Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

This phrase applied to the Baptism of Infants is, when closely examined, seen to be a gross absurdity, and something worse. Do those infants so "offered to the Lord" become the Lord's, in any higher sense than they were before their so-called baptism? If they do, that is, if they become members of the Church or Body, where is the necessity of faith? Under this supposition, members are introduced into the Body who have not faith an awful denial of the Scriptures. If infants said to be thus "offered to the Lord" in baptism do not become members of the Body, but remain just as they were when born into the world,-then we have an "offering made and not accepted-an offering made and rejected-just the result we might expect from such an unscriptural proceeding. Cain's offering was rejected; and so was the strange fire of Dathan and Abiram; and so, it is sad to think, must the so-called "offering" of unregenerate souls to the Lord-a meaningless, wicked thing-a turning upside-down of God's order.

[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]

This perversion is further evident in the latter clause of the above quotation from Mr Barnes. He says "They were baptized on the faith of the parent.' From previous searchings of the Scriptures, our readers will have seen that the meaning the Holy Ghost gives us of Baptism in Rom. vi. and Col. ii. is that of burial with Christ." So, then, to be "baptized on the faith of another," is, in the light of Scripture, being buried because another person is dead! How painful to think of the numbers of believers who profess to hold such contradictions as though they were God's truth!

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

W. P., Kent.-I hope to show you that the view you hold respecting exclusion for erroneous doctrine is a mistaken one. There is a tendency in us, if we are not expressly watchful about it, to take up a theory, and then endeavour to appropriate Scriptures where with to work out what we consider a logical result. Your course of logic in this case, as I understand it, is, "Heresy is leaven, leaven is to be purged out, therefore the person who holds the leaven must be purged out." But then there are different kinds of leaven, and these are to be dealt with differently. In the case of sin in the person, the body, the temple of God- -as in 1 Cor. v. the person-must be put away; leaven of this kind is not to be dealt with inside the assembly, we must put away the wicked person. But this is the only kind of leaven (i.e., actual sin, lawlessness, as detailed in v. 10) which can be so dealt with scripturally. Questions of doctrine can and ought to be settled within the church; the weapons we must use in all cases of evil doctrine, must be spiritual, not carnal. Prayer, and a faithful application of the Word of God, added to faithful, loving walk, in those that are spiritual-are the divine means furnished for getting rid of such leaven and retaining the member. If the evil becomes too strong for us, we may purge ourselves out (2 Tim. ii. 20), but this is a very different thing to purging out the teachers of false doctrine. You seem to account it the same thing. But surely it does not require much consideration to see that there is all the difference between turning a person out of a house and walking out yourself.

Now let us look at the other passages of "the Word" cited

in paper:

Your Does it not strike you as most remarkable that though we have here the very same expression as in 1 Cor. v. 6, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump," there is no such word to the Galatians as "put away from among yourselves that wicked person." On the contrary, the Apostle says," he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment," and "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." Certainly if there were any power in the assembly to put away teachers of false doctrine we should find it stated here-the Galatians would have been exhorted to purge out those judaisers, as the Corinthians had been commanded in the case of the fornicator. search the epistle in vain for any such teaching. The Apostle was evidently looking to the Lord to come in in judgment-and the Word of God, in rebuke and exhortation, is that which is applied to get rid of the evil.

But you

1 Tim. i. 20-Hymenaeus and Alexander. Tho Apostle had power to deliver these to Satan. The assembly has no such power. Paul did not write to the church to put out these men as he did in the case of the wicked person at Corinth. It was

an instance of evil which could only be dealt with by the ex• traordinary power of an Apostle, or by the Lord himself. Rev. ii. 14-There is not a word here about expelling persons and surely there would be if that were the right way of getting rid of the evil. On the contrary, the whole church is exhorted to repent.

Next, you appeal to our Lord's address to Thyatira in the same chapter. Here again we find no word about putting out the false teacher; the Lord gave her space to repent, and though she had not repented, judgment was spoken of as yet future. But in our Lord's epistle to this church there is a most remarkable addition-" Unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira," &c. So it is pretty evident there were some who had purged themselves from the assembly, because they would not tolerate the horrible doctrine. I think I have now weighed all your appeals to the Scriptures, and there is not a single passage dear Brother, that I for one would not endure false doctrine which is not completely against your theory. Yet let me say, in an assembly of christians. If the evil became deep-seated,

I should have to leave it.

