EXCLUSION
OF BELIEVERS FOR FALSE DOCTRINE, UNSCRIPTURAL.
By
ROBERT GOVETT
(Third Edition. MDCCCLXXXV [1885])
‘ARE BELIEVERS TO BE RECEIVED TO
COMMUNION WHO HOLD ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE?’
This
is a question of much moment, and now agitating the minds of many. Opinions are divided. Some think, we may exclude for error of
doctrine. A tract has just emanated from
three leading Christian brethren, giving all to know - that they will not
receive to the Lord’s Supper, and that they will put out of communion, those
who are unsound in regard to the person and work of our Lord; and those who
hold Annihilationist or Restorationist views. Is this Scriptural? The dear brethren give no Scriptures as their
warrant. I suppose it is not the Lord’s
teaching. Let us look into the matter.
Observe
first, that we are agreed in excluding from the Lord’s Supper believers guilty
of the immoralities specified in 1 Cor. 5. For such proceeding there are both precept
and example.
Let
us next set off from the true question, propositions likely to be mistaken for
it. We are not, then, inquiring - What
is the truth about the person and work of the Lord Jesus? Or whether Universal
Restoration and Annihilation be true or not? On these great points the writer is at one
with the authors of the tract.
The
questions again are not, Is there not false doctrine
abroad? Is it not fearfully
mischievous? Fast
spreading? Likely
to lead further astray the holders of it? Ought we not to watch against it? to resist it by the Scriptures? Ought we not to set forth the truth? On all these points also we are agreed.
Nor
is the question - Is there not a difference in regard of the virulence of
error? Are there not some who hold it
simply through ignorance?
Are there not those on the other hand who are
teachers of error? Are there not
those who refuse to let it go, even after the light has been brought to bear
upon and convict their false doctrine? Should we not distinguish such cases? We should. Scripture does: Jude 22, 23.
But
the real question is - WHAT IS GOD’S WAY OF MAINTAINING TRUE DOCTRINE AMONG
BELIEVERS? WHAT IS HIS PLAN OF KEEPING
OUT ERROR/ OR OF DRIVING IT OUT WHERE IT HAS ENTERED?
Are we to exclude from communion
teachers of error, and holders of it?
This paper says ‘Yes!’ The Scripture, I believe,
says ‘No!’
On
this point, then, the conflict is to take place.
‘But does not the Scripture teach us to put out the heretic
after two admonitions?’
It does: Tit.
3: 10, 11. But is the Scripture sense of ‘heresy’ and ‘heretic,’
the same as the ecclesiastical and Romish sense of
it? Does ‘heretic’
mean - ‘the man who holds erroneous doctrines’? By no means. ‘Certain of the heresy
of the Pharisees which believed rose up:’ Acts 15: 5.* Now
the Pharisees were right in the distinctive views of their party, as opposed to
the Sadducees. "After the strictest heresy of our religion I
lived a Pharisee:" Acts 26: 5.
[*
These were believers also.]
What
does it mean then? ‘A
party.’ "When ye come together in the church I hear that there are divisions
among you; and I partly believe it.
For there must be even parties (heresies) among you, that they which are approved maybe made manifest
among you:" 1 Cor.
11: 18, 19. A heretic,
then, is a maker of parties in the
This
objection answered, let us trace out a little the
workings of this erroneous doctrine of the exclusion of unsound believers from
fellowship.
I
ask first, then, of the holders of this view:-
1. What is your standard of doctrine?
They
would reply doubtless, as one brother did to whom this was put, - ‘The Scripture, to be sure! That is sound and clear enough, and worthy to
be our standard.’ Yes! But how readest thou?
What doctrine do you take out of it?
‘Well, brother, we to whom you refuse to
admit to communion, take the Scripture as our standard.’
‘But you interpret it wrongly in this matter.’
‘We do not think so.’
Let us take a practical case.
Here is a brother who holds infant sprinkling to be baptism, he applies
for communion.
‘You are wrong, brother. New Testament Scripture teaches only the
immersion of believers.’
Here, then, are differences of no little import between those who
take Scripture as their standard. We
listen to the applicant’s proofs of paedobaptism. We expose their fallacy to our
satisfaction. He stands out against our
testimony and our arguments against his error.
Now what is to be done?
The Scripture, our standard, does indeed teach only one view. But the impaired vision of believers sees
various and different doctrines in its pages.
How then are we to act? What is
to be the standard of soundness? In
practice, it will be the views of Scripture taken by the leading brethren of
each church (or ‘gathering’).
The sprinkler of infants will be shut out by one church. The baptizer of believers will be excluded by
another church; if this principle be carried out. Each assembly may say, ‘No fellowship till you agree
with us!’
I ask in the second place:-
2. What is the measure of unsoundness which shall
exclude?
Not
every error is of equal virulence; how then shall we distinguish those errors
which are so bad, that we cannot tolerate at the Lord’s table
believers who hold them? This is still a
more delicate question.
But
the paper commented on suggests in reply, that the errors which are to exclude
are those which "we regard [just
so* Here the first point is confirmed.
The views of the leaders must be the standard,] as affecting
foundation-truth."
Where is your Scripture for this distinction? Where do you find it stated, that while
erroneous believers on minor points may be admitted to the Lord’s
table, the erroneous on points affecting foundation-truth may not?
Again, What errors are there, which do
not affect foundation-truth? Such is the
connection of truth with truth in God’s system, that it is anything but easy to
say, what does not touch the foundation?
(1) Take one of the points in which believers are taught by Paul
to bear the differences of doctrine in each other. The strong believer was confident he might
eat anything. He was right; he was
‘sound.’ Paul says so: Rom. 14: 14. But the unsound believer would use nothing but
vegetables. It was to him unlawful to
eat animal food. He judged his ‘sound’
brother for so eating. It was ‘unclean
food.’ But such doctrine denied the full
licence given by God
in the Old Testament to Noah and his sons.
It overturned, too, the New Testament.
For Jesus ate animal food, and gave it to others, both before His
resurrection and after it: Luke 24: 42; John 21.
(2)
May we receive believers in communion with the Establishment? Here some will doubt, perhaps. But is it not certain that the errors of ‘the
Church of England,’ such as ‘baptismal regeneration,’ ‘the baptismal covenant,’
and ‘confirmation,’ affect foundation truth?
(3)
May we, if this principle be good, receive persons holding and practising
the sprinkling of infants? Now:
for this affects ‘foundation-truth.’ It
is one of the main roots of
(4)
There are those who deny, that the Saviour’s commands on the Sermon on the
Mount are meant for believers now. May
we receive such? Does not the denial of
Christ’s being our Teacher affect foundation-truth?
(5)
Again, if doctrinal error avails to exclude believers, must not deficient
and wrong practice opposed to the principles of our dispensation, exclude also? Here is a believer in a secret coat: he lives
by warfare. Is that consistent with love
of enemies? Shall he, with the
colours of his profession upon him, sit next to me who abhor war, as contrary
to Christ’s words and spirit! Shall
believers who call themselves Majors, Colonels, and Generals, be welcome to the
table of the Lord? Certainly
not, if the principle is constantly carried out. Is not war leaven of the flesh? Jas. 4: 1. "Our
weapons are not carnal." "Love your enemies."
I
ask in the third place :-
3. Who is to state the standard? And enforce it by exclusion of the unsound?
Our
three brethren seem to feel themselves in an awkward position, as one of
considerable assumption. Has Jesus set
any one possessed of infallibility over brethren and churches? Was any such standard of doctrine enforced by
any censors in apostles’ times?
