As the views of the Brethren, both as to faith and practice, individually and collectively, have been grossly misrepresented by their opponents, we think the best answer to all such will be a selection from their own books, many of which have been before the public for a number of years. Had the Brethren not spoken out so fully and clearly, their traducers might have had some excuse; but they seem to have written on every subject connected with the Person, work, and glory of Christ; the faith, duty, and blessing of His people; indeed, we may say, they have written on every subject, from Genesis to the Revelation, so that ignorance on the part of their reviewers is inexcusable. But we will endeavour to confine ourselves to that which is practical, in the hope that it may be helpful to general readers. LAY PREACHING. Notwithstanding the decided opposition of most of the denominations to what they call "lay" preaching, the Brethren have advocated the practice from the first, and nobly set the example to the blessing of many souls and their own rapid increase. A curious distinction is made by some between speaking and preaching out of the church. According to scripture, we speak in the church, and preach out of it. An actual instance of this distinction came before the writer many years ago, when a member of a large Presbyterian church. A young man who had been appointed a scripture reader in a low part of the city, was expected to visit from house to house, read the word, and speak to the people as he had opportunity. But on some occasions he found it convenient to collect a few of the neighbours into one kitchen, and address them standing. He was reported to the managers of the church as assuming the functions of a preacher. When brought before them he was rebuked and warned not to repeat the like again as it was out of order; "your place is to speak to the people not to preach to them." Our spiritual instincts, we well remember, were greatly offended with this decision, and we felt that it was the kirk session that was out of order and not the young man. "The question is not," says Mr. Darby, "whether all laymen are individually qualified; but, whether as laymen they are disqualified, unless they are what is commonly called ordained. . . . 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 is not competency to act, but title to act if competent. "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. This 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. . . "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 lay preaching; and I assert that there was no such principle recognized 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 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. "The first general preaching of the gospel, which the Lord blessed beyond the walls of Jerusalem, was by laymen; or, however, the church 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. There all the Christians preached — they went everywhere preaching the word. (Acts 8: 4.) And 'the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.' 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, knowing only the baptism of John. At Rome many of the brethren, waxing bold by Paul's bonds, preached the word without fear. Nor is there such a thing mentioned in scripture as ordaining to preach the gospel. 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. . . . "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!" (The Collected Writings, Ecclesiastical, vol. i., of J. N. D.) ORDINATION. Much of the bitterness which the clergy have manifested towards the Brethren has sprung from the question of ordination. It is the great pillar on which the whole system of clericalism rests; therefore, it must be jealously guarded. Do away with ordination and the clergy become as other men. Then they could only rise to their own moral level. But there is a charm in the fiat of ordination which gives them to feel that they are a different caste, that they are superior to all other men. They must not be spoken to, questioned, or dictated to as other men are. Their dignity must be maintained at all cost. And so real is this charm over the human heart that it rarely loses its effects even after the office is given up as unscriptural. The gown, it has been said, may be rolled up and put into the pocket, but some corner of it is often visible. The question is a vital one as it deeply affects the operations of the Spirit, the sovereignty of God, and the ministry of the word, which is the food and refreshment of the divine life in the soul. To insist on a certain ceremony through which a man must pass before he can be recognized as properly a minister of Christ, is the crowning sin of Christendom. It places human authority above the call and gifts of the ascended Lord and Head of the church. "If a man possessed all the gifts of the apostle Paul himself, he dared not teach or preach Jesus Christ, unless he were licensed or authorized by man; whereas, on the contrary, though destitute altogether of spiritual gifts, nay, even of spiritual life itself, yet, if authorized, ordained, licensed or approved by man, he might teach and preach in that which professed to be the church of God. Man's authority, without Christ's gift, was quite sufficient. Christ's gift without man's authority was not." (Things New and Old, vol. xviii. p. 262. C. H. M.) Surely we cannot, as Christians, be too deeply impressed with the importance of the servant's individual responsibility to the Master Himself. It must be a very serious thing for a servant of the Lord who has been entrusted by Him with the gift of preaching or teaching if he refrain from exercising that gift until he be authorized to do so by man. We nowhere read in scripture that such gifts ever needed man's sanction. May the Lord awaken His people more generally to their responsibility in this matter, lest they should hide their talent in the earth during His absence, and have a sorry account to give of their trading at His return. The apostle Paul, who is in many things the model man of the Christian dispensation, is especially so in the matter of ordination. There were those in his day who sought to discredit his apostleship because he had not been with the Lord