J. S. J., Northwich.-We certainly sympathize with you, dear brother, respecting your very trying bereavement. Yet, surely, you should seek to have entire faith in the goodness of God. However dark and mysterious the way in which your dear son was removed, he was not overtaken without the foreknowledge of our gracious Lord. When Samuel conveyed God's solemn message to Eli, the denunciation of coming judgment upon him and his sons was received with meekness and resignation. Eli said "It is the Lord, let Him do what seemeth Him good." As followers of Christ, we ought to exceed in this respect the failing priest of Israel. We are taught, not only to be resigned, but to thank God for all things, even for afflictions. May you have grace to do so, for Jesus Christ's sake.-Further remarks in our next.

W. H. H., DERBY.-We are very thankful for your zealous and loving efforts to extend the circulation of PRECIOUS TRUTH. We know it must have been no light work for you to induce so many as 52 persons to take our little paper regularly. The Lord abundantly reward you, dear Brother. It will rejoice you to know that we now receive abundant testimony that our labour of love is owned as profitable to many souls. May other dear labourers in our Lord's vineyard be encouraged by your example to obtain subscribers, as we are assured, that very many who would be greatly refreshed by the reading of our little monthly, do not yet know of its existence. If our Saviour accounts the ministry of a cup of water, in his name, precious, how much more the making known to thirsty souls a running rivulet from the fountain of truth!

NB-Several Communications stand over.

Address Letters for the Editor, care of Printer, 335, Strand, W.C.

[blocks in formation]

PRECIOUS TRUTH.

London:

No. 20.]

"WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE?"-(Rom. iv. 3.)

Job Caudwell, 335, Strand.

Smart & Allen, Londonhouse Yard, Paternoster-row.

TO THE CHRISTIAN PILGRIM.

NOVEMBER 1, 1866.

[blocks in formation]

"Dearly Beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.”

The word here translated lusts, simply signifies "desires," fleshly desires. If I were to desire to make a fortune (to use a common expression), that would be a natural or fleshly desire, and it would war against my soul. If I were to desire to attain to an important place in the world, or to be sumptuously kept or dressed-These would be fleshly lusts or desires, and would war against my soul. Yet such desires are very natural, and in themselves would not be sinful, but for the fact that they belong to a condition of things which is under God's judgment. The Christian pilgrim ought to know, because the word of God declares it, that such desires are encumbrances and hindrances, if permitted.

"They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (1 Tim. vi. 9.)

But not only so-The very desires themselves war against the soul. Why? Because they practically deny the Christian calling. The followers of Jesus ought distinctly to understand that they are no longer of the world. God has given them an inheritance, not on earth, but in heaven. In the world they are strangers, and need only enough for a pilgrimage journey, which may terminate any moment.

Suppose it were made known to a person in London, say a poor carpenter, that some one in Scotland had given him a large estate and great riches. It is likely that if he were to tell his neighbours, they would not believe him. But if he had faith in the fact, he would set off on a sort of pilgrimage, working with his hands as he went along to provide food or clothing, till he came to his inheritance. This is just a figure of the true Christian calling.

Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content." 1. Tim. vi. 8.)

Christians listen to such truths and accept them heoretically. But, alas, how many in daily life

Arthur Hall, 25, Paternoster-row.

[One Halfpenny.

practically deny them! The result is, weakness of spirit, doubt, fears, despondency. One may hear of earnest christian men from many pulpits confessing to occasional doubt as to their acceptance with God. Why is this? Because they have not practically accepted pilgrim life upon earth. If they had, they would not be where they are. They have conformed to natural or fleshly desires, in taking a place before the world. They lust after (I speak of the majority) greater honours and increased emoluments-and these lusts war against the soul. I know that many true believers among those of whom I am speaking, seek to keep their spirits uncontaminated. There is a constant internal strife with such, between their spirit's desire for conformity to the pilgrim calling and their actual denial of it, through not abstaining from fleshly desires, which war against the soul.

I merely name this as an instance, without desiring to press it specially against a class.

"Be not deceived: God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Gal. vi. 7.)

Such as will sow fleshly desires, must needs reap conflict against their own souls.

We see the true pilgrim calling exemplified in Abraham. God gave him earthly promises, and yet He suffered his faithful servant to die without receiving the inheritance! But Abraham was content to wait until, in resurrection life, God should fulfil his promises. And He will fulfil them literally.