"But be not ye called Rabbi; for one is your Master
(teacher), the Christ; but all ye are brethren:"
Matt. 23: 8, 10. There
is no supreme human judge to whom we are to bow. That is Romish
doctrine.
Again,
who shall guarantee the soundness of those who exclude? If they be sound now, who shall guarantee
that they will so continue? If they be
sound on the points stated, are they on all others? Cannot errors be found in the writings of
even the three, where one or other of them has printed anything? If the standard, too, be fixed, may not
further study of the Scriptures, and more light from the Holy Ghost make such
persons ‘unsound’? Peter by going among
uncircumcised believers, and eating with them, became ‘unsound,’ It is not often that leading brethren will
listen to the defence made by an ‘unsound’ brother; much less often are they
convinced by it, as on that occasion they were.
I
think I see in Scripture a truth not perceived by most. It is stated, I believe, that there are two
objects set before the Christian. One is
a "gift" against desert; the other a
"reward" according to works. Now, though I am ‘sound’ on the points stated
in the circular, I fear I should be subject to exclusion because of this;
though I can assign plenty of Scripture in proof of it.
I
ask lastly:-
4. On whom is this supervision to be enforced? On individuals first - when they
apply for fellowship; or on those in communion, after their unsoundness has
become known. Then on churches,
also. We "do not acknowledge
any assembly of saints which countenances them [errors about Christ, or
annihilation] to be faithful to Christ." Here is
judgment of assemblies by the three who give their names. Here is judgment about faithfulness to Christ
- a point to decide about which is directly forbidden. "It is required
in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very little thing that I
should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own
self. For I know nothing by myself
- [‘I am not conscious of any unfaithfulness’] - yet am
I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the
Lord. Therefore judge nothing
before the time, until the Lord come:" 1 Cor. 4: 2-5.
But
our brethren in enforcing this principle are guided by conscience.
"We
feel bound in faithfulness to the Lord, and in dependence on His grace, to keep ourselves clear from all complicity
with these errors,"
Good! By all means do so!
But is fellowship at the Lord’s table
with a believer holding error, complicity with his error? That is the question. Would it not be well to prove this from
Scripture, if it be true? And will
not this, if carried out, lead on Christians much farther than this tract
supposes them prepared to go? Am I not
in complicity with Church-of-England-error by sitting at the table with a
believer in communion with the Establishment?
Am I not defiled by paedobaptismal error and
ideas of hereditary sanctity, if I sit at table with a believer who sprinkles
infants? Do I not own war to be
Christian, by fellowship at the Supper with a naval officer? Here is one whose profession requires him to
take oaths. But Jesus and His apostles
forbid them. Am I not in complicity with
his sin, by sitting at the Lord’s table with him?
I
suppose that this idea is proved to be a mistake by many Scriptures. It errs, by not severing between the person
of a believer, and his errors. If I accept his person, because
God and His Christ have accepted him; while I rebuke his error:
how can any say I am identified with his error? I am knit to him as a believer; because, as
I am a member of Christ, so is he.
I am not knit to his error; for I refuse it
now, and he will one day wholly leave it.
He who receives a believer because he is a
member of Christ, while he expresses his error in love, is not in complicity
with that error, either before God or man.
I countenance the brother in Christ. I am required to do so I do not
countenance his error. His
person is accepted through Christ before God; and so therefore by me. His errors are not accepted before God; nor
are they before me.
"Both he that sanctifieth and they
who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call
them brethren:" Heb. 2: 11. Jesus calls us brethren then, as we are
children of God, undergoing the Spirit’s sanctification. This, this is our
principle. Shall we be ashamed to own as
brethren in God’s way at His table, those whom Christ owns? Were the Hebrew brethren faultless, or of
sound views? Let the Epistle say!
‘But
is not error dross?’ True. Shall I then throw away the ingot of
gold, because in it there is a piece of dross? Does God do so? I am to imitate Him: Eph.
5: 1; 1 Cor. 11: 1. Would we wish God to deal by us as we should
then be dealing by His sons? Are
you gold of Ophir alone? Was this Paul’s principle of action? He studied to keep always "a good conscience void of offence toward God and men." Did he then refuse fellowship with believers
holding error? The very reverse was his
practice.
Some
come from
If
some in a church have defiled garments, are all defiled? It is not so.
"Thou has a few names (even) in
Not
all of the church in Thyatira are regarded by Christ
as defiled by Jezebel’s false doctrine and evil practice. The remnant who
refused this Jesus does not require to leave the old communion. "I will put upon
you none other burden; but that which ye have already. Hold fast till I come:" Rev. 2: 24, 25.
There
is no defilement entailed by our having fellowship with believers in
remembering the Lord’s death, even if they hold erroneous doctrine. Is not the contrary teaching a declaration, that the believer, though accepted with God and
Christ is to us unclean? Is not this the
very error which the vision of the great sheet was given to refute? Peter the clean man beholds in the great
sheet all the four-footed creatures of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the
creeping things, and the birds of the heaven. ‘Rise,
Peter, slay and eat!’ "Not so, Lord; for I
have never eaten anything common or unclean." ‘What God hath
cleansed, do thou not call common.’
These creatures that you so despise came out of heaven, tarry but
a while in earth, and are going up to heaven again to dwell! Even Peter, a Jew by nature, and no sinner of
the Gentiles, was to have fellowship with these, and would not be defiled by
them. How much less, then, can Gentile
Christians be defiled by Christian intercourse with God’s cleansed ones. These cleansed
wild beasts are clean enough to dwell with God; are they not clean enough for you? Does false doctrine so defile the believer,
that it undoes God’s cleansing, and makes him unfit for eternal life? Until it does that, the plea
for severance because of false doctrine, is vain. Nay, to call those unclean whom God has for
ever cleansed, is to be guilty of the folly and sin rebuked in Peter’s
case. GOD’S RECEPTION IS THE CHIEF
POINT; IT RULES THE LOWER ONE. MAN MUST FOLLOW GOD: 1 John 4: 11.
What
was the ground on which the believing Jews of Jerusalem acquitted Peter of
transgression? God had bestowed on these
believing Gentiles the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost. They were accepted of the Lord
therefore. "Then hath God to the Gentiles also granted repentance unto life,"
say the brethren! That is, - GOD’S
ACCEPTANCE OF THEM AS MEN OF FAITH, AND HEIRS OF ETERNAL LIFE, WAS THE GROUND
OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP THEN, AND SHOULD BE THE GROUND NOW.
Is
a believer called by Christ to come out from an assembly of believers, because
of corruptions of doctrine?
Nowhere! The Saviour’s closing
epistles to the seven churches furnish abundant proof of this: Rev. 2. & 3.
What
is the
‘Would you then receive a Unitarian?’ Certainly
not! He is not a believer; and we are
speaking of the reception of believers. What are the points necessary to be
received in order to communion with God and His people are stated in Rom. 10: 9-13.
CHRISTIAN
The
paper on which I have my eye, and the system of which it is the manifestation, set
aside individual liberty in Christ. How far have
brethren power over brethren to exclude them from the Lord’s table? For immorality only. Whenever I can plead conscience toward God,
my brethren’s power over me ceases. Let
each be careful about the truth of doctrine for himself. For he holds this liberty
under responsibility to Christ in the great day to come.
