise of them in the assemblies, and he who possessed one exercised it according to these rules everywhere; for there was only one body, and he was that member in it wherever he was. Elders were local officers, overseers, who might, or might not, have gifts.

291 But was not Timothy ordained? What is the scriptural statement, "the gift that is in thee by the laying on of my hands"? Timothy was pointed out by prophecy, and Paul conferred a gift on him by the laying on of his hands, not an office, but a gift. He had no local office; he might be left at Ephesus, as Titus was in Crete, for special purposes, as the representative of the apostle; but both he and Titus were confidential companions of the apostle: one to leave Crete and come to Nicopolis; and the other seen, soon after, in the company of the apostle elsewhere (Acts 20: 4; Titus 3: 12). In Timothy's case the presbytery joined in laying on of hands, not to give, but associated with Paul's communicating the gift. I know that Roman and English prelates profess to give the Holy Ghost; and, as we have seen, not for the ministry of the word, which the deacon was already called to, but to forgive sins as a priest. Are we to believe they have this apostolic power? Did the apostles ever confer it with such an object in view?

If it be asked, Why then have you not elders, official elders, if there were such in the primitive Church, even if gifts be free? the answer is, To have true elders I must have what the apostle says, "The flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers." Where is the flock of God, the one flock, so as to have elders of the assembly? In the next place, we have seen, the assembly never chose them; the apostles chose for them; as he left Titus to establish them in every city. The churches could not do it; nor even do these churches exist now. If a body of Christians choose elders, it is very possible that not one of those the apostles would have chosen - the Holy Ghost would have made - there amongst them. No assembly can call itself the flock of God in a place, and of no elders chosen by them could it be rightly said, The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. The state of things is different. The external church is in ruins, cut up into a hundred sects, or gorged with error and evil in popery.

292 Is there no order, no means of it? God has provided it. First, as to the exercise of gifts, if such there are, the rules are there where needed.

In the next place, I find in 1 Corinthians 16: 15,16, those who had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints; and they were to submit themselves to such, and to all who helped with the apostles and laboured. There is a moral action on the souls of those composing the assembly available when official rule does not exist; and it is remarkable, there are no elders alluded to in 1 Corinthians where such disorder was, nor directions to appoint any: the word of God meets the evil. Again, in 1 Thessalonians 5: 12, 13, "Now, we beseech you, brethren, 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 work's sake." And in Hebrews 13: 17, "Obey them that have the rule over you [egoumenoi, the same word as "chief men among the brethren" used of Silas] and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account." All this can be practised when there is no official appointment. For that, apostolic authority is needed, and does not exist, nor the one external body in which it was exercised. This rests on the action of the word in the conscience of those who have to submit. If one comes to me as an official elder, he has no scriptural authority to make good his claim. If I am unruly and unsubdued, those who labour, or indeed any Christian, can bring these passages, and I must submit to the word, or brethren can withdraw themselves from me - have no company with me, that I may be ashamed. This is moral power, not official.

In sum then ministry flows from gift, and is exercised in the whole Church of God; or, if an evangelist, in the world. If a man has the talent, woe be to him if he does not trade with it! What was the one Church in the apostles' time is sunk into corruption, or cut up into a multitude of sects - does not exist in its integrity and normal condition. There is no authority competent to choose and establish official elders, nor a flock of God existing to which such official appointment could apply. But there is provision in the word for this ruined state of things wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name, or for the service of any saints, as one gifted to serve has opportunity in redeeming the time, or to poor sinners as an evangelist.

293 A clergy is a thing which has no foundation whatever in the word of God, still less a priesthood, save as all Christians are priests. A ministry still exists in definite permanent gifts as pastors, teachers, evangelists; but the increase of the body comes also from the ministration of that which every joint supplieth according to the measure of every part. A gift of wisdom - "the word of wisdom" - may keep peace and happiness among God's people, though perhaps in one who never exercises any public ministration of the word. We can ever count on the faithfulness of the Lord for present need, and bringing His people to glory.

It was not the details of the sacramental and priestly system which drove me from the Establishment, deadly as they are in their nature. It was that I was looking for the body of Christ (which was not there, but in all the parish perhaps not one converted person); and collaterally because I believed in a divinely appointed ministry. If Paul had come, he could not have preached, he had never been ordained; if a wicked ordained man, he had his title and must be recognized as a minister: the truest minister of Christ unordained could not. It was a system contrary to what I found in scripture. It was clear, a multitude of sects did not furnish the one body I looked for. At the beginning, when the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved, and during the whole scriptural period practically (though false brethren even crept in), the true body of Christ and the external sacramental body were the same - had the same limits. Soon they became very different, and perplexed good men, as Augustine on one side, who talked of an invisible Church, and Novatian and even Tertullian, who left it - the last for fanaticism. But scripture warns us that the external sacramental system would get into a state that would call for withdrawal - a form of godliness denying the power, from which we were to turn away. This external church fell into the grossest corruption, beat the menservants and maidservants, and ate and drank with the drunken, became the sure subject of judgment from the Master, whose return they said would be delayed. The Establishment in its formularies, and Papists and Puseyites in their doctrine, attribute all the blessing and security of the true body to the sacramental body, making all uncertain of salvation, and sacraments - and these only - certain grace. Dissenters have left on particular points of conscience, and framed (thinking they could) churches for themselves. The "Brethren" would own God's Church; but, while looking for true unity as of the one body, symbolized in the one loaf, distinguish (as forced and directed to do) the external form, from which, by the apostle's direction, they have turned away; but have not found in churches formed by man either true separation from the world, or what scripture presents as the path of the saint when the corruption had set in. The so-called churches do not own as a duty on earth one body and one Spirit; a body formed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven, waiting for God's Son from heaven; and the ministry, as stated in scripture, is not more owned among them than in the Establishment. May all give heed to the solemn warning, "Upon thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Has the Christian system continued in the goodness of God or left its first works?

294 As to the three points in which the colonial churches claim superiority to the mother church, I cannot see that they have any scriptural ground for them. One is the introduction of the lay element into deliberative assemblies. The clerical element is unknown to scripture, and the establishment of a caste of the kind, existing as it does in every fleshly and unscriptural religion, is a mark of the Church's ruin. At any rate, in the only deliberative assembly we have, they determined that certain should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about the business. And, further on, the apostles and elders come together for to consider of this matter. Confidence was there; and they write in the name of the whole Church. But there is not a hint of any lay deputy or representative; apostles and elders only are mentioned; and Acts 16: 4: "They delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem."

The next is, that ministers should not be placed over a church without the consent of the members. Who ever heard in scripture a hint of a minister being placed over a church? Such an idea has no possible place in scriptural ministry, not even in a church. God set in the Church various ministries; but a minister over a church is utterly impossible in scriptural ministry. Think even of setting a servant (for that is the meaning of minister) over a church! The usage of centuries, acquired under popery, may have accustomed us to it, and the progress of democracy force a modification of it.

295 The third is, that the whole body shall have the power of inflicting church censures. I hardly know what church censures mean here, or whether it applies to personal discipline in a local assembly. A mass of unconverted persons doing this is only confusion twice confounded. If it be merely on officers, it is a human arrangement referable to the clerical system, which scripture wholly disowns.

I would add one all-important word in these days. People seek with affectation nowadays what is primitive. It is a gross blind, and perversion of a most important and definite scriptural principle: "That which was from the beginning." What we are certain is found in the word - in the word only. The mystery of iniquity began already to work, and the time was come for judgment to begin at the house of God. But what was from the beginning was set up of God; nothing else was or could be. Histories may come in afterwards, and, after all, they are very late, and there is nothing at all certain for the earliest times after the apostles, save that all already sought their own and the Church was in decay. All is confusion. What was from the beginning is as clear as it is certain. Let us hold - we may have lost much irreparably - to that which was from the beginning, its sole and exclusive authority.

Since writing the above a fourth number of the Jamaica Magazine has been put into my hands. It attacks the "Brethren" on the question of the law and sanctification - two very important points, on the latter of which, though the "Brethren" are perfectly sound in general in controverting the very imperfect and even false evangelical scheme, some writers among them have given a handle to their adversaries - have fallen into Scylla in avoiding Charybdis. In combating what is exclusive and wrong, what really upsets the full true gospel, they have fallen into what is exclusive and wrong on the other side. I recognize that these articles are not written with acrimony, and I feel the fairest and truest way is, not to defend what is one-sided and so far false, nor to excuse it, but to set the matter on its true scriptural ground, confessing that statements may be found which are thus one-sided.

The evangelical notion is, that a man is justified, and then sanctified and made meet for heaven. This throws his justification back into uncertainty and clouds; for, if he does not become meet, either he enters heaven unmeet, or he is justified and never gets there at all, but has to answer for his sins though justified by the blood of Christ. This is human confusion, not scripture, yet this is the evangelical doctrine. In denying this, and shewing that sanctification has another place in scripture, which it has, some (and many outside brethren) have denied progress in holiness, which scripture does speak of. Negatives are dangerous things. I state a truth. One passage suffices to prove I have reason. If I say there is no such thing in scripture, I must know every passage to be able to say it. The Holy Ghost teaches by positive truth. They are wise who hold fast to it.

296 But first as to law - too wide a subject to treat fully here - it has been fully treated in tracts expressly on the point: but it may be well to refer to some scriptures on the subject. The law is not the Christian's rule of life. He keeps it as walking in the Spirit and in love. But Christ is unquestionably the pattern and model of the Christian's life: "That the life of Jesus," says the apostle, "may be manifested in our mortal flesh." He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. He that says he abides in Him ought himself so to walk as He also walked. To say that the law was the measure of Christ's walk is to deny grace, to deny that He was God in goodness down here. But it may be urged, How can we follow His example in goodness? It is exactly what we are called to do. The sermon on the mount is not a spiritualizing of the law. Murder and adultery are spoken of; but what other commandments are? And even these are treated of, not as part of the ten commandments, or Christ could not put His will in contrast with them and say, "but I say unto you." But God's conduct in grace is expressly given as our pattern: "Be ye perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." He sends rain on just and unjust; He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil; He loves those who do not love Him. The blessed Lord gives His view of what is called for if they would enter into the kingdom. The ten commandments are not referred to. But so far from what was said of the old being a rule of life, Christ gives His own views of morality in contrast with all said of old. But the Father's conduct in grace is expressly given as our rule, which certainly is not the law. It is a mere idle fancy, though so often repeated, that the sermon on the mount is a spiritualization of the law. Redemption is not spoken of in it, but the terms on which Jehovah was on the way with Israel to judgment; the character of the godly remnant, but not the law: if it is, let it be shewn.

297 But again, Ephesians 5, "Be ye therefore followers [mimetai] of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrifice and an offering to God as a sweet smelling savour." We are to forgive one another as God in Christ has forgiven us (Eph. 4: 32). This surely is not law, and we get a principle shewing how it goes, in the motive and measure of the heart, wholly beyond it. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," says law; but we are to give ourselves wholly up for others, a sacrifice to God, as Christ did; to lay down our lives for the brethren. Again, Colossians 3: 12-14, "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, . . . as Christ forgave you, so also ye." So Philippians 2. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus"; and then we have His making Himself, when in the form of God, of no reputation; and, again, humbling Himself to obedience to death. The manner or rule of the Christian's life is Christ, and Christ in forgiving lowliness and grace. It is monstrous to deny Christ to be our rule of life; monstrous to reduce the model to the keeping the law. "Forgive" and "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," make the declaration, that the law is the Christian's rule of life, a monstrous denial of practical Christianity.

Christ walking in grace is our pattern and model. The principle of the law is different. It exacts love from us, and really from the flesh; for it has power over a man only as long as he lives. The subjective principle of our life is the Second man with the Holy Ghost dwelling in us (Eph. 4). The doctrine of deliverance from sin, from the power of sin, is not by a law exacting what is contrary to it, but our having died with Christ and put off the old man. Thus, where the question is discussed (Rom. 6), "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? . . . knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed." The whole chapter is the discussion of this point. And the reason sin will not have dominion over the Christian is, that he is not under law; and we are shewn that obedience in a new nature to God takes the place of law. We are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that we might be to another, Christ raised from the dead. So in Galatians: "I through law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." The law, we read in 2 Corinthians 3, is a ministration of death and condemnation; in 1 Corinthians 15 it is the strength of sin; in Romans 7 the motions of sin are by the law. It entered (pareiselthe) that the offence might abound. It was added (Gal. 3) because of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; but, faith being come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster. In a word, the diligent instruction of the apostle is to shew that we are not under law, and that the path of holiness is not that, but our being dead to sin, crucified with Christ, and His living in us (so Col. 3: 9, 10); that we cannot (Rom. 7) have the two husbands, the law and Christ risen. And, note, the question in chapters 6 and 7 is not justification, but deliverance from the power of sin. So Ephesians 4: 22, 24. This is what the scripture calls learning Christ. The writer should shew us how it is we are not under law, yet it is our standard and rule of life. It is all very well to say "we have not space to prove, nor would our readers require to be convinced by proof." Quoting one or two texts would not require so much space: can we not have one?

298 It is not true that any hold that the whole of our blessed Saviour's life is disconnected from the process of redemption. But they say that Christ's keeping the law is not our righteousness. And this many of the godliest and most esteemed ministers of the Establishment hold. But what is the process of redemption? Scripture speaks of redemption through His blood, of being redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, not of any process; and that without shedding of blood there is no remission. To make living righteousness redemption is a fatal error. And, in spite of all assailants, it remains true that "if righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain." "When we were in the flesh the motions of sins, which were by the law wrought in us." "We are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in us."

As regards sanctification a few words are needed. Progressive fitness is not scriptural. Growth and progress there is in scripture. But fitness is by the work of Christ. The thief was meet for paradise or he could not have gone there. All Christians are called on to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. We are called on to grow up to the Head in all things; to be transformed into the same image; to follow after holiness; and the prayer of the apostle is, that the God of peace might sanctify them wholly. We are called on to labour to enter into the rest of God. But for all this the evangelical system upsets the gospel.

299 Sanctification is spoken of in two ways in scripture. The person is set apart for God. And in this case it is simple and absolute; and, where connected, it habitually precedes justifying. Hence Christians are constantly called "saints," that is, "sanctified ones": "all the saints," and so on. They are sanctified, holy. So we are sanctified unto the blood of sprinkling, that is, brought by the separating power of the Spirit under the power of that precious blood: "ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified." "By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." They are set apart and brought under the efficacy of Christ's work, which perfects them for ever for God's presence. Hence there is no unsettling the justification. Set apart for God, they are perfected for Him by the work of Christ. They are accepted in the Beloved. Still, if left down here, they have a great deal to learn; a great deal in which their senses are to be exercised to discern good and evil; to grow more conformed to Christ; much in which the word forms their souls into His image; and here the diligent soul will be made fat. And in this they pursue, follow after, holiness; and God makes them partakers of His holiness. But the moment it is put as meetness for heaven consequent on justification, then justification is uncertain and incomplete, and salvation and the true gospel are set aside. We are in Christ, accepted, and yet unmeet for heaven; or else all is uncertain, and peace with God is unfounded at all times.

As far as I can see, the writer has no true or clear idea of the flesh, the old man and the new. He speaks of the moment of saving faith not being the moment of complete deliverance from the power and inbeing of sin - of the desperate tenacity with which it clings to life. Scripture tells of the old man, the flesh, and which is never in its nature any better" - is not subject to the law of God nor indeed can be"; "which lusteth against the Spirit." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." But it speaks of that which is born of the Spirit, of a new man, of Christ being our life. And the Christian is called upon to reckon himself dead to sin. He has put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new (Col. 3). As to deliverance from the power of sin, the moment he has understood he is dead with Christ, sin has no title or power over him. Such is the doctrine of Romans 6. He may be careless and let it still exercise it. But he is delivered from it as to any claim or title or power it can exercise, if he be faithful and look to Christ. He is not a debtor to the flesh, but is made free from the law of sin and death. The nature of the flesh is unchanged, but in the power of the Spirit of God the Christian is to reckon himself dead, as having put off the old man and put on the new. As to the fact and nature of the flesh, the inbeing of sin, as our critic speaks, there is no change; but power is ours in Christ to mortify the deeds of the body and walk in the Spirit.

300 But in the result of this there is progress (Rom. 7: 20-22). I am to grow up to Christ the Head by the growing knowledge of Him. Christ as life is a holy life; but as a child grows up to be a man, so the Christian by grace (Eph. 4: 15; Phil. 1: 10, 11; Col. 1: 9-11.) Compare Colossians 3: 17. We are not under law then. The Christian who knows his position in Christ is delivered from the power of, and being a debtor to, the flesh, though he may carelessly yield to it, but he grows up to Christ the Head. The nature of the flesh never changes; but he is not in it but in Christ, and Christ is in him power to walk in godliness, and God is faithful not to suffer us to be tempted above that we are able to bear. In these things are the exercises of daily Christian life. He, if walking Christianly, cleanses himself from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Having the hope of being like Christ when He appears, he purifies himself as He is pure.

On Ecclesiastical Independency

J. N. Darby.

<14010E> 301

1

The point I take to be fatally dangerous is confounding private judgment and conscience. We see the full-blown fruit of it in the present state of Protestantism, where private judgment is used to authorize the rejection of everything the individual does not agree with.

The difference is plain in the case put. A father's authority is admitted. Now if it be a matter of conscience, Christ's authority or the confession of His name, of course this cannot stand in the way. I am bound to love Christ more than father or mother. But suppose I reject my father's authority for everything my private judgment differs in as to what is right, there is an end of all authority. There may be cases of anxious enquiry as to what my duty is, where spiritual judgment alone can come to a right judgment. This is the case in the whole Christian life. We must have our senses exercised to discern good and evil - not be unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is, and such exercises are useful.

But the confounding a judgment I form simply as to right with conscience is, in result, confounding will with obedience. True conscience is always obedience to God; but if I take what I see as sufficient, confusion of a deadly character soon comes in. Does one not submit to a father's authority unless he can bring, even in an important matter, a text of scripture for everything he desires? Is there no setting up of self and selfwill in such a principle?

But I go farther; and it is the case in question. Suppose in an assembly a person has been put out for evil. All admit that such, if truly humbled, should be restored. The assembly think he is humbled truly: I am satisfied, suppose, that he is not. They receive him. Am I to break with the assembly or to refuse subjection to their act, because I think them mistaken? Supposing (which is a more trying case to the heart) I believe he is humbled and they are satisfied he is not, I may bow to a judgment I think erroneous and look to the Lord to set it right. There is such a thing as lowliness as to self, which does not set up its own opinion against others, though one may have no doubt of being right.

302 There is another question connected with it - one assembly's act binding another. I do not admit, because scripture does not admit, independent assemblies. There is the body of Christ, and all Christians are members of it; and the Church of God in one place represents the whole and acts in its name. Hence, in 1 Corinthians, where the subject is treated of, all Christians are taken in with the assembly of Corinth as such; yet this last is treated as the body as such, and made locally responsible for maintaining the purity of the assembly; and the Lord Christ is looked at as there; and what was done was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is wholly ignored when one speaks of six or seven clever, intelligent Christians and a number of ignorant ones. The Lord in the midst of an assembly is set aside. The flesh, it is said, often acts in an assembly. Why assume it does and forget it may in an individual?

Again, why speak of obeying the Lord first, then the Church? But supposing the Lord is in the Church? It is merely setting up private judgment against the judgment of an assembly meeting in Christ's name with His promise (if they are not, I have nothing to say to them); it is simply saying, I count myself wiser than those who are. I reject entirely as unscriptural the saying, "First Christ, then the Church." If Christ be not in the Church, I do not own it at all. It assumes that the Church has not Christ, making them two parties. I may reason with an assembly, because I am a member of Christ and hence of it - if it is one, help it. But if I own it as an assembly of God, I cannot assume Christ is not there. It is simply denying it is an assembly of God. The thought is wanting of what an assembly of God is. This is not surprising; but it necessarily falsifies judgment on the point, which is not "if the word" - but if I see not the word for it. It is justly trusting one's own judgment as against others and the assembly of God.

I could not for a moment put a question of blasphemies against Christ on such a ground. It is really wickedness. The attempt to cover them by church questions, or by pleas of individual conscience, I abhor with a perfect abhorrence.

Allow me to put the question on minor questions in another shape. Suppose I am of an assembly, and I think they judge something in a mistaken way. Am I to impose my individual way of thinking on them? If not, what am I to do? Leave the assembly of God if it be such (if not, I do not go there)? You cannot help yourself. If I do not continue in an assembly, because it does not agree with me in everything, I can be of no assembly of God in the world. All this is simply a denial of the presence and help of God's Spirit and of the faithfulness of Christ to His own people. I cannot see godly lowliness in it.

303 But if an assembly have judged as such in a case of discipline, admitting all brotherly communications and remonstrances, I distinctly say another assembly should, on the face of it, receive their act. If the wicked man is put out at Corinth, is Ephesus to receive him? Where then is unity? where the Lord in the midst of the Church? What led me out of the Establishment was the unity of the body: where it is not owned and acted on, I should not go. And independent churches I think quite as bad or worse of than of the Establishment. But if each assembly acts independently of another and receives independently of it, then it has rejected that unity - they are independent churches. There is no practical unity of the body.

But I shall never be brought to such wickedness as to treat acceptance of blasphemers as an ecclesiastical question. If people like to walk with them or help and support the bearing with them at the Lord's table, they will not have me. I distinctly judge that the principles defended shew want of lowliness as to self and a setting aside the very idea of the Church of God. But I am not going to mix the two questions. I do not accept the setting aside my spiritual liberty: we are a flock, not an enclosure. But in questions of discipline, where no principle is denied, I do not set up my judgment against that of the assembly of God in that which God has committed to its care. It is just setting myself up as wiser, and neglecting God's word which has assigned certain duties to an assembly, which He will honour in its place.

Let me add, there is such a thing as obedience in what we do know, which goes before speculating on possible claims in obedience, where we should like to be free to go our own way. "To him that hath shall more be given." Doing what we know in obedience is a great way of knowing further.

Again, "the bond of unity between the churches is said to be the lordship of Christ." But there is not a word about churches [when we speak of unity], nor bond of churches; nor does unity consist of union of churches. Lordship is distinctly individual. Nor is Lord of the body a scriptural idea. Christ is Lord to individuals, Head to the body, over all things. Unity is not by lordship. Of course, individual obedience will help to maintain it, as all godliness will; but unity is unity of the Spirit, and in the body, not in bodies. Both Ephesians and Corinthians teach us distinctly that unity is in and by the Spirit, and that Christ has in this respect the place of Head, not of Lord, which referred to individual Christians. This error if acted on would falsify the whole position of gatherings, and make mere dissenters of them, and in no way meet the mind of Christ.

304 2

Confounding authority with infallibility is a poor and transparent piece of sophistry. In a hundred instances obedience may be obligatory where there is no infallibility. Were it not so, there could be no order in the world at all. There is no infallibility in it, but a great deal of selfwill; and if there is to be no obedience where there is not infallibility, no acquiescence in what has been decided, there is no end to selfwill and no existence of common order. The question is of competence, not of infallibility. A father is not infallible, but he has a divinely given authority; and acquiescence is a duty. A police magistrate is not infallible, but he has competent authority in the cases submitted to his jurisdiction. There may be resources against abuse of authority, or in certain cases a refusal of it when a higher authority obliges us, as a conscience directed by God's word. We ought to obey God rather than man. But there is never in scripture liberty given to the human will as such. We are sanctified to the obedience of Christ. And this principle - our doing God's will in simple obedience, without solving every abstract question which may be raised - is a path of peace, which many heads who think themselves wiser miss, because it is the path of God's wisdom.

The question then is a mere sophistry, which betrays the desire to have the will free, and a confidence that the person's judgment is superior to all that has been already judged. There is judicial authority in the Church of God, and if there were not, it would be the most horrible iniquity on earth; because it would put the sanction of Christ's name on every iniquity. And that is what was sought and pleaded for by those with whom these questions originated: that whatever iniquity or leaven was allowed, it could not leaven an assembly. Such views have done good. They have the cordial abhorrence and rejection of every honest mind, and of every one who does not seek to justify evil. It is possible you may think or say That is not the question I am asking. Forgive me for saying, I know that it is, and that only; though you do not, I am well assured.

305 But the judicial authority of the Church of God is in obedience to the word. "Do ye not judge them that are within? Them that are without God judgeth. Wherefore put out from among yourselves that wicked person." And, I repeat, if it be not done, the Church of God becomes the accrediting of every vileness of sin. And I affirm distinctly, that where this is done, other Christians are bound to respect it. There are remedies for fleshly action in it, in the presence of the Spirit of God amongst the saints, and in the supreme authority of the Lord Jesus Christ; but that remedy is not the totally unscriptural and miserable one proposed by the question - the pretension of competency in every one who takes it into his head to judge for himself independently of what God has instituted. It is, taken in its most favourable aspect, not an individual pretension, which is its real character, the wellknown and unscriptural system which has been known since Cromwell's time - that is, Independency: one body of Christians being independent of every other as a voluntary association. This is a simple denial of the unity of the body, and the presence and action of the Holy Ghost in it.

Supposing we were a body of Freemasons, and a person were excluded from one lodge by the rules of the order, and instead of looking to the lodge to review the case, if it was thought to be unjust, each other lodge were to receive him or not on their own independent authority, it is clear the unity of the Freemason system is gone. Each lodge is an independent body acting for itself. It is in vain to allege a wrong done, and the lodge not being infallible; the competent authority of lodges, and the unity of the whole, is at an end. The system is dissolved. There may be provision for such difficulties. All right if it be needed. But the proposed remedy is the mere pretension of the superiority of the recusant lodge, and a dissolution of Freemasonry.

Now I openly reject, in the most absolute way, the pretended competency of one church or assembly to judge another, as the question proposes; but what is more important, it is an unscriptural denial of the whole structure of the Church of God. It is Independency, a system I knew forty years ago and would never join. If people like that system, let them go there. It is in vain to say it is not that. Independency merely means that each church judges for itself independently of another, and that is all that is claimed here. I have no quarrel with those who, liking to judge for themselves, prefer this system; only I am perfectly satisfied that in every respect it is wholly unscriptural. The Church is not a voluntary system. It is not formed (or rather unformed) of a number of independent bodies, each acting for itself. It was never dreamed, whatever the remedy, that Antioch could let in Gentiles, and Jerusalem not, and all go on according to the order of the Church of God. There is not a trace of such independency and disorder in the word. There is every possible evidence of, in fact, and doctrinal insistence on, there being one body on earth, whose unity was the foundation of blessing in fact, and its maintenance the duty of every Christian. Self-will may wish it otherwise, but certainly not grace, and not obedience to the word.

306 Difficulties may arise: we have not an apostolic centre as there was at Jerusalem. Quite true: but we have a resource in the action of the Spirit in the unity of the body, the action of healing grace and helpful gift, and the faithfulness of a gracious Lord who has promised never to leave us or forsake us. But the case of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is a proof that the scriptural church never thought of, and did not accept the independent action insisted upon. The action of the Holy Ghost was in the unity of the body, and is always so. The action directed by the apostle at Corinth (and which binds us as the word of God) was operative in respect of the whole Church of God, and all are contemplated in the opening of the epistle. Does any one mean to pretend, if he were to be put out at Corinth judicially, that each church was to judge for itself whether he was to be received; that judicial act pass for nothing or operative only at Corinth, and Ephesus or Cenchrea to do as it liked afterwards? Where then was the solemn act and direction of the apostle? Well, that authority and that direction is the word of God for us now.

I am quite aware it will be said, Yes, but you may not follow it rightly, as the flesh may act. It is possible. There is possibility that the flesh may act. But I am quite certain that what denies the unity of the Church, sets up for itself, and dissolves it into independent bodies, is the dissolution of the Church of God, unscriptural, and nothing but flesh. It is therefore judged for me before I go any farther. There is a remedy, a blessed gracious remedy of humble minds in the help of God's Spirit in the unity of the body, and the Lord's faithful love and care, as I have said, but not in the pretentious will which sets up for itself and denies the Church of God. My answer is, then, that the plea is a sophistry which confounds infallibility and divinely-ordained authority met by lowly grace, and that the system sought is the pretentious spirit of Independency, a rejection of the whole authority of scripture in its teaching on the subject of the Church, a setting up of man instead of God.

307 It is clear, that if two or three are gathered together, it is an assembly, and if scripturally assembled, an assembly of God; and if not, what else? If the only one in a place, it is the assembly of God in the place. Yet I do object practically to taking the title, because the assembly of God in any place properly embraces all the saints in the place. And there is practical danger for souls in assuming the name, as losing sight of the ruin and setting up to be something. But it is not false in the supposed case. If there be one such and another is set up by man's will, independent of it, the first only is morally, in God's sight, the assembly of God; and the other is not at all so, because it is set up in independency of the unity of the body. I reject in the most entire and unhesitating manner the whole Independent system as unscriptural and a positive, unmitigated evil. Now that the unity of the body has been brought out, and the scriptural truth of it known, it is simply a work of Satan. Ignorance of the truth is one thing, our common lot in many ways; opposition to it is another. I know it is alleged that the Church is now so in ruins that scriptural order according to the unity of the body cannot be maintained. Then let the objectors avow as honest men, that they seek unscriptural order, or rather disorder. But in truth it is impossible to meet at all in that case to break bread, except in defiance of God's word: for scripture says, "we are all one body; for we are all partakers of that one loaf." We profess to be one body whenever we break bread; scripture knows nothing else. And they will find scripture too strong and perfect a bond for man's reasoning to break it.

Remarks upon "The British Churches in relation to the British people; by E. Miall."

J. N. Darby.

<14011E> 308

I find for my own spirit that the Christian has to watch against being brought under the pressure of what is going on around, if he give heed to it, even as a part of the ways or judgments of God. We are called to heavenly things, to have our conversation in heaven, to be occupied with Christ, sanctified by the truth, in that He has sanctified Himself, that we may be sanctified by the truth. We have to be simple concerning evil, and wise concerning that which is good; a blessed and most admirable precept, such as Christianity alone can bring about. We are warned that in the last days perilous times shall come. The terrible description of that state of things morally is given; but how simple the remedy when the perception of such a state exists! "From such turn away." Turned away we are free to be occupied with Christ, and those heavenly things which sanctify us practically now and are our everlasting portion. No state of things can alter the word. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to purpose. We are purified to Christ to be a peculiar people - a people appropriated to Himself. May we remember it! With this caution, which I find needed for myself as well as others, it is well to be aware (and the Spirit of God has made us aware) that there are perilous times, and this in the last days, in which we are.

One of the great questions in these days is that of ministry, or, as I may also call it, the clergy. It may interest your readers to see how this subject is viewed by leading and intelligent dissenters. I refer to and shall quote from a book published some time ago; but which, occupied with my own labours, I had never seen before. The occasion of it was the discussion, in the Congregational Union of England and Wales, of the question of the general indifference of the working classes to our religious institutions. With many things in it I cordially agree; but there are in it the fatal and general errors of looking for good in the natural man, and looking for the development of that good by the liberty of the will. The Christian kindness, which in taking a place with the poorest - a hearty, willing, and ready place, as all alike before God and in grace - seeks to win sinners to Christ and to their own blessing, which takes this place as the very spirit of Christ and Christianity, I cordially accept and desire to walk in. We are all alike before God, and, if there be any difference, He thinks most of the poor; and so ought the Christian, and so did Christ. But to confound this with letting loose natural will is a deception denying the sinful state of man. The confusion of these two things is so common nowadays, that, where we do not keep close to Christ, there is such a pandering to evil instead of bringing good with the hope to win thereby, that it is well to note the difference.

309 Let Christians be the meekest and humblest on earth as Christ was: it is what they ought to be, and that will bring them into contact with every need as it did Christ; but let them not flatter sinful man to his ruin, and fancy that this is the same thing. The path of wisdom is one which the vulture's eye hath not seen: death and destruction have heard the fame of it; the fear of the Lord is the beginning of it, the path of Christ its perfection in this world; a new divine path He is and was, that divine wisdom in His walk here - the wisdom of God and the power of God. I have been led to say thus much in alluding to this book, as a principle needed always and especially in these days; but I turn to the book itself, to bring into notice the statements as to ministry and how scripture affects other minds too when searched into. I find a confusion (which in earlier times, I myself fell into, so that I could ill reproach anyone else with it) of gifts and ministry with elders, as if this last was the exercise of a gift; and there may be other misapprehensions such as we are all liable to. But, in the main, what brethren are so much reproached with is here admitted to be the true scriptural path; and what they are reproached with giving up is treated as one great hindrance to usefulness. The writer attacks pulpits: I would not do so, provided they are not used in what are the assemblies of the saints, properly speaking.

The gifts of ministry exist in the assembly, not properly in an assembly; and we may exercise them individually, and either evangelize or teach in our individual capacity, or as meeting in the assembly of the saints. In this last a pulpit is out of place. In a pulpit one is no longer with the saints. But when I teach as an individual (and as a servant of Christ I may do so), I am not with the saints, but teaching them according to the gift given me. The positions are different, and yet both scriptural and right. With this remark I give the quotations. They are from Mr. E. Miall's "British Churches in Relation to the British People," 2nd edition, p. 172.

310 "Next, in the natural order of the arrangements now under our review, comes ordination. If there is little in the New Testament to sanction the common notion of a ministerial order, there is less to sustain that of ordination. A few passages in which mention is made of specific appointment to 'eldership' in the churches - two or three which imply such appointment to have been expressed, as indeed appointment to office usually was in the East, by imposition of hands - and an apostolic phrase, here and there, intimating the communication of some supernatural gift at the time of this designation to office - constitute, scanty as it is, the entire sum of scriptural materials, out of which ecclesiastical ingenuity has fashioned the doctrine of ordination. I believe indeed that, to a considerable extent, the estimate now set upon the necessity and virtues of this rite by Nonconforming churches is moderate in comparison of what it once was. It is not maintained nowadays, at least by them, that ordination actually confers any right upon the subject of it which he did not previously possess, nor that it is absolutely requisite in order to ministerial character and authority. More generally, it is regarded as a solemn observance, seemly and profitably on a public entrance upon office, and well calculated to promote order in the churches. Whilst, however, the intelligence of our dissenting religious bodies thus interprets the ceremonial, the sentiment of the same bodies, more unconsciously and deeply tinged with traditional prejudice, seldom shews itself abreast with that intelligence. The young 'brother' who has been invited to take the 'oversight' of a Church, and who has accepted the invitation, does not ordinarily feel that he has ceased to be a layman, or that he may becomingly discharge all the functions of his office, until after his ordination. Many of his brethren around him, and most perhaps of the people of his charge, would be a little scandalized at his presiding at the administration of the Lord's supper, even amongst the Christian disciples whom he teaches from the pulpit, before he has been set apart in the customary manner - and much more would they object to the celebration of that ordinance by a church bereaved of its elder, conducted under the superintendence of one of its own members. In some cases the feeling excited, probably by the force brought to bear upon it by the doctrine maintained in the Anglican Establishment, is so far indulged as to condemn the exercise of this ministerial prerogative, even by those who have been admitted by ordination to the ministry, but who may have subsequently quitted office and engaged in secular pursuits. On the other hand, there is a still larger number of persons who connect with ordination an initiation of the subject of it into the sacred order, and who regard him, whether occupying office or not, as retaining until death all the special rights and responsibilities of ministers of Christ. Here, again, it will be felt, there are common notions, sometimes repudiated by the understanding, but insidiously mingling with the feelings, which give additional strength to the professional sentiment. Those imaginary lines which separate the ministerial class from the rest of the Church, and place it, as it were, in exclusive possession of the prerogatives of spiritual ruling and teaching, are deepened and rendered almost ineffaceable, partly by the rite itself of ordination, chiefly by the yet lingering superstition with which its effects are generally regarded. In a modified sense, and with a few exceptions, the ministerial character is treated as indelible.

311 "The almost universal practice - to which, however, the different sections of the Methodist body present an exception - of limiting spiritual teaching in each church, so far at least as it is stated and official, to a single individual, is another of those arrangements in which the professional sentiment finds development and sustenance. In apostolic times, there seems reason to conclude, all the Christian disciples of one city or town were united together in spiritual fellowship, and constituted the one church in that town. No evidence exists that the Christian community in any one city was divided into as many separate organizations, as there were separate places of assembly for public worship. From the intimations of scripture we may infer, with a high degree at least of probability, that the officers both of oversight and of teaching were as numerous in each church, as convenience might prescribe, or as the distribution of gifts amongst the members would allow. In the apostolic epistles, where a single church is addressed, allusion is commonly made not to the bishop, but the bishops; and when Titus is instructed by Paul to finish in Crete the work which the apostle himself had left uncompleted, he is told to ordain, or appoint, not an elder but elders in every city. From the same apostle's letter to the Corinthian church, we gather, that the gift of teaching was possessed by several of its members, and some important regulations are laid down for its orderly exercise. To some such mode of manifesting and nourishing their spiritual life the Christian churches in our land will probably return by slow degrees, as the spirit of their faith becomes purified from the dross of worldly-mindedness. Meanwhile it is but too apparent, that the needless multiplication of spiritual organizations in one locality, and the appointment of a single minister over each, but ill succeeds in eliciting either the life or the power of religious association. Our very mechanical arrangements, modelled of course in conformity with our ecclesiastical ideas, put a needless distance between teacher and taught, and exert a repressive influence upon the sympathies which should connect the one with the other.

312 "In each place of worship there stands the pulpit - a visible symbol of the monopoly of teaching - a fixed memento to the Church that it is to one individual they have to look for all those declarations, illustrations, and enforcements of the word of God, by which their minds are to be informed, their consciences stirred or comforted, or their hearts impressed and improved. From that spot, sacred to ministerial occupation, the devotions of the people are to be led by the same man who preaches the word every time the Church assembles year after year. The most seraphic piety, combined with the most splendid talents, can hardly, on this plan, prevent both devotion and instruction from becoming invested with an air of formality deeply injurious to freshness of religious feeling. The service insensibly slides into a performance which the assembly try to witness with becoming emotion, instead of participating in and adopting as their own. It is as if the voice which addresses them came from an isolated and inaccessible quarter representative of authority, instead of issuing from their very midst, conversant with their own thoughts, and warm with their own emotions. The occupant of that pulpit, who alone has right to interpret God's will and minister to His saints, and plead with unbelievers, cannot be thoroughly identified as one with ourselves; and not a little of that sympathy, with which we should otherwise listen to his statements or exhortations, is chilled and paralysed by the sensible contact into which it comes with the insulating lines of office. Oh! those pulpits - and all the influences they infer! Would that no such professional conveniences had been invented! Would that some change of feeling or even of fashion amongst us could sweep them clean away! How much they themselves, and the notion of which they are the visible expression, have done to repress the manifestations of spiritual life and energy in our churches it is impossible to calculate.

313 "The evils always attendant upon monopoly have not been wanting here; and the pains taken, but unwisely taken, to secure by means of it the best results, have produced the worst. The limitation of public spiritual service to a single functionary has greatly, and, as I think, most unhappily, favoured the diffusion of the professional sentiment amongst both churches and ministers. The attribution of a large class of duties in which the body ought to take a lively interest, and concerning which it ought to feel a weighty responsibility, to a particular order of Christian men, has been fatally encouraged, nay, rendered all but inevitable, by the arrangements to which the foregoing observations refer. The pastor and the flock alike suffer disadvantage, and it is hard to determine which is most to be commiserated. Not a few, we apprehend, in both relationships, would rejoice most heartily to go back to primitive methods. But, for the present, the tyrant custom overrules their wishes; and, perhaps, in this instance, as in others, lurking traditional feeling refuses to keep pace with intelligent conviction.

"But we have not yet exhausted the illustrations of the professional sentiment to be met with in our churches. The canon laws of an ecclesiastical Establishment, itself a re-adaptation of Papal machinery to purer doctrine, exert in some respects a more powerful influence over their views of ministerial etiquette than the dictates of common sense, and the lessons of experience, backed though they be by the sanction of apostolical example. Else, how comes it to pass that the stated discharge of the functions of eldership should be so generally regarded as incompatible with secular engagements? Doubtless it is frequently desirable that men found by the churches 'apt to teach,' should be placed in a position enabling them to consecrate their whole time to the work; and so long as the 'oversight' and religious tuition of each church are committed exclusively to a single individual, secular pursuits, even when necessary to eke out for him a scanty subsistence, will be found to preclude the profitable performance of his duties. But is it requisite, or does the New Testament give countenance to the idea, that every spiritual teacher should refrain from seeking an honest livelihood by the work of his own hands, or that upon being appointed to office he cannot continue in a worldly calling without infringing the rules of ecclesiastical propriety? Just the reverse! The case of the greatest of the apostles need hardly be cited, for no thinking mind can miss it. 'The preachers among the poor Waldenses,' says Milton, 'the ancient stock of our Reformation, bred up themselves in trades, and especially in physic and surgery, as well as in the study of scripture (which is the only true theology), that they might be no burden to the Church, and, by the example of Christ, might cure both soul and body. But our ministers,' he continues, in a strain of severity which the conditions of his times fully justified, 'think scorn to use a trade, and count it the reproach of this age that tradesmen preach the gospel. It were to be wished they were all tradesmen - they would not, so many of them, for want of another trade, make a trade of their preaching.' I have introduced this quotation, not until after a painful struggle with my own feelings; to some extent it is applicable in the present day, and the truths, thus pithily and forcibly put, deserve far more serious consideration than they have yet received. For my own part I do not believe that the ministry generally are justly chargeable with a mercenary spirit, or that gain occupies in their view so large a space as godliness; for if so, their choice of occupation has been, certainly, a most unwise one. But I wish to point out, in as vivid language as possible, the disadvantageous light in which our absurd prejudices place the ministration of the gospel of peace."

314 Again, p. 179 -

"To the foregoing illustrations I think it needful to add but one other - that presented to our notice by distinct clerical titles, official vestments, and all those external peculiarities intended to distinguish from others, the members of the 'sacred profession.' There are varieties of custom amongst different denominations in reference to these distinctive insignia of office; but the sects are very few, and the individuals are far from numerous, who treat all such outward marks as unworthy of notice. Looked at apart, they are confessedly trifles; viewed in connection with our present theme, they are not altogether matters of indifference. They are meant to express what it would be well for the churches altogether to forget - a difference of order. They indicate the existence of views respecting the sanctity of the profession, which neither scriptural language nor the genius of Christianity support. They render more visible the line of separation between the disciples of Christ in office, and out of it. They originated in times of corruption; and they serve no useful purpose which pure religion can desire. They minister to unworthy tastes. They lend a countenance to popular superstition. They are a relic, and a very absurd relic, of the old sacerdotal system, which delegated the whole business of religion to the priesthood, and which placed the efficacy of priestly mediation chiefly in a minute observance of external forms and 'bodily exercises.'"

315 I might quote a great deal more; but from my pen it might seem like an attack, which is as far as possible from my thoughts. I shew merely the effect of scripture on others when honestly looked at. The author would preserve what exists, and gradually introduce what is scriptural. Others have thought that finding it in scripture they were bound to act on it. The writer speaks of the course to be pursued thus (p. 193): -

"The tide of infidelity is swelling, the plague of religious indifference is spreading. Can we afford to give indulgence to a sentiment which, while it greatly circumscribes the number of labourers in Christ's vineyard, detracts also from the moral power of those engaged in the work? The disadvantages entailed upon the churches by the long prevalence and mighty power of that sentiment cannot suddenly be got rid of within a generation or two. But our faces may at least be turned in the right direction. We may aim to destroy the living principle of the evil by treating the ministry as an office, not an order. We may make gradual efforts to evoke and employ teaching talents, wherever they exist. And, by cautious changes, we may prepare more general and efficient instrumentality for the prosecution of spiritual objects, making the best use possible meanwhile of that which already exists."

But he pleads "conscience in giving utterance to these opinions." He has stated conclusions to which inquiry has gradually led his own mind. I can only say that, finding it in scripture years ago, I have acted on it. It is evident that a sober mind cannot call it a denial of ministry.

316 As I have spoken of these last days, let me add a word on another subject. I do not desire that Christians should be occupied with it, but get more fully their own place. I do not think that the dis-establishment of the Protestants in Ireland will much affect the state of the professing church in an adverse way. If there be spiritual energy, the contrary may be the case; but the import of it for England is that it has given up Protestantism to popery. That is the meaning of the act in Ireland - a very grave fact. If the Establishment be maintained in England, it is the maintenance of a traditional system - ecclesiasticism against dissent - not the maintenance of Protestantism. What has been done is the public giving up of that [Protestantism] by England. People must not deceive themselves. If the Establishment be given up in England, it is the country's giving up all religion - any professed recognition of God altogether. What conclusion do I draw from this? That Christians should look to the Lord only. I do not expect any great persecution or trial of this kind. There may be as much as is needed to sift Christians, and force them (alas! that it should be needed) to act on their own principles, and trust the Lord. At the beginning Christianity had no outward support, but the contrary. It made its way by divine truth and power against every adverse influence. We do not exercise the same committed power; but we have grace and truth, and the promise of an open door to a little strength, when the word of Christ is kept. The word of His patience is that in which we have to abide. Patience will have to be exercised by the presence of the power of evil; but the Lord does not let the reins out of His hand, nor is evil ever beyond His power; but to walk right we must be on the true ground of faith. Englishmen are not generally aware how much they have leant on the supports which providence has placed around them; we seldom are so till we lose them. But God can use even infidelity to check the disposition to persecute. God forbid that any one should lean on or have to say to it even as a defence. Our resource is in the Lord; but He has all things at His command. To lean on it would be to deny Him; to lean on Him is to be sure of the loving care of One who nourishes and cherishes His Church as a man would his own flesh. May His servants take the word, the scriptures, the sure and only stay and guide in the last days to guide them, and live the life of faith in Him. He is faithful. The Lord will own their path, and them too, in the last day.

317 I may be permitted to add the exhortation to shew all cordial brotherly love to every true Christian, and to cultivate the expression of it, while holding fast as a duty to Christ, separation from all that is not of Him, according to 2 Timothy 2 and 3, the great direction for these days. Let me add, in these times of general upheaval and breaking up, there is a need of recollecting that we have a kingdom that cannot be moved. Calmness is the portion of those who know this, and have the truth. "Thou shalt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee."

Presbyterianism: a reply to "The Church and the Pulpit."

J. N. Darby.

<14012E> 318

An Address delivered at the opening of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales, October 23rd, 1867, by the Rev. Dr. Steel, Moderator of the General Assembly. Sydney, 1867.

[

Extracts

]

"Fathers and brethren,

"The spirit of union in the larger corporation of the Church has fostered other fellowships within our Zion. Our Sabbath school teachers in Sydney and its suburbs have formed an association for their mutual improvement and the more effective conduct of the schools under their care. With laudable zeal and perseverance they have instituted courses of lectures for teachers, arranged common lessons for scholars, and collected statistics of schools - all of which cannot fail to be beneficial to themselves and to the Church. Young Men's Mutual Improvement Societies - now happily connected with almost every congregation in the city - have also formed a union for promoting their intellectual and Christian advancement, and for cherishing that esprit de corps which young men of a church like ours - so rich with historic memories and apostolic glories - should always realize. It is interesting and refreshing to mark these hopeful phases of young life in the Church, and it would be well if fathers and brethren gave their encouragement and aid to associations so calculated to maintain the doctrine and order of our ancestral church in this new land. Since our faith and polity are generally so consistent with the holy scriptures and the primitive Church, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by the enlightenment of the young, alike in our creed and our history.

"Fathers and Brethren - Our church polity is apostolical. It 'is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto,' as our Confession so well states the matter. It is framed upon the practice of the apostolic age, while yet inspired men were in the Church to give authority to its doctrines, and accuracy to its history. From these halcyon days of Christianity our church derives its constitution. There we get the principles that regulate all our polity. We admit, as our Confession does, 'that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.' But we also hold 'That the scriptural proof of any arrangement or practice having existed in the apostolic churches, ordinarily and primâ facie imposes an obligation on all churches to adopt it - an obligation that is imperative and unlimited in regard to all those things which obviously enter into the substance of the government and worship of the Church, and the mode in which they are administered.'* In the scriptures, then, we read that a church comprehended a society of the people of God, either in a single congregation, as in the house of Nymphas (Col. 4: 15), or in a city, as in Jerusalem (Acts 2: 22), where there were at least eight thousand persons; or the whole community of a nation, as in Acts 7: 38, where St. Stephen speaks of 'the church in the wilderness,' or all the Christians in the world, as where the apostle says (1 Cor. 12: 28), 'God hath set some in the church'; or, finally, all the people of God in heaven and on earth, as in Ephesians 5: 25: 'Christ also loved the church.' The word has only one meaning everywhere, but capable of any extension. In the scripture we read that the office-bearers of the Church were elected by the people. Whether it was the election of an apostle to fill the vacant bishopric of Judas (Acts 1: 23), or of deacons to look after the temporal affairs of the early Church (Acts 6), it was a popular choice. There we read what will not now be controverted by any scholar, that bishops and presbyters or elders were identical. In the apostolic Church, and in the many references of the inspired epistles to this office, there was no difference between bishop and presbyter. The names expressed the same office, and are used interchangeably by the sacred writers. In the New Testament we read that there was a plurality of bishops or elders in every church, in Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, as well as in the larger congregations of the greater cities. There, too, we read that ordination to the office of the ministry was an act of the presbytery, of a plurality of elders. This was preferred by the apostles themselves when they were all together in Jerusalem (Acts 6). Thus SS. Paul and Barnabas were ordained at Antioch (Acts 13: 3). Thus Timothy was ordained (1 Tim. 1: 14). And after this model it is most scriptural to set apart men to sacred office. There we learn that there was a right of appeal allowed to members of the church, or single congregations, from a decision among themselves to an assembly of apostles and elders, as the office-bearers of the Church. Apostolic dicta pronounced by inspired lips did not settle the controversies of the early Church. The appeal from Antioch was discussed in an assembly convened for the purpose, and in which the apostles were members. The decision was authoritative and final. The decrees of the assembly at Jerusalem were binding upon the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and were received with submission. The government of the Church was representative, and final decisions were given by the assembly of bishops or elders. There, too, we read that supreme power was lodged nowhere else, not in an apostle, or a prince of apostles, a president of assembly, still less in an earthly potentate, but that the Lord Jesus Christ was the sole King and Head of the Church. His revealed will was the only standard, and His officers the only court of appeal in all matters ecclesiastical. There was a gradation of judicatories; but the Church was possessed of an inherent right to settle all spiritual causes. There, too, we read that there were elders who ruled, as distinct from those who also laboured in word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5: 17). They all had equal status, but not equal functions.

{*Cunningham's Historical Theology, vol. 1, p. 68.}

320 "These features of the apostolic Church are clearly revealed in the primitive ideal as represented in the holy scriptures, though in the actual realization they were speedily obscured by the corruptions which affected Christianity in the Roman Empire. They were however discerned, and copied with more or less exactness, in the great Reformation of the sixteenth century, when the word of God was recovered from the dust of ages, and perused with all the freshness of a new discovery. Every national church in Christendom except the English, and in a very modified degree the Danish and Swedish, returned in their reform to the general principles of polity as practised in the apostolic age. The case of Denmark and Sweden will not bear argument, and the exception of England was an anomaly caused by the Crown. Lord Macaulay, in his history, states that 'the English reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on the Continent.' And he further avers of the Protestant party in that church, that 'it cannot be doubted that, if the general sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in Scotland.' (Hist., vol. 1, p. 50.)

321 "These features of the apostolical polity have been apparent, with varied degrees of clearness, in different ages of our church. The election of all office-bearers is vested in the people, and even where patronage has been imposed, as in established churches, the call of the people is recognized. There is no distinction between bishop and presbyter; and though every church court has its moderator, he is primus inter pares. There are several elders in every congregation, who constitute a governing body in all spiritual affairs. There is the right of appeal from local presbyters, whose judgment may have been biassed by party feeling or personal animosities, to a district or provincial synod, or assembly of elders duly elected and lawfully convened, whose decision is held to be final, and subject to no appeal to co-ordinate courts in the State. This polity protects the rights of the people on the one hand, and the rights of the members of presbytery on the other, and when properly worked is calculated to preserve the discipline of the church, and promote the welfare of the people.

"This mode of presbyterial action is specially adapted to a new country. In some of its features it is being followed by all disestablished churches. Synods are sought by the Episcopal church in all places beyond the United Kingdom. The synod is becoming the supreme power of that church to which all officers are subject. The synod is the court of appeal where all grievances of doctrine or discipline are to be settled. The synod is the free assembly where all parties can express their sentiments and exercise their suffrages. Congregationalists are gravitating to the same mode of corporate action. Their writers of highest authority on ecclesiastical polity, such as Davidson and Stoughton, declare that 'they are wrong in splitting up what ought to be one church, the company of believers in modern towns, into several churches, each with its own pastor, which in their independent individuality are patches and shreds, often incapable of a right government, because they have lost sight of the unity and kind of government existing in the earliest churches.'* Wesleyan Methodists have always had certain of these elements, and their difficulties of administration have chiefly arisen from the rules of a society, designed to be temporary, becoming the laws of a permanent and widespread church.

{*Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, p. 123; Stoughton's Ages of Christendom, p. 31.}

322 "In all new countries the apostolic principles of church polity have been proved to be most adapted to the new circumstances. In America our own church has advanced from a single presbytery, with a few members in the year 1705, to six thousand clergymen at the present day. Canada has already five hundred Presbyterian clergy; and Australasia, in less than half a century, and while the pioneer and father of our colonial Presbyterian church is still alive and vigorous, possesses three hundred clergy. Nor are our congregations in bondage, though bound to the church and submissive to its laws. Their liberty is not interfered with in all the minor details of their services or their finances. So long as they act in harmony with the general principles of the church, they are as independent of one another as if they were unconnected by ecclesiastical ties. More and more it appears that towards the apostolical polity of our church all Protestant churches are gravitating and in this we rejoice, not because we expect in the pre-millennial age an incorporation of all churches into one, but because by corporate action freer scope is afforded for the maintenance and diffusion of truth, and for the exercise of a healthy discipline.

"Our church is Catholic. The spirit of catholicity belongs to its apostolical constitution. It is not exclusive. It professes to be a branch of the holy Catholic Church. It does not unchurch other communions not so scriptural in doctrine or so apostolical in polity as we profess to be. It does not deny the validity of ordination by other churches, or attempt to re-ordain those who have been already set apart to the holy ministry. It does not repeat the sacrament by which Christians have been initiated into the fellowship of the Church of Christ. It does not shut its pulpits to the ministers of other Reformed churches, though it has not been free from occasional bigotry and exclusiveness, both when established and when dissenting. It is not bound by consecrated buildings or by a clergy supposed to possess a transmissive virtue in their ordination which belongs to no one else, from holding intercourse with ministers and members of other branches of the Church. It has had its seasons of defection and of unfaithfulness, as all others have had; but it has never sanctioned as a principle that which cuts it off from the communion of saints who worship in other forms, and listen to other and somewhat differently appointed teachers. It has recognized and encouraged the fellowship of all the Reformed churches, and has permitted its candidates for the ministry to frequent the universities and theological halls of Protestant Christendom. It claims to be a branch of the holy Catholic and apostolic Church, and lifts up its testimony to the word of God both in doctrine and polity, but holds out the hand of Christian fellowship to all, 'who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.' And we hope and pray for the return of all other branches of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church to similar principles and the exercise of similar reciprocal charity.

323 "Fathers and Brethren - There are two other points to which I would also advert, as they are the glories of our Zion.

"1. The intelligent unity of doctrine believed by an Anglo-Saxon Presbyterian Churches. Amidst the separations which have been temporarily occasioned in the application of questions of our polity to relations to the State, there has been unbroken unity in the faith. The Confession of faith has been the standard of all. But it is no mere bond of peace. It is a bonâ fide creed. There has never been a debate as to its doctrinal meaning. It has never been questioned whether the clergy might hold opposite sentiments on doctrinal points. Hypocrisy might occasion and unfaithfulness might tolerate doctrinal variations, but these have been rare anomalies, and never an acknowledged boast. Any man teaching any divergence from the common creed would forfeit his office. That creed may be more definite and even more minute than those of other communions, but it has been rarely belied or outraged, and never glossed over by other documentary standards or liturgical forms.

"The constitution of the church, and the free exercise of Christian rights, and the open character of all ecclesiastical courts, have prevented the imposition of a creed that was not believed, and the toleration of error that was openly acknowledged or capable of being proved against any preacher. The doctrine of all our clergy must, like the virtue of Caesar's wife, be above suspicion. Our people have a guarantee that their preachers will not follow any doctrine contrary to the grammatical meaning of the Confession. All who receive the imprimatur of the Presbytery are orthodox divines.

"2. The paramount importance of preaching is another glory of our church. Our church does not depend upon gorgeous ceremonies, or prescribed liturgies, or a lordly hierarchy for its influence over the people, but upon its office of preaching - the exercise of scriptural instruction. This was the great feature of the apostolical Church. The founder of Christianity was a preacher. Its first apostles went everywhere preaching the word. Christianity owes its greatest social influence to the pulpit. . . . Our church has recognized this apostolic view - the dependence of the people upon the preacher, and has sought to provide able ministers of the word of God to expound saving truth to their congregations. If we have not preachers of ability, we cannot keep our people. There are no other adventitious aids by which congregations will be sustained. They depend upon the minister alike for the public prayer as for the sermon, and therefore require men of high spiritual character, and of intellectual gifts and popular adaptation. It has ever been a glory of our Zion to possess an educated ministry.

324 "The pulpit of our time is in different circumstances from those it has ever before experienced. The press has been gaining while the pulpit has been losing popular power. This has not been because the press has usurped the place of the pulpit, for it rarely writes on religion, but because it has sustained its work with more ability, with better adaptation to the wants of the people, and with more equitable rewards for the talent enlisted in its service. Accustomed to read well-written, intellectual, and instructive papers, periodicals, and books, whose style captivates, whose themes interest, and whose thoughts enlighten and elevate, people cease to admire and listen to preachers of feeble mind or of listless manner. It is also not to be denied that much of the preaching is too academic and dry, and too weak and coarse. Clerical education has lacked an element which brings the religious teacher into sympathy with the common people, and has paid too little attention to the art of speaking, which is ever an effective aid to popular instruction. People complain that they hear only good men, who do not command their attention or stimulate their thought.... The pulpit needs higher intellect. The theme with which it is occupied is worthy of the noblest thought - has the loftiest elevation and the most extensive range, and grasps the two eternities of the past and the future with the grand area that lies between them.... But preaching must also be adapted to the age and to the circumstances of the people," pp. 310.

325 [REPLY]

However unfeignedly one may rejoice in the prosperity of Christians, wherever they may be placed, as we clearly ought, and as I trust I do; however much we may desire the influence of Christian truth over the youths of a country, in contrast with the infidelity and popery now so influential and popular, and this is assuredly near my heart; yet in the volcanic heavings of the present day, when Christian bodies are so much mixed up with the world, and when, even among Christian professors, man and man's advancement are so displacing Christ, it is well to learn how to separate the precious from the vile, to learn what is the path in which the patient Christian should walk, and how far what is held out to us as good is good according to God.

The paper I am now reviewing affords me an opportunity of examining principles whose activity I have seen displayed in other countries, and whose working it is of moment to inquire into, as very prevalent in the present day, and at the same time of investigating the claims of a system free from the grosser elements of ecclesiastical corruption, and hence not unfrequently affording a kind of asylum and resting-place for those whose consciences make it impossible for them to remain in what is in its fundamental principles popish, if not Roman, but who at the same time have not faith to walk on the water to meet Christ, if they cannot remain in the ship. It cannot be for a moment supposed that the working or success of the system I refer to in so distant a land can be an object of jealousy, or that there I can have any motive of attack, save as that system embodies principles which have their importance everywhere, and in these days especially come home to every conscience. It is as able a presentation of the system, in a brief compass, as I am acquainted with, and presents Presbyterianism in its fairest colours, and says as much for it as can well be said. As a general maintenance of the gospel and protestant truth against allied popery and infidelity, the system may have its value; and I can wish it success as a providential instrument. I believe that in the colonies Presbyterianism is the body which makes some counterpoise to Romanism and its infidel power and allies. The Episcopal body, having its distinctive importance from an ecclesiastical constitution analogous to Romanism, and not from truth of doctrine, forms none; or allies itself with only the popish influence, though for its own objects. I should therefore not write in the spirit of attack; but I shall discuss freely the pretensions and principles of the system advocated in the Moderator's speech to the General Assembly of New South Wales.

326 There are some general principles more important to me than the ecclesiastical ones, which are taken for granted in the speech, but which I cannot pass over, as they are the key to a large movement among Christian men now, and involve most serious questions, trying to the heart even when they are clearly resolved to spiritual understanding and conscience by scripture. To a very great extent these have no more to do with Presbyterianism than with other denominations. They involve the mixture of the Church and the world. The true character of Christianity is in question in them. I am not here to call in question any needed improvement or culture when the will of God has placed us in the path of such culture. If it be an end, it is evil, it is not Christ. If it be a means of doing God's will, it may be a dangerous path, and is so; but it has its place, and if it be to be done, it should, as everything else, be done well; not in the case of a Christian, I repeat, as an object: Christ only can be rightly that - the one motive for everything; but, as in everything we do according to His will, and to serve Him, we should do it diligently and well, heartily as unto the Lord. Thank God, we can! All these things are apt to become objects: faith looks beyond them and uses them as means when called for. A man in labouring for his children may work beautifully; but that is a different thing from having beautiful work artistically as his object. The question here is, Are we called by a heavenly calling, as a new creation belonging to heaven, though obliged to be pilgrims for awhile on earth? Are death and resurrection the basis of Christian life, or the improvement of the old man as an object in and of this world, because we are still of it?

The discourse of the Moderator does not take up the improvement of natural talents for needed service in this pilgrimage, but connects it with the Church - makes it (as is so largely done in these days, more especially in new countries) a part of Christian life. Progress in the world, intellectual advancement, is a part, a large part, of Christian acting. The spirit of the age is to characterize Christianity, if Christ even lie as a germ at the bottom.

327 I quote the passage as expressive of the system: -

"Young Men's Mutual Improvement Societies - now happily connected with almost every congregation in the city - have also formed a union for prosecuting their intellectual and Christian advancement, and for cherishing that esprit de corps which young men of a church like ours - so rich with historic memories and apostolic glories - should always realize. It is interesting and refreshing to mark these hopeful phases of young life in the Church; and it would be well if fathers and brethren gave their encouragement and aid to associations so calculated to maintain the doctrine and order of our ancestral church in this new land."

It is impossible to imagine anything more clearly connecting the Church of God and the world, intellectual improvement and grace, the Church and ancestral descent, in one single idea and category of thought. Improvement Societies and scriptural faith and polity in one common thought! as if young men's improvement and spiritual life were identical objects, and the unconverted and the converted could pursue them together; for the association and the object of the association is common to all. And the ancestral church, in the judgment of its highest authority, is to be sustained in faith and polity, not by grace and the Holy Ghost, but by the enlightenment of the young in the creed and history of the ancestral church, and by their intellectual improvement and their esprit de corps. Indeed the intellectual improvement comes first; the rest is a fair cover to it. Is this the character of Christianity as the word of God presents it, that for which the blessed Son of God gave Himself on the cross? I will speak of the Presbyterian system in a moment. But this is a more serious thing. It uses the natural influence exercised, by an ancestral church, to cultivate the spirit of the world and the esprit de corps. It connects the thought of the Church with the world, and not with God, and Christianity with intellectual improvement, not with Christ and the path which He trod.

The principle I refer to is just this: the world, and its objects and spirit, are accepted; and it is sought to christianize it in form and moral influences. Deliverance from it to be the servant of Christ, by the power of the Spirit of God, is not thought of It is not the details of the system I am concerned with - they may vary; it is the system and its principle. It reduces Christianity to a worldly level to bring the world under its influence. Its fairest form is when it seeks in large terms to provide a shelter for young men, separated, when beginning life, from their families and home influences (an object full of interest); but it works this by engaging Christians in objects and pursuits adapted to unconverted young men, and wholly foreign to Christ and the spirit of the Christian. Intellectual and Christian advancement are put together with intellect first; and wherever Christ is not all, other things will be always first. It runs to seed in a thousand shapes. Christianity is held to be gloomy, if Christians cannot dance and go to the theatre, which is approved by ministers held in reputation for piety, with reserve of gross immorality; unconverted young men are taken to teach in Sunday schools; and what is really gambling and levity of the most objectionable character goes on in "churches" ancestral or others, in order to make money, to have a fine building and an eloquent and intellectual minister who will bring a crowd. Hired professional singers entertain the congregation; and if the choir be composed of young people, it is the occasion of levity, into the details of which there is no need I should enter here. No one acquainted with churches in the Colonies (some, at any rate: I do not profess to know Australia) and the United States, but knows perfectly well the state of things I refer to, and the practical effect of intellectual improvement in the young, and the mixture of Christianity and the world connected with it. I dare say the degree of evil may differ, and there are, of course, exceptions; but that of which I speak is sufficiently universal to be characteristic of the state of things. Every one knows that theatre-going and dancing is the common practice of professing Christians in the States; and, if they would tell it, they know a great deal more. Is this the just effect of the death of Christ and the power of the Spirit of God?

328 But my business is with the principle. Mutual Improvement Societies, for intellectual and Christian advancement, are calculated to maintain the doctrine and order of the "ancestral church." Is that the Church of God? Is the Church of God an ancestral one? Judaism was an ancestral religion. They were beloved for the fathers' sake, as they are still. But can a trace be found in the New Testament, in connection with the Church, of an esprit de corps connected with an ancestral church, a church "rich with historic memories"? I understand it in a worldly or patriotic system; but the Church of God is the body of Christ - baptized into one body by one Spirit. With the thought given of the Church of God in scripture, no one thought given here can coalesce. If it be said, We do not pretend it is the Church of God; then it is something substituted for it, which is to engage the affections and activities of all under its influence, forming an esprit de corps to the exclusion of that which is the true Church of God.

329 It is "our church," "our ancestral church," which is to absorb the energies and affections of the heart, not the Church of God: and I must add, of the natural heart, not the affections of the new man by the Spirit, because it is the body of Christ, composed of the members of His body so dear to Him. It is an esprit de corps, not the Spirit of God, which is to govern; human and historic attachments, not divine affections and Christ Himself. Will this sanctify as Christian motives do? or will it give a Christian colour and name to what, after all, are but carnal feelings, the rudiments of this world (only that the heart is deceived by covering them with the name of the Church), not after Christ? It may enlist clever and improved young men in the Presbyterian system, plunge Christian young men into a low kind of Christianity, and fix their hearts on objects other than Christ, under the name of intellectual improvement, sanctioning worldliness and what they can pursue in common with the world; but it will never attach the soul to Christ, never make Him all, as He is in all them that are His, will never build up God's Church, nor the individual, into the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

Christ died, that they which live should live not to themselves, but to Him who died for them and rose again. He has called us to take up our cross and follow Him. If we would serve Him, we are to follow Him. He has purchased to Himself a peculiar people. We are not to be conformed to the world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind. If we live in the Spirit, we are to walk in the Spirit - to set our affection on things above, not on things on the earth. We belong to a new creation, not to the fashion of this world which passes away. We are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; and the friendship of the world is enmity against God. We are to seek the victory which overcomes the world by faith. We are not our own, but bought with a price; our business is to manifest the life of Jesus in our mortal bodies, to walk as He walked. All that is in the world is not of the Father, but of the world.

330 Now, I ask, If that be the character of Christianity given us by the word of God (with the infinite motive of Christ's self-sacrifice for us, and the blessed object of being conformed to His Image, and growing up to Him who is the Head in all things, and manifesting Him, so that the Church should be the effectual epistle of Christ), is there one trace of Christ in what is encouraged in the exhortations of the Moderator of the General Assembly of New South Wales? Is that not casting Christ and His cross into the shade, to clothe with the name of Christian the spirit of the world and an esprit de corps? Is it not the sanction of worldliness to mere attachment, not to Christ and His path, but to a body which the Moderator favours? It is, I know, what is current at the present day, and especially in new countries; but is it the world or the cross and Spirit of Christ, as manifested in the New Testament, and founded on the unutterable worth of the self-sacrifice of the Son of God? I repeat here, The question is, not if a Christian young man is to seek the cultivation and improvement necessary to the effectual pursuit of his providential calling, but whether Christianity and the Church, which Christ has redeemed by His precious blood, and the ministry of the Spirit, is to have for its object, not deliverance from this present evil world (to effect which Christ gave Himself for our sins), but the urging Christian and worldly young men into pursuits which are of the world, and which worldly young men can pursue as well as Christian, and which Christians can only pursue upon motives which can govern the world as well as them? I confess, I can conceive of nothing more sad than this use of Christianity to colour worldly pursuits in the unconverted, and to engage Christians in objects which continually enfeeble and adulterate their Christianity.

I turn to what is to me a comparatively immaterial object - the Presbyterian system. One system is, I believe, little better than another, and the Presbyterian is dislocated and broken to pieces like the rest. Reunion has been attempted in the Colonies, with, at any rate, partial success; and the same is attempted between the Old and New Schools in the States (that is, between the Colonial and American branches of the Presbyterian body). But the general history of Presbyterianism has been failure, at least as much as that of other Protestant bodies. On the continent of Europe, it is the most infidel of all existing churches so called. Every one knows that it had become almost universally Socinian in England so as to be excluded by law from Lady Howley's charity. The split of Kirk and Free Church is known to all. There are at least three large Presbyterian bodies in Scotland, and the Free Kirk threatened with a disruption within itself by an attempt to unite it with one of them. All this is sad to every godly spirit, and only a part of that sorrowful disintegration which in these last days is going on in Protestantism, to the destruction even of its public testimony.

331 But Presbyterianism is a snare to some in the present day in this way. It is respectable as an original reformed and national body, has an historic prestige as our Moderator tells us, has had its martyrs; and it is not characterized by the gross superstitions and remains of Romanism which are now both corrupting and disrupting the English body. Hence it becomes for some a refuge from that sickly corporation, when there is not faith to follow Christ wholly. It becomes thus a part, though a somewhat wearisome part, of one s service in the present day to examine its pretensions, for which the New South Wales Moderator furnishes the occasion.

We can understand a person attached to a body by education (a thousand ties of imagination recalling those who have suffered in founding it, shed the lustre of their faith and sorrows over what we call our church, born within its precincts, christened there, married perhaps there, parents and ancestors buried there, to whom we are attached: ties as strong as those of country or of school and college, with a halo around it of what is distant and divine). We may be very ordinary professors, but our Abrahams, and Moseses, and Davids, saints owned of God, belonged to the body to which we belong. Their good report encircles the brow of the community we personify in our imagination. Still, when we seek for the Church of God, when with the earnestness which the Spirit of God gives, with the conscience awakened and the heart under the influence of the claims of the sacrifice of the Son of God, we seek from the word of God the Church which Christ loved, and for which He gave Himself, when we seek it in its manifestation here below where duty is, when what we owe to the cross has possession of the soul, it becomes impossible to speak or think of an ancestral church.

We want God's Church, if He has one, that in which man has to behave himself fitly, and which is the pillar and ground of the truth, the Church of the living God. It is in vain to say that this is the Church as it will be finally in glory, or the invisible Church. It was a Church where Timothy was to know how to behave himself, and when directions for elders and deacons and admission of widows had to be given. This was not the glorified Church in heaven. If it be alleged that all this is ruined and gone, let it be acknowledged with humiliation of heart, that what God had planted so lovely has been ruined and has withered under the hand of man. Let us take the place of confession, which becomes such an acknowledgment, and not substitute some other body for it. An imitation church will not do. What is imitation of power? Clothing an unconverted man and an improvement society with the prestige of martyrs who suffered some centuries ago is a very different thing from honouring unfeignedly in grace, as a Christian, those who have suffered because they belong to Christ. The whole state of feeling is different: one is grace owning rich divine grace in others; the other is an unconverted man accrediting himself with what he has no real part in, to the deceiving of his own soul.

332 But to pursue the main point. It is quite certain that an ancestral church has no place in scripture whatever. There is the Church the body of Christ manifested on earth (as we see in 1 Corinthians 12) with its various members and gifts and there is the house of God in which the Holy Ghost dwells, and which, at any rate in its normal state, is the pillar and ground of the truth. There were local churches in the different cities, locally holding (without however any separation from the whole body of believers) the position of the Church of God there. But an ancestral church is a thing wholly unknown to scripture and destructive of every idea there given of the Church of God. It may be the Church of Scotland or of New South Wales; but it is not the Church of the living God, but something set up instead of it, and which displaces it - displaces it in the heart and affections of the saint - and is thus the contrary to sanctifying (for we are sanctified by the truth), and is an object to which the affections or really rather the passions of the unconverted can be attached, to the misleading of their souls. With such a thought the word of God has lost its authority, and the Holy Ghost its power in the heart.

There cannot be a more delusive word than the word "Church," nor a greater instance of it than the statements of the Moderator. He tells us that the word has only one meaning everywhere. Be it so. But he does not tell us what it means. It means "an assembly." When the town clerk of Ephesus dismissed the assembly in Acts 19: 41, it is just the same word. Does this mean a church? The word means neither more nor less than an assembly. It is a mere delusion to say "church" means always the same thing. It does not in English, for a building is thus called so as to deceive many, and in the original it has nothing in itself to do with what we call church. Thus its use in Acts 7, applied to Israel, has nothing whatever to do with its habitual use in the New Testament; or rather it is exactly the opposite (save as the mere fact of its being an assembly, which was true of that dismissed by the town clerk at Ephesus). The assembly in the wilderness was the nation of Israel - no Gentile had a title to approach as such. It was exclusively such. The middle wall of partition was standing: they were bound to keep it up. The essence of the Church of God is that that wall has been broken down, and there is neither Jew nor Gentile. To say that it always means the same thing, and to quote Acts 7 in saying so, is not only to rest on the surface but to delude oneself if not others.

333 Take the word: it includes an assembly such as at Ephesus. Take the thing; and the assembly in the wilderness, and God's assembly formed consequent on Christ's death, are founded on principles diametrically opposed and destructive one of another. And the definition ("A church comprehended a society of the people of God") is as vague and incorrect as may be. A church is an assembly: what is the meaning of "comprehending a society"? An assembly means an assembly; if not actually assembled, it may be used in a general way for those who habitually assemble, but then it is the society. When we speak of the Church in its Christian sense (and that only is what we are occupied with), it is God's assembly founded on the death of Christ, assembled by the power of the Holy Ghost, and dwelt in by Him. Christ gave Himself not for that nation only, but to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. This is the general idea, for it is only stated here in general.

Now the grand result will be that they will be made perfect in one in glory. That bright and blessed hope is beyond the sphere of our responsibilities, if it helps, as it blessedly does, in them. Christ will present it to Himself a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle. This I trust Dr. Steel looks to, as I, as all saints, in whatever degree of earnestness and intelligence. It is the most blessed view of the Church; but though there might be difference on some points, as to whom "it comprehended," I pass that question by here.

334 Besides this, which Christ - Christ alone - is building of living stones, and which is yet incomplete, we have the assembly on earth, and that viewed in a double character, as the body and as the house. Ephesians 1 and 1 Corinthians 12 view it as the body; Ephesians 2, 1 Corinthians 3, and 1 Timothy 3 view it as the house. Then again, in each locality the Christians of the place were called the assembly at that place, as they were in fact. The assembly in any given house ("the church in thine house") calls really for no special notice. Anyone can understand that Christians in those days meeting in some large upper-room were the assembly in that house, if they habitually met there. There is no ecclesiastical idea, so to speak, in it. They broke bread at Jerusalem, kat oikon, at home in their houses; but there was an assembly, "the whole assembly," all the saints in Jerusalem, as Acts 5:11; ch. 8: 1; in Antioch, chap. 13: 1; chap. 14: 27; again, Jerusalem, chap. 15: 4, 22; and so of a multitude of other places in the Acts. And the Epistles and Revelation 2 and 3 shew the same thing. When a country is spoken of, we find the assemblies of Galatia. It was a very simple fact: there were a number of assemblies in the country. An assembly is not simply all the Christians in the world, but all Christians viewed as assembled into one - and indeed into one body, so that if one member suffer, all suffer with it. There is unity in the pervading power of the Holy Ghost.

For a denominational body there is no room in the scriptural account of the Church or assembly, unless it be "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas," I of Luther, I of John Knox or Calvin. Churches are historic or ancestral (that is, not of God or scriptural). There is a great body which teaches beyond this - that of Rome, the abiding witness of the corruption and ruin of the Church or house of God placed in responsibility on earth, keeping its name and form, but in the hands of Satan and the seat of his power. The Church of England so called is not so distinctively historic. It seemed about to be so in the reign of Edward VI, but in Elizabeth's she, partly from political motives, partly from education and character, sufficiently patched it back again into Romanism to break it up now into violent parties, one clinging to the whore of Babylon, the other to what truth has survived in it, and to a large mass, by its practical incapacity to govern itself or anyone else, opening the door to latitudinarian infidelity, torturing people's hearts by vacillation between ecclesiastical millinery and adoration of the Eucharist on one side, and Colenso on the other. Thank God, there is the immutable faithfulness of Christ to trust to. He will surely have the Church to present to Himself, and we can count upon His unfailing grace now by the way. An ancestral church, with mutual improvement societies maintaining its doctrine and polity by an esprit de corps, is not the Church of God formed and maintained by the Holy Ghost and founded on the work of Christ: for him who looks for the Church of God and bows to the word it is self-condemned.

335 But the Moderator enters into detail. The office-bearers, he tells us, of the church were elected by the people. There is some difficulty in meeting many statements connected with scriptural questions, because traditional habits have set aside every trace of scriptural ideas or ways. For instance: are preachers (ministers, so-called now) or teachers office-bearers? They are generally thought so, but these were assuredly not chosen by the people. The Holy Ghost distributed to every man severally as He would. They were not chosen by the people. Prophets were not chosen by the people. There were certain prophets in the church at Antioch. Again we read, "As every man has received the gift, let him so minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." When the Lord ascended up on high, He gave gifts to men - pastors and teachers, and evangelists. Then these were not chosen by the people. If they had five talents or two talents, their business was to trade with them: they were evil and slothful servants if they did not. This was regulated in the assembly by rules which provided for order. In the unity of the body, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, we are to minister according to it and wait on it (Rom. 12). If Apollos taught at Ephesus, he taught also at Corinth; he was that member in the body. If an evangelist went forth, even a woman was to test him by doctrine. Diotrephes indeed did not like this vagabond ministry; but Gaius did, and did it faithfully in John's judgment. They that were scattered abroad in the persecution after Stephen's death went everywhere preaching the word, and we read (Acts 11) the hand of the Lord was with them. So deacons who served well purchased a good degree and great boldness in Jesus Christ, as we see in the case of Stephen and of Philip.

336 In the matter of the ministry of the word the desire of the people is negatived, by the whole testimony of the New Testament, both in the assembly and to the world. Women were to keep silence; not more than two or three were to speak, and not together but by course; but it was by the distribution of the Holy Ghost they had them all, and not by the desire of the people. If it be said that these were extraordinary gifts - which is not true of Ephesians 4, leaving aside apostles and prophets who were the foundation - but if they were, do not let us talk of scripture and primitive apostolic practice; because then the whole fabric of scriptural and primitive practice is gone. And a clergy chosen by the people has been substituted for it without any gifts of the Holy Ghost at all. If not, then, as far as the ministry of the word goes, choice by the people is not the scriptural mode, but gift and choice by Christ and the Holy Ghost.

This is a very serious question, because the whole action of the Holy Ghost in ministry is dependent on it. God may act in spite of man's false principles; but it is a serious thing to have such as are a denial of God's way of acting. At any rate the ministry of the word is not by the choice and election of the people, if the expression "office-bearers" is to include them. If it does not, then the Moderator is leaving out all that is most important in real service and in our similarity to apostolic practice.

But the omissions go farther. He does not venture to speak of elders. This is curious in speaking of office-bearers, but then he flies at higher game. The apostles were chosen by the people! This is a curious statement. There were twelve apostles. Eleven, we all know, were chosen by the Lord: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." With these, at any rate, the people had nothing to do; so that, for a warrant for primitive practice, the Moderator is on rather a narrow basis here. Further, after the Holy Ghost came, such a course never was pursued at all. This, I dare say, may be of little weight with Moderators; but those who know that the Paraclete was to guide and lead the Church when come, so that we are to act under what He has given, will feel this of some importance; the rather as we have an apostle called afterwards who tells us he was neither of men nor by man. Hence the election of an apostle is confined to an act, which took place between the Lord's presence and the Holy Ghost's presence, when neither was there, and never happened before or after: never when the Lord was there, never when the Holy Ghost was there; on the contrary, it is negatived in both cases by the history. None was chosen to replace James; and Paul, we all know, was directly called of God and utterly rejected such a principle. And I must add, it is not true even as to Matthias. They drew lots, after praying the Lord to shew whether of the twain He had chosen, and the lot fell on Matthias. To make this a warrant for universal choice by the Church after the Holy Ghost has been given, after another way of having apostles has been manifested, and no idea of replacing an apostle hinted at, when one was subsequently put to death, is a proof that people have very little (I would humbly say, nothing) to say for the people's choosing office-bearers. They are not going to choose apostles now, I suppose. Why not, if this be the warrant for following primitive practice?

337 But there is another striking evidence from scripture on this point. Paul knows no apostles till after Christ was exalted and by His only gift. I do not mean that he denied Christ's choice of the twelve of course, but he knows no such apostles in the Church. Christ "ascended up on high and gave some apostles." There is the divine account of the origin of apostles in the Church of Christ. Christ gave some apostles. Who was to choose them? So "God has set in the church, first, apostles," etc. This was the Spirit distributing to every man severally as He wills. I confine myself to actual proofs. But any one accustomed to the difference of Jewish and Christian order, and the change made by the coming of the Holy Ghost on the exaltation of Christ, would at once do justice to an argument drawn from the drawing lots for an apostle. Indeed it does seem strange to read or hear of such arguments in the Christian Church. But I suppose we must be surprised at nothing.

The Moderator jumps from this very high ground clean over elders, of whom I will speak just now, and lights on the case of deacons, whose election by the people I do not contest, though in terms it is not stated; but the seven were practically such, and the principle of their choice only confirms the evidence of the falseness of the general statement. The apostles would not leave the word of the Lord to serve tables. The people literally ministered of their means to the common wants. The apostles would not have their ministry hindered or interrupted by questions of money and servile, however gracious, care; and they make the multitude choose those who are to minister what the multitude had given. But when the gift was a spiritual gift from Christ, Christ had chosen the person to minister, and they had nothing to choose. The choice was made, the responsibility there; perfect freedom for the workman to get another to go with him, to go alone if called, or to refuse to go on another's work: we find all these cases in scripture. Silas abode at Antioch, Paul gets others to go with him. Apollos, graciously, I believe, would not go to Corinth when Paul graciously wished him. The people chose office-bearers for money matters and tables, but for nothing else. The case arose with Paul also. Money was to go from the assemblies for the poor at Jerusalem. Paul requires them to choose persons to accompany him, providing things honest in the sight of men; 2 Cor. 8.

338 Dr. Steel tells us bishops and elders are the same. Quite true: scripture shews it as plainly as possibly can be. And they were the important office-bearers of the Church. But is it not singular that no attempt is made to shew that they were chosen by the people? We have seen that the ministers of the word were not: scripture contradicts it in every page. It flowed from gifts, extraordinary or ordinary so-called, which were the effect of Christ's choice, and imposed an obligation, the responsibility being regulated by scripture. The elders or bishops took care (as their name implies, were overseers) of the flock of God; some being ministers of the word, others not; but choice by the people of these true office-bearers the Moderator does not attempt to prove, not even definitely to assert. It was wise: scripture states the contrary. The apostles chose elders for them in necessity (Acts 14: 23).* We learn by this passage that elders were local office-bearers. Gifts were in the body at large, as 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, Romans 12, and other passages shew. So also he left Titus in Crete to establish elders in every city - needless surely if the people were to choose them. There is no trace of the election of elders by the people; there is proof of the contrary.

{*In foreign translations, as Martin in French, and Diodati, in Italian (the last generally the best and most exact of old translations that I know), it is added "par la voix des assemblées," and "per voti communi." But there is no ground whatever for this. Saul and Barnabas chose for them (autois) elders, and Acts 10: 41 takes away all possible excuse for such a translation.}

339 The next point is - Ordination to the office of the ministry was an act of the presbytery. Let us examine this.

To quote Acts 6 is really too bad. "This was preferred," it is said, "by the apostles themselves when they were all together at Jerusalem." I honestly do not understand what this means. Of presbytery there is not one word; of the ministry, if it means ministry of the word, not a hint: the apostles would not give up the ministry of the word, and so set others to serve tables, and they, the apostles, not the presbytery or elders (they are distinguished, Acts 15), laid their hands upon them. One must be dreadfully hard up to quote this as an ordination to the ministry by the presbytery, seeing that neither is mentioned.

The next case is Paul at Antioch (Acts 13). Here prophets are together, and the Holy Ghost says, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul to the work to which I have called them "no popular choice of office-bearers, at any rate; and these prophets (not the presbytery, of which there is not a word) laid their hands on them, not to ordain them, but to commend them to the grace of God for the work which they thereupon fulfilled (Acts 14: 26). Paul had had hands laid on him before, and received the Holy Ghost (Acts 9: 17). But this was no presbytery either. At Antioch, which happened afterwards, Paul and Barnabas are sent forth (not ordained) by the Holy Ghost, recommended by the praying prophets to the grace of God. If this be ordination, it is ordination of apostles by laymen.

The only case approaching to such an ordination, though far enough from it, is 1 Timothy 4: 14. But the element first noticed is wholly overlooked by these ecclesiastical systems. The gift was in Timothy by prophecy; he was to stir it up. The elderhood accompanied this with their moral recognition; but the ministry, we are certain, was in no way conferred on him by it. It was by prophecy with (or "accompanied by") the laying on of their hands. But, further, we know that he had received the gift by the laying on of the apostle's hands (2 Tim. 1: 6). If there was any ordination, it was episcopal. The presbytery were only meta (an accompanying circumstance); the gift of ministry was conferred by the apostle. The pretension to imitate this now, as Episcopalians do, by and for unconverted men, is too serious a thing to enter on now by the by.

340 As far as any evidence of laying hands on office-bearers goes, it is of the same character. It is to Timothy that it is said, "Lay hands suddenly on no man"; while in Paul's address to the elders at Miletus, there is no hint of ordaining elders for the continuation of the polity of the Church.

As to ordination to ministry, it is a mere fable. There is no such thought in scripture. They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word. He who had received a talent was bound to trade with it. As every man had received the gift, they were to minister the same as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. The Holy Ghost distributed to every man severally as He would; and only two or three were to speak, so that they might all prophesy one by one, and all might learn and all be comforted. They were not indeed to be many masters (teachers); but such a direction could have no place with a fixed ministry of one chosen by the people. Women were to keep silence - were not suffered to teach: a prohibition useless, again, if there were simply fixed teachers.

I have referred to the two short epistles of John which confirm in the strongest way the same truth.

Ordination to ministry, meaning thereby the ministry of the word, is an utterly unscriptural thing. Hands were laid on deacons, or, those equivalent to them, the servers of tables. The laying on of hands was the universal sign of commending to God or conferring blessing: the sick were cured by it; the Holy Ghost was given by it; men were commended to the grace of God by it. And, though it is never so said, I do not therefore doubt that hands were laid on elders, and that 1 Timothy 5: 22 includes them, though not referring to such exclusively. The conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost is (save a special case of the direct interference of the Lord) confined to the apostles; the choosing and establishing elders is the part of the apostles or their delegate,* as Titus, and of no one else in scripture.

{*These also had nothing to do with a local bishopric.}

I add, the churches are wanting now, over which they could be named, nor could any pretension to such a place officially be justified, unless it could be said "over which the Holy Ghost hath appointed you overseers." Membership of a church, it cannot be too pressingly insisted on, is a thing unknown to scripture. All who have the Spirit are members of Christ.

341 Setting apart men to sacred office (that is, an official clergy, depositaries by ordination of the title to minister the word) is unknown to scripture and contradicted by it.

The next case is an appeal from the decision of a congregation to an assembly of apostles and elders as the office-bearers of the church. This is as unfounded as all the rest. In personal matters such an appeal, instead of being "allowed to members of the church," is positively denied to members of the scriptural congregation. If the congregation or assembly were not heard, he was to be as a heathen man and a publican; that is, appeal is precluded.

But Acts 15 is referred to. Here was a question, not of members of a congregation, but one affecting the whole standing and unity of the Church of God: was it to be circumcised or not, brought down to Judaism or be the Church of God in which is neither Jew nor Greek? In fact the question was whether there was to be a Church of God at all. Paul and Barnabas discussed with these false teachers: the church came to no decision at all. God permitted the Apostle Paul not to succeed then in putting it down, I do not doubt, in order that the Jewish part of the church might decide the question, that unity might be fully preserved, and, what I may call, the Jewish apostolate settle the question. At any rate, there was no decision and no appeal. Paul was unable to put down the false teachers. The local assembly decided nothing. The apostles and elders came together to consider the matter. It was no gathering of delegates or official assembly. The apostles and elders came together to consider it, and with them, it appears, all the brethren; at any rate, they take part in the letter and sending of Judas and Silas. But it was the local church of Jerusalem and nothing else. Could a local church or even what is called a church court say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, and bind the whole Church of God with apostolic authority, by the decrees (the dogmata) which they issue? Does the Moderator think that the assembly which he presided over could bind the whole Church of God by its decrees with apostolic authority, and say, on a question affecting the whole Church of God, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us? If they say, No, we only pretend to govern our own church, then their church is not the Church of God, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterians bears not the smallest analogy to the meeting of the apostles to deliberate on what footing the common Christianity of the saints was to be founded. Indeed the Moderator gets on dangerous ground here, and ground which would effectually guard every sober mind against Presbyterian ideas of their courts and judicatories.

342 "Apostolic dicta [we are told], pronounced by inspired lips, did not settle the controversies of the early Church." But apostolic dicta by inspired lips are the word of God. "If any one be spiritual," says the apostle, "let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." It is rather strong language to say that apostolic dicta from inspired lips could not finally settle a controversy, but that a church-representative judicatory, a General Assembly of Scotland or New South Wales, could. If this be not so, the whole statement is idle talk.

But whom did the apostle represent? For we read, in the Moderator's discourse, the government of the church was representative. Is that the true character of apostolic authority in virtue of which they made decrees binding on the Church? They represented the Lord who had given them authority. They exercised it from the beginning. They started with it as given by the Lord, and what they bound was bound in heaven. Was that because they represented the Church, or derived from the Lord? They had it when there was no such assembly to represent. To say it was an assembly of bishops or elders is quite false, unless apostolic authority goes for nothing. Supreme power is in Christ and in Christ only. He is Son over the house; He conferred it on the apostles. He has promised indeed to be with His people in every way in which they serve Him; but John would make listening to apostles a test of truth. "He that is of God heareth us. He that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." Yea, where the two or three are gathered together, there He is, and from the authority there exercised in its place there is no appeal (Matt. 18). The language of the Moderator is very dangerous and unscriptural.

Further, it is a mere Scottish prejudice to call Christ "King of the Church." The leaders of that system may have meant very well; but it is wholly unscriptural. Scripture never speaks of Him as King of the Church. The Church has a much higher place. It is His body and His bride. Nay, when He takes His great power and reigns, we shall reign with Him. He is on His Father's throne now; when He sits on His own, those who overcome will sit there with Him. It is a wholly false and unscriptural dogma, derogatory to the glory and truth of the Church and to the value of Christ's death and love, to make Christ King of the Church.

343 A gradation of judicatories is a miserable fable contradicted formally by Matthew 18 and attempted to be confirmed by the utmost (and that a very dangerous) perversion of Acts 15.

As to all elders not having gift to minister in word and doctrine, it is true. Still as a rule they were if possible to be apt to teach.

Thus far I have discussed the Moderator's statements, the common ground of Presbyterianism; but there are important points left out. The Presbyterian body, as did all the Reformers, profess sacramental regeneration. I have often heard this pooh-poohed, for self-esteem is not lacking to Presbyterianism; but there is not a doubt of it. The difference between their doctrine and the Anglican and Lutheran on the subject is, that both the latter hold that the efficacy of baptism takes effect in all the baptized, but that then the participator may be lost after all - a strange result when both profess to believe in electing grace. But that is not our subject now. The Presbyterian holds that the effectual saving grace of baptism applies only to the elect. The consequences of this Romanist heretical error on certain essential truths are various. The effect with Presbyterians is, that they hold that the effect of baptismal grace may be produced at forty years' distance of time from the celebration of the rite.

There is no telling what theological teaching may bring the mind into - making God out of a piece of flour and eternal life out of a bowl of water! Charge me not with irreverence. The irreverence is in those who invent such superstitions. The expression of "making God" is the commonest and usual expression for transubstantiation; and conferring eternal life by a little water is discussed in Luther's Catechism and taught in the English one, of course in the Roman, and, as I shall now shew, in the Presbyterian. "A sacrament is a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers." Thus the benefits of the new covenant are applied by the sacrament. In the Confession of Faith it is limited to the elect, and that in a very definite way. "Yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's will, in His appointed time." Nothing can be plainer than that. By the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is conferred by the Holy Ghost when God sees fit "in His appointed time." Nothing can be more definite, precise, and positive.

344 I pass over, in the Moderator's discourse, the self-applause as to catholicity; but I turn for a moment to the declaration of its being effectual to secure unity of doctrine. The Moderator confines it, it is true, to Anglo-Saxon Presbyterians; for religion goes by nations now, not by grace. It is wise to do so; because German, Swiss, and French Presbyterianism has fallen into gross infidelity, as everyone knows, whatever partial reaction may have set in in a very few places. But even among Anglo-Saxons it really is a fiction. In England the mass of them have been Socinians, as I have already noticed, and a large body of them, as every one knows in Ireland, Arians. Not only so: the Australian Moderator boasts of 6,000 clergymen in the States who (of course making allowance for individual exceptions) have unity of doctrine and form one body. Did the Moderator ever hear of Old school and New school Presbyterians, two entirely distinct bodies, one holding to the doctrine of the Westminster Confession as to high Calvinist doctrine, the other Arminian? Civilities have passed between them lately in hopes of a reunion, but there at present it remains. Other divisions, in the old world, not in doctrine, are notorious. I cannot say whether Old school or New school be the most numerous body at this moment. One thing is certain that Anglo-Saxon Presbyterians have not unity of doctrine and are separate bodies because of diversity in it.

345 Does the Moderator soberly believe that intelligent unity of doctrine obtains in all Anglo-Saxon Presbyterian churches on this statement? "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death." I delight in the sovereignty of God; but surely I could find a good many Anglo-Saxon Presbyterians, and ministers too, who do not believe in reprobation. I doubt that all hold the imputation of Adam's guilt. I find very many doctrines in the Confession that no Anglo-Saxon could intelligently hold; but it would involve a controversy on doctrine beyond the limits of this paper and be a kind of attack on the Confession, which is not my object.

But I will notice one point which I do not see how any intelligent Christian could accept: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." Again, "God gave to Adam a law, a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law after his fall continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and as such was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments and written on two tables." All this is a fable and a mischievous fable. And I notice it because it is the foundation of the whole religious system to which it belongs.

The Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the atonement, fundamental facts or doctrines of the gospel, are believed in by Romanists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, by all who have any right to the name of Christian. It is when you come to apply these truths to man's relation with God, to sin, the convincing man of it, the means of removing it, the application of the remedy, and the relation of man to God, whether under law or gospel, that divergence in doctrine commences. The Romanist makes sacraments the means of life, and, together with good works, of forgiveness and justification. The latter point Protestantism, unless often the Wesleyans and formalists, has escaped from. Anglicans teach sacramental forgiveness and regeneration, and in the Puseyite phase are as near popery as dishonest people dare. Presbyterians hold, as we have seen, salvation and regeneration by sacraments. It is the opposition to the truth in these things which is now breaking up the public testimony of Protestants: some turning back to the anti-christian principles of Romanism; some running loose into infidelity. Disgusted with the corruptions of popery, finding no rest in the narrow and powerless systems of Protestantism, and having no faith in the word of God, such are cast upon the hopeless and desolating folly of their own minds. This quarrel I have not with the Presbyterians, and I thank God for it. I thank God for every public stay He may allow to subsist against the current of popery and infidelity. But they have formed such a system of theoretic doctrine without the word - a system which keeps souls in the greatest bondage and so falsifies our true relationship with God - that it is impossible for one who really bows to the word, and stands fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free, to accept its teachings. It may answer in some respects to new countries for another reason. There is some order, yet it is democratic, although in the United States Methodists and Baptists are far ahead of them in numbers. In old countries it is in as great disruption as Anglicanism, or fallen into universal infidelity; but with all this I have nothing to do. My business is with souls, and with the word of God. And I take this point, of the giving of the law to Adam, as at the root of their system. It is a very mischievous fable.