"By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he dwelling in tents [tabernacles] with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God [i. e. the fulfilment of them], but having seen them afar off, and "These all died in faith, not having received the promises were persuaded of and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." (Heb. xi. 8 and 13.)

So strict was Abraham in maintaining this strangership-calling, that when his wife died; though he desired to bury her in the promised land, he would not accept as a gift a parcel of land from the men (the He would receive not a foot of the land as a gift from sons of Heth) who held possession of that part of it. man; but would wait until God should give it, according to His promise. Meanwhile he would pay, in the current coin of the merchant, for sufficient for a burying place!

In contrast to this, we have the history of Lotwho, though accepted of God and saved, forgot the pilgrim calling, and settled down in sinful Sodom.

There he became great, and had a seat with the the word of God-and especially in the revelation of rulers in the gate of the city. But, the promise

"That righteous man dwelling among them, [the wicked of Sodom] in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds." (2 Pet. ii. 8.)

Thus it was with Lot. He had abandoned strangership-and accepted unholy citizenship; and though (doubtless, because he came out originally by faith, with Abraham) he was accounted righteous, yet because he would not abstain from fleshly or natural desires, he found them at war against his soul-"He vexed his righteous soul from day to day."

Alas, how many there are who do so now!-But this was not all; for when God visited Sodom in judgment, Lot had to flee for his life, leaving some of of his relatives behind him in that doomed city, who, through his unfaithful example, were too entangled with the sin of the place to listen to his words of warning when he urged them to flee "from the wrath to come."

Has not all this a voice for christians in these days?

Then think of our Lord's words-"Remember Lot's wife"!-How was it with her? She came away with her husband and daughters; but her heart was not free from the sinful city; she looked back, and was turned into a pillar of salt. And there are many pillars of salt now. Christians who have been delivered out of Sodom, but who in heart look back.

Beloved,-Have you taken up the pilgrim calling? It is the only one in which you can know permanent happiness with God, down here.

It is not only as to the world's amusements, conversation, politics, and its ordinary ways as apart from all thought of God, which, as a christian pilgrim, you are to have your heart estranged from but from its religion also. It was the false religion of the Jews-(i. e. surface-work without heart) which kept the scribes and pharisees of old at a distance from the Lord Jesus. They hated Him, because he was pure and simple Truth. But they loved long robes, and parade of words in prayer, and self-display, to be seen of men. And how did the "Searcher of hearts" wither it all up?

"Jesus said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke xvi. 15.)

"Behold, I come quickly, and my reward with me, to give every man according as his work shall be . . . . "He which testified these things saith, Surely I come quickly."

May we with gladdened heart reply

"Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Rev. xxii. 12 & 20.) Yours in christian love, and in patient waiting, THE EDITOR.

TO MR. J. N. DARBY,
(OF THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN.")
"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father."
(1 Tim. v. 1.)

DEAR BROTHER IN CHRIST,-I am anxious to bear the above passage of scripture in mind while addressing you. I do regard you as a father in "the household of Faith," one who has been much used of our Lord, and I "esteem you very highly in love for your work's sake," to the full extent that your labours can be recognised as of the Lord. But, dear brother, you have made grievous mistakes, and these have produced bitterness and strife among dear christians to such an extent, that I cannot refrain from intreating you to review and change your judg ment on the points hereinafter submitted.

My attention has been specially directed to a paper "On Ecclesiastical Independency," published in the August number of "The Bible Treasury"; and though it bears no signature, your style is too well known to admit of any difficulty in fixing upon the name of the author. Of course there is a bare possibility of being mistaken in attributing said encyclical to you; but as you are unmistakably identified as the leading promulgator of the doctines therein set forth, there needs no apology from me for addressing you personally on the subject.

Let me say, at the outset, that if by your expression, "ecclesiastical independency," you intended only to rebuke those who invent ecclesiastical systems, in independency of the New Testament scriptures, I should have nothing to say against its use in reprobation of all who expose themselves to its implied censure. But the object of your writing is to maintain a doctrine even more opposed to revealed truth than that of "ecclesiastical independency."