But
here is one who says - ‘I think it right to sprinkle
infants of believers.’ Here is
another who says, ‘I was one who signed the ‘Letter of the Ten.’ I thought it
right then. I think it right now; after reading all that has been said against
it!’ May you coerce such an one to your views?
God forbid! "WHO ART THOU THAT JUDGEST ANOTHER’S SERVANT? TO HIS OWN
MASTER HE STANDETH OR FALLETH:" Rom.
14: 4.
We
may argue from Scripture with one whose conscience is erroneous. We may labour to set him right. But if, in spite of our appeals, he still
says, - ‘I think myself justified in doing as I do,’ or ‘believing as I do’; -
our power over him ceases. We are not
his master. We are only
fellow-servants. "Why is my liberty judged by another’s
conscience?" 1 Cor.
10: 29. My own conscience is to
decide my liberty. Another’s conscious
is not to coerce me. In
Here
is a case. A Christian sister in
communion at N ------- asks to sit down with believers at a meeting in the West
of England. They inquire - ‘Where do you
come from?’ On learning the assembly of
believers where she had been received, they refused to allow her to commune with
them, unless she would promise that she will commune no more with the members
of Christ with whom she met before. Is
this Christian liberty? Or man’s bondage?
In short, there is neither precept nor example for exclusion of a
believer from the Lord’s table, because of erroneous
doctrine.
TEXTS
GIVEN AS AUTHORITY FOR EXCLUSION.
Against
this conclusion two texts are often alleged.
Let
us consider them.
1.
The first and most relied on, is 2 Tim. 2: 19-21.
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this
seal, ‘The Lord knoweth them that are His.’
And, ‘Let every one that nameth the name of
the Lord depart from iniquity.’ But in a
great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood
and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge
himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for
the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work."
How
are these words to be understood? The
following is the account given by the leader in this interpretation.
"The
whole of that which calls itself Christian is here looked at as a ‘great house.’ The Christian is of it outwardly in
spite of himself, for he calls himself Christian. But he cleanses himself personally from
every vessel which is not to the Lord’s honour.
This is the rule of Christian faithfulness; and thus personally
cleansed from fellowship with evil, he shall be a vessel to
honour; fit for the Master’s use. Whatever
is contrary to the honour of Christ in those who bear His name, is that from
which he is to separate himself."
1.
First, then, we ask - What is the "great house?"
What
proof is there that by "a great house"
is meant "all that calls itself Christian?" There is none. It seem, that the true Christian would not
belong to ‘the great house’ if he could help
it. Its greatness is supposed to be
evil.
There
being no proof, it is enough simply to deny that the "great house" here spoken of intends anything
manifested during this dispensation. But
I add a proof to the contrary. The
great house is God’s empire during the day of His future manifested kingdom. The scope of the passage shows this. False doctrine had come in, denying the first
resurrection. The confidence of some in
the great truth was shaken. But the
solidity of the divine testimony abode firm.
The future rest reposed upon God’s authority: ‘tis destined, according
to His word, for those who are His elect and holy ones. To come out from wickedness the Most High
calls all His elect. But
what if they do not obey this call?
(Here is the force of the ‘But,’ verse 20.) Then God, in His great future kingdom,
has places suited to all the saved: places of honour, or of dishonour, to be
awarded according to their conduct now.
The
sentiment, as stated by the apostle, is quite general. The arrangement mentioned is right, and
suitable to a great house. Every palace has, and ought to have,
vessels of these various materials and uses.
It was so in God’s temple, which was a "great
house:" 2 Chron.
2: 5, 8, 9. Greatness in the world during this dispensation of God’s
mercy is forbidden to the Christian, and is evil. Christians, if obedient to their Lord’s
direction, would be little in the world’s eye.
Assemblies of believers (and Paul deals with these alone) in the name of
Jesus never are, in this sense, great.
The Mustard Seed’s greatness is forbidden greatness; and it lends an
open door to the birds, the enemies of the Sower, to
enter and dwell in it. But the greatness
of the house here spoken of is a right greatness: for it is God’s, and it belongs to another dispensation - His
manifested kingdom. Greatness rightly
belongs to God: Deut. 5: 24; 32: 3. The great house is owned as the Lord’s: it is
not merely ‘what calls itself His:’ ver. 19, 20.
The uses of the vessels are sanctified and arranged, by
the Master, and for Him: ver. 21. The accepted vessel abides for ever in the
great house. The principle of the arrangement,
too, is different from that of our present dispensation of God’s patience. It will be then according to
conduct now: ver. 21.
Believers
alone during this dispensation constitute the "house
of God:" Heb. 3: 6; 10: 21; 1 Tim. 3:
15; 1 Pet. 2: 5. And they are
never a great house, but only a "little flock:"
Luke 12.
"Many are called, few chosen." Nor is the sphere of their present action
great in the world’s eye. "Thou hast been faithful in a few things." It is only their greatness as rulers over many
things is to be shown: Matt. 25. The assemblies of God’s saints in Paul’s day
were not such as to constitute them a great house. National systems of
Christianity are indeed called ‘great,’ by way
of rebuke. But such greatness was not to
be found in Paul’s day, nor for centuries
afterward. The Holy Ghost says not - ‘In
the great house of the professing church there will be vessels of
honour and dishonour.’ But in a ‘great house there are.’ It is the statement of what is generally the cause, and of what is right; when God’s kingdom puts on its
future greatness, this will be fully realized; and that will be the fitting,
and the abiding, result.
2. What are the vessels? The vessels to honour, and those to dishonour?
Believers! The apostle is speaking not of the "vessels fitted to destruction:" but
of the places of comparative honour and dishonour appropriate to materials so different as ‘gold’ on the
one hand, and ‘earth’ on the other.
Can
we tell who is ‘a vessel of gold’ now, and who ‘of wood?’ Can we say what post in the
It
is only in resurrection then, and after judgment rendered, that these words
have their fulfilment. They are,
therefore, not designed to furnish a present guide for believers’ conduct. We are not called to purge ourselves from
"vessels to dishonour:" for until
their dishonour has been manifested by God’s adjudication in resurrection, we
know not who they are. Our faith, our
partial unbelief, and our deeds, are working on to the final adjustment of our
place and use in God’s kingdom of glory: Rom. 2:
10, 16; 1 Pet. 1: 7. "If any therefore purge himself from
these (things) he shall be a
vessel unto honour."
3. We inquire next, - WHAT IS THE PURGING?
‘Withdrawing
from the table were those not to the Lord’s honour are found.’ ‘If I continue
associated with such, I shall become unclean.’
This
is not what is said by Paul, but something very different. He is not teaching the clean believer how, in
certain circumstances, he is to maintain his cleanness. First of all, the coming out from these
supposed unclean persons does not cleanse.
The man is supposed to be already defiled. He is to ‘cleanse himself.’ If you have dirtied your fingers with the
coal-scuttle your putting it down, or setting it our of doors, or going out of
the house, will not clean them. The
taking a golden cup out of a dust-pan, where it has contracted dust, will not
clean it. It is not the clean believer leaving
unclean believers. It is not - ‘If
you continue among those unclean, you too will become so.’ The person indirectly addressed by Paul is
already unclean. It is not, ‘he will
become polluted, if he alter not his course.’