346 Where is a trace of promise of life to Adam and his posterity if they exactly kept the law? It is a pure invention, falsifying Adam's real position and relationship with God in order to propitiate the law of the ten commandments. There is not a tittle of scripture for it. Adam, having life, was tested by a positive wellknown commandment of not eating the forbidden fruit; and the perfectness of this consisted in the point that there was no intrinsic moral question in it. It was a test of simple obedience to a sinless being with a threat of death (for life he had). A promise of life to Adam on keeping a moral law, which supposed the knowledge of good and evil, is a mischievous fable, and denies the whole position of Adam who was innocent. There would have been no harm in eating that fruit more than another, unless it had been forbidden. And, as I have said, this test of obedience was the only true one for an innocent being, not, as is alleged, a righteous and holy one (both which terms suppose the knowledge of good and evil, delighting in one and abhorring the other). Adam acquired the knowledge of good and evil by his disobedience: "The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil." But this by the by. What I insist on is, there was no promise of life, which supposed he had it not; but a threat of death, which supposed him to be alive, but alive innocent with no knowledge of good and evil.

347 And when you come to details, just see, I must say, the nonsense of this system which Presbyterians accept by tradition. This law, we are told, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai "in ten commandments and written on two tables." Think of bidding Adam to honour his father and his mother, and that his days might be long in the land Jehovah his God gave him! Think of his being forbidden to steal - nay, what is more material, not to lust or covet! Cannot these doctors see that the law supposes sin to be there in the prohibition of it, and that (unless in the case of honouring parents, which could not possibly apply to Adam) all the commandments without exception are prohibitions of sin, or refer, as the fourth, to the labour which came in as the present punishment of sin? All this is not a mere mistake of interpretation, or an imperfect way of putting things (of which I should have much to say on the Confession of Faith, and to which we are all liable); but it is grave and fundamental error on man's original relationship with God, and on the true state of our actual relationships too. The basis of the entire system of moral relationship with God in Presbyterianism is false; and it has tainted the whole Evangelical system everywhere. I believe it had its origin in the Reformation, or rather in reformed popery; but it has on this point been formalized in Presbyterianism as it has been nowhere else; and I defy anyone to give the smallest atom of scripture, or (if he knows what sin and innocence mean) of common sense either. It is a theological system without a scriptural basis, and absurd upon the face of it (assuming Adam's innocence; that is, believing the scriptural statement).

This is strong language to me as to the famous Confession of Faith; but the times are serious. We want the truth. We want the solid basis of scripture, of the word of God, for what we hold. Nothing else will stand in these days. Men may deny that word; but then we know what we have to do with. Men may set up conventional systems; but then popery is the strongest and will prevail, or infidel disgust throw up all, and (as I believe) devour at the end popery itself. But my business now is with the truth. Thank God, many Presbyterians love the Lord, and their traditional errors are partially dissolved in the power of grace, though, I believe, their system affects and injures their Christianity. Still every saint will cordially recognize every one in whom grace is. At any rate, that is what pleases God and is the true bond of comfort to the saint; but our question now is with a system of doctrine injurious to the saints we do love. In many parts I do not believe the Confession of Faith is really held by those who maintain it, as in the doctrine of absolute reprobation. Indeed it notoriously is not. They may talk about mysterious and deep truths when we bow. I have no objection to bowing to God on such points - it becomes us; but they do not believe what is stated in the Confession of Faith - I mean a vast number do not. And I affirm that what they do believe, the promise of life to Adam by keeping the ten commandments, is an absurd and unscriptural folly, and one which subverts his and our relations to God, fatally modifying the truth of the gospel when it is preached.

348 I have done. My object has not been to attack the Confession of Faith, nor the Moderator, but to discuss some great principles which interest every Christian individually and the whole Church of God as such. My appeal is to the word of God, aided (as we all must be to use it to profit) by the grace and Spirit of God. And I cannot but think that the traditional teaching of the Presbyterians as to doctrine and polity will be found utterly wanting when compared with the word. If any Presbyterian should read this paper, I ask a patient comparison with the word of God. They are used to come to the scriptures full of the Confession of Faith and the longer and shorter Catechisms. It is generally the first glory of their system that they are religiously brought up and carefully instructed in doctrine. But there is the danger accompanying this valuable care that they bring a complete system, already formed in the mind, to the study of the word of God. This is a great evil. "Ille bene legit," says Hilary as to scripture, "qui non affert sed refert sensum."

I might have made a host of objections, but it was not my object. But no one can complain if great and vital principles, such as the question on what ground Adam stood before God, and the like, are examined in the light of scripture.

Letter to a Christian Friend, in reply to a Presbyterian Minister, on the subject of the Law, the Sabbath, Ministry, and the Sacraments.

J. N. Darby.

<14013E> 349

Preface

It may be well, by way of preface, and for the information of those into whose hands the following letter and reply may come, to state the circumstances under which they were written. A Presbyterian minister having been applied to for the loan of his chapel, for the purpose of preaching the gospel, thought it his duty not only to refuse but also to write the accompanying letter, in which, as the reader will perceive, he touches upon four very important points - points which claim the unprejudiced investigation of every lover of truth.

The importance of the subjects thus brought forward, and not a desire for controversy, has induced the person to whom the letter was addressed to send forth to the Church both it and the reply, which latter has been written by one who is incessantly engaged in the work of the ministry.

It is earnestly hoped that the Christian reader will so far apprehend his elevation above all the mists of rancorous theological discussion, as to be enabled, with a cool and dispassionate judgment, to "prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." Truth, and not the miserable interests of a party, should ever be the object of the judicious and reflecting Christian, whose privilege it is to be completely free from men, and the system of men, and to stand forth only as the advocate of truth in all the largeness and liberty of that word. It is, however, impossible that we can arrive at truth when we are seeking for something short of it; for of truth, as well as of wisdom, it may be said, "Those that seek me early shall find me."

Should the following pages fall into the hands of one whose heart and conscience have not yet found rest in Jesus and His atoning blood, we would earnestly and affectionately point his eye, not to the subject of these pages, but to "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," and we would exhort him to flee, by that unerring path, from the unmitigated and terrible "wrath to come."

350 LETTER

MY DEAR SIR,

I consulted my brethren on the propriety of granting your request; they were strongly and unanimously opposed. I may say I cordially agreed with them.

The church is not ours, but the Lord's, and we would be glad to give it to any who were doing His work; but we believe you, and those of your mind, are endeavouring (not knowingly) to overturn divine institutions; we, therefore, cannot say God speed. The sabbath is a divine institution - a relic of paradise - a type of heaven - a day that God commands us to keep holy - no business, pleasure, or recreation - a day that God's people have delighted in. Prophets and apostles have but one voice with regard to it "I love the Lord's day" a day that God has preserved as a standing miracle for religion, and honoured it above all days - Pentecost, John in the isle of Patmos, etc. We believe that no sin does God oftener visit with His manifest displeasure so much as the violation of the sabbath. Therefore, with those who would take away this day, or bring it down to a level with other days, we can hold no fellowship - we must look upon them as enemies of God and of righteousness.

Again, as to the law, we hold it to be the will of God that it cannot change, nor can our obligation to keep it ever cease. There is infinitely greater obligation upon us to obey the law than was upon Adam; and while the unregenerate hate the law, we believe God's people love it. "Oh! how I love thy law." The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good: we can give no sympathy to those who magnify one attribute of God, at the expense of another. We love the justice and righteousness, as well as the mercy, of God; and we believe that His law will be the rule of life in heaven as well as earth.

Again, as to the ministry, we hold it a divine appointment for the edifying of the body of Christ; and, therefore, any who intrude themselves into this office, or undertake the duties without being called to it, and set apart, as was Aaron, and in gospel times as Timothy (1 Tim. 4: 4), and, therefore, also enter by another way, and take the office, and perform the duties - the same is a thief and a robber. Your views also of the sacraments are, as we conceive, entirely erroneous - taking away from them a great part of their meaning, and degrading them to a mere rite of commemoration; while we hold that in these ordinances the soul makes covenant with God.

351 You may think my conduct strang - refusing now what I once made offer of. At that time I thought your views were not so erroneous, and that you might be brought to see the truth. I am now forced to abandon you, believing you to be an enemy of Christ (not by design, but by not knowing the truth). Praying that God may lead you to receive and acknowledge the truth,

I remain, in affection, yours,

* * * * *

REPLY

MY DEAR BROTHER,

I have read Mr. A.'s letter. I like the plain decision of it, and I admit the importance of the questions involved in the points he speaks of; and though I should not speak as harshly of him, as he does of you, I do not dissemble to myself that the nature of Christianity is involved in it. I take it for granted that Mr. A. is a real servant of Christ, not knowing him, and that he rests the hope of his soul on the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, and other fundamental truths common to all who are really Christians. I add that, because I say the points involve the nature of Christianity, I do not mean those great points without the faith of which a man could not be a Christian, but the ground he stands on as a Christian, in virtue of the truth of them. Did I not suppose Mr. A. to be built on the great foundation of everlasting truth, I could not reason on the points he proposes. Still I do admit that the nature of Christianity practically is involved in the questions more or less. As to having their place to preach in, this would not be a reason to me for replying, for I would not have it if offered, were I in your neighbourhood; and it almost tends to turn me aside from replying to you or Mr. A.'s letter, its being connected with a question of preaching in his chapel. I do not believe that they are enemies of Christ, as Mr. A. calls you; but I do believe that he who wrote you this note is, or they are, ignorant of the real nature of Christianity, and of the truth on the points in question, as taught in the New Testament; and that the difference affects man's state, the nature of the gospel, the effect of Christ's death and resurrection, not as to fundamental orthodoxy, but as to its application to man.

352 I am sure Mr. A. is quite unaware of it, but his view upsets man's total ruin, and the ground of a sinner's standing. Nor do I think he knows "what he says or whereof he affirms," while "desiring to be a teacher of the law." For it is most certain that man under law, converted or unconverted, regenerate or not, is lost, unless Christ be a mere maker-up of deficiency - a doctrine, I am persuaded, Mr. A. would repudiate.

For the law must press a man for what he is himself, if he be under it. "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse" - not as many as have violated, but as many as are on that principle. (I am sure in Mr. A. it is merely ignorance.) They that be of faith are blessed - this is not blessing in keeping the law, and curse in violating it. Were it so, all would be infallibly under the curse, for man is a sinner; the regenerate man, the flesh being in him, fails; if he is under the law, he is under the curse. No doubt, the law is abstractedly good; but man is a sinner in nature before he gets it, and is necessarily and wholly lost under it.

In vain he says he is regenerate; the law knows no such distinction; it asks, Are you such as I require? No, I am not, says the regenerate man (who indeed alone truly says so). Then, says the law, I curse you. But you say, I am not under you for justification, but as a rule. But, I curse you, says the law, because you have not kept the rule; and it will not and cannot do anything else. It is in vain to say we do not put man under it for justification. It puts him under itself for condemnation, if he has anything to say to it.

I quite admit that the law is the rule (not of life, indeed, so as to obtain it, but) of existence and joy in heaven; and that it would be on earth (taken in its highest character in the commandments the Lord extracts from the Old Testament, as that on which law and prophets hang), if man were not a sinner; but then his redemption would not be necessary. But he is a sinner; and hence, under law, he is under curse. It cannot be a rule of life to a sinner, because it is a rule of death; not because it is not holy, just, and good, but because it is, and man is a sinner. Viewed in his new nature, I do not doubt man fulfils the law as a new creature; for love is the fulfilling of the law; but this does not put him under it. The reasoning of the apostle is that you need not put him under it; for he alone who was not under it in spirit kept it; that, as an administered code, it was the strength of sin - entered when man was already a sinner, that the offence might abound; that sin, taking occasion by it, wrought all manner of concupiscence, and rendered sin excessively sinful; in fine, that we could not have two husbands at a time, nor seek blessing on two principles; that we are not under law, but under grace; and if led by the Spirit, we are not under law, Christ having delivered us from it, being dead to the law by the body of Christ.

353 In a word, the scripture testifies, that put a man under the law, and he is (sinner or saint) a cursed, dead, condemned creature; that it is a ministration of death, and a ministration of condemnation. Mr. A. has not kept it; if he is under it, he is lost; it knows no mercy, and God's holiness can allow no mitigation of its terms. I cannot have the two husbands: dead to the one, we are married to another - even to Christ risen. In His death, which infinitely magnified it, as in life He honoured it, I am dead to it - risen, He is not under it, though as a new life He fulfils its principles in me, by having taken me from under it by redemption. He who says, I am under law, in principle denies the redemption of Christ. Fulfilling it, without being under it, yea, by not being under it. Scripture speaks of the Christian being under it never. In a word, the Christian, viewed as a new creature, accomplishes the law, for he loves and does no ill to his neighbour; but he is not placed under it (for if he were, he would be condemned by it); he sees that Christ alive on earth was, and in death bore its curse, and in the power of redemption delivered us from it; while He communicates a nature to us as risen, which delights in it and does it, but does not put the believer under it.

As regards the sabbath, Mr. A. is on the same ground. He says it is a relic of paradise. This equally denies (unintentionally I fully believe) both judgment and redemption. There is no relic of paradise and no rest in creation as it is. The seventh day was the rest of God in creation. And subsequently, when Israel was put under the law, to live by it and be blest in creation (though faith had then better things in view), it was given as a sign of the covenant with them. But we believe and have learned that creation is ruined, and judgment and redemption have excluded us from and taken us victoriously out of it into a new creation. Hence Christ passed the sabbath in the grave - it was buried, and our hopes of blessing here with Him in His grave. He claimed Lordship over it in title of His person. Sin had spoiled creation: we are a new creation; the old is judged; and Christ is risen into and to be the Head of a new one, in a new condition of man. Into this in spirit we are brought, as hereafter in our true rest in glory. Hence the resurrection of Christ is the day which marks out this to us, not the close of creation-labour, as the seventh was, but the beginning of resurrection and new creation-blessing. The seventh day was the sabbath, as God's rest after the creation. This is not our rest. He has said "arise and depart: it is polluted." The first day distinctively, and not the seventh, is the day marked out to us. The labour to prove it a seventh, or as some have done, the seventh, is unintelligent labour to destroy the distinctive Christian position which has its birthplace of blessings in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, on the first (not on the seventh) day of the week. The seventh was rest according to the law, and looked to man to work aright; but find it he could not. Redemption has brought him into it; but that is in the power of resurrection, the beginning of a new creation. Hence, I believe, the answer of the Lord when challenged with breaking the sabbath, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work." We cannot rest either in sin or in misery. The first day of the week He entered into the fruits of His work. The sabbath then was the rest of creation, and the sign of the covenant with Israel. Our testimony is, that both have wholly failed, and there is no rest in them; and the grave of Christ has closed that whole scene and condition of existence, and begun a new one in which we have a part.

354 But the first day of the week is marked out to the Christian, not indeed as law, but as blessing. Christ rose, Christ met His disciples on it, and again the same week following. On the first day of the week the disciples met to break bread: on the first day they were to lay by their profits for the poor saints; and in the Revelation it is definitely called the Lord's day. As such I own it; but I do not, with Presbyterian traditions, abandon the foundations of my hope, in seeking rest in the creation in which Christ has been rejected, nor in the covenant of the law of which He bore the curse. The Lord's day is the first day, not the seventh, and rests on redemption basis, which declares entire failure of the other rest.

355 The views expressed in Mr. A.'s note are on these points ignorance of the very ground on which Christianity rests. I may add, that I doubt not in accomplishment the seventh day and the first prefigure the earthly and the heavenly rest respectively in the millennial period.

Finally, as regards ministry, fewer words will suffice. I believe ministry to be an institution of God, and distinctively so, grace looking for spiritual testimony, whether evangelical to the world, or in edification to the church; as a people in covenant under the law, and unable directly to approach God needed a priesthood - two points which Mr. A. confounds, as he did the two systems on the other two heads. But it is the ministry and manifestation of the Spirit; but if he holds that it depends upon man's appointment and man's call, he upsets the whole testimony of the New Testament, the point of which is, that a man traffics with his talents given, because he trusts his Master. But if Mr. A. makes the Presbyterian system the call of God, he will find only sectarian support. If he admits other calls too, then neither is scriptural; and the only point insisted on is, that man should meddle in it; and in reality it becomes geography, and, for the most part, academical provision for unconverted men taking care of unconverted flocks. If he calls this the scriptural call of God, it is bold dealing with holy things. If he insists on 1 Timothy 4: 14, to what pastoral care was Timothy ordained? If any thing, he was a diocesan bishop. But he was not this, but as the spiritual right hand of the apostle, as Titus was in Crete. I admit the call of God - the necessity of the call of God - to the various services of the ministry, whatever it may be. That man should sanction it, or make academies or geography out of it, or pastors over a mass of unconverted people in a geographical district, or unconverted pastors over Christ's sheep, no one will be able to shew me from scripture; and to scripture I must be excused for adhering.

The Presbyterian ecclesiastical system is not attempted to be justified from scripture in their public authorized documents. The attempt would be absurd. Every one the least conversant with scripture must know that the ministry of the word was exercised by every class of persons, without any warrant but the call of God and the love of Christ constraining them; and that apostles had not a thought of calling it in question, nor dreamed of ecclesiastical sanction being requisite for its exercise - and this at all times from the commencement of Christian ministry to the end. John does not say, as to evil teachers, Let them shew their ordination, nor Paul as to those who preached of contention, nor call in question those who waxed bold through his bonds, nor those who were scattered abroad after Stephen's persecution, with whom the hand of the Lord was. Within the church it is notorious, that, as every one received the gift, he was to minister it as a good steward. One had a psalm, another an interpretation, another a doctrine; and the only check was, Let all be done decently and in order - all to edification, the manifestation of the Spirit being given for profit; and hence more than two or three were not to speak at a meeting. In these things the discipline of the church of God would come in according to scripture, as is evident in case of teaching error. The clerical system is the denial of God's title in the ministry. In the reformed church abroad this is now generally admitted by those sound in the faith, and even strongly written against by well-known evangelical ministers of the Establishment.

356 The point of the sacraments, so called, only remains. Mr. A.'s statements are on the same wretched legal ground - man makes a covenant with God in them. I reply, If he does, he is lost, for he will certainly fail, and there can be no consequence of failure (for it is sin) but condemnation; for man's entering into a covenant is not grace - the grace of God. I account baptism and the Lord's supper to be precious institutions of the Lord Jesus: one as admitting publicly in the church on the principle of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; the other, spiritual fellowship of His death in the unity of the body, as sitting by grace in heavenly places.

But talking of making a covenant with God is merely total ignorance of the whole place we are in. I was not aware these poor brethren were so very far removed in their minds from the true Christian place in which the grace, the blessed grace, of God has set us. Does Mr. A. really think he has to begin now and make a covenant with God? What does he think of redemption? or where does he find a word in scripture of a covenant in connection with the supper of the Lord? But in his letter the whole christian position is lost; and we are put simply where a Jew under the law was - and worse, because he was placed there that we might learn that we could not possibly stand there.

Affectionately yours, dear brother, J.N.D.

Dr. Capadose and the Dutch Reformed Church

J. N. Darby.

<14014E> 358

(To the Editor of the Bible Treasury)

Allow me to send you some extracts from a pamphlet recently published in Holland by Dr. Capadose, a man well known in Holland and elsewhere, as a Christian (converted from Judaism, I suppose, nine and thirty years ago), and valued and respected in the religious world since. It is not for clearness of views, as to the Church, nor an exact interpretation of scripture, that I send it: I should think, from some expressions, he is not what I should account clear on these heads. I send it as a sign of what is going on in the world; and to all a solemn warning as to where we are. It is earnest, serious, with feeling ardently genuine, and contains principles of the deepest importance; and if some prophetical points, or apprehensions of the unity of the body, be not clearly seized, and that the circumstances of the reformed church, so-called, in Holland, have led Dr. Capadose's mind to the conclusion he has arrived at more by conscience as to the evil than by attraction of the good, it is only so much the more a witness, that in all circumstances where the Spirit of God is acting, the sense of the times we are in presses on the spirit. The conclusion Dr. Capadose has arrived at has been the conviction of the writer of this these nine and thirty years, and is participated in by a vast number of your readers. I give these extracts as additional testimony from an upright and right-feeling soul of the state things are come to. For indeed what was a matter of principle forty years ago is now verifying before our eyes. The doctrines of the Church, of the rapture of the saints, are a relief and source of consolation and joy in the midst of the evil. May Dr. C. find this too!

The principles of his pamphlet, however sorrowful the occasion, are as true as they are urgent. The public ministry of the reformed body in Holland is almost universally infidel, and, since the publication of Mr. Renan's Life of Jesus, this infidelity has become bold and pretentious. This is what seems to have urged Dr. C. to the step he has taken. The inscription of the pamphlet is Isaiah 52: 11, 12, which I give in the English translation: "Depart ye, depart ye; go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bare the vessels of the Lord. For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward." I now give the preface: it shews the spirit of the work.

359 "I hope the few pages which follow here will be read and weighed with the same seriousness as that with which the writer has penned them. They have not, however small in compass, to thank a fugitive passing emotion for their origin. No! already for more than a year, my heart has been urged by the feeling of an urgent need to communicate openly and make known the results at which I have arrived with the deepest conviction, what a ripe and continually repeated searching out has taught me of the painful state of the church of our fatherland, and what the holy calling of Christian professors within this requires. I must give testimony. And not only do I feel myself compelled to this for myself, but I must recommend to and press on others with all insistence, the holy way of earnest search. I am conscious, moreover, of having in these pages respected the conscience of brethren who think otherwise, though not without fraternal exhortation. Let each search his heart and follow what is enjoined him by the Spirit of God, but distinguish there also well what God's Spirit wills. The state of mere appearances (that is, of lies) must cease where people desire to follow the truth in everything. It is happy for myself that I know and love upright brethren in all churches who are attached to the same principles of life and faith; and, trusting to remain to the end, in the strength of Jesus the Lord and Saviour, His witness, and to be able to persevere as a living member of Christ's Church, I here declare openly and officially, that I cannot belong to any church communion so called."

Dr. C. states that he cannot really call it separation, for the simple reason that he no longer recognizes any Netherland reformed church as such remaining among them. He goes over the ground of former evil and trying states of the church: but that never was there an open combating on a widespread scale, by teachers of the church, of the Christian faith within the Church itself, not only before the reading public, but from the pulpit itself, and baptism and the Lord's supper administered and profaned (and that unhindered) by persons who are not Christians. "This is," he adds in a note, "unhinderedly allowed, while people strongly deny to Christians, but who are not ordained, competency to do it. I myself," he says, "approve for order's sake, that the administration of the sacraments in the normal state of the Church, by unordained men, should not be permitted, but judge that the ordained modern teacher, who wants what is the fundamental principle of a Christian, is far away less competent for it than the believing brother, who wants the fundamental ecclesiastical principle of ordination for it." I thought it well thus far to shew what Dr. Capadose's principles are, not to misrepresent his mind.

360 I now add what is more important. He says, "If people will give the Dutch reformed body the name of church, they must call her the church of confusion, not a Christian church, and thus no reformed church"; and that he must leave what thus steals the name. If others hope for restoration, for his part in no case can he cherish any hope of her restoration. Many efforts earlier in the work, and more definitely some four and twenty years on a broad scale, and shewing sympathy with the reformed congregations in his country, might, perhaps, have led to restoration; but, if not absolutely opposed, certainly were not supported or furthered even by well-minded ministers." They have let the opportunity be lost, and now, through this much-to-be-lamented want of zeal, the canker of infidelity has penetrated continually deeper and deeper, and we are come to the beginning of that apostasy of which Paul speaks (2 Thess. 2), that definite apostasy from Christ, which must precede the revelation of Antichrist. And this apostasy, already long prepared beforehand, is nothing but the consistent development of the unresisted, if not fostered, progress of infidel science in the Church . . . . Yet the epoch of apostasy is there, and will continually spread more and more, as well in every worldly government which by its institutions more and more excludes God, as in all churches wherein the true Christ, the God-man, will be more and more denied by the deifying of man. Do we not forget the reproving saying of our Lord: 'Ye can understand the face of the sky, but can ye not discern the signs of the times'?" He notices the breaking out of it in Roman Catholic and Protestant countries at the same time, and presses the fact of the growing canker of infidelity, and the near approach of the dissolution of the different churches.

361 "The Church of Christ, the Church of the crucified One, that and that alone has the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; but also the holy calling to bear the cross after the crucified One." "The voice of the Lord calling in the signs of the times makes us hear a higher claim. The question is not of a choice between church and church, but between Christ and Antichrist." . . . "The Lord Jesus calls all who believe in Him in truth to unite themselves together round Him, as He in its own time will bring together all His elect out of all tongues, peoples, nations, and races. So He calls now His believing ones out of reformed, out of dissenting, out of Lutheran, out of Roman, and other churches, to attach themselves to Him; and to go away from places where Belials are to be found, by the side of Christ. The great and mighty combat begins, if we can call a fireproof combat. Let the Lord's word be a light in everything, a light to our path, and that word calls to us. Do not bear the same yoke with the unbeliever," etc.

What I have transcribed will give, I think, a just idea of this earnest appeal. Though there may be a mistaken application of some passages as to the apostasy and trial, I heartily feel that the apostasy in principle is begun, so that on this point the appeal is just, and I am not afraid of a mistake in interpretation which does not affect the substance of it.

Dr. Capadose adds extended reasoning on the particular proofs of what he insists on in the Netherland reformed church so-called, urges at length that believers should not be arrested by temporal difficulties in presence of the faithfulness of the Lord, and adds a kind of second part where he insists that, if the clergy have not the courage to leave the system, they should at least absolutely separate (in every religious service of every kind, schools, and all Christian service) from those who deny Christ. The details of these parts I do not give. It is the solemn warning (one of the multiplied signs of the times, the proof of the principles which, by the operation of the Spirit of God, are at work in men's minds), which, I thought, might be alike in the best sense interesting and profitable to your readers.

Liverpool, June 22nd, 1866.

What is a Sect?

J. N. Darby.

<14015E> 362

The word "sect" is employed in the English translation to express the Greek word "hairesis." The meaning of this word is well known. It is used (except in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is found six times) only once in the Epistle to the Corinthians, once in the Epistle to the Galatians (chap. 1: 20), and once in that of Peter (2 Peter 2). In the first epistle to the Corinthians alone is it translated by the word heresy (1 Cor. 11: 19). It signifies a doctrine, or a system, whether of philosophy or religion, which has its adherents united as adopting this doctrine. Its meaning is a little modified now, because the professing church (at least the greater part of it) has taken the name of Catholic, that is to say, universal. Then every religious body, every Christian gathering, which does not belong to this community (so-called Catholic), is by it called a sect; from this the word is become a word of censure All the Christian bodies are sometimes called sects, in the sense of divisions, when they separate themselves from the whole complement of Christians, or from those who bear this name. However, the word sect implies in itself always more or less of censure, from the idea that those who compose it are reunited by a doctrine or a particular denomination. We cannot say that this way of looking at it is entirely false; the application may be false, but not the idea itself. But what is important is to discover that which, in fact, is an assembly of Christians justly deserving this name; or, since it is applied to assemblies or Christian corporations, it is necessary to understand the true principle on which we ought to assemble. That which is not based on this principle is really a sect.

Although the Catholics (so-called) have made a bad use of this truth, it is not less true that the unity of the Church is a truth of the greatest importance for Christians, whether the unity of all individually manifested in the world (John 17), or that of the body of Christ, formed by the Holy Ghost come down here (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12: 13). So in John 17 the Lord asks the Father, with regard to those who shall believe through the word of the apostles, "that they all may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me," John 17: 21. We see there the practical unity of Christians in the communion of the Father and the Son. The apostles should be one in thought, word, and deed, by the operation of one Spirit, as the Father and the Son in the unity of the divine nature (v. 11). Then those who should believe by their word ought to be one in the communion of the Father and the Son (v. 21). We shall be perfect in the unity of the glory (v. 22); but we ought to be one now, in order that the world may believe (v. 21). Further, the Holy Ghost came down from heaven on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), baptized all believers of that time into one body, united to Christ as a body to the head, and manifested here below on the earth in this unity (1 Cor. 12: 13). We see clearly that it is on the earth, where it says, in the twelfth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, "If one member suffer, all the members suffer; and if one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." We do not suffer in heaven. But then it is added, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."

363 The whole chapter shews the same truth; but these verses suffice to demonstrate that it treats of the Church on the earth. See here, then, the true unity formed by the Holy Ghost: first, the unity of brethren between themselves; and, secondly, the unity of the body.

The spirit of a sect exists when we see disciples unite outside this unity, and when it is around an opinion that those who profess it are gathered, in order that they be united by means of this opinion. The unity is not founded on the principle of the unity of the body, nor of the union of brethren. When such persons are united in a corporation, and mutually recognize each other as members of this corporation, then they constitute formally a sect, because the principle of the gathering is not the unity of the body; and the members are united, not as members of the body of Christ, when they are even such, but as members of a particular corporation. All Christians are members of the body of Christ - an eye, a hand, a foot, etc. (1 Cor. 12: 13-25). The idea of being a member of a church is not found in the word. The Holy Ghost compares the Church on the earth to a body, of which Christ is the Head (Eph. 1: 22, 23; Col. 1: 18); then each Christian is a member of this body, so of Christ. But to be a member of a particular corporation is quite another idea. Now, the supper of the Lord being the expression of this union of the members (as says 1 Cor. 10: 17), when a corporation of Christians recognizes its right to receive its members to it, there is a unity formally opposed to the unity of the body of Christ. It is possible that this may be ignorance, or that these Christians have never apprehended what is the unity of the body, and that it is the will of God that this unity be manifested on the earth; but, in fact, they form a sect, a denial of the unity of the body of Christ. Several of those who are members of the body of Christ are not members of this corporation; and the Supper, although the members partake piously of it, is not the expression of the unity of the body of Christ.

364 But now a difficulty is presented: the children of God are dispersed; many pious brethren are attached to this opinion, to that corporation, and mixed up for advantage' sake, even in religious things, with the world. There are alas! many who have no idea of the unity of the body of Christ, or who deny the duty of manifesting this unity on earth. But all that does not annihilate the truth of God. Those who unite themselves, as I have already said, are but a sect in principle. If I recognize all Christians as members of the body of Christ, if I love them, and receive them, from an enlarged heart, even to the Supper, supposing that they are walking in holiness and truth, calling upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Tim. 2: 19-22; Rev. 3: 7), then I am not walking in the spirit of a sect, even although I cannot gather together all the children of God, because I walk according to the principle of this unity of the body of Christ, and seek practical union amongst the brethren. If I join with other brethren to take the Lord's supper only as a member of the body of Christ, not as a member of a church, whichever it may be, but verily in the unity of the body, ready to receive all Christians who are walking in holiness and truth, I am not the member of a sect; I am a member of nothing else but of the body of Christ. But to gather together upon another principle, in whatever manner it may be, to make a religious corporation, is to make a sect. The principle is very simple. The practical difficulties are sometimes great by reason of the state of the Church of God; but Christ is sufficient for all; and if we are content to be little in the eyes of men, the thing is not so very difficult.

A sect, then, is a religious corporation united upon another principle than that of the body of Christ. It is formally such when those who compose this particular corporation are regarded as being the members of it. It is to walk in the spirit of a sect when those alone are recognized in a practical manner, without giving themselves out as properly members of a corporation. We do not speak of the discipline which is exercised in the bosom of the unity of the body of Christ, but of the principle upon which we are gathered together. The word does not recognize any such thing as to be member of a church; it speaks always of the members of the body of Christ. But these are bound to manifest unity in walking together. We can cite Matthew 18: 20 as a precious encouragement in these times of dispersion, in these sad times of the last days, where the Lord promises His presence to two or three gathered together in His name. He gives us 2 Timothy 2: 22 to direct us in the path of His will, in the midst of the confusion which reigns around us.

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL VOL. 3]

Narrative of the Facts, connected with the separation of the writer from the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street. [Plymouth]

J. N. Darby.

<20001E> 1 {file section a.}

INTRODUCTION

The following narrative, though constantly demanded by brethren, would have never seen the light, had the work which occasioned the separation been confined to Plymouth, or its activity ceased. No desire of clearing up one's own grounds of conduct has influenced me, nor would such have induced me to publish any account of what passed. The best proof is that in a lapse of a year it had not. But convinced as I am that it is a work of Satan which has developed itself here, and finding that, as Mr. N. announced that he would seek to produce everywhere "united hostility" to the brethren who differed from him, the same system at present is carrying on elsewhere to propagate the work, and believing that many true-hearted saints become unconsciously instruments of this, I have thought well that they should be apprised of what passed.

The argument alleged against such an account would be the scandal of it. But that exists in the division already. The knowing the grounds of it will rather take it away. For it is a very serious thing indeed to separate from Christians, and indeed the saints have, in some sort, a right to know why it has been done. It may be very humbling to the saints concerned; but I do not think this is an evil. The strongest motive by far - the one which weighed with me - was the dislike of publishing evil. I never should have done it, but left it to the Lord, had the trouble occasioned by it stopped the activity of the evil. What overcame this motive with me was, that there was just as much activity as before in the evil, and the same unblushing unscrupulousness as to truth. It may perhaps be thought that I have exaggerated in this account. Far from it. None of the facts which did not enter into the public course of events are mentioned, though as numerous and in my judgment as grave or graver than what is here stated; and not only so, but were not similar facts now going on, which are not alluded to here, I should never have published these. Another motive might act, that is, the general discredit thrown on the brethren. But this must yield before duty to souls. I have never seen one who got into the active influence of the system, whose moral integrity was not ruined. Besides, I believe that this system had so puffed up the brethren, and worldliness had so crept in, that under such discipline as God has sent us, it is only our part to bow. Indeed the present influence of the spirit of the world is such in the system which has driven me out, that, unless the Lord corrected it, I should be thankful to be entirely free from it. Lastly, I do not expect to escape what Sir A. C., Mr. W., and others have been subjected to, that is, to have all my statements denied. I expect it. But this is no reason with me for not informing brethren if this latter be a duty. It cannot last long this.

2 It is possible that in a narrative extending over a year and a half, embracing many people, and even places, some inaccuracy of detail which may occasion cavil may have escaped me. I have given too many names not to give the fullest opportunity of confirmation or correction, indeed always, save where charity demanded their suppression, or in the case of females. Engaged in such a business I had no need to conceal those of brethren. They must take their share when they acted in public. There is nothing here of which I am not assured of my own knowledge, or which were public facts before all, or facts stated already in print by others, or with the authors' names with some exceptions; in a word, nothing of the truth of which I am not thoroughly satisfied. At all events, what is here related is with other facts that which has led me into the position I am in; and I give them as substantially a thoroughly authentic and true narrative of what has passed. I have only to add, that the ground of evil doctrine or teaching, and the unsettling the souls of saints on every thing precious and even vital, is acquiring every day very greatly increased weight in my mind. This from its subtle and fleeting character, though conclusive with me, is more difficult to give. Some specimens however are here. The "Examination" of the "Thoughts" gives many though on less important points.

I may add one here from a tract sold in the tract shop. It is there taught that the wicked will rise with their diseased bodies; as that a man that had the palsy would keep it for ever, they would receive again their corrupt and sin-worn bodies, in all their wretchedness. This is addressed in a gospel tract to the careless. The tract is printed in London, but it was sold at Plymouth in the depot, nor have I any doubt of its origin.

3 I have communicated this narrative to others, to take all the care I can, that it should be perfectly true; I give no names, as I feel in such a case it is the juster way to let it rest on my own responsibility. I add here one or two corrections resulting therefrom.*

{*[These have now been added as footnotes. - Ed.]}

This is all that I can find to correct in what follows. It is, of course, possible that something may have escaped me.

I add another mark of the enemy's work. It is this: where there is the sudden reception of a whole system, and the authority of the author of it set up at once over the mind. When truth is received into the soul by the Spirit, it is received and engrafted by God, so that, though a blessed door may be opened by any given truth, we are built up truth by truth, each being wrought into the soul so that there is truth in it, and the consciousness of God's teaching us that, and the instrument of it, if any, is not between us and God as to it, though inspired teachers were of course an authority. In the case stated the mind is at once shut up into the system, and real progress in divine truth is entirely arrested. The consequences of having thus taken a system of error for truth is often most deplorable for the whole life, even if the person be delivered from it.

The reader will find another example of the unsettling the soul as to fundamental truths in the confusion between the life communicated to the saint and the divine nature in Christ. Thus, "But did Jesus think that the life which was in Him, and which He communicated to others, was not heavenly?" Did He not Himself say, "The Son of man which is in heaven? Were they (the angels) ignorant of the existence of a life in earth, which they had known in the excellence of its own uncreated glory, above? . . . Were they ignorant that this life had, through the Son been communicated to persons chosen from among sinful men?" (See pp. 28, 29, of "Answer to Second Letter.")

I have felt unable, having reread this narrative after the corrections, to detect any inaccuracy. As to the expression "He will catch it" (p. 58), my memory is so vague that I could not pretend to give it as the word used. But this perusal has made me feel that such a publication of evil would be entirely unjustifiable, and evil in itself, had I not the conviction, the solemn settled conviction (not, I believe, led to it of man) that there is an active positive work of the enemy going on. That conviction I have. I do not publish it to justify myself, for in my own judgment it does the contrary. I feel, as I have stated in the body of the narrative, that I failed in spiritual energy, through human feeling, in letting the matter drop in April at the instance of others. I hesitated as to my own being, spiritual enough to do it in public then, though I had acquiesced in doing it in private. If it be asked why I do it in a worse way now, I answer that it became a public duty to the saints, cost me what it would. And I do not expect to meddle with such evil without its costing me something.

4 I have had, in journeys I have made since I wrote this account, abundant confirmation as to the doctrine taught and other points.

-----------------

No one who was present at the meeting lately held in London can doubt that the brethren were brought (may I not in a certain measure say, brought back?) into the presence of the Lord - that the Lord has dealt with them in the manifestation of His presence, of His presence and dealings with them. This is a serious and solemn thought, and (I have felt) ought to take the lead and be as the source and spring of our other thoughts. I have myself been laid by, unable to read and write, so that, for my own part, I have been necessarily more particularly thrown into His hands, so that things should be more immediately judged as in His presence, viewed as they are seen there, and that what does not become His presence should alarm the conscience, man becoming little, but the saints exceeding precious.

After the meeting my conscience somewhat smote me for not declaring there in the plainest way what I believe to be the Lord's judgment of the work which has resulted in Ebrington Street at Plymouth: and it has been yet more pressed upon my conscience since I have been laid by. What prevented my doing so will be evident to every one who was there. The Lord took the meeting so entirely into His own hand, and so gave to it the character, and that of blessing, which He pleased, that I felt my part was to leave it exclusively with the character He had given to it. If it was a want of faith, my motives will be understood by every one who was there. But then this return into the presence of the Lord leads to dealing with brethren as in His presence. It is due to them. I feel I owe it to them to communicate to them as seen there, so to speak, what may press on my own spirit before the Lord. Now I believe fully that the work which has resulted in, what I may call in its present state, Ebrington Street, is a direct and positive work of Satan. And here I entreat brethren not to turn away as if these were mere hard words or a bad spirit. I mean simply and solemnly what I say. If such be the case, it is charity, unfeigned charity, to say so, and warn the saints of it. I so much believe it to be so, that I do not believe any one who meddles with or is within its reach will be safe from its influence till they treat it as such.

5 This may be always remarked, that where there is a work of the enemy even saints always fall into it if they do not treat it as such. It has power over the human heart, and where there is not in the soul the power of the Spirit to judge it as the positive mischief of the enemy (and so it will be judged where that power is), there the soul will fall into it, as if it were more perfect truth than what the Spirit teaches. See the early judaizing of the church, traced and detected in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians, and elsewhere. And see in the Galatian churches how the saints fell into it. See the same thing in Popery.

And here I would explain a little further. It does not follow by any means that there are no truths held by those who fall into such a snare. Many important truths may be held by them. Nor is it to be thought for a moment that true saints of God are not liable to fall into these snares. On the contrary, what makes it important to consider them, is that they affect the saints of God. Did they not, it might be sorrowful instruction, but no more: just as the awful darkness of heathenism, or the sorrowful condition of a poor unbelieving child of Israel. Nor does it follow (though it will generally have a legal tinge, because the flesh will in such case more or less resume its power) that many good works will not be done by those under it. They may abound. So that in saying that there has been a work of Satan I am not saying there are not many very dear children of God; I am not saying that they do not hold many all-important fundamental truths, as truths, nor that they may not be doing a great many good works. All this will be fully found in the system of Popery, for example, as it was in the Galatians, the earliest form perhaps of that amazing and deluding system.

6 But there is a further point which it is right to notice. Truly godly people may be the instruments of helping on a system which is truly Satan's. No one can doubt that Cyprian, who laid down his life for Christ's name, that Augustine, that Bernard, were godly men. Yet, though one opposed Rome episcopally, and the last declared Antichrist was risen there, no one can doubt that they helped on most eminently Satan's work in Popery. They did not perceive the bearing of certain points on the meaning and testimony of the Spirit of God.

Further, I do not call every evil I find a direct and positive work of Satan. Of course his hand is there. A saint I call a work of God, though Satan may mar it. Thus I believe there are serious defects and faults in the Establishment; but I believe it to have been a work of God, marred and spoiled by human considerations, which led those who framed it, to adapt it to circumstances and to the then state of the population, and to introduce principles which lay it now open perhaps to that work of Satan which is commonly called Puseyism. In that too itself, I dare say, several good men are labouring, because they do not by spiritual power discern Satan's craft who has a lovely religion for the flesh, a religion fairer to men's judgment and loveliest natural feelings than God's, which acts entirely on the conscience and gives all glory to Christ. So with Dissenters: I believe that was a work of God; with many defects, I judge, but still a work of God. And so of others. But Popery and Puseyism are the work of the enemy, though you may, and doubtless would, find many dear persons among them. Of course the degrees of evil or power may vary. I speak of its character and source merely.

Satan originates nothing. This is God's prerogative. The work of Satan is to mar and break down what God has wrought, when this is left, as an effect produced, to the responsibility of man. God created Adam. Satan spoiled the work through man's folly. There was but One whom he could not touch down here; in whom, having laid his defiling hand on all else as prince of this world, he could find nothing. He can originate nothing, but he can build up with vast sagacity an immense system, out of the corruption, suited to the evil which is in us; yea, and stamped with the character of the evil that is in us to which it is so suited. What would money be without avarice? or worldly power without ambition? or superstition without a natural principle of religiousness in the heart of man? Such a system may be a vast fact in the economy of divine government considered as a judgment, as Mohammedanism; or a subtler corruption, as Popery, pregnant with greater mischiefs, but where the enemy of souls has not been permitted to blot out in the same way the great facts of Christianity, as to the manner of the Divine existence and incarnation, nor the historical truths of the gospel; or it may be a marring where, in the main, truth abides; or it may be the ruin of some special testimony of God as far as it goes.

7 A testimony of some special truth may decay, or be lost, or lose its power by becoming mere established orthodoxy; but I do not call this directly or properly a work of Satan. I call it a work of Satan, when, blessing and testimony having been brought in by the blessed Spirit of God, a systematic effort is made, producing a regular system; an effort which takes up the truth whose power has decayed as to faith really carrying the soul out of the influence of present things, or some neglected truth generally, and, while it seems to adopt it as it stands in its basis as a fact, subverts and sets it aside; throwing the soul back on ground which is no longer a test of faith, though it be truth (for there Satan can adopt truth for a time), and bringing in apparent additional instruction, but really subversive of the power of what the Spirit taught, and making the authority of this teaching sectarian, or superstitious, or both, though they will not last together. I am not speaking here of Satan's work in open infidelity.

Now many may be quite unable to detect Satan working in this way, but there will be always enough, through the faithfulness of God, to guard souls really waiting on Him from falling in; or if listened to, through grace to bring them out. But then it will be and must be judged as evil, not dealt with as a mere measure of better and worse.

There is a distinction which may yet be made.

There are two distinct characters of work which Satan does, which may nevertheless merge one in the other. Of these however one, if alone, will be ephemeral, the other lasting. First, where power is not the true power of the Spirit, so as to detect and judge Satan's imitation, there he can easily set up the imitation of power, and that even where there is a measure of true faith and owning of God, but subjection, intelligent subjection by the Spirit to the word as of the Spirit, is not found. Where this is connected with the establishment of arranged human authority, this latter may subsist, but the work itself is ephemeral. Such a work as this will probably be connected with some of the most right-feeling, if not right-judging, persons among Christians, who have the strongest feelings of the decay which occasions it, but there will be generally shipwreck of the faith in some point or other. Yet it will afford exceeding difficulty to those who cannot discern the work of the enemy in the midst of this right feeling. I would instance as examples of this kind of evil work of the enemy, the Montanists, the Irvingites, and, in some respects, the Quakers or Friends. As to these last it is well known that what I now refer to has passed away, and that they remain amongst men a most quiet and, in many respects, most estimable body of persons. I speak of their early history. What remains is the authority that was settled among them, though with the old Friends very much defect in doctrine.

8 I have no doubt that this work began in a right feeling about the want of spiritual power. This may be easily seen in Dell's works. But no one who has read the remarkable history of George Fox, Naylor, and many of Penn's writings, or known much of the doctrines of Friends, can doubt the inroad of the enemy. I have added a few words on this because it was a more mixed and ambiguous case. I would not pass it over because it is one instructive to the church.

But there is another form of Satan's working.

In this orthodox truth is in general maintained. Any pretension to the possession of spiritual power is based on church position, not on any particular manifestation of power, and thus seems to honour the institution of the church and Christ in it. God is alleged to have set there, in that institution, the seat of blessing, and this also is an acknowledged truth, and the unity of the body of Christ is thereon connected with the institution. But the sovereign operation of the Spirit of God is set aside, and that which acts outside the actually formed institution is condemned as denying the authority of God's institution and schismatical sin. Thus the actual possessors of the power of the institution, in its then state, really take the place of God. His power is vested in them as far as it acts on earth. Divine condemnation attaches to all who act independently of them. Direct dependence upon God is unallowable. And thus whatever puts individual faith to the test (for going with the crowd under authority does not) is condemned as self-will and presumption.

9 The system which so judges is alleged to maintain the unity of the church. This may exist in different degrees, and in different circumstances; but it always attaches divine authority more or less to official position, and thus puts man in the place of God by attaching His name to man. It is not spiritual energy in man putting souls through Christ in direct relation with God, with the Father. There spiritual affections are happy and blessed. It is man eclipsing God, getting between Him and the soul. Not man revealing God, but the authority of God attached to man. Hence full love and grace will never be known. The Spirit of adoption and blessed assurance of salvation in the knowledge of Him will never be. It may survive such a system for a time, but it cannot be identified with such a system when matured. To be with God, while always rendering the soul submissive, must render it independent of man; that is, it asserts no rights, but when the need is, it says, "we ought to obey God rather than man." The first of these works of Satan then is the pretence to the extraordinary operation of the Spirit. That is ephemeral. It is suited to the ill-directed but righteous cravings after that manifestation of spiritual power which was and is the only true source of living blessing on the earth, when that power has faded away. The other is the orderly establishment of men in the place of that power. This lasts. It is suited to unbelief, and in its full development it always generates it. Montanism is passed. The spiritual pretensions of Irvingism are in fact passed; the system of men and ordinances set up by it abides. So practically among the Friends. This is common to both, as far as they go, that the manifestation of Christ in living power for the peace of souls, and the truth as to Him, is weakened and set aside more or less. Orthodox truths may, as we have seen in one of the cases I have supposed, be maintained; but (as it is the work of the Holy Ghost alone to present Christ to the soul, so that it should be in the power of that living faith which sets the soul in blessed fellowship with the Father in true joy, leaving the impress of its own everlasting nature upon it, which the Holy Ghost can alone give, and the Holy Ghost alone maintain) the consequence is that such communion with Christ is lost, and the conscience ceases to be before God.

10 In the former of the cases I have supposed Christian truth is generally lost, that is, saving truths connected with the person of Christ, and error substituted on these points. The Spirit's alleged presence eclipses, instead of revealing, them. In the latter they are plausibly subverted in their effect on the soul rather than set aside. As justification by faith in the Popish system, where, while every orthodox truth is maintained, the love and work of God in Christ is as to its efficacy denied by it as a system, as effectually as it could be by Socinianism itself. We are enabled in this case to speak of the full and awful maturity of this abiding corruption of the enemy; but those most conversant with history, and most spiritual, know how much spirituality it requires to detect its commencement and early growth: and that it sprang really from the best persons and most apparently godly principles that appear after the record of scripture; so that, though there were counteracting principles which Protestants can justly cite, yet full-grown Popery can quote the earliest fathers to establish in principle her claims, and support her pretensions. The blessed and perfect word of God reveals in one word this history: they began in the Spirit, and ended in the flesh. If you inquire who were the persons who laid the basis of this amazing evil, it will be found that it was those who insisted on good order and unity; yet it was not in the power of the Holy Ghost (God is not the author of confusion, but of order in the churches), but in arrangements which attached to office the authority necessary to maintain it. There may have been fleshly workings which gave occasion to it; but the remedy was not spiritual acting on the conscience and affections of those astray, for this is what we see in the epistles, but the authoritative arrangement of order, because power was so much gone, and spiritual discernment to know it. Hence the effect produced by the power, the institution itself, the church as an ordered system (not the church as redeemed by Christ), became the object presented, and was made the guard as an institution, instead of being guarded by spiritual care. Hence when the outward institution became the positive enemy of Christ and of His people, it retained its claims, and used its power as His.

Now, however subtilly at first, so that none scarce perceived it, if any, we now know what a work of Satan this was. It has, so to speak, usurped the world.

11 I feel satisfied that, as to the principle of it, a similar work has been going on at Plymouth. It will be ever founded on practically setting aside the power of that truth which has been, in any given case, the gathering principle, and the testimony of God to the world.

I do not exactly expect that in itself every one could see through such a work; but, as I have already said, there are sufficient proofs always afforded of God to the single eye: there will not, and cannot be, to others. I shall add here some of the points which seem to me to mark the presence and influence of the enemy in general.

The first sign of weakness is the gathering itself becoming the object of attention instead of their being a people enjoying the blessedness of their position by the relationship and fellowship it gave them with Christ, who had become and was their abiding object, revealing withal God the Father. But I would speak with more detail, for this is rather the occasion of Satan's power than the fruit of it as a positive word Where this last is, you will find holy spiritual affections broken and set aside to give place to the claim of the institution. And so are even natural affections, whilst the latter are given all their natural force and weight in practice to hold persons in the institution, and even largely used for this purpose. In the same manner people are won and brought under the influence that acts there by them. The activity and zeal will be for the system. It will be to make proselytes, and establish them in what will keep them there, not to save souls or lead them on in Christ. There will generally be a good deal of acting against or depreciation of others who even hold the faith of Christ.

Paramount importance will be attached to the views which distinguish that institution, not to what saves or to what brings faith to the test by the revelation of Christ.

Good works will be found generally much pressed, and that in a systematic way in which it works for and into the system. Truth I mean truthfulness will ever be lacking. This I have always found where the work of the enemy is.

Connected with this is the pressing much certain doctrines, when it is safe, which form the bond of the institution, and denying them in the alleged meaning, or explaining them away, when they are pressed on them by those who detect the evil. This any one conversant with the subject cannot but have noticed. The denial of the doctrine positively stated where the influence exists, as held in any such sense or its explanation, is the very thing that marks the power of evil. With this will be found the attributing to those who hold the truth, every kind of doctrine they abhor, where there is influence enough to have their statements believed. Popery is the plain example of this.

12 Another mark, whatever the apparent devotedness, yea, and real devotedness sometimes, is that the spirit of the world is acquiesced in. The poor will be nursed as instruments, and the rich (and so the clever) flattered for support. Another mark is the extreme difficulty of fixing them to any definite statement, save as they have power to enforce it; and then it is bound on others; and there is the sternest rejection of all who do not bow. Calumny of the saints, and of their doctrines has been known from the testimony of the blessed Lord Himself onward. The influence of females and of money will be found also largely employed.

In cases of the second character of evil I have noticed, the combinations of a party will always be found.

There is another mark, often incomprehensible to one not under the influence, and that is an incapacity of conscience to discern right and wrong, an incapacity to see evil where even the mere natural conscience would discern and an upright conscience reject it at once. I speak of this incapacity in true saints. The truth is, the soul is not, where under this influence (for it may be upright in other things), at all in the presence of God, and sees everything in the light of the object which governs it; and, as to these things, the influence of the enemy has supplanted and taken the place of conscience. The moral marks will be found to attach to every case of evil power.

I am satisfied that I have seen these principles distinctly at work in what has produced the system established at Plymouth. Some may think I have copied it for the picture. I have not. Let them, if they have ever been conversant with it, recall what the ways of Popery are, and they will easily find the same there. It is not because there are no saints among them, but because there are many and very dear ones, that I speak of it.

But having stated these general principles, a statement which I leave to work its own effect, I shall briefly narrate what I may call the public facts which have come under my knowledge; for much never has. I have never done so hitherto. I did not feel led to do it, and certainly had no inclination. I do not think a mind for which holiness has any charm at all will ever love the detailing or publishing evil: and, if one has any heart, most surely not what has passed among those he loves: but God's truth and His church are sacred things. I shall still endeavour to pass over in silence the private facts which seem to me to be evil. They might be called for in a case of discipline; but here they would only aggravate, without increasing, intelligent apprehension of the evil.

13 I will not detail the origin of the "brethren," but certainly that which characterized their testimony at the outset was the coming of the Lord as the present hope of the church, and the I presence of the Holy Ghost as that which brought into unity, and animated and directed, the children of God; and they avowed their dependence upon it. The distinct condition of the saints of the present dispensation, as filled with the Spirit abiding with them and risen with Christ, marked their teaching, while the great truths of the gospel were held in common with other true Christians, only with the clearer light which God Himself directly, and these other truths, afforded. The distinct heavenly character of the church was much insisted on. Though the "brethren" insisted on a spiritual ministry, and the recurrence to the original principles of ministry were urged, they did not, for the same reason, pretend to appoint ministers, nor organize any church or special membership; for they held the unity of all saints. Themselves outside the camp, whatever saints had faith to follow them were companions in their position, and they were not separated in life, love, or essential unity, from those who could not, though blamed by them. In this spirit they walked for a good while. I now turn to details.

From an early period Mr. Newton isolated himself much from the other brethren. He held reading meetings, and would not allow the labouring brethren to attend them; saying it was bad for the taught to hear the authority of the teachers called in question, as it shook confidence in them. At the later prophetic meetings in Ireland he did not attend.* At one of them, instead of going, he held a meeting for himself at Plymouth on the questions proposed and discussed among the brethren in Ireland, and published his views on them under the title of "Answers to Plymouth Questions." Particular meetings of his own for inculcating his peculiar views were multiplied without end, and sisters instructed in them, and provided with notes, employed to hold smaller meetings among the poor, and to write letters elsewhere to propagate them. Every visitor was at once brought under the most stringent process for imbuing him with them, and instruments sought wherever possible.** Indeed I have known a meeting closed the moment any remark was made on a statement of Mr. Newton's. "The Christian Witness" was denounced as the most mischievous book that ever was written. This process of course grew up gradually. This, with a train of similar conduct, I sorrowed over as an unhappy trait of isolation, and love of acting alone, and having his followers for himself; but I had no suspicion whatever of any purpose of any kind, bore with it as a failing of which we all had some, and left perfect individual liberty complete and entire untrenched on. I should not have so acted without my brethren. I should have rejoiced to have my views corrected by them when I needed it, and learn theirs; but there it was, and there for my part I left it.*** At the Clifton meeting Mr. Newton, speaking of ministry and the points connected with it, told me that his principles were changed. I replied that mine were not, that I felt I had received them from the Lord's teaching, and with His grace I should hold them fast to the end.****

{* I have what I believe to be a correct statement of the meetings Mr. Newton attended. He did not attend 1834, 1835, but he was at 1836; that is, I believe, the last Irish meeting. He did not attend London or Liverpool, that is, the two last English.}

{** One meeting of a smaller number of brethren was at once broken up, that is, never met again, on some objection to critical remarks being made by another brother.}

{*** Mr. Y. made, it is true, a mistake in his tract as to the Clifton meeting, which he states Mr. N. not to have attended: but, though this was made a handle of, the truth is that, though he mistook the particular meeting, the case was much stronger than that, as may be seen above.}

{**** Mr. Newton can easily deny this, as he and I were alone, walking up and down before the Gloucester hotel. This, of course, will not now hinder my stating it, though it did my referring to it publicly in the inquiry by the brethren. There is One who will judge who is truthful in the matter, if he does deny it, and to Him I leave it. I might here refer to the testimony of an intelligent brother, a physician, who plainly states that Mr. N. ten years ago pressed the principles I have done now, and which he resists; but then he declares he always thought them a delusion, that he joined the "brethren" as a sect, and continues with them as such. Loudly, as this is denied, a sister, whose zeal for Ebrington Street would not be questioned were I to name her, said to me that it was quite evident there were two systems among the "brethren" which would produce their fruits and gatherings everywhere. My reply was, I did not doubt it, and respected her sincerity. I would that others had the honesty to own it: they were all assuring me there was not.}

15 This, however, subsequently went farther. Mr. N. got rid of Capt. H. at Plymouth. I do not enter into any details here, but I use advisedly the expression 'got rid of'* This also was let pass. My own mind acquiesced in it, though grieved, because I felt it possible that there was a tendency to accumulate labourers on one spot; and that, in the want of spiritual energy which led them, God might use this as a means of sending the testimony farther. In fact, the gathering at Hereford soon followed on this. Thus I consoled myself with what I felt the unhappy disposition of Mr. N. I was not indeed acquainted with all the facts which I have learned since. I saw what was public before all. I knew what had happened to myself. I suspected nothing; and from beginning to end of this history the truth is that grace has kept smothered up what pained individuals in the character of Mr. N. For my own part, much as I mourned many things, I was the last to suspect any plan or purpose. I sought for years to soothe and make peace, to maintain union and link all together.

{*Capt. H., of course, went freely at the time, and the influence of Mr. N. may even at that time have been shaken by circumstances; but the main fact of the statement remains unaffected by this.}

After the departure of Capt. H., two other brethren became the objects of attack, R-e and S-s; and in the first instance the latter. I myself interfered at that time to soothe and tranquilize matters, and soften the effect of the evident assumption and conduct of Mr. N. Subsequently to this I was, as is known, much abroad, and do not pretend to give the detail of what passed.

There is only one circumstance to which I may allude in passing, as it has been often referred to. At a time when Capt. H. and myself were leaving Plymouth, there was some anxiety as to pastoral care, the value of which I fully recognize. Some minds were restless as to the nomination of elders, or recognized authorities; some fearful of it. The, question had been slightly mooted in a private meeting after one of the Irish prophetic meetings. I had been there, I may say, accused of swamping the question. I stated what is my present conviction, that the right-minded saint would surely own and "know" those who laboured, admonished, and took by the Holy Ghost a pastoral interest in them; but that still it could only be, in the present state of the church of God, by spiritual power, wisdom, love, and faithfulness, that such a place could be acquired and maintained. To attempt to authorize them would unsettle every right principle. There was no competency for it. The moment an authorized position is assumed - a title to it, I raise the inquiry, what is this title? and I defy any one to allege any which is not at once the formal recognition of a sect; or otherwise the Popish ground of being the church, and then you must recognize succession and apostolic authority in the clergy.

16 Under these circumstances, on the departure of Capt. H. and myself, this question having been raised, I stated to the assembly that Messrs. H., N., and Sir. A.C., who were already labouring and visiting, as is well known, would still remain, and be under the responsibility of continuing the visiting I refer to this only because it has been frequently referred to lately. It was really avoiding the question, which none could have solved, calming the minds of others who were uneasy at those who had first laboured going away. And this I desired. I remember being blamed by some who desired something definite; and there were those who had difficulty as to Mr. N.'s being so named from distrust of his ambition. I have been told lately that some brethren were dissatisfied at my having done too much. It is of course possible, though I never heard it till lately, nor have I the smallest ground for thinking so. I merely relate the fact without comment. Mr. N. indeed has stated that Mr. R.H. advised me to leave Plymouth on account of the feeling it produced; but this is without a shadow of truth in it. Of this Mr. R.H. is equally certain with myself. It has no sort of foundation whatever. Mr. R.H. had nothing to say to the matter, good or bad.

On my returning from abroad, about six years ago, I was spoken to by brethren well known amongst all as to certain letters written by Mr. Newton, and circulated in MS. far and wide,* begging me to read them, as it had excited the feelings of many brethren, and made them very uneasy. I replied that I did not want to enter into these questions, that I had hitherto acted as a peacemaker, and sought to link and unite by going with all, and I had rather now keep out of the question. It was urged upon me that I must take a part in it, as the letters were making brethren uneasy everywhere. Thus urged, I read the letters. They were an elaborate argument on Mr. N.'s prophetic views, denouncing all who held the views of the rapture of the church before the end, and insisting on the evils of applying any part of the New Testament to any but the church, or of supposing that there were saints on earth, subsequent to the church's rapture, who could be spoken of in it prophetically. In these (besides accusing the brethren of rejecting "all** the Gospels," if they held principles contrary to his interpretation of Matthew 24, for this was the only and avowed ground, as may be seen in the passage in the note) he declared that, if they were listened to, "the foundations of Christianity were gone." And will the reader believe the reason which so many have swallowed down? for this is the grand cry at Plymouth still. It is this, "for the foundations of the city are the twelve apostles of the Lamb." He presses the duty on all, that a categorical reply should be received as to this from all that professed to teach, because ambiguities were to be avoided in the church.*** "With respect to such passages, we have a right to expect a clear unhesitating answer from all who teach in the church." Meanwhile brethren who took the opposite view were carefully kept away from Plymouth,**** and letters in one unceasing stream went out from the sisters against the brethren who did not receive these views, and everything was said to discredit them to those who visited Plymouth. The whole teaching there was to settle people in them. In this no pains were spared, as to either strangers arriving or those who had leisure at Plymouth. The sisters in particular were carefully taught, and held meetings in their respective districts to retail what they had heard at the principal meetings held for that purpose. The poor were in general starved as to feeding them with Christ.

{*These letters have been sent to Ireland, India, Canada, and wherever an opportunity was afforded, as Mr. N. avows and (I may say) boasts of.}

{**"Thus this passage, and with it the whole Gospel, and all the Gospels, are swept away as not properly pertaining to the church." Till I found this passage of large inference, I never could conceive what gave rise to this charge of rejecting the Gospels.}

{***It is well that it should be known that, though this is the ground still taken as the reason for denouncing the "brethren," Mr. Newton has entirely given up the main point of his prophetic views, insisted on in these letters. The whole of the second letter, to refer to nothing else, is occupied with the proof of the saints of the Christian church being in tribulation. Indeed every one conversant with these matters, knows that it was a test of the holding of Mr. Newton's views. We were told what a mercy of God to prepare us for it by testimony. Indeed the fact is too well-known to require further proof. People were planning leaving the limits of the Roman earth, to be out of it; Mr. Newton now (both by argument in the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," and in express terms in the "Thoughts on the End of the Age") declares that they will not.}

{****I am well aware that this is denied by the five signers of the letter to the brethren in London. But in the first place it is perfectly well known to multitudes of the brethren. Moreover Mr. Newton had been spoken to about it before I arrived at Plymouth. He answered, that he could not help their breaking bread, if they came, but it was a yoke he was obliged to put up with, and that they would have no welcome from him. Anyone can understand the effect of conduct answering to such language, unless a person came to contest the point with Mr. N. Mr. H. was asked, when saying at the last meeting in April that he should invite the Irish brethren, could he give them this invitation from the others at Plymouth, and he could not say he could. Further, confession, public confession was made of it by two of those who signed that paper by one with "if any have been kept away," by another without. It was owned in private by one of these, and Mr. N. was spoken to by him about it, saying that they had done so, and that he had participated in the sin. I am fully aware everything will be denied But this must not arrest the plain statement of facts for brethren. The writing of letters by the sisters discrediting the brethren was attempted to be called in question too; but brethren being present in the April meeting who had seen them, and having declared that heretic* was too good a name for the Irish brethren in their letters, it was no longer attempted to be disputed.}

{{*"Heretic was too good a name." Though I have a perfect recollection of these words being used, yet as being in animated conversation and a general representation, it is desired to correct this by saying that what Irish brethren held and taught was spoken of as heresy.}}

18 This had come to such a point before my last return from abroad, that the gospel had been formally sent away from Ebrington Street, and teaching substituted for it, the gospel being banished to Raleigh Street, where some thirty or forty went. It was said in so many words they did not want the gospel - it was a bad sign to wish for it; they ought to be going on to more complete knowledge. It is not astonishing if a great body of the Christian poor were thoroughly miserable: they understood Mr. H. only. He was their visitor and friend.

But to return to the letters: I spoke to Mr. Newton about them (I refer to about five or six years ago), though I had no idea then of the assiduity with which they were circulated, and the views pressed. It was done by letter out of Plymouth, and I had been abroad. I read the letters, and I told Mr. Newton that T could not see that the Spirit of God had led to or guided in them. He told me thereupon, that all friendship between us was at an end, and that he should have nothing more to say to me in the way he previously had. I replied that this would not change me towards him or others, and I walked up and down the street with him till I got him to give me his hand; and, save writing to him to soothe him, buried it all. I wrote, at his request, some of my objections to the views in the letters; and this, furnished subsequently to a sister, formed together with his answers the famous appendix, of which so much has been said. But I speak of an interview, six years ago or thereabouts. Since then the letters were constantly copied and circulated. From that time I was a good deal abroad, though I visited Plymouth. I saw clericalism creeping in, but at first thought it was merely from circumstances. The deaf people were placed round the table, and consequently the speakers were to stand at it. This soon evidently defined them. I saw the tendency, and sat in the body of the congregation, and spoke thence when I spoke. I was remonstrated with, but retained my position. On the last visit before the present one, finding the teachers always breaking bread, I urged some other doing it, or this union of the two things would soon be a regular clergy. Mr. H., to whom I spoke (but as to all), made no difficulty, and something was done.

19 At this time, about three years ago, I suppose, I was thoroughly unhappy in the meetings. I felt the Spirit utterly quenched, and, if I went to the meetings happy, returned miserable. It was only at the last I was at I found it in my heart to pray. I had communication on the subject with Mr. H., who remonstrated with me. I returned abroad. While abroad (I cannot here give the date) Mr. Newton wrote to me that I was an apostle.* This did not, I confess, inspire me with confidence. About three or four months before my return to England I had a correspondence with Mr. H., one of whose letters, from the great change in its tone, convinced me that every barrier was gone at Plymouth; for he had long sought to keep himself free from the influence that ruled most things there. From that moment I felt that conflict and trial awaited me, though I knew not what: but I was satisfied before God that nothing which could be ventured on would be spared. I passed through much more conflict of soul then than after I came to England. Nor was I mistaken in my judgment.**

{*This explains to me a statement in the letter sent to the London brethren, signed by the five leading brethren at Ebrington Street, saying, that they recognized no one in the position of Timothy now. At the time he wrote the letter alluded to in the text, Mr. N. in England denounced my views as subverting the foundations of Christianity.}

{**Prior to my previous visit to England, Mr. S. had issued a tract holding up a most beloved brother as a public warning, on account of holding prophetic views discordant with Mr. Newton's. I answered thus by shewing that Mr. S.'s arguments could not be sustained, hoping to check these attacks on brethren, made as if truth, "the truth" as it has been called since, was at Plymouth alone. What was unsold of Mr. S. s was suppressed, and the whole of mine, at the instance of a brother who hoped controversy might be ended. I had stated no system of my own. It was a mere effort to check the tide.}

20 Mr. H. invited me, however, to come to Plymouth. I was greatly exercised as to leaving Switzerland, having the conviction that troubles, which nobody else then believed, would certainly break out, and I lingered there till violence and revolution took place, and all the brethren judged me better away than there. Ministry was impossible, and I should have rather occasioned trouble to them, as well as been particularly obnoxious myself, as having been the active person there.

I returned to England, and came directly down to Plymouth.

I may now relate what took place then, and what had been going on with others before my arrival.

About four years ago Mr. Newton and Mr. B. held meetings at Devonport on ministry, where the following statements were made: that there had been, indeed, the fisherman system, and that Christ had previous to His resurrection chosen poor men to be His instruments: but that after His resurrection this was all changed, the Paul system was then set up, and the Lord chose educated gentlemen,* as Paul was. This had been the case at the Reformation, as Luther and Calvin proved; at the modern revival as Wesley and Whitfield shewed; and now recently, as Mr. Darby, and I know not who else, proved. The result of this was that one poor man who had preached among the Methodists, and still did at times, went out of his mind, and was in that state for a couple of years from the conflict of feeling, pressed to declare the Lord's love for sinners, and harassed by the thought, as he had been now instructed, that it was wrong for poor men to put themselves forward. The application of the word of God to his soul, in the hands of one who then knew nothing of the circumstances, but who entered into his then state, has happily restored this poor brother.** To finish with Devonport, which was a place exclusively under the care of the Ebrington Street leaders. Since my return those who assumed the lead there arranged an assembly of those they judged elders, that they might recognize and own one another among themselves. Two however of the persons they included declined. A number of the brethren then met to know what was to be done, and this was broken up by authority. A good many left, and the rest, I apprehend, are tolerably peaceful and at liberty. Those who sought to govern all in connection with Ebrington Street having been stated by all who left as the persons whose assumption drove them away, they were withdrawn for the time, and now, I apprehend, go on pretty quietly.***

{*The confirmation by Mr. R.H. does not apply to the words "educated gentleman," but the general idea that God now made use of talent and worked by it, and, as he apprehended it, not in uneducated persons and these statements of Mr. N. were commonly current at that time.}

{**These statements were at first denied, then explained, and then confessed and apologised for. I add this note on account of the last circumstance. The person concerned (a brother, whose integrity no one would dispute) freely forgave Mr. Newton, and thinks no more about it as a wrong to him. But this does not affect the historical state of things, and it is in that way that I bring it forward here. Mr. R.H. declared, when this came to be known, that it was no isolated case, but the constantly inculcated doctrine at that date.}

{***I have some doubt of the stability of this gathering, from what I have heard since, but I do not pretend to know much about it. Others can give more exact details of this than I can, as 1 took no part in it; but I give the substance of what passed, as I had it from the mouths of those concerned; and I myself know many of the facts.}

21 As to Plymouth, there was a constant labour to reduce the meeting to a clerical form, and to invest certain leaders with the sole direction.

This went on in a thousand minute and many private circumstances which it is impossible to detail, which made gracious brethren uneasy, but afforded little or no ground for any specific interference; if it did, there were few or none that dared.

For indeed one of the scarcely intelligible phenomena of the case to me was, the way people were cowed, and heart and conscience disposed of, I know not where; save that the quiet and gracious were oppressed and unhappy. I have remarked that it is the art and skill of some men to turn every conscientious man, every one who cannot or will not become an instrument, into a radical or a schismatic. But it is a sad state of things. I could name persons here that were denounced to us as radicals and busybodies, that I have found when not tortured and harassed in conscience, as quiet, unassuming, happy Christians as possible. Indeed in these cases, it is generally the truest-hearted and the least of a party spirit, who are thus miserable; if they stir, it has that uneasy unhappy character which is thus characterized by those who rule. With such it is only as in a famous Latin passage, when "solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." When they make a solitude around them, they call it peace.

22 Mr. R.H. has mentioned in his tract some of these circumstances; little by themselves, but together gradually changing the whole character of the meeting. But he has wisely passed over many, many, private ones, which helped largely to alienate him from Ebrington Street.

I may add here, as it was a public one, that he himself was stopped praying in public. How many a gracious person, esteeming himself and his doings of little importance, has yielded in this way, till power was gained to change principles!*

{*At this moment there are some twelve or twenty persons that take part, who never opened their lips nor ventured to give out a hymn till the separation. Of these I refer to several, even in Ebrington Street, where, since the separation, it has taken place as to speaking, praying, and giving out hymns.}

But thus things went on. A poor brother gave out a hymn. Nobody would raise it. He felt it, spoke of it in private. The simple were disheartened. They feared to give one out. Whose fault was it? Nobody's, and the point was gained. When tolerably disheartened it went farther: for Mr. Newton himself, at a prayer meeting, got up and went and sat down by the side of a young brother who gave out a hymn, and laid hold of his book. The hymn was, I believe, at last raised, but he was asked if he meant to pray too. The young man left, and goes to a free church, where the gospel is preached. Brethren have been hindered speaking; and not only so, but there is not a person resident at Plymouth who frequented Ebrington Street but (as Mr. R.H. has remarked) knew when it was Mr. Newton's and when Mr. H.'s day: and it became the common language to speak of it so by all, rich and poor; and people took their measures for going accordingly. I speak of Sunday mornings at breaking of bread. Now it may happen that there may be only one habitually able to edify in a body; though it is a sad thing if there be no diversity of gift in a large body. But a regular alternation of two, and if absent a sort of manager left, for so it really was, and the speaking prepared as previously considering the state of the congregation and preparing a discourse (and such was the ground avowedly taken with me as the right thing, when I arrived), is certainly not that dependence on the Spirit which characterized the profession of the brethren. I do not like the expression "going to meet the Spirit," but the devoted brother who used it expresses in it (badly, I think,*) the substance of an all-important truth, which those who cavil at it have been assiduously undermining: and, I may add, in such language as I am bold to say no one under the guidance of that Spirit could use, and which expresses real unbelief as to the substance of the matter. The church is the habitation of God through the Spirit. It is by the Holy Ghost God dwells in the church, though He cannot be separated from the Father and the Son. It has been formally, and expressly, denied that the presence of the Holy Ghost should be looked for in the assembly. It has been perhaps affirmed too. And this is one of the sad circumstances, as it strikes me, in Ebrington Street - not exactly unorthodox teaching, but important truths dealt with in so rash and daring a manner, and the authority of the teacher leant upon for them, and his wildest notions put upon the level of certainty with justification by faith; so that were his authority once shaken there would be danger that no one would know what was certain. It would be scepticism as to everything. So I have seen it with Roman Catholics.

{*"Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Now the presence of Jesus, though of course in Spirit, implies many associations of heart which His name peculiarly bears, and His authority too as Lord. But when met, the Holy Ghost is the acting power in every ministration which is not mere fleshly worthlessness.}

23 I have myself heard it taught from Hebrews 9: 27, that Christ had to be judged after His death as another man! as it was appointed to men to die, and He was a man. It has been taught that Christ was born under death, being a constituted sinner, and worked His way up to life by His obedience. So on Leviticus 1, that covering sin was not merely by sacrificial atonement making satisfaction for it, but that Christ's devoting Himself, as typified by the burnt-offering, made up by a thing of the like kind for our imperfect devotedness, and what a blessing it was that it should be of the like kind, and so filled up and completed, its defects covered. The statement as to the Holy Ghost was, that they did not look for His presence in the assembly, but for God to be over it to bless it.

24 I admit that since the question has been raised, it has been stated otherwise. But the explanation recently given, to which I have alluded elsewhere, was, that they went to meet God, not the Holy Ghost; we the Holy Ghost, not God. I leave any sober and intelligent Christian to judge what the state of those must be, as to steady certainty on fundamental truths, who were habitually under this kind of teaching. I have given but specimens; I may add from my own experience that most decided legalism took the place of Christ and grace. I could not have recommended a person about whose soul I was anxious to go there, nor was I singular in this feeling. And these things are urged with all solemnity of the most important fundamental truths. The godliest of the poor happily never understood Mr. Newton at all.

But I return to the history of the circumstances.

When speaking was really impossible for unallowed brethren, some of these read a chapter in the Bible sometimes. This was stopped as hindering the ministry. This happened to three different brethren; to one of them it was one of the ruling sisters who went. The brother, a reserved and blameless brother, was told that he could read his Bible at home, and that he hindered the ministry. He read no more. In another of those cases Mr. Newton himself interfered, and when asked whose ministry had been hindered, and having stated, the brother went to that person, who replied that it had only been hindered by Mr. Newton.

As to the teaching I heard in Ebrington Street from Mr. Newton, the one undeviating object seemed to be to teach differently from what brethren had taught, no matter what, so that it set their teaching aside. This was so marked in many cases as to draw the attention of others besides myself.

And now as to the circumstances connected with rule and authority. It is alleged that we are radicals, and look for democracy. I trust brethren will seek nothing but the guidance of God's blessed Spirit. But what are the facts? There was a meeting from the earliest period called the Friday meeting, where those who laboured habitually among the saints and were occupied with their concerns met to consult together, instead of acting apart or isolatedly; and where many little things, such as arise everywhere, were settled in the fear of God, while what became matters of public discipline were presented to the assembly at large. There may be trouble between brethren happily terminated without the need of shewing them up in public before a whole assembly. If public discipline be needed, then it is clear from scripture the assembly must judge, and act to clear the consciences of all, their own consciences. But then this is a very painful case. However such a meeting there was, and, with the difficulties and trials incident to all things, went on with the confidence of the saints. Latterly, but after the lapse of a good many years, when Capt. H., Sir A.C. and myself were no longer at Plymouth, Mr. Newton absented himself: only, when any case arose on which he had formed an opinion, and wished to interfere, he came down at the close of the meeting, inquired how it was settled, and insisted on its being judged his own way, setting aside what had been done where it did not accord with his mind. Mr. R.H. remonstrated once or twice against this procedure. This was received with great anger by Mr. Newton, and the practice being still followed, Mr. R.H. told Mr. H. that it was idle their meeting if things went on thus, and left. It lingered on awhile and finally closed about two years ago, it being impossible to bring them together again. Mr. H. however laboured at its restoration, but in vain, the following circumstance having occurred. On the occasion of the burial of a poor person on Sunday (which the poor always desire as their attendance is more easy, and which had been disallowed at Ebrington Street), the son of the deceased insisted on it. He came from a distance. Mr. S-s, who was habitually the resort of the poor in similar cases, sent him to Mr. H. He was away. Mr. S-s then told him to go and get the grave dug, and on Sunday morning he mentioned it to the assembly at the close of the meeting. Mr. Newton went over to him in great anger and told him it was impossible to go on with him any longer, etc.

26 On a weekday Mr. Newton sent down Mr. H. to summon Mr. S-s to the back room of the tractshop where he remained himself.* Mr. S-s asked what for, and was told to come up to be instructed in the principles on which the meeting was conducted if he did not know them. He declined going. Mr. H. declined going again, and Mr. Newton was obliged to go down himself; and there he told Mr. S-s that there were those whom God had raised up and given authority to, and his business was to obey. Mr. S-s asked who they were, and Mr. Newton replied, himself, H., S., and B., and that neither did he recognize Mr. S-s at all. Mr. S-s replied, that neither did he recognize Mr. Newton. This closed the attempt to re-establish the Friday meeting. The two brethren S-s and R-e were now the objects of every annoyance and dishonour. I found stories against the latter, which were totally false, circulated far and wide, which I knew to have been spread by sisters. These two brethren took care of the money, and paid the expenses, and distributed any allowances to the poor. Mr. Newton insisted on an arrangement, against their remonstrance, which separated the expenses from the poor; and soon after I arrived at Plymouth, it had to be announced that there had been no means of paying for more than a year's gas, and wine for communion for half a year.

{*Before I arrived at Plymouth, Mr. H. used to call this room the Chamber of the Inquisition. [Lest this note should identify unduly this name with Mr. Newton, it may be right to state that the name was given to the upper (not the back) room as much through Mr. H.'s use of it for the purpose as Mr. Newton's. Mr. S. went down as well as Mr. H. He stated in the conversation that they were not acting on the principles they began upon: if they were, he should leave. At Exmouth this departure from original principles was avowed by one brother distinctly.]

Such was the state of things when I arrived, ignorant of all these details, but since my last visit having felt that clericalism and worldly principles had usurped the place of the Spirit of God. I had received no complaint, no letter about it. It was a letter, as I have stated, of Mr. H.'s which shewed me that all barrier was gone against evil which I knew to be at work, but which had been hitherto borne with as individual evil. The tractshop had become a violent party sectarian instrument. It was an institution I always indeed thought objectionable. One tract was sold there shewing how the universal consent of the church was against those who differed from Mr. N. and that it could easily be shewn that those who did were "subverting the first elements of Christianity." This tract had been published on a resolution of the Plymouth teachers, taken after a remonstrance* from some London brethren.**

{*I do not mean that the remonstrance turned on this sentence. It was, I believe, rather on the earlier part, and practically imputing certain views, and on other points.}

{**'London brethren' should be a London brother. As to the letters only one, which was the material one, was taken about by Mr. Newton. The word 'furnish' is merely meant to convey the fact of their communication.}

27 It has been supposed that it was my sudden arrival which occasioned the feeling and conduct which followed. This is all untruthful pretence. Mr. Newton had ever since my letter to Mr. H. (I have the date from Mr. Newton himself) been labouring to prepare the minds of all he could against me. This I learnt after my arrival. It is only since the London meeting that I have known that Mr. H. had furnished him with my three or four private letters to him, which Mr. N. took about and pressed on people, with his own reasonings, to prove that I was subverting the truth. Mr. H. did it most innocently.

In the letters (which I have not seen since*) I apprehend there was nothing. At least the brethren who came down to inquire asked me if there were others than these of the date in question, in which I had said something to Mr. H.: an inquiry of which I could not well tell the meaning till I heard the use that had been made of them (a use which was not confined to Plymouth). Of all this I was happily ignorant when I went there, and desired only in ministry to raise, if God enabled me, the spiritual tone of souls which I felt to be grievously sunk - I acknowledge I was a poor instrument for it. But the public weekly meetings in Raleigh Street were trebled in spite of all the prejudice raised.

{*Since I wrote this, I have seen them, and, though written with the unguardedness of private communications, there is nothing that I can see unscriptural. I suppose brethren thought so too by asking me if that was all.}

But this is the way the letter-shewing worked. A great many took Mr. Newton's statements as to my views without further inquiry, and at the same time it was based in their subsequent statements on my own letters. If not, distrust was produced, and this was something. Those who were disgusted with this way of getting on were known, and set down and discountenanced as Darbyites.

28 I leave to others to recount, if they please, the meeting and consultings of the leaders to ensure united opposition to and rejection of me, as I have only known it since the London meeting.* Such there were. I can only mention the facts as they occurred. I went to stay at Mr. R.H.'s the next morning after my arrival. There Mr. Newton came, and I met him cordially in manner, however pained. He sat down at the opposite side of the room, whereon I resumed my seat by the side of one I was speaking to, and Mr. N. after a few words with Mr. R.H., who seated himself beside him, got up and said, Good morning, sir, and went out. Three brethren, Messrs. H., S., and B., then came, or were sent, separately, to ask me what I had come to Plymouth for.**

{* But in truth, when I think (knowing now something of what passed there) of all the professions and protestations made to me, and how I was assured all was suspicion on my part, and accident without design, if anything had crept in, it is sickening.}

{**I would just ask what, now that I know such a meeting was held to get rid of me, I must think of the statements in the letter to C-w, that every door was opened to me, and that Mr. Newton would have a decided objection to its being otherwise; though why they should have opened it, if my doctrines subverted Christianity, would be hard to tell. I must add here that Mr. C. declared that the statement as to him (a brother from Ireland) in that letter was not the fact; that he was asked what views he held on prophetic points, and when he replied that he had no fixed views, but was open to receive anything that could be proved to him that then ministry was opened to him.

Mr. Newton then wrote me word, that he had met me with intentional coldness, considering I had come as an antagonist to them, but on the report of B. and H., he could walk on peacefully in separate paths. I replied, that I objected to his "having acted very badly towards many beloved brethren, and in the sight of God." He withdrew thereon the former kindly-written note, and applied for names and circumstances. I confess I felt this miserable. He had been writing for six years to every quarter of the globe (Mr. Newton boasted of it at last before the brethren who came), saying, the foundations of Christianity were gone if brethren were listened to; sisters had been employed in copying these letters; tracts had been published, declaring that we all subverted the first elements of Christianity! and he asks for dates and circumstances. I replied, it was the sectarianism and denouncing of brethren I complained of. This, he replied, was a new charge! And, as it involved all the rest at Plymouth in the charge as well as him, he would consult with them about it and meet, but demanded the dates or circumstances of the former charge or its withdrawal. As I well knew, and any one could see, that it was a mere explanation and enlargement of acting badly towards beloved brethren, I declined further communication unless before brethren; the rather as he alluded very incorrectly to past circumstances, and I thought such correspondence very useless. I had his letters declaring the foundations of Christianity were gone, and the tract saying we subverted Christianity, not to mention that there were letters without end written under his influence.

29 But there are other circumstances I must now mention because it has been supposed Mr. Newton was charged publicly all at once, and no steps taken, and this has been even much insisted on. Before ever I came to Plymouth, and without any communication with me, Mr. H.Y., who felt equally the sectarianism and that every principle was set aside, had been to Mr. Newton and spoken to him. Mr. Newton answered him with the greatest violence, and declared that we were destroying the fundamentals of Christianity, that he was justified in what he was doing against us, and should continue. Mr. A.P. went also to him just about the time I came, and was met with the same avowed determination to persevere.*

{* It has been already stated that Mr. Newton had been complained of as to these letters by brethren all over the country, and I had been compelled to read them, and had at the instance of others remonstrated with him four years before. Mr. S.'s letter has also been referred to as hewing that it was going on and remonstrated against.}

To continue, Mr. H. came down to me to say that Mr. Newton would not consent to have a sort of jury formed on him, but that they could have a meeting, to see whether sectarianism had been introduced. I replied, that they would have had no difficulty in having what he called "a jury" on a poor brother, but that I was content to have such a meeting, as I could go and take my part in the inquiry like any one else. He asked me who should go. I said, I suppose Y. and P., as they had been already to Mr. Newton; for the rest, any Mr. Newton wished to bring as his friends. I declined bringing any. I have always avoided the very semblance of party. Subsequently Mr. R.H. desired to come. Mr. N-r from Jersey, having been conversant with affairs at Plymouth, was there, and Mr. P-'s brother, and Mr. McA. The rest, thirteen in all besides Mr. Newton and myself, were Mr Newton's friends. Messrs. H., S., B., D., C-w., J., R., A.P.; C.P., N-r., R.H., Y., McA. from Exeter.

30 Being called upon to state what I objected to, I said, As an inquiry into sectarianism, any could inquire as well as me, any judgment on Mr. Newton's conduct having been avoided. Being pressed, I began by stating, that what I objected to was the sectarianism (I had previously declared to Mr. H. that I would not enter on the prophetic question as a doctrinal thing; it was a moral question to me).

Mr. Newton broke out in great anger, saying, that he waived all formal objections, that he did seek to make a focus of Plymouth, and that his object was to have union in testimony there against the other brethren (that is, as explained and is evident, their teaching), and that he trusted to have at least Devonshire and Somersetshire under his influence for the purpose; and that it was not the first time that I had thwarted and spoiled his plans.

After this declaration, I produced of course no proofs, and Messrs. Y. and P. said, that they had no need to state anything that passed, as Mr. Newton had declared his object as plainly as they could have alleged it. I called upon the brethren to say, If this was what Plymouth was to be, as, if it was, I should not go next Sunday. Mr. Newton said I had no right to ask that: it was his own affair, and he should go on with it. I however persevered. Mr. H. said, this made it difficult for him to act with Mr. Newton, as he could not seek union against anything. None other stated his feelings on the subject.* It was arranged, that those present should meet, to know what were the heresies which made such a course as Mr. Newton's desirable. There were two meetings, at which I attended as desired, and stated my views. Some there said, the mountains were molehills; but Mr. Newton declared he was farther apart than ever; and that the differences were fundamental.

{*This silence was subsequently taken notice of, and by some as matter of self-reproach.}

Mr. H. had interviews with Mr. Newton on the subject of the union in testimony, against the teaching of the brethren. He obtained from Mr. Newton the statement, that it would be an object, not the object, of his labours; with which he, Mr. H., was much delighted, as a means of peace. To me it was the proof of deliberate perseverance in a pursuit which anger had disclosed. Subsequently Mr. D. and Mr. H. obtained verbally from him, that his statement was objectionable, if taken irrelatively. But there was no explanation of this, but an unauthorized one by Mr. D., that Mr. Newton would go on with "brethren" on other points, but continue his own pursuit of the avowed object. I was dismayed, not at the existence of the evil, but at the utter insensibility to such a statement, the only thought of most being to save, not the church, but Mr. Newton from its effects; and all silent (save what I have stated). But on Mr. A.P. saying that brethren ought to say what they felt, Mr. B. replied, You may ask me, but I will not answer you. When I had asked at first, whether brethren acquiesced in this statement, Mr. Newton (as I have mentioned) interfered instantly, and said I had no right to put such a question. At the close of the last meeting, which was to know whether there was any disavowal of it, and at which the term "taken irrelatively," was discussed, Mr. R. indeed asked Mr. N-r why he said nothing, and he said he was a stranger, and Mr. R. excused himself on the same ground.

31 I left for Somersetshire to leave time for those less obnoxious to Mr. Newton than I, to obtain some disavowal of the purpose - the "objectionable if taken irrelatively" was all that could be obtained. I then stated that perhaps I had better leave and ask for Raleigh Street. Mr. R. said that very great good had been done, that I ought to be uncommonly thankful, and urged me not to press any further disavowal then, lest it should produce a rupture with Mr. Newton, but wait and see. I said it was a sorrowful position to be in, but it was all that I was then doing, and acquiesced in the wish, and I continued to minister on the general topics of the grace of the Lord Jesus.

But I must now relate what my journey to Somersetshire further opened to me. I went there, quite unconscious of it all, to evangelize where none of these questions were. These circumstances were important as to Plymouth, as unfolding the working of the plan there. As at Plymouth they treated what wonderfully blessed new light they had got as to their church position, so here it was taught that, as the brethren had first learnt brotherly unity and fellowship, now they had been, as fresh instruction, led to church order. This church order was the authority of the teachers, who were exclusively to judge of, and recognize or the contrary, others as teachers.* This was founded on "Let the rest [others] judge," in 1 Corinthians 14: 29. This was said to be the prophets, to which the teachers now answered. They were to try, and approve or not, of a person's being a teacher. Mr. Newton had gone up and held a tea meeting there and expounded this. This came to such a pitch in these quarters that one brother, on these points being mooted, having urged that after all the Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica, because they searched the scriptures whether these things were so, he was answered by a young, and, as far as I know, very nice-hearted young man who was associated in the ministry there, that it was Jews searching Jewish scriptures, but that, now that God had raised up teachers and given gifts, all that was changed, and they must listen to the teachers. The brother replied, Surely, sir, if Jews searched Jewish scriptures, Christians may search Christian ones. It was there taught by Mr. Newton, that Puseyism was the devil's imitation of a truth, and that, if brethren did not adopt it, God would set it up elsewhere. It was stated at Plymouth, at the close of these matters, on the question as to judging in the church, that the teachers were the representatives of the church, and that they were to decide, and the church to act on their decision. This may be and probably has been denied; but I know it to be true, and to have been stated as well since, as before all the debate about it. As to the explanation of the chapter there can be no doubt about it; not only because it was urged upon me and numbers of other persons; but even before I arrived, H. had objected to this interpretation, on the ground that it could not be approving and sanctioning teachers, for it was the teaching that was to be judged; and the person was assumed on their own shewing to be a prophet already. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

{*The doctrine decidedly taught there was that the Holy Ghost, who was sovereign, wrought in the body by members, and that these members were the gifted teachers. I am aware that the five brethren who signed the circular letter say, "we do not hold that the Holy Spirit resides only in the teachers." I am aware they do not. But they did teach that it was by gifted members He acted in the body, that is, by teachers. And every one knows, that anyone's taking a part in the meeting as led of the Spirit to do so was denounced as "impulse." Moreover I know that, since this has been under press, it has been pressed at Plymouth, that it was by instruments prepared before they went to the meeting that God acted in it. And long ago, when praying and hymns were urged as not being gifts, it was admitted, but answered that only gifted persons would take part in either. It will be remarked in the statement referred to, that it is carefully avoided saying, that the Holy Spirit acts in the assembly. But on this hereafter.}

33 At Exmouth the principles were sought to be introduced first, rather roughly by one, and then more prudently by another; but the first person alluded to, acting on the principle, excommunicated a person on his own authority. He had withdrawn because the principles were abandoned, and it was asserted that no one could leave the church, and he was excommunicated. I know it has been sought to shew that this met the mind of others. Some may very likely have been under the influence of the same principles, so that I should not deny this in a measure; but the excommunication was refused to be received by two bodies of the brethren, and at last the most of the other brethren at Exmouth took courage and restored him.

It is alleged that government and order are rejected. But let it be remembered that it was Mr. N. who deserted and broke up the Friday meeting, a point on which we shall see more just now. And, as to the brethren who laboured according to what was given them as servants of all to administer and guide as helpers of the body, Mr. B. in the counties I here refer to (and he acted on the same principle elsewhere) urged that five ciphers never could make one, a statement which 'became such an accredited one that it was repeated elsewhere by another as original; so that I was very near getting into a scrape by attributing it to him before those who had heard it from another. The excellent answer of a brother in those parts then was that, if the Spirit of God was there as one before them, the five ciphers would be 100,000.

All this be it remembered had happened before I came back to England. Mr. B. himself urged the point on me soon after I came. Yet, when things began to come out, it was repeatedly urged upon me, that some things had happened as accidents, but that there was no plan nor principle in it. It closed at Wellington by some of the leading brethren stating to Mr. Newton (in what terms I do not pretend to know) that they could not be distracted by these proceedings any more.

Mr. H. went to Ireland and was very happy there with the brethren who were the great objects of Plymouth denouncement.* This, after the open avowal of sectarian objects at the April meeting, I have no doubt acted greatly on his mind. At his return he spoke in the way of admonition. Such a party spirit blazed out against him, that I ceased ministering for a time. However, they seemed softened, and I began again. Mr. H. then laboured again at setting up the Friday meeting; as, except the few things Mr. N. wished to govern, which had now to be more cautiously done too, all common matters were in disorder. If it was a funeral, no one knew rightly what to do, nor a person wishing for communion; and he felt bound too to those who had been practically ousted. But he could do nothing.

{*At the April meeting of 15 when I referred to the sisters' letter-writing, denouncing the Irish brethren, I was challenged to prove it and produce instances. Of course, though I knew of it in every quarter, the letters were not to me, and I had none of them. But a brother who was there stated he had seen the letters - some that is, of course, and that in them 'heretic' was too good for the Irish brethren.}

34 At this time appeared the two documents upon which the famous question of the charges arose. Mr. C-w had printed a letter written to him by Mr. Newton to give an account of the April meeting of 15 - both having been there. Mr. S. got it suppressed as soon as he saw it, but Mr. N. himself subsequently circulated it again. This (though so bad and sectarian, that some brethren counted it as bad as what was said) is, confessedly now, not a true account of the meeting. This rests not only on (besides myself) the testimony of Mr. H., N-r, McA., and many others, but Mr. R. (who, the most openly of all, took the part of Mr. Newton, and was cross-examined at length by Lord C. to get some modification of his testimony) persisted in the same account as myself. The only modification was that, instead of saying that he trusted he should have at least Devonshire and Somersetshire under his influence for the purpose, he understood him to say, that wherever he could get influence in Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall, he should seek to do the same thing. Mr. N. himself at last said, as I understood, that as everybody said he did, he supposed he did say as alleged. Lord C. at last asked Mr. R. whether, if he had read that paper, he should say it was an untrue account of the meeting. He replied he must, but that Mr. N. was so angry (so chafed, I believe, was the word) that he did not think he ought to be charged with what he did say. This passed in my room when the brethren who came to inquire came to examine me.*

{* Mr. Newton declares in his letter to Cw that every door of ministry was thrown open to me, and that he should have decidedly objected to its being otherwise. At the time he says this was so, was assiduously insisting that we denied the Gospels, redemption through the blood as to some, life in the Old Testament saints; and that the fundamentals of Christianity were in question. Can anyone give credit to these things together? It is a mystery, I confess, to me, how Mr. H., who knew of the meeting held to arrange united opposition to me, could have got on at all after this letter was published. He did go to Mr. N. to speak to him about it, telling him he regretted it for his own credit and character, as he (Mr. H.) must say (if asked) that it was true; but I confess I do not see how common action is to go on in such a case.}

35 The other thing which formed the subject of charge was this. Mr. Newton published the first letter of the five, which had been circulating six years in MS., denouncing the brethren, with the following advertisement: "The following letter was written some years ago, in reply to the inquiries of a friend, who resides in Norfolk. It is now published with some omissions and alterations, but in substance it remains the same." What was my astonishment to find, on comparing it, that a quarter nearly of the printed matter was not in the MS. letter at all; partly mixed up, but chiefly added at the end; and that the new matter consisted of reasonings against the doctrines he was charged with holding now as to the authority of teachers. So that these charges appeared most wanton and unfounded, inasmuch as six years ago the person charged had actually written against the things he now was charged with. This is all woven in at the end of the letter, so as to form part of it.