You assert that the judicial action of one assembly of christians is binding upon all other christian asSurface-work is not only vain, but abominable in the semblies. Nor is this only a theory with you, for sight of Him with whom we have to do. Beloved-you have, as far as you possibly could, unhappily For us, then, be the path of faith, the walk of stranger-enforced it. Yet any true-hearted enquirer ought ship in the world. The whole scene is under judg. to have no difficulty in detecting that you have not_a ment, as Sodom was. Lot, who was in the city, did vestige of the "inspired word" to support you. In not know of impending doom till the last moment. your paper, which I have before me, consisting of But, Abraham, the faithful pilgrim, knew before, and nearly six long columns of type, you are free to apply in calm security (because in the way of God's parental authority, magisterial power, and "Freechoosing) was engaged in communion with God, and masonry," to help out your argument; but you make pleading not for himself, but for others! only one appeal to scripture, and that in an incidental way.

In conclusion, The power to keep us in pilgrim ways, is to be found in spiritual, prayerful study of

Now let us look at a few facts.

The only passage in the word of God upon which you and those who co-operate with you have based your claim to, and exercise of, judicial power, is that of the 5th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is this passage which you passingly allude to, as I have said. Let us see what the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit have judged already, as though I were present, him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. "Your glorifying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened of sincerity and truth.

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are with out? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among

yourselves that wicked person."

Here, dear brother, we have an instance of positive crime, such as would not be tolerated among the unconverted-" such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles."

Now, what is the course pointed out to the church at Corinth as that which they ought at once to have adopted? They ought to have manifested a godly sorrow, "that he that had done this deed might have been taken away from them." But in this the assembly had failed, and therefore they received a positive command to put away the wicked person.

But do we not see in the opening comments of the chapter the true resource of any assembly when evil becomes manifest among them? It is not excommunication which is commended, but such a sorrowing before the Lord, as that He may take the offender out of the way, if unrepentant.

who think with you, have endeavoured to carry this out.

Yourself and some of those who meet with you, have assembled in London, on certain occasions, to judge occurrences at Plymouth, Bristol, Guernsey, &c.-and without anything of the spirit of the apostle, and in your own strength, not in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ-have adjudicated on points of doctrine!

There is no parallel between sin, in the ordinary sense of the term, and doctrinal error. Neither does the command given to Corinth to deliver to Satan a which a few christians in London are to deal a wicked fornicator in their midst, afford a basis upon with whatever they may consider evil, in distant cities.

The course you have followed is as unreasonable and unscriptural, as it would have been for the church at Corinth to take upon themselves to pass judgment and execute sentence upon the judaising teachers of the Church at Galatia!

If scripture were entirely silent respecting doctrinal error, there would perhaps be some excuse for your having made the mistake of dealing with it in the same way that sin in the person is to be dealt withthough even then it would be inexcusable for an assembly in London to assume power with respect to evil developed in the church at Plymouth. But the word of God affords ample guidance in all cases. As has been already pointed out in this publication, with respect to the evil working among the Galatians, the apostle uses the very same expression as in 1 Cor.

v. 6:

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal. v. 9.)

The false doctrine in the church at Galatia, and the sin in that at Corinth, are both called leaven-but they are leaven of different character, and are to be differently dealt with. You talk about sophistry— Can there be a worse sophism than to attempt to deal with all kinds of evil under one sentence, because all evil is called leaven? The sabbath-breaker was to be stoned, under the law of Moses; yet a covetous man was not sentenced to death, though condemned as a transgressor. They had both brought leaven into God's assembly, but only one of the two kinds of leaven involved sentence of death. And the distinction (in the scriptures which apply to the present dispensation), between evil doctrine and sin in the person, are as marked as the different degrees of trans

I do not say that in cases of manifest sin an assem-gression in the Old Testament. bly is not to act upon the command given in 1 Cor. v. If we have failed to apply the first remedy, I suppose we must have recourse to the second. Well, what in this case is laid down for us? The local assembly when gathered together in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the spirit of the apostle to the Gentiles, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (not in any power inherent in the church,) are to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, Jesus.

If a wicked person, a wilful sinner, be found in an assembly of believers, no true-hearted christian would oppose the carrying out of the sentence of delivery to Satan, in the solemn manner recorded in 1 Cor. v. But if in the same assembly there be one who has fallen into error of doctrine-say, if you will, a false teacher-you have no sanction from the Word of God for dealing with him in the same way.

Now we can test the way in which you and those

I have already referred to Gal. v. in conuection with the expression "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." There is no exhortation in that instanco to put away that wicked person, but there come an ejacula

tion from the apostle-"I would they were even cut off which trouble you"!-showing that the church had no power to put away in such a case.