If
it were intercourse with a special class of believers which defiled, they would
have been described to us by some present moral aspect, capable of being by us
perceived and applied. But this passage
presents only (1) their relative value as before God, and (2) their destiny
in a day to come. Now, neither
of these points is known to us; and therefore they cannot be our basis of
action. Moreover, the time of the
self-cleansing lasts all through our life - it ends by the Lord’s elevation to
honour.
4. Next we inquire - FROM WHOM is the purging? Or from what?
"From"
denotes the cause of defilement: Lev. 12: 7. "He shall
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven
times, and shall pronounce him clean:" Lev.
14: 7; 16: 30; Jer. 33: 18; 1 John 1: 7, 9.
Is
the apostle speaking of things?
Or of persons?
Our
Established Version inclines apparently to ‘persons.’ Let us notice this point first.
Who,
then, are the defiling persons? ‘Vessels to dishonour.’* But
that is their destiny, and it cannot be known now. Are they persons converted or
unconverted? From fellowship at the Lord’s table with the unconverted, we are indeed told to
shrink; or rather, not to admit them: 2 Cor. 6: 14-18.
From such we have already severed ourselves, or we should not be a
[*
This is very different from "every vessel which is not to the Lord’s
honour." "Personally
cleansed from fellowship with evil." Oh the mischief
of changing the Lord’s definite word, ‘iniquity,’ into
indefinite, ‘evil!’ What
kind of evil do you mean? If you mean ‘moral guilt,’ ‘tis true, but not to the point. If you mean ‘doctrinal error,’ you beg the
question.]
Is
it, then, from unclean converted persons that we are to
withdraw? Where is it said, that we are
not to have fellowship at the Lord’s table with
children of God, erroneous in doctrine, because such intercourse would
defile? All believers are cleansed by
the blood of Christ in order to fellowship with their fellow-believers, as the
vision to Peter shows. But of this farther by-and-bye.
I
suppose, then, that the apostle is calling each believer to cleanse himself
from feelings and contact to be found in every one.
What
are they?
Paul
has spoken in the context of denying Christ, (ver. 12,)
of want of faith, (13,) of logomachy, (14,) of
wrongly dividing the Word of truth, (15,) of
babbling, (16,) of ungodliness, denial of
the resurrection, (18,) and of iniquity, (19). It is
from these spiritual evils, naturally inherent in each, that the believer is to
cleanse himself, if he would be in the great day acceptable to
Christ.
Paul,
then, is giving an exhortation parallel with 2 Cor. 7: 1.
"Having therefore these promises, dearly
beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and
spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." He is treading in the footsteps of our Lord,
who traces the man’s defilement, not to things external, as did the Pharisees;
but to things within: Matt. 15: 17-20.
"But those things which proceed out of
the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These
are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen
hands defileth not the man."
That
‘things’ are in question is partly, indeed, confessed in the extract given
above. "Whatsoever is
contrary to the honour of Christ in those who bear His name, is that from
which he is to separate himself." This may be done without
separating from the persons of believers.
Only, it is observed, separation of one’s self is not cleansing
one’s self.
Moreover,
if communion with believers holding error defiles us, much more are we warned
against the defilement of sect-making and of evil speaking. Are not these the very mischief which the
principles of this tract are sure to produce? Rom. 16: 17; Tit. 3: 10. Parties there will be in the
Thus
taken, the lesson to Christians is universal; for the things to be put off are
found in all believers. In the other
acceptation, it would refer only to special times and places. But God’s way to future promotion is open to
all. Thus obeying, and cleansing
himself, "he shall be a vessel, unto honour." I could not cleanse myself from a dirty
vessel, if it had never touched, never defiled me.
In
short, the error combated has two main roots (1) It is
wrong in regard the source of the mischief. ‘Tis
internal, nor external. (2) It is
wrong in regard of the mode of cleansing: it is not our removal
from erroneous persons, lest we should become defiled by them. It is a word, on the contrary, to those who
already need cleansing within; and no removal from external defilement will
avail to cleanse such. *
[*
In short, the unproved and untrue
assumptions of this doctrine are mainly eleven.
1.
The ‘Great House’ means Christendom.
2.
After ‘these’ in ver. 21,
we must understand ‘vessels.’
3.
Vessels of inferior quality, as wood and earth, defile him who touches.
4.
Vessels to dishonour if touched, defile.
5.
He touches a vessel to dishonour so as to defile himself, who has fellowship
with a believer in error, at the Lord’s table.
6.
Vessels can be distinguished now, (1) in reference to their quality, as wood or
gold; and (2) in reference to their destiny, as to honour or dishonour.
7.
The man who is called to cleanse himself has become defiled by communion with
vessels to dishonour.
8.
Heresy means false doctrine, and a sound believer’s fellowship with an erroneous
believer defiles the sound one.
9.
Hymenaeus and Philetus were
heretics, and vessels to dishonour.
10.
The cleansing of one defiled is to take place by separation from the vessels to
dishonour.
11.
‘depart from iniquity,’ means ‘separate
from believers holding false doctrine.’]
This principle, once introduced, would break up any assembly of
believers. ‘Why do you leave the church
at
(2) ‘But there is another hold which we have on this passage. Paul says, ver. 22. "Flee
also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace,
with them that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart." Hence it appears that we are to break off
alliance with those who do not call upon the Lord "out of a pure heart."
This
interpretation is founded on a mistake in regard of the sense of the
words. The connection is not - ‘Follow
after righteousness, associating yourselves with believers of a
pure heart.’ It is, ‘Cultivate peace
with those who so call.’ It is,
in short, in its construction, parallel with, "If
it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live
peaceably with all men:" Rom.
12: 18. And still more with Heb. 12: "Follow
peace with all men." The ‘with’
connects itself with ‘peace.’
Hymenaeus and Alexander were delivered to Satan by Paul, not because of false doctrine, but for
blasphemy; and delivering to Satan is not the same thing as excommunication.
(3)
Our brethren might say still - ‘But there is another passage stronger yet.’
"If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth
him ‘God speed’ is partaker of his evil deeds:" 2 John 10: 11.
Does
this decide the matter? I suppose
not. For what is the question – ‘May
a church put out of communion one already received as a believer, because of
erroneous doctrine?’ Or, ‘May we refuse to admit to communion one owned to be a
believer, but holding erroneous doctrine?’
(1)
Now first, This passage speaks not of church
action. The Epistle is directed to a
lady and her children. It refers not to
reception at the Lord’s table, but to private
hospitality.
(2)
It does not treat of one already owned to be a believer. There is nothing to show that the party to be
refused is a Christian at all. He is
only characterized by holding false doctrine.
It is not "If any brother come." Preceding words speak of "deceivers and antichrists:" ver. 7. Many Antichrists were gone forth, denying the
Trinity, denying the humanity, or the Deity, of Jesus: denying that He would
return in flesh: ver. 7. Such a teacher coming from a distance was
to be interrogated as to his doctrine, whether he owned the Father and the Son:
ver. 8.
(3)
It does not treat of the putting away from the Lord’s table
one supposed to be Christ’s. But the
previous Epistle decides this point for us.
Even Antichrists were not, by the authority of God, put out of
communion after once being received at the Lord’s table. They went out of themselves: 1 John 2: 18, 19.
(4)
But Jesus rebukes the church in Pergamos, because
there were some there who held the doctrine of Balaam: Rev.
2: 13. He rebukes the
I
answer. 1. While the unity of the church
is a great truth, there are also local churches; and Jesus teaches that
responsibility is local.