I had been already pretty well disgusted with diplomacy and special pleading, but this was too much for me. I said to H. and S. I did not know what to do, and ceased ministering. But I still went down to the room, and sat in the crowd at communion, and went to villages to preach. I was greatly exercised about leaving - prayed much; and at last it occurred to me that, if the Friday meeting were set up again, these things might be inquired into there, and the body hindered from being responsible for it, or God might lead to some remedy, though humanly speaking it was a forlorn hope. But I said, I will not leave till I have tried all. I spoke to Mr. H., and he said he had twice tried, and it was no use.

36 I then spoke to Mr. S. He said there ought to be such a thing - it was absolutely necessary, but that he could take no step in it, as it would produce a rupture with Mr. N., as he would have nobody but the persons he approved of. I asked if everything was to be sacrificed to the caprice of an individual. In another interview Mr. S. said he had spoken to Mr. B., and referred to a particular brother as objectionable, not the one who had been chiefly obnoxious before. As to him Mr. S. said he must be of the Friday meeting. I said I should object seriously to some that thought themselves unquestionably entitled; but though I had difficulties as to some most looked up to, and which I could justify by Mr. S.'s own statements, I was content to waive them, and take them as they had been together.* Meeting him a third time, I found nothing was done, and I told him I must then act on my own conscience. Again I thought of leaving, when it occurred to me, that still I ought not to charge the whole body with the matter, when it was only some party leaders and their followers that had yet been dealt with.

{*At this time Mr. S. spoke most freely on all these points, taking a sort of independent place. I think it better not to repeat what he said to me as to people, but merely relate the facts.}

I therefore begged the assembly to stop after the service one Sunday morning, and told them that Mr. H. having laboured to restore the Friday meeting, things being in disorder or dealt with summarily and irresponsibly by one or two, I had pressed the point on those more immediately concerned, but to no purpose; I now laid it on the consciences of the saints themselves. Mr. H. was at this time absent, and Mr. W. H-n wrote to him that I had sought to turn the meeting into a dissenting body,* but that nobody thought it worth taking the least notice of, and that it had dropped to the ground. This letter, I know, contributed very greatly to the emancipation of Mr. H.'s mind from the bondage it was under.

{*It is objected that the statement as to Mr. W. H-n's letter is rather too strong; that he blamed my act as being rather a dissenter's principle to bring it before the whole assembly.}

I then went to Jersey, etc., to give all the fullest time to consider the matter. As Mr. H-n stated truly, not one stirred. The fact is, while I attempted to heal or remedy, and walk with the evil, God, though He sustained me, never (after the April meeting) gave any efficacy to a step I took. I do not doubt I ought to have left then, or brought it publicly before all the brethren. I did not do so at the instance of Mr. R., Mr. Y., and some others. I can only sorrow now I was not more decided. The case would have been infinitely simpler, but God graciously overrules all. But no brother could have expected me to have stayed to have made Plymouth a focus, and join in helping a union in testimony against myself, not to speak of other brethren. It has been asked why I did not go on and teach at Plymouth. I answer, I did. Why did I not bring it before the leading brethren there to be remedied? They had been broken up, and their meeting was refused. Mr. Newton would not hear of it from any one. He had claimed, as already related, sole authority for himself and three or four others he had approved.

Narrative of the Facts, connected with the separation of the writer from the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street. [Plymouth]

J. N. Darby.

<20001E> 37 {file section b.}

But I must now turn to some other collateral minor facts which entered into this miserable history.

An aged person, whom it is needless to name, who had long been opposed to and kept aloof from brethren, who himself preached, but whose congregation had died away, came into communion and began to minister on Sunday morning. He did not do so, strange to say, in general, when Mr. Newton was not there; at least when I was. I cannot answer for other occasions. But I heard him on week evenings. Though there was nothing unorthodox or wrong in his teaching, yet I did not at all think he was led of the Spirit of God in it, and when he came to speak to me about these things afterwards, I told him so. I was not at Plymouth when he joined, but I told Mr. H. I thought his joining was, under the circumstances, a chastisement; but if they put away the chastisement instead of the thing they were chastised for, they would have worse. Mr. H. spoke to him with no adequate effect at any rate. But Mr. B. one Sunday morning, being left (practically) in charge of the meeting as was customary, the other chief leaders being absent, the old gentleman got up to speak while the alms box was going round after the communion. Mr. B. pulled him back to his seat by the tail of his coat, and on the return of the box closed the meeting. A brother, well known and esteemed, long suffering under the state of things, remonstrated; and another urging, just after when the first was not listened to, that the first had said that if this went on he must leave, Mr. B. replied, Let him.

This person however was not to be daunted by this; and one day, when he got up to speak at the Sunday morning meeting, the sisters tried to put him down by scraping with their feet. At this period I sat among the communicants, taking no part in general publicly in the service, though I once said something on a week evening. I was quiescent. That Sunday I was present. The next I was not, and then, as he rose to speak again, the sisters and some brethren began leaving, and before the close of the meeting one sister came and patted him on the back and told him, if he went on that way, all would leave. The Sunday following, before the brother who broke bread reached his seat to sit down, Mr. N. jumped up so as to prevent anyone's speaking.*

{* I was informed by several brethren that this was constantly the practice. I speak of what I saw.}

38 During the week I spoke to Mr. S., and said that it was impossible that all this could go on. He replied that it was very bad, it was regular jockeyship. I called his attention to his expression, and what would be said of me if I had used it. He repeated, Well, I say it again, it was regular jockeyship. I said, Do you feel the force of what you are saying? If the presence of God is thought of in the meeting, what jockeyship would be there? All this passed previously, and partly led to my putting the re-establishment of the Friday meeting on the consciences of the brethren at large. The present result was that Mr. Newton took Mr. H. and S. and silenced the person referred to, who left the meeting. No notice was taken of the means used to put him down in the meeting. I could not help feeling that all this was allowed of God as a humbling test of the state of things.

I now turn to another circumstance which occurred about this time. A brother, known at Plymouth (where the facts also are known, but whom I shall not name, as what I am about to relate is sad enough), rose up and spoke in the assembly after a hymn referring to the cross. He had never, I believe, spoken in the assembly, but had preached in villages. He was (I did not know him before this, but as far as I can give any testimony) a truly upright godly person, respected by those who knew him. It was a sad instance of Plymouth ways. He spoke a little nervously in manner, but gave a godly and useful exhortation on really crucifying self if we celebrated the cross, and then pressed the evil of aiming at any importance for oneself. I asked Mr. H. who it was as we went out. He said, He is a godly humble man, but it will make a proper hubbub, and he will catch it, or some such expression. He was accordingly immediately set at, so as to be effectually dismayed. Nor was there one, as is well-known at Plymouth, who spoke more strongly (unless perhaps one other not there now) against the kind of tyranny which was practised there, and the hindrance of all liberty in ministry or otherwise taking part in the meeting.

39 Mr. Newton went to Mr. H. the next morning, and pressed him as to what he was going to do as to the brother's speaking. Mr. H. declaring he had no intention to do anything, Mr. N. pressed the matter, that this brother was not fit to minister, and that it was a sin against the order of God's church for which he had been sweating his soul for the last twelve years.* Mr. H. declined. However he had been quite sufficiently cowed by other means used already. How did this history close? This brother, a respectable godly man, for such he has been ever esteemed, had given up a place of confidential warehouseman in the town, I believe conscientiously from the nature of the employment, and waited to see what would turn up. He was given** a weekly allowance, sent out to preach, and began to speak in the meetings.*** In one of the meetings held by Mr. Newton by invitation to explain things, after the brethren who came to inquire were gone, this brother stood up and testified that he never had been hindered,**** but always encouraged to speak, Mr. Newton and Mr. S., who knew all that had passed, sitting by.

{*If anyone knew all the pains taken to persuade me that, if there were evils they were unintentional accidents, they would be surprised. This was not the only occasion on which Mr. N. made use of this same expression.}

{**Since writing this, the state of things here related has ceased to exist; and the brother, whose godliness none called in question, not only has employment of his own, but his conscience, I apprehend, better informed as to many facts, is out of the snare that he was in. But I have had no communication with him. It is not his path I refer to, though he may have been caught unawares in the snare; it is that of those who were active in the matter - the system.}

{***As regards the brother alluded to, whom I have seen since the publication of this narrative, he assures me that the supplies which he received he did not receive as a fixed weekly sum; and that as to the villages in which he went to preach, he went at the request of those to whom they had been previously allotted, and did not consider himself sent by the leaders of Ebrington Street. I may add, that he has since ceased speaking in Ebrington Street.}

{****The reader must remember that he did not know what had passed between Mr. Newton and Mr. H.; but he certainly was inconsistent in this, that no one had spoken more plainly as to the hindrances there were.}

40 Having gone through this collateral subject, I return to the general narrative. After some time I returned from Jersey, my mind much tried about leaving, but my conscience allowing me no longer to stay. I arrived Saturday and had no wish to act in a hurry. On Sunday week I detained the assembly and told them it was a matter of the deepest sorrow, but that I was going to quit the assembly; I felt it impossible to enter into details. It would have been a string of miserable facts, the public ones of which have been detailed here, and practically an accusation of others. I therefore refrained from them entirely, and only stated the principles on which I went: that I felt God was practically displaced; and more particularly, that there was a subversion of the principles on which we met; that there was evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged; and, as a collateral point, that the Friday meeting, which was a means of inquiry and service, had been suppressed and refused to be restored, so that the remedy for much was taken away. I then left the assembly.

Mr. H. returned that week or the next, and, having communicated the day to Messrs. S-s and R-e, gave on Friday his reasons for declining ministering any more.* I had had no communication with him. Messrs. S-s and R-e had told him that they should gather the brethren to see what was to be done about his leaving. Accordingly, at the close of his address on Friday, Mr. Re proposed their meeting on Monday to see if anything could be done or what. Mr. S-s got up and said it would be well at the same time if I was called upon to say why I left. I was not present, being no longer of Ebrington Street. It was communicated to me afterwards.

{*The meeting held after Mr. H.'s return, at which he explained his reasons for ceasing to minister, was at the instance of other brethren, not at the suggestion of Mr. H.}

Accordingly on Monday, after they had spoken of Mr. H., and prayed without any definite proposal or result, I was sent for to give an account to the brethren why I had left. Every engine had been meanwhile set in motion to hinder any coming. It was called a sin to go, because it was not called by the authorities in the church. The sisters held meetings in their districts for the purpose. It was denounced as "an electioneering meeting," etc. About two or three hundred however assembled there. I stated my reasons, and, I can humbly say, with the presence of the Lord and in grace towards all; so that I know one very dear brother still in Ebrington Street went to Mr. S. and told him all would be well from the spirit in which I had spoken. It was at that assembly that I stated, in the narrative I gave, that the two printed tracts already referred to had stopped my ministering three months before my leaving. I brought no accusation against Mr. Newton in general at all. So far from it that facts, many many facts, which I thought much worse of I did not allude to, because they had nothing to do with my leaving. These had stopped my ministering, and I stated them.

41 I shall just now state one of the other facts, because it also was one of the most public points in the affair. The rest I shall pass by. But I will first close the matter of the meeting. As to the appendix and the letters, I stated that the first thing that made me uncomfortable was the circulation of three out of the five letters which had been sent forth against the brethren, with an appendix which related to the last two given at the end of the third and professing to relate to the first, while much related to the two last which were not there. Mr. Newton was not mentioned in this statement; though, as Mr. N-r remarked, he being connected with this part of the subject, it would naturally be referred to him, which so far is true. I did not mean to appropriate particularly the measure of wrong, as I knew the copy I had was in a sister's handwriting. It has been alleged (and Mr. Newton made it a public charge at a meeting he held after the brethren were gone) that I stated he had altered the letters, and that I stated he had altered them after I had been told he had not, and a great fuss was made about it. A Miss H., it was said, had been authorised to say he had not. Miss H.'s statement made to me by letter is totally incorrect.* Of this I have absolute proof. I never said the letters were altered. Had they been, it would have been no sort of subject of complaint. Mr. Newton had a perfect right to alter them if he pleased. Had I anything to complain of in this respect, it was that they were not altered; for they are full of the grossest calumnies against the brethren. Mr. N. had been remonstrated with about them; and in them brethren are called upon to have a categorical answer from any who teach, whether they agree with Mr. N.'s views on Matthew 24. What I spoke of was the suppression of the two last, and the adding the appendix which referred to them.* This was the fact. All I said of it was that it was the first thing which made me uncomfortable, without any other charge whatever. The fact of the last two letters not being there was stated, and so it was.

{*In saying this I have no doubt whatever of her entire uprightness, I merely state the fact.}

{**This itself was a publication of my private letter without communicating with me, but of the unsuitableness of this Mr. N. has no sense, and there I must leave it. It has been repeated in other cases and in much worse circumstances.}

42 Subsequently to this, the sister who had copied it sent for me to explain this, and of course I received all she said. I have published the statement elsewhere. I shall here say why I used the word "probably," because I could not honestly use any other. This sister put a copy of the letters (she was one of those employed to copy and circulate them) into my hand, and I observed that the three letters were there together also, and not the two last. This I noticed to her and said, Perhaps you copied them in two books, and that may account for it. She replied, Yes, I did so to give it to two to read at a time. This I of course accepted. But the sister added, that the reason the appendix was added at the end of the third, though it belonged to the first, was, that the letters were already written, and that she was obliged to put the appendix and notes in a space at the end. Now in my copy, written by this sister, this was not the case. The notes, which are very long, are all in their respective places. And therefore, though I let all this drop as utterly immaterial, I could (when urged to give the account) only say, the presence of the appendix there was probably accounted for; because, though I gave credit to this sister fully in what she said, it did not tally with the facts as to my copy in which the circumstance was to be accounted for.

As to changing the letters, not only would this have been no charge whatever (for what should hinder my altering my writings in a new edition?) but though Mr. N. made this a public charge among his own party at the meetings he held, that I had accused him of it after an authorised denial, and this was spread far and wide, he did not think of making it to me. I have his written authorized complaint, presented at his request by four of his friends, and there is not a word Of that; but only of what I have stated, the absence of the last two letters; the other, so publicly charged and widely circulated, was not ventured on in the account he gave of the charges he complained of in the communication with me on the subject.

43 Being now fairly out, and Mr. H. having declined further ministry, I received a letter from Mr. L.P-r urging me to assemble a number of the leading brethren to see into it before I broke bread elsewhere. At the same time I received a letter from Capt. H. pressing on me the misery of a second table. I wrote two letters to Mr. P-r, stating in general, what led me to it, and saying that, if he felt as he said, he had better come himself. I wrote to Capt. H. to say I felt as sorrowfully about a second table as he could do, but it was a question with me of having any, not of a second; and, further, that I did not ask him to come as he had been considered hostile to Mr. Newton's views, but that if H-y or any of the brethren they thought right at Hereford came, they could judge of the grounds. No one came thence. I communicated to Lord C. what I had done, and said I did not ask W. as he was considered an adversary to Mr. Newton. I communicated it also to Sir A.C. Mr. P-r, who brought with him C., Lord C., and Sir A.C., with whom was Mr. McA., came. Mr. N. or Mr. S. sent for Mr. N.'s friends.

In result there were Messrs. McA., C., P-r, W., R., R-s, M-s, N-r, who arrived from Jersey at that time to let his house, Mr. M., Lord C., and Mr. W-r, who left early before the inquiry (I understood through the illness of his child). There is one fact I will notice here, that all who were not, and did not come as avowed partisans of Mr. Newton, declined breaking bread* any longer in Ebrington Street; that is, Mr. McA., Sir A.C., P-r., C., W.: I am not sure whether Mr. N-r avowed it as the others, but I believe there is no doubt of his judgment of the matter.

{*I am warned that this might seem to say that they did not break bread at all. This is not at all the meaning. "Any longer" refers to after their investigation of the matter, which gives it indeed its whole importance.}

And allow me to ask a question here. Sir A.C. declares he cannot break bread there, and leaves Plymouth. Mr. McA. does so and leaves Plymouth; Messrs. C. and P-r the same. What were people to do who had come to the same conclusion in conscience, and that from much longer and fuller evidence, but who had shops and children at Plymouth, and could not leave? I could have left, but I should have failed in faithfulness to those brethren had I done so. The others had other places perhaps that claimed them; I was free.

44 I will now mention another circumstance, which though it were a publication subsequent to my leaving so that it did not influence it, did influence any thought of my subsequent return, or recognition of Mr. Newton in ministry. Mr. N., previous to the Clifton meeting, had taught assiduously in public and in private that the Old Testament saints had not the new spiritual life; that the Holy Ghost had indeed acted on them as men in the flesh, but the new life was not communicated to them. This, which was Lord C.'s account before the brethren, confirmed by Sir A.C.'s testimony, was what I had in a general form spoken about at the April meeting; that is, that they had not life. Other persons, whom it is not necessary to name, had full recollection of it. And Mr. N. does not now deny it, brethren having spoken to him on the subject. This at the time made me very uneasy. Mr. H. was very near being led by Mr. N. into it; but I spoke with him and he was preserved from it.* I spoke to Mr. N. at the Clifton meeting about it in Mr. H.'s presence, and he gave it up.

{*The reader will kindly efface from "Mr. H." to "from it." The circumstance alluded to, does not properly connect itself with this point.}

When at the April meeting Mr. N. was stating why he must pursue his purpose of seeking united testimony against us, he urged the notion that there might be a difference in the circumstances of glory in the kingdom between the Old and New Testament saints. I demanded how he could be so violent as to a supposition that there might be such a difference, which was after all a settled idea of no one that I knew, when he had held and taught that they had not life. He replied, That is false. I said I knew it was not; but what had he taught? He said, That they had not the new creature. I said, I know I am right, but be it as you say. He replied, But I did not say they would not have it in another world. I said with astonishment, Well! this is a new kind of life-giving purgatory. They lived a life of faith without the new creature, and get it after their death. He replied, No, they may get it at the instant of dying.* I left it there. This conversation is referred to in the publication I now proceed to mention. It had been very widely circulated, as every one knows at Plymouth and elsewhere, among rich and poor, that we denied that the Old Testament saints had life. This, and that I denied that redemption through the blood as to many, took away the Gospels, Hebrews, and Revelation, from the church, was the constant and assiduous charge by all the leaders at Plymouth, and still continues to be so.** I left them to destroy themselves, which in every upright mind they soon did.

{*To Mr. C., when the brethren were here, he stated that he always held at that time that they would receive it at the resurrection.}

{**Instances have happened while printing this narrative.}

45 At the time however I now speak of, Mr. N. published a second letter on my Examination. In this, in the coolest and most deliberate way, he charges us, and me particularly, with the doctrine which he, and he alone, taught, and says that, as people's minds are exercised about it, I ought to explain myself on it. There is not even the excuse, itself absurd enough, that though he had been brought out of it by those he charged with it, they had themselves fallen into and propagated it afterwards; because, in the publication in which the charge is, he alludes to the discussion held about it in April. The brethren P-e and M-l asked him as to this when I began to break bread. He stated that he had held as was stated, and that he was wrong; but that he had never charged us with holding difference in life, but only in glory. Every one at Plymouth knows whether this was true or not, but there is only need of appeal to the second letter itself (p. 17), where he says that it is no wonder we hold difference in glory, seeing we suppose difference in life. I must leave to every one to estimate the cool manner, and apparent zeal for the truth, with which this charge is made in the letter.

To proceed to what took place when the brethren came down. Lord C., Mr. M., and Mr. Wr arrived, Mr. W. and Sir A.C. about the same time; the others shortly after. Mr. N. had a very long interview at the Dispensary at Plymouth, with Lord C., Mr. M., and W-r, and with a physician of Plymouth, who sent a jointly signed letter to me, to name four persons along with Mr. Newton's four to inquire into the charges I had made. I replied that I should not name any four persons; that the matter was an affair of conscience before the church of God (the most of it had already been first before 15, and then about 300 persons). I thought it a worldly way of settling it. Nor can I yet see that, when a person is charged with sin in the church, it is a scriptural way that he should name four persons to investigate it, and the one who has charged him four more. Indeed I was justified in this by every spiritual person I know before whom it came. I shewed it to Mr. H. and Mr. McA. then arrived, and they said, What is the good for us of four people inquiring into this when we were there? Their report could not affect our judgment. However, I only declined having four on my side. I said that I was quite ready to meet the inquiry, that I would meet the four friends of Mr. N. individually, or all four together, and tell them everything, or I would go before the whole body, or (if a limited number were thought more suited to investigate) I was content it should be done in that way, or Mr. N.'s friends might reassemble the 15 who met in April, or if Mr. N. chose to take it up as a personal wrong (which is what in fact he complained of), he could follow the scriptural rule in that case.

46 All I demanded was that it should be fully inquired into before the church of God. I mentioned that the statement of the charges themselves was inaccurate. I received for answer that it was not a matter of conscience but of fact; that they had expected to receive a withdrawal of the charges, or an acceptance of their proposal; that it was evident I was not prepared to substantiate them, and that they therefore treated my statements as unworthy of credit, and had given a copy of the letter to Mr. Newton to do as he pleased with; that bringing it before a public assembly was repeating the grievance, and that Matthew 18 did not apply, because it was a wrong done in public. They had never been near me at all (save Lord C., and with him there was nothing to say to this). They had never asked me what my charges were; and they had never asked a word of five or six brethren present at the April meeting, then in or near Plymouth, not partisans of Mr. N., that is, Messrs. H., C.P., McA., N-r, R.H. I replied that I was sorry some I loved had put themselves in such a position, and begged for a copy of my letter, which, as writing to brethren, I had not kept.

It is not for me to state all that the inquiring brethren did, for I stayed perfectly quiet. I can only allude to some facts. They came to me once. Mr. N. was so anxious about his character that they had difficulty in getting at the question of principle, which all pretty much agreed, with more or less decision of conviction, had been departed from - some most decidedly who had not before suspected it. The facts were proved which I had charged. Indeed, as to one there was only to compare the publication professing to be the letter six years ago, and the MS. The testimony as to what passed at the April meeting, was such that Mr. N. himself at last, said, he supposed he must have said what I stated, as all said so.

47 Here I would only remark as to the complaint of not going to Mr. Newton about it, that he had been gone to about it. Mr. Newton held no communication with me at the time. When the brethren urged me to wait in April, and grace and patience were to be continued, I went to call on Mr. Newton, and, not finding him, told him I had; but he never came to see me nor renewed any intercourse. I did not therefore go to him about it; it was indeed no wrong done to me, but Mr. H. and Mr N-r did, and both told him that his account was an untrue one; and, in spite of this, he himself continued to circulate it, before even I brought it before the brethren, and that I never did (having mentioned it only to Messrs. H. and S.) till demanded my reasons for leaving.

However Mr. N. assembled by invitation the brethren who came from a distance at the house of one of his strongest partisans, to give his statements.* Some demurred to this as not the fitting thing. Sir A.C., Mr. McA., and Mr. W. one evening would not go (I know not that they ever attended such an one). Mr. Nr urged they should, as statements and impressions might be made of which they would be unable to judge; but they would not. Mr. Nr went; Mr. N. sent out Mr. C-w to hinder his coming in, and declared he would state nothing at all if he were present; and he had to go away. Mr. Nr went to Mr. Newton's the next day to know why, being one of the persons in the invitation, he was thus treated. Mr. Newton turned him (very civilly) out of his house, and told him that he did not want to have anything to say to him.** Mr. McA. was soon convinced that all was wrong. He lodged in the house where Mr. H. lived.*** Mr. Newton met him, and said to him, Mr. McA. I should like to know on what ground you are here: you are in very suspicious quarters; and declared with very great violence, that if he believed one of the charges**** brought against him, he would have nothing more to say to him.

{*At the moment of this meeting, Sir A.C. was not, I believe, in Plymouth}

{**Mr. N-r had been here before the other brethren, and had gone among the Ebrington Street people. They had as usual made all kinds of statements to him, but instead of taking their truth for granted as most have done (and no wonder) he had inquired in detail, and found many things to be wholly untrue; and hence he was very obnoxious.}

{***It is suggested that I should insert that I lodged in the house. Mr. McA. was not, however, with me, but in Mr. H.'s apartment Suspicious quarters may be corrected by "renders you liable to suspicion." Mr. Newton's friends who had come, were guests among his friends at Plymouth, which no one of course thought of calling in question, nor would it be noticed now but for the insertion of this correction, as explaining the force of the remark. }

{****Delete "one of," and read simply "the charges."}

48 There is one other important fact which I mention, as it bears on other points, such as the truth of Sir A.C.'s statements so publicly and carefully denied.* At Mr. N.'s first meeting with the brethren, before he made his statement he declared to them that if they came to meddle in Plymouth affairs he would tell them nothing at all. If they came to inform themselves, he could go on, and on this ground he continued. I may here add what is more important, that at their last meeting Mr. Newton (having had now months to consider, and many meetings to see the bearing of things, and his statement in April discussed) stated that his object would be to produce in every gathering united hostility to the brethren's teaching who differed from him on the points discussed.

{*It has been attempted to modify this denial. Any one conversant with the poor at Plymouth knows that the tracts of Sir A.C. being found to act on their consciences, it was publicly and privately declared to be entirely false, and by the secondary agents of these statements "willingly and wilfully," but by the principles everywhere declared to be false. Mr. Newton and Mr. S. both declared at the meetings they subsequently held, that if Sir A.C.'s statements were true, they themselves would have left Ebrington Street. As to the thing denied, it will come in by-and-by.}

Several efforts were made by Mr. Newton and his friends to obtain a vindication of his character from the charges, which issued in nothing, as several declined signing them for different reasons: not merely because they were not satisfied, but because they felt that the church ought to judge such a case. This was the feeling of many or most of the brethren who came, even of those who were more particularly friends of Mr. Newton, as of all the rest. I will recur to this as a very material point, but to close the narrative as to vindication. After the refusal, for whatever reasons, of a joint signature of such justification, five brethren in order to settle this point, agreed to sign a paper, which was in fact printed with their signatures, Sir A.C., Lord C., Mr. R., C., and P-r. Some refused, and I think I am authorized in saying that Mr. P-r was glad when the paper was withdrawn, as being more favourable than his conscience really permitted. It stated that Mr. Newton had read a paper which convinced them that he had no evil motive in the papers on which the charges were founded, but that he had given occasion to them by what he had printed. Before the document appeared, Mr. Newton came with Mr. D. and declared in great earnestness that he was ruined if this came out, and that he should go to Canada. It was accordingly suppressed.

49 Immediately after, a declaration was communicated that as the brethren had been able to come to no conclusion, the brethren at Plymouth itself had drawn up and signed a document declaring their conviction that he was completely cleared. This was signed S., and the names of C-w, B., D., -, were added as concurring. I am informed on the authority of Mr. D., by a brother to whom he stated it, that it was he drew it up, not Mr. S. However that may be, being the parties concerned in the charge, it certainly was a strange document, more particularly as Mr. D. (to excuse Mr. Newton) had declared that he had suggested the addition of the matter to the letter printed as six years old, and Mr. C-w present at the April meeting had had the other printed and circulated. So that two of them were personally concerned in the things they professed to examine and dear Mr. N. of. I had done nothing save be ready for every call of the brethren who came, and answer their questions when they came to question me. Mr. N. declined to meet me as I was in the position of an excommunicated person. At that time it was a common subject of triumph that I was so, and therefore could bring nothing before the church.

In connection with this I may proceed to mention what passed as to this bringing before the church. Mr. C., Mr. P-r, I think Mr. R., Lord C., as well as others, as is known by their letters, felt that this was right. Yet it was not only resisted but effectually resisted. Mr. C., with whom was Mr. R., went and pressed it on Mr. Newton and alleged Matthew 18. Mr. N. answered, The church could not deliberate nor hear any question. Mr. C. quoted, "Tell it to the church." Mr. N. said, The church might hear it but could not act. Mr. C. quoted, "Hear the church." Mr. N. replied that they might come as individuals and express their conviction, but that was all. Lord C. and Messrs. P-r and C. took it in hand. They came to me, and Lord C. stated that they could not get over the impression produced by my charges in the minds of others: would I meet the assembly if they could get it convoked, and undo the impression as to the charges? I said they must not ask me to state that my impression was not such, as I could not go beyond my conscience; but I would gladly meet the assembly, and urge upon them not to receive any impression from me; that I could do it with all my heart, as I earnestly desired that the conscience of the brethren should be aroused; that there was no good done, whatever judgment they arrived at, unless it was, that I thought the grand evil was that it had been deadened and dulled, and that they would be there to see whether I did it cordially; and that if these three brethren honestly brought before the assembly what they now admitted to be facts, and the assembly acquitted Mr. Newton of any evil in it, even if my individual judgment were not satisfied, I should acquiesce, because, being done as I should trust up rightly, the church's conscience would be clear before God. I left Plymouth to preach elsewhere, that this might be accomplished. Nothing was done. Sir A.C. made a subsequent attempt of which he has given an account. The church could not deliberate nor judge; nor could elders be judged by it. There was no person in the position of Timothy to do it. Since this has been formally denied (and persons authorized to contradict it) it was repeated amongst the poor,* and put to a person whether it was right for the children to judge their fathers, and positively stated by one of the leaders at Plymouth, as it had been by others before, that teachers were the representatives of the church, and that they decided, and that then the church could act. This was to meet the case of 1 Corinthians, where the church were called upon to act. The case of Mr. G. was put to Mr. D. thus. There at present is but one brother prominently active in teaching. Supposing he were to fall into some gross sin, what is to be done? The case where the person inquiring knew of only one active teacher was put, because they would admit that elders in the place could take up cases and judge them.** The reply was, No, they could not judge him. If he had assumed such a place, they must leave him to the consequences of it. If it was so bad as to be unbearable, they must only leave.***

{*It is now held amongst them avowedly, to my knowledge, where this influence extends, that the church itself cannot judge. They have told me that they did think it was right, and so understood Matthew 18, but now they understand it is not.}

{**At Plymouth it was the persons who assumed the place of elders who were charged. One poor person on whom following the elders was urged, replied, But are not Mr. Darby and Mr. H elders as much as Mr. Newton? Which am I to follow? She was told it was not denied we were, but God had raised up Mr. Newton to a special and peculiar place in the church. A paper to this effect and assuming the place of Mr. N., of displacing leaders here and there by his own authority, was widely circulated at Exmouth.}

{***The last two lines are to be omitted. They are only an imperfect repetition of the preceding.}

51 The paper signed by the Plymouth leaders to clear Mr. Newton did more harm than good to their cause at Plymouth, as they were known by all to be the parties implicated, and it implied that the strangers would not do it. But the brethren from a distance having in fact come to no conclusion, for whose inquiry I had waited to give time, I had no longer now any reason for delay, and I proposed breaking bread. I hesitated whether I should demand Raleigh Street and do it as a public testimony; but praying over it I felt the humble and more gracious way would be to do it for my own need. I procured a small room, knowing about six who wished to do it, for I had most carefully avoided seeking any, and had entirely ceased visiting since I left, lest I should have even the appearance of making a party, though my heart was in that work. Sir A.C. would no longer break bread; nor W., nor C., nor P-r, nor McA. N-r still I think at that time did, or might, though strong in his judgment, but left for Jersey; that is, excepting Nr, all who were not avowed supporters and partisans of Mr. Newton. Mr. W-r had left. Mr. R. came to me on leaving, and while blaming my beginning to break bread said what I said as my reason was very strong, and that I ought instead of declining to invite Capt. H. and W. because they were considered hostile, to have got a number who took my view of it to balance the others. He left me saying that I had acted with the greatest forbearance.*

{*Mr. R. did not hesitate then to declare to strangers to both parties that they had ceased to lean upon God, and that the Spirit of God was not practically owned. I have not had an opportunity of communicating this to Mr. R., but my informant is one whose authority is above suspicion, and respected alike by Mr. R. and myself.

52 This part was now closed. I began to break bread, and the first Sunday there were not six, but fifty or sixty.

As soon as the brethren were gone Mr. Newton began to hold tea meetings by invitation, at which he explained everything. The statements of Mr. W., Sir A.C., and myself were declared to be entirely untrue; and both Mr. Newton and Mr. S. declared that, if there had been any truth in them, they would have left themselves. This was carefully insisted on in private visits, and repeated by all those under them. Sir A.C. in particular was declared by these last "willingly and wilfully false." Mr. Newton also said, publicly and privately, he had never sanctioned but always objected to the Friday meeting; that it had been begun by a brother who had semi-Irvingite views, on a wrong ground, etc. Unhappily a letter of his was in existence, appealing to it after years of attendance as a proof of godly order. It was then said, it was not the meeting which was objected to, but the composition of it. But alas! this same letter speaks of the persons composing it as recognized and submitted to by all. Subsequently it was declared that he had never objected to the church judging, nor to the brethren from elsewhere interfering.

This certainly was astounding to those who knew what had passed, if anything was so at Plymouth, his opening declaration to the brethren on their inquiring his statements of the matter, and all he had repeatedly said, as well as his associates, to so many. He declared that all he had objected to was the manner of doing it - that it ought to have been done scripturally: first come to himself, then take two or three more, and lastly the whole body put him out if need were. This was said at one of the last Monday tea meetings, a very large one.* Mr. B. has stated the same thing to others - it was only the manner which was objected to. Now, this scriptural manner which was declared to have been the only thing that would have been required, I had formally proposed, and had received a written refusal from the four persons employed by Mr. Newton, Lord C., Mr. M., Mr. W-r, and a physician at Plymouth, which written refusal was communicated by them to Mr. Newton at the time.

{*I know it to have been frequently repeated since, and recently.}

53 At these meetings, at which being by invitation, of course there was no one to answer, though invited friends were allowed to put questions, and did before the poor, a justification of Mr. Newton is stated to have been produced from the remaining part of the brethren who came to inquire, who had advocated Mr. Newton's cause all through. Indeed one of those who were thus sent for by Mr. Newton had privately written* to him to say he might count on his standing by him in any way, though inquiring now as if an impartial person. It was further most carefully repeated and urged at these meetings that we denied the Gospels were for the church, and equally took away the Hebrews and Revelation; that we denied redemption through the blood as to some, and denied the heavenly glory to the Old Testament saints.

{*This letter was circulated, because it contained statements of all the errors the writer had been led into by the brethren.}

These things drove from them many who knew it was not so, but were believed of course by others. These meetings were continued for many weeks, after each of which some came amongst us. Meanwhile a system, such as I never saw save in Popery, was carried on to influence the poor. Long utterly neglected, save as to the sisters' district rule, they were visited, caressed, and fed, threatened and literally worried, and what I must call open bribery employed, and the most positive and direct persecution. I declined visiting any who had not already come amongst us, unless a case of special invitation; and that there were not more than two or three of They did not dare. A few complained to others of my not doing it; but I had decided on my path, and declined exercising any kind of influence over them. This system went to such a pitch that, in one case under the exciting influence of sisters, a poor man refused to dine with his wife if she did not come to Ebrington Street, and when she wished to go and hear in the evening at Raleigh Street, said he would be master; she is now in Ebrington Street. The custom of the rich was withdrawn from the tradesmen also in general who came, though any they hoped to win back were sent for, caressed, and invited, and persecuted with solicitations. Soon after this, deacons were balloted for in Ebrington Street (though indeed the persons had been openly spoken of before), and there they are now.

54 I will now turn to the paper circulated privately to the number of three thousand - not to answer it (it is its own best answer to every true and upright mind), but merely to notice one or two things in it which connect themselves with the history. Nor shall I say a word on the meanness of courting the pity of strangers by publishing every word they can scrape together out of its context, when for years they have been calumniating their brethren and undermining them everywhere as subverting Christianity, and it has been borne with; and when resisted openly and honestly, crying out as if they were persecuted and oppressed. Does any one believe that they have not accused of falsehood, for example, myself, W., Sir A.C., over and over again? Everyone knows publicly and privately that their charges of falsehood were the most violent: aye, and in print, whilst they ventured to answer in public. No one need fear that I shall rake together here the proofs. The truth is, there was not a matter of which conscience told them they would be accused, but they anticipated by charging it on me or others, that, if it did come out, it might seem like retaliation and lose its weight. They must forgive my now saying "they." They have clubbed together in it themselves. Here the gravest complaint is "veracity even is impeached." Why in a previous letter of Mr. Newton's, in the correspondence of which this forms a part, he declares "there have been falsehood and misrepresentation to an extent I could not have believed before the late events."

I could cite plenty of like things, but surely I shall not. Everyone that has been at Plymouth knows it. The difference is this, Mr. N. charges in general with misrepresentation. Of such a general charge he can quote no instance as against himself. In his case specific acts are charged with being untrue; his account of the April meeting is said to be untrue; his addition of a quantity of matter to a tract professed to be written six years ago is complained of; his charging me and others with teaching a heretical doctrine, which he himself, as he does not now deny, and he alone ever taught, and out of which he was brought by those he charges with it; his declaration that all he required was acting on the scriptural rule of Matthew 18, and that he never refused to be judged by the church when it was positively refused; his declaration that he had always objected to and never sanctioned, the Friday meeting, when we had and have his letter appealing to it as proof of godly order. These which refer to the public course of events here (for I pass over all private ones), and not vague charges, are what he has to answer. Mr. N. was asked, as he charged me everywhere with falsehood, what it was. He said, saying he denied the unity of the church, but this was all he alleged. I say so still. And further I here add, I have no expressions save "intellectual process," and "eking out an argument" already apologized for, to regret or expunge - not one. If any, let them be produced with their context. The reader will say, but what of those quoted in this letter, and regularly between inverted commas? I answer, they are dishonestly charged. They are untrue, save that I do not own the table at Ebrington Street. The difficulty in this case is, that people have depended on idle statements of this kind, and it was impossible to answer them without charging the authors with untruth. This made me keep silence month after month. I did not know what to do. But the details I will enter into in their place.

55 Some phrases, though in inverted commas, are not in the tracts to which they are ascribed at all; others quoted and put into sentences which wholly alter their application (an application often expressly guarded against), in the tract referred to. In my judgment this letter signed by the five is perhaps the worst thing yet put out.

But to resume: it is a saddening and yet an instructive thing, to see at the moment that under the Lord's special leading, and surely without their own wisdom, the brethren from every quarter were humbling themselves before the Lord for their own individual and common failure, the leaders at Plymouth, having refused to come because it would turn to an investigation on their conduct, were making out a case for themselves. It is an epitome of the whole matter; but I leave it without any remark, to notice one or two statements merely. And first of all, what is the meaning of this joint disclaimer and declaration, saying, we do not hold such and such doctrines, unless the pure clubbing of a party, hand joining in hand? Who ever charged them with holding such and such doctrines? What has Mr. C-w, or Mr. S., or Mr. B., or even Mr. D., to do with my charging Mr. Newton's book with denying the unity of the church? Mr. D. indeed has carefully in public and in private maintained the thing he here denies, as many intelligent Christians well know, but he never was charged with it. Many well know that he and Mr. Newton, as others, have assiduously maintained that the Epistle to the Ephesians refers to all saints from the beginning of the world; and 1 Corinthians 12 to a local perfect church, with some idea of a sort of model at the beginning; but that the unity of the church, as such, with Christ at its head on high, in this dispensation, was denied by the constant teaching at Plymouth.

56 But Mr. Newton has published certain views upon it. These views are plain enough. They have been answered. What have, save as uniting in a party spirit, these other persons to do, to come and say we do not hold? But to such an excess is this carried that these five proceed to say that "even personal veracity is impeached." And now let me ask whose? This is an unfortunate sentence in which to have talked of Jesuitism. While calling for sympathy for the five, and in a sentence beginning with "we," it is stated personal veracity is impeached. It is not ventured to state whose. Mr. Newton's has been openly and fairly. These four may of course identify themselves with him, if they please; but they cannot put their names as honest men to having their joint veracity impeached, because this impeaching is another's act, not theirs. Have they been charged with a joint lie, or have they been severally charged with one?

The same plan was resorted to at the April meeting. I was said by Mr. Newton to have charged all with sectarianism, because a person could not be a sectarian alone. This, though unfounded, had some semblance of reason in it; but a man may surely tell falsehoods alone. I charge Mr. Newton with sectarianism alone. He tried to make a party with the charge, as if others were accused by me of it. I charged none but him. Others might have helped him, but he could not say I charged them. I charged Mr. N. with untruth in certain definite acts; I believe him guilty of it still. But if others choose to take his part, and identify themselves with what I judge to be utter want of principle, do not let them, in signing an ambiguous expression say, or leave to be concluded that others have impeached the veracity of the five together. Mr. Newton's veracity has been impeached. I impeached it.* He has declined all means of clearing himself where those who charge him could meet him unless before eight persons, half to be nominees of his own, shutting the church out. Does he mean to involve the other four who sign this letter in the charge to relieve himself? No one else has.

{*Only however before brethren, of course.}

57 Nobody doubts that I think the table in Ebrington Street one with which I cannot hold communion. I have left it. Can anything be plainer? The present narrative will say why: which I have never done yet. I have stated that they deny the real unity and holiness of the church of God; I say so still. The Lord will judge who is right in this. They may escape by the support of a party; but it is not the position of any one, nor the numbers which support him, which can make evil good or good evil, or clear the conscience of the church of God.

Mr. N. may talk of manner of doing this. It has been done in no manner; not at Plymouth, because the elders should take it in hand, and they had assumed that place; not by strangers down here, because they did not belong to Plymouth; not in London, because the gathered servants of the Lord had no right to judge them. What is the manner it could have been done in which Mr. Newton has not refused, with the aid of the co-signature of these same persons? I appeal to Mr. C., Lord C., Mr. P-r, Sir A.C., Mr. R., and all who tried to effect it, whether they secured the investigation of alleged evil, as they sought it, before the church of God. The holiness of the church of God is then given up.

I think it a very sad thing, a very great evil, when any thing of the kind has to be brought before the church at large. It is the extreme case of discipline. I take this opportunity of saying, that I think the bringing every case of evil, or alleged evil, at once before the body wrong and unscriptural. "Tell it to the church" is the last resort in every way. I think it still sadder if the person in question be one who has been looked up to in the church. It tends to shake confidence in all. But judgment has been refused in every shape to save character.

If it be said that I after the April meeting, when sectarianism was avowed before fourteen of us, ought to have brought it before the body, I have indeed nothing to reply, but that I refrained at the instance of others, particularly Mr. R., to spare Mr. Newton. Here I have always felt I may have been wrong. Further, I still state that unity has been denied, practically denied. And it is in part because of the way in which this has been disclaimed in the letter I am considering that I notice it.

58 I will now examine the statement as to No. 1. If these brethren had stated what they held about it, we should have known what to think. The question is, what is taught in the Ephesians on this point, and whether they hold it. They tell us they hold it as revealed in the Epistle to the Ephesians. This is exceedingly satisfactory. But what they hold we are evidently as much in the dark about as before. Now I allege that they really merely mean unity in heaven of all saints since the creation. It is clear there can be no other unity of all saints since the creation than unity in heaven. And this is what they have most assiduously taught as to the Ephesians. They have insisted that prophets, in chapter 2, verse 20, means Old Testament prophets; and the whole Epistle to apply to all saints from beginning to end. It is quite clear therefore it has nothing to do with the present unity of the church by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. If they deny this teaching, the answer is, it is a dishonest denial. We have all heard it, whatever their partisans may say. Further, Messrs. S. and C-w (in reply to the brother B-i, who, from reading Mr. Newton's books, had come to the conclusion that he did deny the unity of the church as taught in scripture) stated distinctly to him that the unity he urged was in heaven. Each of them, that is, did, severally and distinctly. Further, when intelligent Christians began to be exercised about it, and referred to the teachers at Plymouth to clear their minds, not believing what I and others affirmed from what we had heard and read, they were in explanation distinctly taught the same thing, and it was stated by some that none at Plymouth had ever taught or held anything else, I among them. Now if public and private teaching, deliberate argument on the question, and explanation to clear the minds of those exercised, does not prove what men hold, what will? This second paragraph is then a fraud on the reader; because it conceals the fact that it only means a common unity in heaven, and has nothing to do with the church now more than with Abel, that is, that an individual now will be finally a member of the whole assembly of God. That is, it denies any special unity now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Hence we have a second paragraph for unity of the saints on earth, as by one Spirit baptized into one body. Here however church is not used. But of this just now.

59 There is another circumstance connected with this I may here record. Mr. Newton has publicly taught (strange for one who complains of Matthew 24 not being considered to be exclusively the church), and taught after being remonstrated with by Mr. H.* when he taught it in private, that John 17 has no application now till you come to verse 22; which I beg the reader to note. Mr. H. urged the verse, "Sanctify them through thy truth." Mr. Newton replied, that a saint might appropriate it individually by special faith, but that it had no application to the present time. Evidently verse 22 applies to the future, and is absolute in its form, so that the denial of the unity of the church of God down here was confirmed in every way.** Indeed I would repeat here that in the teaching I heard from Mr. Newton one object was evident as the object, and this was teaching something contrary to the other brethren, so as to set them aside with those over whom he had influence, or who gradually took in his teaching. Nor was I the only one that remarked this. But as to the unity being in heaven, I had asked, Was the doctrine that the Gentile churches together constituted the one church St. Paul's statement of the unity of the church? Mr. N. answers (page 56, of his second letter), "I should think not, because St. Paul speaks of the invisible unity of the church in heaven." Can anything be plainer than such an answer where the charge was made, and, an explanation given? St. Paul's teaching, St. Paul's statement, is of the unity of the church in heaven! Mr. N. had "been speaking of the visible unity of the churches on earth." But "this visible unity of churches constitutes the one church of the living God." "The churches (page 60) were members of one body." "The Catholic unity of the body would have been marred and lost, the moment one church had forfeited its place and had its candlestick removed."

{*Mr. H. remonstrated with others, and spoke very strongly about this teaching; but I cannot confirm the fact that he spoke directly to Mr. N. I give the statement therefore as to the remonstrance merely as I heard it just after, of which I have an absolute certainty. The fact of the teaching is unquestionable. I will add here the ground on which it was based: Christ's prayer could not but have been answered; hence He could have asked it only for the apostles in their time; that we have the heavenly blessing in this respect; they had the heavenly and earthly. It will be seen how entirely this confirms what is stated as to the assertions made as to unity in the letter of the five to the London brethren commented on.}

{**Mr. Newton has also distinctly stated, as is well known to many resident at Plymouth, that as to the heavenly calling, or the unity of the church, no new light whatever had been developed from the word amongst brethren; that others, before the present movement, had held it just as clearly. The only fresh light given was to be found in the prophetic views he insisted on.}

60 Now what is the good of five persons coming and saying we have not dropped the unity of the church into churches when one of them has printed it as plainly as words can be, save in the sense which is concealed in these numbered paragraphs, in the sense that the unity of the church, means its unity in heaven, "invisible unity in heaven"? And I ask here if St. Paul's statements refer, as Mr. N. has printed and published, to invisible unity in heaven, which are the passages in scripture which refer to the unity of the church in this dispensation on earth? It is totally untrue that St. Paul's statements refer only or properly to that (though of course it remains true), for he is speaking of joints of supply in the one body on earth. Which is right, or the truth, page 4 of the letter of these five, or page 56 of Mr. Newton's letter? Or, I repeat, what is the meaning of five persons coming and saying we do not hold what one of them has printed and published he does hold; and as every one who has heard it knows, taught constantly by word of mouth? Nay, the holding the contrary view, namely a special unity in this dispensation by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, was the very ground of the charges against brethren, and made the plea for accusing them of denying life and glory to Old Testament saints.

But further, as to these second and third paragraphs, they entirely avoid the question. No one says they deny the unity of the church, if it be meant of all saints from beginning to end in a glorious and heavenly state at the close of all things. But there is not a word in the second which would not be satisfied by this truth. The point in question, of the unity of the body by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven now, is entirely avoided. And so it is in the third, strange as such an assertion may seem to a simple-hearted saint. It is then changed into "unity of the saints upon earth"; not the body. But it will be said, but it is added as baptized into one body. So it is But what body is this? On earth is not added here. And the unity of the body here is not mentioned nor spoken of. There is the unity of the saints on earth (not as a body). Perhaps (as stated by Mr. N.) unity in faith, doctrine, manners, in independent churches, all alike, but all independent.*

{*"Separate one from another - all equal, all alike: connected by no visible bond, neither revolving round any common centre. They were independent one of another; but not independent of Him who invisibly walked amongst them, and who was able to preserve the likeness to Himself, and to one another, which His grace had given them; to keep them what He had made them alike in faith, manners, and testimony"; and again, "in faith, doctrines, manners [they] were emphatically one."}

61 The body into which they were baptized is, as far as any one can tell here, the general universal assembly of all that surround Jesus eternally. Of this we all own they are. But the unity of the body, as by one Spirit sent down from heaven after the exaltation of Christ, is entirely avoided here. Now that is the whole practical question.

I may add that Mr. N. teaches, or did teach, that the Old Testament saints had received the Spirit as much as we, only that it was a spirit of bondage in them. He had taught of old, that the difference was, that it did not then abide in the saints.

On the fourth I shall say little. The Holy Ghost present and acting in the assembly is here avoided to be admitted. This is again the whole question. Any such action was denounced as impulse. It was stated that those at Ebrington Street went to meet God, and not the Holy Ghost, and we the Holy Ghost, and not God. But since even this letter the effect of the teaching on souls has been to make them believe that the Holy Ghost dwelt in individuals, but not in the body. When Capt. H. taught both, they were warned that they were likely to fall into Mr. Prince's snare. It was taught most positively that the Holy Spirit dwelt in individuals, and that the aggregate of these increased the blessing, but this was all. It was not taught that "the Holy Ghost resides only in the teachers"; but it was that the Holy Ghost worked by members, and that these members were the teachers, and that, though it was not a gift to pray or give out a hymn, none but gifted members would do it. It was stated, though here I believe the contrary was afterwards also stated, that the Holy Ghost was not in the assembly, but God over it to bless it. No intelligent brother can mistake the meaning of all this.

It was most distinctly taught, that it was wrong for the saints to meet, unless they had a responsible teacher to direct them; so much so, that a brother of known uprightness (who was never in communion, but had long known the brethren) said to his sister who was there, all the brethren's system is gone; because he had heard this statement from Mr. N. Nor were the most glaring facts wanting to demonstrate it.

62 Now turn, reader, to paragraph five. You would suppose that all these extracts were from "Darby's Remarks on the Tracts on Signs." You will be surprised, I trust at least, to learn that in the postscript to those "Remarks," which postscript is the statement alluded to, I have stated that the question had nothing to do with tradition. Mr. D. in that tract had appealed to "universal consent" as sustaining the doctrine taught at Plymouth. About this not a word is said in the paragraph; but tradition introduced which I said had nothing to do with it. I stated that "the demon of Popery is the active demon of the day"; and so I think, not that they were associated with it, and that in appealing to the principle of universal consent, and in addition to scripture, "its leading introductory principle was advanced" in that passage, referring to the wellknown canon of a father, always cited by high churchmen, who have a leaning towards Popery. I have spoken of a principle here printed and published, using these last words in the postscript. Is it not so? Why do they introduce extracts, I really know not whence, referring to tradition a subject I had expressly rejected as inapplicable, and put my name as the authority they quote, leaving out the point I did assail, and which is printed and published by one of their number in a tract on the express words of which I was commenting? Is it honest to conceal what was attacked and implicate me, trusting to the confidence which would be had, that quotations with inverted commas must be truly given, in charges which he perfectly well knew I had nothing to say to It was Mr. Newton drew this up. And even in what is found in that postscript the citations are garbled. I have stated the course clericalism takes and its issue in the full-blown Romish clericalism, but I have never charged it on them, but urged the danger of introducing its leading principle in the doctrine of universal consent. I have said I did not allude to them, but to a system.

The reader may also remark that "uphold" is not of the quotation, nor "associated with"; and that the use I have made of the words which are so, may be as different as possible from what is here stated. The truth is in the postscript, in the sentence quoted from, I have carefully set aside individuals. I have stated, that I have introduced other principles of Popery not advanced, as a matter of general warning, because this one of universal consent, which drew forth my comments, shewed the door was not closed against evil on this side. "Advance its leading principle," is a false quotation. I have said that its leading introductory principle is advanced in appealing to "universal consent."

63 As to the sixth, no one speaks of the doctrines of Independents. Mr. N. has stated that the churches are independent.

As to the seventh my answer is that it is, as regards Mr. Newton, a bold untruth. I appeal to Mr. C., Mr. P-r, Lord C., Sir A.C. I ask the whole number of those who came whether Mr. Newton did not preface his communications to them by saying that, if they came to meddle in Plymouth affairs, he would tell them nothing at all. They all know that every opportunity was not given; that Mr. Newton would not meet me before those brethren, nor the brethren at large, nor a limited number of them. He told them what he pleased, but no other opportunity was or would be afforded. When was it afforded? Will it be afforded now, with this letter added to the subject of it, and the brethren who were there come down again? Either these five, or Sir A.C. and others, are guilty of flagrant untruth. That Mr. N. sought the presence of brethren who supported him is quite true, so that Mr. R. blamed me for not making a balance.

As to the eighth, how Mr. S. could sign this after his statements to Mr. R.H., for it is to him Mr. R.H. alludes in his tract, I leave him to answer. Everybody knows many were hindered, and many stopped. I may add an instance here. A sister went to one very gracious brother who has ministered both before and since with blessing to many, and told hum he must attend Mr. Newton's prophetic meetings. He replied that he did not wish to do so, that he felt pressing peculiar views on either side tended to division.* He was told that then his ministry would not be allowed in any of the gatherings round. Of course he was shut up. But I will here give the sequel of what refers to him. He was offered his expenses and a weekly salary to go out and labour, which he refused.** Subsequently he left Ebrington Street. Whereupon it was circulated at Horrabridge that I had offered him a salary. Happily the brother at Horrabridge mentioned it to one who had just heard from the brother in question himself that it was just the opposite.

{*The reason first given for not attending one of the more private meetings was somewhat different. This brother felt himself out of his place there; subsequently he ceased attending the more public meeting on the ground stated. The material fact however was rather stronger than stated here, that, unless he received Mr. N.'s views, his ministry would not be received here or in the meetings around.}

{**I know myself a second instance of Mr. Newton's doing so; besides which penny-a-week collections have been a long while carried on for similar purposes. After I came, the collectors were desired not to go to persons I visited; a foolish direction, for I visited everybody. The sisters were the agents in this.}

64 But to return to the paragraph. Mr. S. stated to Mr. R H as Mr. R.H. has stated in his tract (I only add Mr. S.'s name, as having now signed this), that he had said to Mr. Newton that he had participated in the sin of keeping brethren away, and instanced Mr. B-t and asked Mr. N. if he could now receive him. Mr. N. with some hesitation, said, Yes. Mr. S asked him why there was this change. Mr. N. replied that the people, he thought, were now sufficiently made up* to resist his teaching. Let any one only compare this with the eighth paragraph.

{*For "sufficiently made up," read "sufficiently instructed."}

As to the ninth, I appeal solemnly to all the brethren who came to inquire. Either their statement to me, that is, of several of them, was an invented calumny, or this article is a direct positive falsehood. From first to last Mr. Newton took this ground.

As to the tenth, my answer is, You do. Mr. Newton has published in his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse" what, as an expression of thought, is justly so designated. The grand doctrine of Buddhism is that a sort of absorption into Deity is perfect bliss; now Mr. N. states that the glorified saints will be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, using the terms; only they would still worship. And therefore I say, his doctrine does make a sort of Buddhism of Christianity. As to their views and opinions on open ministry, my object is not to discuss views but relate facts here, and I pass them by.

I have only one more statement to allude to. There is a scripture appropriate to everything, and I confess the one which at once suggested itself to me was, "The unjust knoweth no shame." "We are virtually excommunicated persons." Did any one ever dream that I excommunicated Mr. Hatchard, or Mr. Courtenay, and a thousand other saints, because I do not go to the Established Church? Was ever such nonsense palmed on people? And yet one of my reasons is because they do not judge evil nor exercise discipline, as it is as to Ebrington Street. Mr. Newton's alleged evil, and to my mind proved evil, deserved to be judged, and so did other evil, and it was not, but was avoided and refused to be judged. When the brethren, who certainly treated me with very little concern, whatever they did Mr. Newton, said I must be judged too, I made no difficulty; but nothing could induce Mr. Newton to allow it, and they had no courage to go any further. It was not to be. But this is not treating people as excommunicated. Mr. C-w urged, at one time, walking in love as brethren still on me in Mr. R-e's shop. Did I treat him as excommunicated, or Mr. S.?

65 But this is not all. It is really not a shameful but a shameless statement. Mr. S. who signs first here, positively refused to dine at table with me. Will he deny it? Mr. Newton refused to meet me, when investigation was desired by our coming face to face, because I was an excommunicated person. It was the common ground of triumph that I could not bring the matter before the church, because I was an excommunicated person by leaving the assembly. Shall I say that Mr. D. lectured that, though Christians, yet all were not to be treated as such? Shall I name all those who, led by the example and instruction of Mr. Newton, refused to salute us in the street?* those who by Mr. N.'s directions refused to see old friends they had previously sent for? Mr. N. began it to a sister, who stated she had proposed calling on him to assure him it was no want of good feeling towards him in leaving, by refusing to see her, and telling her in the name of the Lord Jesus he could have no more Christian intercourse with her. The oldest friends were first not visited at all and then were told that they visited as friends, but could not own them as Christians nor pray with them. And this was done so grossly by Mr. N. himself that the husband (not in communion) of one sister met Mr. Newton and told him that, had he been still of the world, he must have used his cane to him. One poor man excited by the sisters refused to eat with his own wife till he got her back to Ebrington Street.

{*It will hardly be believed at Plymouth, that Mr. S. has stated in more than one place, that it was we who would not salute them!}

66 It has been attempted since shame has fallen upon them about it, to say it was only to be done to leaders. Were the sisters, one of whom only came to hear in Raleigh Street, who sent to dear Mrs. Newton flowers and little things suited to the sick when she was ill, leaders? They were sent back as unreceivable from Mr. N.'s house. Captain H. was refused to be received into the house of one long accustomed to look up to him, but who had fallen under this miserable influence. And now I challenge them to produce an act of ungracious or evil dealing towards one of them. Why, will it be believed that many of them no longer dealt with the shops of those who went to Raleigh Street, as well as threatened to withdraw Christian kindness from the poor? and to deprive them of temporal advantages they enjoyed? Last of all, while I am writing this, they have been forbidden, had they desired it, in case of any wishing to shew it was no want of personal kindness, to attend dear Mrs. N.'s funeral* - a person who, though excited about this matter, had by her walk among the saints for many a year engaged the affections, I may safely say, of all, and who has been happily, may we not say taken from the evil to come, and we have excommunicated them!

{*It will hardly be believed that after having forbidden any to come to the funeral, saying, that we hastened Mrs. Newton's death and were not to come and trample on her grave, it was carefully circulated by them that we would not go to Mrs. N.'s funeral!}

I have done. I have gone over the public ground only, and I have only to add, that I was confirmed in the resolution not to swerve, because I found that the system of untruth and finesse was undermining the probity and truthfulness of mind of others, and demoralising God's dear children. And it is. I have refrained from the private facts, which yet operated of course with equal force on one's mind as to the state of things, though not as fit to be publicly brought forward.

It has been alleged by Mr. Newton himself, and received by some, that it could not be with an intention to deceive when refutation was so easy. Those who receive this do not know how these things worked. This last letter is the proof. Nine-tenths of the saints out of Plymouth would take the statement as true: and I should be very sorry to think that they would suppose it possible to be otherwise until forced to it. I have yet a difficulty myself in believing the things I know to be true. At Plymouth the majority were Mr. Newton's party at all cost. If any separated themselves from it, they were not spoken to nor owned as Christians; even their temporal interests injured as far as possible. In private statements, it was a similar case. An untrue one, suppose, was made. Probably the person believed it; a gracious mind is not the most suspicious. The effect was produced, the prejudice excited, and the person fell under Mr. N.'s influence. If not, in general persons, particularly females, who were especially subjected to this, do not like probing into evil and discreditable things, nor getting into conflict with persons who act in this way. If they took the trouble of inquiring, and stated what had been said, the statement was denied, and it was a question of their character and Mr. Newton's. Few 'liked this; perhaps their husbands did not. If it was proved, then it was said, It was not meant so, and it was uncharitable to fix on a man what he did not mean. If they were disgusted and left, no one was to speak to them. This was the operation of the Monday evening meetings, held after the brethren were gone, for Mr. N. to explain everything. The majority believed the statements without more. A few were driven out every time. They were no longer spoken to, unless to worry them to come back, if there was hope of that.

67 And now, as these five, as well as Mr. Newton speak of the manner of the investigation, and Mr. N. and others for him have repeatedly said it was only this he objected to, I shall repeat what I proposed to him. I refused to name four as my friends to investigate it, because it was taking it out of the hands of the church of God when already before it. I never heard of a person accused of evil in the church of God naming four to inquire into his case, and those who knew of it four more. It was taking it out of the church of God altogether. I declined to name them.

It is supposed that no one had been to Mr. N. This is a mistake. They had: two had as to the untruth (and first two - besides myself by letter - and then thirteen as to the sectarianism); and the whole had been before three hundred of the brethren. But in reply to this proposal I offered to meet the four he named individually, or together, to go before the whole body, or before a limited number, if that was a better way, or to let the four named by Mr. Newton collect the thirteen before whom the matters first had been; or Mr. Newton might act on the scripture rule of Matthew 18 if he considered it a wrong. I received for reply, that Matthew 18 did not apply because I had done the wrong publicly; that bringing it before the body of the brethren was only seeking to repeat the grievance; that my letter was an evasion; that it was evident I was unprepared to substantiate the charges; that my statements appeared unworthy of credit, and that copies of the letters were given to Mr. Newton

68 And two of the signers of this letter were among those who pursued the inquiry afterwards. One left almost immediately after signing it. It is generally known that these brethren refused to go up to the London meeting, too, because it must take the character of investigation.

In fine, when finesse and untruthfulness, when flattery of the rich with contempt and neglect of the poor, and then caresses and threatenings and appeals to their gratitude, attract the Spirit of Christ, then while under its influence I may return; or when avowed sectarianism and union in testimony against brethren is that to which I wish to be a party. Till then I can have no such thought. There are saints of God there who ought to be, and I can boldly say are, very dear to me. I would do all there every good I could. Nor have I the conscience of an unkindly feeling towards one. I should rejoice with unfeigned joy were every statement I have made proved to be wrong to my own shame. But, without pretending to apportion blame, to say who originated it or helped it on, supposing it possible (and I would hope true) that all have been only led in it ignorantly, I believe that there has been a direct work of the enemy, and this to subvert the blessed truth that Brethren were specially trusted with; a work which has shewn itself in doctrine, principle, and practice, as is always the case, very subtly and very gradually, but surely and constantly. I shall notice in their plain effects the doctrines.

First, practically the present hope and expectation of the Lord's coming was put off and set aside.

Secondly, the heavenly calling, which Brethren had specially been favoured to bring out, and the glory of the church with Christ, is confounded with earth, and subverted and set aside. Our Mother is declared to be the establishment of a system, which had been going on from the beginning in glory in the earth. "Christianity supreme in the earth in Mount Zion and Jerusalem" "identical with Zion arising in the moral grace and dignity of its high calling in the earth" (Thoughts on the Apocalypse, pp. 138, 142). "This is our parent, the system to which we belong," Jerusalem.

69 Thirdly, unfeigned faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost to guide and minister in the assemblies of the saints was undermined and subverted.

Fourthly, the unity of the body of Christ, as gathered by the presence of the Holy Ghost in this present time of the church on earth, was undermined and subverted too.

Fifthly, the deification of the saints, that is, "Omniscient power of superintendence," Omnipotent power necessary to such execution"; and, referring to Ezekiel's vision but as a description of the power of the cherubim who symbolize the redeemed, "nowhere absent but everywhere present in the perfectness of undivided action," and they "will apply to the earth, the* wisdom of the elders, and the throne."

{*Mr. N. has since taught that the saints will have essential power. He states in the "Thoughts" that man will be blest in himself, and the source of blessing to others, p. 56.}

And, as a sixth point, the constant extenuation of the evil of Popery, with the decided absence of Christ from the teaching, while the saints were exalted "almost into co-equality with God.'*

{*These are Mr. N.'s own words. This absence of Christ in the teaching was a very principal thing which drove the poor brethren out. They felt the effect, though knowing little of the cause, and felt justly. The way works were pressed and said to be offered by us to God because done in our new nature, statements (some of which are already mentioned) as to the Lord Jesus Himself, and the unsettling the mind as to truths relating to Him, would have made it impossible for me to have wished anyone I cared for to attend the ministry. As a mere question of ministry, it would have been sufficient to have driven me away. I add this while printing; for the more I have considered this point, the more I am satisfied of its importance and of its application to numberless statements made.}

I may add, as a seventh, the exaltation and beauty of a personal Antichrist in a way quite contrary to scripture, so as to alarm and shake the minds of the saints. As to principles and practice, I do not go over again the statements made in the preceding pages; statements more than confirmed by incidents arising from day to day which it is impossible to reduce to writing.

I have now sufficiently given the history of what has passed, as far as I have been concerned in it. Others must give what has passed behind the scenes. As I have already stated, private circumstances I have not mentioned. But it must not be supposed that they have not influenced those who dwell at Plymouth. If there had been remedy, they would not have been a reason for leaving; but they called for a remedy which, if refused, made it impossible to stay. This direct working of Satan few perhaps may distinctly estimate; but the Spirit of Christ will have no difficulty in judging the facts I have stated, and the course of things to which I have alluded.

70 My word of unhesitating testimony is, Come out from among them, and be ye separate. They have sought to perplex the poor (clear in their judgment of where evil was, and where Christ was) by asking, Now on what scripture did you leave? They knew what they left by experience, and judged rightly about it; though, as a priest might come and puzzle a soul that knew well on what ground it stood, they could ill answer perhaps a cross-examination of what scripture they were on. My answer to them is simple, my text is plain: Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. If they would have yet more, I cite what they have sufficiently pressed upon others, "Cease to do evil." There is evil unconfessed and unjudged; evil (I judge) of the very worst kind, speaking of evil in a Christian assembly; and I suppose there must be scriptures for leaving it, or we should never have been gathered at all.

I will only add, as much has been said in print of Mr. S.'s asking Mr. H. to stay, that he asked Mr. H. to stay to help him to resist Mr. Newton, against whom he felt unable to make head alone, and he stated to Mr. R.H. that all the evil had come from letting him have his own way. Here you have the history of Plymouth. Whether Mr. S. is now able to do so and does so, others must judge. In its present form, Mr. Newton drew up the letter addressed to the brethren in London.* Mr. S.'s name appears the first in the list of signatures. He had been free through the earlier scenes, from the want of candour which existed. I must sorrow that at the close, why the Lord must judge, he has placed his name first on what, on the whole I must judge, to be the worst and lowest of all the sad series of this unhappy history.

{*Mr. C-w stated that he sat up all night, and drew it up that one night.}

I am aware of the influence which Mr. N. exercises over many minds, but I do not hesitate to say, that I had rather see my child die than be under the moral influence that rules at Ebrington Street. Wherever its direct influence reaches, moral integrity is gone. I know it has been stated, that it is a mere personal question on my part. Now I appeal to this single assertion just as a proof of the destruction of integrity. Has not Mr. Newton, have not others, stated in public and in private, that we deny the Gospels and I know not what else, and that the foundations of Christianity are gone, if our doctrine is received? Is this a personal question? The fact is where it is hoped that consciences may be alarmed, it is stated we deny the Gospels, etc. When a soul is getting uneasy at the state of things among them or it is thoroughly known that all this is false, then it is stated to be mere personality. Mr. N. is named because he has been the public actor in this matter. And I am not writing here to give my private opinion as to who else may be as really guilty as he, it would be quite out of place. I give the brethren at large the facts which led to my leaving Ebrington Street.

71 I have omitted to speak of the fasts. In doing this I add a circumstance early in the history, which I omitted to mention. There was very assiduous teaching from Revelation 1 on the stars, Christ holding the stars of ministerial authority in His hand. After a time during which I had ceased attending the prayer meeting, I think after the first fast (I am not quite sure), I thought there was some softening, and returned. The first thing I heard was one of the persons whose name appears in all these documents earnestly praying that Christ would uphold the stars which He had raised up and held in His right hand, and that we might own them. As to the fasts, at a very early stage of the business I urged that we might fast together. Mr. H. pressed it on them. I had conversed with Mr. D-k, Sir A.C., etc., as to it, who desired it and wished to come, and that brethren might join in it. But all pressing it was useless. Mr. N. declared there was nothing to fast for, and that he would not have Plymouth made a plague spot of. It was anxiously explained over and over again, that it was meant to charge none, but that, as we were all in trial, we could go and cast ourselves before God, and I said I should go with all my heart and confess any want of spirituality in me that had helped it on; but it was useless. I could only weep and fast to myself.

At last on the occasion of the disorder of the aged brother's speaking above mentioned, Mr. Newton went down on Saturday to the coach to Mr. H., who went for the Lord's day elsewhere, and stated he should give out a fast the next day; which he did for circumstances which had occurred here and elsewhere. However, though I thought all this very bad indeed, and all understood what this meant, and other brethren were necessarily excluded, as it was given out for Wednesday that week, I went. The brethren who have since left mourned and confessed unfeignedly. Mr. N. blessed God for giving them the truth and prayed God to give them firmness to maintain their position. I thought the whole matter the very worst thing that had taken place. When Mr. C-n came here, Mr. N. peremptorily refused to have any confession about Plymouth; Mr. C-n stated in private that he would not hear of it, and that they could only have it general for all the church. This to me was far worse than nothing here.

72 Subsequent to Mr. C-n's saying the evil was want of unity in judgment (he declined to me any inquiry into the circumstances here)* and that love depended on it. Mr. N. took it up warmly, and stated that the Lord had sent Mr. C-n; that brethren had all along differed as to redemption, Christ's offices, characters, and a fourth thing I do not now remember; and that there could not be union. After this they had other fasts which I of course did not attend; some, since out, did and part of it was so bad that I know those who had to leave the room. Since then I know nothing of what has passed there.

{*Mr. C-n's principle is that, where there exists a body of Christians, no false principle, even in the ground of their union, is a sufficient reason for leaving them.

Letter to the saints meeting in Ebrington Street on the circumstances which have recently occurred there.

J. N. Darby.

<20002E> 73

My brethren,

Though I felt reluctant to print anything as to what is passing, still now that all have stated (I suppose) what they think right, the excitement of it being somewhat passed, I shall, without returning to matters already discussed, give you my judgment on what interests us all here - I trust in meekness and grace. Several brethren having come down here subsequent to my leaving Ebrington Street to inquire into the facts, I felt I owed it to them, however fully convinced I might be in my own mind, to give full time and opportunity to them to satisfy themselves as to everything that had passed. This opportunity has been given, and I have felt free to act on my own convictions before God. During the latter part of their stay here, three of these brethren, Lord C., P-r, and C., having proposed to bring before the brethren at large certain charges which had mixed themselves up with the question, asked me if I would seek to remove the impression my previous statement to the brethren had made. I stated to them that I was perfectly ready to press upon the brethren not to receive any impression from me on the subject, and that they were bound to judge for themselves (these brethren having ascertained the facts, at least as to what I had stated, so that it could be put before the brethren at large); and, farther, that I was ready, if the facts as thus admitted by them were plainly set before the brethren, to abide by their judgment as to any intention or motive involved in these facts, inasmuch as the conscience of the body would then be clear as to them, though there might be other points which demanded inquiry. I left Plymouth for a fortnight, other motives also concurring, so as to give them time to arrange this while I worked elsewhere.

Nothing resulted. As to myself, all know that I have been at all times ready to meet the brethren as to any thing that concerned myself. Here I shall say nothing. I am conscious of nothing wrong in this matter, however imperfect in my ways: the judgment of man is of little moment, and I prefer committing myself to Him that judges righteously. I can bless and thank God heartily and unfeignedly for everything as to myself, and trust Him in it all.

74 To pursue the subsequent facts. You have all seen the letter of Sir A.C., and the way in which the judgment of the brethren was utterly rejected in principle. I need not repeat here his plain statement. Mr. C. on another occasion alleged the passage in Matthew 18. "Tell it to the church," and not only tell it to the church but "if he neglect to hear the church." This also was rejected. If told to the church, it was said they could not act on it as a body, though individuals might come and state their judgment. To Mr. W. the same principle was maintained, by another who acts as teacher and ruler, on the occasion of taking up the chapel in Raleigh Street. Mr. W. stated that if there could be any appeal to any from the alleged evil which had driven away many long-known brethren, he would seek still to go through with the matter in Ebrington Street. He was told there was none, he had only to submit if those who held the place of rulers were concerned and did not act, and this even if it were a crime they were charged with themselves. Since then it has been taught openly that it is wrong for the church to act judicially, and that it could call no one to its bar; and the other two, not included in the previous statements, who have assumed the place of teachers or rulers, or both, confirm the principle that it must be left to the rulers, and that the church must judge by its representatives. Such is the way godly conscientious persons have been met. At any rate it is notorious that, in whatever terms it may have been expressed, the principle has been deliberately and systematically acted upon, when there was evil enough judged to be there by many godly brethren to drive them away. There was no remedy. Here then I get at the broad principle of the congregation meeting in Ebrington Street: - the church cannot judge evil.

Another has been brought clearly out by the presence of these brethren. They were not allowed to interfere because they were strangers and not of the congregation in Ebrington Street. This was distinctly asserted and maintained: - the unity of the body is denied.

There is a third point which has been brought out by the visit of these brethren. Mr. Newton has declared, in substance, that he would pursue what would produce everywhere united hostility in every gathering to the teaching of the brethren whose doctrines he disapproved of. Now with this I can have no fellowship, nor sustain it by public association with those who seek it. Until it be openly and distinctly judged by the assembly, they are parties to it now that it is avowed either acquiescing in it under the plea of preserving unity, or at least helping it on unconsciously. I could be no party to their doing either.

75 But while party sectarianism is avowed, and for this alone I should feel bound (separate from evil, and identifying myself in heart with its low estate) to take my place in the unity of God's true church and away from what I believe to be thus avowedly sectarian, still I would not dwell farther on this now. There are other principles in the facts I have mentioned which I present to the consciences of brethren. The fact that these brethren known to all, who came from elsewhere, were not allowed to meddle with the affair here, because they were not of Plymouth or of the gathering in Ebrington Street, is a direct denial of the unity of the body of Christ.

It is not a question of deference for those habitually here: I never heard the brethren who came accused of want of that. It is a question of principle. From the outset their interference was rejected on this ground. The unity of the body is therefore denied, and any gift or wisdom which other brethren who do not reside here possess cannot be exercised freely in the body. The gathering in Ebrington Street is a sectarian party everywhere, or an independent church, and the true unity of the body of Christ is denied there. It is useless to say that all saints are admitted to communion. So they would be in any other independent church in the kingdom. The real unity of the body as a whole is denied.

Secondly, the judgment of evil is positively refused to the church in defiance of direct plain scriptures. "Do ye not judge them that are within?" "If he neglect to hear the church." "Put out from among yourselves that wicked person."

And here comes out another principle. The teacher and his authority are set above the written word. The word says "judge." The rulers say you must not judge, and the fact is no judgment takes place. Perhaps, if the rulers bring a member before the body, the body may be suffered to excommunicate him; they have, that is, an executive and not a deliberative capacity. That is, when the rulers have deliberated and resolved (for I suppose there is to be some deliberation), the body is to execute; but the exercise of conscience or spiritual judgment by the Holy Ghost working in the body is not for them at all. This is what in principle has actually taken place. If those who have assumed the place of rulers commit even a crime, there is no remedy but to leave it to the Lord - none in any way. The body cannot judge: and if brethren, ever so gifted, come from elsewhere, they cannot be allowed to interfere, for they are strangers. There is an absolutely irresponsible body of rulers who have assumed the place to themselves (for who placed them there?) who can sin as they think fit till God is pleased to interfere. The gathering in Ebrington Street, besides being sectarian is really an independent church which has no power to judge evil, with irresponsible rulers who have assumed this place, and cannot be judged by anybody for anything they do.

76 For these two reasons, my brethren, I cannot own a table in Ebrington Street in any way. I look for two things especially as constituting distinctively the table of the Lord. First, the unity of the body of Christ - we are one body as partakers of one bread; secondly, that it should be a holy table. Both are denied in Ebrington Street. I do not mean that there are not individuals who believe in the unity of the body, and who are holy persons and desire holiness; I do not the least doubt it. I speak of the principle for which they are responsible there.

Hence further, I fear nothing of the charge of a second table. There are many tables in Plymouth, and where dear saints too go conscientiously: but they do not, I judge, rightly own (in terms they would admit it as much as Ebrington Street) the unity of the body. Now I doubt that in any of them the friendly and gracious intervention of known brethren to help them through a trying case would have been rejected, as it has been in the gathering here; and certainly none would hold that there was no remedy at all for evil in their rulers but to leave it to the Lord. But I do not judge, we do not judge, they are what we seek for at the Lord's table; and I do not go there, and you do not go there. I act then as I acted seventeen years ago, believing that, where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, there He is. I do not speak of a second table as regards Ebrington Street, more than I should say a fifth or sixth, if I began to break bread where there were four or five other dissenting bodies already established in a place.

77 I have given, in principle, my reasons why I do not own Ebrington Street at all, though I love, and look to God for grace to continue to love, the saints who go there. God forbid I should not: for I count them members of Christ's body, however they may divide it. I appeal now to their judgment as saints. But while the unity of the body is denied in fact, and the judgment of any evil doers is refused to the body, I cannot recognize their way nor them as the body of Christ at all as to their actual position. Do you really think, beloved brethren, that absolute irresponsibility as to evil for all who can assume the place of rulers is the principle of the church of God, being neither remediable within, nor others allowed to interfere? "I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." You will find, and it is worthy of note, that in the first to the Corinthians, where directions are given as to these things, they are addressed to all saints, and no rulers or elders are mentioned in the matter. The point was to have the conscience of the body clear.

I believe then, that the two great principles of the church of God - unity and holiness - have been denied at Ebrington Street; not as to individuals, I mean nothing of that, but I speak of that on which the table spread there is based as a principle. I cannot therefore own it. I do not recur to what made me leave it, but to the judgment which what has passed since leads me to form of it. Till judgment of evil and unity were rejected I could be in suspense. Now they are rejected. But I shall say what I judge as to the whole matter, and as to the brethren who came here. As regards those who came here or who acted when here in a determined party spirit - to them I say that all I desire is, that, if their consciences do ever recognize this, they may be assured that they have my full and hearty forgiveness, as I do not doubt that they will then have the Lord's: but as to the brethren in general who came - there are several whom I love and value very highly, and whose judgment in ordinary cases I should be most thankful to have and generally would rather have had than my own; but I judge that with one or two exceptions, which of course I do not name, their faith* was not equal to the emergency in which they found themselves. They might have confined themselves to obtaining information for the guidance of their own conduct, or they might, as members of the body of Christ, have identified themselves with the body here, and strengthened and acted in and with it according to their gift and grace. They did neither; they went beyond one, and they failed to do the other. They will forgive my putting this my judgment plainly before them and the brethren. Still the Lord ordered all for good, however painfully. Their coming has made the state of things and principles quite plain to every heedful conscience. The Lord is always faithful and cannot leave His people, however miserable they are. I believe He never shewed Himself so much in favour of the brethren and their principles as His, as in this matter, but it will decidedly sift all and elsewhere too in a great measure as well as here.

{* It is possible that I might have acted more in faith myself by leaving in April. But the Lord (I trust) has overruled all.}

78 I feel bound to add another point. Indeed but for this I do not know that I should have written this. I am fully persuaded that there is a spirit of delusion from the enemy at work. I have feared it long. I have not myself the least doubt of it whatever now. Terrible as such a thing no doubt is, it is a comfort in one point of view that it accounts for otherwise unaccountable things, and it relieves the mind as to them, because one is sure that the power of the Deliverer is above it. wilful rejection of anything would evidently be a more hopeless case. The quiet rejection of the Gadarenes was far worse than the "what have I to do with thee?" of Legion himself. It may be comparatively in slight and less perceivable things, but I have the unhesitating conviction that it is at work. I do not say in all, though its effects may reach far, but over many. Finally, I recognise that many dear saints of God are in that which I have left. That they do not, many of them, see their way out I fully believe. They cannot of course act beyond whatever light they have in their consciences. All I ask them is to look earnestly to God their Father, through Jesus, that He may enlighten their consciences, and by the power of His Spirit give them power to act on His light; for that we need too. And we know that, if their eye be single in this, they will find light and power too, and be in the presence of God, where everything gets its true place. I commend them with all my heart to Him and to the word of His grace in the bowels of Jesus Christ.

Finally I admit that it is a very serious thing to quit any body of Christians; but it is equally serious to remain where the table is based on principles which make it not the Lord's in truth. Moreover unity with Ebrington Street is not unity with the body of Christ; nay, it is the contrary now to me. And the insisting on the doctrine of unity to prevent the judging of evil, and that by the consciences of the saints, and assuming it into the hands of the rulers, is one of the very worst forms of evil, if not the very worst form which exists. Unity is insisted on by Rome, and on that account evil within is not allowed to be judged by the consciences of the saints. The representatives and rulers have that in their hands, though they may and do associate to themselves the body in doing it.

79 It may be alleged that young saints are unfit to judge such things. I believe there are many things a young saint would, in these days, judge better than many an old one. But that is not the question. Individuals are not called on to judge as such. The objection brings out a further point - the denial of the Holy Ghost acting in the body so as to guide it in a common act. And this is the real root of the whole matter.

One word more. The question may be and has been raised of returning to Ebrington Street. My answer is here simple. There is nothing there now for me to return to. If the saints who are there are delivered from what I believe to be evil, I boast of no superiority because I have been so before them. We are at once all one on common ground. It would be my most hearty joy. But there is nothing there for me to return to.

I take this opportunity to say, as others seem very anxious it should be said more publicly than it has, that I think the absence of the last two letters of the five of manuscript copy has been probably accounted for.

As to the appendix I shall state what was stated to me, as far as I can remember it. I attach not the smallest importance to it one way or other whatever; but as others do, here it is. I had remonstrated with Mr. Newton some five or six years ago as to these letters. He had been then, and it has been going on since, employing certain sisters in copying them, and the copies were sent to India, Canada, Ireland, etc. I wrote in a letter after the remonstrance certain objections to Mr. N. One of those sisters applied to Mr. Newton for any answer he might have to certain difficulties I presented on the subject, which she had heard at a meeting held at her sister's house. Mr. Newton gave her my letter to copy, desiring her not to copy a certain part which referred to personal matters, and, at the same time, his answers to the objections contained therein. This was introduced at the end of letter three as an appendix to letter one, under the title, "Appendix to letter 1. Some difficulties suggested to the interpretation in this letter with Mr. Newton's answer." The sister in question says, if I understand right, that Mr. Newton is not answerable for its being there. I have no remark to offer on this, because I attach no sort of importance to it; but as others do, I take this opportunity of giving additional publicity to this also. Any importance I attach to the appendix, which is more as a proof of the letters being still circulated after remonstrance than anything else, is scarcely in the smallest degree affected by it.

80 This has nothing whatever to do with the question of the printed documents to which the charges so often spoken of related, and on which I do not touch now at all in any way.

Account of the proceedings at Rawstorne Street, in November and December 1846, with an answer to the "Reasons" circulated in justification of the refusal of Mr. Newton to meet the brethren.

J. N. Darby.

<20003E> 81 (See also files 20004E, 20005E, 20006E)

PART 1

If it be a sad thing to be engaged in such an affair as that which occupies the saints at this moment, it is a matter of great comfort to be directed of God in it. It has been the conviction of the saints in Rawstorne Street, that they could not enter into reasons for not clearing their own consciences in the matter of evil charged against a brother who had refused to meet them on those charges; and that they must act on the fact of his refusal, when every means had been used to induce that brother to retract it and meet them; the rather, as they understood, that these reasons, as is now evident, would force them into the whole question of what had passed at Plymouth, and the merits of the case, as it had occurred there. This they felt under the circumstances incompetent to enter into. Mr. Newton was not present to reply for himself; witnesses as to the facts were not there. Had I made a statement, they could have only judged of its correctness ex parte. Moreover it was not what they had to do. They had to act on the repeated refusal of Mr. Newton to satisfy their consciences; and on that ground and that alone they did act, having come to the conclusion that if he refused to satisfy them, he could not come to communion with them till he did. That refusal was finally given; and they thereupon wrote a letter to inform him, that he could not communicate till there was a full investigation.

I think they were bound to act so, and that the Lord guided them. Still I felt, having acted as the discipline of the church of God required, it would be satisfactory if the "Reasons" alleged for refusing to meet them came before the saints and were fairly examined; and I thought of applying to those who had attached their signatures to them to print them, and then I could reply. This thought was in my mind only the morning after the meeting at which the final letter to Mr. N. was drawn up, when I found, on going out, that they were already widely circulated in print among the brethren in London, before the letter communicating the judgment of the brethren had been closed by those entrusted to sign and send it. This publication of the "Reasons" has given full opportunity for entering into them; and it is to me a source of unfeigned satisfaction, though at the same time of sorrow, that the whole thing has come out into the light.

82 I now give the facts and papers, as they occurred connected with what took place in Rawstorne Street.

It was no volunteer whatever on the part of those meeting there. They had been advised, at the time Lord C. before them all had charged Mr. W. with schism,* not to take any steps as to Plymouth, till the Lord made it a matter for their own consciences, and brought it before them; and accordingly they had remained entirely tranquil in the matter. I came up to town, on my way to France, got my passport signed, and orders on the continent for money, ready to start. At this moment Mr. Newton arrived in town, and held some private meetings at which he lectured. At the close of one of these meetings, held in the immediate neighbourhood of Rawstorne Street, at the house of three who usually attended there, at which our brother G-h was present, Mr. N. took Mr. G-h aside and said that one object he had in coming up to town was, to satisfy the minds of any brethren as to the charges made against him. Mr. G-h, hoping things were going to be cleared up, said he should soon see some of them, or words to that effect. Mr. G-h communicated this to Dr. C. Dr. C. communicated it to the Saturday meeting, which is composed of brethren from different gatherings, whose communications for mutual edification, if there is no further service, tend to maintain unity of action in the gatherings (which are numerous) in and around London. At this meeting, cases of discipline and of persons desiring to be received into communion are named, that they may be known; and brethren can consult together in any matter that arises. Dr. C. at the same time communicated the judgment of Mr. R.H-d who had been obliged to leave the meeting, that nothing would be satisfactory unless the parties concerned met and the matter were fully gone into. All concurred in the propriety of meeting the proposal of Mr. Newton. Dr. C. was asked to undertake this, together with Mr. R. H-d, and any others it might be deemed wise to associate with them. Ultimately Mr. R.H-d, Dr. C., and Mr. D-n, communicated with Mr. Newton. Their efforts resulted in a failure of obtaining from Mr. Newton any satisfactory arrangement, for meeting the charges, or for satisfying brethren as proposed.

{*Lord C., however, would not now break bread at Ebrington Street himself.}

{**The above is Mr. G-h's own statement, corrected from his lips.}

83 There is a meeting at Rawstorne Street on Tuesday morning, at which any needed diaconal service is considered, if there be such, after a prayer-meeting of those who attend. At this meeting, Mr. G-h being there, the matter was mentioned, and concurrently with, though independently of, the steps taken by the three above-named,* it was agreed that the ten then present should write to Mr. N., and propose to him to meet the saints. The following letter was accordingly written:-

{*The proposal of Mr. Newton was made after a lecture to saints attending Rawstorne Street, at the house of those who attended there, and to one of those who always meet there. Of course, persons attending other gatherings besides Rawstorne Street may have been and doubtless were there; though the house where the meeting was held is in that immediate neighbourhood.}

"Rawstorne Street, Nov. 10th, 1846.

"Dear Brother,

"Having been informed at our meeting for prayer this morning, that some of our brethren* have invited you to attend a meeting of the saints (the importance and necessity of which for the Lord's honour we feel), for the purpose of considering before the Lord the unhappy circumstances that have arisen amongst us, and as it is understood that you have expressed your readiness to meet the saints and to answer any questions on the above subject, we earnestly request you to inform us when and where you will do so.

"We are, dear brother, yours truly,

"THOS. A.  "EDW. G-E.

"JOHN U.  "GEORGE P-N.

"JOSEPH B-R. "CHAS. JAS. H-N.

"HENRY G-H. "W. H-T.

"PORTER H-ND. "JOHN E. W-D.

84 "P.S. your answer may be addressed to J.B-r, College Street, Islington, or to any one of the brethren who have signed this note."

{*This refers to what is mentioned above, which resulted in the meeting at Dr. C.'s house.}

This was sent down the same evening to Dr. C.'s, where the meeting of Mr. Newton with Mr. H-d, Dr. C., and Mr. D-n took place; and Mr. N. said, he would answer it the next day in writing. His answer follows:-

"My dear Brother,

"My time is now very limited, but I hope to be at our brother G-h's tomorrow afternoon, at three o'clock, when I should be happy to see any of the brethren who have signed the note to me, and to answer their inquiries as far as lies in my power.

"Yours in Christian regard,

(Signed) "B. W. NEWTON.

"Tuesday Eve."

To this Mr. B-r replied in the name of the brethren:-

"College Street, Nov. 11th.

"Dear Brother,

"The object of the note sent you from ten brethren yesterday morning was not to request that you would meet those who signed it, as your note seemed to infer (which, by the bye, did not reach me till twenty minutes to ten this morning, a period much too late to summon brethren for three o'clock, as they were all scattered to their several occupations), but that you would state when and where you intended to meet the saints publicly, 'for the purpose of considering, before the Lord, the unhappy circumstances that have arisen amongst us,' and to which they still request a direct reply.

"Yours truly,

"Mr. B. W. Newton." "JOSEPH B-R.

Mr. Newton replied as follows:-

"Nov. 11, 1846. "Dear Brethren,

"There were last year certain charges of moral dishonesty brought against me by Mr. Darby, at Plymouth in a public meeting, such charges having* not first communicated to me. When I heard of these charges, I requested four brethren, of whom Lord C. was one, to wait on Mr. Darby and request him to nominate other four to investigate the truth. This was "declined. Besides this, I requested those brethren who are regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints there to treat the matter as they would any other matter that might seem to require discipline. This was done, and a paper published, stating that they had examined the case, and reporting thereon to the saints. This paper you may see. Besides this, I appeared twice before ten or twelve brethren from various places, such, for example, as R., Lord C., M. Sir A.C., C., and others. They entered into an examination of the charges fully; and Lord C. will tell you that all, with the exception of Mr. W., declared that I was free from the charge of moral dishonesty that had been brought against me. A written defence was prepared by me, and laid before these brethren. Mr. B-er, of Hackney, has this defence, and can shew it to you. After all this, I feel that I cannot be properly asked to plead again. As regards other charges in the 'Narrative of Facts,' the others affect the whole gathering of Plymouth as well as myself,** and I hope to consider with them the desirable mode of satisfying our dear brethren that they are untrue. The personal charges against me will, I think, be sufficiently met by the papers in possession of Mr. B-er.

"Yours in Christian love,

(Signed) "B. W. NEWTON."

{*Read "not having been"; but, of course, I copy the original.}

{**This is not in any way the case. Founded or unfounded, there are many charges which affect Mr. Newton alone.}

85 Hereupon, the following paper was drawn up and signed:-

"The undersigned ten brethren, after the meeting for prayer usually held by some brothers on Tuesday morning, felt it laid on their consciences to write to Mr. Newton, requesting him to state when and where he would attend a meeting of the saints publicly, for the purpose of considering, before the Lord, the unhappy circumstances which have arisen amongst us.

"This Mr. Newton has refused to do.

"Having thus acted in obedience to what they felt to be the Lord's guidance in so solemn a matter, these brethren, in fellowship with others who have added their names hereto, now desire to leave it in testimony upon the consciences of the saints to act upon their responsibility to the Lord in so grave a matter.

"HENRY G-H.  "JOHN E. W-D.

"PORTER H-ND. "JOHN U.

"GEORGE P-N. "JOSEPH B-R.

"THOS. A.  "EDWARD G-E.

"CHAS. JAS. H-N. "WILLIAM H-T.

"We have full fellowship with the act of these brethren.

"FREDERICK L.

"MATTHEW JAMES S-G.

86 Thursday evening is the weekly worship meeting at Rawstorne Street. There was a full attendance of the saints on the following Thursday, as it was understood the result arrived at would be communicated by Mr. D-n. The ten brethren requested him to do this for them, as one who had long laboured in Rawstorne Street and enjoyed the confidence of all. He had also been associated with Mr. H-d and Dr. C. in their meeting with Mr. Newton. Having enquired of Mr. G-e if the letters were there, he read the paper to the meeting. Mr. S-ll , who had never formally joined the brethren, but who constantly breaks bread in Rawstorne Street, urged that brethren should not deal unfairly and judge on a statement of the kind, and that Mr. N. ought not to be judged without being heard; that Mr. N.'s was not a direct negative, and that he gave his reasons, and the letters ought to be read.

Mr. D-n replied, that Mr. S-ll  had entirely mistaken the question; that they were not judging the matters at all; that, instead of not hearing Mr. Newton, what they complained of was, that he would not come and let them hear him; that, of course, he gave reasons, but that it was a direct refusal, though he gave reasons for that refusal; and that at the meeting at Dr. C.'s they had proposed everything they could think of as a means of getting Mr. N. to meet satisfactorily the charges made, and that he would agree to nothing they could propose; that he (D-n) had merely taken the office of communicator, and that his service was now ended. The letters were read, and Mr. D-n closed with prayer.

Mr. Newton had said, on leaving the three brethren, after refusing the different plans they had suggested, that they might write and propose something, and they at Plymouth would consider it. Mr. H-d and Dr. C. thought that, not having said "No" at the time, they were under some obligation to do it, and they pressed it on Mr. D-n. He wrote accordingly the following note to Mr. N.:-

"40, Southampton Street, Reading,

"Nov. 20, 1846.

87 "Dear Brother,

"I now write a line to you in connection with the subject of our conference at our brother Dr. C.'s last week. I did not myself think it needful to press the matter any further upon you by letter, after the repeated negative you put, in that conference, upon every proposition to meet Mr. Darby and others connected with this sad business face to face. However other brethren think that in fairness you ought to be allowed, even now, an opportunity to retract that refusal, if you are disposed; and I am sure personally no one would more rejoice that you should do so than myself, convinced as I am that nothing but meeting the question in a fair and open way, in the presence of all concerned, will have the effect of clearing yourself, or of satisfying the consciences of the saints. Let me ask you therefore to say whether you are prepared to meet Mr. Darby and others concerned in this question, in the presence of the saints at Rawstorne Street, where your visit and expressions of willingness to meet investigation have brought it on. I beg to say very distinctly, I do not write to brethren at Plymouth for any opinion as to the scriptural mode of proceeding in this investigation; not because I despise their judgment, but because the only satisfactory course for me to pursue, if I am charged with evil, is openly and fairly to answer to those charges when I am required to do so by the church, whose province it is to judge the evil, and not to be raising questions about the competency of the tribunal. I may also further say, that I write to you simply as to your personal course in this matter, because the charges are brought against yourself and not against others. Dr. C. wishes me to say, that an immediate answer is desirable, as Mr. Darby has been requested to stay in London until your reply is received, in order to give you the opportunity of meeting him and others, as required.

"Yours affectionately in Christ,

"W. H. D-n."

88  To this Mr. D-n received the following reply:-

"7, Woodside, Nov. 24th, 1846.

"My dear Brother,

"Newton having submitted to myself and other brethren your letter to him, we have requested him to allow us to answer it. This answer has been delayed by my own inability to write or to give due attention to the matter, owing to an inflammation in one of my eyes. Our letter is intended to assign our reasons for counselling our brother to decline your proposal to him.

"Hoping to write to you with the least possible delay,

"Believe me, yours affectionately in the Lord,

"HENRY WM. S.

"To W. H. D-n."

Mr. D-n declined waiting for any reasons, as the refusal to meet the saints was fully expressed in this note. Dr. C. wrote a separate note to Mr. Newton, making another proposal, namely, a meeting of brethren from different gatherings to enter into it with Mr. Darby present. Mr. Newton in his reply referred him to the above note of Mr. S. to Mr. D-n.*

{* The following is Mr. D-n's reply to a note of Mr. C-w's referring to the reasons for not meeting the saints. The note itself is given first.

"Plymouth, 26th Nov. 1846.