Jesus when He was down here. This leads him to vindicate his divine call without human appointment in the most energetic way. Writing to the Galatians, he says, 'Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.' It was not of men as a source, nor by man as a medium in any way, 'but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.' "Nothing could have been more easy than for God to have converted the apostle in Jerusalem; it was there that his first violence against the Christians broke out. But when God met Him, he was away from Jerusalem, carrying on his hot persecution of the saints; and there, outside Damascus, in broad daylight, the Lord from heaven, unseen by others, reveals Himself to the astonished Saul of Tarsus. He was called not only a saint, but an apostle; and to make it the more striking, when he was baptized, whom did the Lord choose to make the instrument of his baptism? A disciple who is only this once brought before us as a godly old man, residing at Damascus. God took special care to show that the apostle, appointed to a signally important place, the most momentous function of any man that ever was called to serve the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel — that Paul was thus called without the intervention, authorization, or recognition of man in any shape or form. His baptism had nothing to do with his being an apostle. He immediately goes into Arabia, he preaches the gospel, and God at once owns him as Christ's minister in the gospel, without any human interference. Such, indeed, is the true principle of ministry, fully illustrated in the call and work of Saul of Tarsus, henceforth the bondman of Christ. "It may be objected, however, by some that we do read of human setting aside and laying on of hands in the New Testament. We own it fully. But in some cases it is a person who had already shown qualifications for the work, set apart in a formal manner by apostolic authority to a local charge, and clothed, with a certain dignity in the eyes of the saints, perhaps because there was not much gift. For the elder, it will be observed, is not said to be a 'teacher,' but simply 'apt to teach.' In Acts 14: 23 we read, 'And when they had ordained elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.' This proves not that the church, but that they — Paul and Barnabas — chose and ordained the elders. It seems that an apostle, or an apostolic delegate, was the only one who chose or appointed elders in the churches. In no case is the church invited to select them. The fact is, people confound eldership with ministry. Elders were appointed by those who themselves had a higher authority direct from Christ; but there never was such a thing as ordaining a man to preach the gospel. In scripture, the Lord, and the Lord only, calls men to preach the gospel. As He says, 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit.' And of Paul he says, 'He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.' John 15: 16; Acts 9: 15. "In apostolic days there never was such a thing as a person appointed a teacher any more than a prophet. But among the elders there might be, some of them, evangelists, teachers, etc. Therefore it is said, 'Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.' The presbyters, or elders, whose business it was to rule, even if they were not teachers, were in danger of being despised. They were to be honoured as a class, and especially they who laboured in the word and doctrine. "The case of Timothy is, no doubt, peculiar. He was designated by prophecy to a certain very peculiar work — that of guarding doctrine. And the apostle and the presbyters laid their hands upon him, by which a spiritual gift was communicated to him which he did not possess before. It is evident that there is no man now living who has been similarly endowed and called to such a work. See 1 Tim. 1: 18; 1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 6. "It may also be said that, in the case of the apostle Paul, there was the putting on of hands, which we have in Acts 13. What does this show? Not, certainly, that he was an apostle chosen by man; for the Holy Ghost declares that he was 'an apostle, not of men, neither by man.' That which took place at Antioch was in no sense ordaining him to be an apostle. It is evident from many scriptures that for several years before hands were laid on him, he had been preaching, and was one of the recognized prophets and teachers at Antioch. I believe that the point there was the setting him and Barnabas apart for the special mission on which they were just about to go out — to plant the gospel in new countries. It was purely and simply a recommendation to the grace of God, for the new work on which they were about to enter. Some such thing might be done at the present day. Supposing a man, who had been preaching the gospel in England, felt it much laid on his heart to go and visit the United States of America, and his brethren felt that he was just the man for that work, they might, in order to show their concurrence and sympathy, meet together with prayer and fasting, to lay their hands upon the brother who was going thither. This, in my opinion, would be quite scriptural; but it is not ordaining. What I believe to be unscriptural, and indeed positively sinful, is accrediting a number of men who are not ministers of Christ, and discrediting a number of men who are His ministers, because they do not go through this traditional innovation." (See Lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 5-11; also One Body and One Spirit, by W. K.) MINISTRY. Though the subject of ministry has already been noticed, it seems to claim a passing glance in connection with the kindred subjects of Lay-preaching and Ordination. Besides, it was one of the earliest subjects of controversy with the Brethren. They were accused by the clergy of denying ministry altogether, because they denied the validity of episcopal orders. This exposed them to many bitter attacks, but the Lord overruled these accusations to bring out an amount of truth on the subject of ministry which seems to have been overlooked since the days of the apostles. The Brethren, we believe, were the first to point out clearly the difference between priesthood