2.
Have we ‘the angel’ now, to whom the appeal is
made? I suppose not.
3.
Does Jesus command that the holders of Balaamite
doctrine be put out? He does not.
4.
The open immorality of some in Thyatira is provided for by 1 Cor. 5.
5.
Does Jesus command that disciples leave the churches where there were ‘evil
unjudged,’ and ‘vessels to dishonour?’
He does not. He gives promises to
the individually holy in each church: but he says nothing about their leaving
it.
6.
Jesus, in the case of Thyatira, is dealing with an individual female teacher,
over whom the chief pastor had especial power. "Thou
sufferest thy wife Jezebel," is, I doubt not, the true reading.
7.
There is to be found in the New Testament only the reception or exclusion of
individuals. Nowhere are churches cut
off by excommunication: 2 John.;
1 Cor. 5.; 2 Thess. 3: 14.
Is
there not rebuke ministered by the 3 John to
Diotrephes, and to those who refuse brethren, and
cast them out of the Church? To shut out
brethren is in John’s view an evil which we are to flee.
Unconsciously
to themselves, the three Christian brethren who send forth the tract, add to Scripture.
They
say.
"We
hold that all who believe are one in Christ, as indwelt by His
Spirit, members of his body the Church, and we therefore recognize the
spiritual privilege of all believers walking in truth and holiness,
to have fellowship in worship one with another."
In
this passage are not the principles widely astray from the conclusion?
1.
The Church consists of the members of Christ, the Risen Head, chosen in Him,
indwelt by the Spirit, beloved of the Father.
2.
But do we not receive those who are members of Christ, beloved of
God, unless there be beside the absence of doctrinal error. Does then the holding of doctrinal error
destroy membership in Christ, and love on God’s part?
3.
Will our brethren, who flatter themselves that they are sound, be content to be
themselves cut off from fellowship with Christ, and the love of the Father, if
they hold now, or shall hereafter take up any doctrinal error?
Again,
there is no such expression in Scripture as "walking in truth and
holiness." John speaks of "walking
in truth:" 2 John 4.
"The brethren came and testified of the truth that
is in thee, even as thou walkest
in the truth."
"I have no greater joy, than to hear that
my children walk in the truth." A new sense, then, is given to ‘walking in
truth.’ John means by it the life of
holiness which springs from reception of the fundamentals of the faith. He does not mean, that in after-knowledge all
believers must agree, ere they can have fellowship one with another. To John it is enough to have brethren
‘walking in truth.’ Shall not this suffice us?
Our reception of all believers ["brethren"]
is John’s way of helping the truth: 3 John
8.
I
turn, then, after meeting those objections which lie at the threshold, to -
THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW
ON WHAT GROUND ARE WE TO UNITE?
Of
whom is the
1.
Peter calls upon the awakened to come out from "the
perverse generation:" Acts 2: 40. Some do: they believe and are
baptized. Believers
assemble together: they are called "the
saved:" 44, 47.
2.
A second time Peter preaches in the temple, calling on his hearers to
repent. Many believe: 4: 4.
3.
The Apostles are seized: but being set free they go to their own men: 23. "the multitude of
the believers is of one heart and of one soul:" 4: 32.
4.
Ananias and Sapphira are
cut off in their sin. "And great fear came upon the Church, and upon
as many as heard these things:" 5: 11. This is the first occasion of the word ‘church’ being used in the Acts.* "Believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both men and
women:" 5: 14.
[*
It is considered that the word "the church"
in chap. 2: Ver. 47,
is nor genuine.]
5.
Believers are next called by a new name. "The
number of the disciples was multiplied:" 6: 1, 2, 7.
6.
Saul rises a great persecution against "the Church" at
7.
Saul is converted. He is received as a
disciple by the disciples at
8.
The Church throughout Judaea, Galilee, and
We
see, then, in the names whereby the constituents of the Church (or Assembly) of
God are called, what is the basis of it.
It consists of the receivers of God’s message of pardon through His Son:
Acts 2: 41; 8: 14. The refusers of the
truth are "the perverse generation,"
out of which believers come forth at God’s call. It is a new body created by God, and
specially related to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
1.
As related to THE FATHER, believers are sons begotten of God: Gal. 3: 26; 4: 6, 7; 1 John 3: 1, 2. Jesus died on
purpose to bring them together: John 11: 52.
2.
As related to THE SON of God, they are made alive in Him, members of His
body: 1 Cor. 1: 2; 1 John
5: 20; Eph. 1. They are "accepted in the Beloved."
3.
They are regenerated by the HOLY GHOST, dwelt in by Him as His
temples. Their renewal is begun; they
are called of God "saints." Together they constitute "the Church" or Assembly of God.
They
are, then, two great multitudes which God now sees in the world: HIS
CHILDREN, on the one hand; and THE DEVIL’S children, on the
other. On the one side are the sheep of
Christ; on the other, the wolves of Satan: on the one side the callers on
Christ; on the other, blasphemers of God.
The one class the Holy Spirit leads; in the other, Satan works. The one are begotten flesh of the flesh; the
other, of the Spirit.
Jesus
desired and prayed, that the closest union might be
found among these, God’s elect and beloved ones: John
17. He commanded them to partake
together of the one loaf in the Lord’s Supper, in token of their oneness: 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17; 11.
Whom,
then, may we receive to the Lord’s Supper?
Receivers of God’s word - believers: Acts 2:
41, 42, 44.
How much of God’s word must he accepted in
order to this? The testimony that the
Lord Jesus died for our sins, and rose again, and commanded this rite to keep
alive the remembrance of Himself: 1 Cor. 11: 23, 26.
Are
we to say to an erring son of God - ‘We will no more receive you than if you
were a child of the devil?’
Nay : here is THE CANON OF RECEPTION.
1. "HIM THAT IS WEAK IN
THE FAITH RECEIVE YE, BUT NOT TO DOUBTFUL DISPUTATIONS:"*
Rom. 14: 1.
[*
More exactly rendered - "but not to discrimination of trains of
reasoning." How has this been forgotten!]
2.
"Let not him which eateth
not, judge him that eateth, FOR GOD HATH RECEIVED HIM :" ver. 3.
3.
"WE , then, that are strong
ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves :"
xv. 1.
4.
"Now the God of patience and consolation grant you
to be like-minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus. That ye may with one mind and one mouth
glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. WHEREFORE RECEIVE YE
ONE ANOTHER, AS CHRIST ALSO RECEIVED US, TO THE GLORY OF GOD:" 15:
5-7.
Whom, then, are we to receive? And what is reception?
1.
Reception here signifies the admitting sons of God into the
visible assembly of God, and to its privileges. It is more fully spoken of in the opening of
the next chapter of this Epistle
(1)
"I commend unto you Phebe
our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that ye receive her in the Lord, as
becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath
need of you:" 16: 1, 2.
To
‘receive’ is the contrary to ‘exclude.’ As the subject here is the reception of a
saint among saints, it supposes, as one of its chief privileges, admission to
the Lord’s Supper. ‘The nature of the
reception depends on the character in which the person comes:’ Matt. 10: 40, 41.
This is the receiving of one who belongs to God, and to His Christ, into
the assembly or
To
disciples Jesus says:-
(2)
"Whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth Me:"
Matt. 18: 5.
The
little child that comes in Christ’s name, is to be
received as belonging to Christ, yea, as Christ Himself.