"Dear Brother in the Lord,

"We hoped to be able to send the letter which we are now writing to you, with an accompanying paper, by this day's post, but we cannot get it done in time; so I write a line to say that we purpose forwarding it by an early coach to-morrow - and it will thus, we hope, reach Reading by the express train which leaves Exeter at 12 o'clock.

"I remain, your affectionate brother in the Lord,

"JOSEPH C-W.

"40, Southampton Street, Reading,

"Dear Brother, Nov. 27, I 846.

"On my return from London this evening I found your letter of yesterday, and at the first moment after the lecture I sit down to acknowledge the receipt of it. I need hardly say, as you are acquainted with the contents of my note to Mr. Newton, I was a good deal surprised to receive a letter in reply from Mr. S. and afterwards one from yourself. Under other circumstances, of course, it would have afforded me nothing but pleasure to hear from either of you. I have not yet received the papers you speak of; but I suppose they may reach me to-morrow, however unavailable in my hands for the purpose for which I suppose they are sent. Indeed I have already acted on Mr. S.'s note as definitive to my own mind, on the only point about which I communicated with Mr. Newton. He tells me that he and others have counselled Mr. Newton to decline my proposal; and this I communicated to the saints at Rawstorne Street (as I did his refusal to meet the request of ten brethren who had written to him on the preceding Thursday evening), expressing at the same time most fully my thoughts and judgment about such a course. I now leave the saints there to act further in the matter as the Lord may give them wisdom and grace. In entering upon this matter, which I did at the request of dear Dr. C., it was my determination by the Lord's grace to act simply if I could not act wisely: so that Mr. Newton may judge my surprise and disappointment at the way in which he has treated my letter. He might have remonstrated against it if he had thought fit; but at least he should not have supposed I would express a purpose as strongly as I knew how to-day, and then act upon the very opposite to-morrow. All I can say is, if he or the brethren thought fit to send reasons at all, it ought to have been evident to them that I was not the person to whose hands they should be committed. My letter was a sufficient warning as to that. I can quite understand the assigning of reasons against a person's being condemned unheard, or against partiality in judgment: but I see no place for reasons why a person who has been charged with guilt should not answer at all. At my declining, therefore, to read any reasons that may come to me to the saints at Rawstorne Street, you must not be grieved, as it is only declining in act what I had already done by letter. I might speak of the sorrow of my heart in this matter, but this is known to the Lord.

"Yours, affectionately, in Christ,

"W. H. D-n.

"To Mr. C-w.

"P.S. I add a line before posting this, to say the parcel has arrived. I cannot add more, if I would secure to-day's post."}

89 Mr. D-n met the saints at Rawstorne Street on the Thursday evening following, and communicated the refusal to them; adding that, without judging upon the charges, a person who refused to meet them must lie under them - that he could not receive reasons for not meeting them; that he pressed no judgment by the brethren - they would act for themselves in it; but that after what had passed, if Mr. Newton came to Reading or Oxford, where he was now labouring, he as an individual would not break bread with Mr. Newton. And having thus discharged his own conscience, he had done what he had to do in the matter, into which he had been introduced by the invitation of Mr. H-d, Dr. C., etc.

In all these proceedings, though I had stayed in London at the particular request of brethren, I had taken no part whatever, nor been present at any meetings on the subject, save these two Thursdays, when I was at the regular worship and stayed, but took no part, save that a brother having urged that I should meet the saints and give full information, I said that of course I was ready to give any explanation, but felt it would be neither right nor gracious to bring in new matter at any such meeting.

90 On the Sunday morning following, it was given out that a meeting of brothers* would be held to consider what ought to be done under the circumstances. They met on the Wednesday following, a very large body of brethren - several from other gatherings beside Rawstorne Street being present and taking part in suggesting what they thought might minister to charity and godliness. At this meeting the great body were satisfied that all had been done that was needed, and that they must come to the conclusion that till Mr. N. satisfied them he could not come to communion. A few doubted whether they could be considered to have received a direct refusal, however right they might think the steps of the ten. A Kennington brother declared that Mr. N. had said to himself when calling on him on these points, that the church was not a judicial assembly, and that he would not answer to it.

{* It was felt desirable not to connect the inquiry with the worship meetings again in this matter; indeed many sisters complained of being dragged into it after worship; and the brothers met to consider the matter, before mentioning it at the general meeting, as they had in other instances which presented difficulty in which the consciences of all were concerned. It was not without or against the wish of those who labour among them; but quite the contrary. In many cases those who do so have felt able to present the matter at once to the body, as being very simple: in other cases, where it involved in a more anxious way the consciences of all, this previous communication to all has been made. The whole facts of this case had been communicated already to the congregation - brethren and sisters - at the two previous Thursday meetings by Mr. D-n.}

Mr. G-h also read thereon part of a letter of Mr. N. to Dr. C.,* stating that he would meet him as an individual, but positively refusing to meet the saints in a formal manner. The brethren who had some difficulty were satisfied by this; and it was then proposed, that though they adopted the act of the ten brethren, an appeal had not been made by the body; and, however hopeless they might be about it, still charity would try. Mr. D-n who was present proposed this formally. A brother from Kennington said that, though he knew it did not apply in the letter, still the analogy of Matthew 18 might be used, and that the last step therein mentioned had not been taken; if that was taken, he should feel nothing more could be done but to refuse to receive him. This proposal was deferred to, Mr. G-h thereon definitely presenting it to the meeting, and the following letter was written and agreed to. Mr. B-e very graciously said, that he did not personally concur in the alternative stated in it, as, supposing there was a refusal on the part of Mr. Newton, he did not feel that it would hinder his breaking bread with him. It was settled that the letter should be read on Sunday morning to the whole congregation, which was accordingly done by Mr. G-h, and it was despatched on Monday, no comment having been made on it on Sunday. I must say, nothing could exceed the grace and good order and deference for the feelings of the weakest, that characterised the meeting of Wednesday. Mr. S-ll  (who as I understood, avowed himself a member of another body of Christians) rebuked Mr. D-n for saying, when declaring that he could not read the reasons, that they had not satisfied him. Mr. D-n acquiesced in the justice of it. Mr. W. objected to the fitness of Mr. S-ll's taking a prominent part; but the brethren discountenanced the objection, and though silent till the close of the meeting, he spoke again the Friday week following. I should not mention these things, but that I would state nothing as to the character of the meeting without giving a general outline of all.

{*The impression on Dr. C.'s mind had been, that Mr. N. had expressed his readiness to meet the saints, individually or collectively, and accordingly he pressed his seeing brethren. The following is the letter in answer to Dr. C:-

91 My dear Brother,

"I have never proposed, but entirely declined, a formal meeting. If you wish to see me as a Christian brother, and would ask me any questions that would tend to elucidate facts, I should feel obliged; but I would consent to nothing further, nor would I see any brethren without first being acquainted with their names. I will endeavour to call on you to-morrow at the time proposed; but it is only to see YOU, and to afford you an opportunity of satisfying your own mind as to facts, if you desire it. But I come to see you alone.

"Yours, in Christian love,

"B. W. NEWTON."

This letter having been publicly read by Mr. G-h, it is given; as without it the account of the meeting would not be complete. The rest of the letters are in private hands.}

92 The note addressed by the meeting was as follows:-

"London, Dec. 7, 1846.

"Beloved Brother,

"We beg to transmit to you the following communication from a meeting of brothers usually breaking bread at Rawstorne Street, with some brethren from other places present and concurring; and which was afterwards presented and concurred in by the saints met together in the name of the Lord at Rawstorne Street on Sunday morning last.

"Having been fully informed of your refusal to meet the saints at Rawstorne Street, to satisfy their consciences as to the truth or falsehood of the charges brought against you, in the 'Narrative of Facts,' in the presence of those concerned in the charges, we now make to you a last appeal as a body, in the hope that you may yet be moved to recall your expressed determination on this point, and that you will not force us to a formal expression of the only scriptural alternative left to us in such a case.

"We request that you will kindly send your answer, addressed to Mr. G-h, 20, Trinidad Place, Liverpool Road, Islington, so as to reach him by the 11th inst., as it is the purpose of the brethren to meet on that day to receive it.

"Signed on behalf of those named above,

"Yours in true Christian love,

"H. G-H.

"W. H. D-N.

"To B. W. Newton."

The brethren met on Friday. W. A-e gave out a hymn, and Mr. Darby prayed.

Mr. G-h read the following reply:-

"Plymouth, 9th Dec., 1846.

"Beloved Brethren,

"Knowing, as you well do, our strong conviction so long and in such various ways expressed, that the meeting you propose is entirely opposed to the directions of the word of God, you cannot be surprised that we should again meet it with the most firm and decided negative.

"If you had allowed us a few more days, we should have completed the answer to your letter which we are now preparing, and which we hope to forward with the shortest possible delay."

93 We can scarcely expect that you will attach much value to the expression of our judgment; but we think it our duty simply to warn you against the course that you appear to be so precipitately pursuing.

"We are, beloved brethren,

"Yours affectionately in the Lord,

(Signed) "B. W. NEWTON.

"H.W.S.

"W.B.D.

"J. C-w.

"J.E.B.

"To Messrs. W. H. D-n and H. G-h."

A letter from Mr. T. accompanied it, warning the brethren they were all wrong, which it is hardly necessary to insert. Part of it was, however, read by Mr. G-h.

It will be seen from the letter previously addressed to Mr. Newton, that the meeting on Friday was to receive the answer and act on it if it was a refusal; and this was fully understood by the brethren. The brother who had urged Matthew 18, and pressed the brethren so to act as they accordingly did, put it on that ground, as indeed the passage would make evident.

However, at Friday's meeting, some of Mr. Newton's personal friends came (none of them having been at the preceding ones, but Mr. S-ll ) - Mr. W-s, who did not say much, but objected and left; Mr. W. B-er, Mr. S-ll , Mr. W-n from Brixham in Devonshire, Mr. A-e from Tottenham; Mr. O. from St. Austell, Cornwall - and endeavoured to hinder the brethren from acting, declaring their incompetency to act, that Mr. Newton had never come* among them at Rawstorne Street at all, and therefore they had no reason for acting; Mr. W-n urging the reading a quantity of papers he had in his possession to prove Mr. N. innocent. Mr. D-n replied to this last, that they would be quite proper to be read, if they were trying Mr. Newton, but they were not, nor passing judgment on his guilt, but clearing their own consciences as a gathering, acting solely on his refusal to meet them. And another brother also said that, if they heard these papers and the reasons, Mr. Darby might reply, and Mr. Newton was not there to meet it, so that they could not enter on that ground. It was said that they were as ready to judge Mr. Darby (if the charges were untrue, for then he was a calumniator) as Mr. N., but Mr. N. had made it impossible to enter on it. Mr. B-er said Mr. N. had not refused to meet Mr. Darby under certain circumstances; that he had said, that if brethren declared it was absolutely necessary, he could not say whether he would refuse, but that it would be time enough to consider it when the case arose. Mr. D-n replied to this, that Mr. N. had said at the meeting at Dr. C.'s that, if any brother would say solemnly before the Lord, that he felt it was necessary for the glory of God that he should meet Mr. Darby, he would do so; and that Dr. C. had replied that he did say solemnly before the Lord that it was necessary for the glory of God that he should; and Mr. N. replied then that Dr. C. would not say so if he knew all the circumstances.

{* Referring to his presenting himself at the table.}

94 Other brethren of Rawstorne Street merely urged, that all this was not the question, that they had to act on the refusal to meet them and satisfy their consciences. Mr. O. said, were they right in judging that Mr. Newton had refused? He had seen Mr. N. within a week, and he had told himself that he did not refuse to meet the church. It was replied, that Mr. O., not having been at the meetings, was not aware of course of what had passed; that on Wednesday week preceding a letter had been read from Mr. N. himself, declaring that he would not. And Mr. G-h was called on for the letter. A brother however said, "We all recollect it"; and nothing more was said on this point, and the brethren waited patiently till twelve o'clock, owing to the attempts of the above-named brethren to hinder their acting. One brother, E-s, stated he felt difficulty on the ground of Mr. B-er's statement, but on the letter being read at the close, which it was proposed to send, he rose and said, as he had made a difficulty, he felt called on to say he entirely assented to it. Mr. Frederick P-x protested against the competency of the brethren to act, and questioned if Mr. N. had refused. Another brother made a difficulty as to the course of procedure on this ground, that I ought indeed to have left Ebrington Street, but to have retired to a neighbouring gathering, and got them to judge the whole conduct of Ebrington Street gathering, for not having judged the evil, and therefore I ought not to be listened to at all. Having graciously and quietly stated this, all in the gathering felt that this was a principle that could not be entertained a moment, just as they at this moment could not judge Ebrington Street. They judged unanimously, with the exception of this objection, and of Mr. P-x (for it was an appeal made to all, "Whether any had any difficulty?" which had drawn out these objections), that a letter should be written to Mr. Newton, stating that they could not hold communion with him till he met the charges fully. The letter follows:-

"London, Dec. 13, 1846.

95 "Beloved Brother,

"The saints at Rawstorne Street, with some other brethren present and concurring, having received your refusal to meet their request, now communicate to you, with the utmost sorrow and pain, that they feel precluded meeting you in fellowship at the table of the Lord, until the matters in question have been fairly and fully investigated. In this communication the congregation at Rawstorne Street do not express any judgment on the matter charged, but simply on the fact of your refusal. They need not say, with what joy they would welcome any change in your disposition as to this matter.

"Signed on behalf of the saints above named,

"We remain, dear brother,

"Affectionately yours in Christ,

"W. H. D-N.

"H. G-H.

"To B. W. Newton."

Mr. W. prayed, and the letter was read a second time and approved. It was again read at the table on the following Sunday, and then sent.

I mentioned on Saturday morning, the statement of Mr. B-er at the meeting on Friday evening, and I allude here to what passed, because, as Mr. B-er's statement was made before a very large body of brethren, it is well that the explanation should be known. It did not affect the question before the saints at Rawstorne Street, because it referred to the interview of the three with Mr. N., whereas the brethren there acted on the refusal addressed to the ten brethren, confirmed by the letter of Mr. S. to Mr. D-n, and on the final refusal of Mr. Newton to the joint application of the saints, and other communications which confirmed it. Indeed on one occasion, when allusion was made to the paper signed by Dr. C., Messrs. R. H-d, and D-n, knowing that Mr. B-er was invalidating the authority of that document, I dissuaded the brethren from referring to it without saying more, than that that meeting was not before them, that they had not been there, and it would be better to act on what had been addressed to themselves. And it was not referred to. When on Saturday morning the above letter, signed on Friday night, was communicated to the Saturday meeting, it of course introduced the subject; I said, that what had passed shewed the entire uselessness of these private meetings: here was one at which brethren we all honoured and respected took part; as the responsible persons, they draw up a report as the result of it, and it is left to act upon the consciences of the saints (though happily they had acted independently of it); and, at the end of three weeks, a person present at the meeting, and present and admitting its truth when the report was drawn up, comes and seeks to hinder the saints acting by a statement invalidating the report. Mr. B-er was asked by Mr. H-nd, if the report had not, when drawn up, been read to him, word by word and paragraph by paragraph, and that he had stated it was true: he assented that he had agreed to it as true, and added, that he said now it was true, that is, as far as it went; but that what he had said since was true too. Mr. R. H-d remarked, that Mr. Newton had said what Mr. B-er referred to (namely, that on Mr. B-er's pressing him to say, would he refuse to meet Mr. Darby if brethren insisted on it as necessary? Mr. N. replied, he could not say, that if the brethren insisted on it as necessary, he would in all circumstances refuse, but that it would be time enough to consider it when the case arose). Mr. R. H-d added, that perhaps a better account than the one signed might be, that Mr. Newton had refused every actual proposition made to him,* but made a reserve of hypothetical cases, which came to nothing. I said, that I did not understand how Mr. B-er could consistently assent to, as true (fair had also, at the time, been urged by Mr. S-r, and admitted by Mr. B-er) an absolute statement, that Mr. Newton had refused, and then say, that he had not refused under all circumstances. Mr. B-er said both were true. I said, I could not doubt a moment of the effect produced on D-n, H-d, and Dr. C.'s consciences, before whom the interview took place, which effect never appeared, and which was nullified by an invalidated report. Had it been before the saints themselves, their own consciences would have been under the impression. Mr. R. H-d said, that the best thing perhaps to say was, that it was impossible to give a straightforward report of what was not straightforward. There the matter dropped.** Having given all this comment on it, so that it may have its just value, I add the report signed by these three brethren.

{*Mr. R. H-d had urged at the meeting, that Mr. N. could not reject the competency of the persons, for he had offered to meet and satisfy saints, and that all they wanted was that he should do so in the presence of those concerned. Mr. T. pressed for some scripture for accuser and accused meeting face to face.}

{*Dr. C. confirmed the account given by Mr. D-n, as above, of Mr. N.'s offer, Dr. C.'s saying that he deemed it necessary, and Mr. Newton's answer turning it aside. Mr. B-er asked, if he had pressed it pin, after Mr. N.'s turning it aside; Dr. C. said, Yes, but he had got nothing by it.}

97 "In the meeting at Dr. C.'s (10 Nov. 1846), it was urged upon Mr. Newton, that there was need of a full and open investigation. He was challenged by some present (in accordance with the object of the meeting) to meet J.N.D. and others face to face openly, and to say before them what he had said privately, which he refused, giving reasons against it: but, at the conclusion of the meeting said, that if a proposition was made in writing, they at Plymouth would consider whether it was scriptural.

"Signed by  "D-n

"E.C.

"R. H-d."

I found on going to this Saturday meeting, that the reasons for refusing to meet the saints, signed by Messrs. S., C-w, B., and D., were circulated in print, by post, together with Mr. N.'s defence, as widely as had been possible among the saints composing the congregation in Rawstorne Street, and provision made for their gratuitous distribution. To these documents I now turn.

This report of these proceedings has been submitted to Messrs. D-n, J. H-d, and a considerable number of the saints who took part at Rawstorne Street, and has received their corrections. Mr. R. H-d has corrected what relates to the part he was engaged in. He was not at the general meetings of the brethren, of which an account is given above. Many brethren wishing to sign it, as well as the two named above, it was thought undesirable to select on the one hand, or to delay it on the other. It would have taken several days to attach these signatures, and this notice is substituted.

98 Besides the corrections made, some of the brethren doubted whether Mr. S-ll  had not said, he had been, not he was, a member of another body of Christians. Mr. W.'s objection to the fitness of his taking a prominent part in a case of discipline was on the ground that he still was, though often coming to Rawstorne Street. His feeling was overruled, as stated.

Being the answer to the "Reasons."

J. N. Darby.

<20004E> 98 (See also files 20003E, 20005E, 20006E)

PART 2

I am exceedingly thankful for the publication of these papers. The saints have now Mr. Newton's "Defence," and his friends' "Reasons" for his not meeting the saints. In a word they have the case before them. While the brethren in London were discussing the question of how to judge the case before them, I refrained from taking any part whatever. In the last two meetings, after Mr. Newton had refused to meet them at all, I felt free to take a part, because the merits of the case were not in question, but the competency of saints to clear their consciences of evil; but though provoked by multiplied assertions of proofs of innocence and reasons, I refrained from all answer whatever to these, and refused to say a word on the merits of the case or on the "Reasons" (though it was very trying to me), because it would not have been fair on my part. The printing and distribution of the "Reasons" and "Defence" have set me perfectly free as to this.

I shall consider, first, the "Reasons."

There are one or two general remarks which I would make. In the first place these documents set up my narrative on the highest ground of fairness. For this reason - three things are here alleged* as clearing Mr. Newton, namely, the acquittal by the brethren who went down, which he suppressed; the letter written by a certain number of them, here published; and the acquittal by the four who sign the "Reasons." Now I have stated all these things in the "Narrative." The letters of Mr. R. and Lord C. I could not give, because I had them not, but I have stated their existence. The alleged acquittal, suppressed by Mr. Newton himself as ruining him, so that he declared he would go to Canada if it came out, I felt to be the best thing for him which he had got, as he now feels it to be; and I stated that there was such a document, and its substance, although he had got it suppressed. I will discuss it farther on. I allude to it now as a proof of the fairness of the "Narrative." I have stated also the acquittal by the four who sign the "Reasons."

{*Nothing else indeed is alleged save the fact of investigation by the four signers of the "Reasons," who present themselves as being the persons who addicted themselves at Plymouth to the ministry of the saints. On this two questions arise. Are they the persons who stand, and stand alone in this place as the persons to whom the conscience of the church is to be entrusted (they deny that the body itself can inquire)? Are they really those who exclusively could assume the place in which, without supposing a possibility of question by any, they set themselves up here? and secondly, if they are, did they really make such inquiry as they pretend? This I shall examine farther on. For the present I refer to the acquittals themselves, which Mr. Newton professes to have already received previously. I have stated these in the "Narrative" already. Whatever could be said in the "Narrative" in this way for Mr. N., all he has said here of acquittals given by others, I have stated there. (See pp. 74, 79, and 80.) Their value we will inquire into here. If anything could place my "Narrative" above suspicion it is this defence. For all that is alleged here of testimony in Mr, Newton's favour is found there already.}

99 I have now another remark to make which is of all importance. There is not the smallest attempt whatever made to meet the "Narrative," but merely the charges inquired into at Plymouth a year ago. Now the main charges in the "Narrative" were not before the brethren at all then. They had never been made. They inquired into certain charges made in a public meeting in Ebrington Street in November, 1845, and none others. Now at that meeting I was called on by the saints to say why I had left Ebrington Street. In giving the account to them of the matter, I stated certain things (amongst many other facts) which had stopped me from ministering three months before I left. These particular things affected Mr. N., and these particular things alone were inquired into; but they are by no means the only ones, nor are they in my judgment by any means the gravest. There is not a pretence that the others have been inquired into in any way whatever. The "Reasons" of 1846, as well as the "Defence" of 1845, confine themselves to the inquiry carried on at Plymouth in the year I 845, and leave the main allegations of the "Narrative" untouched, I would I could say unobserved upon. They fix the reader's attention on the Plymouth inquiry, and take it off the "Narrative."

100 But I must now draw the saints' attention to what they do say. After stating that the four who sign are implicated in the main bulk of the charges in the "Narrative," they continue:- "The only exception is in the case of the charges of personal untruthfulness. Of these specific charges our brother Newton is the only object. Now as to these: it might be quite sufficient for us to refer you to his own paper, entitled 'A Defence* in Reply to the Personal Accusations of Mr. Darby,' a copy of which accompanies this letter." . . . "Now we understand your letter to refer only to these last-mentioned charges." . . . "These charges were" - and then they give their statement of the charges alleged to have been made at the meeting at Ebrington Street in November, 1845, and never notice the charges in the "Narrative" at all. God is my witness, brethren, that I wish I had never heard of them again, and that they were all proved untrue. I would bear the shame with joy, if it could be so; but that is not the question here. The plea here against meeting them is, that they have been inquired into, and the accused acquitted of them. Of what? Of the charges in the "Narrative"? No: but of the charges at Plymouth in 1845, which appear** indeed in the "Narrative," but are by far the smallest part of the matter. And the reason why these only were mentioned then is evident. These particular matters were the reason for my leaving, and therefore I mentioned them alone at the meeting in Ebrington Street. I avoided anxiously every aggravation, and stated only what had led to my leaving, for this was what I was called upon to state. In my "Narrative" I stated the facts in general, avoiding private ones. In the "Reasons" these four go back to the Ebrington Street meeting, and declare that the charges made there were disposed of, and never make the smallest allusion to the charges in the "Narrative." These remain untouched; the most important of them were not alluded to in the meeting at Ebrington Street, nor in the inquiry which followed; and some of them happened after both 'the meeting' and 'the inquiry,' though in the affairs connected with them.

{*You would suppose, reader, I dare say, that this "Defence" referred to the contents of the "Narrative." Not at all. It was written nearly a year before the "Narrative" came out, and alludes to only two of the charges contained in it. The word "these" in paragraph 3 of page 1 of the "Reasons" refers to the charges in the "Narrative." But "these" in "Now as to these," in paragraph 4, which would be supposed to be the same, refers only to those alluded to in the meeting at Plymouth in 1845, and not to those in the "Narrative." The unsuspecting reader thinks that they are the same, and that he has in the "Defence" an answer to the charges in the "Narrative," whereas about a quarter of them only are referred to. The others had not then been made, the "Defence" having been written nearly a year before the charges in the "Narrative" came out. The reader must judge for himself of such a procedure.}

101 Mr. Newton took the same ground in his reply to the ten brethren. After urging his acquittal from the charges made in the meeting at Ebrington Street, he adds: "As regards other charges in the 'Narrative of Facts,' the others affect the whole gathering of Plymouth as well as myself." The answer to this statement is, it is wholly untrue. Mr. N. must really draw largely on the credulity of his readers. He is charged with several cases of want of truthfulness, in which he alone (would he were not either!) is concerned. For example to cite only one: the imputing to myself and others a certain heretical doctrine in a tract written by himself alone - when he, and he alone, had taught it in a worse shape, and that after explanation had on the subject; and then denying that he had charged us, though the charge was in print.

{*Indeed only two of those found in the "Reasons" appear as charges in the "Narrative." Four are alleged to have been made in 1845. As to two of them (which I disown however as charges) so far from being acquitted, one of the reasons for which Mr. N. got the paper (now alleged to be an acquittal by the ten brethren) suppressed was, that he was not cleared of these two. Of course these two do not appear as charges in the "Narrative," for I have never allowed them to be such. So that it is only two out of the charges mentioned in the "Reasons," which appear amongst those found in the "Narrative" from which Mr. N. is said to be acquitted.}

I repeat twenty times were it needed, I would to God he could disprove it, were I put to utter shame; but believing not only that the church of God, the saints beloved of Christ are concerned, but that Satan is seeking to ruin the blessing with which God had entrusted us, it cannot now be so passed over. I am ready (I have ever said and felt so) to confess my share as the first among those whose unfaithfulness and want of spirituality gave occasion to the inroad. Moreover, in general I stand as a poor sinner, with no hope at all but mercy myself; and I read, "he shall have judgment without mercy who shewed no mercy." But I cannot (even though my failing may have helped to give occasion to the ruin coming in) acquiesce in it, when it is come in and is manifest. Nor do I think it mercy to leave the poor and simple saints exposed to it (Brethren may judge me as they think right): I cannot do so before God. I am reproached now with not bringing the first charges against Mr. Newton openly before the whole church. I did bring what was a practical point of clerical assumption and the instrument of sectarianism, and pressed it on their consciences much before I left, and they would not stir. I avoided bringing the charges personally disgraceful to himself. My heart resisted it. I am now reproached with it. Perhaps I was wrong. I do not envy his friends who reproach me with it, and take it up as a ground why nothing can be done now. When the evil was sought to be spread afresh, so that I felt forced to come out with a statement of what passed, that is resisted. My answer is simple. God knows the end, and will bring it about to His own glory. But I resume.

102 The reader may here mark the difference of the two replies one has to deal with. Mr. Newton (in the letter to the ten) comes forward with a plain untruth, namely, that the other charges affect all at Plymouth. It will be answered, that the detection is so evident that he could not mean to deceive. (Mr. Newton uses this same plea in his defence.) But this is a mistake. Few carry the facts in their mind so as to detect the falsehood. If Mr. Newton's plausible statement is accredited, he appears an injured and aggrieved man; the fairest words are used: the person gets under his influence; once there no contradiction is listened to, no exposure read, a partisan is gained. The tact of the writer of the "Reasons" is more subtle. He states generally, "The only exception is, in the case of the charges of personal untruthfulness. Of these specific charges our brother Newton is the only object." This seems fair enough. Then in page 2 a history is given of my conduct and charges at Plymouth in 1845, as to prophecy, sectarianism, and, finally, Mr. Newton's veracity. And then it is said, "Now we understand your letter to refer only to these last-mentioned charges. For of none others could it, in any way, be said that they are brought against our brother Newton only, and not against others. It is to satisfy the consciences of the saints as to the things charged against his veracity* therefore, that we suppose you ask our brother Newton to appear before the saints in Rawstorne Street, etc. Now, we think it impossible that such a proposition could have been made by you, had you been aware of the way in which these charges have already been met and examined into in this place. These charges were," etc.; and then comes an elaborate account of what they allege to have been my charges in 1845 at Plymouth. Now the reader will naturally suppose - he is left to suppose - that the charges in page 2, thus entered on, are the same as those spoken of in page 1, and that Rawstorne Street had specifically these, and these only, before it. He would hardly suppose that "these specific charges" in page 1*, and "these charges were" in page 2, are quite a different matter, two only of the latter being found amongst the former. Page It refers to the charges in the "Narrative of Facts," which is thus subtly attempted to be swamped in what passed at Plymouth in 1845, where, as I have said, I confined myself (when called upon to state what led to my leaving) entirely to what had led to this, not wishing to bring charges, though I already knew of many other things; but they had not led to my leaving, and I said nothing about them. The alleged charges of 1845 are thus quietly assumed to be "the things charged against his veracity," and that "of none others could it be said that they are brought against Mr. Newton only." But I turn to page 1, and I say with it there are "specific charges" in the "Narrative of Facts" - of which three (besides two of those found here) may be read in one page of the "Narrative," besides others in other parts of it. And in a following page of the "Narrative" it is distinctly urged that they regard Mr Newton alone.

{*The words "veracity," etc., seem to carry on the connection with the first part: (through the phrase "last mentioned" which seems to distinguish them from questions on "ministry," etc.), but there has been quietly slipped in" March, 1845, etc., etc."; so that "these charges" after this passage, only mean the charges made in 1845, not those in the "Narrative"; and "none others" now apply not to all those of the "Narrative," but confine the attention of the reader exclusively to the charges made in 1845 at Plymouth; whereas in the beginning of what I have quoted, the like expressions refer to the whole of the charges in the "Narrative," which the unsuspecting reader supposes, consequently, he is dealing with all through. See the "Reasons."}

{**Except the last "these," as explained in a previous note.}

104 These first two pages then are a mere attempt* to merge the "Narrative" in what passed at Plymouth in 1845, and the charges then made; to which alone the alleged acquittal can be pretended to apply. As to them, it is attempted to shew there has been an acquittal (the force of which I shall just now examine), but this acquittal does not in any way apply to the great body of charges in the "Narrative" at all. What shall we say to such a defence as this?

{*From the effect this produces on my own mind, as to those who could concoct such a statement as that contained in these reasons, I feel bound to say, not for the purpose of charging one, but of clearing others, that I am satisfied that Messrs. S. and C-w are incapable of it, are mere victims and instruments in this, and never would have done such a thing of themselves; and further, that there is but one of all the four, who is really concerned in it as originating it, and that is Mr. D. This of course is merely my judgment. Every one will heed it or not as they please, but I felt bound to say that (sadly as they have been dragged in) I do not believe Mr. S. or C-w would of themselves have been capable of it. Nor do I charge Mr. B. with it. But as they have signed it, of course I must leave it here on their common responsibility.}

Having now shewn that the "Reasons" do not really touch upon or treat of the great body of charges as to truthfulness contained in the "Narrative," the whole case is really disposed of (viewed as taken up by those to whom the paper has been addressed). The "Defence" does not even allude to these charges, having been written before the "Narrative" came out. But I will, for the satisfaction of the saints, go through as briefly as I can the "Defence" of acquittal set up as to what is touched upon.

It is stated (page 2) that my complaints were directed against certain writings on prophetic and kindred subjects, and the way they had been disseminated. As every one knows, I do not agree with these prophetic views; I think them wrong in the most really important points; I do object to the manner in which they are disseminated. But, instead of beginning with this, I positively refused to enter on it as a ground of complaint. I said my ground was a moral ground. There can be no dispute as to this, because there is proof in writing. Here is Mr. Newton's account of the charge I made.

105 "The charge preferred against me in the meeting was a systematic effort to form a sect, and discrediting and denouncing those who do not adopt the opinions which form its basis." This, though not the terms used at the meeting, is correct; it is taken from a previous note of mine to Mr. Newton. The first terms of the charge made, which, as well as this, was privately to Mr. Newton (I quote from his own note) were that he had "acted very badly towards many beloved brethren, and in the sight of God."*

{*This was not a volunteer charge; it was in reply to a note of Mr. Newton, admitting that "his manner had been marked with so much distance, when we first met." Mine certainly had not. Three brethren had come down to ask me subsequently what I came to Plymouth for. Mr. Newton states on their report, that we should go on in separate paths, but uniting in all that we can in love. In answer to this I stated my complaint to him, whereupon he withdrew, in his reply, all the kindness expressed in his first. My note had accepted and returned the kindness, and stated "with sorrow of heart" the complaint I had to make; declaring that "as to difference of interpretation on points of scripture," objections could be stated if needed, but that when the need did not exist, I felt "a measure of difference comparatively immaterial, and but an exercise of grace." I quote this now, merely as a proof that the way the matter is stated here, is entirely incorrect.}

Secondly, my attention was called to the subject of clericalism by an expression in Mr. Newton's first note, and I took it up with him, whereupon he withdrew his kindly written one. It is perfectly true, that the way in which the scheme had ripened I had at first no idea of. It is equally true, that it was "afterwards" I made the charges against his veracity: for the simplest reason; he had not made the statements on which they were founded till afterwards. I will here repeat, that though I did not go to Mr. Newton about them (he declined intercourse with me at that time, though I had called on him in order to renew it, and, not finding him, told him so); I did speak of them to Mr. H. and S., who were intimate with him, and in whom I had confidence. Mr. H. as well as Mr. N-r did go to him, at any rate about one of these charges, before ever they were brought forward, and he persisted in the thing in spite of remonstrance. The whole paragraph therefore is a misrepresentation, save that I did not make the charges before they were called for. My purpose in going to Plymouth was anything but making charges.

106 Next, as to the charges; they are stated to be four. Now I deny absolutely that I ever made more than two at the meeting in Ebrington Street in 1845. The parading the two first is merely to make out a case. None of the four who sign were there. Mr. N-r, who was, bore me out as to the terms I used in the meeting. The charge made behind my back was, that I accused Mr. Newton of altering the letters, after being told he had not. The charge made to myself by Mr. Newton was, that I had charged him with suppressing two out of five. This statement, as I shall shew, is the only plausible one, even from his own account. Here is the charge forwarded by him to me: "first, That of five manuscript letters (which it is not needful more particularly to describe), Mr. Newton had suppressed some."

This is his written complaint sent to me by the four persons mentioned in page 3 of the "Reasons." To aggravate and attach importance to this, the four, who here reproduce them, add "secret" suppression; and to make it square with the charge made behind my back of altering the letters, it is added, "or parts of them." In page 16 of the "Defence," made in 1845, Mr. Newton, referring to a book now lying before me, says, "This book Mr. Darby appears to have seen, and to have inferred that the two last letters were suppressed," etc. This statement then, in the "Reasons," is itself an entirely unjustifiable one on any ground. As to the second, I do not exactly see how the addition of an appendix constitutes, or can constitute, a charge of moral dishonesty. There may be a want of fairness in the manner of it. Whatever the charge is worth, the fact is so. An appendix was added, at the close of letter 3, with this title, "Appendix to Letter 1. Some difficulties suggested to the Interpretation in this Letter with Mr. Newton's answer."

Since the meeting at which this was alluded to, Miss J. has declared she is answerable for this, and that she put it in; that she had asked (being employed, note, to copy and circulate these letters) Mr. Newton whether he had an answer to certain difficulties I had raised to his views* expounded in these letters. Mr. Newton supplied her with my letter to him (telling her what part she might copy, and what part she might not), and with answers thereto from himself Miss J. declares that, though authorised to copy it, she was not expressly authorised to put it in the letters. This was communicated to me subsequently to my statement at the meeting, and I published it at their request in the first tract I printed. I do so again now.

{* These events were about five years ago, since which time these letters have been circulated. At that time I had, at the instance of brethren, remonstrated with Mr. Newton about them, but he persevered. As this matter is referred to in the "Defence," I shall state the circumstances, and give Miss J.'s account to me, which differs in its moral bearing from Mr. N.'s. I was invited to spend the evening at a married sister's of Miss J., which I accepted, as for common edification. When there, I found a large meeting, to my great surprise, exclusively of sisters. Brethren who came were sent away unknown to me. Miss J. said to me, You will speak to us on such prophetic points (those contained in the MS. letters). I was rather disgusted, and replied, Whatever the Lord may lead me to. Finding however their minds bent upon this, I thought well to let it go on, and presented the difficulties I had in receiving their views, ascertaining clearly myself that they had learned them from man and not God. Miss J., in my interview with her, after the meeting in 1845, told me she had met Mr. N. in Frankfort Street after the meeting at her sister's, and told him there were difficulties raised she should like to be satisfied about. Could Mr. N. furnish her with answers to them? Mr. N. thereupon furnished her with my letter to him containing the different objections, and shewed her how much she might copy, and gave her his answers. These objections and answers form the Appendix. Miss J.'s account of the copy books, which I first suggested to her however did not satisfy me, but as I attached no importance to it, I left it as it was, and published it at the end of the next thing I printed.}

107 All I said at the meeting was this, that "the first thing that made me uncomfortable was the renewed circulation of these letters, two of them being wanting" (I cannot answer for the word "suppressed"; I may have said in a copy in which two of them were "suppressed"), and in which an appendix was added as belonging to the first letter, which referred in a material part to one of the letters which was not in the book. My only words in pursuing the history of what led to my leaving were, "the first thing that made uncomfortable." The facts are just exactly as I stated them. My charges were quite distinct. I shall go into them in a moment. It is possible this rested on Mr. N.'s mind with pain, as a charge, from Miss H.'s writing to him about it. I will touch on this when I come to it.

I shall now state, as to the details, how the question of the place of the appendix came in. My grand objection was the circulation, in spite of remonstrance, of the letters denouncing the brethren's teaching. Miss J. states, she left the two out to circulate them in another book, and thus among twice as many people. Now in one of the two last Mr. N. makes this statement, that before the tares are judged on the earth, the saints will be raised and stay on the earth for an interval (probably a brief one), and that their being seen in their changed bodies must be an awful and terrible sight to the ungodly, and that while they were there the tares would be separated from among them;* that at that time risen saints alone were the wheat, and that gathering the tares from among the wheat meant gathering sinners from among risen saints on earth. I had (no one, I think, will be surprised) objected to this statement, and I do think it a little unreasonable to declare, as Mr. N. does in these letters, that "the foundations of Christianity are gone," if people do not fall in with a system involving such absurdities as this.

{*This has been publicly preached in the streets.}

108 Mr. N. in the Appendix added by Miss J., as belonging to Letter I, denies some of my remarks being correct, as for instance, that he had said the tares were burned while the risen saints were there. It is possible he had not said so; but if I may judge from Mr. Newton's extract of my letter in the Appendix, I said no such thing, but gave the quotation in terms from his letter, though he seems to imply I did, by denying it. However this may be, I felt it objectionable to declare that the comment referred to Letter I, which did not contain all this, whilst my objection was based on Letter 4 or 5, which was not there to be referred to, this point being the first and leading one given. This objection, I dare say, may have been taken by Mrs. B-h, whose kindness and integrity no one will question, to be a charge of altering the letters. If she said so, I am sure she thought so; but it is evident it had nothing to say to it. I have given these details, as so much has been said about it. But the fact is, I entered into none of them at all at the meeting. I said nothing whatever but that the circulation of these three letters, with the Appendix, without the other two was "the first thing that made me uncomfortable" - and so it did.

Mr. N. had been remonstrated with about these letters at least four years before, and this was a kind of new edition; and I referred to the matter in some such terms, stating merely the fact as to the other point, Mr. N.'s name not being even mentioned, though I do not doubt it was referred to him, though a vast body of the statement did not exclusively. I knew it was Miss J.'s hand. I had been asked, previously, to the meeting, how I knew the Appendix was from Mr. Newton, and I shewed its heading.

109 I made a long preface then as to the disastrousness of having to make charges against one accustomed to be looked up to, and then stated those found as the third and fourth in page 3 of the "Reasons"; which, though not in the terms, amount to the matter of the charges. As Mr. N. refers to them in his "Defence," I will refer to them there; and will now take up the allegation of their having been inquired into, and Mr. N. acquitted.

First, as to the fact of the investigation by these four; they allege an investigation by the natural guides of Plymouth, and besides that by other brethren. There is a long statement contained in pages 3 to 8, to the effect that those co-operating in ministry (designated in the rest of the statement by the word "we," that is, the four who sign the "Reasons") felt that the charges "demanded a prompt and searching inquisition," and that this was gone into. It is then added in page 8, "But investigation into this matter has not been confined to the saints living here. The presence here, in December, 1845, of many brethren from other places (who came indeed expressly to investigate what was transpiring here) afforded an opportunity for yet farther inquisition into these personal charges; and these brethren did in a very patient protracted way go into the whole matter."

So that there was a prompt and searching inquisition by the four ministering brethren at Plymouth,* which proved the charges were so groundless they were not worth communicating to the church, but the result of which was at last communicated to them, and satisfied the church; and there was a yet farther inquisition, in which other brethren did in a very patient and protracted way go into the whole matter. Now let us see on their own shewing how it was done. And let us consider first "the prompt and searching inquisition" by those who co-operated with Mr. Newton in ministry, that is, the four who sign the "Reasons," before we touch on the yet farther inquisition. Turn to page 3. "The first step towards such an inquiry (that is by the four ministers) was indeed taken by our brother Newton himself, though with our full and entire concurrence. He proposed that he should name four brethren, and our brother Darby other four, and that these eight should investigate the case, and report the result of their investigation to the church.** Our brother Newton accordingly nominated four - our brethren M., Lord C., Dr. C-y, and W-r; but our brother Darby declined to accede to this mode of investigation."

{*Note here in passing the startling proposition, that an investigation by Messrs. C-w, B., S., and D. (who themselves in these or other documents declare too that they were accused with Mr. N.), to the exclusion of Mr. H. and all else, was the solemn, final, and conclusive investigation of the church of God.}

{**This is not true. It was a proposal "to meet four nominated by him," and there is nothing said about the church; the words are "and report on the charges." On Mr. N.'s principles it could not be to the church as thereon judging it. Indeed, as appears in a subsequent letter, there was no thought of the church. They say, "We also differ from you entirely in thinking this a question of conscience to be referred only to the church of God. We regard it as a matter of fact, a simple question of evidence to be best dealt with by a few competent persons." Thus is just what I felt was the object, and to which I could not agree. In the same letter also, they say, "a given number of persons, one half to be named by yourself, the other by him." It will be at once seen by the letters given farther on, how this attempt to withdraw it from the church acted on my mind.}

110 I confess I was astounded at this (not at the fact, which, corrected as in the note, is true, unless it be the concurrence of the four who sign the reasons, which I know nothing about; but) that the first step of the co-operating ministers to make a prompt and searching inquisition was Mr. Newton's nominating four other persons to conduct it (a step taken by himself), and with four to be named by me, to report it, when closed to the church. That can hardly mean the inquiring ministers.

But note yet another thing, how prompt it was. For I press attention (because there are loose words afterwards in which this is sought to be wrapped up), I press attention, I say, to the words "the first step." Now who are the four named by Mr. Newton? Three of them are of the number of the brethren who came to carry on the "yet farther inquisition" in the most patient and protracted way. That is, not a single step whatever was taken before the brethren had come from a distance to inquire into what had transpired. And then the first step of the inquiry of these co-operating ministers was taken by Mr. Newton himself nominating four other persons, three being the brethren from a distance. But then it may be alleged that it is said, "But before this proposition was declined, indeed, AS SOON as the charges became known to us, our brother Newton conversed with some of us," etc. "The propriety of this was felt by all," and then "we felt that we had nothing to lay before the saints." Now, still as to date, it is clear that this could not be before the first step was taken. This was taken by Mr. Newton; as he himself confirms. His letter to the ten brethren in Rawstorne Street who wrote to hum says: "When I heard of these charges, I requested four brethren, of whom Lord C. was one, to wait on Mr. Darby, and request him to nominate other four, to investigate the truth. This was declined. Besides this I requested those brethren who are regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints there, to treat the matter as they would any other matter that might seem to require discipline," etc.

111 "Before the proposition was declined, indeed, as soon as the charges became known to us," does not give thus one instant before the first step which put it into other hands. The reader may think that "before" includes some considerable period. But "the first step," when Mr. Newton heard of the charges, was Mr. Newton's speaking to Lord C., etc., so that this "indeed as soon" is no time at all, though it may look like some preceding act. And how much was the lapse before Mr. Darby's declining the proposition to put it in other hands? - the brethren from a distance being then come to investigate, before which, as we have seen, nothing was done at all, the first step being taken with three of them. The proposition of Mr. Newton's nominees to me after hearing Mr. Newton's statement is dated November 26, 1845. My answer declining it is November 27, 1845; their final reply to me, November 28, 1845, at which time the patient investigation of the other brethren was in hand. On the 14th of December Lord C. signs a paper acquitting Mr. Newton as the result of it. And Mr. S.'s letter of acquittal given in the "Reasons" is dated December 17, at which time, as every one knows, the inquiry of the brethren had closed, and several were already gone. So that we get the plain fact, that not one step was taken of the prompt and searching inquisition before the brethren came from afar, and that then it was put, with the concurrence of the four, into the hands of some of those who came and who were to report to the church; and that then whatever it was worth, or however consistent, Mr. Newton put it into the hands of those four, as those who were regarded at Plymouth as addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints; who, before his putting it into their hands and telling them they might do it, never took a single step whatever. And at this time, it was under the investigation of the brethren from afar.

112 And now the question arises, why Mr. Newton spoke to some of us," and who are the "all" by whom it was felt. Was Mr. H. not co-operating in ministry at Plymouth? Where were Mr. R-e and Mr. S-s, who used to co-operate, or Mr. R.H. or others, who once "addicted themselves to ministry" there? Well, they were not co-operating may be said by the four who sign this paper. Messrs. R-e and S-s were. (They had joined in requesting Mr. H. to say why he could not minister, if it was so. Mr. R.H. had retired to Plymstock, disgusted, it is true.) Mr. H. indeed was not; he had, exactly at this time, declared before seven hundred brethren in and around Plymouth, that he could not minister any more, because of the conduct of Mr. Newton and his friends; and he went to Mr. Newton, as to one of the charges of untruth, to say he was sorry for Mr. N.'s credit and character that he had made the statements, for if he was asked, he must say they were untrue. Is it not singular, that the names of these persons are not mentioned in connection with the saints at Plymouth, when this inquiry was to go on, nor such a fact as the statement of Mr. H. (who above all was looked up to by the body of saints there) to the whole gathering, which statement happened just three days before I made the charges alluded to? This is not even mentioned. This is on the face of the document

The fact is, and I feel free here to add, that there is not one at Plymouth but knows that the four who sign this paper were the associates and instruments of Mr. Newton; and as to Mr. C-w and Mr. D (though every one will own dear C-w as in other circumstances, an amiable and upright brother) had their names been previously mentioned as responsible for the consciences of the saints, it would have excited the smile or the indignation of nine-tenths of the congregation of Ebrington Street.* Moreover these four appear in a singularly unhappy position here, because they have months ago signed a joint paper with Mr. Newton, in which they declare that in all that has passed they have been accused together (that is, in the letter of the five to the four brethren in London, who invited them to the London meeting in April); and even in these very "Reasons" they say, that in the great bulk of the charges they are implicated as much as Mr. Newton, though not in these particular ones. And note here, that the investigation by the church is confined to their investigation. "This 1 the church does, we believe through those of its members capacitated by God for such service," that is themselves; they being, as they confessed afterwards, the accused persons. Can they present themselves as independent elders charged with judging Mr. N.'s case for the church to-day, and complain along with him of lying under a common accusation of these same charges to-morrow?

{*On a particular occasion related in the "Narrative," Mr. N. had mentioned those whom God had raised up to exercise authority in the church; they were himself, H., S., and B. D. and C-w were not mentioned.}

113 But, however, we have their own testimony that there was no inquiry by them till Mr. Newton had put it into the hands of four other persons who were to inquire and report to the church. Further, the statement in page 5, "that they had in company with them (the brethren from other places) the fullest opportunities of again and again sifting all that could be said on it," is wholly untrue. They had nothing of the kind. They appeared with Mr. Newton before them when he answered and the brethren examined them, but they were never in company with them in other examinations - not at mine, nor at H.'s. They had not such opportunity. I ask here, at whose examination were they in company with them? They were in company with Mr. Newton when he was examined. I shall now give the letters of these four, and my answers, in which I declined acceding. I thought this part of the case so very bad, that I did not do so in the "Narrative"; but as it has been thought proper to print the letters of acquittal, let all come out fairly. I sorrow to be obliged to do it, for brethren I count otherwise gracious and godly are implicated. It is no fault of mine if they have chosen to identify themselves with those who have brought them into such a position.

"Plymouth, 26 November, 1845.

"Dear Brother,

"We are desired by Mr. Newton to request that you will name four brethren to meet an equal number nominated by him, to inquire into, and report on, the charges said to have | been made by you on Monday the 17th instant,* at a meeting in Ebrington Street which appear very seriously to affect Mr. Newton's moral character.

{*This shews that ten days had elapsed from my statement, and about a fortnight from Mr. H.'s explanation; during which no step whatever was taken by those who "felt that such accusations must be instantly dealt with, and then, as we have seen, it was not they, but Mr. Newton took it up with other persons. As to Mr. H., steps were taken; that is S-s and R-e having proposed to the assembly after Mr. H.'s statement that they should meet to know what could be done to hinder Mr. H.'s ceasing to minister, every engine was set in motion to hinder brethren coming, and not one of those here named was there. This further shews that Mr. Newton did not take his step when he heard of it: he had heard of it ten days before.}

114 "We understand you to have stated:-

"1st. That of 'Five Manuscript Letters' (which it is not needful more particularly to describe), Mr. Newton had suppressed some;

"2ndly. That Mr. Newton is the author* of an appendix which you have seen subjoined to one of them;

{*He is the author of it. It consists of his answers to extracts of my letter which he gives.}

"3rdly. That a tract recently printed, purporting to be a publication of the above-mentioned letters, 'with some omissions and alterations,' is so changed by additions, that it no longer 'remains in substance the same'; and -

"4thly. That a letter addressed to Mr. C-w, professing to be the substance of what Mr. Newton had stated at a meeting held here in the beginning of the present year, is not the substance of what was spoken by him on that occasion.

"Not doubting your ready acquiescence with our request, we will thank you to make your nomination known to us at your earliest convenience.

"We remain, dear brother,

"Yours with Christian regard,

(Signed) [LORD] C.

"JOHN M.

"GEORGE I. W-r.

"To Mr. J. N. Darby."

115 This letter distressed me, because it was an evident effort to take the matter really out of the hands of the church, and even out of the hands of the brethren who were come down to inquire; and, if I did not accede, to give me the appearance of refusing investigation. But I trusted God. It spoke of reporting on the charges. It is said in the "Reasons," "and report the result of the investigation to the church." Now there is not, we have seen, a word about the church in the letter; and if one could have trusted that it meant this, it actually was taking the matter then away from the church, where it really was. And four named by Mr. Newton could easily, as they actually did, seek to swamp the matter, so as to hinder investigation. The four (though I suppose those who signed might be the ones) were not nominated, as the choice was still left open. I thought the mode an objectionable one, and that the only possible result and meaning of it was hushing the matter up. Subsequent events have proved how rightly I judged. Had I named four, it would have at once stamped them as my friends and partisans. It may be as well here to recall what brought the ten brethren down. Mr. P-r and Capt. H. had written to me urgently about the matter, the former pressing the assembling brethren from elsewhere; I said to him, "If you think so, you had better come." I communicated this to Sir A.C., Capt. H., and Lord C. Mr. Newton and his friends thereon sent for those whose support they relied on; namely, R., M., M-s, R-s, and W-r. Of course I do not pretend to know in what terms they were written to.

My answer follows.

"Dear Brethren,

"I am perfectly ready to enter before brethren into the statements I made at the Monday meeting (and I can only add, I should rejoice more than I can say, to be proved entirely wrong), but in a way which is righteous before God.

"None of you were at that meeting, and you cannot know what I stated; and no one could have made the statements which are contained in your letter from what he heard at that meeting.

"I was called on by my brethren to say why I left communion in Ebrington Street, which I had laid upon three grounds, one of which was an accessory one only.

116 "It is true, that in stating one of these, I was obliged to state two things which did affect Mr. Newton's conduct. I did so with pain before God, and I did it before the saints, whose consciences were concerned in it. I acted before God and them, in leaving them on grounds of which these two things formed a part. I did so in stating them. I stand before God, and owing it to His saints to render an account of what I stated. I am perfectly ready to do so, but I shall name no four persons, as if they were friends of mine, and it was a worldly question to be settled by arbitration. It is a matter of conscience before God. Let it be before Him. Are not the brethren interested in this? Have they not heard it? Let it be before them. It is spreading nothing, for that would not be charity; but the statement has been made; let it be proved where it was made. And were I to name four, it would be even useless. Where would be the twelve or fifteen brethren who heard the statement in question? God's place of conscience is the church of God. Let this, which is a question of conscience, be judged there. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be. I know of no other tribunal but His, and His now in the church. It seems to me that that which you propose is a mere worldly tribunal. Of course the brethren who sign it, if as individual brethren they wish to inquire into it really as a matter of their conscience (not of curiosity), are free to do so, and if really of their conscience, in charity, I will tell them everything; but I shall name none, nor take it out of the place where I believe God has set it - the judgment of the church of God, under responsibility to Him as such, looking for His presence, and able to count upon it.

"There are many more than four cognisant of all the circumstances, and many more godly sober saints interested in it. Let the conscience of those concerned be informed in it. Besides, these are a part of a long train of facts which have been going on for years, and which form a most important part of the bearing of both the papers alluded to, and the statements I made about them.

"Let it not be supposed I seek any popular meeting as such. I have no such thought. I ask only that the consciences of those whom God has given an interest in these things be informed and made clear about them. I desire all to be there. If the brethren at large are content that a more limited number be there, as more really conducive to their own satisfaction in the matter, it is to me all the same; but I shall act before the conscience of the church of God. There I can own Him and look for His presence; but I shall name none as my friends, as the world. If the four brethren who have signed this think right to come to me together and investigate for themselves (trusting that they will come as before God), I am ready to state all I have to state.

117 "It is a matter of deep, deep sorrow; but I demand that it may be done openly and fully before God and those concerned, and where the consciences of those concerned can bear witness, or the contrary, to what is brought forward. Nor would indeed the investigation of the points named solve in the least the questions in which the saints are concerned. 'I may be, and am, ready to go into these; but there is a long train of other facts and circumstances, which cannot be separated from them, must be inquired into, before the consciences of those who have a right to have them clear of all evil could be righteously satisfied. These must be inquired into too. I desire to produce none (God forbid) which have not in one way or other, acted already on the saints; but let all be fairly out before the consciences of the saints. I repeat it, before God's church, as far as it is already concerned in it. Anything that is really meant to bring it scripturally before them, I will gladly, though sorrowfully, acquiesce in.

"Your affectionate brother in Christ,

"J. N. DARBY."

"If Mr. Newton prefers to take it up as a personal wrong to him, let him act according to the scripture rule in such case. But this evidently is not my part to act in. I may just add that the two points in which my statements did affect Mr. Newton, as alluded to, are as simple as possible. If the brethren who write to me desire to inform themselves, they have nothing to do but to go to the brethren who were present at the meeting,* and inquire as to one of the matters; and, as to the other, to compare the documents, only informing themselves to what the statement alludes.

{*This refers to the meeting of fifteen in April previous, the account of which I alleged to be incorrect.}

"I ask to bring no persons at all. I am accused of wronging Mr. Newton. I ask in this to bring no one. Let the four who signed the paper get those who were present together and inform themselves. Nothing can be easier to them. If they wish to satisfy the consciences of others, let the others be there to be satisfied. I am ready of course to state (before them and those who were then present) what my objection is.

"John M.,

"Mr. C-w's, 1, Boon's Place.

"Nov. 27, 1845."

118 The following is the answer to my letter:

"Plymouth, 28 Nov., 1845.

"Dear Brother,

"We have received your letter in reply to our note of the 26th inst., and have given to it our prayerful and best attention.

"We informed you, that you were reported to have made certain statements very derogatory to Mr. Newton's personal character, and that Mr. Newton was desirous to submit them to the scrutiny of a given number of brethren, one half to be named by yourself, the other by him.

"We did hope that you would either have denied having made the statements at all, or have withdrawn them as made in mistake, and have expressed regret at having been led into error; or that you would have been willing to have them investigated; but although you acknowledge having stated 'two things that did affect Mr. Newton's conduct,' we infer, from the tenor of your letter, that you are not prepared to sustain them.

"Had the wrong of which Mr. Newton complains been done to him privately, the course prescribed in Matthew 18 (to which we suppose you refer when using the words 'scripture rule') might have been taken by him; but after availing ourselves of such sources of information as lie open to us, we feel satisfied that charges against Mr. Newton's moral character were made by you at a meeting consisting (in the opinion of some) of scarcely less than three hundred persons. Under such circumstances, we think the plan proposed by Mr Newton unobjectionable. You call it 'a mere worldly tribunal.; We see in it nothing unscriptural; and certain we are that it is not according to 'scripture rule'* to publish charges against an individual without having first given him an opportunity of clearing himself from them.

{*I had pressed them on Mr. H. and Mr. S. privately months before. Mr. H. (and Mr. N-r) had spoken to Mr. N. as to one, and he went on with it. Mr. N. declined intercourse with me at the time. It is well to remark, that I had no more to do with these untruths then than any one else. My having made a stand afterwards may now make me responsible for shewing that I had reason to do so.}

119 "We also differ from you entirely in thinking this is 'a question of conscience,' to be referred only to 'the church of God.' We regard it as a matter of fact-a simple question of evidence, to be best dealt with by a few competent persons; and we think a public meeting the place of all others the least fitted for cool dispassionate inquiry. It is true, you disclaim all idea of appealing to 'a popular meeting, as such,' whilst the language of your letter is unintelligible, if you do not really seek a public assembly there to repeat the grievance.

"We are therefore under the sad and painful necessity of saying, that we can only regard your letter as an evasion; and we feel that, as the matter now rests, the charges you have brought against Mr. Newton's personal character are not entitled to credit, and ought not to detract from the esteem and respect in which he has always been held.

"It is our intention to give to Mr. Newton a copy of this correspondence, leaving it with him to use it as he may think best.

"We remain, dear brother, your's faithfully,

(Signed) "GEORGE I. W-r.

"[LORD] C.

"JOHN M. "J. C.-y.

"To Mr. J. N. Darby."

I beg the reader to read my previous letter. The four who sign this had never asked me a single question on the matter. Three of them I had not even seen, nor had they been near Messrs. H., R.H., C.P., N-r, McA., who were all at Plymouth, and had been at the April meeting, the account of which was called in question as untrue; the only others present in Plymouth who had been at that meeting being Mr. Newton s personal friends, brought there by him.

120 The following was my answer:-

"Dear Brethren,

"On the whole, however painful, I am thankful for your letter. Still it is with very deep sorrow as to the subject. You are brethren, and some at least known as well as beloved. I only sorrow over some things in the position you have put yourselves in; but it would be out of place for me to express it now, after the letter you have sent me. I might complain of some things. You were none of you here, or present in March or April, when that took place to which one of the charges refers, or aware of the circumstances to which the other alludes. You did not even ask me what the charges were which I made at the large meeting on Monday; and even Lord C., who spoke about the grounds of my leaving, had no detail from me of what the charges were. But I shall not trouble you with these points. It was suggested to me to keep a copy of my last letter. I said that I was acting before God, and would trust Him, and not deal thus with brethren. I have now to beg you will send me the original of my letter that I may copy it; you shall of course have it again. The person you trust it to can stay till I return it to him. I have in one sense evaded this miserable subject, but it certainly was not in that letter (I happily read it to the brethren* H. and McA. before it went, to know if it was quite clear on the point). But it can now be evaded no longer; and my heart just sinks while I say it. As far as the saints go, it is made unavoidably a church matter. I only regret that names I much love should be mixed up with it, as your letter has done. I am, with however much sorrow,

"Still affectionately yours in the Lord,

"J.N.D."

{*I had shewn the original proposal to Mr. H. and Mr. McA., with whom I happened to drink tea at Mr. H.'s that day, who both thought (as every other saint I met about it afterwards) that I ought not to act on it They had been present, and H. said, "What is the good of eight inquiring now for us, when we were at the meeting in question with eleven more (that is, at the April meeting, the account of which I said was untrue)?" but H. said, "Take care you do not seem to avoid an investigation." I shewed them therefore my answer, and they said there could be no mistake as to it.}

121 The following note closed the correspondence.

30th November.

"Dear Brother,

"When you have taken a copy of the enclosed [my letter], will you be kind enough to return it to me at your convenience, either to-day or to-morrow?

"Believe me, yours faithfully,

"GEORGE J. W-R."

Mr. W-r was called away by the illness of his child, and saved the pretence of carrying on an investigation, after writing a letter saying my charges were not worthy of credit. Lord C. and Mr. M. pursued it, however, and they are two of the persons whose certificates of acquittal were given in December 14 and December 30, as having made up their minds subsequently to the inquiry. It is quite evident they need not have waited quite so long.* Mr. M-s had written** long before to Mr. Newton, that he might count on him to stand by him in any way. Mr. R-s' and Mr. R.'s testimony remain: that the latter has sought to clear Mr. Newton all through cannot be doubted. I will consider the value of his acquittal, which is on the same ground as the other alleged on by all the brethren, when I come to the defence of Mr. Newton. The inquiry by the ten went on, and they separated without any joint testimony of guilt or innocence. That is a clear fact; or a letter from Mr. R. answering for three others, and another from Lord C., need not have been produced when the rest were all gone. But I will close as to the alleged inquisition of the four who sign the "Reasons," as their last act comes in here. A paper of acquittal was put forth with their signature. Let it be remembered, that the first act of any inquiry was Mr. Newton's putting it into the hands of three of the brethren from a distance, and one of Plymouth. The four Plymouth ministers had done nothing before this. This was the "first step." Their inquiry, if any, must have been while that of the brethren from a distance was going on. No one certainly ever heard of it then. Not only so; they were (so they state in the "Reasons") examined themselves by the brethren who came,*** and the fact is, they always appeared with Mr. Newton as his associates when he was before the brethren from a distance.

{*If it is miserable to read through such a course of things I beg the reader to consider what it was to go through it. I do not charge the individuals here. I have been long convinced (and declared it) of a direct delusive influence of Satan at Plymouth.}

{**This letter was circulated everywhere, because it stated a vast number of dreadful errors into which Mr. M-s had been led by listening to brethren who differed from Mr. Newton's views. I understand Mr. M-s is changed a good deal in this respect, but I have no certain information. While at Plymouth, and for some tune after, no one spoke so strongly as to Mr. Newton's tyranny in hindering people's ministry.}

{***They also state they investigated in company with them.}

122 And now, having stated these circumstances, let us turn to the document itself, and see what pretension it has to be a joint result of a common investigation carried on by ministers together in behalf of the church. It is in page 6, where you will find it an individual testimony of Mr. S. "What I now state" is what he says; not a word about a prompt, solemn, or any inquisition of the elders at Plymouth. "He believes" Mr. N. "entirely innocent," etc., and adds, "Should any of you desire to know the grounds on which I have come to the conclusion stated above, I shall be happy," etc. The three others say they unite in the testimony, because they have come to the same conclusion, signing their names in a postscript. Mr. S. says he does it to allay agitation. Is this a joint report to the church of a solemn investigation carried on by elders? Its real effect on a vast number was just to prove that the brethren from a distance had not come to such conclusion; and further, these four were known to all as Mr. N.'s instruments in what had produced all the confusion, and it recoiled on their own heads, and that was all. It was felt by many as ruining Mr. N.'s cause and their own on these two grounds.

And now I may repeat circumstances connected with it here, which will lead us to another of the alleged acquittals - the suppressed one.

Mr. Newton (as is admitted, nay asserted by himself) got the paper which had been drawn up by Sir A.C., and signed by others, suppressed. This having been done, the countersigned letter of Mr. S. was produced, saying, as the brethren have given no conclusion on the charges, they had drawn one up themselves, and now sent it forth. And I think I may say, that the way in which the one was suppressed, under a threat to go to Canada, as ruinous to Mr. N.'s character, and, as soon as they had succeeded in this, producing and issuing their own entire acquittal, opened Mr. P-r's eyes (one of those who are said to have entirely acquitted him) more than anything else to the misconduct of the party. He is reported to have said, that he never saw such things among Christians in his life. Now these two documents, one of which supplanted the other, are the two things which are said to be, one the solemn acquittal of the church of God at Plymouth, and the other that of impartial brethren from elsewhere. And now I will consider this last.* First, it is a strange thing for Mr. Newton to allege now as an entire acquittal a paper which he says himself he got suppressed then. He did get it suppressed; that is, the four who had added their names to Sir A.C.'s withdrew them, and the latter gave it up. And why suppress this entire acquittal? The fact was, he said then he should be ruined by it, and that if it came out he should go to Canada. Sir A.C.'s account of the matter to me was that, when it was shewn to Mr. N., he was beside himself; that he declared that I had made four charges, whereas this paper applied only to two (all I really had made), and that he had given no occasion for the charges which the paper said he had.

{*That is, the circumstances connected with it. The paper itself never came out, having been suppressed at the time.}

123 What I believe* to have been the fact as to the paper, is this:- Most of the brethren were satisfied as to the sectarianism, and thought it might be got rid of, but found the moral charges stood in the way - Mr. Newton would listen to nothing else. I do not say all the brethren. M-s and R-s insisted after this on the clerical principle; and the latter openly deprecated the principles of brethren. But Lord C. says now, to all who will hear him, that he would not go to Ebrington Street, though he condemns my proceedings. He has declared to me, that he had not believed the sectarianism and clericalism charged till he went down, but then he did; and that he would not break bread there now. This being more or less felt by several, and the moral charges, "a dreadful encumbrance to the real question," several of the brethren having left, Sir A.C. thought he could bring it to an issue by going as far as possible in clearing Mr. Newton; and at the same time quieting me by saying he had laid himself open to the charges; and insisting besides on a full investigation before the church, which, in a subsequently published tract, he has stated he did, and indeed so informed me soon after the transaction, during which I was myself absent, the investigation being over. It was in my judgment an unadvised act, though with a godly intention, and God in fact set it aside altogether. I was not at Plymouth. I left it all to the Lord when not called to answer, which I seldom was - only once by the whole number of brethren. Indeed (while many of these brethren I look up to and love most dearly and value much for both godliness and a wisdom I should far prefer to my own in their service in the church in most cases) in this matter my sober judgment is, that they came without the wisdom of God, remained without the strength of God with them, and departed without the honour of God upon them. How far my answer to P-r contributed to this I do not pretend to say. However God interfered, as He overrules all; and though it went, no doubt, far beyond any other document in Mr. N.'s favour, he insisted on the suppression** of this paper. Sir A.C. withdrew it - a strange procedure, if it were a solemn act of acquittal by the ten brethren.

{*I pretend to give no more than my own judgment as to it, from all that passed then and since.}

{**Let me notice a little here two things to the saint who reads this First, what was going on. A verdict is drawn up (now alleged by Mr Newton to be an acquittal of him by all) and signed by some of those inquiring, and then submitted to Mr. Newton for his judgment on it. [I do not know that Sir A.C. joined in this.] He rejects it as not good enough for him, and it is withdrawn! I am not impugning the integrity of the persons concerned; I have no more doubt of it than of my own. But any one will feel that it must have been a tolerable trial to have seen what I had been anxiously seeking to serve God in get on this kind of ground. Did they ever think of submitting anything to me? Never a moment, and they were quite right. I complain nothing of this. And now see, secondly, the good of trusting God. These brethren never troubled themselves about me in the matter. They were anxious to get rid of the charges of untruth, in order to deal with the sectarianism they met with; and prepared to swamp the other question as an encumbrance, and quiet me, without consulting me, by some general expressions, at the same time Sir A.C. quieting his own conscience by demanding, as he has publicly stated he did, an open investigation. All this I knew nothing of, good or bad, till afterwards, nor indeed of anything that passed. One would have thought it a fine opportunity for Mr. Newton to quash the charges and all inquiry. These brethren were anxious to get rid of them (indeed they told me so twenty times, that they stood altogether in the way). God would not allow it, and employs Mr. Newton himself to suppress it. They would have gone as far as ever they could to clear him, in order to get rid of the question: God steps in, and the very person they were going to clear He employs to set aside all their plan. How wonderful are His ways!}

125 I will now see how far as a matter of fact it is true that there was really an acquittal by all. Sir A.C. subsequently published a tract, in which he declares in italics, "Anything like an open investigation of his [that is, my] statements, is positively denied." I know not what the four who have signed the "Reasons" judge of this statement coming from one of those who they say fully investigated it. Mr. P-r told me that he did not attach much weight to the charge as to the letter to C-w, but he thought the other very grave. He, it is not denied, went to urge Mr. N. to confess it. I do not state what passed, though I have heard it. I cite it merely as to the notion of a full acquittal. Mr. W. refused to sign it at the time, whatever it was. Mr. McA. had gone away, on the ground that he was satisfied as to the evil existing, and would not have the appearance of staying to inquire as if he doubted. Mr. N-r was gone; and he says to me (having gone through all the inquiry) as to the "Narrative of Facts," "so far as I am able to speak, I believe the pamphlet is what it professes to be, a statement of facts sad and humbling indeed (and who that has had anything to do with the enacting of them, does not feel his own place that of self-judgment as well as of identification with the sin of his brother?) yet facts. My own judgment with respect to Ebrington Street, though other things have their weight, is mainly based on the way in which conscience has been blunted and inquiry stifled." Now I do not produce this as proving that Mr. N-r holds Mr. N. guilty, nor anything of the kind. It is not the question. I am not proving him so myself; but I ask, Is this the language of a man who has pronounced a full acquittal of charges found in the "Narrative"? I speak only of the two inquired into in 1845. As to any others there is no pretence of an acquittal. I have then, as to this acquittal, the fact that it was suppressed by Mr. N. himself as ruinous to him. Further, the person who drew it up declares, in a subsequently published paper, that anything like an open investigation of my statements was positively denied; another refusing to sign it at the time; another gone because he was convinced of the evil; another declaring the "Narrative" true; another urging confession of one of the charges on Mr. N.

I may add that, when Mr. C-n proposed giving a paper to Mr. N. clearing him, on Mr. N.'s complaint that he could not get one, Messrs. P-r and C. declined signing it. I do not pretend to say on what ground.

126 As to Lord C., he had acquitted him before the inquiry began; so had M. and W-r (the last had nothing to say to this last matter); M-s, R-s, and R. remain, all three of whom were there as Mr. N.'s friends. We have their testimony, and what it was founded on, in the "Reasons"; and these form the third alleged acquittal, which will lead us, we shall see, to our closing matter.

Mr. R., in stating (page 9 of "Reasons") that he, with R-s, M., and M-s,* was perfectly satisfied that Mr. N. was entirely free from the charge of moral dishonesty, adds, that if Mr. N. "would lay before the saints an explanation similar to that you have read to us, either by printing or otherwise, they will then see for themselves the reasons of our having arrived at the conclusion above stated." This Mr. N. has now done in printing the "Defence" then read, so that we can fully judge of the ground of any alleged acquittal as to these two points, for this paper was the avowed ground of it, and of any satisfaction afforded as to the charges to these three or indeed to any one else. We have only therefore to examine the defence. Whatever it is worth, Mr. R.'s acquittal is worth, and no more. This "Defence" we will now examine before closing with the "Reasons."

{*It is well that the reader should be aware that these, as well as Mr. W-r, were brought down by Mr. Newton and his friends to stand by him in this matter.}

First, as to the suppression of letters and appendix, I have stated the real facts as to this. Miss H.'s letter, etc., only remain. First Mr. N. states (page 14), to make out the charge heavy, that at Exeter after the reading meeting I there repeated the charge. Miss H. replied, many persons being present, etc. You will think, doubtless, this is at the close of the meeting, a sort of public accusation. "Mr. and Mrs. McA.", Miss H. states (page 17), "remained to dine at Mr. W-n's with Mr. Darby. After dinner, the conversation turned on Matthew 24." It was after the reading meeting to be sure; but what had it to do with it? The whole force of Mr. N.'s complaint is gone in Miss H.'s statement. It was a conversation among private friends. What was said there? I charged Mr. N. with altering the letters (page 17). Mr. N. however gives a different account, and, so far, a just one, in page 16. "This book Mr. Darby appears to have seen, and to have inferred that the two last letters were suppressed." So that Mr. N. fully bears me out in my contradiction of Miss H.'s statement as to altering the letters. I refer to this because an immense handle was made of this for months. We have seen that the four who sign the "Reasons" try, by inventing a new* statement of my charge at the end of a year and three-quarters, to bring in both Mr. N.'s and Miss H.'s statements. I have already said that I did not really make this charge in Ebrington Street at all, though I alluded to the fact as above explained. Farther, I also have an account of Miss H.'s as to this conversation, in which she endeavours to convince me of her accuracy. She has entirely convinced me of the contrary: I shall here say why. The proof she gives is, that I stated that I supposed that the tract entitled "Signs of the Coming of the Lord, for whom are they given?" was Mr. Newton's, and that she informed me it was Mr. D.'s. This was a most unhappy proof of her accuracy. Mr. D.'s initials are on the tract. Further, I had written an answer to it, since published. Mr. N-r urged me not to do so, as it would only puff him up more, and do him harm. Not only so: but it was in this tract we were charged with subverting the first elements of Christianity. Mr. D. having said in the April meeting of fifteen, that I was putting my interpretation on the denunciations made against brethren, I replied, "Well, you shall have your own," and pulled his tract out of my pocket. The reader may judge of how accurate Miss H.'s account must be, when her proof of it is that I did not know whose tract this was. I regret sincerely that Miss H. should thus have allowed herself to be dragged into publicity. Miss H. upsets Mr. Newton's attempt to aggravate whatever did pass by saying it was after the reading meeting; though his authority is the letter that upsets it. Mr. N. refutes Miss H.'s charge by his own account of the real state of the case; namely, that it was the absence of the last two letters which was in question, as indeed he did not venture** to impute Miss H.'s account to me in the already cited letters of his four nominees; and Miss H.'s proofs to me that her memory is accurate proves to me how exceedingly inaccurate it must be; while I entirely deny, as Mr. Newton confirms me here in doing though he charged me with it fiercely elsewhere, that I ever said a word about altering letters at all.

{*"Reasons," page 2. "Secret suppression of certain MS. letters" gives Mr. N.'s account, adding "secret." "Certain parts of them" gives Miss H.'s. Aware of the two accounts not tallying, they have inserted both with an "or."}

{**It was however in the tea-meetings, held on Monday evenings, and on other occasions, after this "Defence" was read, and the brethren gone, that the charge of altering the letters, after denial of having done so, was made. A curious reason was given to satisfy the minds of those who attended as to the Irish brethren never coming to Plymouth. They were informed, that the enemies of Plymouth had told them that the saints at Plymouth were an idle newspaper-reading people, and it was no wonder therefore they had not come there.}

128 As to the Appendix being a substitution for the letters, it is mere nonsense. I do not even understand what is meant by it. But all this is very immaterial: it served to distract from the real charges. These begin with the third: that is, that a letter, professing to remain in substance the same, did not remain the same. Mr. N. justifies his omissions. He has perfect right to do so. Nobody complained of them. He said he - had made omissions, and of course had a right to make any he liked. The additions are the thing in question. He states he added two paragraphs: he has added about five pages and a half to a tract of twenty-four pages. But the quantity is not the material point. It is the contents and manner of it. And first, note here, the fact is not denied. What I charged is, as a fact, admitted. Now I do not enter into intention. The question is, Is it honest?

I go further: had Mr. N. said at the end, "I take the opportunity of denying," etc., though this matter had been added, no charge could have been grounded on it. Anybody could have understood, that it was no part of the original tract. He has not done anything of the kind. He has not, as he says he has in the "Defence," even negatived the two evil doctrines imputed, as he says, to them. He has interwoven with the most assiduous care into the subjects of the tract itself, statements which go to charge the things he was accused of rather on others, or at least to disburden himself of them, in such a manner as would make it impossible for a reader of the tract to suppose that it was not a part of the letter written six years ago; so that he appeared as an indignant refuter six years ago (before he was conscious of such imputations) of the things he was charged with now. Surely, if I say it remains the same in substance, the substance of the published tract ought to coincide with the original. But here the substance of near a quarter of the tract is on topics agitated at the time, interwoven into the old matter, so that it required very close examination to find it out; and matter on the old subject added in the new part, so as to make it look like an original part of the tract. It requires an actual examination to demonstrate this. I refer to passages to indicate it; page 20, he had been speaking in the old part of the body gathered on the Abrahamic basis. Thus begins the new, "It would be happy if we could pursue the history of this new family of faith, and find that it preserved its likeness to Abraham its father." "The succeeding chapter, the thirteenth of Matthew," etc. "The commencement of the history of the present professing Christian body by the personal ministry of the Lord," etc. "It would be strange if such a parable should belong to some other body, and not to the visible church at all . . . . I may also observe, before I conclude, that the almost invariable effect of the Jewish principle of interpretation [the general topic is here continued of the tract], is to throw into such a state of perplexity, etc., into felt inability to divide the word, etc., or else induces the adoption of the dictum of some favourite teacher under the shelter of whose name, etc., and what is more to be deprecated than this? It would be, as if the Spirit of God resided only in the teachers, as if the saints could not for themselves prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. It would introduce one of the worst forms of Popish evil." The tract then goes on warning against upsetting universal consent; thus gradually interweaving the original six-years-old subject had done it six years ago, the charge of shutting out the Spirit; and sustaining the doctrine of universal consent. Now, while spun out of the old, all this is new matter. I repeat again, I say nothing of intention; but is the thing honest at a moment of controversy on these points, in which he says he was charged with these very things? Others may think it honest; I confess, I have not much respect for his judgment of honesty who thinks it is. But the truth is, we have no need to speak of any judgment of honesty. Mr. N. first speaks largely of his charity in making the omissions which nobody said anything about, and then says, he added two paragraphs negativing charges made. Now any person accepting this answer could not (assuming him to be honest) have examined for himself the tract, because there is nothing to be negatived at all. The writer continues his discussion of the principles he is treating of in the tract, and his arguments against the principles of interpretation he is opposing, and, as illustrating this, shews that certain consequences follow in the mind which demonstrate the danger: which consequences (here of course to be taken as very evil) were the things he was charged (or says he was charged) with; and it was left to be supposed that he could not hold doctrines which he here treated as serious evil consequences. But though it really was another subject, it is carefully linked into the matter of the tract as a whole. There is no negative of anything; and then the doctrine of universal consent as a rule of faith, which had been objected to as of Popish tendency, is not negatived, but set up upon its legs again in a more subtle covert way, it having damaged their position when openly avowed previously. Now that I have the "Defence" to read, and have re-read that which I charged with unfairness, I have only to say, that I think very much worse, and on deeper grounds, of the thing I so charged: but I do see reason to credit what Mr. D. stated at the time, that it was he got Mr. Newton to add it; for the closing paragraph is very subtilely and covertly propping up Mr. D.'s argument in favour of universal consent as a rule of faith.

130 And now a few words as to the charges negatived: Mr. Newton says, that I brought against him a false and most injurious charge, in order to destroy his character as a teacher. I print, he says, that charge. He replies by simply negativing the doctrines imputed. This is an entire misrepresentation. We have seen what "simply negativing" means. Now, as to the charge. Popish principles were secretly spreading. I was urged by brethren to make a stand. This I did in an answer I wrote to a tract of Mr. D.'s, because Mr. D. had openly appealed in his to the doctrine of universal consent, as a ground of receiving truth, and as a rule by which to judge. I then alluded to popish principles in general, inasmuch as this appeal to universal consent proved that we were not secure on that side. The doctrine as to teachers may have been imperfectly stated; but it was the real substantial fact, deny it who may. Mr. Newton is not alluded to in the tract. I have said on the contrary, "Let no one suppose I allude here to individuals. On the contrary, I am very anxious to draw attention to a system," etc. "The demon of popery is the active demon of the day. Its leading introductory principle is advanced in the passage on which I comment. I have noticed some of its other elements, because the introduction of this general one shews that the door has not been kept closed against it." This is at the close of the reply to Mr. D. Is this printing a charge against Mr. Newton? I believe that these two have been the persons who introduced it. But I was thinking a great deal more about the system than about them.

131 Saints will judge whether there was need of being on one's guard, when I repeat to them the fact that, when, on urging the authority of teachers in one place, a brother replied, "But, after all, it is said, they were more noble, because they searched the scriptures whether these things were so," it was answered, that this was Jews searching Jewish scriptures; but that now that God had established gifts in the church, and raised up teachers, all that was changed. When the Plymouth system had reached this point, I judge it was high time to talk about popery. The truth is, it had ripened out of Plymouth more than the cautious leaders in Plymouth would put forward there; and I put the brethren on guard against the system. My attention had really in this been drawn to facts elsewhere, and not to Mr. Newton, as many brethren know. If Mr. Newton's conscience tells him that he was the guilty person, I shall not dispute it; for I believe, and have no doubt he was the source of it, but not a single word is said about it in the tract which is in answer to Mr. D., but the contrary: and that is the question here. Mr. Newton's statement in the "Defence" is not true. I printed no charge against him. I was really thinking of something else much more important than charging him - the safety of saints against an evil system which was ripening elsewhere. As to insinuations, I do not think anybody will charge me with its being my way. Mr. Newton's easy way of avoiding them would be to face the saints, and have it all out before himself. He has certainly thus far succeeded in putting one into a difficult position. One must let him go on, doing every kind of mischief, without taking notice of it, or speak of it behind his back; for as to coming fairly forward, he cannot be got to do it. If he thinks, that when saints see infinite mischief doing, they are not to speak what they think about it, he is mistaken. Or if he thinks his denial of it will be of any avail, when they know that it has been going on, he is mistaken in that too. Hundreds of saints are not to be exposed to subtle evil, because the person implicated in it chooses to complain of its being charged upon him when he denies it. I admit the difficulty is greater; that it is harder to walk in the fear of God, and not to step out of a perfectly just path. When one is dealing with such a course, one has to watch oneself the more as to the means used in convicting those guilty of it. But faith, which will always feel our own unworthiness, and not dare to walk out of the covert of God, will find the way, because it trusts God, who will bring every secret work into judgment, whether in our own consciences or otherwise, and make manifest the counsels of the heart, and take care of His beloved people.

132 As to the fourth charge - that is, the second I really made - the statement of the fact will be sufficient.

Mr. Newton was charged with making a sect at Plymouth, of course extending it if he could. But everybody knows that Plymouth was the central scene of operations. His own statement (I give Mr. R.'s account of it, which will not be suspected: my own was identical, save the form of the last few words) was this:-

He said he was making a focus of Plymouth, and seeking to establish union in testimony against the teaching of brethren (that is, those opposed to his views of course); and that wherever he could get influence in Devonshire, Somerset, and Cornwall, he should do the same thing. This, I need not say, at once arrested attention. Mr. H. said, it was difficult to work with him after this. Others demanded that brethren should declare whether they meant to act on this. Mr. Y. and A.P., who had been to Newton, declared they need say nothing, as Mr. N. had avowed all about which they had remonstrated with him. Mr. D. tells him in private, going out, that he ought to explain himself, or his meaning would be mistaken. He refused, saying it was plain enough. Interviews are had, etc., etc., on these words. I stopped dead at them. I felt that God had acted, and brought the matter out to light; but I allowed myself to be over-persuaded by brethren, in particular by Mr. R., who begged me, as so much good had been done, to wait and see, and not press it farther, or it might make a rupture with Newton. I acquiesced. After some time, a report of the meeting comes out by Mr. Newton, "because an open and explicit statement is deeply important at such an hour as this." His "Defence" says of this report, "these words are stronger than those I am said to have used"; that there is no reason, in a word, to charge any want of truth on the statement. I now give the statement of the report.

"I desire to produce in the minds of the dear brethren everywhere the same strong sense that pervades my own of the evil of this system: and this is one object of my labour everywhere; at the same time my hostility is against a system, not against individuals." Now this is sad and painful enough, I admit. But on the point of making a sect at Plymouth, he declares he will act in testimony against a certain system of doctrine everywhere. I should grieve at such a course. He would act so; he would desire that others should have the same sense of the evil as he had. Be it so. I ask any honest man in the world, is this the same thing when making a sect is spoken of, in judging the state of Plymouth, as saying that he was making a focus of Plymouth, and seeking to have union in testimony against the teaching of other brethren, which words were what arrested everybody's attention and judgment at the time, even the only ones discussed, and which are wholly omitted? There is not a word about a focus at Plymouth; not a word about union in testimony. He would work hard against a doctrine. I may regret, but cannot help it: but in coming forward to circulate an open and explicit statement, is it fair to omit the whole statement which arrested every mind, and substitute another for it? Was it not really a covering up what had thus openly come out,* and putting forward what was more convenient to put forward before the minds of others? It is urged that, I was told I was free to urge my own views as much. What comfort is that to me? I do not ask to do it. But, supposing it were so, what has that to do with making a focus of Plymouth, and getting union in testimony against the teaching of other brethren?

{*It was what he was seeking, and he thought he had arrived at his end; and hence, when I came down, his first act was to hold a meeting of the leaders in private to get them to sign a paper, denouncing me as a heretic. It was not this declaration which convinced me of it; but it was the avowal of it.}

133 There then it is. There is Mr. Newton's defence. There is what Mr. R. states to be the reasons of his, R-s, M., and M-s, arriving at the conclusion that they are perfectly satisfied that Mr. N. was entirely free from every charge. If I know my own heart, I desire more earnestly than any of them he were. But this is not the question now. I desire to add no farther grievance. I should never have touched the subject again, but that I found incessant subtle engines at work in influencing, and I am satisfied, bringing under the enemy's influence, every weak-minded saint. I have since then repeated confirmation of it. And I therefore say (now that we have Mr. R.'s "Reasons," and Mr. Newton's "Defence," on which they rest) you can judge for yourselves as well as Mr. R. or any one else. God has taken care of that, in spite of all their efforts to keep things under a bushel; and taken care of it, I pray you to note, for it marks God's hand, by their own act in bringing it before you. I repeat my judgment therefore, now that the means of judging are before you, that the two matters I charged at Plymouth, as one unfair, the other untrue, are such as I then thought them. The addition to the tract is not a fair thing, and the account of the April meeting is not a true account. It concealed and changed the whole important point, which God had brought to an avowal at that meeting. And note here, the facts are not denied. Every one can judge for himself of their honesty. Our judgments, beloved brethren, sometimes, nay always, prove our own state as much, and more than that of which we judge. They may be unjust. They may be sound. They may be righteous, and not charitable. They may be the true righteousness of God, and zeal for Him, in contrast with false appearances of charity. God will judge every one of us in all this. To Him we have to commend ourselves. The facts are now before you.

134 There yet remain but few points more that I am aware of, for I have refrained from any new matter, though, were it a mere matter of discipline, I should insist on other facts connected with it being considered. It is stated (page 16), on the authority of Lord C., "that many of the brethren engaged in this investigation came to the Lord's table at Ebrington Street, after their investigation was concluded, for the express object of shewing what their judgment was. You have, perhaps, observed that in his 'Narrative of Facts,' our brother Darby affirms, or implies [which?] otherwise, but yet the fact is as we here state it." Now this is all dishonest mystification. I must be forgiven speaking plainly. Would it not have been well to have said where I have affirmed or implied it? This they take care not to do. The reader will "have, perhaps observed" it; if not, he will have taken for granted, that these four tell the truth. Now I might have some difficulty in charging my memory with everything in the "Narrative"; but I have some clue here, because Lord C. came to me and urged this point, which I suppose therefore must be the same. I say then, that in what Lord C. has referred to (and I know of no other passage which touches on the subject, save one in page 78, to the same effect, incidentally), I have neither affirmed nor implied anything of the kind. I have stated, that McA., Sir A.C., P-r, C., W., did not break bread any longer. I have positively excepted those who were partisans of Mr. Newton, and expressed uncertainty as to Mr. N-r. I have no doubt that Messrs. R., M-s, R-s, M., and Lord C., might then and would at any time have done so, though the latter would not now on the ground of sectarianism and clericalism. Mr. R. had agreed to stand up during the investigation, and declare he was satisfied. Another of the inquiring brethren said, if he did, he should stand up and say he was not; and Mr. Newton then got him not to do it. So that, instead of denying that many did, I have (in the way of excepting them from others) rather said they would. What they did, I know nothing about. I have given no reasons for those not doing so who would not. It is in no way connected with the charges of untruth. I mention, at the starting-point of my account of their inquiry into the whole matter, that, as a present fact, when the matter was over, none but Mr. Newton's partisans would break bread. And that is the fact. I shall add another startling one here. Not one of the original labourers at Plymouth but has been driven away by Mr. Newton. Not one of them would break bread there now; I mean H., Capt. H., W., Sir A.C., and myself. I might add, as some of the earliest taking part, R-e, S-s, L-n, R.H.

135 The four who pretend to be guides and elders here are all new men. Mr. C-w is of the longest standing; but, however amiable a brother as he really is, no one ever dreamt of his being a guide till now. S. was not converted for years after we met. B. and D. joined from a Baptist church years after we met at Plymouth. To return, then; the statement in the "Reasons" is untrue (see page 66 of the "Narrative"). I will turn now to what is said in the "Narrative," and Lord C.'s authority, and I shall relate his interview. He came to me, I thank God, with more friendliness than heretofore, though of course blaming me, and I was very glad to see him. He declared he had been distressed, but had got quite happy on taking up Matthew 18, and meant to bring me before the church. Well, I had had a good dose of all these things; but however I said, of course he could do what he thought right. He called on me to retract certain things in the "Narrative." Two were mere misunderstandings - one a mere mis-stopping, and the other easily explained. The others I declined retracting, though willing to explain anything, and not doubting additional circumstances could be added. He said he should go, and bring others. He came with Mr. G-h. I told him then, his acting on Matthew could not be sustained, he was not the person wronged, and the real difference was obvious. If I refused to retract to Mr. N., who said he was wronged, and then to two or three more, Mr. N. must then go before the church, which was just what he would not do. Mr. G-h also told him it did not apply. He said he had given up doing it, they would not hear him before. I said, I was ready to answer them anything. In result, Mr. G-h told him, that he had confirmed all he had impugned, save the letter of one passage - that was, the words "any longer," in page 66* of the "Narrative." Lord C. admitted that they ceased breaking bread before they left Plymouth, but said they had, one Sunday after the investigation. I said, Mr. McA. certainly did not; Mr. W. certainly did not; Sir A. C. did break bread one Sunday, for I remembered he had said, he would not (I have his letter, which I looked at since), and then took one Sunday to consider before acting so decidedly, that Mr. P-r told me before he left, he could not break bread in Ebrington Street any longer, yet was not prepared to set up a new table, and so he should leave. And Mr. C. wrote to me to the same effect, and in fact would not. He happened to be laid up, but meant to go off. That as to the words "any longer" being set aside by their taking a Sunday to consider, etc., he might of course make any use of it he pleased, as he confessed they ceased to do so before they left Plymouth. All his other objections resulted in confirming my statements.**

{*[These and similar references apply to the pages of the "Narrative" in this volume, and not to the original tract.]}

{**This interview with Lord C., it will be seen, meets the statement in page 10 of the "Reasons."}

136 Further, it is stated, that there were meetings of the saints to inform them respecting these painful charges; and this is held to be a judgment by the church. Well, reader, there were. Every Monday evening, for a length of time, there were tea meetings by invitation, the object not being even avowed in instances where it was desired to have people who might not have wished knowingly to come, while, being by invitation, of course those could not go who could have met the statements. Mr. Newton was questioned, these persons say; and he answered too of course. And what then? Sir A.C.'s statements being in print could not be avoided, and they were boldly stated to be false.

137 I have now gone through the "Defence," as to the two charges of November, 1845; and I recall to the saints, that the "Reasons" and "Defence" do not touch anything beyond, nor enter at all upon the body of the statements in the "Narrative." Others could enter much more largely, if they were willing to take the burden, into the statements in these "Reasons."

I have been able to give enough, I suppose, to satisfy such as might be troubled by them, and to enable them to judge what their weight is.

The Principles Involved.

J. N. Darby.

<20005E> (See also files 20003E, 20004E, 20006E)

PART 3

An important general principle yet remains. In page 12 of the "Reasons," we find the following: "It is well known that we have always refused to acknowledge that the scripture recognises the whole body of assembled saints, as invested with authority and capacity to examine witnesses and debate* their verdict. This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service. It is in the sense just defined, that we have always denied that the congregated church is a deliberative assembly. Thus we have always maintained a testimony against the principles of the dissenters. If therefore from the period of our first gathering together in this place until now, we have steadily and invariably acted on this principle, can it be expected that we should depart from it in this matter?" It is evident this is of all importance.

{*The force of this word "debate" will be considered farther on.}

And first, let me recall the fact, already noticed, that these four persons (who are quietly telling us what they did from the beginning) were not there in the beginning. Mr. S. was not converted till years after; and Mr. B. and Mr. D. joined years after; Mr. C-w earlier, but a considerable time after, and he, for a very long time certainly, did not "addict himself to the ministry." That is quite a new thing. So that "we" may pass with those who know nothing of Plymouth; but with me, who was there before the beginning and at it and after it, their putting themselves in such a place bears a very strange aspect. And there is another thing somewhat strange.

138 These four were the persons charged, not indeed with the particular points of untruth - but they were involved in all that which was connected with them, led to them, and followed them, and as to which these two charges of honesty were merely collateral. If the reader is not sure of this, I beg him to refer to page 1 of the "Reasons": "The main bulk of the charges affect us as much as they do him"; nay, as to the whole case, they say more, "We are, and we wish to be, closely identified with our brother in his present position." They spoke too of the accusations, personal and others, as being made against them all, in their first letter to the four brethren who invited them to the London meeting, which was held in April last; alleging these accusations as a ground for not coming up and joining in it. And the fact is, at the time in which in these "Reasons" they profess to have been inquiring - that is, as we have seen, while the brethren were down at Plymouth to do so - these four appeared before them as associated with Mr. N. If I am not misinformed, he did not and would not appear without them. This inquiry included the charges of untruth. Is it not a little singular that persons, as to the bulk of the things charged, implicated as much as Mr. N. - and, as to all of them, then associated and now closely identified with him - should be the persons who were solemnly to investigate these very charges, so as to bind the church of God that it could not even debate its verdict? And let the reader note who it was that asked them. They state, and Mr. N. confirms it in letters already given, that he did. Everybody knows, that with the exception certain particular untruths, they were involved as accessories in the charges; nay, as to the letter on which one of the charges was made, one of them, Mr. C-w, had got it written to himself, and got it printed (having been at the April meeting too, of which it gave an account); and Mr. D. declared that he got Mr. Newton to put the addition complained of in the charge as to the other printed letter; and that they had gone down to Mr. R-e's, and had it added while the letter was in the press.

139 Are not these strange persons to pronounce a verdict on the case, which the church cannot even debate? Would any worldly man recognize such a proceeding? What would an upright worldly man say of those engaged in it? All I can say is, I sorrow to the heart's core for some of them: I trust as a Christian for all. Where was Mr. H.? Where were R-e, S-s, R.H., or other brethren needless to name, who had certainly as much competency as some of them, and even addicted themselves to the ministry?

But now as to the principle. I deny unqualifiedly that such was the method from the beginning; and I was conversant with it a long time before even Mr. Newton himself; who, though there indeed in the vacation and taking part, remained a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford a considerable time - I cannot be precise as to how long. It is quite true that verdicts were not always, nay, very seldom debated, never debated that I know of. There was most happy confidence in those labouring; and, the Spirit of God working in them and the body happily, their judgment commended itself habitually to the consciences of all; and the cases of discipline were simple. But such a thought never was entertained (I cannot answer for Mr. N.) as imposing a verdict on the body, which it could not debate.

And here I would indeed remark, that Mr. Newton avowed to me, both alone, and as it has been recalled since to me, in the presence of Mr. Edward W-d of Kendal, that his principles were entirely changed as to those very points of ministry, rule, and government.* How then can those who now adopt his present ones have had those of the body from the beginning? But the fact is, the labouring brethren did habitually inquire, for to them the cases were constantly brought; and they used to meet on Friday; and all this seems very blameless and desirable. But they always communicated the result of their inquiries to the body, and their convictions, or the conclusion they came to; but as to imposing it as an undebatable verdict, it is wholly false.