and ministry. Hitherto they had been confounded in men's minds; but when the distinction was made plain, a flood of light was thrown on the interesting subject of Christian ministry. THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD AND THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL. "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 recognized 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 has loved them, sought, and washed them from all their sins, that they might be before Him without fear. "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 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. THE 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; 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; 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. . . . "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 authorization of ministry, without, on the one hand, neutralizing 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. There is no Christian source of activity but the love of Christ and the call of God. "This ministry of Jesus, this active energy of the love of God in seeking the lost, the testifying to the work and victory of the Saviour, 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." (See tract, by J. N. D., on the nature, source, power, and responsibility of ministry; The Collected Writings, Ecclesiastical, vol. i. ) THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. In an article to which our attention was directed some time ago, on "Plymouth Brethrenism," in a highly respectable journal,* the writer speaks as if nothing could be more painful than controversy with fellow-Christians but adds, that if we would be followers of Him who is "THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE," We must not seal our lips where serious error is taught. The writer also laments the "outbursts of irritable feeling," which have sometimes characterized the reviewers of Brethren, and proposes to meet them calmly, quietly, and deliberately. (*See The Christian Observer and Advocate for November and December, 1876.) The article, though written in a Christian spirit, and, we doubt not, true to the writer, who judges of Brethren's views by The Received Doctrines of the Reformed Churches, in place of a close comparison with the word of God, is like all such that we have read, most inaccurate and untrue. A long list of ecclesiastical and doctrinal peculiarities and errors are stated, as held and taught by the Brethren. Their views, however, are incorrectly stated, and what is given as the truth to correct the error is not in accordance with the word. It may compare well with the theology of certain schools of the Reformed Churches, but not with the Holy Scriptures, which should ever be our only standard. We have thought that it might serve the cause of truth, and be for edification, were what Brethren really hold on these heads plainly stated and proved from scripture; but this would be outside of our present sketch. We select one, "The Forgiveness of Sins," as it is practical, and may be useful to some readers. It will also show what we have said of the inaccuracy of the writer, who says, that one of the doctrinal points with the Brethren is, "That it is not lawful to pray for the pardon of our sins, because, if we are real Christians, they were forgiven eighteen hundred years ago upon the cross." No authority is given for this statement; therefore we cannot compare. But this is the usual style of accusing Brethren — strong statements of error without proof. The cross, we all believe, is the only ground of pardon, but it is never said to the sinner who believes in Jesus, "Thy sins were all forgiven when Christ shed His blood on the cross." The divine order seems to be, that Christ put away sin on the cross, and that we are pardoned when we believe, not "eighteen hundred years ago." "But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." And to the chief of sinners penitent at His feet, the blessed Lord says, "Thy sins are forgiven." Thus we learn that sin was put away on the cross according to the claims of the divine glory, so that the Father is free to run and meet the returning prodigal, embrace him with the kiss of reconciliation, invest him with the best robe, and seal him with the ring of His eternal love. At the same time, if we want to see our sins put away, we must look back to the cross; it is nowhere said that the Lord puts them away from our hearts; only on the cross. Those who look to their hearts in place of the cross, to see their sins put away, will be bitterly disappointed. We only know that our sins were "put away," "made an end of," on the cross, and forgiven when we believe. The word of the Lord is the only ground of the full assurance of faith. However correct our experience may be, we cannot build upon it; the word of God is the soul's only resting place. The words of the hymn sweetly express this truth: "My soul looks back [not, within] to see The burden Thou didst bear, When hanging on th' accursed tree, For ALL my guilt was there." As to the other part of the alleged doctrine of the Brethren — "That it is not lawful to pray for the pardon of our sins." We are well aware that much has been made of this report by the opponents of Brethren. It has been used in the pulpits and by the press to turn them to ridicule. This, we believe, is more from ignorance of what Brethren do hold, than from malice. But, alas! it is the sacred truth of God that is turned into ridicule; they cannot hurt the Brethren. On nothing do their reviewers show more incompetency to revise and correct their writings than on the elementary subject of forgiveness. They have evidently no proper thought of the completeness of redemption, or the privileges of relationship. Hence they teach that Christians must pray to God daily for the pardon of their sins, and come to be cleansed afresh by the blood of Jesus, as if we might be lost and saved every day. "The words of the apostle John," says the Christian Observer, "are evidently meant for believers." (1 John 1: 7.) "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth [not has cleansed, but is actually cleansing] us from all sin." This is the doctrine of the Observer - a staunch Church of England journal — but which the Brethren as a body would pronounce most unsound and inconsistent with the context and all scripture, especially the gospel. The apostle is speaking of believers walking in the light as God is in the light, not even according to it, but in it. How could this be, if their sins were not cleansed away by the blood of Jesus? He is not speaking of a continuous, but of an absolute cleansing from all sin, suitable to the unsullied light of God's presence. But to return. The Brethren, certainly, are not in the habit, at least in public, of praying to God for the pardon of their sins. Not because they think it "unlawful," or because they were pardoned eighteen hundred years ago, or because they do not sin, but because it would be unbelief, as they are not in the position of sinners before God, but of children before the Father. When a sinner is converted — born again — he changes ground; he leaves, and leaves for ever, the ground of the natural man, and is henceforth on the new ground of eternal life and salvation; so that it would be unbelief, in the most inexcusable way, to go back to the old ground and ignore the gracious work of God in the new birth. "Verily, verily," says the blessed Lord, "I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.". . . "For ye are all the children of God," says the apostle, "by faith in Christ Jesus." (John 5: 24; Gal. 3: 26.) But if they do not pray as sinners to be pardoned, they confess their faults as children according to the mind of the Lord. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9.) Here, it is not said that God will be gracious and merciful to forgive if we pray to Him, but that He will be faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them That is, He is faithful and just to Christ, who died for us, put away our sins on the cross, and whose blood is sprinkled on the mercy-seat; ever, as it were, before the eye of God. Surely, in the light of this text, we could not pray to God to be "faithful and just," that we know He must ever be to the finished work of Christ; but we could not too fully or freely confess our sins, and this in the deep sense of what they are in the sight of that blood which was shed for them, and in the presence of His holiness, whose children, though unworthy, we ever are. It is a thousand times more searching for a child to confess the details of his failure, than merely to ask — it may he mechanically — to be pardoned. Thus we see that the word of God is more consistent than the theology of men, and thrice happy the Christian who is content to walk in the light of that truth, though he should be misunderstood and misrepresented. The day is coming when the Lord will vindicate those, who, though having but little strength, kept His word, and denied not His name. The following quotation may be accepted as the testimony of Brethren in general on 1 John 1: 7. "If sin-cleansing by the blood of Jesus, in 1 John 1: 7, is assumed to be only going on, it would falsify the same apostle's language in Revelation 1: 5, where we are said to be already washed by His blood, and this comes out more strikingly in any exact rendering, like Dean Alford's version: 'Unto him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.' His love is constant, but the washing, or loosing, us from our sins is set forth by a participle of that tense which expresses an action simply past, excluding duration. John could have used no such form, if we had to come before God for daily cleansing by the blood of Jesus; for in this case it would be correct to employ, not the aorist, but the imperfect tense, which precisely expresses a continued or repeated action. "How, then, did the apostle use the present? Was there laxity in his expression, when he said, 'The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from every sin'? On the contrary, the tense is just as exact in 1 John 1: 7, as his use of distinctive participles in Revelation 1: 5. A little learning is proverbially dangerous; and in the exegesis of scripture, voluminous commentators are apt to go astray, no less than their followers. But to give an opinion on such a question hardly becomes people ignorant of the fact, that the present in Greek, as in most languages is in no way limited to an incomplete action yet in course of performance; for it no less correctly expresses an absolute present, as in general propositions, doctrinal statements, apothegms, and descriptions of manners, customs, or matters of frequent occurrence. Just so, in English we say, 'Food nourishes the human body; poison kills.' The idea intended is not the continuance of the act, but the quality of each material, or their opposite effects on man. Almost every chapter in the epistles furnishes instances. Take a plain and kindred statement from 1 John 2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins.' Does the present here mean that He is actually now atoning for our sins? Clearly not; such an interpretation of the present would incontrovertibly overthrow the atonement. It is here evidently used in its absolute sense, without reference to any definite moment, for expressing the great and blessed truth of His propitiation. Just so in our text the notion of continuous cleansing would distinctly contradict the grand doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the gospel in general. It is therefore the gravest error. . . . "We have seen, then, that continuous cleansing by blood cannot be meant, not merely because it has no just sense in itself, but because it opposes other scriptures which treat the effect on the Christian as complete. Scripture cannot be broken. Repeated application of Christ's blood the word does not countenance anywhere else, even if the word here implied it, which it does not. It remains, therefore, that we must fall back on the only possible sense of the present here open to us, namely, that the apostle states, in an absolute way, the cleansing of believers by the blood of Jesus, expressed (as it regularly is in such propositions) in the present, but abstractedly, without reference to time past, present, or future, as one of the main characteristics of their place or standing. Hence it is no question of this or that