(3)
"I suppose it necessary to send you to Epaphroditus, my brother, and fellow-labourer, and
fellow-soldier, but your messenger (apostle) and he that minister to my wants ... Receive him
therefore in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such in reputation:"
Phil. 2: 25, 29.
(4)
"Aristarcus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you;
and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnamas (touching whom
ye received commandments: if he come unto you receive him)":
Col. 4: 10; Acts 15: 4; 18: 24-28.
Paul
once received, goes in and out among the church at
On
the question - ‘Whom are we to receive?’ the example of Paul is
of deepest moment. He believes, is
baptized in
When
his life is in danger, they exert themselves to effect
his escape. "But when Saul was come to
One witness suffices to introduce to the
Lord’s flock and to their visible privileges, this terrible wolf of former
days. When do they receive
him? As soon as they believe him
to be a disciple: one who has received the first elements of the faith,
and forgiveness of sins.
This,
then, is an exemplification of the rule here laid down. Whom
are we to receive? Men ‘in the faith.’
Men "in Christ," as opposed to
those outside of Christ, who are to be excluded. We are to receive disciples. Now the Saviour distinguishes two classes of
knowledge; the elementary, necessary to reception by God and His people (Luke 1: 77; John 17: 3); and the higher
teaching to be imparted to those who have embraced the former. "Go ye therefore
and (1) teach (make
disciples of) all nations, and baptize them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; (2)
teaching them to observe all things which I have
commanded you:" Matt. 28: 19, 20.
(Greek.)
If, then, it be granted, that any has the experimental knowledge
necessary for discipleship, may we exclude him from the table of the Lord,
because he is defective or erroneous in regard of the after-knowledge
suited to believers?
Nay,
all believers are to be received (with the exceptions specified) at the Lord’s table, because they have been accepted by God on
receiving His first truths; not because of a certain measure of light or
attainment in grace after believing.
Faith in first truths is all that is necessary to union with Christ. And failure in the after-truths proper to
believers does not destroy membership in Christ. Neither, then, may such errors cut them off
from the communion with fellow-disciples and members. In the after-truths of Christ all must be
even learners or ‘disciples.’ It was as still ‘learners’ that disciples of
old gathered around Christ’s board: Acts 20: 7. We sit at the Lord’s table
as ‘children of God,’ not as ‘well-instructed
children that hold no error.’
May
we say - ‘We receive all believers SOUND in the faith?’ This is an unauthorized addition. Our canon excludes it: Rom. 14: 1.
We are to receive not only those ‘in the faith,’
but those ‘weak in the faith.’ Now truth is soundness, and strength. Error is unsoundness, and weakness. The cases which are cited by the Apostle
discover to us errors held by some believers of that day. They were ‘unsound’ partially.
But
the ‘strong’ brother is to receive the ‘weak’ brother; the ‘sound’ brother is
to accept the ‘unsound’ brother. The
Church is the place of life; and those alive to God are to be
accepted by those who are alive to God.
The healthy believer is to receive his brother, even where there is
spiritual sickness, manifested by opposition to Scripture
truth. "If
any teach otherwise, [above the service of Christian slaves] and consent not to wholesome (healthy) words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud,
knowing nothing, but sick (margin) about
questions and strifes of words:" 1 Tim. 6: 3, 4. "Make
straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way;
but let it rather be healed:" Heb. 12: 13.
Why
are we to receive those "in the faith,"
but unsound in after-knowledge? “BECAUSE GOD HAS RECEIVED THEM." This is the all-sufficing plea. Our reception is to follow on God’s
reception; as the less on the greater; as the servant’s reception is to follow
on the Master’s acceptance.
The
way to prove ourselves sons of God is to love all those who are His. "Marvel not, my
brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death to
life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother,
abideth in death." 1 John 3: 13, 14. The world and the Church are opposite
spheres. All who are Christ’s are to be
objects of love to those that are His.
Do
we profess ourselves zealous for God’s glory?
His way of showing it is the reverse of that of many. It is by receiving, and not by excluding,
those that are His. “Glorify God, even the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also
received us, to the glory of God.”
As
soon as
It
is self-evident, that more cannot be required for fellowship with disciples
than God requires for fellowship with Himself. Is any one a son of God? Then he is fit company for sons of God! Is any united to Christ as a member of
His body? Then he is knit to US
if we are members of Christ: whether we please to admit it, or no. It is not at our option to exclude
such from the privileges which are the result of such sonship and such
membership.
We
enquire next :-
SEPARATION; WHERE IS IT
GOOD? WHERE EVIL?
Separation
of believers from unbelievers is commanded by God; and is there
good, because of the essential opposition between the two classes.
(1)
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath
Christ with Belial? Or what hath he that
believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the
The
Holy rights of Christ are not to be given to the unrenewed.
(2)
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,
neither cast ye your perils before swine; lest they trample them under their
feet, and turn again and rend you:" Matt.
7: 6.
Accordingly
Paul severs disciples from unbelievers.
At first indeed he teaches in the synagogue of
(3)
"But when divers were hardened, and believed
not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed
from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school
of Tyrannus :" Acts
19: 9.
But
separation among believers is evil.
Jesus died for
"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:" John
17: 20, 21.
In
this case, even the strifes and coldness which partly
separate believers, united in communion one from another, are contrary to the
mind of God: 1 Cor. 1.; 11: 17.
"Ye are the temple of the living God:"
and it is not fit that the stones of which it consists should be severed.
The
unity which the Holy Ghost seeks to produce is the oneness of the members of
the one body of Christ: 1 Cor.
12. The strongest barriers, even
those of God’s own raising, were thrown down, in order
to produce this new unity: Eph. 2. Jew
and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, are one in Christ. The strength of the strong in Christ is to be
exercised in bearing the weakness of the weak in Christ, not in
excluding them:
Paul
rebukes even coldness of spirit and estrangement while meeting at the Lord’s table: 1 Cor. 11: 18.
He knows of no separation of believers which was good. On our [mistaken] brethren’s views we ought to separate ourselves
from believers in error on subordinate point, not only in spirit, but we ought
to keep aloof from the table of the Lord where they meet.
The
new distinction then attempted to be set up by these three Christian brethren,
between ‘SOUND believers’ and ‘unsound believers,’ is
unscriptural and disastrous. It is a
severance of believer from believer, of some members of Christ from other
members of Christ. It is "the church (assembly) of God" [not Mormans or ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’] which is to meet together to break bread: 1 Cor. 11: 22. Now he is a member of that assembly who is a
son of God. To shut our from
fellowship at the Lord’s table those whom the Lord has received, is worse
schism than that for which the apostle rebukes the Corinthans. Eating and drinking unworthily (with the
specified exceptions as to actions forbid) is a question
between a partaker and God: ver. 27-34.
"Let a man examine himself!"
In
this discussion all important is the
TESTIMONY
OF THE EPISTLES TO CORINTHIANS.
The
Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Galations
present us with clear light upon the principle before is. Let us consider them, with the [Holy] Spirit’s
aid! The first Epistle to the
Corinthians treats at once of (1) immorality, (2) of unsound doctrine, and (3)
of the Lord’s Supper.
In it there is exclusion for immorality, but none for unsound
doctrine! There is no distinction of ‘sound’ and
‘unsound’ brethren. There are (in the
second Epistle) false apostles, yet they are not excluded: 2 Cor. 11: 13, 26.