{*It has been stated to me that Mr. S. declared that, had the principles on these points been what they were at first, he would not have stayed. I have referred in the "Narrative" to an intelligent member of Ebrington Street, who declared that ten years ago Mr. N. urged on him the principles which now I am urging, and Mr. N. resisting; but that he never received them, but joined Ebrington Street as a sect, and stayed in it as such.}

140 I remember two cases of discipline. In one, a brother rose, and said he thought there had not been proper inquiry, and that there was a feeling against the person. The brother who communicated the case said, he thought the brother who rose could hardly be acquainted with the facts and say so. The latter at once felt himself alone in the meeting (as indeed, the case was a dreadful one, and most patiently investigated), and he sat down at once. In another case, a godly grave brother said, there was a want of clear information on one part of the case, or a deficiency of it, which could be supplied, and the case was suspended and nothing done. I repeat, the imposition of a verdict was never thought of. General acquiescence was true in fact; and it is happy when it is so. Indeed, most cases are known and simple, and have only to be communicated to the body, and there can be no question with any, if they believe the testimony of those who have taken it up. At Plymouth, those who laboured had confidence in the Lord, and in the body, and acted towards it with confidence, and hence the body had confidence in them. That this may have been abused by Mr. N. to the assumption of unscriptural authority, when he had driven away the counterpoise of others, is very likely, and, to my mind, an undoubted fact.

Further, I recognize that guides, elders if you please in principle, can inform and clear up the consciences of a body of Christians. No doubt, if by reason of use they have their senses exercised to discern good and evil, and are deeply acquainted with God's ways in the scriptures and with the human heart, it is just their service in such case, and, I believe, God's order; and saints will be always thankful for it, as far as I have seen. One may have spiritual discernment to suggest what all may have spirituality enough to see is right when suggested, but never would themselves have thought of. An engineer makes a road of which every waggoner understands as well as he the goodness when it is made, though he could not have made it. But it is by no means necessarily a teacher that does this. I know brethren who never teach, whose spiritual judgment I would far rather have than that of any teachers I know. It used to be the effort, I well remember, to insist strongly against the absorption of all gift into the teacher and teaching, as may be seen in the "Christian Witness" - a book Mr. N. justly designated for his purposes the most mischievous book that ever was written. But to impose a verdict which cannot be debated is the most monstrous thing that ever was heard of. It is pure unmasked popery - the clergy dictating to the conscience of the church, which can only register and give their weight to its decrees. Is the conscience of the church to be disposed of thus by others, be they ever so wise? A thing may be urged on the church, insisted on; let it be that rebuke be given; but it is always to bring the conscience of the church up to the right level. This Paul did with Corinth, where, note, elders never appear at all; but he never acts for them without it. "You have proved yourselves clear in this matter." This is the principle the apostle goes on. No doubt he could guide and rebuke them too, and tell them that he had judged the case already; but to impose a verdict on their consciences* they could not debate, not an apostle even attempts. How could that be proving themselves clear? It is monstrous. No one who reads scripture can question, however weak we may be now, that there were guides, leaders, who watched for souls as accountable to do it, men of reputation, and at that time appointed elders. But it is a very different thing to govern, or rule, or guide the church, which is scriptural, and to govern instead of and for the church, which is popish (and this is the claim these principles very distinctly set up), and then call the scriptural principles democracy. And even so the apostle declares he was as a nursing mother with the saints. And the government of the church is not a setting of points right, but of souls right, and therefore nothing is done unless the conscience of the church is carried into the act. It is evident that the apostle did bring the whole church round to separate from evil which he had already judged himself. Had he not done it, the Corinthians would not have been set right at all, they would have remained associated with the incestuous person. Had their consciences not heeded his appeal, he might in the exercise of apostolic authority have used severer means, and come with a rod. But he is anxious to shew, that whom they forgave he forgave; and if he forgave, it was for their sakes, so that they might act together, and Satan get no advantage over them by dividing them from him about a point of discipline.**

{*I shall here give an extract of a letter of Mr. N.'s, intended for the perusal of others, and read publicly in a gathering of saints. "It may however be well to inform you of the outline of circumstances that followed on Mr. Darby's personal accusations of me. When I heard of their having been publicly made in the meeting at Ebrington Street, I felt that it was open to the brethren watching over the saints to interfere, if they pleased, in their church capacity. If there was a case of discipline against me, it was quite open to them, after investigation, to bring it before the church, and require that I should be withdrawn from or excommunicated." The nicest casuist could not draw a line between this and the daily conduct of the popish priesthood in Ireland.}

{**It may be said this is what failed of being done at Plymouth. I have noticed this farther on.}

142 And now as to the dissenters' principle. I do not doubt many dear conscientious saints, from whom we might learn much, are amongst them. But the principle here alluded to, I believe should be utterly and entirely rejected, for the same reason that I reject that here proposed, namely, that the presence of the Spirit in the body is not owned by it. Among the dissenters they vote, and though there may be happy unanimity, and the Lord guide them, as I doubt not He often may, yet they do vote on the questions, and a majority determines the matter. Now it is quite evident a minority may be the most spiritual. In the case of Corinth all, as far as appears in public, were gone wrong, and allowed, and were puffed up about, evil. A majority, judging as such, cannot be said to have the Holy Ghost guiding them, because they are a majority.* This is quite manifest. It is a mere human principle, such as the world is obliged to act on, because it has no other way of getting out of its difficulties. But the church of God has. It has the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The dissenting principle (for I doubt not in practice they are often guided by the Spirit according to the grace of the gospel), their principle, I say, denied this presence and guidance; they acted on another. The brethren believed this guidance of God could be reckoned upon. Hence they denied the necessity of the other human extreme - the popish one of a clergy settling the matter among themselves, and announcing it publicly, and the church having nothing to do but add its weight by its acts to a decision pronounced by the authority of others, which they were bound to receive implicitly, and as a conclusion arrived at for them, which could not be debated.

{*It is worthy of note that this is the ground taken in the "Reasons." These are their words, page 7: "And the fact that the great majority of those then in communion were fully satisfied, that the judgment their brethren had formed was a sound one; and have from that hour to this regarded our brother Newton with unaltered affection and confidence is, it appears to us, a public and sufficient expression of the judgment of the church on this question." The truth is, even unanimity is not in itself a proof of the mind of God's Spirit. At Corinth they were, till roused by the testimony of that Spirit by the apostle, unanimous in letting the incestuous person go on. Nor would two or three evidently carnal persons rightly hinder the body in acting in any given case. were it so, two or three undetected accomplices in sin might hinder the bounden judgment of the church of God in the case of murder or incest. The apostle declares, having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your "obedience is accomplished": that is, when the full work of the spirit had had its way, he would treat the others still resisting as disobedient to the Spirit, negativing the doctrine of unanimity as well as of a majority, on which those who sign the "Reasons" profess here to have acted. The truth is, the body must answer to God for following the guidance of the Spirit in these cases. Those who do, God will justify. If the body do not, God will not sanction their act. We have not the apostle's power, it is true, but we have the promise of God by His Spirit to help and certainly guide us if we wait upon Him. God must be ultimately the judge.

In the case before us they had the most slender ground to go upon. All those who originally laboured at Plymouth decline to break bread at Ebrington Street; and some 150 or 200 left, unable to endure the state of things any longer. Four persons, who came amongst them comparatively recently, declare that they, being supported by a "great majority," have in their own act a public and sufficient judgment of the church of God. I press the question of principle on these plain facts on brethren's consciences. It might seem inconsistent to base the judgment of the church on a majority; and yet maintain the principles of popery. But the fact is so, and very simple. They assert as a doctrine, that the elders in their church capacity are to debate the verdict, and that the church cannot. But as a fact, though in doing this, and by the means they used for it, they drove away all the original labourers still at Plymouth, and some 200 others; they did keep the majority, of whom many were thoroughly imbued with their principles or under their influence, and some did not know what to do; and then they as a fact claim the acquiescence of this majority as the judgment of the church. There is no consistency in evil. They seek much to distract the minds of brethren from their subversion of principle; but time will open the eyes of those whose eye is single towards God.}

143 The brethren denied the necessity of this alternative. They affirmed that the presence of the Spirit of God was in the church, and that He would guide them in the faithful love of Christ to a right mind; that it might require, especially in the present state of things, patience, humble waiting upon God in the sense of weakness, a working out as in the absence of apostolic power, with fear and trembling; but they believed that it could be because GOD worked in them to will and to do. They did not deny in the least that there were those among them, who through greater spiritual wisdom and maturity could help and guide them in this - it would have been quarrelling with their own mercies; nor would they refuse the help and godly assistance of any brother of spiritual attainments and wisdom from elsewhere - it would have been resisting the unity of the Spirit and body, and God's authority in the church, and the common comfort of the saints, the increase of God by what every joint supplied. They might not see clearly all at once, and they would have to wait in any given case; but they believed in the faithfulness of the Lord to guide them. Their being obliged to wait might shew them the failure of their own state of conscience in spiritual power and do them good. Now the principle of these Plymouth leaders denies all this. It declares positively and openly here, that this is the alternative, either the dissenting principle of debating, voting, and majorities, or a verdict imposed by the clergy without any debate at all. That is, they entirely deny the guidance of the body by the Holy Ghost - His practical presence there - the very point as to this, which the brethren were called out of God to bear witness to, alike against the dissenting and popish principles.

144 It is vain for them to say that they do not deny it. We have, not the honest confession of it in terms, it is true, but we have the thing itself, and in their own statement. The guides pass the verdict; the body are to register it without a debate. The judgment of their consciences is in the hands of a self-appointed clergy. I can well suppose this reply to the plain and evident truth as to the state of the case: "We do not deny the presence of the Spirit in the body. But, God having put this office into the hands of those who have addicted themselves to the ministry, the proof of the Spirit being in the body is their submission* to the judgment of those whom God has placed over them. And thus the verdict is the verdict of the body by the Spirit." This is what is claimed (page 12), "This the church does: it debates its verdict, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service." Now this is exactly popery. The verdict there is alleged to be the verdict of the church, and the body are called upon ["required"] to act, and do act, as a body upon it. But it is arrived at by the clergy. It is in vain to say that it is presented, on these new principles, to the body when arrived at, which the Roman clergy do not. Even admitting this, the body cannot debate it. In this particular case, in tea-meetings in private,** they were allowed to question Mr. Newton. And this is called in to screen the flagrancy of the principle. The exclusive nature of the meetings is too barefaced to call it the action of the church. Were it so, the principle is wholly abandoned. The church question and examine Mr. Newton; and suppose someone had said, "Well, now we should like to hear the other side too; let us call Mr. Darby, Mr. H., and Mr. R-e, and Mr. S-s." "Oh no," is the answer, "the church cannot hear witnesses, and debate its verdict." Would not any honest man in the world be ashamed to be associated with such a transaction? Would not any spiritual one have revolted against calling such a thing the acting of the church of God, as an insult against God Himself? I have been obliged to notice this, because otherwise it would have been alleged that it was brought before the saints in the right way. Now, either they were forced to hear one side only, and there was liberty only for that, or they would hear witnesses; and this is what is refused them. Besides, after all, they must not debate their verdict. They must take what is given them. For, supposing that they are dissatisfied with the verdict stated, what can they do? Debate it before they make it theirs? No, this is positively refused. Examine witnesses? No, this is denied them. What then? Submit, or leave.** The answer will be, "But God is with His church; and He will guide the leaders into a right judgment, and they will only propose clear evident cases." That is, the clergy are not only to be guides but infallible guides, for they have come to the conclusion, which is to be taken to be by the leading of God Himself. If the verdict be undebateable, it certainly ought to be infallible.

{*I say submission, not accordance, because if they cannot call it in question, it is idle to call it accordance. Paul leads the body to act, however decided he was, by divine light. "Do not ye judge them that are within?" And again note, that there is no question of elders in 1 Corinthians at all. Paul addresses himself to the body. I doubt not he did it of God, to guard this very point, and shew the conscience of the body, the state of that conscience, to be the very point, the real matter in question. And here a very grave question arises: - Is not every one in Ebrington Street answerable for whatever evil has been there which is not put away? I clearly judge they are. I pressed this on them in speaking to them before I left.}

{**I beg a particular comparison here of the above extract from p. 12 of the "Reasons," with the following, from p. 10: - "The church here therefore has not only itself searched into and judged of this matter, but," etc. And, "It has been gone into before the Lord, and by His church, both that portion of it meeting in Ebrington Street," etc. They declare positively the church has itself searched into it, when the leaders have announced their verdict. It is bound up in what it cannot question. Private meetings were held (public are refused), in which certain things were read for, and answers given by the accused party: but inquiry, or other testimony, is positively, on principle, refused. And then the church is declared to have itself searched. What were Mr. R. and Lord C. but witnesses on one side, if they were anything? Again, p. 5: - "It soon became evident . . . that it would be absolutely necessary to inform the saints of all we knew and thought on the subject." Now, this is given in (what is presented as the judgment of the guides on a full investigation, though it was really no such thing) a letter of Mr. S., countersigned by the three others, set up as a definite verdict of acquittal by the guides, to be received by the body. Any one can see it was no such thing; but it is now given as such.}

{***In fact, many at these tea-meetings were so satisfied of false statements or evil principles, that not one took place but led to the secession of some half-dozen persons; the most, taking all that was told them for truth, or quieted in some way, stayed where they were.}

146 Is debate* to be desired then? It is just this alternative which is denied. The conscience of the church must be satisfied, for it to act for God and before God. If it is not, the conscience of the body is not clear. It may be gracious to do some act not yet done. It may be right, at the suggestion of some, nay, one godly brother, to prosecute the inquiry farther by the persons who originally inquired, as I have seen done at Plymouth. God is in the assembly without having any debate at all.** The Holy Ghost may there suggest some step not yet thought of, the neglect of which would destroy the weight of the judgment, even if a right one. It is specially when speaking of discipline, and looking to the Lord for producing the unity of mind of two or three, that the Lord says, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

{*The word debate is just used as alarming a quiet godly conscientious mind - innocent in the hands of the leaders where it is assumed to be a godly spiritual weighing of the matter, and implying a discussion in the case of the assembly; but, guides or assembly, the godly weighing together before God what is His will where our conscience is concerned, is debate neither in one nor the other.}

{**As a fact, it may be well to notice, that there was a good deal of debate, on subjects involving a mixture of discipline and principle, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles - debate which Paul (for so God ordered it for larger purposes of His wisdom and grace) himself could not terminate.}

The result was not produced when I was down at Plymouth. Assuming that the evil existed, the conscience of the body was not brought to judge it. This may have been from two causes - want of spiritual power in me in acting on the consciences of the saints, or a denial of the principles on which their consciences could act. Now I do not pretend there was no want of spiritual power in me; I do not doubt there was. But while I concealed for months (till the saints demanded an account from me) the personal charges against Mr. Newton, I brought before the whole body, and pressed on their conscience, what involved the principles and the godly action of the whole body, and which was avowedly required. They would not stir. My having done so was said to be a dissenting principle. I judged therefore, that the principles of the gathering were gone and denied; and I left without saying a word of Mr. N.'s personal evil* (and this is now unworthily, I think, turned by some to my reproach). Sir A.C. has confirmed, in the plainest manner, the fact that they were denied. Others bore testimony of it then to me, whatever silence they may keep now. Lord C. fully admits it now; and it is at last put beyond all controversy by the printed avowal of the leaders themselves.

{*I stated generally there was evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged. This, while including Mr. N. without naming him, was by no means confined to him; nor was it, as to him, confined to charges of untruth.}

147 Those who have been where I have been lately may have seen, in a very trying case, a body of brethren, without any debate (and yet, when it was felt necessary that every conscience should have full exercise for itself) act in full patience and grace, and defer to the feelings of a very small minority who desired an act* which (though the judgment of all the rest might have proved greater strength in the Spirit, if it had carried all with it, yet) was rightly deferred to as that feeling existed, and will never be regretted, I believe, by one. Under the circumstances God's guidance was in it, and entire and happy unanimity preserved. They have seen, on a subsequent evening (when, as I undoubtedly judge,** Satan made a seemingly overpowering effort to upset all they were doing, and hinder, by distracting and speaking them down, their acting on what they had been led to), that the same brethren, after listening to all those who came thus to interrupt them from other places (proving they rejected none), could adhere, as led and guided of God, with firmness to that which they had been led to by Him; and could prove, when thus put to the severest test, with little or nothing really to help them from without, that God's blessed presence in their weakness could give patience and grace, and deference to the weakest within, and resist the noisiest and most clamorous*** from without: nor was there the slightest idea of rejecting the help, and assistance, and spiritual wisdom, of those whose experience and faithfulness they trusted in, but the glad acceptance of it; as such as bore more or less that character acted just in setting the matter before their conscience. I allude (that there may be no mistake) more particularly, though not exclusively, to Mr. D-n here, who, though now at Reading, had laboured for years among them, and was now in London, brought up by another in reference to this.****

{*Or rather act on the suggestion of a brother from another gathering, after the consciences of two or three who felt difficulty were satisfied, and the same act was proposed as an act of grace and as giving scriptural weight to their dealings.}

{**Six brethren, from different and some very distant places, friends of Mr. Newton, or of his principles, came and kept the brethren till near twelve o'clock at night, with the avowed desire and object of hindering their acting on what they had patiently resolved on previously, but had waited ten days, hoping another appeal might have effect, if coming from the whole gathering. Only one of these six had been at any previous meeting. [There was besides present, at that meeting, one brother from Plymouth, but now of the gathering, who objected. One who is of Moravian principles, though judging the evil at Plymouth, thought the mode wrong from the beginning. See Part I.] Now I do not believe these six had the least concerted among themselves their appearance that evening. Nobody suspected it. It was a hand behind moved the springs: first, the enemy, I believe, to destroy; but, behind that, I believe, God, to approve and vindicate the cardinal principle - that the church must judge evil if it comes before it, or that it ceases to be the church before Him, must prove itself clear - and to shew Himself with them in it however weak. This God has done in mercy in the midst of our weakness: a far more important thing than any individual case.}

{***I do not speak of all as clamorous. As to several, there was nothing to object to in manner.}

{****Mr. W., though there, from circumstances, took comparatively no active part in it.}

148 I have now, in three parts, recorded briefly the facts and correspondence which took place. I have shewn that the "Reasons" and "Defence," which were sent up as proving an acquittal of the charges, so as to preclude farther inquiry, do not touch at all, nor treat of, the body of those in the "Narrative," which were in question here:* the transactions at Plymouth, which they allege as conclusive, not having reference to the greater part of them. I have given, as to those which were investigated at Plymouth, an answer to the defence set up - a thing I could never do before, as it was never printed; and the rather, as the certificate of acquittal given by Mr. R., in his own name and that of Messrs. R-s, M-s, and M., is professedly based entirely on this "Defence," and desires its publication, that others may be satisfied by it, as "affording," they say, "the reasons of our arriving at the conclusion above stated."

{*I press this point, because it is the tact of those who labour to discredit the saints in London to make it appear, first, that Mr. N. was cited to London. He was not. He was in London. Even then the brethren took no step. He proposed to satisfy brethren. They said, when it was communicated to them by Dr. C., "If we let this pass, it will be as if he was ready to clear himself, and we would not hear him"; and they thereupon took it up. Secondly, the "Reasons" seek to make it appear that the saints in London applied themselves to the charges in question at Plymouth in 1845: as to which Mr. N.'s friends think they can allege a previous examination. This is wholly without foundation - an unworthy attempt. The brethren referred to the whole case, "considering before the Lord the unhappy circumstances that have arisen among us." Mr. Newton brought it in his answer to the two charges at Plymouth; no one at London did.}

149 You have thus the grounds on which they came to it; and you can judge how far the "Defence" is of any force as to these, the two charges therein treated of.* The acquittal by these brethren in letters given in the "Reasons," is merely their estimate of the validity of this "Defence," which you have. As to the other charges in the "Narrative," besides these two, no answer is attempted to be given whatever.

{*I say two, because it is only the two last which were really charges. Making the existence of the Appendix a charge is ridiculous; and, in fact, it does exist.}

I have taken up, lastly, the great principle of church discipline now avowed in a tangible shape. A vast body of facts as to the general course at Plymouth are not entered on here. It would have been repeating the "Narrative." But you have an account, as far as was called for by the "Reasons," of what related to the alleged investigation and acquittal both by the church of God and the brethren from afar, and these are the other grounds alleged to preclude inquiry. It will still be remembered that these relate only to the two charges made and inquired into at Plymouth, and two alleged charges which I do not admit to be charges at all, and not to any others. I may, in so long a document, drawn up in two or three days, have omitted some point, but I do not think I have any material one. I must leave, to those who read this, the judgment which it becomes them to give upon a document such as the "Reasons," when they have read this examination of it.

150 Charity demands that I should make this one remark. As regards the individuals (whatever may be demanded as to what I may call official relations), I repeat, I have no doubt that a proper, positive, work of Satan has been going on, with far deeper principles and power than anything that has come out in public evidence even as to sectarianism.* Under this, I doubt not, whoever the human instrument, conscious or unconscious, may be, those, whom I believe to be beloved children of God, have fallen, and I do not attribute to them as individuals as deliberate acts of sin what they have so done. This makes me more determined in the stand I make - I have no terms with what is going on - but more reluctant, and even to refuse to attribute to them as properly a matter of evil conscience what they have thus been led into.

{*I judge the sectarianism itself to have been merely a means resulting from the effort to get rid of every one who could have hindered the coming in of far deeper principles of evil in doctrine and walk, which were sought to be established.}

God, I believe, has directed you, beloved brethren, in London, in acting in clearing yourselves - in acting in the sphere in which you were responsible to Him. There you were bound in love to the saints to act to make a barrier. It may require much spiritual competency to discern between those who are ensnared and those who are guilty in this matter. Many even of the most active instruments have already been delivered. Others may be, and shine out again as dear children, and, I trust, servants of God. We have to wait, and, while decided and faithful in our sphere, not to step beyond it; not in anything to act beyond the light which God has given us for duty, passive or active. There we have to be firm and earnest if called on. I believe people will be blessed according to their decision, and insecure in proportion to their hesitation; though we may hope the help of our God as to such, if it be in humbleness of heart and uprightness.

Further, let us not suppose, if there be such a power of the enemy, that we can cope with it out of the path of duty, and adventuring ourselves under its influence, when God does not call us there. In His ways we have all security against it; it cannot touch us: out of them, we are sure to fall into the temptation as Peter did. Honesty of intention is no security here. I have seen this in Irvingism; I have seen it, I judge, in this case. I distrust the constant desire to get people to Plymouth. I have known scarce one who inquired beyond the first half-hour, or who inquired beyond one side, who had volunteered to do it; though God kept a few little ones brought there unwittingly. If the judgment I have formed of these "Reasons" is just, they must be wicked people, or blinded people. Now I do not believe as to several of them (I speak generally of those more or less active in it), that they are wicked people. I feel certain then that there is a direct influence of the enemy, and I warn solemnly the saints against it. I think I can discern in many cases how and why several have fallen under it. It might seem presumptuous in me to state it, and I refrain, though free to do it when charity calls for it, if permitted for their good. I am sure if I and you, reader, have been spared this, or perhaps worse, it is sovereign grace alone which has kept us; and, perhaps our carelessness has helped on the evil; but God is good and faithful. I am thankful for having the conviction I have stated above, because it enables me to maintain in my heart unhindered love towards several persons whom, otherwise, I really should not know what to think of, and to hope for others too. But it should evidently make one firmer as to the stand one makes, and one's determination in it. We have all to be thankful for being kept, for very abundant mercy in this matter, and to humble ourselves, and myself above all, for little power in being able to keep out the evil, or to deliver others from it. While men slept, the enemy came and sowed tares. Let us look to our God, and He will help us to the end of the sorrow, and restore the fellowship of many who are separated by it. I am sure my feeling is (well may I say it!) that He has been most good to us in it.

151 I have only to add (while repeating that I dare say inaccuracies of detail may be discovered, as would be to be expected in a narrative reaching over near a year and a half of anxious work) that, after the sifting given by recent circumstances, the "Reasons," the "Defence," and all the rest, I have nothing at all, that I know of, to retract. The only definite attempt to impugn has resulted in distinct confirmation. The "Reasons" would add serious - very serious - ground for additional charges; but these I refrain from making. I think them considerably the worst thing that has yet come out. The reader can, on several points, judge of the matter himself, when he has examined the answer to the "Reasons"; but there are many, if they spoke out, who could answer the detail far more fully than myself.

Supplement: Notes on the "Correspondence" and "Remonstrance."

J. N. Darby.

<20006E> 152 (See also files 20003E, 20004E, 20005E)

The detail of facts already given is the best answer to the "Remonstrance." I do not therefore go into it at large here. A very few remarks will be needed. The total absence of conscience is so marked in the following passage, that I note it as helping to judge the whole paper: "You consider his refusal to meet a request of yours a sin sufficient to warrant excommunication." Passion alone can be alleged as any answer to a charge of want of conscience in such a passage as this. They call the letter of the 20th of November "Your first letter of summons." They must be perfectly aware (for Mr. Newton had answered them both) that, besides Dr. C.'s correspondence, two letters had been addressed to Mr. Newton, asking him to meet the saints in Rawstorne Street before this. This, called the first, resulted from the interview at Dr. C.'s and was not from Rawstorne Street. What is called the second here was consequent upon their repeated refusals, a final act of the whole body.

A few words as to the general contents of these documents will enable the reader to form an estimate of their character. It purports to be a correspondence relating to a refusal to meet certain citations which are presented as summoning Mr. N. from Plymouth up to London, and a certain letter as the first of them. Now what are the facts? It is true to the letter that this is the correspondence relating to the refusal. And this was the first letter written to Plymouth. But was this the beginning of correspondence? What about the proposal refused? Mr. Newton had been in London, and offered to satisfy brethren. A long correspondence - nay two, with two different parties - had taken place in consequence. All this is entirely suppressed. The first letter here alludes to an interview indeed, and therefore seems very fair; but correspondences had taken place about the proposal refused, and about meeting to consider it. And how came this letter to be written to Plymouth which is produced now, as citing Mr. N. from thence to London? At his own suggestion on leaving London, that they at Plymouth might consider it; and hence the reference in Mr. D-n's letter, who thought it useless, but deferred to Messrs. H. and C., who judged that, not having the presence of mind to reject the proposal of Mr. N. at the time as they ought to have done, it might seem unfair not to act upon it afterwards. And this letter, written at his suggestion after the conclusion of what passed in London, is treated as the first, and as a citation from Plymouth up to London. But further: another letter, making a different proposal from Mr. D-n's, was written by Dr. C. in consequence of the same suggestion. This also is suppressed, though the answer referred to the reply to Mr. D-n's.

153 Further, under colour of its arriving only when they were finishing theirs, a letter of December 13* is placed in the correspondence after theirs of December 15, as if it closed the correspondence: it did not, however. There was an answer: this answer I shall here give.

{*The date of this is omitted in the Table of Contents, where it would attract attention: it is the only one that is.}

"London, December 22, 1846.

"Dear Brethren,

"We write to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated December 15; and we beg to say that many of its statements are so entirely untrue, and its perversions regarding the course of action in question so very sad, that, for ourselves, we do not think it would be the path of godly wisdom to read it to the saints at Rawstorne Street. We have also submitted it to the brethren here who are watching and caring for the saints, and they, for the same reasons we have assigned, have counselled us to decline reading it. In addition to your letter a communication has been received from Mr. T. by the same post, in which also we are jointly concerned, and, we may add, that our remarks above, relative to the document received from yourselves, apply in a much stronger degree to his communication. We feel persuaded that if he had been better informed on the facts about which he has written, such statements and allegations as his letter contains could never have been written.

"We remain, dear brethren,

"Yours in Christian regard,

"WILLIAM HENRY D-N.

"HENRY G-H,

"To Messrs. C-w, Newton, S., B., and D."

154 It may be well to add that the printed correspondence did not arrive in town for a fortnight after the date of this letter, so that there was ample time for its insertion. The real truth was that the conduct of the five above named had produced entire distrust; and hence the briefness of the reply. But the "Correspondence" and "Remonstrance" were. so very bad as to draw forth from Messrs. D-n and G-h a letter, which I have since seen, of a very different character; that is, couched in terms of severity quite unusual with either, and declining, from their estimate of the proceedings of these five, any further correspondence. This, from its date, could not have found a place in the Plymouth publication.* The one just read belonged to it, and hence I have added it here.

{* The brethren D-n and G-h thinking it desirable that all should appear, it is printed at the close of this.}

There are two or three points in the "Reasons" it may be advisable not to leave unnoticed.

To say that silence (p. 4) was the ordinary mode of acting in ordinary cases of unfounded accusation is surely monstrous: I mean, the pretence that they acted on this ground, when there had been repeated meetings of fifteen brethren about matters out of which this arose. Mr. H. had refused ministering; I had left communion; Messrs. H. and N-r had gone and told Mr. N. his account was untrue; ten brethren were there from a distance for investigation; some two hundred or so, though not having formally separated, had ceased going to the Lord's table; and these four (who, if you will believe them, ought to govern the consciences of the congregation without a debate) feel, after a public statement to three hundred impugning Mr. N.'s moral character, that they had nothing to do. The pretension indeed of these four to be in this position is quite sufficient to make any statement after it possible.

Next it is said Mr. Newton had in such things the confidence of the whole body. As to those without, I say nothing: people must ask those without. But this I affirm, he had not in such things the confidence of the whole body. The fact was this: very many took all he said in statement or doctrine;* the majority exercised no conscience at all. But there were intelligent, godly, independent minds, who were long and thoroughly dissatisfied "in such things": and this the signers of these "Reasons" know as well as I do.

{*It was said by a most active sister that, if Mr. N. taught what she could not find in the Bible, she should believe it on this ground - that, he being a teacher raised up of God, she should suppose he had found it, though she had not.

What investigation has there been at Plymouth?

J. N. Darby.

<20007E> 167

If there be one thing more painful than holding those you care for to be guilty of any evil, it is being called upon to do anything which proves them so. I have this consolation that in writing this I do not volunteer. It is well known that the congregation at Rawstorne Street, after many previous steps being taken, declined to receive Mr. Newton at the Lord's table until a satisfactory clearing up of certain charges: their act being grounded on his refusal to satisfy their consciences or to meet them for the purpose. Three brethren, not of Rawstorne Street, who met Mr. Newton on the subject (who did not ask him to meet the saints in Rawstorne Street, but who urged him as he had offered to satisfy brethren to do so in the presence of those concerned, such as myself and others, urging that he could not object to the tribunal as he had offered to satisfy brethren, and all they asked was his doing it in the presence of those concerned in the matters), received a like refusal of their proposals. Mr. Newton's friends have printed and circulated reasons for not meeting the saints in Rawstorne Street: reasons which apply in part to any investigation whatever, in part to the principle on which it should be carried on.

These "Reasons" then I proceed as briefly as possible to answer, feeling that it is due to the consciences of the saints. And I shall confine myself to reasons which apply to any investigation. I have written at large on them in general elsewhere.

The reasons amount to this. The matter has been investigated, and that doubly, and Mr. Newton received an acquittal, and that, besides personal testimonies, by the church of God. And this is the form of the latter. Four persons say they have inquired, and that their acquittal having been communicated to the saints is to be held to be final as the decision of the church of God in the matter. These four persons are Messrs. S., C-w, B., and D.

I shall consider the validity of this under three heads:

The persons who acquit;

The fact of investigation by them, and what they say they investigated;

And the manner of it, which will introduce collaterally the other alleged acquittal.

168 As to the persons who acquit. It is alleged they were the persons recognized as addicted to the ministry, practically therefore the known guides or elders of the congregation, above all question of partiality, party-spirit, or bias from circumstances, having no concern in it but truth, competent to settle the consciences of the congregation. This is clear. They say (p. 12), "This the church does, we believe, through those of its members capacitated by God for such service." This would evidently be called for, or it would be a revolting use of the name of the church of God and of the case of His people. Now the fact is, these four were the known partisans and instruments of Mr. Newton; they were and are, as every one knows at Plymouth, his instruments in carrying on his plans. I do not hesitate to say that, had Mr. D. professed to be at that time what he professes himself to have been owned to be, it would have only excited the indignation or utter discomfort of even Mr. Newton's own friends.* At that time they could hardly bear his speaking even. As to dear C-w, though I doubt not beloved by many and justly, the idea of his being a responsible guide, or being the person to settle the conscience of the body in a grave matter, is the very last thing that would have entered into anybody's head. Nobody really would have tolerated (unless as submitting to some power they could not resist) the thought of either being in such a place - not even Mr. Newton's friends. As to other spiritual persons, their judgment would have gone and did go very much farther indeed. But one thing is certain, they were Mr. Newton's known instruments.

{*I dare say it may be different now that the party is formed; I speak of what every one knew to be the case then.}

There was one who was universally looked up to as pastor, who visited and was trusted and beloved, Mr. H. How comes it his name does not appear? Is not this singular in so solemn and public an act as this investigation? There were others, as R.H., S-s, R-e, who used to take a part in what went on. How came Mr. Newton to select the four who were to act in this solemn investigation? Mr. N. did not perhaps recognize the others I have just named; but were those whom he thought proper to recognize* the proper persons for him to refer his own case to? Indeed Messrs. D. and C-w he did not venture to name on another occasion when he declared who had authority in the gathering; Mr. H. he then did. It may be said Mr. H. was not then ministering. But is not this a serious fact? Why not mention it? Why was he not? The real fact is that, three days before the charges were made, he had declined further ministry because the conduct of Mr. Newton and the chief of these four was so very bad. And Messrs. R-e and S-s had begged the saints to assemble to know what was to be done to hinder their losing Mr. H. (Mr. R.H. had previously left disgusted). At that very assembly the charges were made.

{*I beg attention to this, as the principle when Mr. N.'s views become fully known is exceedingly important as well as the propriety of it.}

169 And then about a fortnight after, Mr. Newton put, it is said, into the hands of these four as the persons regarded by all as the guides of the body, the investigation of his conduct. Further, these four themselves declare to the reader here, that they were implicated in the great bulk of the charges made: not indeed in these particular untruths which were alleged to be told to screen Mr. N. from the other charges, but in the bulk of those which they were about. Did this fit them for binding the church of God by their investigation? Further, the letter whose truth was in question was written at Mr. C-w's request by Mr. Newton, and published or circulated by Mr. C-w. Mr. D. declared that it was at his suggestion Mr. Newton made the additions which constituted the other charge. Further, in the letter of the five* in answer to the invitation to London they all declare that they in common were charged, and exculpate themselves together from these very charges, veracity and all, which in their "Reasons" they profess to have solemnly examined, as independent persons, Mr. Newton's guilt in, so as to bind the church of God by their decision.

{*That is, these four and Mr. Newton.}

Further, when Mr. Newton was examined by the brethren who came down they appeared regularly* with him. And this was at the very time they profess to have been making their independent inquiry. I am told he declared he would not appear without them. Are these the persons who are to make and conclude this solemn inquiry so as to bind the church of God?** At Plymouth they are and were the known and notorious partisans of Mr. Newton, though Mr. S. was shaken for a moment by what took place. I dare say Mr. Newton asked them to inquire into the matter. But what will others say to such an inquiry?

{*On one occasion, I am informed, Mr. D. was wanting.}

{**The following is Sir A.C.'s remark on this point in his published tract: "Who are the rulers in this case first to investigate and then to lay the evidence before the body? They are the principal persons charged with the things complained of," though it is not really evidence but their decision.}

170 But did they indeed inquire? It is the first time any one ever heard of such an inquiry by these elders - this only scriptural mode. What is the fact stated in the "Reasons"? "The first step towards such an inquiry was taken by Mr. Newton himself" (p. 3). And what was this? He nominated* four other persons to investigate the case. Is not this a singular step towards such an inquiry? They ascertain, they say, that two were not facts. Next, as to the other two charges, the only ones I admit to have made then, their assertion is that they were themselves "as thoroughly acquainted as our brother Darby himself could be with" them. And they felt they had nothing to lay before the saints: that is, they knew it of themselves and did nothing. They had been brought by Mr. Newton as his friends to the meeting which gave rise to one charge; and the other rested on a printed document which, it is true, any one can judge of, that can compare it with the MS.

{*They never were nominated though I supposed these four might be. Nor is it said in the letter to me to report to the church, as stated in the "Reasons," but merely report. This with Mr. N.'s views is a most material difference. It did not mean "to the church." I urged in my reply that it ought to come before it. The answer was, it was not "a question of conscience to be referred only to the church of God," but "a simple question of evidence to be best dealt with by a few competent persons."}

But is it not a strange inquiry to have thorough acquaintance oneself and report nothing? They never came to me. They never came to Mr. H. who had been to Mr. Newton about his untruth, and urged him to suppress the letter, nor to any one else concerned; and subsequently the two facts were admitted Every one can judge of their value; at least a man's opinion acquainted with the circumstances will prove his estimate of what is honest and honourable and very little else. They state indeed, that they had, in company with the ten saints who came from a distance, an opportunity of again and again sifting all that could be said on it. Does this look like persons who made an independent investigation? Now this is moreover wholly untrue: they made no such investigation in company They came with Mr. Newton when he was examined; but that is all the company they had unless with those of the ten who were Mr. N.'s avowed partisans. They never were near me with them nor Mr. H., nor I believe, any independent witness whatever. They were known to be charged as accessories.

171 Indeed had they come alone to me with the pretensions of the guides of the church, their pretensions would have very briefly settled the question. There was not an independent person in Plymouth to whom some of them would have ventured to have hinted such a thing. It is important to remember that the period during which they profess to have made the investigation was exactly that during which the ten brethren were occupied in it, to three of whom and one who I suppose does not profess to guide the church Mr. N. had entrusted the investigation. It is true I left the Lord to order all this matter, and kept quiet; but it is at least singular that I should have been at Plymouth and never heard of a solemn investigation into my charges, which investigation began by its being put by the accused into four other hands than these and ended, being founded on the internal conviction of the four inquirers, with the uselessness of making any report at all.

And now I beg attention to what professes to be the report which in consequence of agitation was thought proper to be issued at a later period as the result of the inquiry. No joint paper issued from the ten inquirers from a distance. This made people restless. They wondered, if Mr. Newton was so clear of the charges, they could not come to a simple conclusion that he was so. Several of the inquirers had left. Mr. S. was the one, as every one knows at Plymouth, whose family (and I gladly add person) was respected in the town, and who was esteemed by the saints. I believe he has fallen into a deplorable snare of Satan; I think I see how, though I could not expect him to receive any judgment from me now. But he was respected. I think his position was his misfortune: God, I trust, and am sure, will turn it to good sooner or later. He then was individually put forward. He signs a letter in his own name as having by himself come to the conclusion, and offers individually to give information to any; and the three others - one, as we have seen, the person who printed and circulated the accused letter, and the other suggested the questioned addition - back up his individual testimony by cheerfully giving their joint one. Is this the declaration of the result of a solemn joint inquiry as elders and guides of the congregation in their official capacity?

172 It is added to this that "meetings of the saints in communion were convened at which full information was given," and Mr. Newton was questioned. What is the fact as to this? There were tea meetings held by invitation every Monday for (I suppose) six weeks, to quiet the minds of those who were dissatisfied (some 150 had left and were meeting in peace, and every tea meeting brought some more out). At these meetings Sir A.C.'s statements, as well as mine, were declared to be false. The reader can easily suppose who were invited, and who were not questioned nor questioners.

This closes by the following, "Now we press very particularly on your regard the fact that this matter has been therefore investigated by the church here, and investigated on the same principles as all such cases are investigated among us, only in a much more searching, protracted, and formal manner." Perhaps there is more truth in this than in the rest; but it tells a strange tale, though I believe a true one, as to Ebrington Street discipline. But it is a notable example of a verdict debated by those capacitated of God for it, by which the church is to be bound without debate, and which is to be received as closing a case with which the church has dealt.

And now as to the things investigated, page 1 of "Reasons" begins with the main bulk of charges contained in a recent "Narrative of Facts." The investigating ministers were implicated in the main bulk of the charges brought by me; "the only exception* is in the case of the charges of personal untruthfulness. Of these specific charges our brother Newton is the only object. Now as to these it might be quite sufficient for us to refer you to his own paper, entitled 'A Defence,' etc., a copy of which accompanies this paper." You would suppose these last were the charges of the "Narrative." Not at all; they are a very small part of them indeed. The inquiry at Plymouth had attracted attention, and people naturally conclude that all this statement about investigation and acquittal treated of in the "Reasons" and Mr. Newton's "Defence," refer to the charges which have given occasion to these "Reasons," and that Mr. N. having been acquitted of them it is unjust to try him again on them. The reader will be surprised to hear that this is not at all the case.

{*This professedly refers to paragraph 1, which speaks of the "Narrative."}

173 The fact is this, I was called on to give my reasons to the saints why I seceded. In doing this I was obliged to state two particular things as to Mr. Newton, because they had made me cease ministering three months before I left; but I carefully avoided mentioning anything that did not lead to my leaving, and hence mentioned only two things as charges. This roused Mr. Newton, and these charges were inquired into. Lately finding the same course pursued elsewhere which produced such misery at Plymouth, and by the same means, I felt bound to give a narrative of what had passed at Plymouth, and in this six or seven failings of the same kind appear, that is, four or five more graver than the two I had already mentioned. This awakened the attention of many brethren, and, Mr. Newton going up to town and saying one object he had was to satisfy brethren's minds as to these charges, they met this proposal and urged him on the one hand to meet the saints at Rawstorne Street, while on the other, other brethren to whom the matter had been referred - recognized guides - urged that he should meet me and others concerned and have it all cleared up. He refused both, and printed and circulated these "Reasons" for refusing to meet the saints in Rawstorne Street, alleging as it is seen that he had been acquitted: and, to make this available, the "Defence" written in 1845 and read to the brethren then as an answer to the two charges made at that time (I leave out the first two which I disown as charges; I have entered into this elsewhere) is produced as if it were a reply to the charges of the "Narrative" written in 1846, about a year after the "Defence"; which last does not and could not allude to the great body of charges in the "Narrative."

And now mark the means. In the sentences in page 1 of the "Reasons" to which I have referred, paragraph I speaks of the charges contained in the "Narrative." Paragraph 3 excepts the other four from "the charges of personal untruthfulness." Of these specific charges, our brother Newton is the only object. Now as to these the four refer to the "Defence," and say they have been investigated. One would think "these" were the same as "specific charges"; and the specific charges are certainly those contained in the "Narrative": but no. They are far enough in paragraph 4 from paragraph 1 to have dropped the "Narrative," the mind of the reader is occupied (and will be in the tract) with the notorious inquiry at Plymouth, and he fixes on this, quite unconscious that the "these" in paragraph 4 treated of in the "Defence" refer only to a very small part of the "specific charges" in the "Narrative," of which Mr. N. is thus supposed to be acquitted. The charges of the "Narrative" which were the subject in 1846 are conveniently swamped in the "Defence" of 1845, which did not refer to much more than a quarter of these, and morally a still smaller proportion.

174 In page 2 they have got farther, and say now we understand your letter to refer only to these last-mentioned charges, that is, of 1845 (assumed to be in general those against Mr. N.'s veracity) and they say they have been already investigated (p.4) (having paraded them in a materially changed and in part falsified state too), though they begin in page I by professing to take up the charges contained in the "Narrative of Facts."

Now as to the manner of bringing out the acquittal, which leads me to the other alleged one. It is asserted that all the brethren who came acquitted Mr. Newton. The fact is this, after several had gone, Sir A.C. drew up a paper (signed subsequently by four others) going as far as ever they could in clearing Mr. Newton. This verdict was presented to Mr. N to see if he would be satisfied with it. This was a strange procedure if it was a direct definite result of a solemn investigation. Mr. Newton declared that he was ruined if it came out and that he would go to Canada. And the statement was withdrawn at his instance. I thought it far the best thing in appearance for him that had taken place, and I stated its existence in the "Narrative" to have my account above blame. Now this statement, rejected by Mr. N. as unfair and ruinous, is that which is said to be the acquittal by these inquirers! It is moreover a singular fact that the person who drew it up published immediately afterwards a tract declaring in italics, "That anything like an open investigation of the charges was positively refused." I perfectly understand this transaction from letters and statements to myself, but it would not become me to explain it here. There is no imputation on any one's uprightness.* God took care it should come to nothing. But a statement proposed to Mr. Newton, and rejected by him as ruining him and therefore withdrawn, can hardly be now alleged as a solemn acquittal by the ten brethren, five only having signed it, whatever it stated: the person who drew it up having declared subsequently that anything like an open investigation of the charges was positively refused. There I leave that matter. When Mr. Newton had got rid of this by threatening to go to Canada if it came out, then the statement of Mr. S. and the added note of the three was produced, saying that as the brethren had come to no result they had drawn a paper up, and were going to give it out, entirely clearing Mr. N.; and this withdrawn acquittal, and the clearing which supplanted it, is the complete acquittal of impartial brethren and the solemn judgment of the church of God concurring in declaring the charges unfounded!

{*I do not know after all as it merely clears up Sir A.C.'s act in presenting it to Mr. N. that I am wrong in saying that I have no doubt the original object was to get rid of the charges in order to inquire into the sectarianism. I do not speak of that of all that signed it.}

175 The fact is, that nothing more damaged the cause of Mr. N. at Plymouth, or so much, as this very paper, though it is possible some may have been influenced by Mr. S.'s name. And he well knows he got no honour by it. One of the signers of the previous supposed acquittal got his eyes opened by it too. People naturally said these known partisans of Mr. Newton would not have been obliged to clear him thus if other acquittal had not been wanting.

I here close my remarks. I have not touched on the "Defence"; I have read it, I had heard it read before. I have examined anew the two charges I made. I say it with sorrow - I have nothing to retract at all. I have entered at large into my reasons elsewhere and gone into many more facts in a larger statement connected with what passed in Rawstorne Street, and discussion of the church principle avowed in these reasons. I write these few pages for brethren more immediately concerned and unable from ignorance of the facts to estimate the force of the "Reasons."

I have only to add that there was no foundation whatever for the statement as to Hackney. One brother wrote a private note inquiring, supposing a gathering were to propose such a thing or if such another thing were done, would Mr. N. be induced to consent? The brethren at Hackney made no proposition or communication whatever, nor did any one in their name.

The last paragraph may naturally attract. I have only to say, before the rupture, confession and a day of fasting was urged and peremptorily refused. Plymouth should not be made a plague spot of, was the answer; and when ashamed to be refused longer, many can remember what was given out and what passed at it, the bold appeal to God to be strengthened to maintain their position. When Mr. C-n was here, he declared it was useless to attempt to get Mr. Newton to have any humiliation about Plymouth, and they must have it for the church in general.

176 Finally, I here avow that, if such things as I have gone through are to be tolerated in the church of God, brethren must seek others than me to be associated with them in their walk and labour. I say this as no unseemly threat but for the necessary unburdening of my conscience. I believe that GOD dwells in His church, and that it is an open and intolerable mockery of Him to speak of the solemn judgment of the church in such conduct as this; such a degradation and prostitution of the name of that which ought to carry the holiness and power of God with it as the vessel of the Spirit, is not to be borne with. These "Reasons" are to my mind a worse sin than the untruth they are meant to cover. I am a poor sinner, the chief of sinners; I have no hope for myself but grace. But I do not see that it is grace to abandon the church to evil such as I believe this to be. This is not the place to parade my feelings: God will judge in a day that is to come, who has had most of such as He approves of (though I am sure I am most poor in His sight). But I love the church of God better than I do any individual. I think I ought to do so.

Further, as to the four who sign this (whose paper, and not Mr. Newton's conduct, I examine here), I am sure some of them are mere misled instruments, though I cannot say blameless in it. I believe one alone to be the author of it, and (whatever grace may call for, and in it we are called to be perfect as our Father which is in heaven is perfect, and we have a double reason for this as ourselves sinners) he must expect I should act upon the ground of that which I believe.

I again press upon the reader that this is no volunteer of mine. The brethren in London felt unable, especially in the absence of Mr. Newton, to enter into the merits of the case. They declined to receive him till he cleared it up. The four chose to circulate and publish their reasons for his refusal to do so, and sent these by post to all the saints they could, and gave them away at the tract shop in London. They cannot complain of the publicity of the matter.

177 In result, the alleged acquittals are, first, a testimony of four persons who declare elsewhere they were jointly accused with the person acquitted: and secondly, a paper suppressed by Mr. Newton, because it ruined him.

Summary of the meetings in London, February, 1847.

J. N. Darby.

<20008E> 178

Introduction

The following account of the meeting which took place in Rawstorne Street, in February, 1847, is evidently not written for brethren dwelling in London, unless they choose to have a record of what took place, as the matter contained in it passed in their presence, and there is no need to recall it to them. It is an account which was actually sent elsewhere, where there was need of it. I give it as it really was, my account of what passed. For my own sake I have however shewn it to many present, so as to make sure that there should not be any material inaccuracy. I am aware that many will object to its being published now. They must allow me to act on my own judgment as to that. Many saw no need in, and blamed me for, many things of the urgency of which they are now convinced. What was necessary for the brethren in London may be necessary for brethren elsewhere. What was said publicly there, can with equal reason be presented to other consciences. The affectation which pretends to more charity than others possess does anything but commend itself to my conscience or judgment. I avow frankly to those who pretend to it, I do not give credit to their pretensions, nor does the pretension do credit to them. Many would wish the question to be confined to principles and doctrines. Though these are becoming daily plainer, I do not agree with them, and this is my reason. I am perfectly satisfied that the persons here in question, over whom I deeply sorrow, are direct instruments of Satan; that their work is the work of a seducing spirit, to which many may, and several have, given heed. I repeat, of a seducing spirit, of a devil. They are subverting and undermining the truth of God, being unsound on the Person of Christ, on the sufferings of Christ, on justification, on the position and calling of the church, and as to its hope. I know this both by what has been published, by what I have heard myself, and by what others have heard. Every kind of extravagant statement* calculated to unsettle the soul as to all truth - preached up as deep knowledge, and the whole structure of truth diligently and assiduously undermined. Many souls may be puzzled by this. It may be and is denied, if detected after being taught; all the subtlety and craft of Satan may be in play, and is, to disseminate and at the same time to conceal it. It is the character of heresy to be brought in privily. Every one the least acquainted with the facts of the case knows it is so here. And in general such cases are accompanied by attractive or imposing natural qualities, some of the instruments may be even Christians walking in the flesh. Such was the case in Irvingism. It is not the gift of every one to detect such subtleties, and to be uninfluenced by natural qualities which attract. But God is faithful not to permit His feeblest children to be tempted above that they are able, but will with the temptation give a way to escape, that they may be able to bear it. He gives proofs of Satan's power, obvious to every soul which does not choose delusion and a lie. Satan is the father of lies, and when he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own. God has not permitted it to be otherwise here. I repeat distinctly (and I have additional evidence since I said it before), I do not know one who has embraced systematically this system, that has not fallen into open and systematic untruth; some of them persons, I gladly add, as incapable of it as any of us, as to their habits as men. But if Satan be using them in the flesh, what can be expected? Why, that the simplest and most unpractised would commit themselves the most. And so it has been.

{*Thus it has been taught that it will be as much a matter of sorrow to Christ to give up the kingdom to God the Father (1 Cor. 15), as to have come down into this world of sin. None have a conception, if they have not themselves seen or heard them, of the extraordinary and outrageous statements put forth, shewing Christ to be sacrificed to a notion, to the credit of a system. The difficulty is, that while carefully propagated, Mr. Newton not having put his name, on their being shewn to be frightful they are denied. This has been the case with the notes on the sufferings of Christ, when Mr. N. has been applied to in private. I leave every righteous mind to judge of the unprincipled iniquity of such a system. In the Lord's mercy he has been forced to publish in his own name. Notes of Mr. Newton's Lectures, carefully drawn up, are circulated with the strictest injunctions not to shew them to others than those to whom they are confided. This was the case with regard to the paper on the sufferings of Christ, since published by Mr. H., than which, for those who can judge of its bearing, it is hard to conceive anything more diabolically wicked. Mr. N. has since published a tract on the sufferings of Christ, pretended by some of his followers to have no reference to Mr. H.'s publication, though the first sentence proves such a statement false. In this of course, such passages as those in the secret notes, which must rouse the sorrow, indignation, and disgust of every one not yet blinded by Satan, are avoided. But the second tract, from its deliberate and careful character, seeking to gloss over the statements of the first, proves, I judge, a great deal more than the first; either a deliberate purpose of subverting the whole foundation of the eternal truth of the gospel, or a total and complete absence of all spiritual knowledge of the very kernel or essence of that truth. I say more than the former, because carefully written to justify and guard his views, referring to what had passed as to the former without a word to withdraw or condemn what ought to revolt the heart of every saint as to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It is easy to say he will not answer: he will answer to God if he will not to man. I shall take notice of it further on, and I entreat the reader to weigh what I have said in this note. I have well weighed it before printing it.}

180 Now the simplest can understand that falsehood, deliberate falsehood, is not of God. In my judgment, where the matter is brought forward and at work, where the doctrine of Satan is at work, it would be sin and unfaithfulness to withhold the proofs that it is of Satan. It is true this will not be done when it is not called for by the service of God. It only occupies the mind with evil. If some prefer acquiescence in Satan's work to delivering God's people from it, and call that charity, I do not. I have had no scruple in printing for the saints this account. What has been said publicly, before some hundreds, those who have said it are answerable for, morally before all. What grace required to be communicated in London, for the deliverance of saints, is available for the deliverance of others elsewhere. I have omitted the notes of two speeches, one my own, because they did not refer to facts, but merely discussed principles which are not my object here.

I shall add at the close, some remarks* on two other points, to one of which I have already alluded, for which the present publication furnishes the occasion. We shall find in the examination there entered into, another characteristic mark of Satan, namely, borrowing recognised and blessed truths and using them, perverted in their application or as the means of introducing something, beyond which is not suspected, to subvert foundation truth. I have only to add, as a principle of scripture, if it be a work of the enemy, "Cursed be the man that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully."

{*These having, though merely hasty notes, for as to me at least promptitude was more important than what was elaborate, extended farther than I thought, I print them as distinct parts.}

181 Mr. D-n, after prayer had been made, opened it by stating in general that it was for satisfying the minds of brethren who might desire it as to what had passed and that the statements made might not rest on the testimony of Mr. Darby, but that they might have the facts from the mouths of those concerned in them - that brethren had kindly come and would answer any questions.

A brother, named M-ws said, as questions might be put, he begged to ask these brethren who had come, what scripture they founded their separation on, and that they would give the particular text. After some delay, no person rising, Mr. Darby rose and said, that as that concerned him as much as the brethren present from a distance, being a principle not a fact, he would answer it, and with very simple passages. "Cease to do evil." "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you" - passages that once were thought weighty. He was surprised that it was needful to quote scriptures among brethren now, to prove that it was right to separate from evil.

T.S-s, R.S-s, and Francis L-n, cited different facts to shew that the principles were subverted. Mr. S-s having declared that every honest person in the assembly (at Plymouth) knew that the principles were changed, Mr. A-e took him up and asked whether he meant to say that all who did not admit the principles were changed, were dishonest people. Mr. S-s explained. Mr. F.L-n said, that every one knew quite well that they were, that those outside the gathering all knew it, and reproached them openly with having given up the principles they professed; and he said boldly, that every honest man in the assembly knew very well they were changed. Mr. S-s confirmed his previous statement.

Mr. H. said he had come up because he felt that in avoiding confederacy they were in danger of injuring brotherly confidence, and that he was glad to meet the brethren and cultivate this; and that he felt bound to give brethren, at any time, one or many, his reasons for leaving Ebrington Street. That he felt it was humbling to himself to do so, as he had been decidedly helping on the evil, and had to accuse himself of want of spiritual discernment, in not seeing that growing up which had caused the trouble; that Mr. W.H.D-n had warned him four years before of clericalism, and he had repudiated the charge. There was an esoteric teaching, as well as a public one, of which he was quite unaware; that it had required the whole weight of the party system to fall on his own head, before he was aroused from the delusion into which he had fallen, for he was quite satisfied they were blinded by delusive power; that he had very much rather any one he cared for was in the Establishment than in Ebrington Street; that the system which was carried on there was the ruin of the public morals of the saints (he did not speak of their private conduct); that there was the pretence really of impeccability and infallibility; that what they held was the truth; that every effort to have any humiliation or fasting had been rejected because nothing was wrong. Mr. H. then entered into a statement of facts, shewing what had led to his relinquishing the ministry there, and subsequently, when there was no remedy, communion itself. He declared that he was surprised and shocked at the statements in the "Reasons"; that they had destroyed his moral respect for those who had signed them. How could four persons pretend to speak of the principles they had acted on from the beginning, when as to S., he had been converted six or seven years after they began, and Messrs. D. and B. joined also many years after their meeting? As to some of them being persons recognized as guides in the assembly, it was monstrous, he must say unblushing impertinence, etc.

182 Capt. W. then rose and said, that we surely had enough of this, and that he avowed he rose to change the whole character of the meeting.* He admitted the evil, but said Mr. Darby ought to have driven it out.

{*The discussion on the principles and the reply is omitted.}

Mr. Darby replied to the principles, and said that Capt. W.'s statements shewed he was ignorant of the facts, and proceeded to reason on these two points.

Sir. A.C. said, he was not surprised at Mr. Darby's saying he did not trust the brethren, for there had been the greatest want of energy as to the evil. He was quite certain that the power of Satan had stupefied them. He spoke as one who was conscious of having been under this stupefaction, and was yet hardly delivered from it; that, as to the "Reasons" given for not coming to Rawstorne Street, the statement there given was so entirely false, so utterly untrue, that not only he would not break bread with those who signed them, but he could not, much as he loved some of them, as an honest man, as a Christian man, sit down in the same room with them: he could no more own them in the church than the fornicators and adulterers of whom the word spoke. Next, as to the paper which has been called a verdict of acquittal, Mr. T. had recognized that it was no verdict of acquittal, and could not be taken as one. Mr. T. said indeed, that it was so inaccurately worded. The fact was, it was most carefully worded not to be one, and the question left carefully open for investigation by the body. The truth was, they were not in a position to give any. Mr. Newton had refused to make any communication whatever, until they had engaged not to meddle in the affairs of Plymouth. They had been bound by himself to pronounce no decision, but merely inform themselves. They saw Mr. Newton, and his friends twice, and Mr. Darby once, and he felt now they had been quite wrong in not communicating Mr. N.'s defence to Mr. Darby, that he might have given his answer, but they merely questioned each as well as Mr. H. He had originally gone down with reluctance. Lord C. had said to him, when urging going down - Were they to let Darby go on breaking up the meeting? That they must go and put a stop to his proceedings. Such a statement was very uncomfortable to go down with, on an inquiry as to the merits; however he went.

183 After a lapse of time, he had assembled the ten from a distance, as the time was consuming in desultory visits, and they were doing nothing in common. Mr. N. and his four friends proposed they should meet them, and confer on the state of things - which he had positively refused, and Mr. N. and his friends with him appeared to answer together any questions they had to put. Mr. H. they saw apart. When he objected to the conference proposed, they were not allowed to meet in Ebrington Street, and they had some difficulty in knowing where to meet, but at last did at Lord C.'s. When Mr. R. proposed to say in Ebrington Street they were satisfied, he said, if he did, he should rise and say he was not. That the brethren having separated, and many being gone, and as stated in the document, every kind of report being rife as to the charges - that Mr. Newton had two wives, and he knew not what, and much excitement prevailing, he felt it a matter of kindness (he now saw how unwise he was) to relieve Mr. Newton as to this. As to the charges, of the things charged there was no kind of doubt; they could not be called in question by any: the matter was added to the letter, and the account in the C-w letter on the testimony of all present was not a true account of the April meeting. It omitted the most essential part. But he had been persuaded by the statements of Mr. Newton, that he had no evil intention in these misstatements. On the suggestion of R. the word 'entirely' was put in, and he drew up, and had the letter printed, the four having added their signatures as concurring. However the act was wholly his. Three days afterwards he would not have signed it as to intention. As to this alone there was any expression whatever, and, though he was not here to accuse Mr. N., he must say that in those three days from what came to his knowledge, and certainly now, he would not say so. It was however suppressed, and he felt humbled at ever having done it. But he had most carefully left open the investigation by the body, and called upon them subsequently too to carry it on, pressed it on Mr. Newton himself, who declared that he never would suffer it; that if he, Sir A.C., gathered them, none of Mr. N.'s friends would go, and it should be a party meeting. He had done what he could not now do, and, he believed, ought not then to have done, to relieve Mr. Newton from the reports of every kind afloat; but verdict on the case there was none, nor meant to be, nor allowed to be, even by Mr. Newton himself. As regarded what Capt. W. had said, both as to the course Mr. Darby had pursued, and the means which might have been employed, it shewed his entire ignorance of the facts, because besides the efforts made by Mr. Darby for many months the means were impossible to be employed, as the intervention of others was positively refused, and the body of the saints not allowed to assemble.

184 Mr. McA. said that what was to his mind most clear was the direct power and work of Satan already referred to. He had never felt such terror in all his life from any thing moral or physical as when, in communion with God, he had his eye opened to see the work and power of Satan, on the brink of which he was standing. He had been rather disposed to agree with Mr. Newton, till, on going down to Plymouth, he found very decidedly that a party, and not the interests of the church of God at all, were Mr. Newton's object. As to what Capt. W. said, he must say it proved him entirely unacquainted with the facts of the case. He had spoken of Mr. Darby's finding evil, and after a while separating; he forgot that he had gone on many months seeking to rouse the conscience of individuals and the body, and, he judged, had shewn great patience. (Capt. W. rose, and said, Very great patience.) That as to the pamphlets published, he, however painful they might be, was very thankful for them: they had been the means of bringing the matter out into the light, and every one of the brethren had reason to be very thankful for them. In conclusion, he urged the saints to have nothing whatever to say to it, as a distinct delusive work of the enemy which they could not tamper with in any way, without the utmost danger to themselves. As far as his connection with the facts went, he confirmed the declaration of others as to the entire untruthfulness of the "Reasons"; but he had left very early in the matter, being convinced of the evil, and had only refrained from urging Mr. Darby to go on and act because he thought he was going fast enough.

185 Mr. N-r said he also had to speak and warn others against tampering with this matter, as a work of Satan. He had done so, he had fallen in a considerable measure into it, he had tampered with it, read the "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," and been led by them; and he was now perfectly conscious of the delusion of Satan which had been upon his soul. It was Popery; the real pretension to infallibility; the same means used. If any one knew what was published of "Priests, women and families," it was just that. Many knew what a spiritual director was. Now that was precisely what went on. No books were allowed to be read, but the approved ones and the like. No one could know the system that went on at Plymouth, but one who had been there, and gone through it; and hence he felt too how Capt. W.'s statements shewed his entire want of information as to facts.

Mr. A-le having asked a question of Sir A. C., and it being now ten o'clock, the meeting was closed, and the questions might be answered to-morrow.

The next day, after the brethren had met, and, as there were brethren from elsewhere, had had tea together in the room, A-le said he was quite satisfied, and had no further question to put, and at first the meeting took the form of worship and service. A sister (Miss C.), through Mr. D-n, said she had not found it convenient to come the preceding evening, and therefore begged Sir A. C. to state, whether there had been an investigation.

186 Sir A. C. went, in a desultory way, over some of the ground he had gone over the preceding evening, and said, as to the charges made, there was no question whatever of the truth of them: that was not in question. What had been said applied only to intention.

Capt. H. said, As to the facts then you, in point of fact, found him guilty, only expressing your opinion at the time as to motives. Sir A. C. said Yes. At the end of the meeting he explained, lest this should be mistaken, that he had at the time meant to go as far as he could in clearing Mr. Newton. Mr. McA. rose and said, that as to the charges made, he confirmed, of his own knowledge, that as to the C-w letter. Mr. N-r confirmed too the truth of them. As regarded the two first-named charges, he confirmed the statement, that they had never been made as such. The words were, as stated (he was present at the meeting), that the first thing that made Mr. D. uncomfortable was the said MS. Sir A.C. said he was aware this had been stated at the time, as Mr. N. now said; but they had told Mr. N. of it, and he declared he had good information that they were made as charges. As to the charges being true, they could not be called in question. Mr. H. stated the same. Someone suggested that supposing, as appeared, the facts were true as stated by Mr. Darby, there might have been no intention to mislead by them. Mr. H. said, he did not understand this kind of reasoning: we must take care in making excuses, not to shake the very foundations of right and wrong, and accustom one's self to deceit; that for his part he did not understand the argument of want of intention. Mr. Newton had been told that his account was not just, and alleged it was not his intention to mislead by it. But if so, after he had been informed as he had been by himself, that his account was not true (for the fact was, the statement which arrested the attention of the meeting in April, and gave occasion to discussion and his own objection, was left out), Mr. N. would, when so informed, have ceased to circulate it; whereas he went on and continued circulating the paper himself, so that he could not acquit him of the intention. If an officer of the army, or an attorney, had done what Mr. N. had done, he would have been turned out, or struck off the rolls. It was not well to accustom the soul to these things.

Mr. E. S-r rose and said, he thought sufficient had passed on these points; he felt cavilling at words a very unwholesome thing, when the broad facts were plain to every one, and he felt very strongly that we must take care and not undo and destroy in the souls of the saints the plain uprightness of truth and integrity, and accustom them to special pleading to excuse evil when the plain facts are there.

187 Sir A. C. then spoke as to the desirable path for the saints, that it was not a restless path of hostility and human effort, but waiting upon God, which would be the resource against this work of Satan.

Mr. McA. concurred in this, but he still called on the saints to remember that, though their minds there were all cleared up, and, in a measure, unanimous on the subject, the conflict was not over: Satan would pursue the work still, and was doing so assiduously; that it was by secret, underhand means, circulation of letters secretly, papers of notes and the like, not communicated to those who could judge of them; that he urged the utmost decision, and that saints should have nothing to say to this underhand work: while peaceful and waiting upon God, to be as decided as possible to have nothing to say to it, and in unqualified and decided opposition to it whenever it came before them.

Sir A.C. then declared that the statement that he had broken bread in testimony that the charges were unfounded, was entirely untrue: it was quite the contrary. Mr. N-r rose also and said, that as to him too it was entirely untrue; that on the contrary he had resolved not to break bread any more there and had said so, but left before the Sunday came. Sir A.C. on a question being put, on the meetings closing as to the four having made any investigation, said in reply (but it did not come before the meeting), that there was no need to give any testimony to it, as they had contradicted it in the "Reasons" themselves and said that they acted on their own knowledge, having as much on the subject as Mr. Darby. The meeting was then closed.

There was one at Tottenham at which it farther came out that Mr. N. had told Mr. D-k, when he went down to Plymouth, in the midst of these affairs, and would not see Mr. Darby, that he (Mr. N.) had six or seven names ready to leave and begin on a new foundation entirely; and that Mr. N. had told Mr. D-k that he (Mr. D-k) should act on the principles, but that he need not avow them; the exact date of this last did not appear that I know.

188 The following has been omitted, by mistake, in its place.

Mr. Henry Y. said, that he had (before Mr. Darby's arrival) been to Mr. H. to press that the principles were subverted, and, the day Mr. Darby arrived, to Mr. Newton. He had urged the fact of the keeping away of brethren. Mr. Newton declared that he had pretty well succeeded in producing unanimity of teaching in agreement with himself in Ebrington Street, and he did not wish to see it disturbed, and expressed his determination to carry on this system. Mr. Y. read an extract from a letter of Mr. Darby to Mr. Newton, fourteen years ago, warning against the danger to which brethren were exposed, and saying that what has happened would, or else they would become a testimony to help on the evil estate of the church, if they ever fell into the course which in fact had been pursued, and urging vigilance that Satan might not bring it in unawares. Mr. A.P. confirmed, in a few words, the fact of the determination taken by Mr. N. to carry through the exclusive sectarian system.

Sir A.C. said in closing, that the tract, "What Investigation has there been at Plymouth?" was the true account of the matter.

Two letters as to Plymouth.

J. N. Darby.

<20009E> 189

Received February 5th, 1846.

Beloved brother,

I was glad to get something from you, and glad to get this letter. In reply to it I can only say, without answering for every expression in it, after running it over, instead of quarrelling with it as an objection, as to the general bearing and object of it, I believe that it is having departed from what has suggested itself to your mind which has been the weakness of the brethren. I believe that churches have been merged in the mass of ecclesiastical popular hierarchism and lost; but I believe that the visible church, as you call it, has been merged there too. Still there is a difference, because churches were the administrative form, while the church as a body on the earth was the vital unity.

What I felt from the beginning, and began with, was this: the Holy Ghost remains, and therefore, the essential principle of unity with His presence, for (the fact we are now concerned in) wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. When this is really sought, there will certainly be blessing by His presence. We have found it so, most sweetly and graciously, who have met separately here.

When there is an attempt at displaying the position and the unity, there will always be a mess and a failure. God will not take such a place with us. We must get into the place of His mind to get His strength. That is now the failure of the church. But there He will be with us. I have always said this. I know it has troubled some, even those I specially love; but I am sure it is the Lord's mind. I have said we are the witnesses of the weakness and low estate of the church. We are not stronger nor better than the others, dissenters, etc.; but we only own our bad and lost state, and therefore can find blessing. I do not limit what the blessed Spirit can do for us in this low estate, but I take the place where He can do it. Hence government of bodies in an authorized way, I believe there is none; where this is assumed, there will be confusion. It was here; and it was constantly and openly said that this was to be a model, so that all in distant places might refer to it. My thorough conviction is that conscience was utterly gone, save in those who were utterly miserable.

190 I only therefore so far seek the original standing of the church, as to believe that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, Christ will be; and that the Spirit of God is necessarily the only source of power, and that what He does will be blessing through the lordship of Christ. These provide for all times. If more be attempted now, it will be confusion only. The original condition is owned as a sinner, or mutilated man, owns integrity of conscience or a whole body. But there is a most important point that comes in: I cannot supply the lack of human arrangement or wisdom. I must be dependent. I should disown whatever was not of the Spirit, and in this sense disown whatever was - not short of the original standing, for that in the complete sense I am, but - what man has done to fill it up, because this does not own the coming short, nor the Spirit of God. I would always own what is of God's Spirit in any. The rule seems to me here very simple.

I do not doubt that dispensed power is disorganized; but the Holy Ghost is always competent to act in the circumstances God's people are in. The secret is, not to pretend to get beyond it. Life and divine power is always there; and I use the members I have, with full confession that I am in an imperfect state. We must remember that the body must exist, though not in a united state, and so even locally; I can thence therefore own their gifts and the like, and yet my warrant in two or three united for blessing promised to that. Then, if gifts exist, they cannot be exercised but as members of the body, because they are such, not by outward union, but by the vital power of the Head through the Holy Ghost. "Visible body," I suspect, misleads us a little. Clearly the corporate operation is in the actual living body down here on earth; but there it is the members must act, so that I do not think it makes a difficulty. I believe, if we were to act on 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, farther than power exists to verify it, we should make a mess. But then the existence of the body, whatever its scattered condition, necessarily continues, because it depends on the existence of the Head and its union with it. In this the Holy Ghost is necessarily supreme.

The body exists in virtue of there being one Holy Ghost. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling. Indeed this is the very point which is denied here.* Then Christ necessarily nourishes and cherishes us as His own flesh, as members of His body; and this goes on "till we all come," etc. (Eph. 4). Hence I apprehend we cannot deny the body and its unity (whatever its unfaithfulness and condition), and (so far as the Holy Ghost is owned) His operation in it, without denying the divine title of the Holy Ghost, and the care and headship of Christ over the church. Here I get not a question of the church's conduct, but of Christ's, and the truth of the Holy Ghost being on earth, and His title when there, and yet owning of Christ's lordship. And this is how far I own others. If a minister has gifts in the Establishment, I own it as through the Spirit Christ begetting the members of His body, or nourishing it. But I cannot go along with what it is mixed up with, because it is not of the body, nor of the Spirit. I cannot touch the unclean, I am to separate the precious from the vile. But I cannot give up Ephesians 4 while I own the faithfulness of Christ.

{* At Plymouth.}

191 Now if we meet, yea, and when we do not meet, all I look for is that this principle should be owned, because it is owning the Holy Ghost Himself, and that to me is everything. We meet and worship; and at this time we who have separated meet in different rooms, that we may in the truest and simplest way, in our weakness, worship. Then whatever the Holy Ghost may give to any one, He is supreme to feed us with - perhaps nothing in the way of speaking, and it must be in the unity of the body. If you were here, you could be in the unity of the body, as one of ourselves. This Satan cannot destroy, because it is connected with Christ's title and power. If men set up to imitate the administration of the body, it will be popery or dissent at once.

And this is what I see of the visibility of the body: it connects itself with this infinitely important principle, the presence and action of the Holy Ghost on earth. It is not merely a saved thing in the counsels of God, but a living thing animated down here by its union with the Head, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in it. It is a real actual thing, the Holy Ghost acting down here. If two are faithful in this, they will be blessed in it. If they said, "We are the body," not owning all the members, in whatever condition, they would morally cease to be of it. I own them, but in nothing their condition. The principle is all-important.

Christ has attached therefore its practical operation to two or three, and owns them by His presence. He has provided for its maintenance. Thus in all states of ruin it cannot cease, till He ceases to be the Head, and the Holy Spirit to be as the guide and the Comforter sent down.

192 God sanctioned the setting up of Saul, He never did the departure from the Holy Ghost. The "two or three" take definitely the place of the temple, which was the locality of God's presence, as a principle of union. That is what makes all the difference. Hence, in the division of Israel, the righteous sought the temple as a point of unity, and David is to us here Christ by the Holy Ghost.

On the other hand church government, save as the Spirit, is always power which cannot be acted on.

Let me hear from you, for this is of all importance at the present moment.

Ever, beloved brother, very affectionately, J.N.D.

September 24, 1846.

MY VERY DEAR BROTHER,

I suspect many brethren have had expectations, which never led me out, and which perplexed their minds when they were not met in practice. I never felt my testimony, for example, to be to the ability of the Holy Ghost to rule a visible body. That I do not doubt, but I doubt its proper application now as a matter of testimony. It does not become us. My confidence is in the certainty of God's blessing and maintaining us, if we take the place we are really in. That place is one of the general ruin of the dispensation. Still, I believe God has provided for the maintenance of its general principle (save persecution); that is, the gathering of a remnant into the comfort of united love by the power and presence of the Holy Ghost, so that Christ could sing praises there. All the rest is a ministry to form, sustain, etc.

Amongst other things government may have its place, but it is well to remember that, in general, government regards evil, and therefore is outside the positive blessing, and has the lowest object in the church. Moreover, though there be a gift of government, in general, government is of a different order from gift. Gift serves ministry, hardly government. They may be united as in apostolic energy; elders were rather the government, but they were not gifts. It is specially the order of the governmental part which I believe has failed, and we are to get on without that, at least in a formal way. But I do not believe that God has therefore not provided for such a state of things.

193 I do believe "brethren" a good deal got practically out of their place, and the consciousness of it, and found their weakness: and the Lord is now teaching them. For my part, when I found all in ruin around me, my comfort was that, where two or three were gathered together in Christ's name, there He would be. It was not government or anything else I sought. Now I do believe that God is faithful and able to maintain the blessing. I believe the great buildings and great bodies have been a mistake: indeed I always did. Further, I believe now (though it were always true in practice) the needed dealing with evil must be by the conscience in grace. So St. Paul ever dealt, though he had the resource of a positive commission. And I believe that two or three together, or a larger number, with some having the gift of wisdom in grace, can, in finding the mind of the Lord, act in discipline; and this, with pastoral care, is the mainspring of holding the saints together in Matthew 18. This agreeing together is referred to as the sign of the Spirit's power.

I do not doubt that some may be capable of informing the consciences of others. But the conscience of the body is that which is ever to be acted on and set right. This is the character of all healthful action of the kind, though there may be a resource in present apostolic power, which, where evil has entered, may be wanting; but it cannot annul "where two or three agree it shall be done." So that I see not the smallest need of submission to popery (that is, carnal unity by authority in the flesh), nor of standing alone, because God has provided for a gathering of saints together, founded on grace, and held by the operation of the Spirit, which no doubt may fail for want of grace, but in which every remaining gift has its scope; in which Christ's presence and the operation of the Spirit is manifested, but must be maintained on the ground of the condition the church really is in, or it would issue in a sect arranged by man, with a few new ideas. Where God is trusted in the place and for the place we are in, and we are content to find Him infallibly present with us, there I am sure He is sufficient and faithful to meet our wants. If there be one needed wiser than any of the gathered ones in a place, they will humbly feel their needs; and God will send someone as needed, if He sees it the fit means.

194 There is no remedy for want of grace but the sovereign goodness that leads to confession. If we set up our altar, it will serve for walls; Ezra 3: 3. The visibility God will take care of, as He always did; the faith of the body will be spoken of, and the unity in love manifest the power of the Holy Ghost in the body. I have no doubt of God's raising up for need all that need requires in the place where He has set us in understanding. If we think to set up the church again, I would say, God forbid. I had rather be nearer the end to live and to die for it in service, where it is as dear to God: that is my desire and life.

Ever yours affectionately, J.N.D.

To the brethren at Rawstorne Street

J. N. Darby.

<20010E> 195

Beloved brethren,

Our beloved brother G-e having most kindly come down to me to communicate the accusation brought against me by our brother Lord C., I write a few words that I may not seem to be silent to you, though I could hardly be expected at this distance to be able to be present to state, as I should gladly do, all my path in this matter from beginning to end.

Had not indeed our brother come down, I should have known nothing of it. I have a letter from Lord C. by the same mail this morning in which he says nothing of it. I suppose he had not made up his mind when he wrote. Our brother G-e was anxious I should go up with him; but I have from the beginning declined doing anything whatever in self-justification: it seems to me the path God has marked out in His word. There is such a thing as committing oneself to Him who judgeth righteously. The word speaks of Christ's committing himself to Him who judges righteously, and poor and imperfect as I feel myself when I name that blessed name, I feel that I can so commit it, and that it is the happiest way to do so. Now I feel that my going up would have the character of justifying myself. Besides I am sure the Lord is acting, and I am content to leave it entirely to Him.

Our brother W. is amongst you, and I suppose will be able to acquaint you sufficiently with the facts, though he may be ignorant of some of the earlier ones.

I cannot feel sorry that the matter has been brought before you, though it be a very sorrowful one. If you at any time require me to come up for your own satisfaction in consequence of not being clear as to the facts, or as to my own conduct, I shall come up at any time at once with the Lord's help.

I am quite prepared to come before you all, and to state everything from beginning to end. I say nothing here of its being done when I was 200 miles off, for in truth I believe the Lord orders all these things, directly or indirectly.

I have only now to add as to the facts, first, that (though I do not doubt that the teaching has contributed to the result, as was natural) it is no difference in prophecy in the least which has caused me to act as I have done. I had known that difference these ten or twelve years. Further, as to the present state of things. Since even Mr. W. left this, both teaching and facts have made a progress (and I believe in virtue of our acting faithfully and in leaving), which has left no doubt as to the matter, and I have no doubt will progressively make plain and clear the principles which have been maintained and acted on here; so that I have no fear for any single-eyed Christian saint, nor that they will in time justify the path they cannot perhaps now quite understand.

196 But further, beloved brethren, the Lord has set so plain and clear a sanction, not to be mistaken by our souls, to the path we have gone in - our deliverance and recovery of the presence and approbation of God has been so sensible, beyond anything we at all looked for, to those who have faithfully come out that I do not believe the judgment of all the brethren in England would bring those who have tasted it back again: certainly not me, while the grace of God kept me in my soul in the sense of it. We acted because we were convinced it was right, and our deliverance and enjoyment has sealed it to our souls. And the character of the work and sifting too in our souls has been so plain that the finger of God is more apparent to me than I can tell you here. I have no doubt (and it is in many respects a comfort to me because it accounts for many an unaccountable act), that there is a decided though I trust very partial power of delusion over the minds of many. Time or another day when every man shall have praise of God will shew whether I am right.

In fine, my brethren, I trust that the explanations that may be given may be sufficient for you. If they are not, I am ready at any moment to give you my answer before those that accuse me. But nothing could induce me, while my soul retains through grace its spiritual understanding and power, to return from the presence of God and His approval, as I enjoy it now, to the darkness and I believe evil which caused it, from which I am come deliberately out, and of which as it had grown up, I never was in spirit, and this I have felt, though it was not so ripened, and that at least three years ago. You ought to be aware that the brethren McA., and Sir A.C., R.H., and H. who are not here with us, could not break bread in Ebrington Street more than myself.

I do not know that they would be prepared to do what we have done.

197 We have anxiously abstained from pressing any one; indeed our feeling has been quite the contrary, fearing any should act without a clear conscience in faith. (Mr. P-r and Mr. C. could not break bread in Ebrington Street either, and were not prepared to do it elsewhere, and therefore left. I do not mention this to justify any one in doing it, but that it is due to you that you should know it.) We consulted no one but the Lord in our doing so, because it is not merely Mr. W.'s case nor mine you would have to judge, but whether brethren (some of whom had been deprived of the Lord's supper for weeks on grounds which hindered many such brethren as I have named from going to Ebrington Street, and who could not leave Plymouth as they did) should be deprived of the Lord's supper for ever. I do not say this for myself, I am ready to go into all the facts before you whenever you call upon me; I say it for our poorer brethren who are bound to Plymouth.

May the precious grace of God be with you, brethren, individually, and may the Lord give you a right judgment in all things, giving you the power of His Spirit in your souls.

Your affectionate brother,

J.N.D.

For myself I am thankful that the matter has come before you. I have long desired to see you, and been kept here. No one can mistake now the ground I have taken. I should in any case have seen you with joy, but it was well that in your own minds you should be clear in receiving me, labouring among you in mutual faith and the common joy of the Holy Ghost in you and in me, the only source of blessing.

Letter on the confession of error by some.

J. N. Darby.

<20011E> 198

Beloved brethren,

Most if not all of you are aware of the existence of certain papers, such as the "Narrative of Facts," and "Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne Street," which I have circulated relative to the circumstances which have taken place at Plymouth, and containing certain charges against different brethren. There was also a "Summary of Proceedings at Rawstorne Street," which however has not been on sale for some time, and a part also of a notice of the retractation by Mr. Newton which referred to the same subjects, the last* urging that the confession of error did not set aside the original charges. These with the abridged account, "What Investigation has there been at Plymouth?" are all I recollect which contain or insist on the charges made against the brethren who for a long time supported Mr. Newton, but have now ceased to do so. I write to apprise you that, as regards the brethren who have acknowledged the evil in which they were involved, all these papers are entirely withdrawn, and I do so in order to give the fullest efficacy to the act of withdrawal. If anything remains which has escaped me in other tracts, I beg it to be understood as equally withdrawn as to them. The evil being given up, I withdraw all charges as against them.

{*I have withdrawn this tract from sale as containing charges all of which I now bury. The great body of the tract (which is a discussion of Mr. N.'s "Statement and Acknowledgment of Error") is maintained in its full force, and I should use as heretofore.}

And in saying this, beloved brethren, you will of yourselves understand me that, as regards these brethren who have acknowledged the evil, the whole matter is entirely buried and set aside. When God forgives, He remembers no more; and though it be not a question of my forgiving, for I take it as no wrong done to myself, yet as on confession God forgives, so our part is then to act in full love. I desire also further to explain some points respecting it. I have withdrawn the tracts from sale because (as far as confession has been made) I desire to give the plainest testimony of my putting it all aside. It is this which makes some explanation necessary; because, where confession has not been made, all remains as it stood.* Further I wish it to be distinctly understood that my judgment of the evil is entirely unchanged unless it be to think still worse and worse of it. But so far as others have judged it too, I consider them as free from it as I am. If in anything even I found any evil influence remaining unconsciously where sincere confession has been made, it would not remain in my mind as a charge, but as any other evil in myself to be corrected.

{*Having been forced to look over many of the tracts in consequence of inquiries made of me by persons whose minds were opening, I feel the character of the facts demand that this should be understood very distinctly; but in saying so I wish it of course equally to be understood that it would be my joy to be able to withdraw everything as to all. It is merely their standing out against the confession and holding fast to the evil which maintains any charge.}

199 Brethren at large will excuse me for saying that, so far from judging more lightly of the evil, I think the moral tone of their judgment has not yet been brought to judge it as they ought, and I fear and feel anxious as to their own position before God in this respect. I judge they owed it to God, and that it was want of moral tone on their part - their not judging it much more simply, and I fear the Lord may yet have it in a measure as a controversy with them. They ought to have forgotten persons more for the Lord's sake in the matter. I do not speak now of the brethren who have confessed it, but of others. Of course there are exceptions. I beg to press this on their consciences. Further, as to the time of withdrawal, up to the Bath meeting it would have been out of the question withdrawing anything.

On the confession of doctrinal error I had proposed, trusting the Lord was working, to go through the matters charged with those concerned in them, and, as I hoped all would be satisfactory, say so and leave it. This all did not agree to, and an opportunity was claimed of proving my charges unfounded and false. That was no time for me to withdraw them; it would have been unworthy of any one to do so. The Bath meeting was accordingly held, where my statements were thoroughly sifted for two days in the presence of brethren from various parts, and everything that could be thought of in them, by those who objected to them, sought to be invalidated. Those who were present know that the attempt entirely failed. My statements were fully substantiated. After what passed there, I am entitled to consider them as indisputable in everything affecting the substance. Only I add that, if any one shew any personalities in the "Narrative" so often accused as written in a bad spirit, I shall gladly retract them, no matter against whom: while indignation against the evil I do not.

200 Any supposition of withdrawing on my side these papers because other parties had withdrawn theirs, as if it was a personal question and controversy, I repudiate altogether, or concession on one side met by concession on the other, and (I am bound to add) so did Mr. S. It would be in my judgment an immorality in a question of right or wrong. Further, I do not admit that, having a matter to prove, I made the worst of things. I did nothing of the kind. On the contrary I omitted everything that made against individuals if it did not bear on the general point. I refused all through to search out any evil. I acted on what the Lord thought fit to bring before me. A long course of small circumstances often proved more than anything what was going on. I was quite aware of the difficulty this put in my way. I faced it with my eyes open because I trusted God, and never allowed myself to put in any evil that merely dishonoured persons without bearing on the public facts in question. Further, without pretending to have been perfect in manner or in anything, I never had any other motive whatever in publishing the "Narrative" but the good of the church of God; had I, I surely should not have done it. I was as fully aware as I am now of all it would bring upon me. I did so because it was attempted to introduce the Plymouth evil system into a district where there were a large body of newly converted souls; and, as it was thus active, I felt the saints must know what it was. A considerable time had elapsed after matters had closed at Plymouth.

And I beg to repeat that instead of approving or acquiescing in the judgment of those who would speak of concession, or retracting when others retract, I judge such a thought as proceeding from a very deplorable state of mind and low tone of moral judgment, though perhaps in some cases from want of courage. But on the other hand I beg to say or repeat that as regards those who have confessed the evil, they are as free in my mind from every charge as I am myself, and I should meet them everywhere and at all times on this ground. I consider the whole thing entirely at an end, and I thank God for it with all my heart and rejoice more than I can say to receive them in cordial brotherly love; and I beg as to the past to recall as a relief to their hearts and others, how often even in what is now withdrawn I referred to Satan's power as taking away the imputation of evil motives, and even mentioned some by name as esteeming them just as honest as myself, however deluded. So I did and so I do. I do not doubt God has seen other things in me for which He has mixed trial, and so far chastisement (however tenderly, which it surely has been in every way), with this; but in this matter I am conscious of no motive and no principle but one, and can honestly affirm I have never had one unkind or vindictive feeling towards a single person.

201 I have contended against evil and Satan's work with all my best energies. I shall with God's help continue to do so wherever I meet it with the same or increasing decision. I have recently informed the brethren of Bethesda Chapel in Bristol, that I should not go there as they deliberately received those who have been engaged in the evil and have not renounced it. I rejoice with my whole heart and shall still do so as to others when any are delivered from it.

Further, as to the time of withdrawing the tracts, after the Bath meeting it is well known I was in Dublin at another, which left no time for thinking of this point. Subsequently, though urgently occupied, I did; but it was uncertain whether there would not be a meeting at Plymouth for those who have left Ebrington Street lately, and Mr. H. fell dangerously ill, and I thought it better to wait and let all this have its full course on one hand, and on the other I preferred fully weighing the whole position in which things were. I was in conflict with the power of the enemy in this matter, and I felt I ought to do nothing rashly which would compromise matters. It was a serious thing, and my withdrawal of any charges against some was complicated with the position of others who had not confessed. And I was perfectly settled in my mind that it should not have even the appearance of withdrawing my paper because others had withdrawn theirs, as a personal matter. It never was such nor will be, the Lord helping on my part. I felt it ought to be done as a matter of spontaneous unreserved grace, which in us is but justice so to speak when the occasion for it arrives. I have come to the conclusion of withdrawing all from sale that they may not be outstanding against those who have confessed. Those who possess the tracts will consider all contained in them to be wholly void as regards such.

202 This leaves the facts and moral judgment on them untouched as regards those still in the evil or who have not confessed it: save that, after what has passed, they are doubly warned. Anything which is a duty to God as regards them can be equally done when called for, though the tracts are now withdrawn. But in saying this I am anxious that it should be fully understood that I do not mean by it to modify in any way the complete and total withdrawal of the papers as regards the beloved brethren who have acknowledged in simplicity the evil. What I do in this, I do as thoroughly as possible.

J.N.D.

Letter of acknowledgment as to Plymouth

J. N. Darby.

<20012E> 203

London, November 23, 1853.

Beloved brethren,

Now that excitement and discussion are over, I desire to state, feeling that God leads me to it, the one point in which, in my own judgment, I may have erred in the Plymouth matter, and in which, in my own mind, I have not the consciousness that I was led of the Spirit of God. I do not mean that any one more spiritual might not have done better, nor do I mean to refer to any general want of spirituality or holiness which might have occasioned the weakness which allowed the evil to arise, or failed to meet it. I speak of the historical facts, in one of which I have felt I might have acted otherwise, and which now, to have my conscience entirely clear before my brethren as well as before God, I desire to mention.

Those on which I have been attacked by others have never reached my conscience at all, as having any ground whatever so as to affect me before God. It was this:- Mr. H. was absent at the time I left Ebrington Street. He had, and so had I, the greatest dread of anything that might seem a confederacy or party; so that we acted quite independently one of another. Before he finally left Ebrington Street, he found it to be in such a state that he refused to minister any longer. I think it was while he was absent that he announced this, but I am not sure. However, he did take this step, and before he left the meeting. Just before his return I left it. Now what I judge might have been done by me was, to await the effect of his resigning ministry there. I cannot now say whether I knew of it when I left or not (and in fact his doing so produced no effect whatever) but leaving before his return (just about when he refused to minister), the effect it might have produced I could not act upon, supposing I did not know it; still, if guided of the Lord in that point, I might still have been there, the effect of which I cannot tell.

I have sometimes said that the only point on which I had not the consciousness of having God with me was one others knew nothing of, but I never felt led to enter upon it until now. Brethren were occupied with other points and excited; and the attacks made on me, as I have said, never touched my conscience or judgment at all. It was not their pressing staying in Ebrington Street that affected me: God forbid I should have done so if it remained what it was! God, I doubt not, set it wholly aside because of what it was, and so far sanctioned my path, and His judgment suffices. In all the rest of my path there, I exercised as far as I know, unwearied patience in the midst of evil, seeking their good: but the feeling of avoiding confederacy, and acting each for oneself, which indeed H. was very jealous of, may have hindered my waiting to see the effect of H.'s movement. I cannot now recollect whether I knew of his act; but God knew of it, and, if guided of Him in this point, I should have had the benefit of His knowledge.

204 As to the evil to be dealt with, of that I have no enfeebled feeling now. My apprehension of it then was not wrong. But I state for His glory and my own conscience' sake, where I could not securely say I was acting in the Spirit, or that the flesh had no part. I add nothing as to subsequent matters. My judgment as to Bethesda is unchanged.

Affectionately yours, J.N.D.

P.S. It may be well to add that, as regards my own path, weeks before I left I had put the difficulty that pressed upon me before the whole body of saints, and then waited many weeks to see if they would take it up; but they did nothing. And one wrote to Mr. H. to say that I had brought it before them, but that nobody paid any attention to it. After my leaving, and Mr. H.'s return when he met all the saints, I met all that would come at their request; but a very large number were diligently prevented attending.

My letter refers to the single point of the possibility of the effect of Mr. H.'s refusing to minister. It did produce none; but I had left before that was seen.

Indifference to Christ: or Bethesdaism - extracted from a private letter

J. N. Darby.

<20013E> 205

As to indifferentism, take a case: Socinian blasphemies against Christ are concerned. If you insist on walking in communion, helping others to go there, though not holding Socinian views and believing them to be a denial of Christ, you thereby maintain constant regular communion with them, not for yourself only but for all Christians; for, as it is no personal right, there must be equal liberty for all with yourself Thus general communion with Socinians as a body should be an allowed path in the church of God. It is no question of opinion or way of dealing with the evil, but of the existence and standing of the church of God, which is nothing, or the pillar and ground of the truth as to Christ. The question is as to the church's path: is it to acquiesce in principle in all her members having communion with the deniers of the Lord and her too? This is indifferentism as to Christ.

When one asks for scripture for not being allowed to walk if he please - it is his opinion - in communion with those who deny the Lord, insensibility to Christ's glory is there, unable as I may be to convince you of it, I am clear enough to act on it before the Lord. We are so entirely opposed in first principles as to what Christ is, that further inquiry is needless. I have no thought of walking with those who think the church means communion with blasphemies against Christ. If the application of the principle to Bethesda, because they are Christians, is challenged, let it be noted that the other principle (namely, that it is a question of an opinion as to a line of conduct) is false as a general one. It is a question of the ground the church of God stands on: only it is urged that we have no right to apply to Bethesda, the true principle that the church of God ought not to allow universal communion with blasphemy. The question then is, whether in this particular case the principle is rightly applied; not whether individuals are saints, but the public walk of the church.

Now the public conduct of Bethesda has been indifference to blasphemies against Christ as the ground of communion, voted by the whole body and signed by the labouring brethren. They recite some of the blasphemies, so that they knew them to be such, receive persons who came from, and declare they are and will continue to be in communion with, the bodies where these blasphemies are taught and were formed by and for the teacher and defender of them. I will not inquire of them whether they hold them or not. In point of fact some, if not all, did hold them and were active in propagating them. Their teachers declare that, if these principles are not accepted, they will not minister any more, and the body vote them right. They do this in spite of remonstrance on every side, where the blasphemies were confessed and known, defended by their author, and confessed by those delivered.

206 The real question then is: Is the church of God to accept communion with blasphemers of Christ as a principle, and whether individuals are to be allowed to impose on the church their judgment and walk, which affirm it should do so? Bethesda has as a body declared that her principles are that, when she knows blasphemies are in question, she will in spite of all Christians receive those involved in them. You choose in your private opinion to justify, that is, to identify yourself with her, and dare the church to reject you. My answer is, you are in the worst kind of sin - worse than any act of sin when you do it deliberately, as you avow. Do you require scripture to shew the church should not receive blasphemers of Christ's Person? Bethesda has done so deliberately and in principle. You think right to identify yourself with Bethesda; that is, you will sin, you claim the liberty to sin if you have not done it, and require the church to admit you with this claim (that is, to put her sanction upon your sin by receiving you knowingly into her communion). The church is guilty of it if she does, and ceases to be a church at all, for the church of God is not the deliberate sanction of sin. It is true that many had become so lax, that common action was in certain cases impracticable, and individual faithfulness was called for and the reproach that always accompanies it incurred.

If scripture be soberly required to prove that saints should not be indifferent to blasphemies in their public walk, "Cease to do evil," would be enough; "From such turn away," "Him that bringeth not this doctrine, receive not into your house." Can I in spirit more effectually sustain and help such doctrines than by receiving into communion those who are in them and support them, and actively in spite of remonstrance on all sides? Bethesda has done this.

207 Mr. M. declared that Mr. J.L.H. had done a work of darkness, and maintained to the full their letter which justified their reception when he well knew what the doctrine was. All I did was to write and visit them till he refused to receive me as a brother. J.E.B. and R.C. went in vain. They preferred thirty or forty brethren leaving them to breaking with these blasphemers when they knew them. Now no brother has a right to force God's church, for that is the real matter, to acquiesce in such a course. We had broken with these persons as blasphemers: do you need scripture to prove that right? Bethesda receives them, thereby saying, you shall be in communion with them. I say, No, I shall not, and I will not go to you more than to Compton Street. You shall not force me to communion with sin because you choose to receive it into your bosom. You deliberately say, I am one with Bethesda, and you will force the church to be in communion with them; for if I receive you I receive all; and if so, why not go there and put my name and vote to their act? I refuse to acquiesce.

