CHAPTER 3

This brings us to a grave matter, and one worthy of the serious attention of Christians.
Whilst developing, with much clearness and force, the proof of the doctrine which brethren profess, concerning ministry and charges (except one point which I will notice farther on), Mr. M., in order to give weight to his right to establish a system and to bring brethren into it, lays as a foundation the denial of what is much more essential than the liberty of ministry itself, of that which alone gives any value to that truth. He employs the truth about the ministry (truth which souls taste more and more) in order to deny that which is much more important-the true unity of the Church, and in order to justify the sects and the endless subdivisions of the Church under the influence of some principle, whatever it may be; and to gain his end, he effaces the boundaries of good and evil, and saps the foundation of Christian faithfulness.
It is the moral character of his tract, it is the absence of all trace of the influence of the Spirit of God, which touches me most deeply (for I have known Mr. M. well), but one would not fail to accuse me of prejudice if I insisted on that; and this tract has made me greatly doubt as to his faith on the capital point of the presence of the Holy Spirit. But I will occupy myself with the subjects I have pointed out.
And, first, Mr. M. denies, whilst he ignores the root of that truth, the unity of the Church of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit to produce that unity.
The unity of Christians, says he, consists in their participation of a common life.
If that is so, we can have unity without the existence of a body, and the unity of Christians exists without there being a body, being all the while scattered on the face of the earth without any union, and each one being left to his own individuality. We can, if we meet each other, experience life and mutual affections, but no unity.
The word of God says, " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," 1 Cor. 12:13. But, for the object which Mr. M. lays before himself, it is enough that unity be limited to common affections, and that divisions continue among Christians.
He says again, in speaking of Christians, " Their affections and common sympathies are the result of a life communicated to their souls by the Holy Spirit, which has made them partakers of the divine nature."
So, that which he has in view is not the presence of the Holy Spirit, which makes of them one body. The author does not see Christians " builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit," Eph. 2:22.
Mr. M. says again, " The intimate and hidden unity shows itself by a visible union " (these are indeed the terms on which the truth expresses itself; and nevertheless it is to reduce it, in that which follows, to some personal and individual feelings), " as the soul makes itself felt through the body and its organs! " And what is that unity, visible as the body is? " Taught by God to love one another, Christians love, as Christ, with a love that shows itself; imitators of God as His dear children, they walk in love." All unity, that is to say, even visible unity, is the affection and conduct of the individual. It is to deceive oneself, it is to deceive souls in the most serious matters, thus to delude oneself with regard to the sense of the words employed by the Holy Spirit. Let the reader glance through the whole page, whence these quotations are taken, and he will there find the confirmation of what I have advanced.
Is this, then, unity manifested by a visible union? or is it merely employing the expression of a scriptural truth to turn aside a soul from the true force of that truth?
The effect of this is to draw persons away, without the soul perceiving it, from the thought of God on the subject of unity, whilst it supposes that it possesses that truth, because, in speaking to them of it, use has been made of the very terms meant to communicate it.
In the next page the system appears already.
" Each converted soul becomes a member of the universal Church." What universal Church? of the body of Christ here below? By no means. Paul speaks "of the Ephesians, as members of the Church which has no limit as to place or as to time." The converted soul is "associated with the spirits of just men made perfect; it cannot either do them service," etc. Then we have a piece of nonsense, namely, that this " universal Church is divided into local churches, which are representatives and miniatures." For by universal church the author makes us take in all believers of all ages, dead or alive, a church which has no limit as to place or time. And thus is set aside the idea of a church upon the earth, baptized by one Spirit to be one body; and that was the object in view, and attention was turned away from scriptural truth on this subject, and fixed on churches, which are the representatives of the universal church. In one word, the Church, such as the word shows it to us, is denied, in order to bring into prominence each flock as having the rights of the universal church, an expression and thought equally unknown to the word.
Let us listen again. " Union in Christ is then a moral work, destroying in proportion as it develops itself all egotism and pride." This has a very fine appearance; but read the Epistle to the Ephesians and 1 Cor. 12, and you will see whether that which the author says has any reference to the thoughts expressed in the word of God.
The idea of a family is very sweet, and I am not opposed to such affections, for we are brethren; but that is not the thought of the word on the subject of the unity of the Church. " We are all one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread."
If the words of men take from me the truth of God, the sweeter they are, they are the worse, and more deceitful.
Now then you will understand, reader, what this language means: union in Christ manifested in the Church by means of local churches. Union is a moral work in the individual. Manifested in. the Church means acting in individuals, so far as their souls belong to the universal church, and that, in affections and common sympathies between the Christians of one locality.