The
first Epistle opens by owning the Corinthians as a
These
are the great points, on the ground of which Paul loves them, and can have
fellowship with them. He serves himself,
not from them, but from whatever he finds wrong in doctrine or in
practice. Their party-spirit and
setting up of teachers as their leaders, he rebukes. The Christ is not to be divided by us. As all are one in Christ, there is to be no
division among the saved. They were
wrong who said, ‘I belong to Paul’s party.’
But they were wrong also, who said ‘I am of Christ.’ Christ is not to be the basis of a party
among those who are all His. "Is Christ divided?" Any attempt to sever some of Christ’s
members from others of them, whether on the ground of doctrine, or rite and
ceremony, is here rebuked. These
words, then, I suppose, remove the attempt to divide members of Christ into ‘sound’
and ‘unsound.’
There
is false doctrine at
In
another part of the Epistle the Apostle considers doctrinal error. It will be dealt with by God,
not by the Church. It will
be decided in another day - even the day of
judgment; and not in this. This is the day of building, the day of
grace. But another day is coming - the
day of fire - to try what is built: 1 Cor. 3: 10-15.
How
does Paul deal with the error and sins at
But
how does the [Holy]
Spirit of God by Paul really meet the matter?
He first owns them a church and saints, and then begins to reprove
them of conduct unsuited to saints and sons of God. Paul would accept gifts from them for the
saints at
Would
not all this, in the eyes of our brethren who have put forth the tract, have
been a fearful complicity with the sins and errors of
Also,
in the second Epistle, though not every cause of complaint was removed, (12: 20, 21,) he was a third time coming to visit
them: 13: 1.
He desires their prayers for himself: 1: 11. Paul was, together with them,
confirmed in Christ: ver. 21. His
spirit was in their hearts: ver. 22. Even
apostles had not lordship over their faith: ver. 24. They were to confirm love even to the incestous one, for awhile put outside the pale: 2: 8. What
they forgave, Paul did, in the person of Christ: ver. 10. The great division which Paul recognizes is,
the ‘saved in Christ:’ ‘the lost outside:’ ver. 15. He could even boast of them as his own
Epistle of Christ: 3: 3. "We all with uncovered face beholding as in a glass the glory
of the Lord, are being changed into the same
image from glory to glory as by the Lord the Spirit:" ver. 18. (Greek). The grace of Christ, the
love of God, the joint participation of the [Holy] Spirit were to be with them all
- not with the ‘sound believers!’ "All the saints salute you:" 13. May we not
say therefore with confidence - Paul’s ideas of complicity with false doctrines
and evil practice, are very different from our brethren’s. But Paul is right. They must therefore in this matter be wrong.
On
our brethren’s principle, if any church recommended a person proceeding to
another assembly of believers, it will not be enough to describe him as a
believer; he will be recommended as a ‘sound believer.’ Now here we can test a thing. Do apostles, recommending a person to
churches under their care, describe any as a ‘sound
brother?’ Never! It is enough for him that he is a
‘brother.’ "I commend to you Phebe our sister,
who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"
16: 1. "Erastus the chamberlain
of the city saluteth you, and Quartus
a brother:" ver. 23.
"Salute the brethren which
are with them:" ver. 14. So 2 Cor. 8: 18-23; 9: 3, 5; 12:
18, etc. It is enough for Paul to
meet with "disciples:" Acts 20: 1, 7; 21: 4. May we be kept from adding
to Scripture; and setting up a fellowship of ‘healthy disciples,’
‘well-instructed disciples,’ ‘disciples of a superior kind!’
GALATIONS
Let
us turn to the evidence derivable from the Epistle to the Galations, compared with the parallel
narrative in Acts 15.
At
Where
Paul speaks of love to the brethren he never interposes the limit of
‘soundness:’ "All the brethren greet you:"
1 Cor. 16: 20. "Paul and all the brethren which are with me." To whom? To the unsound
churches of
"Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." "Grace
be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity:" Eph. 6: 23, 24.
"Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss:" 1 Thess. 5: 26.
Peter,
when going astray and leading others with him, is only rebuked to the face - no
more!
The
Holy Spirit and apostles, even where false doctrine is abroad, and they are
earnest to counteract it, lay on nothing but what is ‘necessary:’ and soundness
of doctrine is not made necessary. They
address themselves to ‘the brethren,’ not to the
‘sound brethren:’ Acts 15: 23. They do not distinguish themselves as ‘sound.’ They leave these doctrinal offenders to God,
even while they hold error subversive of the soul.
All
the brethren with Paul saluted the ‘churches’ of
In
short, there is neither precept nor example for a believer’s leaving an
assembly of believers. There is neither
precept nor example for excluding believers infected with doctrinal error. ‘What is to be done in such a case?’
"Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and
if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto
you. Nevertheless, whereunto we have
already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing:" Phil.
3: 15, 16.
Paul,
taking leave of the elders of
[*
The translation has wrongly omitted the ‘the’
before ‘disciples.’]
If
these brethren will distinguish believers into ‘sound’ and ‘unsound,’ making it
the basis of fellowship, they will originate a new sect; and must
take a new name. For what is a
sect? It is an assembly of persons
brought together for Christian fellowship on grounds, wider or narrower than
those which include all disciples of Christ. ‘The Brethren’ used to speak of the ‘Strict
Baptists’ as a ‘sect,’ because they received not ‘believers’ as such, but only ‘baptized
believers.’ If this principle which I am
contesting is true, they were not sectarian, but Scriptural.
The
Holy Ghost now on earth is creating for Christ one body; and every Christian,
however disordered or feeble, is a member of that body, and has a title to all
the privileges of it.
The
old name ‘Christian’ ought to be enough.
It was ‘divinely given:’ Acts 11: 26; 26:
28; 1 Pet. 4: 16. It will be
enough, as long as we keep to divine principles of fellowship. It is the name of the body which the Holy
Ghost is forming in union with the Head, Christ. It includes those who believe in the death,
resurrection, and lordship of Christ. It
embraces those accepted by God on the foundation of these truths: 1 Cor. 15. It includes those wrong in the
after-knowledge, in which so many members of Christ fail. The proposal of the paper
commented on is to originate a new division. To be a ‘Christian’ is not enough. Ere you can be received by these brethren -
if they would carry out their plan (may the Lord open their eyes!)
- you must be a ‘sound Christian.’
A
master in
One
would like, indeed, to find none but polished and unflawed gems. They would require much less work; would
create much less trial. But is not
obedience our duty? Are not these ‘rough
diamonds’ used of God to help to polish us?
Is not this the way we are taught to bear and forbear in love : Eph. 4: 2; Col. 3: 12, 13.
Are
not these Christian teachers putting themselves under the Apostle’s sentence? -
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause
the divisions and the stumbling-blocks contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned, and avoid them:" Rom.
15: 17.
If
brethren in Christ unite on principles which exclude other brethren in Christ, their union is sectarian. It is, then, no longer true to say,
‘We receive all believers.’
It is, really, ‘We receive all believers that are ‘sound,’
and we are the judges of what constitute soundness. Hence we do not receive those who are
unsound in doctrine.’ This is
contrary to Rom. 14. and
15: 7.
This is in effect to say, ‘We refuse all who do not agree in doctrine
with us.’