sin, when confessed: His blood cleanseth from every sin. Details are not before us, nor restoration after failure. It is the proper and divine value of His blood. Consequently, if it were the design of the Holy Spirit to reveal this absolutely, the present tense was the one exactly suited to the apostle's hand, as we see it now before us. The effort to limit, or even apply the expression 'cleanseth,' to the continuous force of the present, is therefore mere ignorance, or worse. The doctrine of the clause, the context, and scripture in general, declare unitedly and unequivocally for the absolute usage of the present in the closing verb of 1 John 1: 7." (Bible Treasury, March, 1879.) THE PROVISION OF GRACE FOR THE FAMILY OF FAITH. Much of the darkness, confusion, and uncertainty, which prevail throughout Christendom on the subject of pardon and the assurance of salvation, can only be accounted for — strange as it may appear — by the rejection of the truth which Brethren hold, and for which they are denounced by their reviewers as heretical. The leading teachers of the various Protestant schools seem to have overlooked entirely the perfect provision of God in the economy of grace, for every need of the whole family of faith. This provision is plainly revealed by the blessed Lord in Jn.13. Jesus had now taken His position with His disciples as one going away. He "knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father." But His entrance into glory would not take His heart away from them, nor even from attending to their wants. In illustration of this, He girds Himself for service, and takes water to wash their feet. The effect of this service is, that the Holy Spirit, by the Word, takes away practically, all the defilement that we gather in walking through this sinful world. They had been regenerated — born again: that could never be repeated; but they must be maintained in a condition of spotless purity befitting the presence of God, and the relationships into which they have been brought by their oneness with Christ in heaven. The priests who served God in the tabernacle were washed all over at their consecration. This washing never was repeated. They washed their hands and feet every time they drew near to God in service. The Christian having been washed, or bathed, "needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." What a word from the lips of eternal truth and holiness! "Ye are clean, clean every whit, but not all, for He knew who should betray Him." The feeblest believer, or the youngest lamb in His flock is kept spotless in the presence of God — where His finished work has set them — by His own gracious ministry on high, and by the power of the Holy Spirit who abides with His people here. Thus the Lord looks after their interests in heaven, and the Holy Ghost on earth, so that they are well cared for, well provided for. "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins." This advocacy is based on righteousness and propitiation, and the Holy Spirit ever acts in harmony with the mind and work of Christ. 1 John 2: 1, 2. This line of truth, so liberating and elevating to the soul, abounds in nearly all the Brethren's writings, especially in the writings of the elder Brethren, so that it has been taught in public and in private, and widely spread by their books for many years. We cannot help thinking that those who have endeavoured to bring them into ridicule in the eyes of the Christian public for not praying for the pardon of their sins, "because they were forgiven eighteen hundred years ago on the cross," are guilty of the veriest trifling, if not positively sinning, in the holy things of God. Take the following extract as a sample from one of their monthly magazines. "Jesus occupies Himself with a new service, the removal of the defilements of His own in their walk as saints through the world. This is the meaning of what follows. 'Then he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.' Be it carefully observed, that it is the question here of water, not of blood. The reader of John's Gospel will not have overlooked that he makes much of 'water' as well as 'blood.' So did the Lord in presenting the truth to His own, and no one shows this more than John. His first epistle also characterizes the Lord as 'He that came by water and by blood; not by water only, but by water and blood,' He purifies us as well as atones for our sins. He employs the word to cleanse those who are washed from their sins in His blood. The apostles, Paul, Peter, and James, insist on the power of the word, as John does. It is disastrous and dangerous in the highest degree to overlook purification by the washing of water by the word. If 'the blood' is Godward, though for us, 'the water' is saintward to remove impurity in practice, as well as to give a new nature, which judges evil according to God and His word, of which it is the sign, adding to it the death of Christ, which gives its measure and force. Out of His pierced side came blood and water. John 19. "As to this grave and blessed truth, Christendom remains, I fear, as dark as Peter, when he declined the gracious action of the Lord. Nor did Peter enter into the truth conveyed by that most significant dealing till afterwards, that is, when the Holy Spirit came to show them the things of Christ. On the occasion itself he was wrong throughout. And so are men apt to be now, even though light divine has been fully afforded. They still perversely limit its extent to teaching humility. This only Peter saw, and hence his mistake; for he thought it stooping down excessively, that the Lord should wash his feet; and, when alarmed by the Lord's warning, he fell into an opposite error. We are only safe when subject to His word in distrust of ourselves. . . . He that is washed [bathed] needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." The Lord suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. By His one offering we are not only sanctified but perfected in perpetuity. Is there no failure in the saint afterwards? Alas, there may be. What then is the provision for such? It is the washing of water by the word which the Spirit applies in answer to the Son's advocacy with the Father." (Bible Treasury, January, 1878.) |