Well, I do not hesitate to say that it is immoral thus to employ such expressions in order to delude others on subjects of which the word of God speaks, by the apparent use of the terms it employs. What I call immoral is to make use of gracious and sentimental words to lead the heart of Christians to attach a meaning to words which are used to express Christian truths, for the very purpose of excluding those truths by letting the deluded soul think that it is in possession of all that scripture teaches by these words. Take up the pages of Mr. M. and see if the expressions of union in Christ, of union manifested in the Church, or even of local churches, have in them the same meaning which the infinitely precious truths have which these words contain if we consult the word.
I pursue my subject. We have seen the ideas which are set up to prepare minds to receive the system. Now we will look at the system itself. I accuse this system of a denial of the unity of the Church and of the presence of the Holy Spirit who has created it.
" The unity of Israel manifested itself in the assembly of a whole people surrounding the one altar. Let this people be scattered or even the altar defiled, for the moment all is lost.
Our unity, the symbol of which is not one candlestick, but seven, is less massive and more diversified. The temple has not been replaced by another building, but by numerous tents which collectively form one camp." He quotes Ex. 25:31; Zech. 4:2; Rev. 1:12, 13, 20. Thus the author puts entirely aside, from one end to the other, the doctrine of the epistles on the subject; and the epistles are that part of the word which reveals the direct relationship between the Father, and Christ as Head of the body, with the Church, and which speaks of it. To introduce this part of the word would be to overthrow from top to bottom the author's system. Pay attention to that which he says, namely, that what replaces the temple is not another edifice but many tents. It is not saying that Christ, whilst judging it, bears with such a state of things; it is pretending to say what God would have done to replace the temple. Now I beg my reader to take, not the symbols of the Apocalypse (where a good number of Christians see a prophetic history of the successive states of the Church on the earth, and which, if it is not so, present to us seven local churches, which gave an opportunity for judging the moral state of every church and even of every soul) to search in its prophecies what the Church is, putting aside all the teaching of the epistles; but to take the direct and positive revelation of those epistles, and to see there if that which God has announced to him is not the Church as the body of Christ, one on the earth by the baptism of the Holy Spirit come down from heaven. We by no means deny local churches. Mr. M. gets rid of them, as we shall see. The word maintains also the local unity.
Mark also that in the Apocalypse the Lord is not presented to us in the position in which the epistles reveal Him to us. The epistles tell us of Jesus gone on high, Head of a body and communicating power and grace to that body. In the Apocalypse we do not even see Jesus in His character of Son over His own house. He there presents Himself as judging, a priestly judge it may be, but as Son of man, Judge in the midst of the churches. There is no question at all of union with Christ. Now all this precious truth of the actual union of Christ with His Church, as well as that of His members one with another by the Holy Spirit, is set aside in order that souls may content themselves with that which none dare justify (that is to say, the actual state of Christians).
The meaning of the work of Mr. M. comes to this: Do not look too much at that ideal beauty; do not fill your head with that which the word speaks of, and I will present something to you which will do well, for we cannot have things on earth as they ought to be. We must find a walk in which we need the smallest possible amount of faith.
Christians! are you content with that?
Besides, Mr. M. lays down in principle that which I maintained in my argument with our brother Rochat, now at rest. " We are," says he, " members of the universal Church and of the local church by the very fact of our Christianity."
Immediately after that, Mr. M. gives us a justification of sects, and an apology for the destruction of local unity, which he holds as of slight account, just as he has put aside the body of Christ. " Let this manifestation," says he, " be made by a single faithful assembly, or by many assemblies having different surnames, but having full liberty of mutual communion as a body, it comes to the same thing. That church or aggregate of those churches forms the manifestation of the Church of God in that place."
Now I ask, if the word of God furnishes us with a trace of anything like this, and if it is not very positively condemned as a carnal thing? If one says, I am of Paul; another, I am of
Apollos (that is to say, if there are different surnames), no matter: according to Mr. M. that comes to the same thing. But what says the word? " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Greek nor Barbarian; we are all one in Jesus Christ."
Farther on, the author excludes again the presence of the Holy Ghost, in order to make the union to rest on a state of soul. " I am," says he, " attached to my brethren by the work of God in them and in me.... I submit myself to the laws and to the spirit of a society established by the Lord Jesus."
What a difference between this language and that of the word of God! " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." " Now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." " Now are they many members, yet but one body." " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
And here, dear reader, give your attention to this. It is sought to establish a distinction between the gifts of the day of Pentecost and the Holy Spirit the Comforter, of whom the Apostle John speaks; and Mr. M. avails himself of the words of Peter, " That which you now see and hear," in order to contrast them with the words of the Lord, " Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not," for the purpose of making a distinction between the Spirit such as we have it, as the Spirit of grace, and the Spirit as it was with the disciples. Now what was promised by Jesus was the Comforter, whom, when on high, He would ask of the Father, and whom, from on high, He would send to His own. After the resurrection, He told the disciples to wait at Jerusalem the fulfillment of " the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Compare Matt. 3:11.) Now they had heard from Jesus the promise of the Comforter which the Father would send; John 16. On the day of Pentecost Peter says, " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear," Acts 2:32, 33. Now, it is by this very Spirit, the promise of the Father, of which Jesus spoke (John 14; 15; 16), that we all are baptized to be one body. And the words " Ye now see and hear," in the mouth of Peter, say nothing of what Mr. M. speaks of. The tongues, etc., were " the manifestation of the Spirit "; and it was that which the world saw and heard.