In fact, your assertion "There is judicial authority in the Church of God," needs very much qualification. Whatever is done in a christian assembly authoritatively, must be "with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," and it is simply impossible for you to have that power when acting otherwise than according to the plain teaching of His word.

There are two ways of deliverance from doctrinal evil. Either you must entreat Him, who only has the power to come in as a Saviour. Or, if the lump become leavened, you may withdraw yourself.

"Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." (2 Thess. iii. 6.)

To argue, as some of your disciples do, that excommunicating another is the same thing as withdrawing yourself, is, you will admit, sheer nonsense. If 2 Thess. iii. 6, is thought to be not sufficiently conclusive as to the individual withdrawing from an unfaithful assembly, the well-known passage in 2 Tim. ii. is decisive.

You, dear brother, I doubt not, acted scripturally, in withdrawing yourself from the assembly at Plymouth, when you had judged it to be irremediably leavened with false doctrine. (I offer no opinion here as to how far you yourself were clear of participation in that evil.) But when you set up a judgment seat in London, and carry out a course of coercive measures, not only with respect to the individual teacher complained of, but extending to those who heard him, and those who received those who had heard him, or any who had intercourse with receivers of those who heard him, and so on, ad infinitum, it needs no great discernment to detect the unscriptural labyrinth into which you have been snared.

power in the excision of the wicked person at Corinth; but that was a clearly-defined case of sin, and there was the spirit of the Apostle to guide the judgment of the assembly.

To endeavour to put the halo of the Lord's presence upon whatever two or three, gathered in his name, may do, is either grievous error or awful wickedness. A thousand things have been done in his sacred name, which have not the sanction of His word, and therefore not of his presence. The day will soon declare all such doings to be wood, hay, and stubble. I will just notice the concluding words of 1 Cor. v., because you seem to consider they convey a recognition of what you call, "the judicial authority of the Church of God." Competence to judge evil does not imply power to execute sentence upon it. competency in a christian assembly to judge every kind of evil, but as to how they are to deal with it, they must be guided by the Scriptures. In the instance of gross sin-God's Word is, "put away from among yourselves that wicked person;" but with respect to the leaven of false doctrine you have no such word, nor anything approaching to it.

There is a

Among men, a jury is competent to judge crime; but it has no power either to pass sentence or to execute it. Only in the case of murder, does a jury know beforehand what the sentence will be. If the prisoner be found guilty, judgment of death must follow. But in all cases, the sentence is pronounced, not by the jury, but by the Judge.

A christian assembly is in similar position to that of a jury. It is competent to judge, as to fact; but the Lord alone has power to pass sentence.

Thus, then, I am compelled to adjudge, that the confederacy of which you, dear Brother, are the recognised leader, is unmistakably an "Ecclesiastical Independency." For it assumes a power which belongs to the Lord alone, and acts in independency of His word. Moreover, it discards, and almost anathematises, thousands of God's dear children who refuse to bow to its unscriptural decisions. This, too, notwithstanding its pretension to be the upholder, par excellence, of the doctrine of the Oneness of the Body!

A word as to how far one assembly is to recognise the judicial action of another. This is very simple, after the appeals already made to scripture. The assembly at Bristol should not, and would not, receive the fornicator put out at Islington. But the same assembly might, and most likely ought to re

With respect to power in the assembly-you say "The question is one of competence, not of infallibility" But the two really go together. Where there is true exercise of power, there is infallibility, because it is the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ. You consider that because of the assured presence of our Lord Jesus Christ where two or three are gathered together in his name, there is of necessity sanction given to the exercise of judicial power. But Scripture nowhere says this, nor anything like it. What has the Master put in connection with his de-ceive one whom Islington had, acting under a false clared presence, in the oft-quoted passage, from Matt. xviii. ? Is it competence to act with judicial authority? Nay; it is added to certify the power of unity in prayer?

[blocks in formation]

assumption of power, excluded for error of doctrine.

Here, for the present, I leave this subject-only assuring you that any reply of yours, if based upon an unsophisticated dealing with the word of God, shall have full recognition in this paper, if the Lord delay his coming.

I hope to address you again on several other topics;
but in the meantime subscribe myself-
A member (through grace) of the
One Body of Christ,

and

YOUR FELLOW SERVANT.

« AnteriorContinuar »