You speak of your opinion and mine. Am I, is the church, to be in deliberate communion with the denial of Christ? If unable to convince others of sin, I will not walk in it, but cast myself on the Lord without fear, and take a fresh start in the principles I always held and acted on, that Christ and blasphemies against Christ were never meant to be together, and the church. It is an opinion I must act upon. I suppose nothing. It is or at least was deliberately decided at Bethesda, that blasphemies should be admitted. I call this indifferentism to Christ. What other name could I call it? Some weighty reason is needed for such a separation, and it is but fair dealing to say what it is. You identify yourself with this avowedly; for communion is identification with the ground of the meeting. Hence you are guilty of the same sin. You talk of rejecting the doctrine; but if there is any difference, this makes the matter worse, because you know the evil of it, and help it on by receiving it into communion. You can hardly require scripture to prove that church communion does not mean that Christ and blasphemy of Him should be together in principle, even if the people be Christians. But this is the deliberate conduct and status of Bethesda. You will say they deny it: I do not ask them, because they have signed, voted, and acted on it.

208 I have no doubt that in Thyatira is the Spirit's picture of popery. Do you think people should continue in that? I do not enter into the Seven Churches, because adducing such passages of obscure interpretation to judge the path of plain separation from plain iniquity, is at once condemnation of those who do so, but as you do, I ask you this: do you think you should remain in Laodicea to be spued out of Christ's mouth? It proves too much and therefore nothing. You must not be surprised if others decline principles which lead to such a course.

Bethesda has received blasphemers and laid it down as a principle; and they are according to scripture partakers of their evil deeds, as are others who boast themselves clear. It is, I think, the grossest indifference to the honour of Christ I ever met with. That is no light word. It is the pith and gravamen of the whole matter. You would force me into acting on your principle and Bethesda's. I see too clearly what the meaning and effect of my act would be to hesitate a moment, however I may grieve. I may walk alone, I am not the first. I began alone, but will not join in what I believe and see is slighting the Lord. It is the principle of indifference to the doctrine of Christ that such blasphemies are to be uninquired into, so that communion with them is legitimate; that is, that the church of God is not the pillar and ground of your truth. Once accept that (and accepting you is accepting it), and the whole standing of the church is gone.

Let the question be fairly put and inquired into: Has or has not Christ been blasphemed, and the blasphemy deliberately smothered up, and thus Christ slighted and dishonoured? If the answer be, Yes, do you mean to say that I ought to go on in communion with this?

The Church which is His body

A letter on A.R.D.'s few thoughts as to the position of saints gathered in the Name of the Lord.

J. N. Darby.

<20014E> 209

My dear brother,

Somebody has sent me A.R.D.'s tract. It produces upon me the painful effect of one who has learned a great many truths, but has not the centre which binds them together: they have not been inwrought into his conscience to meet the need of his soul. It is a speculation, but a speculation upon holy things. It may meet acceptance where the mind shrinks from a faithful walk, or perhaps puzzle those who are ignorant of scripture, but much more those who are afraid of subjecting themselves to the bonds of truth. But one soberly exercised in scripture must be surprised at such a production, or a clear mind with such a mass of contradiction. It is arbitrary in its statements, which do not even hang together, and slovenly to the last degree even in small things.

In the first paragraph, "the assembly" is the only expression to be used; in the second, "a temporary purpose" is "to be fulfilled by the church." And here is one of the eggs of "the nest of errors" in the word ["church"]. Is this "the one body of Christ risen and ascended"? No; in that sense "the assembly has no true position on earth at all," yet we are told a purpose was "to be fulfilled by the church pending its completion," that is, of course, the completion of the body of Christ composed of the all of paragraph one. The members were to "constitute a manifest assembly on earth." "It is in this character it" - what? - "is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3: 15, as the house of God." It must be the church, the body (not complete, of course), which is thus the house. Thus a J temporary purpose was to be fulfilled by the true body of Christ (that is, the part which is on earth), that of being the house of God. It was the church, the body, applied to a temporary purpose on earth, where it has no true position at all. Yet it is already in this paragraph the "professing church."

Now on this point the tract turns; and, if we keep it in mind, the consequences will be found, the natural consequences of this confusion, though inconsistent with it. Already in this same paragraph, in a phrase excessively loose in expression, we are told that "as to their responsibilities, the members of the body together on earth, or in any particular assembly, are looked at as the body," 1 Cor. 12. First then the body is the instrument for fulfilling the temporary purpose of a manifest assembly on earth; and secondly, as to their responsibilities, the members on earth are looked at as the body. Now the whole tract is to shew that the assembly on earth is the only unity we have to do with (though apostasy has for us set this aside), and to distinguish it carefully from the body. And, secondly, already the members on earth, as to their responsibilities, are looked at as the body, though that body, as the body of Christ, has no true position on earth at all. What its responsibilities are, if it has no true position, I am at a loss to know.

210 I shall be told the first paragraph speaks of an "aspect" of the assembly. Well, and what means "looked at as the body" but its aspect as the body of Christ? No, this passage is an effort to get rid of, in seeming to allow, the force of a passage that stood terribly in the way of A.R.D. These saints are addressed as to their responsibilities as the body; and the whole object of the tract is to shew they are not, and cannot act on any such. And A.R.D. knows very well, and (if I mistake not) has a theory formed for the occasion, that what is there spoken of "as the body" is no doubt in a certain sense a particular assembly, but withal "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."

I will speak of the ruin. But we have the whole church of God, a particular assembly especially in view treated in its responsibilities as the body. The assembly, in which the apostles and gifts of healing on earth were set, is treated as the body of Christ. And, note, it is so truly the church, assembly, and body on earth, that when I think of being members of Christ in heaven (for a body in heaven is never spoken of that I can remember), there can be no responsibility at all. We are perfect in Him.

As to their responsibilities then, the body is and can be only looked at on the earth; and as to their responsibilities, A.R.D. tells us they are looked at as the body - I suppose therefore are to act in these responsibilities, and to look on themselves as to their responsibilities as the body. If this be admitted (and I am taking A.R.D.'s statements), his whole tract falls to the ground unless he denies my responsibilities because of the ruin (a most anti-scriptural principle, letting us off by our own wickedness); or invent some other kind of responsibility besides that which he himself tells us scripture teaches.

211 But I will go into a little more detail. We find that the body of Christ is spoken of abstractedly without reference to place; and this is but twice; as for example, Ephesians 1, "to the church which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Whenever any place is spoken of, it is invariably and exclusively spoken of as on earth. So utterly unfounded is the assertion that it has no true position on earth at all. I should not have made any difficulty as to saying the church, as in Christ, is viewed in heaven; because universally we speak of a whole as meaning all its parts. But when a great system of doctrine is founded on an expression, then its inexactitude becomes important. You have only to take a Concordance and verify what I say.

I shall now follow some of the author's statements. The assembly becomes after Pentecost contrasted with the body. This is alike arbitrary and false, but all the argument depends on it. "There are therefore two bonds that bound saints together: first, the body, or rather the one Spirit; and then the circle of the assembly" (p. 7). But this assembly on earth, we are told (p. 3), is spoken of in 1 Timothy 3: 15, as the house of God, the pillar and stay of the truth." This assembly, now in apostasy, is what A.R.D. calls always "the assembly," which has its unity contrasted with the unity of the Spirit, or "the body," which has its unity: the latter having no true position on earth, the former being now inconsistent with the unity of the Spirit (p. 8). Hence as "the body" has no real unity on earth, and "the assembly" is apostate, of course there is no unity at all.

Now I have shewn already that the body, if any place be spoken of, is always spoken of as on earth. Let me add that I defy A.R.D. to cite me a passage where "assembly" is ever spoken of (referring to the professing church, the house, and not now speaking of local assemblies)* in any other way than as the true, vital, divinely formed and real thing. Christ builds His church. But "assembly" or "church" is never used for anything else in scripture than what God forms it to be; I do not speak of churches, or assemblies, but of the "church" or "assembly." It is never used but of the divinely ordained thing. They may shew departure from its right position. A.R.D. then makes the body have no true position on earth; scripture, when it speaks of a place, never speaks of it anywhere else. Individuals are united to Christ in heaven. A.R.D. speaks of the assembly as the ruined apostate thing, in contrast with the body; scripture never speaks of it but as God's own delight, and as livingly formed of Him.

{* These (with admirable divine wisdom, so that no thought of delay in Christ's coming should be allowed) are, I doubt not, used as pictures of the state of the professing church in Revelation 2 and 3.}

212 Such departures from scripture are rather serious in one who sets up to teach us what is our scriptural path on these subjects. His whole view of the matter is, in its foundations, in the teeth of scripture. This would suffice to put the whole tract away as false. But I will examine it more in detail. The excessive looseness makes it difficult to deal with.

"The members of the body together on earth . . . are looked at as the body; r Cor. 12. The assembly on earth then should be manifestly one," p. 3. This is because "the assembly on earth, or the 'professing church,' as it is commonly called, was constituted according to the standard of the assembly, the body." "Moreover it [the assembly on earth] should consist of all those on earth who are members of the body, (except of course, where any might be outside in discipline)." Now this is a mere arbitrary statement of A.R.D. That the limits of both were the same at the beginning, we may well allow; but the principle is an invention of A.R.D.; if not, let us have scripture for it, if he makes the assembly and the body distinct, for which also he has no ground. Scripture says, "the church [assembly] which is his body."

But to proceed: "God took care to provide all that was needful for the assembly to fit it for its place, and to accredit it in that place" (p. 4). Now we are to remember this is not the body. "Its place is here on the earth; the body has no true position there." The gifts were not to accredit it in heaven, I suppose; if they were, then the place of the assembly on earth is in heaven. Yet, "In Ephesians 4, we have enumerated the gifts of the ascended Christ with a view to 'the edifying' of his body: that is, the fulfilment of the heavenly purpose as to the assembly." Now the fitting for its place is not on earth. But (not to dwell on this confusion) where was the body, when it was edified? The convenient expression before was the assembly on earth constituted according to the standard of the assembly, the body; but now we find it is the body itself But the truth is, unless the assembly be taken as the Epistle to the Ephesians does for the body, "the assembly which is his body," there is not a word about the assembly here at all. It is in vain to say it ought to consist of the members of the body. It is not spoken of here; nothing is spoken of but the body. They were to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit. There is one body and one Spirit. The gifts are given till we all come in the unity of the faith - that we be no more children tossed to and fro, but grow up to Him who is the Head, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." Now where was this? Every one in his senses must say, on earth. Where then was the body? On earth, to be sure. Was it the one body of Christ risen and ascended? Clearly. The gifts came down from Him there. And what is the fitness? and for what place? The whole passage speaks of earth. I have quoted the parts which shew it. The growth is on earth, the things to be secured against on earth, the responsibility on earth, the object of the ministrations on earth. No doubt we shall finally be in heaven; and all ministrations are in result in view of that. But, as I have said, the body, if spoken of as anywhere, is always spoken of as on earth when addressed, because it was on earth. It is never spoken of as in heaven, and there is (to give no other than that referred to by A.R.D. in the first paragraph, but of which he did not see the force) the plainest scriptural testimony that the body is there treated as on earth. The body is formed by the baptism of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, and of course formed on earth; and though I do not doubt that that which is the body will be in heaven, the body and heaven are never connected together, because it is formed by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. The passage which now occupies us (Eph. 4: 16) is as plain as possible as to this.

213 A.R.D. next quotes 1 Corinthians 12: 28. He could not help doing so. Let us see if this is the body of Christ, "the one body of Christ risen and ascended"; and next, whether it "has no true position on earth at all." I read, "For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body . . . but now are they many members, yet but one body . . . now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." He had spoken of the gifts (vv. 7-11) as the display of the Spirit in the various members, while the body was one, and he now closes with a general list of them (v. 28). "And God hath set some in the church [assembly]; first apostles," etc. Now this is clearly on earth; there are no healings in heaven. It is by the baptism of the saints into one body, in the various members of which the gifts are exercised. And note also (to do this the more completely, and bring general Christian responsibility in), the apostle includes in the beginning, "unto the church [assembly] of God which is at Corinth . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." The distinction of the assembly and the body, and saying the body has no place on earth, is a mere fable. Responsibilities are in the body, mutual, and universal, and necessary. If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.

214 There is a distinction between the house and the body; the former, the habitation of the Spirit; the latter united to Christ. But in the house there is not at all the same responsibility, there is in building it (1 Cor. 3); there is in public common confession of the truth, and, when a great house, individual responsibility to have done with evil in it; but all proper Christian responsibilities as such are wholly as members of the body on earth, and in connection with the unity of the body. We are members one of the other; we are to keep the unity of the Spirit. But our author tells us, "I have said that unity and purity ought to characterize the assembly." Is the assembly here in contrast with the body? A.R.D. has said, it "ought"; but plain people want something more than "I have said "for their consciences. However he has said (p. 4), "it should admit no others" but those who are members of the body. But when I look for something from scripture in the tract, or in my own search into it, I find no more than "I have said." But again, where has he found that the assembly "admits"? I find nothing of it. I find Philip and many other individuals baptising others, which I suppose was admitting as far as there was any such admission. But a duty of the assembly in admitting it would be very hard to prove, still less admitting members of the body. In the first place, save Cornelius perhaps, they were not members of the body till after they were admitted. It was not then a departing from Christian iniquity, and seeking to walk with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. There was no admission by the assembly and no question at all of their being members of the body. If there be, A.R.D. has forgotten to shew us any scriptural authority. "I have said" - will hardly furnish us with sufficient authority. There is a statement in this (p. 4) too long for me to quote: "For God committed to the assembly so constituted, endowed and accredited, the responsibility of acting according to the principles revealed in the word for its guidance." Will our author kindly point out (it is that I seek for in vain here) anything revealed in the word for the conduct of the church then in admitting those already members of the body into an assembly which was not the body?

215 I do not admit in the strict sense of the word that there is any apostasy of the assembly as yet. No doubt for spiritual discernment the principle of it is there, but not apostasy. But even on any ground, A.R.D. has no scripture for his distinction of Christendom and the assembly as he considers it. Judgment begins at the house of God. Laodicea, which is spued out of Christ's mouth, is called "assembly"; Thyatira, to which the morning star and the kingdom are substituted, has the name of "assembly." God's building may have wood and hay and stubble in it; God's servant may find his place with unbelievers; the branches that partook of the root and fatness of the olive tree may be removed. But it is remarkable how false principles throw mere activity of mind into confusion. No one pretends that the assembly on earth exists no longer, he tells us (p. 5); he does not mean to say that Christendom is the assembly of God, but he insists that what was once God's assembly has "degenerated into what we call Christendom."

It will be said, I understand, it is an assembly, not God's assembly. Whose then? It was so: when did it cease? Will it not be judged as such? When wood and hay and stubble had been built in it, it is still God's building, God's temple; and on God's house judgment comes, on "that servant"; and there profession is spoken of If judgment begin at the house of God, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel? In the great house of 2 Timothy all the vessels to dishonour and honour are - that into which the assembly has degenerated, the vessels are in that. If an assembly exists, it must be that, or they are in no assembly at all, they are not in God's assembly - have nothing to do with it. There is none such - no responsibility connected with it; or are they in another assembly which is responsible? Where is their responsibility as to any assembly if it be not God's? Man has not ceased to be a creature responsible to God because he is fallen and in that sense apostate from God. If the assembly of God has fallen, has its responsibility ceased? and if it be responsible, on what ground is it so? Is it not as God's assembly, though it has ceased to be so really in heart and way? When and how did God's assembly cease to be such as to responsibility as such on the earth?

216 But the reader must remember that all this distinction of "assembly" and "body," etc., is wholly without scriptural ground. Purging the house never was the duty of saints; it is all a fable, an invention of A.R.D. There is no truth in the apostasy of the assembly. It was commonly used for popery; but that is no ground to go on now, bad as that system may be. I admit we do not purge the house; I admit we do not come out of it. If it was apostate, we could not be in it at all. If it be a house, who is in it? Is it the house without the Holy Ghost in it? Who is the Master of the house where the vessels to dishonour are, and out of which we are to come? Is He the Master of an apostate house? Is it His house if it be apostate from Him? The distinction of the "assembly" and "body" is wholly unscriptural, the statement of the present apostasy of the assembly equally so.

What can I think of a tract in which I find (p. 7), "I have said that one might be a member of the body though outside the assembly," when I read in scripture "the assembly which is his body"? And all the gifts which are members of this body are described as being set in the assembly. I have discussed the grounds of the tract: in page 7 we come to its object; and, I must say, such a complete hopeless mess I never read. First, "there are therefore two bonds which bound the saints together." I suppose this means that at the first there were such. I really take in this the fairest meaning out of the sentence I can. For, it is added, these two bonds still exist. Well, two bonds which bind the saints together still exist. But here we are in a pretty case. It is first "the body," or rather the Spirit, and then "the assembly." Two bonds for unity are curious, particularly as one might be a member of one and not in the other, and in the other without being a member of the first. But let this double unity pass. But then see where we are. It is a unity of saints, this bond of the assembly; but then not only many of the unity are not saints, at any rate not members of the body, but the assembly is apostate. So that it is unity in apostasy, the saints' unity in apostasy. That is nice, is it not? and they still exist, these bonds.

217 I should not in a common case have made a difficulty of the next phrase, assuming it to mean right, had it not been made much of, and the grand ground of action, "gathered to the name of the Lord." Will A.R.D. forgive me for not being content still with "I have said," and tell me where he finds this in scripture? No Christian doubts the authority of the Lord, none that Jesus is Lord: it is a distinctive character of such to call Him Lord. But it is a title, as far as I see, of authority over individuals, not a title to which people are gathered. However, if A.R.D. can shew it me from scripture, of course I should bow. But I know of no such principle in scripture.

But our tract puts me farther in the mud here. Page 7 tells me that the unity of the assembly is a bond of the saints, and that this bond still exists; but page 8, that "to manifest the unity of the assembly is inconsistent with keeping the unity of the Spirit." That is, it is so now, and it is now that the question concerns me. So that he maintains a bond of saints still existing, instituted of God, is inconsistent with the unity of the Spirit. Now the body, the only other unity (or that of the Spirit), "has no proper position on earth at all," according to A.R.D. To assert any other than these two is to make a sect, we are told; that is, to have any unity at all is impossible. Membership of a local assembly is a thought characteristic of apostasy. Poor Dissenters! all characteristically apostate - absolutely fallen away from Christ altogether, without even suspecting it. They are to be pitied.

Then, if the assembly of God at Ephesus admitted a person, "they admitted him into the one assembly of God on earth." You must not suppose the assembly means the body as scripture always speaks; this is A.R.D.'s assembly. Now, first, there was no such admission by assemblies at all. Next (for the confusion is complete), it was not into the unity of the body he was admitted, but of the assembly of God. Those in the assembly might have been of the body before, or never be of it. It was another bond of unity. This is another invention of A.R.D. Moreover, if false brethren had crept in, if many walked whose end was destruction - in a word, if the assembly was far gone away from the limits of the body, was it an assembly of God, or when did it cease to be so? I know A.R.D. speaks of the apostasy; but when, then, did this take place? I deny altogether that it has, when we speak strictly and truly. And if A.R.D. says it is popery, when did it take place? Is the Greek church in it? When the Protestants broke with Rome, did they continue in the apostasy, or remain in it? The whole reasoning is founded on one false statement heaped on another, so that it is hard to know where to begin.

218 The idea of a local assembly admitting a person into an assembly of God on earth which was not the body, is composed of as many unscriptural statements as it has notions in the sentence. But this is the basis of the practical part of the tract. There is no unity in the scripture, as a fact, but the unity of the body, or assembly as the body; no church admits to it - no gathering admits to it; we arrive at it by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which regularly comes after baptism by water. As far as it has any meaning, A.R.D.'s principle is independency. Nor does he deny it, but says he might retort that the other principle (that is, of seeking unity in the assembly now) is Popery in germ. But independency is, according to him, characteristic of apostasy (p. 7). Besides, see again what he has brought us to. Any attempt at unity is, according to him, the manifestation of the unity of the assembly (p. 8); now inconsistent with that of the Spirit; it is in principle popery. But the assembly on earth, we are told (p. 8), should be manifestly one - that is, should be manifestly popery. We are getting on nicely.

But, in all soberness, what is proposed to us is essentially congregationalism. They admit them as members of God's one assembly on earth; they receive, they say, all Christians; only they hold that each congregation is to act on its own responsibility, and as subject to the Lord only. They would receive on a testimony from another assembly of honourable fellowship into communion with themselves: only each assembly must purge for itself, and by itself. They do not pretend to be the assembly of God, they only claim to be saints who have been baptized by the one Spirit into the one body of Christ, and who, in separation from evil, are gathered in the name of the Lord. There is not a word of the tract on this point which they would not take into their mouth. The last lines of page 10 would be just their language and practice. Nor could they profess to act in discipline towards those not gathered with them. The tract merely and simply pleads for independency, but independency without putting out for sin. And remark here that, if I only exercise discipline on those gathered with us, the principle of strict membership is fully established.

219 As regards discipline, A.R.D.'s theory is equally confusion. He tells us, "the principle on which saints should act in relation to evil is to 'purge themselves' from it, and not to seek to put it out of the assembly." Of course the direction of the apostle, "Put out from among yourselves that wicked person," falls to the ground. "Before apostasy . . . the duty of saints was not to separate . . . but . . . to put out the evil, and keep the assembly pure." Now, they are "not to seek to put it out of the assembly" (Note to p. 6).

Now I reject the whole system as unscriptural, as already shewn. But of two things one: either they are to put it out of the gathering which is not the assembly, or they are not. If they are, then we have a voluntary association and membership as the sphere of action, which A.R.D. tells us is characteristic of apostasy; or, if not, we have membership of a voluntary association without any possibility of putting it out. We are told [in the same note] that "to make this principle an excuse for allowing evil among saints professedly gathered in the name of the Lord is simply to deny the holiness of the Lord." All very fine; but no one can deny that evil can come in, and, according to A.R.D., we never ought to seek to put it out. All we can do is to go away. That is, it is independency, with the denial of discipline. But supposing an ungodly walking member of Christ's body comes where one of these precious gatherings which must not seek to put out evil is assembled, and wishes to be of it, what is to be done now? not let him in? Here you are doing the same thing. You can shut him out - not put him out! Or are you to let him in, and then walk out yourself, purging yourself from the evil, and leaving the poor gathering in sore danger (if it does not break up) of being in principle apostate, and bound to do so? or is evil to be excluded when it is without, where A.R.D. tells us discipline cannot be exercised, but not within, where it can? We cannot "act in discipline towards any who are not gathered with us"; it is, we are told, so far popery. (See note to p. 10.) Now clearly the person desirous of coming is not yet gathered with us; yet we shut him out. But we must not seek to put out evil when it is within.

220 There is, therefore, no discipline for those who are gathered, as the negativing of discipline on those not gathered might have led us to suppose. Yet we are told, "a fellow-member of the body of Christ comes in, and claims to be received at the Lord's table!" . . . "Our only inquiry is whether they are members of the body of Christ" (why so, let me ask, if that is not the ground of union? There is no end to the contradictions); "and, moreover, whether they, too, are separate from evil" (p. 10). Well, here then is practically judicial discipline exercised. But if the evil is within, it must not be; the scriptural direction, "Do ye not judge them that are within?" is absolutely reversed, and the fact of being gathered, which in scripture gives the ground of judging, here absolutely deprives of it. The fact is, the whole system is a defiance of scripture, and founded on the fable of the unity and bond of the assembly, as contrasted with the body, while yet membership of the body is made the ground of union, not being of the assembly.

Scripture never speaks thus, never speaks of the assembly as contrasted with the body, but on the contrary it always speaks of the body as on earth, always connects the corporate responsibility of saints with the unity of the body. If the Lord's supper be spoken of, we are all one body, for we are all partakers of that one loaf. There is no such thought in scripture as putting out of the one assembly, as contrasted with the body. A.R.D. says all baptized persons were of the assembly. Be it so. People were never put outside baptism; they were put out of communion, separated from the gathered company. They were not baptized over again, but restored to communion, readmitted to the company of gathered saints, where unity was expressed by the Lord's supper; at least so Paul declares. The exclusion was from the body as manifested on earth, and from nothing else. A.R.D. is forced to admit that, as to their responsibilities, the members of the body together on earth, or in any particular assembly, are looked at as the body. Was not judging those within discipline in connection with their responsibilities? Well then, in putting out, the particular assembly was looked at as the body.

The truth is, the whole principle of A.R.D. is an invention of his own, a new theory, not borrowed from scripture at all, and hence every page of his system is false; while some borrowed truths only make it confusion, from his mingling them with his own false principles.

221 There is nothing about reconstructing the assembly. There is no assembly to reconstruct; the apostasy is not really come at all, though the principles of it may be at work. The lordship of Christ is not the ground of gathering at all. Lordship applies to individual responsibility. The lordship of the assembly is not scriptural, nor the Lord's assembly, nor the lordship of the body. The assembly (when spoken of as a systematic truth, as A.R.D. does) is always connected with the body. If we meet, and take the Lord's supper, we must meet on the principle of the unity of the body, for we are all one body, for we are all partakers of this one loaf. This is true of all Christians. They are not, properly speaking, admitted at all. Now tests are used rightly, because we are separating from evil in the great house (p. 11). But no assembly ever admitted any one, nor at the first were there any tests. But where the unity of the body is manifested, it is what it always was, and never can be anything else, having to act on the principles it always did, as it can rightly act on no other.

And A.R.D. admits the assemblies at first acted in the way he is opposed to, only he has invented his notion of the unity of the assembly to get rid of this plain scriptural truth - truth always obligatory where it can be applied. I cannot apply the rules for tongues, because there are none, nor for Timothy's own conduct, because there is no Timothy. But if tongues returned, the rules would apply. If there are saints gathered in the unity of the body, without any fabled reconstruction of the assembly at all, the rules of scripture for the conduct of such gatherings, and such one manifested body, as far as it is realized, apply. I must beg to prefer scripture to inventions of man and "I have said."

In conclusion, A.R.D.'s notion of the unity of an assembly, a bond of saints distinct from the body, is an invention of his own. Next, he is obliged to admit scripture is so plain, that the members of the body together on earth, or in any particular assembly, are looked at as the body. Hence, as to their responsibilities, they must look at themselves as such. The Lord's supper is the formal expression of one body. There is no reconstruction of the assembly, nor any assembly such as A.R.D. speaks of to reconstruct. He is obliged to admit that the assemblies at the first acted in the unity to which he objects. If there be assemblies, they have no other principle to act on; and two or three together, if in the spirit of unity, can (thank God!) do so. Indeed, when this subject is practically treated of in 1 Corinthians, all saints are taken up together as all one, though the local assembly is made responsible in and according to this unity. There are no true assemblies but as the expression of it; and if they make themselves, as the tract desires, independent assemblies, they deny the only scriptural principle on which they can gather. They have no direction on which to act. They are a voluntary association, and in no sense, as such, an assembly of God at all, nor have they any scripture to guide them.

J.N.D.

God, not the Church,

The teacher by his word; being a letter on Dr. Manning's sermon.*

By a stranger passing through Hereford

J. N. Darby.

<20015E> 223

{*The appearance of the following paper has been delayed by circumstances not under the control of the writer. He trusts it is not too late to be useful.}

Dear Sir,

Dr. Manning's sermon, and the account of the consecration at Belmont, have been published in the Hereford Times. On the latter I make no remark. I should call it a very poor thing morally, but I dare say attractive to a curious public. But the sermon contains some principles and assertions to which I will venture to draw the attention of those who will condescend to read these lines. We must make allowance for a report, and possible mistakes. In one sentence God is put for body evidently, and doubtless there are others; but there is plenty sufficiently clear and accurate to enable us to measure the doctrines and statements of the sermon. It is hardly to be expected that the public should be well acquainted with ecclesiastical history, nor, by their knowledge of facts, be able to meet the assertions or omissions of the preacher. I cannot, where I am, have recourse to learned books, to give always precise dates or the like; but my memory suffices to deal with many of the preacher's statements, as the word of God will with others, and of his arguments we all can judge.

Let me begin with his text, and the groundwork of his discourse. Christ stood up to read, and after reading, declared, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." That is, He did not interpret it at all, but presented Himself as the fulfilment of it. It required no interpretation: Messiah was already the expectation of the Jews according to it. But He was the Messiah; He declared the object of faith actually come. Either Dr. Manning's whole argument is utterly without foundation, or he puts the church in the place of Christ as the object of faith. Now the latter, which is next door to blasphemy and apostasy, is pretty much what he does. He declared, at the close of the discourse, that the Catholic church is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Now this is a statement found in the Hebrews, and spoken of the blessed Lord: "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." He is the immutable object of faith, and they were not to be carried about with divers and strange doctrines. But it is the one unchangeable glory of the Lord Jesus Christ which is in question; not the church, in any sense, to which the preacher, in a way akin to blasphemy, refers it.

224 A sober Christian will weigh this. It is the more striking in its evil character because the groundwork of the whole sermon is turning the presenting of the person of the Lord Jesus as the fulfilment of a passage into its interpretation; as to which there was no question. The beginning and end of the sermon (indeed its whole theme is that) substitute the church for Christ. The truth is, Dr. Manning's discourse puts him on both horns of the dilemma at once. There is no ground at all in the text for his argument. The Lord does not interpret but presents Himself as the fulfilment of the passage; and this discourse is akin to blasphemy by the substitution of the church for the blessed and divine Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." Still I will just look into some of his facts and assertions.

The two facts on which his argument is founded I admit entirely. The apostles preached before the New Testament scriptures were written; though the church was founded before they began to preach by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and the same Holy Ghost made the believers one and endued them with power. As regards the Gentiles, Peter expressly gave up his office to Paul (Gal. 2: 9) and Barnabas; and Paul became the apostle of the Gentiles, and the one who alone insists on the unity of the body, the church. The other fact is that baptism and the Lord's supper embody some precious truths. The latter point does not affect our present inquiry. The Lord Himself instituted them, so that though recorded in the scriptures they were before the church or New Testament scriptures, or ministry of the apostles subsequent to Pentecost. The former point tells entirely against Dr. Manning's argument. The apostles, as did Stephen and Philip and probably others, preached the gospel-Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles, and Jews settled amongst them, joining Silas, Timotheus, Titus, and others with him in his service. Of others we have little or no authentic account outside Jerusalem. Doubtless late in the history they travelled in other countries, but we have no early or sure account of it.

225 In general we know that He who was mighty in Peter to the circumcision wrought in Paul towards the Gentiles, and the apostles agreed that that work should be Paul's. I shall be told-Yes, but afterwards they taught and watched over the church. Doubtless they did, they taught the church. But whom did the church teach? Nobody. Gifted individuals amongst them, teachers and pastors whom God had raised up, aided in their place according to the measure of the gift of Christ; but the church never taught: gifted members taught it. The church's teaching is a mere delusion; it denies ministry and falsifies the whole idea of the church, which is the whole body of faithful people. They taught viva voce, and they taught by writings, and their writings we have. But to wham were they addressed? We have twenty-one epistles in all; three are addressed to fellow-labourers of Paul, the rest to the faithful, in one the bishops and deacons being added. The apostles taught the church, or people of God in these epistles by their inspired gifts; but the church taught no one.

But more than this. Paul assures us that after his decease the flock would not be spared, and commends them to God, and the word of His grace which was able to build them up; that already all sought their own, not the things of Jesus Christ; that in the last days perilous times would come, there would be a form of piety denying its power. He also commends the saints to the scriptures, as able to make them wise unto salvation, and to the knowing of whom we have learned things as we do when we read the writings of the apostles, and as we do not when we are told the church teaches. Dr. Manning tells us of the collected reason of Christendom. Where am I to find that? Did Paul do right when he addressed his teaching to all the saints for their own use and direction? or did he do it badly? or could someone else come and interpret it to them? They received it themselves as he wrote it to themselves. Besides, the mystery of iniquity was already at work and would go on, the apostle tells us, and there would be a falling away. But further the church did not maintain the faith. To use Jerome's expression, the world awoke and was surprised to find itself Arian. It was merely a few hunted individuals who kept the faith; and the Pope himself, Liberius, signed a semi-Arian creed; and another, Honorius, was condemned by a council held to be a general one by Rome itself as a heretic, and the decree confirmed by the Pope.

226 And where am I to find this teaching church? I must go to the priest. Is he infallibly right? No. But the bishop will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? No. But the Pope will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? It has been held so for three years; but the fact was so grossly opposed to the known history and teaching of former ages, that hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics have left him and have established a separate body-got a bishop and a settled constitution.

Half the respectable authorities of the Roman Catholic world resisted to the utmost, protested against the way in which the council was conducted and deprived of all true liberty and now forces others to hold it. But big words take wonderful effect on people's minds. Dr. Manning talks to us of the universal or Catholic church spread over the world. But let us get at the facts? We have, say, 140 millions of Roman Catholics in the world, but some 60 or 70 millions of Greeks, the oldest churches in existence, denounce them as false in doctrine and the papal authority to be wholly unfounded; and the chief doctrinal point of difference is a dogma repelled by the Greeks, which one of the greatest popes that ever lived declared ought not to be introduced into the creed, as indeed a general council had forbidden anything to be added; and this Pope put up silver tablets in the principal church at Rome that it might not be added. Rome has added it since. Dr. Manning knows this as well as I do. But further, nearly 100 millions of Protestants are outside. So that we have more than half professing Christendom outside (what I must say impudently calls itself) the Catholic church, a body denounced by the oldest churches, and so horribly corrupt that a very large part indeed of what was under its authority broke loose from it; and now, on the very point of infallible authority in interpretation, it is completely divided, and hundreds of thousands have left it because the vote was carried by oppression. We can understand this. Large numbers of respectable Roman Catholic prelates resisted the decree, from America, Ireland, France, Germany, etc., who presided over flocks numbering by millions; but there were crowds of prelates in Italy, some 130 in the Papal and Neapolitan states with some few millions of inhabitants, and a number of what are called bishops in partibus removable by the Pope, who made all resistance vain on the part of those who represented ten times their number. But it has cost the papacy another split off, which appeals to the ancient records and historical facts of the church such as none can deny. And note, all the professors of divinity of these seceders always taught what they hold and have acted on now. Where then was the church's teaching? And what am I to hold to be the church which teaches?-the Pope all alone, decreed to be infallible three years ago, who is certainly not the church? or is the Greek church, older than he? or the Protestants who appeal to Paul's teaching and Peter's, etc.? Where is this church?

227 And mark this; the question is not whether Peter and Paul and the rest did not teach the truth before the scriptures, but what is it that has preserved to us what Peter and Paul taught? The answer is, not the varying traditions of the church, but the writings of Peter and Paul themselves. They were addressed to the people, and, save three short epistles, entirely to the Christian people. It is not that the apostle's teaching was derived from the New Testament, but it is found embodied there-recorded there. They did interpret the Old indeed, and their teaching is found in the epistles of the New, addressed to Christian men-their epistles, where else should I find them?

Dr. Manning tells us that the apostles delivered the baptismal creed in the very same syllables, the same articles, not changed in one jot or tittle from the faith once delivered to us by Jesus Christ. Where are these articles? Dr. Manning knows perfectly well that there is not one tittle of foundation for this assertion. People who believed in Jesus Christ were baptised no doubt, but there is no statement anywhere of any baptismal creed at all. Different churches had different creeds as to the form of them. The so-called apostles' creed is first found in Ruffinus, in the beginning of the fifth century. Some articles have been added. The Roman creed was pretty nearly the same. But the statement of the preacher has, as every student of ecclesiastical history knows, no foundation whatever. This faith, given in the same syllables and letters, was, says Dr. M., delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ. Afterwards he tells us that the two (I suppose it should be three, and that it is a mistake of the reporter; if not, it is a gross blunder of Dr. Manning's) first Gospels are records of the life of our Lord, and therefore contain no principle of faith revealed on and after the day of Pentecost: itself a monstrous proposition.

228 Dr. Manning tells us the church alone can tell us which are the genuine scriptures. Not the church of Rome: till the fourth century she would not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews, which she now, as other churches then did, receives as scripture. But this is an unfortunate subject for Rome. Pope Damasus employed Jerome to translate the scriptures, because the translation used in the churches was incorrect. He did so, and added a preface to his translation, commonly called the Vulgate, and that preface, called prologus galeatus, is habitually printed with the Roman Catholic editions of the Vulgate. This preface declares the books we call Apocrypha were not to be read as any foundation for faith, and they are not in the Hebrew; the Council of Trent declared them authentic inspired scripture like all the rest.

Nor is this all. Dr. Manning is bold enough to say that the church is the guardian and keeper of Holy Writ, which has been translated with a jealous and sacred care, and with every particle written with inspired hands. This too is an unfortunate statement. The Vulgate was so very incorrect through multiplied copying, that the Council of Trent, which declared the Vulgate to be the authentic scriptures, ordered a correct edition to be made. This being committed to the Pope, some learned men were employed. But the Pope Sixtus V changed their work so arbitrarily that the whole edition had to be suppressed, and five copies only of it remain, and what passes under the name of Sixtus V is not his, the title page being a fraud, but a revised edition published under a succeeding Pope with some 2,000 places changed. Now all this Dr. Manning knows perfectly well.

He tells us the faith was preached, and filled the world, before the New Testament was written. The whole revelation of Christ was known to the church, and preached by the church, for generations before the New Testament was written. Indeed! My good readers, shall I tell you why I do not believe this? It was those who preached it thus who wrote the books. I suppose they were of the same generation as themselves.

Dr. M. tells us pretty correctly the date of the last of them all, John the Apostle. It was full ninety years, he says, before the last was written. The last of them (the Gospels) was written, he tells us, near the end of the first century. So it is generally held, if the Apocalypse was after it, which I neither affirm nor deny here, as Rome admits its being the apostle John's, the last book of scripture which was written while an apostle was alive. That is, the list of the preachers and the list of the books closed together. And now comes the question, Are their authentic writings, or traditions of their teaching from mouth to mouth for 1800 years nearly, the surest way of having what they taught? I will suppose for a moment that what he tells us is true; that the church is the keeper and guardian of Holy Writ, and that it has been faithful. (Rome, we have seen, cannot be trusted.)

229 It cannot be denied that the New Testament, with slight exceptions, was addressed to private Christians, and Dr. Manning tells us we have it with every syllable and letter as inspired. Is not that an excellent way of knowing what these infallible inspired teachers taught, namely, to read what they say? Let not Dr. Manning tell us that what the apostles wrote to the body of Christians he can explain better than they could. I do not the least deny the use of ministry and teaching, but I suppose an inspired apostle knew how to teach what God gave to him. "He that is of God," says John, "heareth us, and he that is not of God heareth not us." "If ye continue in that which ye have heard from the beginning, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father." They tell us, though Dr. Manning wisely says little about it, that those who lived nearer their time must know better what they taught than we at a distance. Forgive me for thinking that a better way is to read what they wrote themselves. To scripture the apostle Paul refers the faithful when the evil days should come in, not to the church. This he declares should be as corrupt as the heathen had been, but that the word of God would then be an assured guide.

Then mark here, too, how "the church taught" is slipped in for the apostles and early inspired ministers of the faith. The church did not teach. It received the truth from inspired individuals. It is only, forgive me the word, clap-trap.

Dr. Manning is proving that the word (preached I fully admit) was before the church. If people had not believed when these inspired teachers preached and there was no interpreter at all, there would have been no church at all save the 120 who met the day of Pentecost, gathered by the same means-the inspired words of Christ and His apostles. That is, unless the word of God had been received with divine faith on the ground of inspired teaching by the operation of the Holy Ghost, without any interpreter at all, the church would never have existed. And so it is now. Preachers now, whoever they are, are not a rule of faith as an apostle's teaching was; but God may use their word, and we have inspired teaching in one way only now, the writings of the scriptures, and (speaking of the New Testament) of these inspired teachers themselves. Dr. Manning speaks of the church authenticating the scriptures. I challenge him to shew me a full list of the scriptures, or uniform lists of individuals, for 1,300 years that it existed in history. The one we get at Trent is denied by the early fathers as to the Old Testament, to say nothing of uncertainty as to the New in their opinions. I believe God has fully secured this against infidelity, but not as Dr. Manning pretends.

230 There are some things so absurd in the sermon, I must suppose error in the reporter. Thus the date of John's Gospel was somewhere about ninety: therefore there could be no scriptures for the first ninety years. Probably the preacher said or meant, that there could not be a collection of the four Gospels before. That is certain, and the argument amounts to this-the four Gospels could not be collected before the four were written. No doubt all the books, having each perfect authority in itself, the piety of Christians moved them to collect them all to profit by them all; but this added nothing to their authority. Their authority rested on the inspiration of the writers who wrote each book. I believe in the perfect wisdom of God in it as a whole; but the authority of each book rests on the inspiration of its author. If it has that, the church can add none. The authority and inspiration of the writer came from Christ and the Holy Spirit, not from the church. The reception of the testimony of their blessed witnesses came from grace, and the Holy Ghost; and so it does now, and so only. The church had its existence from this only. Church, till faith was there, there was none; and if there were such in the neighbourhood, they had no power or influence over the heathen mind to make them receive the testimony; it was always, and is, the grace of God, and the operation of His blessed Spirit.

A few more evidences of the groundless assertions of Dr. Manning I will add. Baptism contains within itself the incorporation and the records of the doctrine that sin after baptism needs to be cancelled and forgiven by the power of absolution. How so? Where is it incorporated in baptism? The Roman doctrine as to baptism is rather strange. They get forgiveness of sins when there are none, and, when there are, then it is by man's absolution and penance, if at all.

231 As regards confession, Dr. Manning says, "Whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven. Where is the church which practises confession as inculcated by these words? Confession is not inculcated, that I see, in the words at all. The Catholic church, he assures us, never relaxed this practice, because it never lost its faith. Now confession to a priest was never made obligatory till 1215 years after Christ, in the Third Council of Lateran, under the Pope under whose auspices the Inquisition was established. History shews it was not in any way usually practised. There was public confession before the whole church, and sometimes voluntary confession to a presbyter, where a person was so disposed. At Constantinople a presbyter was appointed to receive it, if any one was disposed to make one. But a great scandal arising from a confession thus made, Chrysostom abolished it, and told people to confess to God. At first there was only confession before the whole church, obligatory when they were excommunicated and they stood as penitents. Voluntary confessions began soon to be made in private. At Rome it was only under Leo the Great, in the latter part of the fifth century, that offenders were relieved from public confession and allowed to confess to a priest. Could Dr. Manning be ignorant of all this?

Transubstantiation was decreed in the same Lateran Council, and never before, that is, in 1215. The word betrays itself. It is the expression of the adoption by the schoolmen of the heathen Aristotle's doctrine of substance and accidents, a kind of substratum of each being with qualities of colour, form, etc., attached. It was denied however by most famous doctors in the church, also of those days, as John Scotus Erigena, the great doctor of Charles the Bald's Court, by Ratramn or Bertram, and others, but established as an article of faith in the Third Council of Lateran. This is quite true, that the most magniloquent terms were used as to the Eucharist, and as to baptism too, when the idea of sacramental grace supplanted spiritual life in the church, as the apostles had predicted. A change was spoken of in the water, as well as in the elements of the Eucharist, the visible water was changed (metastoicheiountai) into a certain divine and ineffable power.

232 But transubstantiation was not the earliest doctrine even after these high views came in, but expressly that after invocation two things were there, Christ and the bread, so much so that the fact of this double state was triumphantly used by the early fathers against the Eutychians, who denied two natures in Christ. The opposite to the Romish doctrine is positively taught on this point by the earlier fathers, and I might even say Augustine, though the strongest rhetorical expressions are used as to it. And it is difficult to think Dr. Manning could be ignorant of all this.

I close my review. I should have many points to notice, were I formally discussing the whole sermon at large. I cannot be expected in a brief paper reviewing this sermon to discuss the whole circle of Romish doctrine. I have merely taken up prominent points and assertions in Dr. Manning's discourse, to shew how he must have counted on unacquaintedness with ecclesiastical history naturally found in a large mixed congregation, with what good faith my reader must determine.

I have not sought to deceive or mislead him. I believe in the very early corruption of Christianity, a corruption existing in the apostles' days, when the mystery of iniquity did already work, and all sought their own and not the things of Jesus Christ, as the apostle tells us. I do not doubt that Christ will have His body complete in spite of Satan's efforts; but the apostle has led us to expect that, when he laid the only true foundation, others would build wood and hay and stubble; and history has shewn that this took place.

That the church ever taught is a fable; apostles, prophets, teachers, did. What was taught "in the beginning" we have in their writings through the gracious care of our God.

Dr. Manning utters what seems praise to the English for their zeal as to the scriptures. I will therefore state the Romish rule as to them. The Index of prohibited books had been referred to a committee by the Council of Trent. In the last Session this was referred to the Pope, and the Pope sanctioned the rules they had laid down. The fourth rule declares that, if a person shall have presumed to read or to have a copy without the express permission of the parish priest or confessor, he cannot receive absolution till the Bible be given up; and a bookseller who sells or otherwise lets a person have one is to forfeit the value to pious uses and to undergo other penalties. The permission was to be in writing.

God, not the Church,

The teacher by his word; being part two of Remarks on Dr. Manning's sermon at Belmont, Hereford.

J. N. Darby.

<20016E> 233

Nova Liguria, February, 1874.

Preface

Dr. Manning having corrected and published his sermon delivered at Belmont, the following notice of it is added as a second part to the reply already published to what appeared in the newspapers. The immediate occasion is now somewhat remote; but the principles are of abiding importance, and Dr. Manning's sermon is a suitable occasion to bring them under the eye of Christians.

--------------------

Since the previous tract was written, Dr. Manning has revised the report of his sermon and had it published, so that there can be no question as to the authenticity of the statements contained in the pamphlet given out under his name. The principle is of course the same, the assertions equally unfounded, the reasons equally inconclusive. The desperate error of putting the church in the place of Christ is Dr. Manning's error; the unbelief hidden under his statements is the unbelief of the Roman system as of Dr. Manning himself; the contemptible arguments throw back their contemptibleness on their author.

Dr. Manning begins by telling us that in the middle ages mass would have been said in the cathedral of Hereford, and lights burning in the Ladye Chapel, and this because persons believed in the teaching of the church, that is, of the Roman clergy.

Of this there is no doubt. In the middle ages the worship of the mass existed, a flagrant denial of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice once offered, and of the authority of the word of God, which declares there is no more offering for sin, when Christ had been offered once for all. The Roman clergy were, with all the rest of the priesthood, eminently responsible for this blasphemous and vain pretension of renewing Christ's sacrifice, in which, to be of any avail, Christ (as is taught in Hebrews 9: 25, 26) must often suffer. This horrible wickedness did exist, and the clergy are answerable for it. This much I admit: there would have been degradations of Christ's sacrifice as to its efficacy, and there would have been superstitious idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary. Thus far I agree with Dr. Manning.

234 But what are the principles on which Dr. Manning would restore this? Let us see. "What I affirm is this," he says, "that the letter of the scripture without the voice of the church, through the perverseness of men, killeth; and that the letter of the scripture, with the living voice of that church, quickeneth"-that is, giveth life.

Now I remark first here, that the sermon and the Roman system put the church instead of Christ as the object of faith. What Christ was in the synagogue, the church is according to Dr. Manning; and he puts the church instead of the Spirit as the author and power of faith. The teaching of Dr. Manning in the first two pages (and it is the substance of the sermon's teaching) sets aside Christ and the Holy Ghost for the church. The word of God says, Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever; Dr. Manning, that the church is (page 15); that as Christ stood in the synagogue with the scriptures, so the church stands now. The word of God says it is the Spirit that quickeneth, and that Christ's words are spirit and life; Dr. Manning, that the letter of scripture without the church kills, but that with the living voice of the church it quickens. It is a frightful denial of scripture truth and Christianity to set up his church on their ruin. Such is the main thesis of Dr. Manning's tract. As proof, let us examine his arguments.

He says, "It is a self-evident fact," "true, admitted by every one, and impossible to deny, that the whole revelation of Christianity was preached and believed throughout the world before the New Testament was written." "This is a fact so certain, so self-evident, that no calm honest man, who gives himself time to consider it, can for a moment doubt it."

Now to call it self-evident is simply nonsense. No such facts can be self-evident. Why, or how, is it so? It is a matter of history and testimony. The testimony of the ancient historians and fathers of the church in some respects contradict it. They state that Matthew wrote his Gospel to leave it in Palestine before he went out to preach in the world. So far from being self-evident, the writings prove that most of them were written by their authors in the course of their service. For example, the Epistle to the Romans was written professedly before ever the apostle had been there; the Corinthians also, before he had been at Rome, but after he had been at Corinth; the Thessalonians, when he had just left Thessalonica, before he had begun his work at Corinth or Rome. Matthew's Gospel, if we are to believe the authority of the fathers, was written very early indeed, before there had been any preaching perhaps out of Palestine; John's very late indeed. It is not really the question to be settled. The question is, What place do the scriptures hold now? But the statement of Dr. Manning is neither certain nor admitted, and to say it is "self-evident" is impudent nonsense. Hard words, it may be said; but it is well to speak the truth sometimes.

235 But there is another point which makes the whole statement utterly irrelevant, and that as Dr. Manning's own statement shews.

The revelation was made to the apostles and prophets. The former especially went to the Jews and heathen, and preached the gospel to them. The church had nothing to say to it. If the church had pretended to have authority over the idolatrous heathen, or the unconverted Jews, they would have laughed at them, or perhaps put them in prison for their pains. It is "self-evident" that the church had no kind of authority, real or pretended, over the heathen or over the Jews. Those sent of God went and preached to them, and when the Spirit of God (wholly apart from the church, which in such case was not formed there, and had no authority over the unbelievers if it had begun to be formed) wrought through grace in the hearts of the hearers, there was faith produced, and the foundations of the church laid by the testimony being received. Dr. Manning's real meaning is that the clergy should have power in the church when it is formed, which is quite another point. We have known them too well.

But the baptized, he tells us, "received the full illumination of Christianity from the living voice of the apostles."

This is equally unfounded. It is confounding conversion to Christ with teaching and building up. When by preaching (not by the church or its authority) heathens had been converted, then the apostles and others, as Apollos, etc., proceeded to build them up in the truth and godliness of walk; and to this especially served the Epistles, as they do for believers now. That Christianity was preached and believed throughout the world before the New Testament was written is a mere fable, for it is not done yet. If in saying so it is merely meant that the gospel was no longer confined to Palestine, but had gone out among the Gentiles before the New Testament was written, no one denies it; but it was no interpretation of the church, no work of the church, no authority of the church, which did the work or gave power to do it.

236 First, the church had no authority with Pagans: they recognized it in no way. Individuals sent by God carried the revelation God had given them by the Holy Ghost, and carried the revelation of Christ where it had never been, where there was no church. And Paul boasts of this, that he did carry it where it was not known, and that he had what he preached, not from the church at Jerusalem, but from the Lord Himself. In every respect he boasts of what Dr. Manning says. (Rom. 15: 20; 2 Cor. 10: 14, 15; Gal. 1 and 2.) And even as to the Jews, when he had preached at Berea the Jews there searched the scriptures to see if these things were so; therefore many of them believed, and they are called "noble" for doing so. But the church is nowhere referred to; the church had no authority; the church interpreted nothing: there was no church to do it. The church came into existence in each place by the labours of the apostles and others employed by God, who carried the revelation of His grace, and wholly without the church, by the word of God and by the operations of the Spirit of God. Grace wrought with the testimony of God, and by it the church came into existence.

But it is "self-evident" that the church could not interpret among the heathen, for it was not then in existence; and, according to Dr. Manning's own statement, the scriptures were not there to be interpreted, so that his whole argument is not worth one straw. In the case of the Jews at Berea, who had the scriptures, they studied them to see if the apostles were founded in what they said; while their church, if church it is to be called, rejected the Lord utterly, and would have hindered every one receiving Him if they could; but they searched the word for themselves, and by grace believed.

It is impossible to have anything more directly opposed to the facts and the truth than the statements of Dr. Manning. Dr. Milner, in his "End of Controversy," is obliged to own there was special grace for the heathen, as of course the church was nothing for them. I suppose he would have us believe that there is none for Christians, or that blessing came by grace and the Holy Ghost for heathens, but does not do so for Christians.

237 But it is not true that the whole revelation of God was communicated to Christians on their conversion. Not that anything was concealed, but they were not able to bear it; they were babes in Christ, and the apostles were "to give them meat in due season." It is not even true that the apostles received it all at once. Paul had revelations and communications from heaven all along his course. He tells the Corinthians that he could only feed them with milk, not with solid food, because of their carnal condition; 1 Cor. 3: 1, 2. The Hebrews were blamed because there was still need to teach them the first elements; Heb. 5.

All Dr. Manning's statements are mis-statements. But I repeat, because it is the main point, that nobody denies that the apostles and others went preaching the gospel to the heathen; but this is just the proof that the church (which the heathen did not acknowledge, and which did not exist where the messengers of Christ preached) had nothing whatever to do with the matter-interpreted nothing-for there was nothing yet to interpret. Dr. Manning insists that the New Testament did not exist yet. How then could the church interpret it? What is proved by this fact is that the word is brought home to the heart by the power of the Spirit of God, and by this they are drawn into the place of blessing so as, when gathered, to become the church. But the work is done without the church.

Am I not right in saying that Dr. Manning's argumentation is contemptible? The scriptures did come after the first work, as they may now as to individual souls. The preached word works in them, and they turn to the written word for "the certainty of the things" they believed, as stated in Luke's Gospel, "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." Thus the written word gave the certainty when the instruction or the living voice had been there. It was not the instructor interpreting and giving living power to the word, but the word giving certainty as to what they had been instructed in.

Dr. Manning says (p. 8), "the divine teacher from whom the scriptures come is always in the midst of us (Christians). They love Him and interpret His writings in His presence and by His word." There is confusion of Christ and the Spirit here, but let that pass.

238 We have now to deal with the question of Christians and not of heathens. Did the church stand and interpret the scriptures when they were written to the faithful?

And here I must beg my reader to note the ambiguity of this word 'church,' and the false meaning hidden under it by all Romanists and those who follow their principles. The church is the assembly of God upon the earth, united to its Head, and the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. This, though he would add a head on earth and a hierarchy uniting it, Dr. Manning would himself admit; at any rate it is true. How does this universal body on earth teach itself? Dr. Manning blasphemously says (p. 9), "the church is the interpretation of that book, just as Jesus Christ in the synagogue of Nazareth was the interpretation of the book of the prophet Esias in His own person." He adds (p. 10), that Christ "claimed also to be the interpreter of the same-so now the church." To say that the church is the interpretation of the scriptures is blasphemous nonsense, when it is put instead, and taking the place, of Christ as it is here, and distinct from being the interpreter. It is one subject spoken of there; but the revelation of the Father in Christ, redemption, salvation, the presence and operation of the Holy Ghost are primary objects of the New Testament; and to put the church in the place of Christ, as is expressly done here, is, I repeat, blasphemous nonsense.

But my subject now is the interpreter. Now does this whole, if you please, organized body (though I should deny historically Dr. Manning's statements as to this) interpret to and for itself? That is not what is either meant or said when Romanist teachers explain themselves. They mean and say the teaching part of the church, the clergy, which teaches all the rest. "The church" sounds very fine, teaches, etc.; but it is all clap-trap. It means, the clergy teach the church; and all are to submit to them.

Well now, what was the fact as to the scriptures? Dr. Manning says, There they were like Isaiah in the hand of the blessed Lord, and the church is now, instead of Him, the interpretation and the interpreter. What was the fact? The Gospels were written for the faithful-one, immediately for a certain Theophilus, that he might know the certainty of the things he had been instructed in. He had the instruction, and this was to make all quite certain to him. There is simply no interpreting church at all.

239 But the case of the Epistles is if possible clearer. The apostles wrote to churches and Christians; and these persons were to receive and abide by what they wrote-to receive them as "the commandments of the Lord"; those who did not heed the words of the apostles were to be noted and avoided. That is, the scriptures were the things addressed authoritatively and immediately to the body of ordinary Christians, and they were bound to receive, and believe, and obey, and act upon them, without an interpreter or any one who might pretend to come in between the authority of that written word and their souls. The scriptures bound them by apostolic authority, bound them directly, were the addresses of authority to the Christian people, who were bound to obey them and bow to them. In one place it is charged to be read to all the holy brethren. Any one coming in between these scriptures and the conscience of the Christian people, they receiving them, bowing to them, acting on them because they so came, would have been coming in between the apostles' (that is, divine) authority and the people who were bound to bow to them, and to receive their writings as addressed to them by that authority.

Such a case is recorded in the Third Epistle of John. This apostle wrote to the assembly, and Diotrephes stepped in to hinder the people from receiving and bowing to the epistle. John declares he will remember him and his prating words if he comes. If I send a letter of orders to my servants, he who steps in and takes the letter and does not allow it to reach directly and as my orders to them and addressed to them, is meddling not merely with the servants' rights (though, as regards the meddler, the servants being under the obligation to follow their master's orders, they had both a right and were bound to have them themselves because they were responsible to act on them as so sent to them), but he is meddling with the master's right and wisdom in sending it. It was sent to the servants, not to the meddler, and the servants are bound to take it; it was sent to them, and they are responsible. Now this is the place an interpreting clergy take. They meddle with God's rights, and impugn God's wisdom in sending these scriptures to the Christian people. They cannot take away the responsibility of these servants; they cannot deny that the scriptures, all save a very small part, were addressed to the Christian (of old to the Jewish) people by the inspired persons ordained of God.

240 It is important to see this clearly. Speaking of the Epistles, there was no church to explain; they were addressed directly to the church, no scriptures existing already as to which the church had to exercise such an office. The scriptures are the writings themselves, sent by inspired persons (that is, by God) to the persons who were to use them, exactly what they wanted; and these persons were bound to use and submit to them, and responsible for not doing so if they did not. The Epistles were the communication and divine wisdom of inspired teachers, the apostles, whom God had sent, addressed directly to the heart and conscience of the Christian people. In their very nature they were immediate addresses or treatises so to speak for all, and what concerned all. Three small epistles alone are an exception, though in these there is abundant instruction for all too. But then this is an additional proof of what I insist on. For the special servants of the Lord the apostle wrote to those servants themselves, for the people he wrote directly to the people. He had in no case the idea of putting his Epistles in the hands of one set of people to be used by them for another set. This is Dr. Manning's theory, putting to this end the church in the place of Christ in the synagogue.

Now Romanism and the clerical system have done this. These have taken the scriptures out of the hands of the Christian people, and given them what they liked; a deadly offence against God and His authority who sent them to the Christian people-heinous wickedness. And what has been the consequence? The dark ages-a state of things in what was called the church, which no horrors of heathenism ever equalled.

Let this be clearly understood, that nothing ever equalled the wickedness of what is called the church. The proofs are easily to be had in history, and that from churchmen. Ignorance of this truth is now used as a plea by these same clergy for not giving the scriptures to those to whom God sent them. If it be alleged that the fallen and corrupt state of the church makes it now undesirable so to give it, the answer is, God has graciously provided for us in this also. He has told us when the church was become utterly corrupt, as He declared it would do, we were to turn away from all this corruption and those who were in it, and turn to the scriptures which are "able to make the man of God wise unto salvation." In the case they now insist on, brought about by their own wickedness, those who have God's word know they are to turn from them and to the scriptures.

241 What is now the result of these facts as to this part of our subject, in reply to this wicked pretension of the church, that is, the clergy, holding the scriptures in their hand as authorized interpreters, according to the system of Dr. Manning?

First, as regards the heathen, the apostles and others preached to them. The church had nothing to interpret, and the heathen owned no church. Dr. Manning's system can have no possible application. The grace and Spirit of God did the work without any church.

As regards the Jews, there were the Old Testament scriptures, and the apostles appealed to them; but there was no church to interpret them authentically. The Jews owned neither nor apostles, but, when they were through grace well-disposed, searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. And many believed and judged the apostles true and became part of the church. But it is again the hearers in whom grace acts, and no thought of authoritative interpretation. As regards Christians, so far from the church being an interpreter of the scriptures for them, these scriptures themselves are what are sent to the Christians themselves as the direct and authoritative expression of the divine mind which they were to follow. When the church should have decayed, and have fallen into ungodly ways (as at present, when this system is urged), we are told to turn away from these ungodly formalists and have recourse to the scriptures.

And this last principle is most strikingly enforced in the churches of the Apocalypse, where, when Christ is judging the state of the churches, the individual saint is called upon to hear, not what the church says, but what the Spirit says to the churches, the judgment passed upon them by the Lord. The church is the subject of the judgment, and the individual Christian is to listen, IF HE HAVE EARS, individually, to what Christ judges of it-is bound to hear, for Christ speaks and calls him to hear. Every fact and every instruction that God has given is exactly the opposite of Dr. Manning's, which is not of God, but that corrupt work of the enemy, which has set aside the authority of what God has said.

242 No one denies that a more spiritual gifted person can help me in spiritual life and understanding; but he cannot take away my responsibility to God flowing from, and according to, the word which He has sent to me. The Spirit does dwell in the church. But it is even to babes in Christ that it is said, where designing false teachers sought to seduce them, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things," 1 John 2: 20, 27. Dr. Manning tells us that the church declares itself to be the interpreter as Christ did. Christ I believe; but why am I to believe the church when it speaks thus of itself? Not he who commendeth himself is approved, but he whom God commendeth.

But this gives rise to a preliminary question. Where is this church? Can he point it out to me? He will say Rome. But is Rome the whole church of God? I will answer with Jerome, referring to Rome, major orbis quam urbis. He tells us of a living organization with two heads, Christ in heaven, and the Pope on earth, the whole hierarchy of the church uniting it. But what does "living" mean? None of the hierarchy, they admit, are necessarily alive in Christ, neither is the Pope. Popes have been deposed for mortal sin; popes have been heretics; popes have been infidels; not one of this living organization is necessarily "living."

Besides, history makes known (nor are facts wanting now to confirm it, though not so glaring as before the Reformation) that this pretended living organization was the most vile, wicked, corrupt, immoral body that ever existed; sunk in profligacy of every and of the worst kind; cruel, persecuting, and ambitious, and notoriously worse than the heathen whom it supplanted. Is that the "living organization" of which Christ is the Head? It is impossible to defile one's pages with the habitual course of conduct of what Dr. Manning refers us to as taking the place of Christ, and as a living organization under Christ as its Head; and I speak on the authority of their own historians. Baronius, their great historian, a cardinal and a Jesuit, declares that for a century he cannot own those who filled the See of Rome as legitimate popes-put in, as they were, by the mistresses of the Marquis of Tuscany, and not chosen by the clergy or even approved by them. It is well people should know that never was any body of people on earth so depraved as Dr. Manning's "living organization"; and the human head on earth, at the head of the depravity, often fighting for this seat of power, and, if one turned another out, declaring all the consecrations and ordinations null and void, so that a book had to be written to shew there were still sacraments. All was in such confusion, and often two and even three popes at a time, and Europe divided as to who was the true one, each excommunicating the other and all that owned him.

243 There is no such history in the world for iniquity and confusion as that of Rome. I dare Dr. Manning to deny it, or, if bold enough to do it, to disprove it from history. Indeed the evil state of what is called the church began before Rome's supremacy, though it ripened under it. Let anyone read Salvian, "De gubernatione Dei," accounting for the judgment coming on the Roman empire, declaring that virtue was to be found among the heretics and heathen, and nowhere among Christians; Cyprian "De Pudicitia," or Chrysostom's "Two discourses on the Virgins," both shewing the extent of depravity already existing in what was afterwards matured in the Roman system, in the boasted holiness and real depravity of monks and nuns. The assistance of God the Holy Spirit is always with His church and people; but is that a reason for taking the chief leaders in debauchery and wickedness-and such were the popes and clergy, I defy denial-as the vessels of that Spirit to interpret the scriptures with authority as Christ did?

And now let us see, in passing, some of Dr. Manning's arguments. The New Testament was not the source whence Christianity was derived (p. 7). Fully admitted: it was derived from God through the revelation given to the apostles. But that is not the question. The question is, Are the writings of the apostles and the inspired instruments of the Holy Ghost, addressed to the Christian people at large, the best means of knowing what they taught, or Dr. Manning's interpretation of them, and that of other such persons who set themselves up to preach themselves and call themselves the church? Specially when the apostle declares that the professing church would become as bad as possible (2 Tim. 3), and that then the scriptures were the resource of the man of God.

Again he tells us (p. 9), "If we are compelled to depend upon the church for this knowledge that the scripture was ever written, and that these scriptures are the identical books which the apostle wrote-if we must depend for this upon the testimony of the church-where is the consistency of the man who says, I will take all this from you, but I refuse to accept from you the meaning of that book?" Supposing my banker keeps my will safe, and that the witnesses to it testify to its being the true will of the testator, therefore the banker and the witnesses are the only interpreters of the will? Now I do not admit Dr. Manning's principle or fact; but his argument is nonsense.

244 But further he tells us that this living organization is also before the apostle's mind when he says that when Jesus ascended into heaven, "He gave some apostles . . . for edifying of the body of Christ," which last he justly speaks of as the church (p. 14). But this upsets all his reasoning, for it is not the church which teaches or interprets, but which is taught and edified-the very point I have insisted on. And this distinction is very important; because "the church" carries with it an amazing idea of solemnity, authority, divine competency to hold a special place of authority, which is a mere lie of the author of lies. The church is edified. God's word has authority. God employs instruments and responsible instruments of His choice to edify it. The inspired teachers, whose teaching we have in the scriptures, had and have authority because they were inspired. Others are useful in the degree in which they hold fast to the word, and labour with the power of the Holy Ghost working with them. But they may, we are expressly told, build wood, hay, and stubble, and their work will be burned; as they have done and worse, so that it will be burned. There may be those, as popes and Romanist teachers, who labour to corrupt the church; they shall be destroyed. But this house of God does not edify but is edified. There is indeed a sense in which it edifies itself; but then it is by every member in its place "compacted together by that which every joint supplieth, making increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." But this more than ever destroys the false statements of Dr. Manning, because it is not the church which teaches.

Dr. Manning tells me that the church is the teacher and interpreter; he tells me that the church declares she does as Jesus did. But why am I to believe him or her if she have spoken otherwise than by such as He? That a corrupt body seeks and claims all power by her agents and ministers I know; but why am I to admit her claims, or believe what she says to me? As a Christian I believe Christ's person and words to be divine; I bow to them. But who is this excessively wicked body who claims the same attention and the same place? Dr. Manning quotes scriptures; he is obliged to do so with Protestants; but in these there is not a word of it, but the contrary. Inspired apostles and other ministers edify and teach the church, and teach the people themselves directly, and he produces no passage to shew that the church teaches. He says the church says she does, and has authority for it: I know her instruments and favourers say so. But when some unknown body claims this authority over my soul, whose eternal interests are concerned in it, I must have some proof that they have such title, and know who and what they are. When I read the scriptures which were addressed to the people, and which Dr. Manning admits, I find all the contrary. The apostles, by their very scriptures, which he tells us are a dead letter without the church to interpret, were living power by grace to the church itself, who read them without any interpreting church at all.

245 The whole system is a denial of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Manning tells us he could not convert a Unitarian when he used the scriptures. No, the work of the Holy Ghost was needed. His system sees infidelity growing up round it in a frightful way. Well, he has the church now, his living interpreter: why does he not stop it? He has got all he wants, but he cannot stop it. The church can, with all its pretensions, do no more than Dr. Manning could when young. It requires grace and the power of the Holy Ghost. History tells us that "the church" had another way of checking evil-burning people's bodies when it could not convert their souls. There was such a thing as the Inquisition, regretted perhaps still by many, and which will, if possible, doubtless be put in use again. It roots up some tares, it may be, but a great deal of wheat with them; but this is no matter if "the church" has power. Christ has forbidden it; He will do that work in harvest; but that is no matter: the authority of "the church" is maintained. It was long before the Protestants unlearned what ages had accustomed man to; the heart of man loves the exercise of power when he has got it; but "it shall not be so among you." It is a falsehood that flies in the face of all the facts of scripture and the history of Christianity that, without the interpretation of the church, the scripture is no longer the word of life. The preached word was such by the power of the Holy Ghost to heathens; the written word was such by the Holy Ghost to Christians. In neither case had the church anything to do with it. In the latter case it was written to the church or Christian people. Woe be to them if they did not understand and bow! Woe will be to the saints now who do not do so.

246 But little remains to add, unless I wrote a treatise on Romanism. When Dr. Manning says, "bring the whole Catholic world to one interpretation of scripture"; in the first place, the Catholic world has not got the scripture, but only what the priest teaches. But further, it is wholly untrue, unless by the brazen-faced pretension that Romanism is the whole Catholic world, whereas it is the smaller half of it; and, even so, half the men in it, or more, are infidels, despising the priests from their hearts, even if willing to go with the crowd, and a large body of conscientious men have recently quitted it because it flies in the face of history and truth. Why is the Pope so bitterly complaining of the evil days they are fallen on, if all is so smooth, and what he calls the one true interpretation of scripture universally received?

Dr. Manning tells us that the church is founded on Peter. His church may be, but not the church of God. "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid," says Paul, "which is Jesus Christ." But again the testimony of Dr. Manning has to be dealt with. He quotes "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," but leaves out that this is said when Peter had just confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God. And Dr. Manning knows the weightiest Fathers apply the passage to Christ. Augustine refers to the question, and says he has used it as Dr. Manning does; but then says it is referred to Christ, and people may take it the other way. Dr. Manning also knows that "rock" and Peter do not agree. I know that it is said in Syriac the difficulty does not exist. But we have it-the church of Dr. Manning's phases has it-in Greek and not in Syriac, and in Greek it is impossible to apply it to Peter; and this Dr. Manning knows as well as I do, but does not say.

He refers to "this is my body," as all Romanists do. But literally it could not be Christ's body, for He was then in the body, and He did not hold His body in His own hand. He does not say will be, but "is." But further, it was not, and could not be, His body, either as it was then or as it is now. Not as it was then, for He had not died-had not shed His blood; whereas in instituting the Supper He speaks equally of His blood shed, and eating His flesh and drinking His blood refers necessarily to a Christ who has died, as the bread come down from heaven does to a Christ incarnate. It is not in the very essence and substance of its meaning, Christ as He was, for His death and blood-shedding are shewn forth in it. It is not Christ as He is now, for He is in glory, not in death and blood-shedding. This is all finished and over. There is no such Christ in existence as that which is figured in the Lord's supper. It is His body when He is dead, His blood when it is shed. We shew forth His death (1 Cor. 1: 26); and He says, "this is my blood which is shed for you," hence taken apart from the body. But He was not dead then, He is not dead now: a Christ in the state of death does not exist. If the Roman doctrine is held, there is no redemption, for, as an excuse for not giving the cup to the people, they allege what is called the doctrine of concomitancy; that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are all in each species (in this case the bread as we should say). Now if the blood be in the body not shed, there is no redemption accomplished. Such is the profit of "church" teaching.

247 But scripture incessantly speaks as it does here: "This cup is the new testament in my blood," "I am the door," "I am the true vine," "I am the bread of life," "It is the Lord's passover." It is the common way of expressing the representation of a thing in the figure, and perfectly intelligible. A child would understand if another said to it in their play, "You are my horse." The "church" has corrupted this as all else, and made the blessed memorial of Christ's work of redemption and love a sacrament of non-redemption; for if the blood be in the body, it is not shed: redemption is not accomplished.

I have spoken in my previous tract of confession to a priest pretending to be inculcated in the words, "Whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven," of which, or any confession, save to one another, they say not a word. In the case of Corinth we have an example of this forgiveness. The sin was notorious, judged by the apostle alone, and needed no confession; and he calls upon the assembly to put the guilty person out. Afterwards, the assembly having been faithful, the apostle in a second letter urges them to confirm their love to him again, and declares that what they forgive he forgives; 2 Cor. 2: 5-10. The assembly, moreover, forgives as much as the apostle. Indeed the power of binding and loosing is continued in Matthew 18, not to any personal successors of the apostles, for they had none, but to the assembly, two or three gathered together in Christ's name-an important fact to observe in these days.

248 I have an historical mistake to correct in my previous tract, where it is stated that Chrysostom suppressed the office of confessor which had been established at Constantinople. It was Nectarius, his predecessor, who did so. Chrysostom exhorts abundantly to confess to God only, but Nectarius had suppressed the office of general confessor. I can only repeat here that the statement of Dr. Manning he must know to be false; at least I can hardly suppose him to be so ignorant of church history as not to know it. The facts I have given in my former tract.

Dr. Manning refers to James 5: 14 for extreme unction. It is really wearying to follow step by step the impudent way these doctors seek to impose on souls. The Roman doctrine is that extreme unction "abstergit reliquias peccatorum," wipes away the remains of sin. What they go to burn in purgatory for after would be hard to tell; but that is the pretended effect; and if a man gets up again and eats and drinks, its efficacy is gone. If in a dying state again, he must be anointed again.

Now in James the prayer of faith saves the sick, the discipline is removed; and if sins have been the occasion of the chastisement, they are forgiven in the holy government of God. In a word the anointing of James was connected with the recovery of the sick and taking off the affliction by which they were chastened, and the extreme unction of Romanists is given only when this is supposed to be impossible, and, if he does recover and this discipline is removed, is worth nothing at all.

Nothing can be more sad than the rampant infidelity which prevails, and which Romanism and hollow clericalism have more than anything contributed to produce; for when religious profession sinks below the level of common or natural conscience, it produces infidelity. As to that which is produced, neither the profession nor the infidelity has anything to do with real faith, faith in God's word, and by it in the Father and in the Son. But religions, as a profession, wear out. Old heathenism did, and infidelity supplanted it; Brahminism is wearing out in India, and again infidelity supplants it. What is truth? says Pilate. Romanism had done this for professing Christendom. At the Reformation God's word brought in faith in the word in large districts. Now all is worn out as a system, and infidelity believes nothing. Christianity met the case when Grecian and Roman heathenism had lost their hold. When Romanism had made Christian profession worse than heathenism, the Reformation partially met the case. Now judgment only and the coming of the Son of man awaits professing Christendom.

249 But it is not true that Rome has not varied in saying this is inspired, this is not. Rome for three centuries and more did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews; and Rome receives the Apocrypha now, books which her own doctors in former ages rejected as not inspired, and which are not found in the Hebrew.

Two great principles remain for the sincere Christian. It is positively revealed (2 Tim. 3), that the church would fail and become as bad as heathenism; and the Christian is directed to turn away from the evil and turn to the scriptures, and Christ (Rev. 2 and 3) is revealed as judging the state of the churches, and the individual is called to listen to what He says as to judging the churches; so that the church cannot have authority over the Christian, for he is called to listen to Christ judging it.

Secondly, listening to the apostles themselves is made a test of the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. "He that is of God," says the apostle John, "heareth us, and he that is not of God heareth not us." Now it is admitted by all that we have what they have said in their Epistles. I am bound therefore to listen to the scriptures, or I am not of God. And this responsibility rests on the individual Christian, and He cannot escape it. He that is of God listens to what the apostles have said.

Further, it is alleged that, in listening to what Fathers and traditions say, we must be more likely to have the truth, as they were nearer to the source. But we have the source itself, that is, what the inspired teachers themselves have taught. It is not what (as Tertullian says) is prius, or earlier, must be truer. Paul says, that after his decease, grievous wolves and perverse men would arise. But the word of scripture is express: "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." What we read in scripture is certainly from the beginning; what we read or hear elsewhere certainly is not; it may or may not be confirmed to it, but it is not from the beginning, so that I can judge by it. I have to judge if it is. He that is of God heareth us. And the reason is obvious. Those teachers are, what they tell us is, divinely inspired; what is said by other teachers is not.

250 Finally we do need the grace of the Holy Spirit to use the scriptures; but it is said to the babes in Christ to guard them against the seductions of false doctrines, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things," and "the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Not that there may not be teachers; John was teaching them this. But when there is a question of seducing teachers, the weakest saint is referred to what was from the beginning, the apostle's own teaching, and assured that they, the weakest, had the Holy Spirit, and that thus by His grace and the scriptures, or what was "from the beginning," the apostle's own and inspired teaching, they would be kept from error and seduction, and so only.

Such is the divine safeguard in the last days.

Discipline and Unity of the Assembly

J. N. Darby.

<20017E> 251

Two principles seem to be at work at the present moment which it may be well to notice in connection with the title of this publication - The Present Testimony.* We are living in a time when all things are in question, and principles of every kind are abroad. If there are such as seem to destroy the very position of the saints as a testimony in the midst of Christendom - a conscious and intelligent testimony - it is not amiss that attention should be drawn to them. The two principles I refer to are:

First, the denial of the obligation of a Christian assembly to maintain purity in order to be owned as such, or rather, the denying that if it allow evil within itself, it becomes defiled; and

Secondly, the denial of the unity of the body as regards the church here on earth.

{*This originally appeared as an article in The Present Testimony.}

I have heard in such various quarters, both as to morals and doctrine, that no assembly of Christians can be defiled by any evil in it, and even that it has to go on and leave it to the Lord to lay His hand upon the evil and put it out, that I must suppose it to be a principle generally admitted. And what has been often alleged in individual argument on the second point noticed above is now maintained in a tract which has been voluntarily sent me, I suppose for my edification, and which I therefore now take notice of. I am ignorant who is its author, and discuss its principles briefly as a subject that it is well to bring before the minds of many.

A tract has also been sent me on the first point. I have heard by report who is its author, but shall here simply discuss its principles. The two questions are, Can there be corporate defilement by allowed evil in morals or doctrine? and, Is there any unity of the church of God upon earth?

It has been openly contended that, if fornication be allowed in a body of Christians, it is no ground of separating from it. This has been met by others; indeed exposing it in daylight was the best way of meeting it. To say that Christians were to separate from the world, to detach themselves from the great body of the professing church because of ecclesiastical evils, and then to affirm that positive immorality did not defile their community, but that, supposing it was allowed, saints should still own such a meeting all the same, was a proposition so monstrous, such a preference of ecclesiastical notions to the unalterable morality of God in the gospel, that one can only wonder how it was possible any Christians could have got into such a state of moral darkness. It was a solemn witness of the effect of false principles. With the individuals or their meeting we have of course nothing to do, save as the charity of Christ demands. We speak of principles; and let us see where these would lead. Those who are inside such a meeting of Christians are not allowed to break with them. They are bound to accept the companionship of sin, bound to accept disobedience to the apostle's rule, "Put out from among yourselves that wicked person." They must live in constant communion with evil, and constantly in the most solemn act of Christianity affirm the fellowship of light and darkness.

252 But this is not all. In such kind of meetings a meeting in one place receives, as did the scriptural churches, those in communion in another, and, when formally done, by letters of commendation. Suppose the fornicator, or even those who have maintained his continuing in the meeting (another allowance thus of sin), to be commended, or to come in communion from the supposed meeting; and if they receive him deliberately at home, they must of course give him, so far as they are concerned, the same title abroad, and he is received elsewhere; and thus the deliberate wickedness of a majority of the meeting to which he belongs, or of the whole of it, if you please, obliges thus every Christian meeting, and, when the church of God was in order, we might say every church of God in the world, to put its seal on communion with sin and evil, and say that sin could be freely admitted at the table of the Lord, and Christ and Belial get on perfectly well together; or break with the meeting or church, that is, disown its being such at all. But if they ought, those who have any conscience in the meeting itself ought.

The national Establishment is incomparably better than this. There there is no pretension to discipline; each one is pious for himself. Here sin, and communion with sin at the Lord's table, is sanctioned on principle. And if it is admitted that it ought not to be allowed, it is declared, that if it is deliberately allowed, every one must acquiesce in it, the meeting is not defiled, and the disobedient sinners have a right to force the whole church of God to accept it, if not in principle, in practice, and deny their principles. It is the church of God securing as such, and by its special privilege and title, the rights of sin against Christ. How it would be possible to conceive anything worse I cannot imagine; it really seems to me the most wicked principle that possibly can be thought of And it is not merely the habits of a particular class of Christians which lead to this; the scriptural order of the church of God, as shewn in the scriptures, involves this sanction of sin if the theory be true.

253 No person can deny that saints passed from one assembly to another, and, if belonging to one, were received in another. It was not an organization of churches, such as Presbyterianism or Episcopacy, which I name here only to be understood, but it was a full recognition of them as expressions of the unity of the body of Christ. We see the saints going from one, and received as such in another, and that in virtue of letters commendatory. It was because each assembly was owned as representing the body of Christ in its locality that others were bound to receive those who belonged to it as being members of that body. Each local assembly was responsible within itself to maintain the order and godliness suited to the assembly of God, and was to be trusted in it; it is not disputing the competency of the local assembly, but owning it, when I receive a person because he belongs to it. If I do not receive a person who belongs to it, I deny its being a competent witness of the unity of the body of Christ.

Now it is exactly in this place the Spirit of God puts the local assembly at Corinth; not denying the unity of all saints on earth in one body, but owning the local assembly as so far representing it. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members one of another." Now if I own the assembly at Corinth or anywhere else to hold that place, surely I must receive a person belonging to it as a member of the body of Christ - other membership I do not own. I quite agree that scripture owns no other; but for that very reason, when the apostle says, "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," and "we are all one body, for we are all partakers of that one loaf," I am bound to own the assembly as representing the body, and those who partake of the one loaf as members of the body. If I do not, I fall into the principle of a mere voluntary association, which makes rules for itself, and does what it pleases. Am I then to recognize, as representing the unity of the body, and acting by the Spirit with the Lord's authority, an assembly which sanctions sin, and says it is not defiled by it?

254 On the other hand, suppose such an assembly, say at Corinth, had put out from among themselves the wicked person, and another assembly received him, the latter thereby denies that the first has acted in the character of an assembly of God, representing there the body of Christ. It denies the action of the Holy Ghost in the assembly, or that what has been bound on earth has been bound in heaven. It is a mere sophism to suppose that, because an organization formed of assemblies is disowned, the responsibility of each assembly to the Lord is disowned, and its competent action by the Holy Ghost in the matters of the church of God. If a person were put out at Corinth, and received at Ephesus, the action of the Holy Ghost in the body at Corinth was denied, or Ephesus refused the action and denied the authority of the Holy Ghost and of Christ; that is, the assemblies were owned because each did in its locality act under the Lord and by the Holy Ghost. No doubt they might fail; Corinth would have failed but for the intervention of the Spirit by the apostle. But such is the scriptural principle, and that which we have to look for in an assembly; and the assembly is owned because it acts by the Holy Ghost under the authority of the Lord.

This point being cleared (and 1 Corinthians seems to me not to leave a trace of doubt on it), I would turn to another - the consequent responsibility of the Christians who compose it. They are to act for Christ by the Holy Ghost. "Put out from among yourselves that wicked person." Paul forces it on the assembly; so in cases of wrong it is finally told to the assembly, and the "without" and "within" refer to it; that is, I get the body responsible as well as competent. The Lord, who knew all the coming history of His church, has extended this in His grace to two or three gathered in His name, and connects this with discipline and being heard. When two or three are gathered in His name, there is He in the midst of them. Thus, while fully admitting that all the saints in a locality constitute properly the one assembly in a place, if they will not unite, the responsibility and the presence of the Lord are found with those who do, and their acts, if really done as met in His name, have His authority; that is, another such assembly must own the assembly and their acts, or disown their connection with the Lord.

255 I do not mean that, if they fail in any particular case, they may not be remonstrated with, entreated, and so on; but, in a regular way, one assembly owns the action of the other, according to the promise of the Lord's presence, because if it be a true assembly it owns the Lord's own action in it, its own Lord's action and the assembly as His. It is not a voluntary church, but a scriptural divine assembly; if they are not so gathered, and do not own the unity of the body, the power and presence of the Holy Ghost, and the presence of Jesus as so gathered together in His name only, I do not own the assembly, though I may the saints who compose it. In the other case I am bound to do so.

But, further, we find that the assembly at Corinth did not put out the wicked person, and the apostle set about to correct this, and, indeed, would not go there while they were in this state, unless it were to exercise rigorous severity. His words, in speaking of it in the second Epistle, shew the thought that they were involved in the evil by allowing it - "Ye have proved yourselves clear in this matter." His complaint was that there was sin, leaven - not merely a sinner, but sin among them; and, ignorant as yet of discipline, they had not grieved so as that God should have removed the evil-doer from their midst; and he tells them to purge out the old leaven (not merely to put the person out, which was his practical direction) that they might be a new lump as they were unleavened. They, acquiescing in the sin, were involved in it; they were viewed in Christ and their true standing as unleavened; but they were to put out the old leaven that they might be a new lump, that their actual condition and standing might agree: otherwise they, the assembly, were not a new lump. Hence, in the second Epistle, when the first had produced its effect, the apostle says "that they had proved themselves clear in this matter"; but, if acquiescing in it, they were not clear. The assembly was not a new lump, and the members of it were not clear, if they accepted the principle of allowing sin in their midst. To use the title of our standing as a sanction for acquiescing in sin in fact in the assembly, saying it cannot be defiled, is a most evil and pestilential doctrine; and that persons in it, not guilty of the sin in act, are clear though they acquiesce in it, is a thoroughly wicked principle, and directly contrary to scripture.

But, more, an assembly which admits such a principle has forfeited its title to be owned in the way I have spoken of above. We have seen it is a common point agreed upon, that the particular assembly met truly in the Lord's name represents the body of Christ, and Christ is to be looked for in their midst. But I cannot own an assembly which admits or acquiesces in sin, which takes this ground that sin does not defile it, to represent the body of Christ, or to be met in Christ's name. It is to make Christ acquiesce in the sin - "a minister of sin." God forbid! Christ's body (and we declare by "the one loaf" that we are one body) is a holy body; I cannot say I am one body with sinners. That a sinner or hypocrite may have slipped in, we all admit; but I do not own him. But if a body admit or acquiesce in sinners being there, it ceases to have the character of Christ's body altogether, or Christ's body is compatible with known sin; that is, the Holy Ghost and Christ present, admit and allow the sin. This doctrine (of the assembly not being defiled by known sin being there) is a direct denial of the presence of the Holy Ghost making them one, and of the authority of a present Lord. Does He accept sin in the members of the body? If not, those who do are acting as a voluntary meeting, acting on their own rules, not admitting the animating power of the Spirit of Christ; for it is a blasphemy to say He admits sin in those who belong to Him: an assembly which has this doctrine is not an assembly of God at all. Carelessness there may be - it should be corrected; but he who, as a principle, owns the existence of sin in the assembly, and denies it is defiled, denies its unity and the Lord's presence; that is, it is not an assembly met in His name at all. What I think essential in this matter is the promised presence of the Lord, and the acting of the Spirit of God. If this be so, if I own the Lord, I must own the assembly and its acts; if it has a principle contrary to the presence of the Lord and the action of the Holy Ghost, I cannot own it as His.

256 The other question to which I adverted at the commencement is the recognition of Christ's body on earth. That which is taught in the tract sent to me* is mere Congregationalism or Independency. I will give an extract or two from it.

{*"Christian Unity contrasted with its Counterfeits." Yapp and Hawkins, 70, Welbeck Street.}

"Now were we to understand the unity thus prayed for as designed to consist in all the disciples of Jesus throughout the world being visibly united, and forming one community on earth, or in any considerable number of them resident in any particular country or very large city being thus united, we should assuredly be at a loss to see how this prayer has hitherto been answered. But it formed no part of the commission which the risen Saviour gave the apostles to execute - that they should form all those of whom by the preaching of the gospel they made disciples into one visibly connected religious community. This accordingly is what the apostles, when planting churches and setting them in order, never aimed at; and so soon as there were other churches planted in addition to the first church formed at Jerusalem, believers ceased to form in all respects one community. We read afterwards accordingly, not of one church or religious community, but of numerous distinct religious communities independent of each other. We read of the 'churches of Judaea,' of Asia, of Macedonia, of Galatia, and of 'the churches of the saints,' that were planted in the different other countries and cities in which converts were made to the Christian faith" (p. 2).

257 I only add what it associates itself with. The existence of sects, through the attempt to organize into one body, as the writer alleges, "is probably the principal obstruction to that ample effusion of the Spirit which is essential to the renovation of the world" (p. 9). I will add another. "Such is the oneness, it would appear, for which our Lord prayed in behalf of His disciples; a oneness invisible to mortal eye, but distinctly seen by the Omniscient" (p. 12). The absurdity of this is evident if we only read the passage in John referred to: "That the world may believe that thou hast sent me." So the world was to be led to believe by "a oneness invisible to mortal eye!"

This however, to give the idea of the author complete, "was to be the foundation of a farther union - a union of a visible kind" (p. 14); . . . "the manifestation of it given by every assembly of Christ's disciples" (p. 15). This is fulfilling the "highly responsible office of giving a just representation of Christ's 'one body'" (p. 15). "Thus we are impressively taught, that as the human body is one, so also is Christ's spiritual body, the church, one. But the mystical 'one body' of Christ is nowhere to be seen in this world; nor is the church universal anywhere to be seen on earth as one body, except by representation. Where, then, is that representation given? It is given, scripture answers, by every scripturally constituted church which endeavours to keep the 'unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' In such a body alone - a body which is the institution of infinite wisdom - is Christian unity manifested, and the 'oneness' of Christ's body to be seen" (p. 17).

258 The author then states there is the invisible unity; and "of this spiritual unity there is a visible representation given by every assembly of Christ's disciples united on their profession of the one faith, walking together in love in the observance of all things the Lord Jesus has commanded, while endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Viewed in the first aspect Christian unity is much more perfect than when viewed in the latter. Though the one is a divinely appointed representation of the other, owing to man's failure and imperfection in this mortal state, it is often, and indeed at best, but an imperfect representation" (pp. 19, 20).

But the author goes farther. "The universal church of Christ may, therefore, be correctly viewed as one in reference to Him, its supreme Head in heaven; but it is not one community on earth; and the various schemes that have been devised to connect Christians in different districts of the same country under the same government, whether the government be avowed or merely virtually exercised, have been all futile attempts to accomplish what was never designed to exist" (p. 22). Again (p. 3), "It formed no part of the commission which the risen Saviour gave the apostles to execute - that they should form all those of whom by the preaching of the gospel they made disciples into one visibly connected religious community. This accordingly is what the apostles, when planting churches and setting them in order, never aimed at; and so soon as there were other churches planted in addition to the first church formed at Jerusalem, believers ceased to form in all respects one community. We read afterwards accordingly, not of one church or religious community, but of numerous distinct religious communities independent of each other," etc. (p. 3).

"Under such circumstances, if disciples thought it advantageous to meet in separate assemblies in the same city or neighbourhood, there would not be any interference with Christian unity; for as an indefinite number of churches in the same district of country, independent of each other, was not considered inconsistent with Christian unity in the apostolic age, neither ought it to be considered inconsistent with it now" (p 24)

259 These extracts will suffice to give the writer's mind. I affirm that, with the exception of the fact that local assemblies were formed, every statement of it is in direct contradiction with scripture, and that the very truth which the Spirit of God has been rescuing from the corruption of ages is laboriously denied in it. The best way to shew this will be to quote scripture as I have quoted the author. Our author quotes Romans 12: 4, 5; Colossians 2: 17, 19; and Ephesians 4; and 1 Corinthians 12; and says, "Why, it may be profitable to ask, is an assembly of believers such as the assembly at Corinth, to whom Paul wrote, united in faith and love to the Lord Jesus, and united by ties of love and sympathy to one another, compared to the human body?" (p. 16). "To whom, then, was this comparison designed to apply? Was it designed to apply to the mystical body of Christ, or to what is sometimes called the holy catholic . . . church, which, correctly viewed, is the same thing; or was it designed to apply to an individual assembly of disciples? It was designed, we apprehend, to apply to both" (pp. 16, 17). It is then he states what has been already quoted, "But the mystical 'one body' of Christ is nowhere to be seen in this world; nor is the church universal anywhere to be seen on earth as one body, except by representation. Where, then, is that representation given? It is given, scripture answers, by every scripturally constituted church" (p. 17).

Now I have already recognized the responsibility of each local assembly in faithful discipline and unity as locally representing the whole body, because the Spirit and the Lord are there; so that they act by an authority which necessarily is binding on every other assembly, save allowance, as all make, for human failure, if the assembly be a true one. The question is, Is any one body recognized on earth? We are told "it formed no part of the commission which the risen Saviour gave the apostles to execute - that they should form all those of whom by the preaching of the gospel they made disciples into one visibly connected religious community" (p. 3). This assertion is easily disposed of. It is wholly beside the mark in every respect. There is not a word about churches, church, community, or communities, in the commission of the apostles. The mission or missions given by the risen Saviour had nothing to say to them. Either the gospel was to every creature unto salvation or condemnation, or repentance and remission of sins to be preached among all nations, or the nations were to be made disciples of.

260 There is a church spoken of; but the Lord is the builder or adder to it: this is never said of churches. But even when the apostles' work in this respect is spoken of, it is in general, or the whole assembly of God is spoken of, not particular assemblies, though such we know were formed, and in a practical sense in their own sphere represented the whole assembly. But the denial of an assembly as one whole on earth is a great and mischievous error: we will consult the scriptures. The author distinctly states, "We read afterwards, accordingly, not of one church or religious community, but of numerous distinct religious communities independent of each other" (p. 3). This is in the teeth of scripture. "Scripture teaches that it is the bounden duty of every one who becomes a disciple of Jesus openly to profess his faith, and unite himself with a company of his fellow disciples" (p. 33). I deny this entirely. Scripture NEVER teaches anything of the kind; they were added to the assembly; nor is there such an idea in scripture as uniting himself with a church. The writer does not tell us where scripture teaches it - for the best of reasons, because he cannot. Nor can any one be called on to prove a negation; but we shall find that scripture speaks quite otherwise on the subject. Disciples were added to the Lord, and became thus a part of the assembly.

Let us now take up scripture, and see how it speaks on the subject. The first place the assembly is spoken of is in Matthew 16: "On this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of hell [hades] shall not prevail against it." Now building the assembly is not even a mystical union of individuals with the Head in heaven. It supposes a system established on earth - a building - one assembly. The end of the clause is the plainest proof of this: a promise that the gates of hades should not prevail against mystical union with Christ in heaven, to the exclusion of the conditions of a church on earth, is an interpretation which condemns itself. The gates of hades have nothing to say to individual mystical union with Christ in heaven.

In Matthew 18, as we have seen, for the administrative authority of discipline, two or three met in Christ's name are sufficient.

261 I turn to the Acts. Here we see how the assembly was formed. As yet there was no difference between the assembly and assemblies. The Lord had declared He would build His assembly, and He was doing it. There was no idea of the duty of joining a man's self to a community of disciples. A Jew, or a heathen, as soon as Cornelius was called, was converted to have share in the promises and calling of God. He was introduced (I raise here no special questions on the subject) by baptism most certainly, not into any particular assembly. Into what then? Into THE assembly. He was publicly admitted among Christians. And now mark how it is as to the work itself spoken of: "The Lord added daily [to the assembly] such as should be saved." The Lord added. It was His work, and He added to the assembly. That is what He did with the remnant, preserved according to the election of grace. He did not restore Israel; He added them to the assembly, the nation being about to be cut off. They were put upon earth into this new position; also it was evident that the assembly was upon earth. It was according to the saying, "He died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Now, if the unity were only the mystical one, if they were believers, they had no need of being gathered into one. They could not be scattered; their unity, as the tract tells us, was constant and unchangeable. Yet Jesus gave Himself to gather them together in one. The fact of baptism being the means of public admission makes the idea of joining a church impossible. The church had put its public sanction on them, and received them; and they had a place, and were bound to take it, wherever they went, in God's assembly.

We may now turn to the church's dealings with them when they were within. The first Epistle to the Corinthians will here afford us divine light.

In the first of Corinthians it is of moment to remark because it is the epistle in which a local assembly is spoken of as practically in certain respects representing the whole assembly of God, that the epistle is addressed to all believers everywhere - all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. We get a church-character, but the apostle in his address is careful to associate all Christians with those at Corinth. Hence, if one was put out as a wicked person by the assembly at Corinth, he was "without," that is, outside the whole church of God (not of the body of Christ vitally, but the assembly on earth). Nor can you indeed read the entire epistle without seeing that what was said by the apostle, and consequently done by the assembly at Corinth, was an act valid for the whole body of saints on earth; that they are viewed as involved in it, as indeed they are expressly mentioned. To say he was only outside the particular assembly, when he was put out of it, is a monstrous and mischievous perversion. When the apostle says "them within" and "them that are without," to say that he only means within or without a particular body ("do ye not judge them that are within? them that are without God judgeth"); it is clearly "within," or "without," on earth; and it is clearly not within or without a particular assembly; the difference is between Christians and men of the world. Within and without, that is, applies to the whole assembly of Christ on earth; they were the fornicators of this world, or one called a brother. In Corinth, to be of the assembly they must be of the local assembly, unless in schism; but if called "a brother," they were of the assembly, not because they had joined that particular body, but because they were Christians not excluded by just discipline.

262 I now turn to chapter 12, which will make the matter as clear as possible; and, while it shews that a local assembly, viewed in association with all Christians everywhere on earth, practically represents and acts for all saints with the Lord's authority if gathered in His name, yet it shews that the apostle has in mind THE assembly, not an assembly. "But all these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will; for as the body is one, and there are many members, and all the members of that body being many are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free, and have all been made to drink into one Spirit."