Now I ask, if the Holy Spirit produces in us good works; and I find that it is written, " That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." And I say, Would it be in accordance with the Spirit and the word to say, Ah! that cannot be the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of grace and as the Comforter, because the world does not see Him. We are the epistle of Christ, written by the Spirit of the living God, known and read by all the world. Is this again not the promise of the Father? And again: the Comforter would speak in them, and would show to them things to come. Was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which did that, totally distinct from that indwelling which made Him to be a Spirit of grace?
I fully admit the difference between the graces and the gifts; but I do not admit it to put aside that baptism which makes the unity of the body-a mold in which the Christian affections are formed according to the word, or to make these affections to be simply gracious feelings.
In speaking of ministry, Mr. Monsell could very well quote the most striking passages which relate to the body of Christ, and so he seems not to neglect them. Why then put them aside when the question is concerning the union of the members?
Mr. M. says again, " The Church, being composed of men, is a human society."
Is -it thus that the word speaks of it? The Church is not solely composed of men. It has for its Head, Christ; and the Holy Spirit is there, and He it is who makes its unity; so that to say it is a human society is to make an allegation which totally falsifies the idea which God gives of it.
Are the bonds of this society human? Is that which makes it a society human? By no means. That which makes it a society is the Holy Spirit. This assertion of Mr. M., that the Church is a human society, betrays plainly the exclusion of the Holy Spirit from his system on the Church. For if the presence of God forms this society, to say, because men are in it, that the society is a human one, is to put man above God; and it is to make that which is the object of the senses prevail over the presence of Him who is the object of faith alone-a presence which, for faith, characterizes this society-a presence without which it has no existence.
Mr. M. says, " The members of the faithful churches have before them the ideal of the Church, of the heavenly families on the earth." A very nice thought it may be. But I appeal to the Epistle to the Ephesians; to that to Romans, chapter 12; to 1 Cor. 12; to 1 Tim. 3:15; and I say, that this description of yours is not at all the ideal of the Church according to the word.
In refuting a thought of the " Coup d'ceil," Mr. M. thus expresses himself: " To say that the Church is become quite invisible, is to say that the world can no longer perceive that there are Christians." Here all idea of unity and of union according to the word is totally destroyed. The Church is made no more than a moral state of the individuals-that it was not the gathering together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad.
Is the Church then no longer visible? asks Mr. M. " Yes," says he. " It is to be seen in all those who profess and know the Savior." This is to say that the existence of scattered individuals is the manifestation of a body.
But Mr. M. goes farther. " The apostolic church," says he, " was visible solely because it showed forth the virtues of the Savior; and, now too, there are souls, who, in a feeble measure, are the witnesses of Christ. Why not call the same things by the same name, in the past as well as in the nineteenth century? "
This is a formal denial of all the doctrine of the word. Did God put apostles in souls? Did He put gifts of healing in a soul? You may exclaim, if you will, You take up things in such a way! Yes; I take things quietly, as I find them in the word, and I say that you put aside and deny the unity of the Church of God and all the doctrine of the word. Mr. M. says I confound catholicism of form with the unity of the Spirit. Take the unity of a man; in what does it consist? I do not speak of uniformity of organization. I speak of the unity of the body. There is one Spirit and one body, one body on the earth; Eph. 4. Your unity of the spirit consists only in some good feelings in individuals. It is not that of which the word tells us. It tells us of being builded together for an habitation of God by the Spirit. And for empty words I will not consent to give up the word of my God, and the body of which Christ is the Head.
I have not taken, in the tract of Mr. M. one isolated passage, the sense of which one might be in danger of wresting. I have reproduced a crowd of passages from his tract, which show that he denies, and that the object of his labor is to deny, the doctrine of the word on the subject of the unity of the Church, of the body of Christ. He denies it in a clever manner, I allow. And in order not to have the appearance of putting aside the passages of the word which teach this truth, he quotes them, but for another purpose-that of explaining the gifts of ministry. But he carefully denies the truth with which we have been occupied. The object of Mr. M. is to accept and justify the actual subdivision of the Church.
After many pages, in which Mr. M. seeks to justify denominations, and in which he attacks severely those who call them sects, and that with justice, insomuch as they have for their foundation a particular opinion, he says, " I do not hide from myself that in saying that one must accept our present subdivision, I bind myself implicitly to accept new subdivisions."
Well, I can weep; I may feel myself incapable perhaps of repairing the evil; but I cannot accept sin before God, nor pledge myself to accept it at some later time.