We
are warned in John’s last Epistle against refusing ‘brethren.’ Diotrephes who did
so, at length went on to forbid those that would receive them, and cast them
out of the Church. Yea, he even spoke against John himself with
malicious words. The reception
of believers is the way to becoming helpers to the truth: 3 John 8. The
refusal and rejection of them is evil, and not to be imitated: ver. 11.
PREVIOUS
PRINCIPLES OF ‘THE BRETHREN.’
The
views above presented are those originally promulgated by those called
‘Plymouth Brethren,’ most of whom are now so severed
from other Christians, and so divided among themselves. I trust I write with no desire to aggravate
confusion, but rather to bring back to Scripture and to love.
(The
quotations are taken principally from tracts circulated by ‘the Brethren,’ and
sold originally at their Depot.) I will arrange the quotations to be given,
under the following heads.
1. The principle of unity given by
God is, that all believers are to be received at the Lord’s
table, where no immorality is found in them.
"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 received at God’s
hands. We do then receive on the one
great truth of Christ’s salvation all that through divine grace believing it,
are converted to God." Darby’s Claims, pp. 62, 63.
"I am sure of the truth of those blessed principles the Lord
has taught me, that I glory in their propagation. Simple obedience to Christ
alone; recognition of Christ alone in my brother, as the Alpha and Omega
of terms of communion; lastly, unreserved devotion to Christ alone." - Grove’s Life, p.
321.
"Why is it, then, that Christians are gathered upon many and different
grounds? Why is it that they allow human
distinctions to prevent their manifested union on earth? Just because other
things besides ‘the blood of the Lamb’ have been allowed to interpose terms of
communion; because something more has made requisite for union than that which
unites to Christ; because varying
judgements have been looked on as sufficient to keep apart those who are one in
Christ, and are dwelt in by one Spirit."
- Tregelles. Blood of Lamb, p. 13
"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 (Matt. 18.), and two or
three may act in reliance upon this promise." - Darby’s Works,
vol. 1. p. 233.
"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 a member of the
body of Christ." Darby Works, vol. 1. p. 369.
"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." - Darby’s Works, vol. 1. p. 213.
"If Christ received any, we have to do the same; while we may
ever seek that, being taught by the Spirit, we may arrive at oneness of
judgment. Of course, in the
communication of saints, it must be judged that inclination and convenience
would only be the actings of self-will, if they were
permitted to have any place; and therefore they
should never be allowed (as they so often are) to rend the children of God
asunder." - Tregelles.
Blood of Lamb, p. 14.
"The communion was open to the sheep of Christ; - that
is, to everyone who professed to have been led to rest on a crucified Redeemer,
and whose walk commended his profession.
It was well understood that they felt it to be their place before God to
receive those whom Christ had received, even as they had been received by Him,
to the glory of God." - Tregelles.
Three Letters p. 5.
"The command is to keep the unity of the Spirit. But where is this spiritual union? Where is the union of believers as such,
that it can claim the title of the only true and
"I ever understood our principle of communion to be the
possession of the common life or common
blood of the family of God (for the life is in the blood); these were our
earthly thoughts, and are my most matured ones.
The transition your little bodies have undergone, in no longer standing
forth the witness of the glorious and simple truth, so much as
standing forth witness against all that they judge error, have lowered them in
my apprehension from heaven to earth in their position of witnesses."
2. Believers are to be received,
despite their differences, and consequent errors, on subordinate points.
"The power of a union in common life is so strong, that
evils, endless in variety and often intense in character, are not sufficient to
divide, when this life is felt to exist.
This surely is the nature of the unity of God’s love with all the
members of the one body; nothing should
divide when Christ unites. I shall
return to my native land with the very feelings I left it eleven years ago,
only strengthened tenfold by experience."
"The presence of Jesus Himself - the most precious of all
things - is vouchsafed even to two or three of the least of those who are His,
if it is truly in His name that they are met.
Let it be only His name in which it is done. The fleshly pride which loves to make much of
a gift, and would claim lordship over God’s heritage - human arrangement which
would seek to avoid simple dependence upon God, the narrowness which
would welcome upon the ground of peculiar views - none of these is in the name
of Christ. Those who unite in the name
of Christ embrace, in heart and mind, all those who are His - all the members
of His body; they embrace them in the principle upon which they are
met: otherwise it would not be in His name that they were united; for one cannot exclude from the power of His
name those that are His. His heart
embraces them, and we are not united according to His heart, if, in principle,
our assembly does not embrace them.
Clearly His name does not embrace the world, nor
sin, nor that which denies the truth which that name reveals." - Darby’s
Works, vol. Vii. p. 179.
"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." - Darby’s
Claims of Church of England, p. 60.
"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 ... 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." - p. 63.
"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. I repeat, then, we receive all
that are on the foundation, and reject and put away all error of the
Word of God, and by His ever-blessed, ever-living, and ever-present Spirit."
- Darby’s Claims, p. 64.
"I was almost forgetting, till a letter from Mr. Bellett of
"Every one owns it is needful to give up views contrary to
Christ, and yet how few are enabled to sacrifice on this altar! I do not mean we can or ought to give up what
we hold to be truth; but we may bear as Christ does, with many errors of
our brother: the preciousness of this liberty in Christ I
daily feel, and I do trust by earnest and anxious prayer, we shall be preserved
in this way unto the end.-'"-Groves Life, p. 299.
"The term 'Free or Open Communion' is adopted to indicate the
right of all who are known (or supposed, on the best evidence that we can
command) to be sincere believers in the Lord Jesus, to come to
the table of the Lord, however different their degrees of faith and love,
however diverse their judgments on many points, which however important in
themselves, are yet not such as to prevent their being recognized by the Lord
Jesus as His members."-Open Communion, p. 5.
"That some are Baptists,
so called, and some Paedobaptists, among 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, ‘I 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."-Darby's Claims, p.
57.
"When it was found that even amongst weak believers the
principle of meeting simply in the name of the Lord Jesus, could be understood
and admitted and that with a disposition so to meet (their motives being
various) their hearts were often unsubdued by the truths which they knew, and old forms of
evil, as to outward things, were still acting on them; there could yet be no
question of admitting them to fellowship:- ‘Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful
disputations; ' 'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant, to his own
master he standeth or falleth’ Rom. 14: 1-4”.
Christian Witness, vii. P. 78.
"It is thus that the felt union of mind and heart which
displayed itself among those, in different places so acting, led us to speak of
'the saints' and 'the brethren,' in a special and no doubt also in a sectional
and denominational sense; and where persons from a distance were received at
the Lord's table, it was common to introduce them as 'meeting with the saints
at such a place.' This I consider as one
of the snares which we have unwittingly spread for our own feet; and into which
many, I believe, have now fallen. That
this denominational character is now fully acknowledged
and avowed, cannot but be manifest; for recent proceedings are entirely based
upon it. A circle is drawn, including
all those who meet in acknowledgement of particular scriptural principles, and
they form the - shall I say favoured? - body
that is to be dealt with by different rules from all others. Persons would be
(or at least would formerly have been) received at the Lord's table for
occasional communion, who attended the Establishment, and even had they thought
fit to attend habitually the ministry of one who maintained false doctrine, or
who was himself a child of the devil. No
question would have arisen about the reception of a Christian, who was himself
a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What, then, but the denominational idea, the idea of those
meeting as we do, constituting the church, or
at least 'the church ruin,' according to present favourite phraseology, could
lead to such an interference with personal liberty as we now hear of?”
Brethren Bewiched, P
3. The contrary principle - '