The tract tells us, "Every member of Christ's 'one body' forms a constituent part of a great church or assembly, of which the Head is in heaven (p. 21) . . . . The universal church of Christ may therefore be correctly viewed as one in reference to Him, its supreme Head in heaven, but it is not one community on earth" (p. 21). Again, "Its true spiritual unity has reference to its future existence and appearance in glory" (p. 21). In another place we are told "it applies to the mystical body of Christ - the church universal; but that it applies also to a particular assembly of believers" (p. 17). Now, I affirm that the passage can apply to neither (save so far as the church universal itself is seen on the earth), and solely to this last. The subject of the chapter is spiritual gifts, and the figure of the body is not used in view of mere personal union with Christ (important, yea, yet more important, as that doctrine surely is), but of the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. The church universal is not viewed as in heaven in its Head, but as on earth in its members; they have all been baptized with that one Spirit to make one body: the members are the gifts.

263 All are members and the Holy Ghost distributes as He will. Where are these gifts exercised, and to what do they belong? They are exercised on earth, that is a clear case; there is no evangelizing nor healing of the sick in heaven. But they do not belong to a particular assembly, but to the assembly; and God hath set some in the assembly: first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healing, etc. Now nothing can be plainer or more positive than this. These gifts are exercised on earth; they are set in the assembly; they were not even all exercised in an assembly as apostles might be preaching to the world. Miracles might be wrought in the world, or healing take place; but they were members of the body who wrought; they were set in the assembly.

This chapter shews in the distinctest manner possible that, while scripture clearly owns local assemblies whose responsibilities and acts we have already considered, the action of the Holy Ghost is viewed as forming and acting in one assembly on the earth, and is viewed only as on earth - to the exclusion of what it will be in heaven, as is evident from the exercise of the gifts, and their nature. The whole scriptural view of the Holy Ghost's operation is denied by the teaching of the tract, as indeed the true nature of a local assembly is also. If Apollos taught at Ephesus, he taught when he went to Corinth. He was a Christian, and thereby necessarily belonged to the assembly of Christians at Corinth, because it was the assembly of the Christians who were there. This does not hinder discipline, but makes the discipline valid as to the whole assembly of God.

If I turn to the Ephesians, more especially consecrated to the instruction of Christians on the highest privileges of individual saints, or of the church, I find the same truth. "Ye are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit"; that is, Jews and Gentiles were reconciled in one body to God by the cross. It was growing to its full result, but there was on earth a habitation of God through the Holy Ghost. Here unity is a great point - one body, one Spirit, one hope. But where is this? On earth. Gifts are given to every one according to the measure of the gift of Christ. When ascended Christ gave gifts to men - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, till we all come, etc.

264 Thus, again, the future heavenly state is excluded. Yet we are to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, for there is one Spirit and one body. The Head being ascended, He has given gifts - not in a church; apostles and evangelists exercised their ministry, the first partly, the latter exclusively, in the world, and the apostles as such clearly belonged to no particular assembly. The idea of the members of an assembly is wholly unknown to scripture. It is used as a figure, and in reference to the human body. We are likened to a body, but that body is the body of Christ; an assembly is not His body, though it may locally represent it. I read, "The assembly, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."*

{*Compare too 1 Timothy 3: 15. It is monstrous to say, that a particularly voluntary assembly, which "Christian disciples have thought it advantageous" to form, is the pillar and ground of the truth, though a local assembly of Christians ought to represent the church in this also, a truth which comes strikingly out in this passage; while, along with 1 Corinthians 12, it shews that the apostle, in speaking of a particular assembly, never loses sight of the one assembly, and always views it as representing that. See another remarkable instance of that in Acts 20: 22.}

Now that predicted confusion has come in I certainly am the last to deny; a confusion which makes one feel doubly the comfort of the promise, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." But this becomes a mere self-regulated voluntary association whenever the unity of the body on earth is not owned. They cannot take the scriptures for their guide, they have begun by denying them in the point which established their own position. We are God's husbandry, God's building. Alas! wood and hay and stubble have been built upon the foundation, and perverse men have crept in, and wolves have come, ordinances and legalism have perverted Christendom; but that does not alter God's truth. God has foreseen all, and provided the path of obedience in the word, and grace for it. And when we deny a scriptural truth, we may be sincere Christians, and do so from prejudice and ignorance; but we deprive ourselves of the blessing and character of sanctification attached to that truth. So where the unity of the assembly on earth is denied, the blessings attached to it are lost, as far as our personal profit goes, and these benefits are nothing less than the action of the Holy Ghost on earth, uniting us as members to Christ and acting as He sees right in the members down here. To deny the defilement of the assembly by the allowance of sin, and the unity of the body on earth by the presence of the Holy Ghost, is to destroy all the responsibility of the one, and all the blessing of the other, and in these points to make void the word of God.

Baptism - not the communication of life

J. N. Darby.

<20018E> 266

Dear Mr -,

Baptism is not communication of life. Resurrection may (though all critics do not) be attributed to it, according to Colossians 2; it depends on the construction of en o, and it is in a certain aspect more than life, because it is being transported from alienation from God, into the place of blessing which He has constituted on earth; it is figuratively washing away sins.

Resurrection is not the communication of life. They are formally distinguished in Ephesians 2: and when Christ is mentioned alone in Ephesians 1, resurrection is spoken of, not quickening. Communicating life to Christ is a dangerous expression. Resurrection involves the reunion of soul and body, not the communication of life. If resurrection be connected with baptism, it is coming up out of the water. The baptism proper is death or burial, but it is at any rate connected with faith in the operation of God, which does not refer to death in the act of baptizing. Resurrection unto life, in John 5, is not communicating life, but refers to those to whom life had been given, and explicitly to their coming up out of their graves. Resurrection may be the quickening of the mortal body, but never the communication of life to the soul; and in its full power it involves a vast deal more. The saint is raised in glory, because of the Spirit dwelling in him; the sinner, to judgment.

I deny entirely what is called sacramental grace. That we are blessed in communion with Christ, in partaking in the faith of the Lord's supper, I gladly recognize. He is present with two or three, gathered together in His name, in that special and blessed remembrance of His death according to His grace; in which He in sovereign goodness cares that we should remember Him. The soul enjoys fellowship with Him, and in the most excellent way. But it is not grace in the elements. I do not believe there is any grace in the bread or the wine. It is a mere mischievous superstition. There is in scripture no consecration of elements, though they are appropriated with thanksgiving; since they are to represent Christ's body and blood, and hence to be reverently used in doing so, "discerning the Lord's body." But what we break is bread, and nothing else. The history even of the progress to Romanist views is easily traced, though of no importance. We must have "what was from the beginning," or else not abide in the Son and in the Father.

267 I suppose the chapters alluded to are John 3 and 6. Now the latter chapter proves conclusively that it does not refer to the Lord's supper, for it affirms that every one is surely and finally saved who so eats of Christ. Christ Himself is the bread of life, and he that eats of it lives for ever (v. 51). The sacrament is nothing more; but more particularly, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day - that is, he has present and final salvation. We have, too, ephagon as well as trogo-original faith as well as present exercise of it. In chapter 3 we have only entering into the kingdom, nothing even attributed to water, whatever it means; and then life distinctively attributed to the Spirit, only as communicating a nature, is spirit - is water would be simple nonsense. I have no doubt that it is the word as in Ephesians 5 and John 15, and the necessary sense of chapter 6 confirms it; but in any case it has nothing to do with the communication of life, and verse 6 shews it; and a reference to Ezekiel 36, to which it so very plainly alludes, leaves no doubt, I think, of its force; hence verse 10, and the expression, earthly things, in verse 12.

I may refer to another chapter, perhaps, as none is mentioned: communion of the blood and body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10; but as it is the same word as partakers and fellowship in what follows, as in verse 18 (not 17), there is no kind of difficulty or uncertainty. It is moral identification with what is set forth there; see verse 20.

As to union with an exalted Christ, what Acts 2: 33-36 has to say to it, it would be hard to tell. It shews that the writer has nothing serious to object, and no more. I have no doubt that the exalted Christ authorised Peter, and gave to Peter, by the Holy Ghost, to say, Repent, and be baptized. Why that makes baptism union, would be very hard to tell, and so much the more that it is distinguished from the receiving of the Holy Ghost, which is a consequence of it. Repent and God would give. This is hardly serious.

I say that a man must be born again before he receives the Holy Ghost. "Ye are the children [sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts: in whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." "He that stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us is God." I might multiply passages. It is so according to the writer's theory, for they, he says, are born by baptism; and Peter says it was consequent thereupon - they would receive the Holy Ghost. And the point is important. By one I get a life and a nature; by the other my body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and I am sealed for the day of redemption. One is a nature derived from God; the other, is God dwelling in me. Indeed, as to the practical state of the church, I know of no truth more important - the Christian state hangs upon it. It is through the presence of the Comforter I know I am in Christ (John 14). By it we were baptized into one body on the day of Pentecost; by it we are sealed for the day of redemption.

268 Confounding finally the mission of the twelve in Matthew 28 with receiving Peter's as well as Paul's teaching, is a mere blunder of mind. For the believer, Peter's and Paul's writings are the word of God, and received as such. The commission of the twelve was from a risen, not an ascended, Christ, and only to Gentiles; Luke's, from an ascending Christ, and embraced the Jews. The point which makes it of any importance to us is, that we learn in Galatians 2 that the three great apostles gave up the mission to the Gentiles, and agreed that Paul should undertake that; and none mentions the church but Paul. What he calls the "mystery" was committed to him, and he was a minister of the church as well as of the gospel, declaring he was not sent to baptize - which would be incredible if such received life by it.

As to Matthew 16, all the false system of the Papists and Ritualists flows to this point, from their confounding Christ's building and man's. I will build, says Christ; against that the gates of hell cannot prevail. That building is not finished yet. In 1 Peter 2, the living stones come, but we hear of no human builder. In Ephesians 2, all is fitly framed together, and groweth into an holy temple; but no builder is named. In 1 Corinthians 3, we have a wise master-builder, Paul, and wood and hay and stubble, the contemplated fruit of man's responsibility and warning against it - not Christ's being the builder - and corrupters; reward of labour; loss, and the person saved, the person purged, in these cases. Now, these men attribute the title and privileges of Christ's progressive building to the wood and hay and stubble of foolish and bad workers among men; yea, many to the corrupters and corruptions themselves. In all this they are not taught of God at all. He tells us where there is the form of piety denying the power to turn away.

269 I believe I have touched on most points you have mentioned; I can in a letter only touch on them, but I think I have met them all.

To say that the wood and hay and stubble, built in by bad workmen, or positive corruption, is the body of Christ, is a very monstrous thing; nor is the house the same thing as the body. There is no recognition of a finished salvation, and that I am in Christ, and for ever, and united to Him by the Holy Ghost.

The failure of the outward professing church is a positive declaration of scripture, and that perilous times would come in the last days. And we are referred to scripture as the only sure guide in those days; 2 Tim. 3.

A reply to defence of the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration by the Bishop of Ossory, Leighlin, and Ferns.

J. N. Darby.

<20019E> 270

Preface

It is with sorrow and regret I publish the following paper; I do it in no hostility to any one. These are not the times for it; they are too solemn for party controversy, but they are the times for the truth - times in which every Christian is bound according to his measure to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. I have not discussed at all the system with which the fatal error I do discuss is connected; I thought it more for the good of souls to confine myself to one plain point. I appeal to every conscientious Christian to say where the truth is. The subject would admit of large development, but I prefer abstaining from it. I add my name as more open and as shewing confidence in those who are more immediately concerned - confidence in their love of the truth for the truth's sake. I trust Dr. O'Brien will be assured that there is no thought of unkind feeling towards himself or any one. He cannot be surprised that truth on so important a point should be discussed: that concerns not only him, but the whole church of God.

May the Lord only bless this brief testimony to the hearts of those to whom it may come,

From their faithful servant in Christ,

J. N. Darby.

------------------

It is a sorrowful thing to see the Protestantism of the country frittered away, and by those who should maintain it; and the only use made of the authority which is in the hands of such as should be its natural leaders (perhaps I should say the influence, for authority they seem to have none) that of damping the energy of what life there is, and suppressing that which the love of the truth would arouse in some. Popish doings they tolerate and screen, Protestant truth - and I mean by this the truth drawn from scripture by what is called Protestantism, what gives it an evangelical character - this they discountenance and suppress. Positive truth of their own they have none. That gives energy and would tell itself out. Error is become impudent and boisterous and even threatening. The only object of ecclesiastical leaders is to keep things together, and hence the energy of truth must be suppressed if possible.

271 The only effect of their weakness, of the whole course they have pursued, is to discourage God's truth and give time and opportunity to error to penetrate and gain the upper hand. People wait for them to uphold the truth and check mischief, but truth they have none, and hence they are little concerned at its loss. Mischief for them would only be the outward system that gives them their importance being touched. The right feeling which accompanies truth is in general disposed to respect authority, and they avail themselves of this to keep it down and help error. But let them be assured of this, that they are pursuing a dangerous and ruinous course. If they go on much longer popery will supplant them - and why should it not if they favour its principles? - and those who love the truth will follow it, and they will have nothing to keep together. They will be nowhere. In a war of antagonistic principles the man who seeks to temporise, while proving he has no principle of his own, and loves no truth, will disappear and leave only the memory of his own folly.

Remember, prelates of England and Ireland, if you are not Protestant, what are you? Popery will easily supply your places. Your only force is the truth. They as a system have infinitely more force than you - more force over civil government. They do not want the truth, they want power; you, Irish prelates, are sacrificing what gave vital energy to a minority to keep the support of the English hierarchy, which is at its wits end to know what to do. And Ireland is to be sacrificed to this folly. I ask every honest heart if, in the measure in which elevation in the hierarchy exists from an archdeacon to the Pope, truth is not proportionately lost, and if he can shew me an instance in which one promoted in it has honestly maintained the truth he held boldly before his promotion.

I turn to the publication which has led me to write these words - more sad than bitter - not because of what is in the tract I am commenting on, but as leading me to speak of what is going on. Dr. O'Brien was for a good while decidedly opposed to baptismal regeneration. We can understand the blinding influence of education in a system, when the word of God through traditional teaching has not its full power. Many excellent men have accepted the saying that a child was regenerate by the Holy Ghost when they did not believe it, being decidedly opposed to baptismal regeneration. But Dr. O'Brien is now convinced of it and gives us a plea for it, he tells us, from the Bible, and the Bible alone. He is as a prelate a convert to what he rejected as a simple Christian. I might be tempted to tear to pieces his pamphlet, of which the weakness stares one in the face; but I restrain myself. The times are too serious, and the author is pious and aged. I will point out calmly its fallacies.

272 That a man who believes in what is in the Prayer-book as it is should justify this unscriptural notion is natural; it runs through the book. In the miserable Catechism, in which there is not one word of divine truth and abundance of error, it is carefully instilled into the young. Dean Nowell's catechism, if I might not agree with all, still had much divine truth in it. Saving truth this has none. But in a plea from the Bible and the Bible alone, this argument from what is in the Prayer-book will not do, still less when the object of the tract is to produce an effect in a revision of the Prayer-book because these things are in it. We lawyers used to say, "allegatio ejusdem rei cujus dissolutio petitur nil valet."

But Dr. O'Brien produces at the very utmost two passages of scripture. One affords him no proof whatever unless upon the authority of the "ancients" - an interpretation of the Fathers, who, if any ever did, darken counsel by words without knowledge, of whom the great body previous to Nice were unsound on the deity of Christ, let men plead what they will; not one of whom believe really* in justification by faith; who exalted ceremonies at the expense of truth, and sanctioned immorality and superstition to win over the Pagans, putting deliberately the saints instead of the gods and demigods; and cultivated an asceticism which, in affectation of purity, pursued practices which called from shame at last repeated reprehension. Dr. O'Brien avowedly in the book rests his argument on these authorities. "From the Bible alone," is on the title-page alone.

{*One or two use the term, but it is not Paul's doctrine.}

In the only other passage Dr. O'Brien must know very well that the word 'regeneration' does not mean in scripture being born again at all; and the passage proves it. It is used but twice, and does not mean being born again.

273 Further, all his argument outside scripture is based on using a word as equivalent to another, or to a phrase which means a totally different thing, and where the whole force of his argument depends on their meaning the same; or again, on the grossest begging of the question on the very point in hand by the use of unscriptural words. As to any positive truth, you must not expect it. A teacher with authority must not commit himself to truth.

Dr. O'Brien assumes a multitude of principles which may embarrass others who accept tradition, but which I should formally deny. He copies the style of Butler, which calculates the possibilities of facts and the probabilities of truth from evidence, and investigates with much power of analysis, how far a proof goes, and what may be, though some apparent denial of what is alleged to be truth may exist; but there is no positive truth. To see how far this may lead I will only say that Butler says there must be what scripture calls sin (Butler 'propensions') in heaven, or that there could not be happiness; on the Aristotelian principle that for happiness there must be habits of virtue, for virtue conflict, consequently propensions to overcome. Such is theology.

But I must prove my statements as to Dr. O'Brien. First, the change of terms on which the whole argument depends, and the petitio principii involving the whole question. "All who believe baptism to be a sacrament must believe that what is outward and visible is connected with something inward and invisible, that what is material is connected with something spiritual - not merely as an outward, but as an effectual sign thereof: that is, a sign by which, or through which, as the channel or means or instrument (whether sole or concurrent) these inward or spiritual effects are wrought." Why so? Because that is the definition of a sacrament (which is not a scriptural word) given in the system which is attacked as false. A sacrament, in the catechism which teaches baptismal regeneration so called, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us as a means whereby we receive the same. Of course, if a sacrament confers the grace of which it is a sign, so that it is an effectual sign,* it does confer it. If I call it a sacrament (and a sacrament means conferring the grace and I must add, if this be the grace signified), the grace is conferred.

{*Its being a sign of being born again is assumed into the bargain. It is not so in scripture.}

274 But this is the whole question. Dr. O'Brien takes the definition of the word given by the impugned system, and then shews that the definition involves the system. Of course it does. But that is exactly the point in question; the adversaries of the erroneous system deny that the grace is conferred in the rite, and Dr. O'Brien, bringing in the word sacrament (which has no warrant in scripture) and the definition given of it by his system, cannot prove anything but that his system holds it. It is too gross a case of begging the question to pass current for a moment. It is the very thing denied which his definition of a sacrament involves if we call it sacrament. Of course, if I accept his word and definition, I must accept the conclusion, for it states it: that is, he states what is denied as a proof that it is true. His arguments amount to the use of an unscriptural word as the name of the rite, and a traditional definition giving a sense which the word itself never had which false definition is a statement of the doctrine denied.

Why not give a scriptural declaration of what the rite means? But after all, though all depends on this attempt to blind our eyes by the habit of calling it a sacrament, Dr. O'Brien gives this up too. He is content to accept, though he does not agree with, what upsets it altogether. He would not detract from this view (p. 21). But the change of idea in this other view is total: "For they would have thus secured to them by covenant a right to the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, with all His gracious influences." But a sign conferring a spiritual blessing, nothing less than the communication of divine life, is a totally different thing from securing a right to advantages which I may utterly neglect after all. Nor indeed is the new birth among the things we have a right to in Dr. O'Brien's list. Only, remark in all this, the Bible and the Bible alone is simply and wholly forgotten. Next we get (P. 22), "Grace or graces, like mental qualities in a natural man, as substitutes for being born again," which drops the question of giving life.

But Dr. O'Brien does quote John 3. He says (p. 24), "It is impossible to doubt that born of water and of the Spirit is to be understood of baptism," etc. Well, if so, we must of course admit people are born again in baptism; but even so, not by it of the Spirit. But this is just the question. Does it apply to baptism? and not only so; but to use it to the end Dr. O'Brien purposes we must prove that being born of water and of the Spirit means being born of the Spirit by means of water (p. 37), for this is Dr. O'Brien's and the Catechism's theory.

275 Now, why is it "impossible to doubt it"? First, it is thus "our church" interprets the words. Very likely, but the objection is to the church's teaching it. It is not a proof from the Bible alone, or the Bible at all. It is the rightness of the church's so teaching which is controverted. What further proof then? Hooker expressly declares that of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise expound or allege the place than as implying external baptism. Now if it be merely implied, I should not much object; the point is, does it speak of it? But if so, what is this proof? The Fathers so speak, who by this reverend term are made to palm on us a mass of heresy and nonsense that no Christian of any sense would have on his table in English. "But if this be the case," says Dr. O'Brien, "we appear to be fully warranted in stating we have the Lord's own authority for assuming that it is in baptism that the new birth takes place." If what "be the case"? If we have the authority of our church and the ancients implying it? How is that the Lord's own authority? You have our church, and the ancients for saying it means it; but nothing more whatever.

The argument of the writer is this: all the ancients say that the passage implies baptism; therefore we must conclude that we have the Lord's own authority for assuming that it is in baptism that the new birth takes place! How what the ancients say gives the Lord's own authority is hard to tell - the ancients who have not one word of solid truth, and are full of error and folly, who corrupted the church by Platonism, as every one who has reach church history knows, even to the obliterating the divinity of Christ.

We forget that the apostle assures us that in his time all sought their own, that after his decease perverse men would arise; another, that there were many antichrists; another, that those had arisen who were to be judged at the coming of the Lord; another, that the time was come for judgment to begin at the house of God. The Christian is warned by one to abide in what he had heard from the beginning; by another, that one must know from whom one had learned anything, and that the scriptures were the security of the saint in the perilous times. Another was obliged to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; another warns, there should be false teachers and many follow their pernicious ways; and again, Paul, that there were many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, men who subvert whole houses, that the time would come when they would not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts heap to themselves teachers. What security does this afford me? The word of God does. I know of whom I have learned in learning of Paul, and John, and Peter, and that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God.

276 But who is Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, Tertullian, or Hermas, or any of these, to enable me to say, I have the Lord's authority? Men who have really led the way in gross error of doctrine, and wild speculation, false principles, and (I add) immorality. Is this the Bible and the Bible alone? The world, the Indian held, was on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, and the tortoise on what? The plea from the Bible and the Bible alone has landed us on what the ancients say, if Hooker be right.

But a word on what scripture does say: water cleanses, we all understand. We read, "Ye are clean through the word I have spoken unto you," "sanctifying and cleansing it by the washing of water by the word." And Christ, washing by the water He had poured into the basin, says to the disciples, "He that is washed [bathed] needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." Now none of these passages apply to baptism: in most they had not been baptized; as indeed, as to the first disciples, there is not the smallest hint that they ever were - they were to receive, not be received: who should have received them?

Hence too, when the Lord speaks of what livingly subsists as born, He says only "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and speaks no longer of water. Water cleanses what is, life begins when one is born. And if we give heed to the Lord's words, who tells Nicodemus that as a master in Israel he should have known these things, we cannot doubt that the Lord alludes especially to Ezekiel 36: 24-27: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," etc. That is to say, there is a moral practical cleansing, typified by the word 'water,' and a new life given by the operation of the Spirit of God. No one could say that which is born of water is water; it has no sense. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit; it is the communication of life, like in its nature to its source; but that we are born of the Spirit by the means of the water, there is not the slightest hint of. And even "our church" has sense enough to see this when it has its eyes open: "Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin." Hence the scripture speaks of baptism as being for death, not life; as in Romans 6, Colossians 2, where at the utmost you make speak of resurrection being involved in it, after the death, unto the likeness of which we have been planted, through the faith of the operation of God who raised Him from the dead. Hence, if we take baptism as a figure, it is as, to the water, a figure of death - Christ's death; being born of the Spirit, a communication of new life.

277 And here I may quote the only other passage which Dr. O'Brien quotes in pleading from the Bible and the Bible alone, "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." I have already said that the word is not used for the new birth; it is only used once again in Matthew 19, for the new order of things which Christ shall inaugurate, commonly called the millennium. Hence the word as scripturally used I have no objection to apply to baptism as a figure of true cleansing, but note it is here, as in John 3, in this sense carefully distinguished from renewing of the Holy Ghost. There are two things - a washing, water or laver, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. There is no pretence in form more than in doctrine to say born of the Spirit by, or through, or by means of, the water. It is a pure invention of corrupted Christianity.

Take Peter again. "The like figure (antitupon) whereunto baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not a word of being born. It is planting in the likeness of His death, not being born of the Spirit. That comes in with an "and," or alone and apart. The doctrine in baptism is death, death to sin as Christ died to sin, to whose death we are baptized. If Dr. O'Brien will take it as effectual, he must say we are actually "saved" (so says Peter) and dead to sin, one word of which he does not allude to nor believe. It is not infantine undeveloped grace, as he would make us believe by analogy, but absolute death to sin, as indeed the service declares, and actual salvation. He that is dead is freed (justified) from sin - cannot be charged with it.

278 If it be merely said that John 3 teaches truths which baptism symbolizes, provided "and of the Spirit" be kept as a distinct thing as scripture always does keep it, I have nothing to object; as John 6 teaches truth which the Lord's supper symbolizes, but what is totally and utterly untrue, if applied to the Lord's supper itself. If John 6 apply to the supper itself, every one who partakes of it not only has eternal life now but is eternally saved: "whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The whole application of either to "sacraments" is a delusion, though the sacraments may allude to the truths taught.

But I have another question to ask Dr. O'Brien. He tells us (p. 25) that baptism is administered to the penitent and believing adult. Now we read in scripture that we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. One who has repented and believed is most certainly born of God. I am aware that it is prayed that they may be born again, but this only shews the gross confusion which arises from this false doctrine. Were it only that adults or children were formally admitted by Christ's institution into the place where all God's ordered privileges and blessings were, I should have nothing to say. If the word 'regeneration' were employed in its scriptural sense (though modern use would make it dangerously equivocal) one might have nothing to say; but in a statement quite unscriptural, asking they may receive the Holy Ghost that they may be born again (which is never true, for it was after being baptized for the remission of sins they were to receive it, Acts 2), and with this additional error, it is asked that they may be thus born again after having repented, and believed. And to confirm and increase the error, it is taught in the Catechism that they are not only made children of God (ascribed to faith in Galatians) but members of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom - another blunder, for we are in it. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, and in every case in scripture the Spirit was given apart from baptism: the apostles, those Peter spoke to, the Samaritans, Cornelius, and the twelve men in Acts 19.

279 Further, the writer rests all his argument on infant baptism being a divine institution. He admits that it would have no force if it were not (p. 25), and this last solely on the fact that Jewish habits of thought would so require. He leaves out the passages Paedobaptists use, such as Matthew 28, 1 Corinthians 7: 14, relegates into more than doubt historical testimony, denies the validity of other passages they claim as proofs, and rests all on no one scripture, but the contrary (p. 11). He rests all on his own conclusion that with a Jew it must have been forbidden not to be practised. This, which has been often alleged to confirm the Paedobaptist view, stands alone with Dr. O'Brien. Scripture he has none, save to deny its application and from "this foundation being now," he says, "as I hope, securely laid," he goes on to prove we are born again in it. And this is a plea from the Bible alone! It is impossible to conceive anything weaker. Many things are assumed, but I do not dwell on them, such as the Christian covenant, the new covenant being made with us, all which is unscriptural (though we get the spiritual blessings of it); yet really all his argument is founded on this traditional error. But if Christianity were the new covenant, which it is not, the Holy Ghost is the seal of faith now as circumcision was then. Matthew 28 was never carried out. The mission to the Gentiles was given up to Paul explicitly (Gal. 2) who was not sent to baptize, and the mission in Matthew was from resurrection, not ascension, and did not apply to Jews but to Gentiles only - was not to every creature as Dr. O'Brien says, but only to Gentiles. But all this would lead me too far.

Dr. O'Brien could not have read, or has forgotten, Luther's longer catechism, when he laboriously discusses the connection of baptism and justification by faith, puts the objection to his view of baptism, because he had taught men were so justified, and answers it by its being faith in the word used in baptism. Water could not produce so great an effect, but water with the word! To such shifts does error reduce great men. It is a curious effect of this baptismal system where universal, that the forgiveness of sins, when received as the full privilege of the Christian state and standing, takes place when people have committed none at all. Those that are committed men must receive occasional forgiveness for, as Jews did for theirs. The whole of Hebrews 9, 10, is despised, the "once for all is denied in toto, the peace given by atonement (left as the heirloom of the Christian by Christ at the cost of His precious blood) is abrogated. It is a base, vile system.

280 But further, Dr. O'Brien speaks of election as a mysterious doctrine, and would seem to leave it in suspense. But the baptismal system denies all its reality: men are spiritually really born again and perish after all; alive in Christ, they perish; forgiven their sins, they are damned for them. It is not leaving it in the shade, it is openly denying the positive declarations of Christ and the scripture. Either the baptized child does not receive life, or he perishes when he has received it in many cases, and it is uncertain in all. Either he is not forgiven, or he is condemned after he is. What kind of gospel is this? Take the seventeenth article, if I am to speak to Episcopalians, where the doctrine is clearly stated in human language for them; and what will they make of the ruin of those who have received eternal life and forgiveness? If it be not eternal life, what life is it? The truth is, the system makes every truth uncertain. It takes up blessings scripture speaks of in blessed truth, and connects them with superstitious error, and truth has ceased to be truth then, and those who have received divine life perish. Those who have not committed sins are forgiven, and those who are forgiven are damned. And the plea for it is drawn from the Bible and the Bible alone! Dr. O'Brien wisely left out that part of his title when he came to the body of his book. I cannot but regret that Dr. O'Brien should have intimated that the doctrine of the Trinity is about as uncertain as infant baptism. I have not a thought here of calling infant baptism into doubt; but I should own in the fullest way the most narrow Baptist as perhaps a better Christian than myself, though I might regret his narrowness. But one who denied the Trinity I could not own at all; and I think it is unhappy to bring what is of faith on a level with the uncertain grounds of a pamphlet such as I am observing on. It presents us two propositions: one, that infant baptism is a divine institution; the other, that the new birth spoken of by the Lord takes place in baptism, for the proof of which Dr. O'Brien has assuredly brought no certain warrant of scripture at all, but the natural feeling of Jewish minds - a reasonable ground of persuasion it may be - and the opinion of the ancients, which proves worse than nothing. But what can we expect when a system takes precedence of the truth, and the truth is given up for it? Many things I should have to remark on; but my object is the main question. I only notice one, that it is - no, we must not expect "it is" as to any truth - "it seems to be (p. 34) the appointment of Christ for His universal church, the tares and wheat are growing up together." I do not argue the question, but this passage in Matthew never speaks of the church at all. Matthew 16 speaks of the church; chapter 13 of the kingdom of heaven. And the Lord's explanation of this parable expressly says, "the field is the world." There it is they were to grow together. The world is not the church.

281 There is one thing I think striking, as the effect of this balancing of arguments instead of believing the word of God. Not one single doctrine or truth is held as a divine certainty. As to what is spiritual life or the operation of the Spirit, or in what does its beginning consist, we are told the reformed teachers could not have found in scripture the means of making precise statements. Where is the testimony of God? where the pillar and ground of the truth?

I would but add, as regards forgiveness in baptism, this much: the Homilies of the Anglican body declare that that only is a sacrament in which the forgiveness of sins is annexed and tied to the visible sign; the full-grown Puseyite, that the forgiveness of sins after baptism (when there are none to forgive) is next to impossible - may be had by severe penance perhaps; the moderate Puseyite or full Anglican, that they receive it on taking the sacrament, and remain between each occasion unforgiven. What absolution may do, I do not say! This is Judaism, in contrast with Hebrews 9 and 10 where the subject is fully treated.

In reply to some questions on the Lord's Supper.

Extract from a letter,

J. N. Darby.

<20020E> 282

I believe that the bread remains simply and absolutely bread, and the wine, wine - that, physically, there is no change whatever in the elements. To seek for material and physical things in such a precious institution of the Lord is, to my mind, a poor and miserable manner of regarding it. I have a charming portrait of my mother, which reminds me of her just as she was. If I am told of the canvas or the colouring, I should feel that those who spoke thus knew nothing about it. That would not be my mother. That which is precious in it to me is my mother herself; and they turn my attention from her to the means employed to recall her to me; and the reason is, that they have no idea of what my mother is to me. The portrait has no value except as far as it is a good representation of her who is not there. I say, it is my mother. I could not throw it aside as a mere piece of canvas; I discern my mother in it; I cherish this portrait; I carry it with me; but if I stop at the perfection of the painting as a work of art, the link with my heart is lost.

There is more than this in the supper of our Lord, because the Lord is really present with us in it, by the Spirit, according to the intention of the institution; and this is very precious. But it has pleased Him to give us a physical means by which we may be reminded of Him, so that I am authorized to speak of a portrait by way of comparison. I have still further authority to repel the idea of any physical change in the bread and wine, in that the Lord has said, in John 6, which you have quoted, "The Spirit quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."

The verses of this chapter, however, which speak of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, do not speak at all of the Lord's supper, but of Christ: I am (I do not say persuaded, but) sure of this. The supper speaks of that of which the chapter speaks; but the chapter does not speak of the supper - the symbol, but of the thing symbolized. This is perfectly evident: one has only to read the chapter to see it. If the application that has been made of it to the supper be correct, then not one of those who have partaken of it would be lost, and he who had not partaken of it would be lost, whatever he might be; and those who participate of it would not only be blessed, but they would be eternally saved. (See v. 53, 54.) Further, the Saviour says that it is of Himself, come down from heaven, that He speaks (not of the supper) - of the same person who will ascend up where He was before in heaven (v. 35 - 41, 48, 51, 58 - 62).

283 The supper presents Christ in only one of these conditions but in that which is, so to speak, central: it presents us a dead Christ; but this foundation of all this precious truth, which could be a motive even for the Father Himself to love Christ - this fact, that it is a dead Christ which is presented to us, is the proof that we could not have a living Christ presented to us in the elements. This would be to deny the state of death, and to destroy the object and intention of this institution. This institution presents to us the death of Christ - a dead Christ - His body broken and His blood shed; but there exists no dead Christ. He desires that we should remember Him: "Do this in remembrance of me"; but I do not speak of the remembrance of Christ living in heaven. I live by Him; He is my life; I enjoy communion with Him; I dwell in Him; He dwells in me: there is no separation. If, through my folly, communion is interrupted, it is no question of remembering Him, but of being with Him anew - with a Saviour who manifests Himself to us as He does not to the world.

And see where these poor Roman Catholics (and I love them much) have been brought, by their material explanation of this precious institution. They wish it should be taken according to the letter ("the letter killeth"); so they take away, in the literal sense, the blood; they do not drink the cup. And this is very important, because the fact that the blood is out of the body is the sign of death - of the efficacious work of Christ; we are reconciled, justified by the blood. In order to compensate for this loss, they teach that the body, soul, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ are in [each of] the two kinds. Now, if the blood is in the body, there is no redemption. Without their knowing it, their sacrament is a sacrament of the non-accomplishment of redemption. Such is the effect of materializing this institution. There is no greater proof of the manner in which Satan sports with men, when they leave the Spirit for the flesh, than this fact, which is the centre of the Roman Catholic system. I affirm positively that their Eucharist is a sacrament, not of redemption, but of non-redemption. If you tell me that many among them think of the Saviour - of the efficacy of His death - I rejoice to believe it; but for this they must quit the materialism of their system for the thoughts of faith. They think then of the blood shed, and they drink it; they think of a Saviour dead, and a body given, and they really eat His flesh. Satan has not in this case - blessed be God! - been able to hide from their faith that which is denied in the form to which they attach so much value.

284 It is the same thing in John 6 as in John 3, where we are said to be born of water. If that is applied to baptism, then we are born of God by the water. It is the same system everywhere - a system which the enemy has introduced into the church to destroy the necessity and the power of a real work in the heart, and to reduce Christianity to the level of Judaism - that is to say, to a religion of forms; adding to these forms a pretension, which is not found even in Judaism, to confer on man that which Christianity alone gives him. Baptism, they say, procures for us that of which John 3 speaks, whereas it is said in John 15 we are cleansed by the word; Ephesians 5: 26, "the washing of water by the word," which reveals the Word living, dead, and raised again for us.

Now do we by this diminish the importance or the sweetness of this institution? Quite the contrary; we hinder the materializing it, and we insist that the spiritual realization or that which it represents be in the heart, instead of that which is called an opus operatum, which is purely material. We are united to a Christ glorified; this is the point of departure. There is no longer a dead Christ; death has no more dominion over Him. I enjoy communion with a glorified Christ; I am one with Him; I shall be like Him. I rejoice; my heart is full of love at the thought of seeing Him, at the hope of the glory of waking up in His likeness. Shall I therefore forget His death and His sufferings? God forbid! It is precisely this which unites us to Christ by the most tender affections. There where He had to suffer and to do everything, He was alone: my heart, at least, will be with Him. He does not ask me to be one with Him there; I could not have been. There He was willing to be alone - blessed be His name! - and He has accomplished all. But the heart which would give itself for me there is the same which thinks of me now, and which loves me. In remembering His death, His love, His suffering, what shall I say? - divine though human! I am united in heart with Him there, where He is - on high; it is not another person, another love. Whether in the supper, where we remember Him in such a peculiar and touching way, or whether at other moments, when I think of His death, when I eat Him as dying for me, I am in communion with Him living, and I realise the love of Him who lives - that same love, that same heart of the Saviour: I dwell in Him, and He in me. It is not said exactly, "Do this in remembrance" of my death, but "of me." Still we remember Him on the earth, in His incarnation, in His life of humiliation, and finally and specially as dead on the cross. I remember Him! - not Him in the heavens, but Him who lives in heaven as once humbled and dead for me. There is also a certain action of the heart - we eat. In John 5 the Son of God quickens whom He will: here we eat the bread come down from heaven; yea, we eat His body, and we drink His blood.

285 It is most important to understand that it is a dead Christ, who in this state exists no longer, because we cannot have any relation with a Christ living on the earth. If even as Jews we had had this relation, we should have been obliged to say with Paul, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." Death has put an end to all the relations of Christ with the world, according to the flesh, and He lives now as Head of a new race - the second Man.

Thus, then, in John 6: 53, the Lord lays down, as a necessary condition of life, the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood - receiving Him in His death. Hence we remember Him before His resurrection; we are united to Him as living after His resurrection; as He has said, "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Thus our union is with a Christ glorified; we do not know Him otherwise: but the most powerful spring of affection for the heart is a Christ - man in the world, and a Christ dead. I am nourished by this; I eat it, and I live by this; but if we wish to bring back, so to speak, a Christ such as He has been in this world as present, we overthrow entirely the intention of this institution and even Christianity itself. Every time that we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lord's death till He come; but if we will introduce a living Christ to animate this dead one, so to speak, we destroy Him.

286 Why then is it said, "They discern not the [Lord's] body"? What body? His dead body. A perfect love, His accomplished work, an obedience which was arrested by no difficulty, presents itself to our eyes! Is there anything else there but a dead body? . . . If so, I know not where I am, nor what the supper means. Do not animate it with the life that Christ had before death: His obedience was not yet finished, nor His work accomplished, nor His love perfectly demonstrated. Do not animate it with the life of a Christ now risen. You take Him from me as dead; death is no more there - death which is the basis of salvation, the proof of obedience, the glorification of God. Take not from me this death, this body given, this blood for ever shed, which tells me that all is accomplished, and - through the love of my Saviour - that sin is put away for ever. If you can lead me to grasp yet more firmly what is precious in this dead Saviour, in the death of Him who is the eternal Son of God; if you can make me eat Him with more faith, more spirituality, more divine intelligence, more heart; ah! I shall be very grateful to you; but let it be my dead Saviour that is left to me! When one is in communion with Him living, there is nothing so precious as His death: yes, precious even to God. "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again." For my spiritual intelligence it is the end of, or rather the proof and the consciousness that I have done with, the first Adam; that the first creation no longer exists - blessed be God! - for faith; for the heart it is the tender and perfect love of the Saviour. I am no more either Jew or Gentile, or a man living on the earth; I am a Christian. The death of Christ, Head of all, has put an end to the first creation. He has introduced us into the new creation as first-fruits united to Him.

I discern then the body of the Lord, but the body of the Lord given - His blood shed - His death! It is not an ordinary repast, a simple remembrance, if you will, but an institution that Christ has given to His own; not that they may find in the elements anything else than the bread and the fruit of the vine, but that their faith may in the sweetest way, by the power of the Holy Spirit, nourish itself by Jesus, by that which He has been for them when He died upon the cross - a work of which the efficacy remains eternally, even to the Father's eye, but of which the love is all for us. If I treat this memorial with lightness, I am guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, for it is that body and blood which are presented to me in it.

287 I doubt if there is any one in the world who enjoys the Lord's supper more than I do (though I doubt not that there is with many more piety); but that which makes me enjoy it is that it presents to me the body and blood of my Saviour dead, and consequently a perfect love and a perfect work. But He cannot be in His dead body which I discern there by faith. He is in me, that I may enjoy Him; if He is introduced living, that which I ought to discern no longer exists. All this is in connection with the fact of the entirely new position of the living Christ - a doctrine which Paul presents to us with such divine energy, and which the enemy has always sought to hide, even under the forms of piety, and for the preservation of which Paul has so struggled. What anguish he suffered from the efforts of the enemy to draw souls back to Judaism, as if they were still living in the world! "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God!"

May God give us to discern yet more the body of Jesus - to eat His flesh and to realize His death more! Yes! this death is precious. It meets us in our need just as we are, and it delivers us from it by introducing us there, where He is, in the power of a new life which by His death knows not the old.

I have written you at much length. I could willingly enlarge on this subject for, instead of thinking lightly of the supper of the Lord, it is of all institutions the most precious to me; only to be so it must be a dead Saviour that is presented to me in it. I am living with Him now in heaven.

There is another aspect - the unity of the body - which I have not touched on, though it be a precious side of the truth of this institution of the Lord; but it is outside your question. I hope you may, at least, apprehend the ground of my thought, though I write in great haste.

Disendowment - Disestablishment:

A word to the Protestants of Ireland, in a letter to the Ven. Archdeacon Stopford

J. N. Darby.

<20021E> 288

Barbados, February 20, 1869.

Dear Mr Archdeacon,

I regret the marks of discouragement which are in your letter. It is not the time for it. That we are in full revolution everyone sees, and the vain and weak tool of it, Mr. Gladstone, knows no more where he is leading the country than the princes of Zoan, when God took away the boasted wisdom of Egypt. But there is One whose power is above all revolutions, and who turns the hearts of men what way He will.

I belong to no external church; I own that only which Christ builds. I am, as we are all, responsible for the ruined state of what God set up at the beginning, and I profit by the privileges scripture affords for the state we are in. I look to the effect on the country of the measure which is before us all. It is very likely the measure of disendowment may succeed: but that is far better than compromise with popery. I left the Establishment more than forty years ago, because I did not think it the church of God. I am confirmed in that conviction; but I am not going to cast an Edomite stone at it in the day of its calamity, but the contrary. Jeremiah could testify against Jerusalem, be an iron pillar against the whole land, and weep over her calamities with unfeigned sorrow. Without being a prophet, I may judge the evil, and mourn, as I do, over your calamities. An Edomite was glad of the downfall of Jerusalem, because he hated the place and testimony. The prophet could judge the evil, and mourn the departure, and the judgment of God on the people that had failed. Be assured of my sympathy.

But to return. At the time I refer to, Roman Catholics were passing over to Protestantism many hundreds in the week. The Archbishop of Dublin insisted that the Protestant Establishment suited the State, made them take the oaths of abjuration and supremacy, and the work stopped. You are now reaping the fruit of that connection, and your dependence on civil power, when what rules the State is become semi-Papist or semi-infidel.

289 As to the Dissenters, they have forfeited their claim to be accounted a religious body. Political power they have attained in a considerable degree. The wealth and population of the towns have largely passed into their hands, and political power has passed in large excess into the hands of the towns. But they have sold the pass to the devil for political objects. As a religious body, I judge them extinct. They are drifting, to keep up with the spirit of the age, into infidelity, and are already, in the most servile way, pandering to infidels to gain their favour. They look to set aside the Protestant Establishment, having joined Papists and infidels for the purpose. When they find the height to which Popery will pretend, they will set themselves against it, but on infidel grounds. Indeed some, two or three years back, avowed this to me in conversation, that they would join the Roman Catholics in pulling down the Establishment and then fight it out with popery. But they have joined the latter and the infidels to begin with, and forfeited their title to be reckoned as standing on Christian ground. The word of God has lost its power over them. That is not - was not when I knew it - the case with the Protestants of Ireland. Let them trust God now. If disendowed and disestablished, let them be wholly, absolutely separate from the State - at all cost. If the State take everything from them, they will have taken no true power, but I believe, increased, if God be trusted, the power of the body as such. I am looking at their place in the country. Nobody will or can hold their place there. The Roman Catholic clergy are not and never will be gentlemen. I do not speak of this as a religious motive, but simply as a social fact. Their political influence may be increased, though it has been long paramount; but a moral, social, intellectual position, such as the Protestants', they never will - never can have. They must be servile and ecclesiastical. It is the power of their system, but it keeps them there. It is so in every country. Nor is it even otherwise with Dissenters. It is a common remark among themselves in England: the carriage of a man who has made his fortune is seen at the Dissenting chapel door, but, as a rule, that of his son never. No growth of democracy will change this. It is the case in the United States. The upper orders go to the Episcopalians, besides some poor. As a rule, the poor are never found in any churches in America (in Roman Catholic ones, they must go to get the sacraments). They have what are called mission-churches for them. But socially, what are called the respectable classes in towns are Episcopalians. It suits their taste and habits better, and as others advance in position, they gradually slip in there: though of course there are wealthy people elsewhere.

290 If the Protestants trust God, this will remain their position. Let them, because of the word of God, and in honouring it and what is called Protestantism, as owning it cordially, coalesce with the Presbyterians, as you have noticed they did in the best times under Bramhall.* I believe even politically - I speak as a looker-on, for I never meddle in politics in any way - that, entirely separated from the State, they will have more political power than now. At the heels of a Conservative minister levelling-up popery, or receiving heavy blows and discouragement from a Liberal minister, they had no voice or influence of their own; if they are independent and hold together as such, they will. Only be yourselves, and trust God. Have done with the State and reject it, making no terms for a little money and much subjection; if you do, you are lost. There is wealth enough to carry on your needed plans if they take everything. See America; see the Free Presbyterians of Scotland. And surely England would largely help. If trust in God is there, money will not be wanting. Only be independent of a semi-infidel semi-popish State. If this measure leads to the rising up of Roman Catholics against connection with England, as is possible if it suits them, and the voice of the people is to govern (the power of the crown is too much weakened to be a bond), you will be no worse off than before. The influence will be American or French, and you as free or freer than before. England will be dependent on France when she has a separated Ireland at her side, and then, "See to your own house, David."

{*Originally all such Protestant bodies were owned, and it is said by your best liturgists that the form of the article was worded on purpose to own them.}

The hand of God is upon you in chastisement. Bow to it, but turn to Him. Trust Him. You have leaned on Pharaoh, that broken reed: it has pierced your hand. Acknowledge your failures, and God will be with you. Care for the poor; they are often more true to their convictions than many of the rich. Seek them out when they are scattered. I do not belong to your system, and could not. The power of popery and infidelity I have expected more than forty years to be thus rampant. It is this aspect of it which makes me speak. No mere political measure would open my mouth. But we are in the last days, and it is well to notice the working of the power of evil, and where the refuge is. Forty years ago I was overwhelmed with the prospect of the dominancy of popery and accompanying infidelity. Now one can look out of it, sorrowful as it is, to a brighter hope beyond. But the question is there: Is the word of God paramount, having direct authority from God over every Christian; or is the church so-called, above it and to accredit it, and to rule over men's consciences in a way superior to the direct authority of the word? That is the question. Has God's word direct authority over the conscience of man, or has man, calling himself the church, control over it and his conscience?

291 This is not the place to speak of what I may think in the Establishment inconsistent with the word. But it was (in the main external character of its testimony in Ireland) the maintainer of the authority of the word of God against the church claims of men, of which the priests were the representatives. If you hold this ground, God will be with you in spite of defects. If not, the priests will do apostate church-work more thoroughly, and Christians must take their own place by the word under Christ - you will have none. My own path is in peace, far from all these things. But I feel for many an honest and perhaps troubled heart, as a Christian looking on at what is passing. My portion is out of this world. We have, when all is shaken, a kingdom which cannot be moved.

I have ventured this testimony, believing we are in the last days, when the word of God is the revealed resource of faith; 2 Tim. 3.

Yours faithfully in the Lord,

J.N.D.

At this distance from Ireland much may have passed already of which I am ignorant; but this would not alter the principles of my letter.

Remarks on a book entitled, "Is Modern Christianity a Civilised Heathenism?"

J. N. Darby.

<20022E> 292

I recognize that this writing is calculated to produce serious thoughts; but it is as marking coming judgment. As a judgment of the state of things, the writer is sadly right; but he has not got a step beyond the conventionalities of the church of England. The testimony of Christianity is in its effects; but of Christianity itself he is wholly ignorant. His highest idea is asceticism, and fine Gothic buildings, when he comes to the positive side.

But if I take the precepts of Christianity, he lives not in them, but in his own natural thoughts. It is just as much a precept of Christianity - "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and shut to thy door," and that on the deepest moral ground, as to be separate from the world, not in a chancel with the door open. "The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." "They that worship God must worship in spirit and in truth." It is equally a precept, "when thou fastest, be not of a sad countenance, anoint thy head and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast." All this inward part of Christianity is gone; nay, the opposite is required to win the world to believe.

But there is more. We cannot too fully recognize that the friendship of the world is enmity against God; and he that will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God. We are crucified to the world and the world to us. But Christianity and consequently conscience and heart are both wanting. It is, humanly speaking, a just satire (though it is, say they, "an ill bird that fouls its own nest"); let us hope the end shews some conscience. But Christianity is not a satire; it is grace. See the difference: "For many walk of whom I told you before, and now tell you, even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, who glory in their shame, who mind earthly things. But our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for the Saviour."

The two great pillars of Christianity are wanting, John 3: 3, "Ye must be born again," and verse 16, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." There is no new inward life, no love of God.

293 The man, to use the strong Irish expression, is "to make his soul" by asceticism and praying in agony in a cathedral where anybody that likes may see him. No trace of love in God, no need of another and divinely given life in Christ - no trace of either is found in the book. This is so true, that it is not merely that the world hated Christ (which is most true, because He testified of it that the works thereof were evil - light came in so that all without exception were condemned); but he makes Christ hate the world! I read, "I beseech you therefore by the mercies of God, that ye yield your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your intelligent service; and be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." In this book the mercies of God are wholly unknown; nonconformity to the world is insisted on by the heathen mind and natural conscience; transformed by the renewing of your mind is wholly ignored. Now nonconformity to the world, without the other too, is the pharisaism he says the Saviour came to judge. The picture of highest good is being scorned by the world, like Christ. Good in God, or in Christ, never crosses his mind. It is imitation: I know what it is. Earnest men may try it, when they have no knowledge of God or redemption, and be driven, under grace, to know they need a Saviour. He has no idea but of one lying stretched at the foot of the cross, loving Him with a love all the world can see. God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, then making Him to be sin for us, he knows not at all. "He took upon Him human flesh that we might know for certain how human creatures ought to live, who died on the cross to win for us the power to imitate His brave contempt," etc.

But further his statement as to heathenism is false. See Romans 1, where the apostle only touches on the mountain tops of the evil, hiding justly in the dark shade what grew in baleful luxuriance beneath. He denies positively in terms the apostle's statement in Romans 1: 19, 20; and his argument as to a final cause is wholly illogical. We cannot help believing causation; that is, when we see an existing thing expressing a thought, we believe there must be one who has caused it. Consequently we cannot know God, because He exists without a cause. We know that He must be; but what makes us do so shews we cannot know Himself.

294 I need not say, the Christian is not of the world. As such, Christ is all to him; and all he does he is to do positively in the name of Christ. This only is to live; but it is because he is bought with a price, he knows and feels he is Christ's, and Christ is in him in the power of life.

The man has never lived with true Christians, any more than he knows a Saviour God. It is a sad and solemn picture; but he has known nothing beyond it. The infidel world can attack evil: with that he falls in, putting the right side in a heathen's mouth, ashamed to quote scripture himself. His statements as to this are quite untrue. "The Bible as a primary instructor tells me nothing about God whatever." "The Bible is of no use without an interpreter." And what is the result? Miserable labour to get heaven, and, instead of fox-hunting and society, he gives species of insects, the number of botanic genera, architecture, music, painting, poetry, which may be consecrated to Him, as stone buildings prove; and we must have good music (as well as distinguish a beetle from a cockroach) and an active life. Redemption, spirituality, and Christ being really all, and the real service of love, are alike unknown to him. Where these are really known, it may rouse careless souls; and that is well. I believe a Christian is to live Christ and nothing else. As to the scene this writer describes and is in, and the correctness of which, as a systematic whole, he assumes as a matter of course, the believer has learned already from scripture (2 Tim. 3), that "in the last days perilous times shall come, men shall be lovers of their own selves . . . having the form of godliness and denying the power of it: from such turn away."

The writer has with rude hand torn the veil from his own sphere of life, but has substituted nothing which supposes good in God, and labours through fear of hell to make peace, if he can at last, with a righteous Judge, glad to win heaven by suffering and despising the world like Christ. Mind and natural conscience have judged, as an infidel can, of inconsistency with profession, in conformity to a world which is enmity against God; but there is a total ignorance of God revealed in Christ, of redemption and Christianity. This is for him a "distinct revelation of God's will," but no revelation of God.

295 It is an Edomite's attack on Jerusalem, not a Jeremiah's sorrow; and he has not faith enough in Christ to know there is something behind and beyond all this. I only hope it may act on the consciences of some to shew them the utter incompatibility between Christianity and the world. But it will do this with those who know Christ's love. He would only make despair, monks, Pharisees, and hypocrites. He has no motive but winning heaven by labour, and a piety which shews itself to the world, and would honour God with a Jewish temple (which God has set aside), not with a Christian heart. A member of what he despises and reviles, he is much more infected with infidelity than he is aware of

What is the Unity of the Church?

J. N. Darby.

<20023E> 296

I should never have spoken of Mr. F.O.'s pamphlet if there had not been in it very decided principles upon some important points, and an object which all do not perceive. If it were only the desire to cast contempt upon his brethren which was manifested in it, nothing would be easier than to pass on. Every one can judge how far Mr. O. has profited by the light of brethren whom he is pleased to treat with a measure of contempt. I do not find the proceeding very noble; but if any one wishes to kick down the ladder by which he has mounted, it certainly is not worth the trouble of writing a pamphlet, however small, to point it out. Mr. O. tells us that he has gone on his way "groping." When we submit to what is found in the word, we do not grope: one does grope with the thoughts of men. With God's word we may still be ignorant on many points; but if we receive, and that joyfully, the yoke of the word, we do not grope.

Mr. O.'s object is to establish or direct independent assemblies and to justify laxity in discipline. He understands absolutely nothing as yet of the unity of the body. Practically his pamphlet is directed against that unity. Those are the only points that I shall take up, presenting what the word of God says of assemblies, and some fresh light that God has granted me. The latter is not of any great importance: but what His word says is always of interest to the Christian. It is a happy thing to know that, if we are grounded upon the word, the fresh light we receive never overthrows the old but completes and makes it clearer.

First, allow me to say that the assemblies of so-called "Plymouth Brethren," far from calling themselves the "assembly" or "the church of God" in a particular place, have always formally opposed the title. So little truth is there in the insinuation, that it is principally this which has hindered these brethren from forming part of the Rochat flock. They believe that they alone are assembled upon the true principle of the church of God, which I in no wise doubt: but they believe that the church is in ruins, and that the pretension to be the church of God in a place would be a false pretension. J add that, if all the Christians in a place were to be found gathered together which would form (according to order) the assembly of the place, I would not give it that title, because the universal church is not gathered; and I do not believe in independent churches. I believe that there were formerly local churches representing in a certain sense the whole in their localities; but we are very far from that now. All who have taken the trouble to inquire know, or might have known, that from the first the brethren in question have taken their stand upon the principle of Matthew 18 as a resource given of God in the general ruin. The pretension to be the assembly of God has always been rejected by the brethren we speak of. Every assembly gathered by the will of God around the Person of Jesus or in His name is an assembly of God, if it be only a question of the force of words; but when it is a question of being the assembly of God in a locality, it is not so in the true sense of the word, and could not be so, considering the state of the universal church. It may gather together on the principle of the church of God, may find the promised blessing, may be the only one gathered according to that principle in the place, and may attach immense importance to it (and it ought to attach immense importance to it, if it desire to be obedient and faithful); but it is only the witness for God so far as by its separate walk it testifies to the faithfulness of God, to the divine principles which govern its walk and to the true state in which the church is found as a whole. In this case it will be God's witness; certainly it ought to be so.

297 Mr. O. will have it that the totality of the churches, that is to say of the assemblies, constituted the church or the assembly. Not at all. Numerically speaking, it is not true. Many Christians were scattered here and there preaching the gospel, converted without being connected with a flock, like the treasurer of queen Candace, like Paul and Silvanus and Timothy and Titus in their labours. But, what is more important, the principle is entirely false, and the question which occupies us is altogether that. The assembly or the body was composed of individuals, and not of churches or of assemblies. Here are Mr. O.'s words in p. 11: "assemblies all united among themselves by one faith and one worship, and forming, in their totality, the church, the body of Christ upon the earth." There is no such idea in the word. The body had members. Now assemblies were not the members, but Christians individually were the members; and although the assemblies had the same faith and the same worship, it was not this principle which constituted the unity of the body, but the presence of the Holy Ghost which united all believers, Jews and Gentiles, in one and the same body.

298 1 Corinthians 12 makes the doctrine of the word of God perfectly clear with regard to this. The body of Christ on earth is composed of individuals and not of churches. Now if this be the case, there is unity only in the whole; there is none in any local assembly if it be detached from the whole as a whole. If it be regarded as an independent church, it has nothing to do with the body, it is not in principle an assembly of God. At the beginning of the first Epistle to the Corinthians it is said, "to the assembly of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Jesus Christ, saints by calling, with all those who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Thus the apostle could say, "Ye are the body of Christ." The assembly at Corinth represented at Corinth that one and only unity, that of all individuals united to Christ in one body by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Everything had a connection with the one body, composed of all the members of Christ. There was no action which did not relate to the whole body, no suffering of one member which was not felt by all the members of the body: 1 Corinthians 12 leaves no doubt upon this point. The gifts were exercised in this whole (1 Cor. 12: 27, 28). Their object was first the perfecting of individuals, then the edification of the body of Christ; Eph. 4: 12.

The object of this effort to make independent flocks is the desire of being independent, of doing their will without submitting to the discipline of the church as one body. Mr. O. says as much (p. 43). Each assembly being independent, united only by one faith and one worship (p. 11), is in a position to judge the disciplinary proceedings of another assembly (p. 43). The unity of the body therefore does not exist. An act is the act of an independent church; it has no reference whatever to the whole, and is not binding upon other assemblies or other Christians. Some one may be put out by one assembly and another assembly may receive the one who is put out. It is evident that this is disorder. The "within" and the "without" are not simply the church of God and the world. All that is lost. It is the "within" of a small voluntary and independent assembly which only exercises discipline in relation to itself. It is quite evident that the "within" and "without" of 1 Corinthians is not merely the "within" and "without" of a particular assembly, so that the wicked man could be without at Corinth and within at Ephesus. The Epistle carefully teaches the unity of the body on the earth and only recognizes the local act in that unity, a unity composed of individuals and not of churches. Look at the act of discipline in another point of view; and you will see the immense difference of the principles, and how this system of independent churches destroys the truth of scripture on this subject. What is the real power, the real source of authority, in discipline? The presence of Jesus: not simply that the discipline is the act of a voluntary society which excludes one of its members from its bosom, but that it is the act of an assembly according to God, assembled in the name of Jesus, and acting in His name and by His authority, to maintain the holiness which belongs to that name. Now the independent church is only a society which acts for itself: another assembly may judge all that it has done. There is no trace either of the unity or of the authority of the church of God.

299 Does it then follow that, if another assembly has acted hastily, a flock is bound hand and foot? In no wise. Just because the unity of the body is true and recognized, and that in a case of discipline the members of that body who gather together elsewhere take an interest in what passes in each place, they are free to make brotherly objections, or to suggest some scriptural motive; in a word, they are capable of all brotherly activity with regard to it. If it be an independent assembly, it is not concerned; there is nothing for it to look into. If these things are done in the unity of the body, every Christian is interested in what passes. It may happen that the discipline of an assembly cannot be owned; but then it is rejected as an assembly, and the presence of Jesus giving authority to its acts is denied - a very grave thing, but one that may occur. Mr. O. has entirely falsified the unity of the body, and wishes for independent churches and a unity of faith and worship, the aggregate of the churches forming according to him the unity of the body. The word of God knows nothing of this system. The reader may judge of it by reading 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 1 and other passages of the word.

But another object is proposed wherever this system of half-Plymouth-Brethrenism-half-Independency is adopted; for it is not in Switzerland only that this ground has been taken. They wish to be free to support the Bethesda discipline, or that of the neutrals, of those who condemn absolute exclusivism as Mr. O. calls it (p. 41) - an expression which I confess I do not understand. Every one is not excluded, I suppose. Some persons are excluded in Mr. O.'s independent churches. The assemblies of the so-called "Plymouth Brethren" also exclude some. The question is, if the limits that have been put to the exclusion are scriptural. The expression "absolute exclusivism" may serve to bring opprobrium upon assemblies with which one does not agree; it is nonsense. But we have rather more intelligible expressions: "disciplinary ways which go far beyond scripture" (p. 42); and again, "to combat such teaching, we do not excommunicate in large masses Christians who are ignorant of it." There can be no mistake. Mr. O. condemns the discipline of the assemblies called "Plymouth Brethren," and he wishes the discipline of Bethesda or of the neutrals. This is the object of his pamphlet and of the support which he gives to independent churches. I will not weary either my reader or myself with the history of this question; but the real point in question is of all gravity for the church of God. Can an assembly be corrupted? We had broken with what we had considered to be outrages and blasphemies against Christ. Up to that time there had not been any great difficulty - some painful things, but settled without much delay. But here we have an assembly which receives those whom we have excluded as blasphemers: could one walk with that assembly, taking the Lord's supper with these excommunicated people?

300 This is the first question. For my part I could not do so, and those who admitted them knowingly and willingly were not a "new lump," 1 Cor. 5. This raised the question: Is an assembly corrupted when knowingly and willingly it admits sin as blasphemy? Our adversaries maintained that an assembly could not be defiled; that individuals who are in sin are defiled, but that the assembly could not be so. They insisted upon this in several tracts. And not only so, but the principal brethren in a so-called neutral meeting signed a printed circular affirming that, if an assembly should admit fornication knowingly and willingly, we ought none the less to acknowledge that assembly and to receive letters of recommendation from it. We judged that, if an assembly (not taken by surprise, which may happen everywhere, or through carelessness, of which we are all capable, but) knowingly and willingly admits sin or blasphemy, it is not a new lump; that in order to be a new lump it must purge itself from the old leaven (1 Cor. 5: 7); and that in so doing the other members proved themselves pure in this matter (2 Cor. 7: 11): otherwise they would not have been so. This is the principle in question. Several went farther, maintaining that in no case does blasphemy or any kind of doctrine call for discipline.

301 The effects have been, to my mind, most fatal; but I limit myself to stating the question except that I will communicate the result in one case which may arouse Swiss consciences. The doctrine in question in the United States has not been that of Mr. N. but the denial of the immortality of the soul. There is a meeting at Philadelphia (and there are even two) on the neutral principle, which does not follow the so-called exaggerated discipline and which blames the severity of brethren. Those who hold the denial of the immortality of the soul were admitted to the meeting; afterwards the doctrine was taught there. We broke or rather refused all connection with these meetings. Those who blamed our severity were not willing to keep themselves thus separate, and now the principal instruments of the Swiss mission or of the Grand-Ligne deny the immortality of the soul. I hope all have not come to this - God knows.

I do not enter farther into details: it would be too painful and of but little use. It is certain that the lack of faithful discipline, the loose system extolled by Mr. O., the lack of absolute exclusivism in regard to what is false and evil, has led the Swiss mission into the doctrine which denies the immortality of the soul. They may say, We do not preach it; but the doctrine has currency; people go and ask the minister what he thinks of it; he thinks it is truth, and souls receive it. Well, we refused those who were not willing to break with this system, and I bless God for it; but there is a fine field of labour ruined precisely by the system which Mr. O. extols. Neutral meetings, taking advantage of the absence of absolute exclusivism, and approved of for this by Bethesda and by the neutrals and by the O.'s, are traps for simple souls who go to New York and Philadelphia.

The question is no longer Bethesda; but can an assembly which knowingly admits grave errors be recognized as an assembly of God, and those who are accomplices in the thing be held to be innocent, although they support evil, because they are not themselves blasphemers? In 2 Timothy 2 we are enjoined to purge ourselves from vessels to dishonour: is it purging ourselves to be in full communion with them? 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 7 settle the question for me as to the condition of those who support evil without being themselves personally guilty.

302 There are many things I might take up in Mr. O.'s tract, but that is not my object. When it is said (p. 2), "The church is begotten of God," no passage quoted speaks of the church. It is not begotten of God; individuals are. It is not their being begotten of God which constitutes them members of the church, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I do not know in what sense Mr. O. thinks the apostle said to the church at Corinth, "Ye are the body of Christ." But I am not occupied with these things. I only keep to the fact that the tract is a plan of adhesion to a system which denies the true unity of the church, which establishes independent churches, and which justifies a discipline or rather a lack of faithfulness to Christ. This turns what are called holy assemblies into a snare for the simple to entrap them into false and injurious doctrines, and to destroy integrity of conscience - the certain result of all false doctrine.

I believe, not that the public apostasy is yet come, but that, in the spirit of the thing, it took place long ago; just as there were many antichrists although the Antichrist was not there. Now Antichrist, at least the man of sin, is connected with the apostasy. Mr. O. wishes dismemberment. It would be impertinence on my part to contend with Mr. O. about the import of French words; but in the things of God there is something more than words. I find the word he has chosen the most unfortunate possible. The proper meaning of it is the act of tearing away a member from a body. It is employed for the division of a state, a kingdom, etc. But when it is used figuratively, something of the real meaning always remains. It is the greater force coming from without which divides. Poland and Bavaria have been dismembered. And if one speaks of the dismemberment of a society so that it is divided into several parts, it always leaves the idea of an effect produced on the society. It matters little if the members are agreed about it: the society suffers violence; something of the original thought remains.

303 Now I admit that the apostasy in the full and complete sense of the word has not arrived, and that the application of this term to the Romish system (an application made by the mass of Protestant writers*) went beyond the true force of the word. But let it be remarked that the apostasy is the fault of the church on earth; it had lost its first love; it had had time to repent and had not repented; it had a name to live and was dead; it was to be spued out of the Saviour's mouth. This was a moral condition for which the church was responsible; and if the apostasy has not come, we have reached such a point in that direction that the distance which separates us from it is scarcely appreciable: only the Spirit of God is acting in a remarkable manner. After all Mr. O. now admits the fall of the church, which is the important thing. But dismemberment (a frightful word when the body of Christ is in question) which Mr. O. can make use of because the true idea of the body has no place in his thoughts - dismemberment is only a fact.

{*This question has been fully discussed, as well as the sense in which the word apostasy is applied to the church. No one was troubled about it until I shewed, by Romans 11, that if there were apostasy in the church of Rome, there could be no re-establishment of the church - which always remains fundamentally true.}

The apostasy, or the tendency to apostasy, expresses the thought (crushing, if the grace of the Lord were not revealed) of the unfaithfulness of the church to the One who has so loved it. But there is something more. If it be a question of the body of Christ and of members united to the Head in heaven, the dismemberment of the church is a horror. If the church on earth be a simple society, then it becomes dismembered or is divided or decomposed. Now Mr. O. has not the least idea of the unity of the body, nor of the responsibility of the church to maintain that position which it has never had in his eyes. It was a society composed of several local societies. To divide might perhaps be an evil, but an evil which happens to an earthly society. "The church at Corinth, notwithstanding its disorders, was not dismembered in Paul's time; and he could still say to them, Ye are the body of Christ" (p. 3). If Mr. O. had the least idea of the body of Christ, this phrase would have been impossible; it has no meaning for anyone who understands what the body is.

I may be permitted to add a few words with regard to the two points of view in which the word of God looks at the house. Christ (Matt. 16) builds the house, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is Christ who builds; the house is not yet completed. In 1 Peter 2 the living stones are added; there is no human architect. In Ephesians 2 the building fitly framed together grows up unto a holy temple in the Lord. But in 1 Corinthians 3 we find quite another thing. Paul is a wise builder; every one must take care how he builds. There we have the responsibility of man, although the building may be called the building of God. He who, being a Christian, builds well has a reward; but the one who, although a Christian on the foundation, builds badly will lose his labour, but he is saved. There is a third class; he who corrupts others will himself be destroyed. Now popery and the ritualistic system have confounded the temple that Jesus Christ is building, and which grows up into a temple, with that which depends on man's responsibility - a grave and fatal error. They do the same as to the body. But there was responsibility to maintain the unity of the Spirit, and thus the manifestation of the unity of the body, and the church failed in it: then it confounded the body with what man has built. The unity in John 17 is not the unity of the body; John never speaks of the church. He speaks there of a unity of brethren or of disciples which would in fact manifest the power of the Spirit of God.

304 Mr. O. refers us to another pamphlet on "Elders," etc. He wished to name some whenever the minds of brethren might be prepared to receive them. As an authority for this, having thrown overboard the old dissenting principles, he has only this reasoning, namely, that the apostles must necessarily have provided for the future of the church - a point already discussed with M. de G. - which is nothing but a piece of reasoning and of false reasoning, for it supposes that God wished Christians to know that the church would subsist long upon the earth, thus destroying the present expectation of the Lord, which His word avoids in a most remarkable manner by insisting upon that expectation. I believe, in common with many Christians, that the seven churches give the history of Christianity, but God took up churches which were then in existence in order not to take Christians out of this position of continual expectation. The virgins who sleep are those who awake. The servants who received the talents on the departure of the master are those who are judged at his return; the duration of the delay does not go beyond the life of the men. "If I will that he tarry till I come," says the Lord. "We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," says the apostle. "And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their Lord," says again the Lord. An expectation of every day is not only an idea but was what characterized the early disciples. They were converted to wait for His Son from heaven, and God is not slack concerning His promise. But as to any arrangement which supposes a long continuance of the church on earth, there is no trace of it in the word.

305 To support this false idea, Mr. O. has recourse to a passage from Clement of Rome - a fatal sign when one has to go outside the word to support one's thesis. But the phrase, by which Clement tries to explain his views on this point, is most obscure. One of the terms employed is a word entirely unknown, except as used in quite another sense in Plutarch, and is not found at all in Alexandre's dictionary. Even the meaning of the phrase is contested. In general it is applied to the death of the elders named by the apostles. But there are grave theologians who apply the words "when they should have fallen asleep" to the apostles and insist upon the passage as a proof of episcopacy, admitting that there is nothing of that kind in the word of God, but that the apostles in the prospect of their departure, arranged that other tried men should succeed them in their authority: a position that Mr. O., if I have rightly understood him, arrogates to himself, by putting himself among the number of those who have replaced the apostles as ellogimoi andres. I do not accept this interpretation of the passage from Clement which they support by the deuterai diacaxieis of a passage from Irenaeus (if indeed the fragment be his), and by the nomination of Simeon as the successor of James by a convention of the apostles who were still living, of which Eusebius and other patristic authorities speak. But what a poor foundation is all this in comparison of the word of God, given for all times by God Himself, the divine light in the midst of the darkness of this world!

Now this is the main point of the matter. What gave rise to the existence of the so-called Plymouth Brethren is the grand truth, the great fact, of the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, to form the body of Christ into one; then the coming of the Saviour as the continual expectation of the Christian. These two truths Mr. O.'s pamphlet denies.

There are three principal positions of Christ as Saviour: on the cross accomplishing redemption; at the right hand of God, whence He sends the Holy Spirit; and returning to fetch us and to judge the world. The first truth is the gospel preached to man as a sinner. The last two have been clearly brought out again in these latter times and are those which have aroused attention, and have placed the so-called Plymouth Brethren in their present position; they also throw immense light upon the first truth. The evangelical world will not receive them: from that time nothing but conflict and opprobrium, as is always the case with truths freshly brought to light. Mr. O. admits many minor consequences; but his pamphlet entirely denies the real ground of the truth on these points. He wants a unity formed of local independent churches, having the same faith and the same worship; and he wishes to prove by reasonings, or rather to suppose, that the apostles taught Christians to expect a long course of centuries before the Lord should come. That is to say, he still denies the great truths necessary for Christians in these days. I state the fact because I believe it to be important for Christians, begging Mr. O. to be assured that there is not a trace of hostility in my heart. When evil comes in like a flood, it is not the moment for Christians to be tearing one another, however firm one may be in maintaining the principles that one is assured have been drawn from the word of God.

Episcopacy: What ground is there in Scripture or History for accounting it an Institution of God?

J. N. Darby.

<20024E> 307

Were it merely a question between one form of church government and another, no one would hear a word from me about it. If man forms a government, others will judge of it according to their habits of thinking, their early prejudices, or natural dispositions. But the establishment of episcopacy led on to popery, and was closely connected with the progressive corruption of Christendom. In modern times the same system is leading to the same result and associated with the same degrading superstitions. The system might sleep, but, awoke up, that is its universal path. It is well therefore to ascertain what true scriptural and historical ground there is for the episcopal system. Respect for position and authority is no unholy feeling, nor to be despised even as a natural one; but if the prestige of position is used to resist the truth and lead into error, as in the case of the high priests, we must not give up God's authority over us and the truth that sanctifies us for pretensions that after all have no real ground in scripture or history.

It cannot be expected that the great body of Christians should be able to search out in Benedictine tomes the facts of the case. I have given them here so that any one can judge of the claim that episcopacy has to be an institution of God. I am not aware of any historical testimony in its favour which has been omitted. I do not go into the gross corruption which rapidly sank Christianity to the level of heathenism. My object is the original title of what now professes to be the necessary channel of all spiritual grace and authority. No one denies that at the end of the second century the episcopal system, not the diocesan but one superior president of the principal local churches, was generally established. Our question is its origin; who established it?

First, it is perfectly clear that in scripture bishops and elders are the same thing (Acts 20; 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). In Philippi Paul adds, to all the saints, "bishops and deacons"; and this, note, when he was in prison very late in his ministry, the last period of which we have any definite history, where we might have expected a bishop according to the later acceptation of the term if anywhere, now that the church was in a certain sense left to itself. So in Acts 14 he appoints for them elders in every church. The inspired author, in the formal constitution of the church, had no idea of any higher authority established by the apostle. Thus we have distinct and formal evidence of every kind: original constitution, Acts 14; address at the close of his life, Philippians 1: 1, and those to whom he commends the church, Acts 20, when he thought he should see them no more.

308 That Paul knew no such thing as a prelate in the church, he neither institutes them nor recognizes them. If such there were, he treats them with absolute neglect, takes no notice of them, but charges others with duties which would have been incumbent upon them. The modern notion that Titus and Timothy were bishops has no ground in scripture whatever. They were personal companions of the apostle, whom he deputed for special services, and recalled them when it was done; and they stayed with him, or he sent them elsewhere. Peter knows no more of any such order than Paul, though we have fewer details. Elders were the usage among the Jews; all we have from him is "the elders which are among you." This utter contempt of the principal authority in the churches, if such there were, is utterly inconceivable.

There could not be stronger evidence against an individual superior authority in the churches, against episcopacy, than that which scripture affords. The only semblance of anything of the kind is James at Jerusalem: we find him closing the debate in Acts 15, and saying, "Wherefore my sentence is," etc. Peter, when delivered by divine intervention from prison, says, "Shew these things to James, and the brethren," Acts 12: 17. So Acts 21: 18: "Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present." So in Galatians 1: 19 he saw besides "James the Lord's brother." So chapter 2: 12: certain came from James who made poor Peter afraid to eat any more with the Gentiles. We have thus clearly one who had great influence amongst the Jewish Christians, not always a happy one. It led Peter into dissimulation, Paul into the temple, so that his public ministry, as far as scripture goes, was closed. God may have overruled their effects and shewn perfect and blessed grace - assuredly He did; but so it was in fact. But in his history there is no trace of episcopal care.

309 James' position in Acts 15, which seems to look most like it gives a clue to his local influence, which there was of the greatest importance. But it is quite inconsistent with a bishop's place. Either he was the apostle James, son of Alpheus, or he was not; if he was, he gave his voice as such after the others, and as the most Jewish of all; and the very leader of Jewish thought and feeling, as Galatians 2: 12 shews, and the other passages confirm, to say nothing of his being the Lord's brother, which it appears he was. His voice in such a case as the Jews compelling Gentiles to be circumcised was all-important and would naturally close the question the assembly had discussed. Peter and Paul had declared God's ways in their active ministry, and now James, the vessel of Jewish thought, brings in the conclusion of the matter.

Now all depended on the Jews accepting this: hence God had not allowed Paul to settle it by apostolic authority at Antioch. Had he done so, we should have had a Jewish church at Jerusalem, and a Gentile one at Antioch, rival and hostile centres. The Jews under grace must decide for Gentile freedom; and all was right; and so it was through God's gracious handiwork. If he was not an apostle but a bishop, then we have a bishop deciding over the heads of the apostles who were there and spoke, and, if this ground be taken, they spoke as inferiors.

We hear in history exterior to the Bible, that he not only had this influence over even unconverted Jews, but Josephus attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to their killing him. He had acquired the name of James the Just. His influence scripture does tell us of (His epistle is to the twelve tribes, though with the faith of Christ the Lord of glory.) It neither gives him this or any analogous name, nor gives a hint of any episcopal service. Paul among the Gentiles, as we have seen, neither established nor knew such. And this his contemporaries, as far as we have them, confirm.

Clement gives us the same evidence as scripture, as far as he goes, and as history it is important; his epistle is universally received as genuine. He addresses the church; he knows no episcopacy there but that of the elders. As was just said of Paul, it was treating the bishop of Corinth with utter contempt if there were any such; but the evidence is positive: he knew of no such thing, but the contrary (C. 42). We read, "and thus preaching through countries and cities they appointed the firstfruits of their conversions to be bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe," quoting Isaiah, right or wrong, for the purpose. So 44: "So likewise our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions should arise on account of the ministry, and therefore having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed persons as we have before said, and then gave a direction (epinomen, a difficult word if the reading be right) in what manner, when they should have fallen asleep, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry." And then he fully speaks of them in the plural, closing by saying, "blessed be those elders," etc. Clement's testimony then is perfectly clear on the subject. The apostle appointed elders, several, in a church; he arranged further succession; but of bishops, so-called now, he knows nothing. His statements contradict their existence.

310 Polycarp affords us the same testimony; he writes to the Philippians, desires them to be subject to the presbyters, but wholly ignores any so-called bishop, and speaks of the elders that were with him. Ignatius addresses him as bishop; and there is no doubt that Ignatius recognized the office. He does not in writing to the Romans or Ephesians in the Syriac; but the bishop is mentioned apart from elders, and no doubt there were such - not diocesan, which were very much later - in local churches. Ignatius uses them only to urge a spirit of subjection and so of unity. If the Greek epistles are nearly of this date, as some allege, it would be a proof that it was a new thing which, from the coming in of disorder and heresies, led the forger of them, finding that Ignatius had once so spoken in his letter to the Ephesians, to urge submission to the bishops and elders with a gross and offensive elaborateness of repetition, using Ignatius' name to give it currency. At all events we have no trace of a bishop till near the end of the first quarter of the second century, all previous testimony positively contradicting the existence of such.

This is the broad fact, and Polycarp's not calling himself so, when so called by Ignatius, just proves the earnest purpose of Ignatius to use it as a means of unity. A later tradition may connect itself with this, but scripture directly contradicts its existence, as does the earliest history. Barnabas - a very early writer at any rate, if not the true Barnabas - probably the earliest and with more personal faith, does not speak of it. And Hermas, who came thirty years or more after Ignatius, does not speak of any episcopacy, but makes the angel to desire Hermas to tell the presbyters what was said. But no bishop appears; yet he does blame the way presbyters sought to be first or chief At the close of the second century their existence as presidents of churches in a city was general.

311 The country was still largely or chiefly pagan, the word meaning a villager. But for some hundred and twenty years, not only is scripture, which has final authority, most clear, giving another system than episcopacy, but, after this, history confirms the same as existing, and that by unexceptionable testimony, where it is recognized as a fact without any motive to lead to it but the existence of the fact; whereas the motives of the earliest testimonies to the existence of episcopacy betray an anxious, earnest, desire to maintain it. Justin Martyr even speaks of no bishop; but his testimony can hardly be cited for any system, as he only speaks of the earliest meeting of an assembly, and of one that presides in it, and of deacons. Were this all the testimony of nearly the first hundred years after Christ, it is clear against episcopacy, the scripture establishing formally another system which excludes it. But testimony to the contrary is alleged, especially from Irenaeus, but also from Tertullian; and we may add Hegesippus, an old historian in Eusebius. Now that there were local (not diocesan) prelates in their days is unquestionable.

But these ancient writers are alleged to shew lists of prelates back to apostolic times. We have seen positive contradiction of this from earlier unquestionable authorities; we may now see that these have really none, and that ecclesiastical tradition of the kind is a most uncertain and unsatisfactory guide - may be perhaps trusted if writing of what was under their eye, but no more, like old Herodotus.

Irenaeus was a Christian worthy of respect, though not sound in the faith after all, but our question with him is as an historian. Now the first point to be remarked is, that he had a controversial object in his facts, which alters the force even of his testimony: but we shall besides find that he states on the subject what certainly is not the fact. I do not doubt he believed it. He was tormented, as was the whole church, with Gnosticism, which denied that the true God of the Christians was the Creator, and he appeals to the universal faith of the churches everywhere, and specially of Rome, to prove that such a notion was never held amongst Christians. And he traces back the list of prelates, particularly at Rome, to prove this, that it was handed down by these worthy men from the beginning. He appeals to the scriptures, but, the heretics cavilling and appealing to tradition too, finding himself baffled by their cavils (instead of doing as the Lord did when Satan quoted scripture to Him, answering by another plain scripture), he turns to the common faith of the churches, and what the most esteemed leaders of the church had held, and hence gives their succession; but I am sorry to say, he himself was, what Rome and all orthodox persons would call, a heretic. But his appeal is really to meet the use of it by the Gnostics who pleaded, as Rome does now, that there were doctrines known by tradition, not contained in scripture.* He answers, None of these successors of the apostles had such as you allege. What I have just said as to his testimony to tradition is clearly stated, lib. 3, c. 2, 3.** We have only a very bad translation of most of Irenaeus' works.

{*They quoted 1 Corinthians 2: 7.}

{**I have not the least doubt that potiorem principalitatem was in Greek archen, and meant "origin." The context proves it, I think. It is a famous passage with Romanists.}

312 But it is as an historian we have to do with him: how little his statements can be trusted, a few instances will shew. First he states that Christ Himself continued on to be an old man, which he reckons as forty or fifty years, sanctifying old age as well as youth, as he tells us the Gospel and all the aged men who conversed with John testified (Lib. 2, C. 22). The Gospel we can answer for; the tradition of John, Irenaeus and the aged men must answer for. Whom, he adds, are we to believe most, those who had seen, not only John but the other apostles and heard these things from them . . . or Ptolemy, who had seen none of them? Massuet says, Perhaps he heard it only from Papias, who, says Eusebius, was a foolish old man. But, as Massuet observes, Irenaeus makes Christ not teach immediately after His baptism but wait till He was of full age, at thirty being only a youth, and so die an old man - diametrically, as he says, opposed to the plain testimony of scripture. But so much for tradition.

But we have another case directly to the point, as the commencement of the passage which is quoted to prove that episcopacy dates from the apostles' days and was established by their authority. "Now Matthew," says Irenaeus, "brought out amongst the Hebrews in their own dialect the written gospel (ten graphen euaggelion) when Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and founding the church." I will add what the Benedictine edition remarks on this. All the Fathers hold Matthew to have first consigned the Gospel to writing; but how reconcile this with what is said of Peter and Paul, for Paul could not have been there before A.D. 64 or 65? Either, therefore, the other Fathers are to be abandoned or Irenaeus; either are alike inconvenient. The securest thing to say in so obscure a matter is, that nothing can be defined (c. Haer. lib. 3, C. 1, Benedictine edition [Massuet] 174). Eusebius follows his account (H. E. 5: 28). Not only so, but this account which Massuet admits to be untenable and contradictory to all the statements of other Fathers, is the basis of all Irenaeus says on the succession, and of papal pretensions too.

313 I may add, though our business is with Irenaeus, Eusebius (2: 25) quotes from Dionysius of Corinth the statement that Peter and Paul planted together the church of Corinth, and then went on to Rome, taught in like manner, and were martyred. Now that Peter and Paul may have been taken to Rome and martyred together, passing at Corinth together too, is very possible, though we have no account of it; but what is said as to the foundation of the church at Corinth or Rome is unquestionably false. Paul, we know from the Acts and his Epistles, founded that at Corinth, Peter having nothing to say to it. And even Paul did not found that at Rome more than Peter, as his Epistle to the Romans shews: Christianity preceded them both there. The Roman church, so far from having a potiorem beginning, was not founded by an apostle at all.

But this famous proof of episcopacy leads us to another passage of Irenaeus (3: 14, 12). He is arguing against the Gnostics, that Luke was the constant companion (which itself he states in a manner contrary to Luke's, to make him always his companion, whereas this only began at Troas), yet he never puts forth these Gnostic notions, and then adds: not only to those with him, but he (Paul) made himself clear to all, for having called together in Miletus the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and the other nearest cities, and then he gives Paul's discourse. That is, he falsified the plain statement of the passage to get up his traditional testimony with episcopal authority attached to it.

314 Now he gives us in this book (3) a list of bishops at Rome as serving for all such; and this is the authority for bishops going back to the beginning. Now, untrustworthy as we have seen him to be as to his historical statements, this, as far as it goes, plunges us into utter obscurity, suggesting that there were not any bishops really there. The list is (lib. 3: 3, 3) Linus, Anencletus, Clemens, Evarestus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherus, who was in Irenaeus' time. Paul and Peter, he says, committed it to Linus.

Eusebius as usual follows Ireneus, but he gives the dates: Peter to 68, Linus 68-80, Anencletus 80-92, Clemens 92-101. Here we stumble, after three or at any rate two others his predecessors in the see, on one who, as we have seen, owns no bishop at all but states, and justly, entirely another order of government as established by Paul. Tertullian (de Praes. 32) puts Clement as the one put in charge by Peter. Eusebius (3: 2) states positively it was after Peter's death Linus was put in, and Clement is twenty-four years afterwards. Ruffinus, says he, does not deny that Linus and Anencletus were first, but Clement was appointed while Peter was alive. Some indeed say Clement was named first but would not be from modesty, but was obliged after the death of the others. The point with Tertullian is security of doctrine by succession, but he contradicts Irenaeus plump as to who was the person it was committed to. Optatus Mil., who leaves out two, puts Peter first, then Linus, then Clement, and then Anencletus.

Now all this shews how totally uncertain these traditions were, that they could only be varying memory; whereas he who was specially wheeled about as to his place, being placed first, second, and third, Clement, knows nothing of any such place at all. My own conviction is they were all there together and that Clement has given the clue to it. None of them were bishops; practically one or another may have presided. There is just the same disorder found at Antioch, betraying the same origin of prelacy. But we have more as to this episcopacy, which helps us on to trace this clue. The deacons were setting up to be a great people at Rome, and Jerome, the most learned Father of the ancient church, knowing East and West, thus writes (on Titus 1: 5): The presbyter is therefore the same as the bishop: and before that by the instigation of the devil parties were sought to be made in the church, and it was said among the people, "I am of Paul," etc., the churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters; but after each sought to make those whom he had baptized his own, not Christ's, it was decreed in all the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be set over the rest to whom the care of the whole church should appertain . . . . As therefore the presbyters know that they are subject by the customs of the church to him who may have been set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than the presbyters more by the custom of the church than by the truth of any ordering of the Lord, veritatem dominicae dispositionis. And he declares that while the only thing a presbyter could not do was to ordain, yet in Alexandria till Heraclas' time, when the bishop died, the presbyters themselves established another from among themselves in his stead (Ep. 146 ad En).* And even Cyprian, the greatest founder of the power of the primitive episcopacy, says almost everywhere there must be prelates to do it. So Augustine says (Litt. 72: 33); Although, according to titles of honour which the practice of the church has made valid, the bishop is greater than the presbyter.

{*He adds, "Does any one think that the judgment that a bishop and a presbyter are one is ours, not that of the scriptures? let him read again!" and quotes Philippians 1; Acts 20; 1 Peter 5; also Hebrews 13: 17. See also epistle to Oceanus (ed. Vall. 69: 416) to Evangelus (old ed. Evagrius) 146. The same difficulties occur as to Smyrna, if we listen to Apostol. Const. Pope Urban in a very numerous council declares (A.D. 1091), "It is read that the primitive church had them (presbyters and deacons) alone; as to them alone we have precept of the apostle."}

315 If the reader desires to see more as to the change made as to ministerial order, and a positive historical statement of the substitution of episcopacy for the government of presbyters - one presiding as the senior, and another succeeding him, as it produced scandals often, the successor being worthless - he may consult the commentary on Ephesians 4: 12, published at the end of Ambrose's works (said to be by Hilary); who states also, that the presbyters ordained the prelate of Alexandria. According to him the system was changed for prudence' sake, adding providente concilio (whatever that may mean), a council making provision in the matter. (Supplement to vol. 11, page 243, Bened. ed.)

Thus, for some ninety years after Christ's death, there is no episcopacy on record; but after that, we hear of it first pressed for the sake of unity by Ignatius; then, on account of false doctrine, by Irenaeus and Tertullian. In the latter part of the second century it prevailed; only presbyters appointed, and (it is said) ordained, their prelate in Alexandria; and he was recognized by all as a true bishop. Clement of Alexandria says that John after his release from Patmos went in some places establishing bishops, in some arranging whole churches, in some the clergy (klero) putting into that place (kleroson) some one of those signified by the Spirit. (Quis Dives Salv. 42.) Tertullian says the order of bishop, counted to its origin, will stand on John for its author. (Adv. Marc. 4: 5.)

316 I do not enter on proofs of the wretched uncertainty of the traditions of the Fathers. Were we to believe them, Christ Himself made and ordained James bishop of Jerusalem; another, that Christ and the apostles did, and that He committed His throne on the earth to him; that John and James and Mark were high priests. (Bingham, 2: 9, 5; Euseb. 5: 24, as to John from Polycrates.) James, as I have already said, had a special place and influence from his character and being the Lord's brother. It is related that on his death some meeting of the remaining apostles and others replaced him by Symeon, another in the same relationship with the Lord.* But it is never hinted that James was a bishop; and, besides what I have already said, the address of the letter to the churches proves he was not. It is addressed from the apostles and elders and brethren. Why, if he was a bishop and spoke as president, is he left out? It cannot be said because the apostles are spoken of, because the elders are distinctly noticed, and they delivered to the churches the decrees of the apostles and elders.

{*Rothe will have it that the meeting, which according to Hegesippus put Symeon in James's place in Jerusalem, established episcopacy as a received order. But that only proves this learned man could find no real proof of it.}

The result is, first, that scripture refutes episcopacy and established another kind of official authority, which this sets aside, just as much as if a republic was changed into a monarchy: the monarch is not added, the state has ceased to be a republic. I do not say the church was a republic or that authority came from the people - I do not think so; what I say is, that the addition changed the government which was scriptural. Episcopalians and Puseyites do claim for the church the title to change its government. I do not agree, but I do not discuss it; I only say that the episcopal government is not the scriptural one, but sets it aside. Further, ecclesiastical history confirms the fact and does not recognize episcopal government; and we have the most learned Fathers of the church declaring presbyter and bishop were the same at the outset, and that church-custom only had made the honour valid. I conclude with Jerome that episcopacy does not come from veritate dominicae dispositionis.

317 I have gone through the traditions which are alleged for it, I believe fairly, and admit the system was generally established in the latter part of the second century; but it was not established by God.

Churches and the Church

J. N. Darby.

<20025E> 318

(The following paper was written in the Western States of America but not published; as the principles apply everywhere, and some have wished it, the hesitation of the writer has been overcome.)

You ask me, Were there not churches in scripture? I answer, there were; but what are churches? The effect of the question is to bring out the state of the mind. Most Christians would immediately think of what are called churches in the religious world, perhaps in Christendom at large. They would think of the Presbyterian church, or Congregational and Baptist churches, or else of the church of Rome, or the like. The person who lived habitually in the mind of scripture would think of Corinth or others which we meet with in scripture. Are then the facts which exist in Christendom, or the thoughts there current, different from the facts found in scripture, or the thoughts formed by it? Let us inquire into this, not with a haughty heart, but if we find all gone far away from the scriptural state in principle and practice - if we find all ruined, instead of power in the Holy Ghost and unity - a fair show in the flesh, let us mourn in heart, and cry to the Lord. He will meet us in our need.

What were churches in scriptural times? "Church" means simply an assembly, or, from local use in Greek, an assembly of privileged persons, of citizens. The whole multitude of believers gathered into one by the Holy Ghost formed the assembly or church. Only here of course it was God's assembly; of course those in Rome or Corinth could not meet in Jerusalem. Hence there were assemblies in different places, forming each locally God's assembly in the place. It may be well very briefly to examine how the assembly is viewed in scripture as a whole, before we speak of local assemblies. It is viewed as the habitation of God; and also as the body of Christ, and first of the former. In one sense the church is not yet formed, not complete. All that shall be united to Christ in glory form part of it.

"I will build my church," says Jesus, "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This will be infallibly accomplished. So Peter, evidently alluding to this, "unto whom coming, as unto a living stone, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house''; so Ephesians 2, "in whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." This is yet unfinished, and still goes on; and, though at first a public and evident body (the Lord adding daily to the church such as should be saved), it is become what is called the invisible church. It is invisible: though if it was to be the light of the world, it is hard to tell the value of an invisible light. If it is acknowledged to have fallen for ages into corruption and iniquity, a very Babylon in character, that has not been the light of the world. The persecuted saints - for God has surely had a people - gave their testimony; but the public body in the world was darkness, not light in it.

319 But there is another way in which God's assembly is spoken of, and still first as the house, a habitation of God, that is, as established by the instrumentality of man, and under the responsibility of man. "As a wise master-builder," says Paul, "I have laid the foundation, but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon." There is human instrumentality and human responsibility. It was a large body formed on earth which was God's house or temple, the Holy Ghost dwelling in it down here as descended on the day of Pentecost (1 Cor. 3), not the body: there can be no wood and hay and stubble, which is to be burned, in that. Again, "Ye are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit," Eph. 2: 22.

This is a very interesting and precious truth, I mean God's dwelling down here in His house prepared for Him according to His will. God never dwelt with Adam innocent, though He visited him, nor with Abraham though He visited and singularly blessed him; but the moment Israel was redeemed out of Egypt, God came and dwelt among them. The dwelling of God with men is the fruit of redemption. (See Exod. 29: 46.)

The true redemption has been accomplished, and God has formed a habitation for Himself where He dwells by the Spirit. It is so indeed as to the individual (1 Cor. 6); but I now speak of the assembly, the house of the living God. This is now on the earth, the habitation of God by the Spirit. He dwells and walks among us. We are God's building. Man may have built in wood and hay and stubble; but God has not yet executed judgment to remove the house out of His sight, though judgment will begin there.

The assembly is also the body of Christ; Eph. 1: 23. It is by one Spirit we are baptized into one body. This though the final completeness of it will be in heaven, yet is established on earth, for the baptism of the Holy Ghost was His coming down - the day of Pentecost (Acts 1: 5; 1 Cor. 12: 13). That this is on earth is further clear, for in the same chapter we find He has set in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, where we have miracles, gifts of healing, clearly on earth. Where, remark also, that they are set in the whole church, members of such or such a kind in the one whole body. Such is the church or assembly as depicted in scripture.

320 What were churches or assemblies? These were local. The apostle could say, "To the church of God which is at Corinth." It represented the whole unity of the body in that place. "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." Two bodies of Christ, even in one place, representatively there could not be. In Galatia, which was a large province, we read the churches of Galatia. So in Thessalonica, a city of Macedonia, we have the assembly of the Thessalonians. So in the seven churches; so John writes to the assembly. So everywhere there was God's assembly in any given place which could be distinctly addressed as such. In Acts 20 he calls for the elders of the assembly. There were several appointed by the Holy Ghost to be overseers of God's flock. Hence Titus was left in Crete to ordain them in every city. We have (Acts 11: 22) the assembly which was in Jerusalem, though it was exceedingly numerous; in Acts 13 the assembly that was at Antioch. So Paul (Acts 14: 21-23) returns to Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium, and chooses for them elders in every assembly. All scripture clearly shews there was one assembly in a place, which was God's assembly.

Churches as buildings they had none: the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; and hence they met in houses where they could; but all formed one assembly, God's assembly, in that place, the elders being elders in the whole as one body. The local assembly represented the whole assembly of God, as 1 Corinthians shews us plainly. The position which Christians who composed it held was that of members of Christ, of the whole body of Christ. The only membership known in scripture is membership of Christ's body; as an eye, a hand, etc.; ministry was directly connected with this last thought. When Christ ascended up on high, He gave gifts to men, apostles, prophets: they were the foundation (Eph. 2); evangelists, pastors, teachers: these were set in the whole church or assembly; 1 Cor. 12.

If a man was a teacher at Ephesus, he was such at Corinth. Even as to miraculous gifts, a man spoke with tongues where he was. The gift belonged to no particular assembly but was that member or gift in the whole body on earth, wrought by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 12), and by which a man was a servant of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12 we have the Holy Ghost on earth distributing them as they then were. In Ephesians 4 they are given from Christ on high, and only such referred to as ministered to the perfecting of the saints and edifying of the body till we all grow to the stature of Christ. They were the talents with which a man was bound to trade, if he knew the master, in virtue of having them: "as every man has received the gift, so minister the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God," 1 Pet. 4: 10. They were to wait on their prophesying or exhorting. Rules are given for their exercise in scripture. Women were to keep silence in the assemblies.

321 But my main object now is to shew that it was as gifts in the whole assembly of God everywhere that they who possessed them acted. Elders were local and were not a gift, though aptness to teach was a desirable qualification. Still all had it not; 1 Tim. 5: 17. Elders were elders in a given city of God's assembly there. Gifts were exercised as set in the whole body, wherever the gifted member was, according to scriptural rules. The result of the examination of scripture is, that there was one assembly of God in each town where there were Christians; that these were members of the body of Christ - the only membership known in scripture; and gifts were exercised in the whole church, or one assembly of God in the whole world, as members and servants of Christ, by the operation of the Spirit, according to rules given in scripture. Eldership was a local office to which persons were chosen and appointed by the apostle or his deputy; and they were elders in the one assembly of God in the place over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers (Acts 14: 23; Titus; Acts 20: 17-28). It was not a gift, though one gift was desirable to make the office more effective; but the chief requisites were qualities which made them fit to be overseers.

No trace of this subsists at present in the common order of what man calls churches. Thank God, men cannot hinder the Lord in His work, or His raising up such as may minister to His own in a sovereign way; but man has organized churches each according to his fancy, and the church of God and the word of God are forgotten save the owning by some of an invisible church which the Lord is faithful to carry on. But that they leave to His care, and arrange the visible church each as he sees good. The church as a public body in the world had sunk into popery (or Greek corruption, with which we have less to do in the West). All was in ruin, as the apostle had predicted; and at the Reformation civil government set up national churches. The church of God no one thought of, and for some time nothing else was allowed. Religious liberty then became more common; yet no one thought of the church of God but of mere organized churches united by a system of man's devising, or independent one of another, but man arranged and organized them. The unity of the body, that membership was membership of Christ alone, that the Holy Ghost was on earth, that gifts were given by Christ and brought responsibility for their exercise with them, all this was wholly forgotten and left aside - that is, the whole original scriptural truth on the subject of the church and the presence of the Holy Ghost.

322 The Episcopal body was so far different that they pretended to have the original title by succession, and made people members of Christ by the baptism of water, a dream of which there is no trace in scripture. It is by one Spirit there we are baptized into one body. Baptism is to the death of Christ. But leaving aside the Episcopal pretensions and errors, the existing system is that of assemblies formed by men on some principle they have adopted with a man chosen by themselves at their head; and people are members of this so-formed church or assembly, and vote in it as such. They may be members of Christ or not: that which gives them their title is that they are members of that particular assembly. In most churches a majority, if the vote does not create a division, carry out their will. The Holy Ghost is not in question. All action from beginning to end is man.

The Presbyterians may have various church courts and have an aristocratic element in their organization; Congregationalists have all their decisions come to by each separate body and the vote of the members of the assemblies. But the whole is a human arrangement formed and carried on by man. A man is a member of a body which man has organized, and acts as such. The actual state of things is a church or assembly of which a certain number of persons are members with a person educated for the ministry at its head. It is Mr. So-and-so's flock or church: he is paid so much a year; he may or may not be converted, but he is ordained, he may be an evangelist and put into a pastor's place; he may be a pastor, but must preach to the world. Although, if he does not succeed in this, he may be dismissed, generally directly, sometimes indirectly. The whole constitution of the church of God is ignored - God's constitution, and man's substituted for it. And the order and the power of the Holy Ghost is ignored, or not believed in at all.

323 In scripture there is no membership of a church, no pastor of a flock peculiar to him, no such voluntary assembly formed on its own particular principles. Not a trace of such an order is in the word, if it be not in the incipient divisions called carnal in Corinthians. There was God's church or assembly, not man's churches. If Paul were to address an epistle to the assembly of God at  - , no one could get it: there is no such body in existence. Churches have set aside the church of God. The operation of the Spirit of God is set aside - that is, evangelists, servants of Christ for the world; pastors and teachers, not of a flock who have chosen them, or their flock, but exercising their gift where God may bring them; teaching at Ephesus in God's assembly if they were there, at Corinth if they were there, acting according to the gift given them from on high wherever God sent them, trading with a talent because their Master has charged them with it: as every man has received the gift, ministering the same, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God; if they exhort, waiting on their exhortation; if teachers, on their teaching; and that in God's assembly as a whole.

Man has organized, but he has wholly set aside, as far as his arrangements go, God's order and arrangements as to the assembly. Thus the church, God's assembly, is set aside to have churches; the Spirit who gives gifts to various members, to have a minister of their own choosing; and the word in which God's order is revealed. The church and Spirit and word are all set aside by what is called order, that is, man's arrangement and organization. We are told it "must be." That is, there is not faith to trust the Lord to rule and bless in His own house, according to the ordering He gave to it; yet true blessing can only come from His operation by the Spirit He has sent down. And what is the effect? It would be ungracious of me to expose (nor am I the least inclined to do it) the miserable consequences which often ensue. They are well-known: the world knows them.

324 My object is to shew that the system is anti-scriptural, and denies the Holy Ghost and the true church of God; but it is evident that a person chosen and paid by an assembly, of which very commonly half or more is unconverted, where the object is to increase numbers and influence, and to have rich people, must please those whom he serves. And, says the apostle, "if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Jesus Christ." They must adapt themselves to their audience. For the practical result I appeal to every godly conscientious person conversant with the state of things. I hear their groans on every side. But it is the natural and necessary effect of the system. Ministry is not the exercise of gift given of the Lord, but a person educated for a profession and ordained, so that a great many are not really converted. The true church of God established on earth (1 Cor. 12) is ignored, as are true churches, God's assemblies in each place; and churches are made by men according to their view of what is right, and men are members of their churches, not viewed as members of the body of Christ. An unconverted member of a church has all the rights and power of a converted man, a member of Christ.

The influence of wealth, not of the Spirit of God, is paramount, and a majority decides cases, not the guiding of the Spirit. If a majority had decided at Corinth, what would have been the effect? In the whole system man, and man's will, and man's organization, have taken the place of the Spirit and word of God, and of what God organized Himself as declared in that word.

People say, Were there not churches then? I answer, surely, and this it is that shews the anti-scriptural character of what exists. Let anyone shew me in scripture such a thing as a separate distinct body such as is called a church now, and membership of it; or, as I have said, if Paul wrote a letter "To the church of God at  - ," who could get it? All is anti-scriptural, and sets aside what is in scripture to form something else.

I do not touch on many collateral subjects, the ruined state of the church as a whole, the coming of the Lord, wishing to confine myself to the question - is the existing order of things scriptural or anti-scriptural? That men having drunk old wine straightway desire new, I understand, is not likely; but happy is he who follows the word, and owns the Spirit, if he be alone in doing so. The word of the Lord abides for ever, as does he who does His will.

325 2 Timothy 2 and 3 clearly point out the condition of the church in the last days, and the path of the believer in them, as the first epistle gives the external details of the church when first arranged by apostolic care.

Ephesians

J. N. Darby.

<20026E> 326

I send the following thoughts to the Present Testimony, rather to lay the subject seriously before your readers, than to teach upon it. Not that I have not in the main - while willing to have any thought corrected - a clear and decided judgment on that of which it speaks. But the subject is new to many: and all I wish at present is to direct their thoughts to it, that they may weigh it before the Lord. Hence I have added a signature, that the responsibility may rest with the individual who sends the paper.

The exhortations in the Epistle to the Ephesians have a large scope and a higher aim than those of most of the epistles, though nothing can surpass the importance of details of godly practice in their place; that in walking according to them God may be glorified, the Spirit ungrieved and the heart free to receive and enjoy all His communications from the word. These exhortations are founded on, and refer to - as indeed in every epistle - the doctrine which forms the subject of the first part of the epistle. But there is an exceptional subject in this epistle: the unity which flows from the full revelation of God, the necessary centre of all; and more especially from the exaltation of Christ, in whom, according to the mystery, all things are to be headed up; and the presence of the Holy Ghost on earth uniting the saints to Christ, the Head of the body on high, and assembling men by His power to the confession of His name upon the earth.

I have called this an exceptional subject, because it is not the first and proper doctrine of the epistle, but is introduced as an extraordinary revelation of an especial state and relationship into which the saints are brought. The primary relationships spoken of are individual ones with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: we are chosen in Christ to be holy and without blame before God in love, and predestinated to the adoption of children. The exhortations founded on this doctrine begin with verse 17 of chapter 4, and are first and mainly referred to the name of God, passing into the relationship of children in the first verse of chapter 5. It is natural they should; because, while special affections are drawn out by the name of Father, the character of God Himself is that after which we are to be formed. Definite relationships are entered on in chapter 5: 22; and there again the relationship of the church with Christ is introduced.

It is not to be passed over that, whatever the corporate blessings of the church (and they are very great and eminent) the individual relationship of the saint holds the first place, and that the action of the members of the body as such is for the perfecting of the saints individually. Indeed, seeing the place that God must have, and the unutterable obligation and relationship in which we stand to Him - we may add, the very place Christ Himself has with God as man - this could not be otherwise, whatever peculiar privileges the counsel of God gave to us in union with Christ.

327 Thus, in the first chapter of Ephesians, we find saints presented in relationship to the names and nature of God as revealed in that He bears toward Christ, as denoting our proper calling, and what characterizes us as saints - our relationship to that which is above us. And then, all things being centred up in and gathered into one under Christ, we become joint-heirs, so as to have the glorious place due to God's children towards that which is below us. It is only at the close of the chapter, where he speaks of the power exercised towards those that believe, that he introduces (after the exaltation of Christ Himself raised from the dead) the union of saints with Him, their identification with Him as objects of the operation of the same power by which He was raised and exalted. They are not merely morally and gloriously like Him; they are raised up together with Him, His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.

The general purpose of God had been stated in verse 10 of the chapter. This especial part of it, the union of the body with the head, and the unity of the body itself, and the forming of a dwelling-place of God on the earth by the Holy Ghost, with its various consequences and aspects, and the obligations that flow from this great fact, are unfolded from verse 22 of chapter 1 to the end of verse 16 of chapter 4. The whole of the second and third chapters, and the fourth down to the end of verse 16, may be considered as a kind of parenthesis, in which the doctrine of the church is richly developed with the exhortations which flow from it; not separated of course from the doctrine of the whole epistle, but forming a special body of teaching within it. We are not viewed as the fruit of Christ's redemption individually before God, but as the associates of Christ's position in union with Him. It is at the same time remarkable, how, through the vastness of the place and counsel of God, these truths are interwoven.

328 It is the name, in reference to which we are individually children, which forms the groundwork of the prayer in this part of the epistle, which generally treats of the church; and it is the name of God with whom we are individually in relationship, because it is in grace, which lays the foundation for the union of the church with Christ, because of that divine power which has raised Christ, and us with Christ, from the dead, to form one new body in a heavenly condition before Him - a condition in which no middle walls of partition could arise; for what barriers of ordinances to exclude shall be found in heaven?

The name of the Father, in which we are brought into nearness of communion and relationship, gives its character to the prayer of chapter 3 (compare John 17: 26). But under the name of Father of our Lord Jesus Christ every family in heaven and earth comes, and we are heirs of all. And the apostle seeks our blessing according to the riches of glory individually of Him who possesses all. In order to the present enjoyment of this, Christ, who fills all things, must dwell in our hearts by faith, through the strengthening of the Spirit in the inner man (compare - as regards hope, which is the form in which it is enjoyed in Colossians; for they were not holding the Head firm - Col. 1: 27); and this is what the apostle seeks here. All things depend on the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and form the sphere of His glory. With the name Jehovah, Israel alone, of all the families of the earth, was in relationship. It alone was thus known by God; Amos 3: 2.

On this name every family in heaven and earth depends; but then, according to the whole wide extent of His glory, in which He has given us a place, and as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, He strengthens us by His Spirit, so that Christ should dwell in our hearts by faith, and that as rooted and grounded in love. This is the power of realization, that we may comprehend the extent of glory in the sphere of creation on the one hand, and have the intimate knowledge of Christ's love in us, which passes knowledge, on the other; so as to be filled to all the fulness of God, whether in the display of His glory, or the blessedness of His nature. Now it is the exercise in us of power which surpasses all our thoughts, which produces the great result and binds all together for His glory in the church by Christ Jesus. It is power in us which fills us to all the fulness of God; but this power necessarily binds us together in a nearer and closer sphere - the church of God; and hence, while setting us to look out to the whole sphere of His glory in Christ, and binding us in the intimity of knowledge to the love of Christ Himself, the Spirit brings us to God's glory in the church. Indeed, it could not be otherwise; because, Christ the Head of the body, fills all things; and the body, as associated with the Head, is placed in connection with the whole scene; and He dwells in us, so as to give the power of going out unto it all as His, under the Father; and to know His love, too, by His dwelling in us.

329 Hence the previous part of the chapter, and the admission of the Gentiles as one of the families, leads to this prayer. Now the church has a double aspect and character, both of which are presented to us in this epistle. It is looked at also in two ways; as indeed is the case in every dealing of God with man and this lower creation, with this peculiar difference, that the church is the nearest and most immediate object of His thoughts nest to Christ, forms no part of the ages and dispensations of this world, and has no existence but by the full display of God, as He is the true light now shining, and of man to God, according to His glorious counsels in the Person of Christ in glory on high, and the consequent presence of God on the earth in the Person of the Holy Ghost dwelling in men, and in the habitation God has formed for Himself here below amongst men.

Notwithstanding this difference, however, the same great general principle is in play as to the church, as in the case of other dispensations of God; because, though not of the world, and the object of God's counsels before the world was, the church is displayed, and has her place and service in time in the world.

Now the double aspect of all the objects of God's dealings here below is the display of God's power and perfect wisdom in results, and the placing of the realization of it in man's hands under man's responsibility, before God's bringing it about by power according to His own mind. The very creation has been subjected to this principle: there will be a new heaven and new earth, where righteousness will dwell according to the thoughts and counsels of God; whereas that which now is groans under the bondage of corruption which sin has brought in.

I do not go farther than the earth, though my subject partly leads there, because the higher part of creation above is the proof of God's preserving care and grace; as we, of His restoring power by redemption and reconciliation.

330 But, as to this earth, everything trusted to man and for which he has been responsible will be accomplished finally according to the mind and purpose of God. Man himself failed in Adam, and will be perfect and glorified in the second Adam. Man was entrusted with the law: it will hereafter be written in his heart, and he will be made to walk in God's statutes. David's royalty failed; it will be perfected in Christ. Man, entrusted with sovereign power, failed in ruling over all: but Christ will reign over the whole earth in equity and truth, and glorify Jehovah. The very promises were presented in Christ, and man would have none of them. They will all be shewn to be Yea and Amen in Him. The church and the individual saint ought to glorify the Lord; they too have failed. But Christ will be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believed, and the church itself be fully glorified with Him.

So with the church. It will be presented perfect, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, as the bride of Christ by Him to Himself; as God did Eve to Adam. But it is set in the world as responsible to display by the Holy Ghost His character and glory now. There must be this difference, which I have already alluded to, that the church knows its own perfectness already in its Head, to whom it is already united by the Spirit; whereas Adam was the first man, and the Jew evidently never had Christ in the promised kingdom. It knows the perfect love of God, which has been revealed in all its fulness, and is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. It has the knowledge of its present union with Christ, and knows of the character of its existing relationship with Him, as His body and bride. Israel could not know, as a present thing, the reign of Christ in any sense. Love being perfectly revealed, the work of redemption accomplished, and our union with Christ a present truth, this difference must necessarily exist, though the great full result is yet to come, and we have the treasure in earthen vessels.

But, having noticed this, I turn now to the distinctive characters in which the church is set before us in the Ephesians. No doubt responsibility attaches to us as to both; but the failure of man is displayed more particularly in one, as being the proper sphere of his responsibility; while, though he may fail as to the other, its proper nature is in itself unalterable. The two characters of the church of which I speak, are found in the close of chapter 1, and of chapter 2 of the epistle - the body united to the Head on high by divine power; and the building on the earth, the habitation of God through the Spirit. The body as united to the Head cannot fail, nor can any form part of it but true members of Christ. But it implies unity on earth amongst those who are there: and here there may be failure, that is, in maintaining the manifestation of unity on the earth as a witness. But the body itself cannot and never will fail. God has given Christ to be Head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who filleth all in all. That, of course, is necessarily made good. It would otherwise be as if something should fail of Christ's fulness.

331 But the aspect of the church presented to us at the end of the second chapter is a different one. It is viewed as formed on earth. Jews and Gentiles are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Now of course the thought of God, and the proper work according to God as far as He has wrought, is to put right stones in this building. The house is a real thing; but there is no such statement as in the end of chapter 1, where the essence of the truth was a glorious Head and living members of a living Head: God had given Christ to be Head over the body. Here the divine point was God in the Spirit dwelling in a house. He is Himself joined to nobody. It is a mere dwelling-place which is formed, and in which He is found. The fact is stated; the principle on which it is formed, namely, Jews and Gentiles both received and built on the apostles and prophets of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone; but who did it is not said, and, though naturally it is supposed to be real, the qualities of the stones are not in question; but the principles on which they are received, and the object - the dwelling of God there - not in Israel.

Now I see no reason to doubt, that at first the body and the house were the same, but not necessarily so. If, of the three thousand added in the day of Pentecost one had been the victim of his imagination, or a hypocrite, he clearly would not have been a member of Christ's body, save in a mere nominal way; but the Holy Ghost would have dwelt just as really in the house formed, as if all had been true saints. When Simon Magus was received, when false brethren came in unawares, they were no members of Christ; their baptism did not in any way constitute them such. It is not its office in any way. But the Holy Ghost did not cease to dwell in the house of which they formed a part. It is not, be it so, the theory of God. But we are on earth, and the result there is mixed up with the responsibility of man. No one can be a member of Christ unawares; because that is in its nature a living, real, divinely-wrought thing; whereas the formation of the assembly or house on the earth, in which the Holy Ghost dwells, is partly the work of man, though God may operate therein. The theory was living stones built upon the Living Stone, a spiritual house. The practice soon diverged from this; but the Holy Ghost did not for that reason forsake the house.

332 This fact, I suppose, can hardly be denied, that is, the presence of the Holy Ghost where false brethren and unconverted persons already formed part of the public assembly of Christians, where the Holy Ghost dwelt. This indeed was so truly the case, that in Hebrews 6 an unconverted person is supposed to have come under His influence, and to have been made a partaker of Him. So we find in 1 Corinthians 10, the apostle suggests that many who partook of baptism and the Lord's supper God might judge and reject. That which the house is responsible for, for which it is placed in the world, is to be the pillar and ground of the truth: that is, to maintain and hold it up in its public profession before the world. A true member of Christ may be in error, without ceasing to be a member of Christ; but the house, as such, is called to be the public professor of the truth. The church does not teach. The teacher does that. The church is taught. But it professes the truth. The providence of God will preserve this till the great apostasy in the main; but it is connected with the responsibility of man, so that all has to be judged.

There is another passage in which the house is spoken of (Heb. 3), which I ought not to pass over: "Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." This speaks of the house as the ultimate result, "the end." Of course, if any one abandoned this hope in Christ, he had no part in the matter. This was the danger of the Hebrews. I do not think, if the object of the epistle be understood, the passage offers much difficulty. In result the house at first, not necessarily absolutely but in fact, was composed of living members of Christ. In the end it will be, according to God's own purpose and heart, the tabernacle of God. Meanwhile, like every dealing of God, it has been left under the responsibility of man. The result, without its ceasing to be the house as to its place and responsibility, has been what it always has where the creature is in question.

333 I think, in Ephesians 4 (and therefore, it was I dwelt on what preceded), we have in connection with this, three characters of unity to which the Spirit draws our attention. The exhortation of the special part to which I have alluded, in which the church is treated of (chaps. 1: 22 to 4: 16), refers to the fact of the dwelling of the Holy Ghost in the church looked at as formed on earth, her activity and energy of gifts; the body is referred to chapter 4: 7-16, but in its individual members. Christ is viewed as the Giver; and gift and blessing is spoken of, not responsibility; nor is even the working consequently of the Spirit present on earth but of Christ the Head in heaven. The work is complete in power in the Person of Christ; and in virtue of that He confers gifts for the perfecting of the saints first of all, and to the edifying of the body. There is an effectual working in the measure of every part according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

But it is somewhat different in verses 1-6. There responsibility and duty are spoken of, an endeavour through grace, and that in connection with the Spirit of God, whose presence gives power to and characterizes our unity here below. The exhortation, as all exhortations must do, applies individually. God had brought them into His presence in peace, and dwelt among them; and Jew and Gentile were bound to have towards each other, for very different reasons, yea, every saint one toward another, that bearing which the presence of God would surely produce. The unity was by the Spirit, not in flesh (there the enmity had been), and they were to strive to maintain practically, in the bond of peace, the unity in which they stood in Christ; but the apostle then proceeds to refer to various characters or aspects of unity, the force of which I do not think has been generally seen, and which connects itself with the general subject of which I treat.

There is, says the apostle, one body and one Spirit, as we are called in one hope of our calling. There I find what is essential and of vital reality in the church of God - the body of Christ necessarily as such composed of living members, whatever responsibility those who pretend to be of it may be under; but here the apostle speaks of the unity in its true nature: one Spirit, which is the bond and power of this unity, and the one conscious hope which belongs to those who are called into this blessed place. That is the substance and reality of unity.

334 The next enlarges in its sphere of application, but loses in its essential character - one Lord, one faith, one baptism. This is profession upon earth, connected with the title of Christ to Lordship over them. He is Lord. It is not union with Him which is in heaven. The Holy Ghost unites us to the Head there; and we hope to enjoy fully what we enter into in spirit. Our calling is above. But faith here is the truth of the doctrine we profess. It is not even personal living faith here, for he could not then say one faith. One faith is the one thing believed, in the truth of which we own the Lord; and in baptism a person is publicly admitted into association with those owning the Lord and holding this faith, who form the house publicly upon earth. All this of course is on earth. There will be no faith in heaven. It is the unity of the owning of Christ's title. There is but one Lord, the holding the truth with which the announcement of Him is connected, and in the announcement of which that Lordship is maintained, and public outward association with the professors of it where that Lordship is owned. Simon Magus believed and was baptized; he was never of the body of Christ. It is a unity which regards professed Christianity on the earth.

The next unity is one God and Father of all. That is, we have God, the Lord, and the Spirit, as in 1 Corinthians 12. This last is necessarily a larger unity still, based on a more widely claiming name, a name to which a wider sphere belongs. The Spirit is connected with the body, for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. The Lord is owned by faith, and men are associated with the public profession of His name by baptism; but with the unity of God everything that is is connected, or there is something that exists independent of Him, and His unity is denied; or else creatures are not creatures but have independent existence of themselves. This to us now is simple; but when men owned "gods many and lords many," it was not so. To us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Hence the Thessalonians are said to be in God the Father. This one God is above all, and through all. It is far from Pantheism: that a heathen could imagine. He is one God above all; yet He is present throughout - He is through all. Whatever length and breadth and depth and height there may be, above all He is; and one God fills it all gloriously. But this is not all. He who fills all things dwells in the believer, He is "in you" or "us all" - He brings us most blessedly into this immediate association with Himself.

335 If Christ is Head over all things to the church, God, who is above all and through all, dwells in each individual who composes it, and brings him into the universe with personal divine blessing - filled with Him who fills all. This brings us divinely back to realities, filling us with God Himself, in the widest though more outward and general sphere of His glory; yet even here we could not be separated from direct divine blessing. Lordship over might be over professed subjects; but God could not pervade all things without being in us in the proper way of divine blessing, because of our living relationship to Him - wondrous grace and blessing! Through all things He is, but He who is so is in us. Here then we have three distinct unities, the first of which gives us the real unity of the body; the second, professed subjection, as the apostle speaks, to the gospel of Christ (how wide is this gone now! How dreadful the state of those who thus own His Lordship!); the third, that of all things and God.

This leads me to another question and passage, 2 Timothy 2: 15 to the end. Hymenaeus and Philetus had erred, overthrowing the faith of some. The whole passage refers to professed truth (see 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23 to the end), Satan subverting the soul by vain questions and false doctrine, the individual might or might not be a believer in heart, a member of Christ. It is not the question here. The answer to this unsettlement by error is, that the foundation of God remains sure - the Lord knows them that are His. That is immutable and immovable by evil. Then comes the responsibility of man. This has a double character: first, the individual's conduct, as to which conscience decides very simply; second, his conduct as belonging to what is described under the similitude of a great house where there might seem more complication.

The first principle stated in the passage is very simple, absolute, and of universal application. It is a great comfort that it is so, and that this precept is of absolute unavoidable obligation. God's secret is with Himself, whatever the confusion and the error that is rife - He knows them that are His. That I must leave with Himself. I may rejoice, by the fruits produced to know that any one is a child of God; but it is of God to know absolutely who are His

336 But responsibility is my part, I name the name of the Lord. It is the profession of holy power; I must depart from iniquity wherever I find it. Whatever the leaving it involves, I must cease all iniquity - depart from it. If it be bound up with an ocean of good, I am not master but slave in my responsibility of conscience; I must depart from iniquity. That is a settled thing, a divine exigence which nothing can meet but acting on it. It is owning and abiding with God Himself in my conduct. Nothing can be so good, or doing so much good, as doing His Will.

"To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Is any given thing iniquity? Is it wrong according to the light Christ has given me? I depart from it. I am told, "But you will lose opportunities of usefulness, of serving the Lord, of doing good; and you must leave other Christians. With whom will you go?" I answer, I know nothing of all this. That thing is wrong: I must depart from it; I dare not do otherwise. "But you will find wrong in everything." Not for me - for a Christian - to sanction. He may fail in doing right, but not deliberately accept any doing wrong, however small, if he fears God. I name the name of the Lord; I cannot abide in what is not right. It is destroying all responsibility, and denying God's authority over me to allege any motives for not departing from evil. None could have a better excuse than Saul when he lost the kingdom. There was one simple thing in the whole matter - he did not obey. "He that will serve me, let him follow me" - a weighty word of the Lord's.

But the confusion which evil has brought into the church, and the enormous system of evil which bears its name, may create difficulties in many a sincere soul, when what bears the name of the church of God is the seat of the power of the enemy. To this the apostle turns. "But in a great house," continues he, after speaking of these mischievous teachers, and the general principles which secured and directed the heart of the faithful. "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." The professing church - what bore the name of Christ in the world - would become like a great house, where one finds vessels of every kind, and for all uses. What was to be done - leave the Christian profession  - become unbaptized? That was impossible. There was no going out of the great house. Whatever state it was in, Christ was the Master of the house. We cannot be heathens, or Mahommedans, or strangers to Christian profession. What, I repeat, was to be done? Remain with those that dishonoured Christ because they also were in the great house? Not so. "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." What defiled the house was worse, as such, than heathenism or the darkest ignorance.

337 Am I then to remain isolated in separating myself from these vessels to dishonour? Not so; I am to follow what becomes saints - righteousness, faith, charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Nothing seems to be plainer. Vessels to dishonour, I must expect would be found in the house; I must separate from these. But there are those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. With those I am to associate, and follow after every Christian grace with them. If the house, once builded on the earth of choice and goodly stones (I am not aware that it is ever said that God positively built and formed it, I do not think it is), has become a great house in which vessels to dishonour are found, my path is clearly traced for me. The extent of the evil does not affect the principle, and other guiding ones may come in for other points of conduct. But this I have; I separate myself from the vessels to dishonour. I associate myself with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart.

It is not a question of local discipline, but of public and personal conduct. The responsibility of all in the house remains founded on the place to which they pretend, in which they have outwardly stood. This is clearly taught in Matthew 24, where the evil is viewed as a whole (v. 48). "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites." Here the servant is treated as a servant, but as an evil one, as a hypocrite by the Lord. He considers himself so too. He says "My Lord" - he is so dealt with - the Lord of that servant. What a lesson for the professing church, and particularly for the hierarchical part of it! What makes this more remarkable is, that he is treated as the same servant, as to position, as the other who will be made ruler over all his Lord's goods. Nay, he is treated as the same servant changed in character, "But and if that evil servant, o kakos doulos ekeinos."

338 It is indeed a solemn thought for those who take the place of rulers in the church called of God. But my object at present is only to lay before the reader the view scripture gives of the church's responsibility, and the fact of the existence of that house in which vessels to dishonour are - how scripture looks at it. We cannot, with impunity, lose any part of scripture truth, and especially on points which commit us to grave points of action. We cannot begin the church over again: God is not beginning it. We cannot accept any evil in what is called by that name; less than elsewhere. That is a matter of absolute Christian responsibility.

The seven churches of the Apocalypse also clearly take up this responsibility of the church. We see, no doubt, local assemblies; but embracing, I doubt not, as is very commonly believed, an aspect of the whole professing body, or something characterising a general division of it by a distinct principle; but still the state of the professing church as such. The candlestick is threatened to be removed; and finally, nauseous to Christ, the Laodicean is spued out of His mouth. What bears the name of church is not only judged by Christ, instead of judging others, but every one that hath ears to hear is called upon to listen, and give heed to that judgment - to pay attention to it, as coming from the Spirit.

It has been alleged there is no going out. In a certain sense it is impossible; I have not the smallest thought of ceasing to be professing Christian. I name the name of Christ; am I, for that reason, held to continue in evil?

I add a few other passages, not cited or referred to in what precedes - all that I am aware of which refer to this subject - to facilitate to my reader his search into the truth of scripture on this subject: first, Hebrews 10: 21; 1 Peter 4: 17; and Matthew 16: 18. The last I cite as connected with what I have said as to God's building. The word 'house' is not used, nor is the thought of a dwelling-place of the Spirit in this passage; so that I do not think it affects the question. I think myself, it may apply to both the true and external church; but especially, and finally, to what God secures as the living God, the true church.

339 The "priest over the house of God" is used in a general way, as an allusion intelligible to the Hebrews - the whole administration of the professing body, but exercised in favour and in behalf of those who drew nigh.

I apprehend, in 1 Peter 4: 17, the professing house is referred to, alluding to Ezekiel; but in both these passages, and in all where ruin is not spoken of, the house, though viewed as outwardly subsisting in this world, is supposed to be a true one. Thus, when it is said to Timothy, "behave thyself in the house of God," it was his conduct in the professing church of God upon the earth, but assumed to be composed of disciples. That hypocrites, false brethren, might have got in, this altered nothing as to Timothy's conduct. He was to behave himself in it as the house of God, and maintain its order practically as such. What might come of the house through man's unfaithfulness is another and special question; what is seen in the passages I have just cited is the character, not the state, of the Christian body.

Thoughts on the Church

J. N. Darby.

<20027E> 340

Acquaintance with the truth of the church is indispensable for the setting free of the soul. I call him set free who has done with all questions between himself, God, and Satan

Having entered into this understanding that we belong to the house of God, as if we had always been of it, the question arises, What has Satan to say to it?

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the point is that all is settled through Christ's blood, and I can draw near. For the church it is, I am of the family of God. My life is from Christ; it comes from above. I am with God. By the blood of Christ I draw near from without; as a child I am within whence I come.

There is for me a difference between peace in the conscience and peace in the affections. As regards justification, the blood delivers me from a God of judgment, and the resurrection delivers me from the power of Satan, because the enemy cannot go farther than death. Then, in speaking of the church being risen with Christ, we are one body with Him in resurrection in a sphere where Satan has nothing. If I remain, as it were before the blood only, God always continues to be for me a judge; but, being risen with Christ, I am united to Him in heaven. And such is the church's place, for the church is composed of those who are one with Christ in heaven, and nothing else. We exist in virtue of the love of God, instead of having done anything to satisfy His righteousness. The lack of deliverance nowadays arises very much from the affections not being subdued. Therefore people really do not get out of this struggle till they have the consciousness of the love of God. One cannot enjoy the love of God without being in holiness. If the heart is full of love, God Himself is there; and this is holiness. Resurrection puts us there consciously; without resurrection and the power of the Spirit one is not of the church. On the earth I am not said to be dead; I have a right, it is true, to count myself dead; still, the flesh is in me; whilst in heaven my life is hid with Christ in God, and this by virtue of His resurrection and ascension. With the flesh I am not in heaven, for I am not united to Christ by virtue of the flesh. In resurrection the church is there, where is neither Jew nor Greek. Viewed in Christ, in its privileges, the church is in a condition which goes beyond the state where a conscience is needed; yet this is brought home to the conscience by the fact that the church is on the earth with a testimony.

341 John does not speak of position, but he signalizes the nature which responds to this position; Paul is rather occupied with position. Consequently John is always individual, whilst Paul, speaking of position according to the counsel of God, can consider the body. There are two features in John - love and righteousness. To dwell in God is that which is most elevated in the doctrine of the New Testament. It is indeed communion: only that carries communion very far. Amongst our acquaintances, how much better we know the people with whom we dwell! To dwell in God is to dwell in Him in love. Surely God loves us always: it is infinite grace to enjoy it. But to dwell in God is more than that: it is to find oneself in this love, to sail there, as it has been said of the deluge, sea upon sea, boundless ocean. The only cognizance that I can take of this space is that I cannot get out of it. If we dwelt in God somewhat habitually, that would express itself. The Saviour does not give, like man, from high to low; that is why He rejects the word 'benefactor.' "And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors," Luke 22: 25.

The church is in heaven as to title and its privileges, and on earth as to fact and its duties. On the earth the church ought to be the manifestation of the activity of God's love, and of His holiness, according to the power of the Holy Ghost. As we have seen, the church by resurrection in Christ is in heaven; but in fact it is also on the earth. If we had ascended to heaven to receive the Holy Ghost, the unity would be only for heaven; but the Holy Ghost having descended to the earth to form the unity, that unity is here below.

The body of the church could not exist before the glorification of Jesus, for this would have been a body without a head, which would have been more monstrous even than in a human body.

In Ephesians 1: 7 we have in Christ the remission of sins by His blood. Then, in verses 9 et seq, having given us a position of salvation, God makes known to us His intentions and plans. Meanwhile, in awaiting the accomplishment of things, we have the earnest in the gift of the Holy Spirit until the redemption of the purchased possession. Not till verse 22 do we hear of the church on high.

342 Chapter 2 shows us how we are brought in. Finding men dead in their sins on the earth, God in His infinite mercy quickens them, raises them with Christ, and seats them in Him in heavenly places. In verse 6 together twice occurs: the first is "together" with Christ; the second is together - Jews and Gentiles. We have not got the body in this verse, but that which He does to form the body. In verse 14 we get nearer the church, and see there that the formation of the church could not take place until after the death of Christ, who has broken down the wall of partition.

Verse 15. The Messiah ought to have been the keystone in all things for the Jews; but they rejected Him, and this has given place to His death, and the formation of the new man. Every ordinance is enmity. Take baptism and the Lord's supper, as they are misused in human systems, and you will find thus. See the various religious bodies. They make a constitution. Then of two things one: I must either swallow what is against my conscience, or keep outside. There is also another evil in a constitution, when, to avoid offending the conscience, they reduce it to the lowest degree they can find. If God constitutes, it is the only thing that unites these two conditions - liberty and order. For me, I should never separate from an assembly of Christians, unless it had ceased to be the church. I am speaking as to principle.

The church being formed, it is one body. In verse 20 the apostles and prophets are those of the New Testament. Moreover, when it is said, "for to make," etc., it is something quite new (vv. 21, 22). Not only new, but in contrast with that which had preceded. This is again a proof that the church is formed on the earth. In the first half of the chapter we see the fulness of grace which seeks individuals in order to save them; in the second, the revelation that God's intention was, not only to save by this work of Christ, but also to unite these saved ones.

In chapter 3 we have a further revelation, namely, that not only the church did not exist under the Old Testament, but also that it was not revealed. There are moral connections of all importance; as that the election of the church was before the foundation of the world. So, when man on the earth was put under responsibility, God revealed His counsels for the church before the foundation of the world, outside the course of this world.

343 In chapter 4 Paul takes the church itself In verse 2 the call is to be the house of God. Then one must walk according to this call, according to the presence of God. The unity of the Spirit exists, because there is not only a body, but one body and one Spirit. The unity of the Spirit being lost would make use of the bond of peace to prevent unity. It is here (vv. 7-10) that it goes beyond the revelation of the Old Testament; for in Psalm 68 Christ ascends on high; but there is more here - it is He who descended who ascends: then He fills all things. This gives a very remarkable character to the Person of Christ, namely, that in order to have dominion over all things He must fill all things. "Thou hast received gifts for men," Psa. 68: 18. It is the idea that He has received gifts in humanity. As man He received gifts to give them to men. This is a main point - that the Holy Ghost, instead of remaining solely in His divine being, should come into man. It is the baptism of the Holy Ghost which makes the church to be one body on the earth, and that it cannot be anything else. At the end of the first chapter Paul supposes the doctrine of the thing. At the beginning of the second he gives what God did to put the church in the condition where Christ is, and at the end of the same second chapter, the revelation that it is the tabernacle of God on the earth.

Finally, in the fourth, he declares our responsibility of walk according to this calling, that we are the tabernacle of God, and develops the power of operation according to the fulness of Him who fills all things for the forming of the body.* Every mayor is a Frenchman, but every Frenchman is not a mayor.** It is the same with the church; it shares the general privileges with the others, but it has its special privileges as the church. The Christ of the church is a Christ so glorious that He can be in heaven and in my heart. Paul says the two things in the same phrase, Galatians 2: 20. In verse 11 the Apostle Paul sees Christ so much in resurrection, that here he only sees the apostles since Christ is risen on high, without taking account of the call of the twelve whilst Christ was on the earth. In verses 11-16 we have the undeniable proof that it is the body on the earth, the whole body.

{*The cross is the end of the world, and it is the starting-point for the church! The goal before her is the coming of Christ. Between the two we have the Supper which connects the two points. These are the three fundamental principles of the church, which I immediately saw to be laid down when I left Nationalism.}

{**These notes were taken at a conference at Annonay, in France.}

344 Further, I will not use such an expression as "I cannot" to diminish the responsibility of man. If the church has not the consciousness of being the bride of Christ, it cannot realize either the affections or the duties of the bride. One cannot discern them, if will ignores spiritual affections. Would it be with the church as with the children of the two women before Solomon, one half in the national church, and one half in the free church? Oh no! answer the spiritually enlightened affections, rather take all. Yes, the unity is possible on all the earth. Take, for example, a Moravian. Well, at every point of the globe, in Greenland, in Europe, this Moravian is at home. It is the same thing with a Wesleyan. If I have the idea of making the church as it ought to be down here, I shall be discouraged; but if I view the church according to God, and I walk to that end, I find myself in the obedience of faith, and God encourages me. People say we must content ourselves with that which is possible. I reply, You have never seen the vision of the assembly; you have never seen the church according to God. He always puts before faith an object that one never obtains before one has been put there by the power of God. It is what will take place in glory as to life eternal (1 Tim. 6), for the church (Eph. 2, John 17), etc. There is another thing. If the people 'did not go up against the Amorites when God ordered it, they would be beaten when they rose up a second time; but God will be with them in the wilderness. Even the ark will be at the bottom of Jordan to open the entrance into Canaan. One must count upon God for the present. The visibility of the church was plain, because of the difficulties which it had to surmount in order to maintain unity.

Would it be an evil to allow of an invisible church, as God is also an invisible God? If God was manifested in flesh, so I say, the church has also been manifested here below; 1 Cor. 12: 28. It is evident here that it is not a question of heaven, but of the earth, of the church; for in heaven there are no healings, helps, properly helpers [it is, in manner of speaking, gifts which are not substantive, but objective; gifts of too little scope to act alone, but which are of great help when there is another to shelter them]. There is still another passage on the church to mention in this Epistle; it is verses 16, 18 of 1 Corinthians 10. We have here one body manifested in the act of breaking one bread. It is that which has led people to call the Lord's supper a sacrament. Originally "sacrament" designated the oath by which the Roman soldiers pledged faithfulness to their standard. So, in taking the Lord's supper, Christians declare faithfulness to Christ (chap. 14). In each locality the union of the local church was the expression of unity of all the body.

345 If the church is one, it cannot make an alliance with itself; if it is, with whom will it ally itself? with evil?

One sees by Matthew 16 that Christ had not before Him the idea of the existence of the church up to then. Several confessed the Christ during His life, but it was only Peter who recognized the title of Son of the living God - a living hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead. It is not the idea of being raised up with Christ, and being in heaven with Him, but rather that of being raised up with Him, and walking on the earth. One is not in heaven in this case, one is going there. As to moral character, the doctrine of the Epistle of Peter can be - applied to the saints in the high places of Daniel, and again to those raised up after the rapture of the church. The saints up to Christ had indeed inward life, but they had no intelligence of it; they would not have been able to discern the flesh. There is again this difference, that this life did not connect itself with the Messiah as existing in heaven. God thought of the church, but He would not leave the Jews, before they themselves had left Him. It is for this reason that the church was not revealed until later. In verse 18, for "I say also unto thee," read "And I also say unto thee." The Father has told thee something about Me, that I am the Christ. Well, I tell thee something of thyself. Thou art Peter, and on this rock, etc.

Now the Son takes His place as Master of His own house. God had revealed (not given) to Peter the name of Christ; now Christ gives (not reveals) to Peter a name concerning his position of service in the church, as Adam gave a name to all the creatures. Does this promise annul the fact of the failure of the church? No. One must distinguish between the responsibility of man and the faithfulness of God. The failure is but another proof in favour of this power which is able to keep the saints, and save them after all. It is the same with the Jews; their lie will abound to the glory of God. The keys are not of the church, but of the kingdom. In his ministry Peter always acknowledged the Jews; hence in the beginning of the Acts he never mentions the church. He needed to make use of the keys for the work of the kingdom. As to the church, it was rather Christ who baptized with the Holy Ghost, and who could make use of such and such a person. And what is remarkable is, that not until Paul is Jesus proclaimed as the Son of God. The same as to the promises: Peter acknowledges Israel as the heir (Acts 3: 25), whilst Paul says that it is the seed of Abraham, which is Christ (Gal. 3: 16). As for binding and loosing, Peter was steward in the house while working also for the kingdom. To bind and loose is not only in reference to people, but also to things; whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. He loosens from the law, for example in Acts 15: 9, and when he eats with the Gentiles. Nowadays one binds and unbinds persons, as in John 20.

346 Peter was invested with a certain authority in Matthew 18. As to the force of verse 18, I decide nothing: but verse 19 seems to have a very simple application. The Holy Ghost acting in the church, if two or three agree, the Lord is with them. Like government in a state, it does not make the laws, but it makes use of them; it is invested with discretionary power. Only we must remember that we have not discretionary power outside the word. Such is the perfection of the word, that there is not a single case for which it has not spoken; but wisdom is needed to apply it. It is remarkable to see the wisdom of the ways of God. That which was the church at the beginning has pretended later to be the kingdom.

Although the tares were sown in the midst of the wheat, the children of the kingdom remain always children of the kingdom, whilst the assembly as such may corrupt itself. That is easily understood. The unity is broken; the children of God who formed the unity always remain the children of God; but there is no longer unity; it is no longer the church as such. The rule for me is not to leave an assembly if I think it is the assembly. If the principle of an assembly is to have the children of God gathered because of Christ, I will not leave it, notwithstanding the neglect which has admitted unconverted souls; I would work for its good, and the righteous dealing with these unconverted; but I would not withdraw - quite the contrary. If I find a gathering wholly composed of Christians, but these not assembled on the principle of the Spirit's unity according to the word, I would not unite myself to them in any way. I would not separate myself for false brethren who might have slipped into an assembly, because at all events there was the assembly into which they had slipped.

347 For admission to the Lord's supper, not only faith is required but peace. At present I count upon the Saviour to lead me, knowing that His grace is sufficient for me. We are the guardians of the Lord's table; but in one sense we are also the guardians of the Saviour's sheep, and, from love to them, we shall wish to see them as one flock, far from the dangers of the world; it is a great responsibility, for which however the Lord's grace is always sufficient.

In a case of sin, it is better to leave the individual there for the assembly to suffer for it until it judges itself, than to exercise discipline among a few which might lead to the scattering of the assembly. As we must hold to the purity of the church's conscience, one must, in case of sin, wait till it has the conscience before acting. If these two or three made a rule, they would not be in the place of the word; but in holding to the word, they are authorized for the execution of the thing.

The church administers to the house of God (I am not speaking of the keys now). First, there is unity. There is one body working by its joints of supply. Secondly, there is the power of God by the Spirit confided to the church for that which is within it. The great principle is that the Holy Ghost was there directing everything, while making the Christians to act as servants of Christ, the immediate head of His house; Heb. 3. The root of all is that the church has disowned the presence of the Holy Ghost; it has forsaken the principle which constitutes the foundation of its existence. That is what I call total failure and apostasy. For the church it is the abandonment of the principles on which those who made profession of them were united. In reality the apostasy of the church is impossible. There is outside all the counsel of God - within the saints - there is life (John 10); but, on the other hand, there is also the result of its responsibility on the earth.

Modern Protestantism denies the power of the Holy Ghost to form on the earth one body. The Reformation had in view other things, but it did not deny this one. There were two things in Protestantism - the authority of the word, and justification; some have lost nowadays one of these things, others another. As to popery, there is unity, it is true, but a unity of which the Pope is the centre. To deny unity is unbelief on this subject. When one arrives at the fact of the fall, one finds at the bottom Judaism; it was that against which the apostles struggled at the beginning.

348 Judaism, if we consider the church, is, it seems to me, the principle of succession in clerical ordinances, in the place of the Holy Ghost rendering the servants immediate servants of Christ. This goes even farther, because they have made a priesthood - in a word, the clergy. There are many other things to add, as legalism, the earth, etc., but these do not belong especially to the unity of the church.

The facts are, first, the Holy Ghost is not owned as the power in the church;

Secondly, the unity is lost in the sense of the visible body on earth;

Thirdly, the sense of our responsibility to be one as a testimony on the earth - in a word, the idea of the church is lost. The consciousness of the relationship of the church with Christ is also lost. Could not one say, one is fallen through lack of love? Then, if love is found again, the failure no longer exists! No; not only that, for power is necessary to unity.

The consequence of this failure is, further, that the heavenly character is lost - the principle of action is falsified (as in the clergy). Peter and Paul could not preach in the church, such as it is now known; and if Satan comes with ordination, he is received. All the working of the gifts is laid aside, and replaced by human systems, which do not recognize the action of the members in the aggregate. They make churches, because they do not believe in the church. There is still an important question - it is to find out where this failure has begun. It is difficult to say. We find already at Philippi that each one sought his own interests. At first the evil did not affect the unity of the body, but it was soon to do it. That which is serious in this evil is that it began in the church. See again among the Colossians, how they began to lose sight of the Head of the body; and it is from this source nevertheless that for the church flowed all its life. The church judaized in losing the consciousness of its unity with the Head. We see the same tendency as to justification among the Galatians. As to the Ephesian church, it had abandoned its first love. In Acts 20 we see that the departure of the apostle was to let loose these wolves. We can only see how the evil has come in, but it has spread very far, as is evident when we come to the apostasy. It is solemn to see that it is in the church that all this began.

349 James 5: 14. There is an internal administration or power, which is completely wanting nowadays. The church was competent as to the ways of God with the members of the church. There is at present total incapacity in the house. If that is not a failure, I hardly know what a failure is. Alas! the church has not now the consciousness of itself. There is another great point - it is that the church and the world are blended together.

The First Epistle of John shews us the worst evil was already there. It is the evidence of two things; first, that the presence of Antichrist is that which characterizes the latter times, and that it is in the church that it springs up; and, secondly, that this evil was already in the days of the apostles. It was indeed the last time, for this moral character, the essential character, was already there. The church ought to have been the perfect testimony of what Christ is; whereas it had become the source and cradle of corruption - the formal denial of Christianity. There was already, to begin, the denial of Christ come in the flesh: they denied the Father and the Son; they did not deny God. "Whoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service, because they have not known the Father nor me." Satan always comes, with an old truth which does not put faith to the test, to oppose the one where there is power. The Saviour marks the last time by that which existed in the days of the apostles. We must remark that here these antichrists came out from the midst of the saints. That is a difference from what one sees in Jude.

In Jude 3 the moral force of the phrase lies in this, that Jude, having the intention to write to the saints on their common salvation, had to leave this, in order to occupy himself with the adversaries and apostates, whom he points out to the vigilance of the saints. We see in this epistle, not the fact, but the introduction and the progress of the evil up to its judgment.

In verse 14 Jude passes over all the period of Christianity, and shews it was against those who were there, then present, that the judgment came. Such is the history of the ruin of the church. It is into the church that Satan has introduced those who are to be specially the objects of judgment when the Lord comes with the saints. It is not only that the general system has failed, but, besides that, the evil entered when all was in good condition. The virgins slept in the forgetfulness of the coming of the Lord. They had to go out a second time. It seems that they had entered some place more convenient to slumber in. Christians having entered into the world to sleep, it becomes a question of going out again. We learn, then, from Jude that the evil, which is the object of judgment, enters into the church. He identifies the evil with the judgment at the end. He passes over the history of the church, save that he gives the character of evil in verse 11: three characters of evil, summed up in Cain, Balaam, Core. There is perhaps here a certain analogy with the dragon, the false prophet and the beast at the end. Although religious corruption is serious, it is in the character of Core that one perishes. It is in the church that these three things have sprung up. We saw higher up that the negligence of Christians allowed Judaism and worldliness to enter. Now we see people with these characters enter. Satan did not fail to profit by the open door. Then it is that God declares clearly the apostasy. First, they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Sovereign God and Lord Jesus Christ. Although when they entered they confessed Christ, Jude does not allow himself to be deceived - he puts his finger upon the evil, and declares that they deny Him. Later they will be seen to go out, as it is said in John.

350 There is this besides, that they were spots in the love-feasts of the saints; that is the reason why it is said of them that they were twice dead - dead naturally, and dead as to their profession. "Wandering stars," they have the appearance of giving light, but disappear immediately in the darkness.

How do they distinguish themselves? They pretend to have great knowledge; they were forward in things which they did not understand; they occupied themselves with fables, with endless genealogies; they affected a great elevation of mind, etc. (v. 18). Remark, too, that Jude also says, like John, that the presence of these men is the sign of the last times. One has elsewhere in the word directions how to conduct oneself with regard to such men (1 Cor. 5, for example), but it is not the subject here. Jude gives the thing as a revelation to serve for the instruction of the church until the end. The Holy Ghost does not treat of all the subjects at once. Now that in the aggregate the evil has overflowed, one must go out. We are responsible for the evil which has entered, even when we have not done it, and are not of the system where it is (popery, etc.), because, being identified with the true church, it is that which allowed the evil to enter.

351 The responsibility is individual. When it is a question of conduct, the Lord takes notice of our conduct in that state of things. But when it is a question of the heart, it identifies itself with the whole body, to whom the testimony of God had been confided.

2 Peter 3. It is very nearly as in Jude, with this further character, that there are mockers who deny the return of the Lord.

2 Thessalonians 1: 3-7. Here indeed is the apostasy. We have here the facts of the apostasy established. If there is an apostasy it is little. But the Christian testimony has not continued in its primitive integrity; so that there is no restoration, and the end of that is judgment. Two important things are to be borne in mind in this subject. First, there must needs be an apostasy (v. 3). Secondly, this apostasy is a thing of such a nature, that it is the occasion for the judgment of God (v. 8). For my part, I do not think that the apostasy is consummated, although since the days of John and of Jude the development of the principle has made great advances.

Hebrews 6 may be applied to the Christian system. If men have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have turned away from it, there is no restoration. The guilt of the Jews, viewed as a nation, is that they rejected the Son of man; they will be re-established in the millennium, whilst the Gentiles, fallen as to the Holy Ghost (there is no blasphemy yet, but there is the analogy of the principle), will not be restored. Verse 7, returning to 2 Thessalonians, is the formal declaration that the mystery of iniquity had already begun to work in the days of the Thessalonians. We have already seen that elsewhere. He restrains who makes a hindrance. The important thing for us is to know that there is a bridle which restrains the development of evil, without inquiring what this bridle is. The fathers said that it was the Roman empire. Well, I admit this for a time; as for our days God employs other things: He can maintain the civil governments to serve as a bridle for man's will, in order that the evil may be checked.

352 So long as the church is here below, God maintains the authority necessary towards the ministers of His justice in all that which contributes to the good of His church (v. 9). Satan disposes of the creatures, although he can create nothing, so that for man it is a miracle. With a magnifying glass, by the concentration of the sun's rays, I could produce a fire, which would be a miracle with a window. Satan does something like this with men. But there are two things that Satan entirely ignores - the love of God, and spiritual discernment. (Compare verse 9 with Acts 2: 22). You will see that the same signs which characterized the Christ are those which will characterize the man of sin. Again, in the time of Elijah the question between Jehovah and Baal was settled by fire from heaven descending at the voice of Elijah, which the false prophets then could not do. In the Apocalypse we see that the second beast will cause fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men. The acts of power which were a testimony of God by Christ, as well as of Jehovah in Israel, will be exercised by the man of sin.

It seems to me that Judaism occupies a very great place in the prophecies that concern the end.

1 Timothy 3: 15. The word is for the church, and the church for the world. After all the church is always the depository of the truth. It is in the world the sphere where one finds the truth. Viewed in its aspect in that which appears, it is an immense lie; but viewed in that which is of God, one finds the truth, which God maintains by the faithfulness of His grace. One finds even among the Papists fundamental truth - the deposit is there; but the additions and the transformations render it false as to testimony. Earthly priesthood and human ordinances are brought in between God and man, who cannot get near Him.

In 2 Timothy 2 the man of God was to purge himself from the vessels of dishonour in the house of God - Christendom. Evil is not to be sanctioned, however earnestly we may seek to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Indeed fidelity is essential. If the Lord know them that are His, let him that names His name depart from iniquity. Other names should not bind us to iniquity. It is not discipline here, but conduct regulated in view of corrupt Christendom, and this relative as well as personal. "Flee also youthful lusts, but seek righteousness, faith, charity, peace with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." Thus he may count on fellowship according to the Lord even in such circumstances - not isolation, but communion by the will of God. The perilous times of the last days need not hinder this. From the pretenders who deceive the silly, and resist the truth, one must turn away. For there will be professing men, since they have the form of piety; and here they respond to the picture that we have of the heathen at the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans. (Compare 2 Tim. 3.)

353 The heathen, it is true, are more undisguised there; whilst in 2 Timothy the evil is more hidden; they have the form of godliness. One sees in verses 6, 7, that there was activity in these things - "ever learning," they are silly women (gunaikaria), captives, under the tyrannical influence of these individuals. On the other hand, there are the scriptures which make one wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The two things are the word and faith. Faith is the key to enter into the word with. What is very remarkable here is, that as security he does not give the Holy Ghost, but the word. The Lord (Luke 24: 44) acknowledged the Old Testament as it was received with the various readings. Moreover, in this He sanctioned the faith of those who had acknowledged it before it was sanctioned. You do not understand all the code of laws, but you read it, acknowledging that these laws express authority in the land. The church does not give any authority to the word, but was its guardian. To the church the oracles were confided. It is in this that it has been unfaithful - in the keeping of this deposit. For that which calls itself the church has added to scripture the Apocrypha.

Observe, "From a child." It is the authority of the book which is recognized (from father to son); for Timothy as a child was hardly able to judge whether it was the word of God. We have in these verses all that is a security for the perilous times.

Peter also says the scriptures, when he mentions prophets (2 Pet. 1: 20, 21). Again, he recognizes the writings of Paul as inspired writings (2 Pet. 3: 14). I believe in literal inspiration, because it is said, "by words taught by the Holy Ghost," 1 Cor. 2: 13. But if one come to this, I should rather say absolute inspiration, because I believe that the Holy Ghost is the AUTHOR of that which has been written. He has made use of instruments for this. You find them, over and over again, in their special features and individuality. From Him is the difference of the facts reported by some, and not by others, in the Gospels.

354 Then I admit that God permits all these difficulties in the word (the various readings, etc.), in order to stumble unbelief. One has an example in Isaiah 8: 13, 14. God permits that there should be things in the manifestation of the truth, which suffice to stumble those who do not believe. If human science can judge respecting the Bible, to decide if it is the word of God, then the spirit of man must be above God. This is infidelity, apostasy commenced, which is consummated for the Christian profession by the fact that it ceases to be the church, just as death brings a man to his end. It is like a shadow, which at the decline of day grows longer and longer, and then - ceases.

The Vaudois

J. N. Darby.

<20028E> 355

I know not whether your readers are interested, as I have been, in the hunted remnant of the middle ages, both east and west, during the time that ecclesiastical corruption and wickedness were on the throne of their power. They laboured under a double disadvantage. They have no historians but their enemies, alike bitter and unprincipled, who would stop at no calumny to blacken them, their own stupendous wickedness making the accusation of it a natural weapon. This was one reason why we know so little truly of them, and that little to their disadvantage.

But there was a second disadvantage under which they laboured; they were thrown, by being separated from the public professing body, into the danger of following their own ideas instead of the abominable and senseless traditions in which they had been nurtured, and so much the more because they had (though the first that largely used them after darkness set in in the church), comparatively speaking, very little the opportunity of availing themselves of the word of God. And further they were in danger not only from the working of the human mind as we all are, but of coalescing with various heresies and works of Satan which moved about in the dark, but hated the ruling religious powers for the truth they preserved more than for the corruption they were guilty of You will always find Edomites that would raze Jerusalem, not because it is corrupt but because it has the standing of the city of the great king, as well as those who say "The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these," while they are only bringing ruin on it by corrupting it and dishonouring the Lord of the temple.

The Waldenses have this advantage - they are attacked by both. Roman Catholics and Ritualists attack them of course; and free-thinkers, who would have error free because it is free-thinking, will never bear subjection to the word of God, nor holding fast to the truth because it is the truth, for then man cannot be a free-thinker. Another very serious disadvantage under which the Vaudois have laboured is, that those in the seventeenth century who furnished their documents or copies of them to the Protestant world in England and France tampered with them - that is, Leger and Perrin, or at least Perrin. Critics and Ritualists settled on this, as flies on a sore, and sought to cast on the Vaudois the sins of their historians and furnishers of documents. There was no serious effort to investigate the truth, but the greatest delight in detecting what was false and thereby discrediting the Vaudois or Waldenses. Even Moreland, who deposited the MSS. at Cambridge, did not escape; he, it was said, must have stolen them away after putting them there, that they might be in some safer Puritan's place and detection avoided. Quite a theory as to this was built up by Mr. Algernon Herbert in a very vulgar-minded detective-police article, quite worthy of that class of religionists, which is now proved to be all false. The MSS. are in Cambridge, and have always been there, overlooked though close by the rest.

356 Nor was the spirit of Dr. Todd much better, who anxiously insinuates they held popish errors in the very pieces which relate their being tortured and delivered to the secular army by Romish prelates. Some of the MSS. are of a later date than the warm advocates of the Vaudois have supposed, and some falsely dated by the copyist for Perrin, or by Perrin himself - very likely the latter. I know not why, but the French Synods were dissatisfied with his work, yet at last accepted it. The Nobla Leycon is a genuine and ancient document, but their manipulations had sought to give it an earlier date than was the real one; and we have a large body of documents genuine, though some have been meddled with, and some probably very ancient; and Gilly has pretty well proved the most ancient European translation of the New Testament found in any language is the Romaunt or Gallic. The copies we have are written with chapter and verse, but scripture is quoted in some treatises without either, proving the quoted passages to have been written early in the thirteenth century at latest. (Gilly's Introduction to the Romaunt version of John, 41.)

It appears that the Nobla Leycon reads really 1400 years are fully accomplished, not 1100. This was Leger's doing, or some other, who furnished the MSS. But the poem is genuine; and long before the Reformation the early French translations were to supplant the Vaudois scripture. Such is the evidence of documents now afforded. We have the testimony of a letter of Pope Innocent III in 1199, of a Gallic translation circulated in the diocese of Metz in 1229. The Romaunt version was prohibited in the Council of Toulouse. Other acts of the inquisition and councils to prevent people reading this version it is unnecessary to speak of.

357 Simon (Hist. Crit. de l'Anc. Test.) informs us that the first Roman Catholic translation was made to hinder the people reading these. They were evidently widely spread in 1250. The inquisitor Reinerius Saccho states distinctly that he knew poor people who knew the whole New Testament. The use and quotation of it subsequently is beyond all question.

As to the antiquity of the Vaudois themselves, some remarks may be useful. Waldo's history is well known. He appeared about 1170, was at first well received by the Pope, but forbidden to preach; he did however and was driven from Lyons. He had nearly all, if not all, the Bible translated, and was very active, having given away all his fortune. The upholders of popery have taken great pains to shew that the Vaudois were in many points conformed to the followers of the Pope. Now there were many points as to which they were in the dark. The infamy of the clergy, degraded by species of vice which none can call in question, had roused the conscience of many, and more as to practice and the acts by which they made money than as to dogma. But purgatory, consecration to the priesthood and indulgences, confession to priests, prayers for the dead, were all rejected. They are charged by ritualists with recognizing penances of prayers, fasting, alms. There is truth in this; but they appear to have been as opposed to indulgences which had obliterated all true discipline. They rejected oaths on confession extorted by torture. Andrinus Crespini, or Valoy, said there was no purgatory but in this world; he denied the spiritual power of the Pope, prelates and clergy, disapproved of the invocation of saints, kept no feasts or fasts of the church, gave no honour to images, had no faith in holy water. This was half a century before the Reformation. The superstition and vices of the clergy and church of Rome - that they rejected; holding the common faith of the church at large, without any apparent protestant doctrine of justification by faith. This was the case also with the revival in Moravia and Bohemia of Hussitism before the Reformation, closely connected as it was with the scattered Waldenses, as their history plainly shews. They did not then like the doctrine of justification by faith when brought from Luther. Todd seeks to insinuate that they held the seven sacraments; but his own quotation proves that they did not hold extreme unction as really such, though he speaks of Perrin's only giving what refers to the abuses of the Roman Catholics. Nor, it is clear, did they hold priestly ordination at all.*

{*The editor of Moneta shews this from Reinerius.}

358 And now as regards the origin of Vaudois. Of Waldo I need say nothing. The facts as to him may be found in most church histories, and (with a trifling difference) the date of his coming forward as a herald of what truth he knew, and getting the scripture translated. He was forced to retire from Lyons, but it is admitted that the Vaudois sect was spread over all Western Europe. It is said Philip Augustus of France in the earlier part of the thirteenth century razed three hundred castles of Vaudois Seigneurs. This could hardly be from Waldo, who only began to preach at the end of the twelfth. But further Waldo first received serious impressions from a Troubadour, of whom many carried piety and anti-Roman doctrines around where they penetrated with their songs; and it is expressly said by Stephen of Borbonne that when driven out, Waldo went and joined other heretics of Provence and Lombardy. They were therefore already there. And this question then arises, Were these simply Albigenses or Manicheans as is alleged? That there were Manicheans spread from Bulgaria, originally from the east of Asia Minor, on into Spain itself, can hardly be questioned. But not even the Inquisition ever charged the Waldenses with this. The archives of the Inquisition of Toulouse published by Limborch demonstrate this; and the well-known testimony of Reinerius Saccho which declares that they live justly and believe all the articles of the creed; which makes them, he says, so dangerous. But, if we are to believe Mosheim, there were two parties even among these Bulgarian teachers who filled the whole south of Europe, and particularly Lombardy and the south of France, the latter being exterminated by the crusade of de Montfort, for which the Inquisition was invented. The one, or Albenanses, really held the doctrine of two principles, and thus were Manicheans; the other Baioli, of whom came the Albigenses, held nothing of the kind, but that there was one God the Creator, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, but that Satan, after his fall, had ruined the earth, making the four elements. So they were divided into three parties as to the flesh of Christ, some holding He took flesh of the Virgin Mary, some not; others that He took it really and suffered in it, but did not take it to heaven on His ascension. The sacraments of the Roman body they wholly rejected. They had a certain but unsatisfactory faith in the Trinity.* All this had nothing to do with the Vaudois.

{*See Moneta, 2.5, 247.}

359 We have clearly then, I think, three parties: Waldo's followers, who amalgamated with the Vaudois, and the Cathari, of whom there were two parties, Manicheans, and non-Manicheans, though of unsatisfactory doctrine. We cannot be surprised, as all were opposed to Rome, at Rome's burning all together. She did not care for truth but for authority, and pulled up some tares contrary to Christ's direction and much wheat (as the blessed Lord foretold) with it. She will have to answer for the blood of all saints. But if we seek to trace out the history of the Vaudois proper, those of the valleys of Piedmont, it is not very difficult.

It is well known that Claude of Turin resisted what they resisted. He was archbishop of those very valleys. This was in the ninth century. But it is certain that before that the same opposition to superstition was found there. In Jerome's famous letter to Vigilantius, in which he rages with his accustomed abuse and violence against him for resisting superstitions then coming in, he refers to these very districts and states in the most insolent language (the custom of ritualists when opposed, however they fawn on superiors when it suits them), that the bishops there sustained Vigilantius in his opposition to the growing superstition. Thus from 406 and then in the middle of the ninth century the same opposition continues there; and then we find 300 years after the same opposition still, and them and their adversaries tracing it to some seventy years before we find it established there, as proved by Jerome's letter. It was a protest, not there only, but which survived there against the corruption of the professing church after Constantine, when it borrowed the rites and doctrines of Paganism and thus supplanted it. With the testimony we have from Reinerius Saccho and others, it is utterly impossible to think the Vaudois commenced with Waldo of Lyons, though it be very likely their tenets received a very great extension through his means. Reinerius Saccho's inquisitorial activity was sixty years after Waldo's activity began, and he states there were three reasons why the Waldenses or Vaudois whom he was sent to reduce to the obedience of the Roman Church. The first was they were a great deal older (diuturnior) than all other sects; adding, some say from the time of Pope Sylvester, others from the apostles. It has been attempted to say this is merely "some say," but it is Reinerius who says they were older than sects; and it is important to see that it was they themselves who thus held it to be from Sylvester at least, soon after whose time we find traces of it in these districts, the evil having really begun in his time by the christianizing of the emperor. Next, that they were more universally spread, there was scarce any land where it was not received. This could not have been in some fifty years. The third was that they lived justly, and held soundly all the articles of the creed.

360 The Vaudois then were a people, a religious testimony with their Barbes (uncles) or pastors spread over Europe. Reinerius does not speak of Albigenses, who were treated as open heretics, but the Vaudois; and the history is well known, how they had been sought for their integrity by the feudal lords in Calabria, and, after being settled there some time and visited by their Barbes, were subsequently all utterly exterminated at the instigation and under the direction of the Roman Catholic clergy.

That the Vaudois had sunk very low at the time of the Reformation is quite true. They went to mass and were afraid of holding separate meetings. But we have even then the unexceptionable testimony that they had lived wholly apart from Rome. Seyssel, archbishop of Turin, declares in a book published in 1520, only three years after Luther's theses, that within memory of man no Romish prelates had been in the valleys. He declares that they pretend to date from Constantine but in an ignorant way calling themselves Leonists, from a Leo of Constantine's time who was disgusted with the largesses bestowed on the prelates by the emperor.

The Reformation roused them up, and OEcolampadius blamed them much for thus yielding to popery and not having separate meetings. But at this epoch we have Seyssel's testimony that no prelate had dared to go there within the memory of man, and that by faith he ventured there. As we might suppose, oppression and persecutions came with the Roman clergy. Since the Reformation they sank down, with the rest of the reformed, into Socinianism; but with the rest God has graciously revealed the truth amongst them, though of course they have not got beyond the principles of the Reformation which they received from OEcolampadius and Bucer at the time by the intervention of Masson and Moul their Barbes.

361 Recently Dr. Meila, a Roman Catholic clergyman, has sought to use the efforts of Todd and the recent discoveries (by Mr. Bradshaw) of the Cambridge MSS. to attack their antiquity. The body of the book is simply exposing what was already exposed, the unreliableness of the statements of Leger; and then seeks to prove that the Vaudois were persecuted for rebellion and not religion; but qui s'excuse s'accuse. The oppression is certain; and in another way the answer is no answer at all. There were Waldenses outside the valleys. They were all exterminated in Calabria and brought before the Inquisition everywhere. Rome is drunk with the blood of the saints.

Dr. M. has brought forward only one document of any importance. In 1220 the corporation of Pinerol forbade any to open their houses to Waldenses. He adduced this as a proof that it was then new. This was some 30 years after Waldo's public activity. This may very likely have awakened the activities of the authorities against the Waldenses, but it is no proof one way or other of their existence or otherwise. Reinerius' testimony, which Dr. Meila entirely misrepresents and which was only 30 years after this decree of the local authorities, makes such an idea impossible. Nay the decree rather confirms the importance of the statement. Reinerius' own words are that it was of much older date than any sect. The particular alleged dates he quotes from others; but that it is "diuturnior omnium" is his own statement. He had been a Vaudois himself before the time of the decree and knew what they said, and turned Dominican and inquisitor. How was it possible, if it had only begun 30 years before in the neighbourhood? could he say that it had existed longer than any sect?

The decree of Pinerol is easily accounted for, the condemnation of Waldo and the Waldenses having just taken place at Rome. Not only so, but in the year 1127 there is a treatise of Peter of Clugny against the heretics of the diocese of Embrun, and in 1164 the mountains are said to be infected with heresy. At the very end of that century (1189) the Pope had embraced Waldo, only bid him not preach unless authorized by the priesthood. Subsequently not obeying this order he was driven from Lyons and went over to the Italian side of the mountains and sowed and drank in heresy, says Stephen de Borbonne. That then the decree of Pinerol should have been made, the Pope in council having now condemned them thus active in spite of popes, is perfectly natural, but proves nothing as to the date of Waldensian principles which the contemporary testimony of Stephen de Borbonne and Reinerius Saccho prove. One expressly he found already there; besides testimonies of an earlier date still, which say the heresy was there.

362 My paper has greatly overpassed the limits I had thought of; but it may not (in the presence of these attempts to discredit an oppressed and persecuted people, without any honest search into the truth of the matter) be without interest to some of your readers. It is quite true that Leger and Perrin are not to be trusted, and the attempt to ascribe reformed doctrines to the ancient Waldenses has no foundation. But neither is Dr. Todd to be wholly trusted, and Mr. Herbert's ingenious and prejudiced theories were false. Dr. Todd is obliged to admit it was a monstrous charge, but neither has anything to do with the real history of the case.

Jerome's letter to Vigilantius is of all importance as to the historical facts and the labours of Claude of Turin to keep image worship and superstition out of his diocese. It is also important not to confound the Albigenses and Cathari with the Waldenses, though there is much that is interesting as to the former too.

I may just add that the discussions as to the origin of the term Waldenses, Vallenses, etc., have proved nothing. The Canton de Vaud is spelt with a 'd'; but east of Lausanne there is a commune in the height above the lake which is called Grandvaux with an 'x.' I doubt that Canton Waadh is the same as Wald.

Brief remarks on the Spirit and the Assembly

J. N. Darby.

<20029E> 363

"Now concerning spiritual operations [or, manifestations]": this word is preferable to that of "gifts," because here it includes diabolical demonstrations, as well as operations of the Spirit; and we do not like to call that which is really the working of the devil a "gift." Such is the meaning of desiring the "best gifts." They might desire spiritual manifestations. Paul wished them to be able to discern, when any one had spoken with power among them, whether it was the devil or the Holy Ghost speaking by Him. No man can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the Holy Spirit; and no one calls Him "Anathema" if he speaks in the Spirit of God. It seems strange for us to think a person speaking with power should speak by the evil spirit; but it was a common thing with them. There were false prophets, we read. They took the form of teachers, instead of utterances. No doubt the devil has been thus working among Mormonites and Irvingites. "Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God." The great truth is Himself come in the flesh. The Gnostics said matter was a bad thing made by the devil. It is, in 2 John, Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, not speaking as to the time, but of the character, of His coming. Again, "This is he that came by water and blood." There was moral power but atonement also. He was real man; and came for the shedding of blood as well as for purifying

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." The great thing here insisted on is the unity of the Spirit, as opposed to many demons, creatures working by creatures. "He shall not speak of himself." "Let the prophets speak two or three . . . if any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace," 1 Cor. 14: 29, 30. The power of the Holy Ghost acts morally on the individual. "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." If we see a carriage movable by steam, the moment the steam is put on, there is the power; but it wants one to guide. If the one prophet went on speaking, it was not according to the order of the Spirit, though it was by the Spirit. The gift is committed to men who are responsible for the use of it. It is not impulse merely, though there be an impulse given; but then there must be the control over it. If two get up at the same moment to pray, both may have what is of the Spirit to utter, but one is not subject at the moment to the Lord's order.

364 There are differences of ministries. The gifts are through the Holy Ghost, the service is to Christ the Head; but the Spirit is the power. In the exercise of the gift one is the servant of Christ the Lord, the Spirit is the energy by which one serves, but God is He that works all in all, doing everything. Though several should speak together, still it is all by one divine Spirit (not several spirits of demons). While I am Christ's servant and not man's, still I could not exercise my gift in spite of all my brethren (say against it) without despising Christ's authority in the body. "Be ye subject one to another." It is God that is working; and therefore let all be silent before Him.

The thought of the family, which sometimes prevails, is not sufficiently reverential to Christ as the Lord. Service to Christ as the Lord is something more than service in the family. For instance, I feel a difference in going to my Father, and going to God. Thus, if I go to my father in the house, I go up to him at once, and jump upon his knee; but if he is in court, sitting in public in his official capacity, I do not use such familiarity; I treat him with more respect than that. We are set as servants, and as members (lower down in the chapter) of one body, of which Christ is the Head. It makes an amazing difference in this way. If I have the thought of the Holy Ghost only present to my mind, self comes in, and I almost necessarily attach a certain importance to myself, because I am expecting to be used. I am to speak, or I am to pray. But when Christ is looked to and realized, it is entirely different. Self does not come in, because I am looking to another - to Christ as personally present to faith; and thus the affections are drawn forth to a Person - to Him who has died for me. The whole tone of a meeting will be affected by this.

There are many members, not heads. Again no one is to go beyond his measure. Each is to wait on his ministry, whatever it may be; let him stick to that one thing, and not attend to everything else. He that gives, let him do it with simplicity; he that ministers is to wait on his ministry to do the work he has to do (and let him not attempt anything else), as he that exhorts on exhortation. God may give one person half a dozen gifts. One may be an evangelist only; one may exhort and move the conscience; and another may teach. The manifestation of the Spirit is given to profit withal. (See Rom. 12.)

365 At the first, in preaching the gospel, there was the broad statement of the fact that the Son of God was come. Now it has to be applied, because it is admitted in common as a fact, though the more it is stated again and again the better. Where there is a gift, if the saints are not in a spiritual state, the gift is but little manifested, and not so easily discerned. What marks the gift of an evangelist is love for souls, not love of preaching. Where the gospel is preached and God blesses it, there is fruit, which gives His servant confidence to go on; but when he is beginning, there may be very little development of the gift and no fruit seen, but still there will be love for souls and the endeavour to get at them. He must work on by faith therefore, until he gets proof in result.

The confession of Christ must not be confounded with the preaching of the gospel. Every one ought to confess Christ in one sense, though he may not be able to preach Christ. We have to act as having received the talent from the Lord, and there should be full confidence in Him and a desire to trade for His advantage. It is sweet to see love for souls in seeking to speak to them, but this does not prove there is a gift for preaching.

He, moreover, that is always speaking of Christ in his intercourse with his brethren and others, is more useful in the church than the man who spoke with tongues.

We are in a defective condition if we are not in principle taking in every member of Christ. There is one body - the whole church; there can be only those who are inside and those who are outside.

Some have spoken of a gift of prayer. It is, I think, a wrong expression. Prayer is not the exercise of gift. Preaching is the Levite service, if you please; but prayer is priestly. Levite service is to end in this world: priestly service is to go on through eternity. One who has a gift comes into a meeting of saints where the Holy Ghost is, and that which is in him is pressed out by the power of the Spirit in the assembly.

The spiritual man, again, "judgeth all things." If I am not spiritual, I shall make a mistake. A man's saying a thing was done in the Spirit or not in the Spirit must depend on his grace to act, and has nothing to do with his power to judge. Of course it is assumed we are in the Spirit or spiritual. If a man is spiritual, he judges all things, and he must be spiritual to judge. If he is not spiritual, he cannot judge; but if he is spiritual, he first judges himself.

366 When the Holy Ghost is present in power and ungrieved, the simplest speaking of the love of Christ will be enjoyed by the whole assembly. The affections will be lively and fresh towards Him, though the truth spoken may be familiar to all. "Let all things be done to edification." You may get in one train of thought a happy flow of unity; but you must remember that it is the power of the Holy Ghost which produces it.

Remarks on 2 Timothy

J. N. Darby.

<20030E> 367

A few remarks on the Second Epistle to Timothy may, I think, not be without their use at the present moment. I will embrace in them, as throwing great light on the second, a short comparison with the first, as to its general character.

We get in both epistles what is evidently of the deepest interest, the confidential communications of the apostle to one to whom, above all, he could open out all his heart, and express himself freely. But their characters are very different, and the rather as he could express all his personal feelings. Besides the interest of this, moreover, the general instruction of the Spirit in them is full of import. The first, as is soon perceived, bears in general the stamp of the quietness which characterizes a peaceful development of what was subsisting, in the main, as it had been first established. The second is thrown into individual duties and earnestness, because that which had been established had departed from all consistency with its original standing.

The first epistle just guards the truth which was possessed, but is little occupied with it. Individuals were to be hindered teaching any other doctrine. Some few, hankering after the law, had already turned aside and gone into vain janglings. But in the main the apostle could speak of the church as being that which is always true to the responsibility of the position it is in, without its suggesting a painful sense of the discordance between fact and responsibility; namely, that it was the pillar and ground of the truth. Individuals had fallen into Gnostic Judaism. The assembly was still practically, as it always is in responsible position, the pillar and ground of the truth. It had not falsified its character. The church, and the church alone, until judicially rejected of God, sustains the truth before the world, though grace sustains the church. Men may minister the truth, but the church, by its profession, sustains it. This thought brings no present distress to the apostle's mind. It gives occasion to the prophetic declaration, that in the latter days some would depart from the faith. Timothy was to put the brethren in remembrance, so that they might be on their guard when that came; but the body of the epistle supposes the church, in the main, untroubled in this respect, though there were dangers seen in the horizon, as in Acts 20, and it is occupied, assuming the truth to be maintained, with the order and comeliness of the house of God - how Timothy ought to behave himself in the church, which was the pillar and ground of the truth. It arranges the order of the house in the various practical details of its administration on earth, from the elders who should rule in it, to the care of widows and the church's duty in respect of them, keeping in view family ties and the obligations flowing from them. It is the whole order of the church upon earth, and the due administration of it. The church is looked at as in this world, not as the body of Christ. It is the house of the living God, and assembly here on the earth, the vessel and maintainer of the truth in it.

368 The apostle looked to exercise still his administrative care himself, but instructed Timothy meanwhile how to behave himself, having his attention fixed on divine things, and exhorts him to fight the good fight of faith in view of the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. In a word, it is the due administration of the church upon earth, awaiting the Lord's appearing as the term of the responsibility. As a whole the church is seen as that to which the mystery of godliness was confided, and it was the maintainer of it on the earth. The danger of running into law and Gnostic asceticism is warned against; but as yet the church, as such, maintains the truth, and has only to be rightly administered.

It will be remembered that Timothy was left at Ephesus to guard against any preaching of any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1: 3), though instructed in the administrative order of the assembly; and this runs through the epistles, applying that truth withal to practical purposes, shewing it as the truth as it is in Jesus.

In the second epistle the assembly is still there; but it is viewed as a great house, in which vessels to dishonour are to be found. Here the truth, as with John, takes a prominent place, that is the maintenance of the truth, individual faithfulness to the truth, and individual piety. He looks for devotedness and courage in the individual, in the man of God. Church privileges are not before his mind. He can dwell on the Jewish faith (the truth in their day) of Timothy's mother and grandmother (and the mother had married a Greek), and that of Timothy, as all running in the same divine channel and flowing from the same divine source.

We have two characters of the assembly. It is like a great house, it has vessels to dishonour as well as to honour, and it would have, in the perilous times, the form of piety but deny its force. As to the facts which gave occasion to this train of thought, they are evident. The apostle had been deserted by the saints, and was looking soon to leave the assembly, and he knew what would come in after his departure, and warns of it. "All in Asia had turned away" from him: he was glad to have one that cared for him in his prison! The Lord had indeed none. The brethren, some from worldly motives, some doubtless for service, but at any rate all but Luke, had left him. They had not in their hearts to stand by him in his witness. They had not left Christ as to the faith, but they could not hold fast in such an exposed place as Paul's. So at his first answer on his trial, "no man stood by him," "all men forsook him"; but he knows whom he has believed. It was to Christ he had committed his happiness, and He would keep it safe for him. A crown of righteousness was laid up for him. He had fought the good fight, he had kept the faith.

369 Thus strong individual personal faith, with the sense that the assembly had failed and not held on to the ground on which his soul walked, is that which gives the character and key-note to this epistle. Still unclouded personal courage is that which he looks for. But the state of the assembly on the earth may first occupy us, and then individual duty. It did not maintain church elevation in its position. Of this Paul was the representative. I doubt much if Timothy was at Ephesus at the time (Tychicus was sent there); but the epistle to the Ephesians gives, at any rate, what I mean by church elevation in its position. We know how Paul was converted by the revelation of a heavenly Christ, accompanied by the declaration that all saints were one with Himself. How the fact that men, Jew as well as Gentile (for he was a pattern of a Jew), were children of wrath, that man was alienated from God, dead in trespasses and sins, that it was a risen Christ he knew, and did not know Him after the flesh, and that all in Him was a new creation, a second Adam, characterized the teaching of the apostle. How the elevation of his doctrine, which judged all flesh and shewed what the church really was, awakened the opposition of fleshly religion and human pride. He had first been in bonds for this, he was now on the borders of death, but he had kept the faith - had indeed "not counted his life dear unto him."

But here the great body of the saints held back. It pressed them out too much against the world, and the world against them; and they shrank back; he was deserted as well as persecuted. It is this aspect of things which he had to contemplate. He was largely like the Lord in it; standing as it were between two worlds, his service finished in one, and yet not passed into the other. Timothy took, comparatively with Paul, John's place with the blessed Lord on the cross.

370 In the service of ministry there was a power which raised not only above sin (Christ, of course, was absolutely free from it) but above nature, when it was not sin, but where admission of it would have been a hindrance and so a failure, and incompatible with the undivided service to the Lord. "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" So, when one would bid adieu at home, the Lord says: "he that hath put his hand to the plough and looketh back, is not fit for the kingdom of God": a man must hate his father and mother. So Paul: "henceforth know we no man after the flesh." He took no counsel with flesh and blood. But when the Lord had closed His service, He said, "Woman, behold thy son; son, behold thy mother." So the apostle here returns to the thoughts and feelings of nature (I do not mean as evil, but human) kindly associations. He opens his heart to Timothy, is mindful of his tears, desiring to see him that he might be filled with joy. He had served God from his forefathers, thinks of the piety and faith of Timothy's mother and grandmother, feels too his isolation, can speak of his cloak and books and parchments. He is, in spirit, passing out of his ministry, in which he was sustained above all nature, into gracious and tender feelings (but not apart from nature), and solemnly commending the charge which Timothy was to take up to his care and responsibilities. He who had represented the church in its higher character, and sustained it in his spiritual energy, was now in prison. This, for any but especially for such a servant of God, is full of touching interest.

But the church had lost withal that character in which the divinely given elevation of his spirit could have found its sphere. He had his own place from God. He was a masterbuilder; and, however he could prophetically point out what was coming on, and give just warning as to it, one may justly ask oneself, how he could, such as he was, as given of God, have wrought in the declining state of things - the rapidly corrupted church, which did not keep, we may say, a day after his death, the consciousness of the elevation of its position, or the clear doctrine of justification as risen with Christ It sank down to its conventional place in this world. No doubt the knowledge of Christ in that place made it incomparably superior to the world, to say nothing of individual salvation. But how could Paul have descended there? He would have been more than useless. He would have been in conflict with the whole church, when it was falling - not reviving - or have sanctioned, helplessly, the state he disapproved of No; God orders all things rightly. When the church is just turning into a great house, all having abandoned the apostle, the apostle, called up of God, abandons the no longer applicable service, having fought the good fight and finished his course; and leaves to John, in his singularly blessed Ephesus, to record the abandonment of their first love, and to secure individual faithfulness and walk where corporate consistency had failed. Meanwhile, what is ever our duty in our place, he urges on Timothy devoted and courageous faithfulness whatever the state of the assembly may be, and shews the saints' united path in it. This state of the assembly on earth in its elements, its form, and our path of duty in it, I have now to inquire into.

371 Life and incorruptibility according to grace (given us in Christ Jesus before the world was) are now before his spirit, death being abolished in its power. The Fulfiller of the promise to the seed of David was raised from the dead. We have to suffer - endure hardness - not to be ashamed of the testimony, nor of its being in prison: a day is coming which will set all clear; at His appearing, and His kingdom, He would judge. There is here, note, no thought of rapture, or church privilege. I will touch on this farther on.

What then is the state of the assembly? What principles govern it? I think I see the form of the settling down of the church into the world, in the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus: if the resurrection is passed already, here we are settled in our ultimate state. It had not been formed into a system, it was only in the form which took away expectation of the Lord and heavenly hopes; for, if the resurrection was passed, Christ, in spiritually freeing His people, had set them down here contented in their worldly abode. It was, if not eternity, the germ of a kind of spiritual millennium without Christ. The church was no longer a stranger and a pilgrim, a bride waiting for the Bridegroom; she was settled down into a permanent accepted place on the earth. It was a sad, probably unperceived, departure; but unperceived, because the sense of what the church is was gone.

372 That it marred the character of the assembly on earth as the recognized gathering together in one of the children of God who had been scattered, the manifestation of God's elect ("knowing, dearly beloved, your election of God"), (a decay already hinted at, 1 Cor. 10), and the body of Christ, is evident from what the seal of the sure foundation of God was: "the Lord knoweth them that are his." They were not publicly and distinctively manifested. It was no longer "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," nor the "perfecting of the saints, the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come," etc. This form of truth is gone: the Lord Himself knows, and only He, who His chosen ones are. And the same thought is stamped on the reverse of the seal, man's responsibility to act up to his profession so that it might be evidently real: if a man named the name of Christ (plenty might be doing it), he was to depart from iniquity.

This state of things at once introduces the form it would take. In a great house you must expect vessels to dishonour as well as to honour. That which had, in being formed, been the body of Christ seated in heaven (and in Him seated there itself), and the proper suited habitation of God by the Spirit on the earth, was now a great house, where vessels to dishonour were to be expected to be found. But this, while itself guiding the conduct of the saints would, in the last days, develop itself into a terrible system of formed evil. Perilous times would come: men (for there was no real ground to call them saints or Christians - whatever their pretensions and claims, the guiding Spirit would not call them so, but "men") there would be, lovers of themselves, etc., having a form of piety, and denying its power. It was not the church letting evil in, or slipping away from its true heavenly character. To tell the truth as to it, you must begin at the other end. Men, what was really the will and wit of men, would, under the name of Christianity, be as bad as the heathen had been, have their will in wickedness, and clothe themselves in the form of piety, denying its power. Such were the predicted forms of evil, and placed as present things, thoughts for all times, under the eyes of Timothy, as the sphere of his own responsibility - so soon did the church depart from its faithfulness - the outward form a great house; and then the activity of these lovers of pleasure, without a trace of real piety, busy to lead foolish minds astray under the forms of piety!

373 Let us now see the spirit in which the saint, taught of God and watchful, has to walk, what our divine directions are. The first and most marked characteristic is the way the apostle looks for spiritual courage. God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. He was to be partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God. No shame as to the testimony; no shame as to the shame it brought on those who were faithful. He was to be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. Personal faith was to grow in the measure in which evil grew, and the saints declined. He was to endure hardness, not to entangle himself with affairs of this life. He must fight according to rule. There was a power above all the power of evil. If Paul was bound, the word of God was not. God carries on, in spite of all, His own work. He is above all the circumstances which affect us. We do not sufficiently believe that the works that are done upon the earth, He doeth them Himself. Our part is to trust Him. So Paul had walked in enduring energy of love.

See here how like he is to his Master; he uses language (bringing in Christ as the power of it) which Christ Himself might have used. "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." So Timothy was to make full proof of his ministry. If he suffered with Christ, he would reign with Him.

The next point is holding fast the truth in the form taught by the apostle - the first doctrine taught. He was to hold fast the form of sound words heard of Paul, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. We have Paul's words certainly in his epistles, and nowhere else. There is no progress in revealed truth; in understanding it there is. And it has been formally expressed, and by that we have to hold fast.* It was a deposit of doctrine committed to him. In these days this is of all importance. The pretext of development, of the influence on the apostles of their age and its habits of thinking, all make this holding the forms of truth given by the apostle supremely important. In fact development was the first path of error; philosophy soon came in at Alexandria, and the simplicity and divine perfection and purity of truth were lost. Full grace, and our being saved, now that we believe, shone distinctly in this truth (chap. 1: 9, 10).

{*This is practically a very important direction of the apostle - truth having been formally presented according to divine wisdom, to hold it fast in that form. An apostolic formulary, if any seek that out of scripture, does not exist; as is well known. The creeds are centuries after scripture.}

374 Another important principle laid down, when the form of piety reigned denying the power, is faith based on the authority of the teachers then sent of God and the holy scriptures. These suffice to make the man of God perfect. The acknowledgment of the authority of the apostolic writers, and of the inspiration and sufficiency of the scriptures to make wise unto salvation, "perfect, throughly furnished," is another mark of the sound Christian in the perilous times of the last days. Connected with this is the place the truth takes. There is such a thing as the truth. This has to be held at all cost. The Lord tells us, "the truth shall make you free," "sanctify them through thy truth": "thy word is truth." So here silly women cannot come to the knowledge of the truth, the deceivers resist the truth. These would soon turn their ears from the truth. Timothy was to teach meekly, in hope that God might give repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth. Thus, known direct apostolic authority (which no tradition can give, for I cannot say from whom I learned it so that it should have the apostle's authority), truth in the form of words given by the apostle, the scriptures, known truth, and the holding these fast, characterize the approved disciple, when decline and unfaithfulness had come in.

Again, enduring, faithfulness, persecution, as contrasted with ease and profession, practically mark the divine path. Not uncertainty as to salvation, and a laborious procuring of it: we are saved, and called with a holy calling, according to God's purpose, before the world began. Death is abolished, so that we are not under its fear. Life and incorruptibility are brought to light. We are in the bright and blessed liberty of saved ones, for whom the whole power of death is destroyed. This was to be fully maintained. On the other hand the gospel brought afflictions: Timothy was to be partaker of them according to the power of God; Paul was suffering for it; Timothy was to endure hardness as a good soldier, be disentangled from the world; so Paul was enduring all things for the elect's sakes.

375 But it was not merely those ministerially active who would suffer. There was another source of persecution, not Christianity now in itself, but seeking to live godly in Christ Jesus. The form of piety with abounding evil would prevail; but piety, the seeking to live godly, not to join the current of worldly profession, would be persecuted. The professing church being in this state, the assembly in general would be a great house, and vessels to dishonour allowed in it. This leads to ecclesiastical direction, so to speak. Carelessness as to doctrine, departure from the truth, and a worldly carnal state of the professing church prevailing (in which the sense that, risen already in Christ, we were looking for a resurrection to take us out of this whole state, was lost), and what called itself Christian settled into a recognition of man this side death. What was the Christian to do? Purge himself from these, so as to be a vessel meet for the Master's use. He could not leave the profession of Christianity, corrupted as it had become, that is clear; nor was he to sanction the corruption, nor could he correct it as regards the public profession. Nay - evil remained - seducers would wax worse and worse. He was to purge himself from them.

But his practice was to be equally exact. Avoiding lusts, he was to follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace. Was he then to isolate himself in his walk because of the evil, in thus pursuing godliness and grace? He was not. He was to recognize and distinguish those who called on the Lord out of a pure heart. If it be asked, how can he do this? My answer is, the apostle tells us to do it; he does not suppose we cannot. It was to be done. I may not be able to distinguish a person to be such. That is possible. I am not his judge; but he is not one of those who are pointed out as those with whom I should walk. The direction is very simple. The professing church is characterized as a great house containing vessels to dishonour. In that state of things, I am not to rest satisfied with the dishonour; not to think of mending the house nor of leaving it, but of purging myself from those who are so, and recognizing those who call on the name of the Lord (own, and worship Him) out of a pure heart - to walk with them.

Some details remain, which we may notice, but now specially connected with ministry. I start from the holding fast the form of sound words and avoid jangling on profitless questions raised, holding to the truth itself; avoiding strife even in contending for the truth; shunning profane vain babblings - they increase to more ungodliness. This was not the jangling on questions to no profit but error, as we see from the case given. They were to be shunned; nor are we to strive about words to no profit. All these shunnings and avoidings referred to keeping in the simplicity of the truth. From the corrupt profession, forms of piety, and ungodliness, we are to turn wholly away. The former were to be avoided, shunned (it was individual); the latter, left or turned away from.

376 On the other hand, he was to be watchful and diligent to shew himself a workman approved unto God; a workman not needing to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth: it was to be rightly set out, dissected, and applied, as well as expounded according to the mind of God. Then he was to commit what he heard from Paul to faithful men - not put men in office but commit truth to men, faithful men. Truth all through, and truth connected with unaffected and true godliness, is the leading thought of the apostle, and a suffering place in the world because of it, in contrast with an easy-going church. But all his directions are individual, not to fancy he could correct the body; he was to shun, avoid, turn away, etc., and pursue godliness with them that really sought the Lord (not mere profession) out of a pure heart. The testimony and truth were to be held fast at all cost. We see how soon departure from the truth was the enemy's way of bringing in ungodliness and worldliness. Even when the form of godliness is spoken of, it is propagated amongst silly women never coming to the knowledge of the truth. This laid them open. Finally the Lord would be faithful - could not deny Himself.

I have another remark to make here. The promise of life in Christ Jesus is the very starting-point of the epistle - what is livingly personal, not ecclesiastical. So the fulness of grace, as we have noticed (chap. 1: 9); but, all through, personal responsibility is dwelt on; and, hence, we are placed, not in presence of privileged hopes but of judgment, I mean even as Christians. For Onesiphorus mercy is desired in that day. Timothy is charged before God and the Lord Jesus, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom. So the crown is a crown of righteousness; men must strive lawfully, and, labouring first, partake of the fruits. The Lord, the righteous Judge, gives him the crown of righteousness; so, as to all others, it is laid up for those who love His appearing. But he had just spoken of His appearing as the time of judging. And so it is, first the quick, and afterwards the dead. How love it? Now this supposes, first, the most complete association with Him and acceptance, judgment being set aside for us.

377 But more, loving His appearing supposes that its present realization awakens no feeling of anything which would have to be judged, which would hinder our loving that which will set aside evil. It is the time of glory for us. When He shall appear, then shall we appear with Him in glory. But then it is the setting aside evil; so that, if anything is allowed in us, anything not suited to His appearing, if we are not wholehearted in the setting up of His glory, we cannot practically love His appearing. This gives, in the midst of general decline, a solemn but a very blessed character to the instruction of the epistle; indeed it all supposes great personal nearness proportioned to the general decline.

May we so judge ourselves, and so hold fast by that blessed One!

[END OF ECCLESIASTICAL - VOL. 4]