Miscellaneous Writings Vol. One
RE-TRACINGS OF TRUTH:
IN VIEW OF
QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN LATELY RAISED,
I. THE PRESENT OUTLOOK
ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.
IN looking out upon the features of our own times, and
even in proportion to our personal interest in them, we are apt to project our
own personalities upon them. That a sanguine person will take a hopeful view,
where a desponding one will only see gloom and shadow, no one needs to be
informed. But every idiosyncrasy, whatever it may be, is quite apt to make its
mark upon the canvas of the picture. Hence the taking of one in a manner
perfectly trustworthy is a thing as rare as it is desirable. How thankful
should we be, therefore, for the briefest testimony of Scripture as to the
character of the times through which we are passing, when it is the pathway for
our feet that is in question, and our responsibility to God presses upon us at
each step we take!
Such guidance we have, through the tender mercy of
our Great Shepherd, in the seven epistles of the book of Revelation; every one
traced by His own hand, and our attention called to every address, as in no
other part of the word of God: he that hath an ear being bidden to hear what
the Spirit saith unto the churches! We are not going to dwell upon this now:
the application has been long familiar to those for whom I am specially
writing; but I would nevertheless press upon my readers the main points of that
to Philadelphia, which (to myself at least) seems ever of more commanding
interest as the time goes on, and the features of the last days develop
themselves before our eyes.
There can scarcely be much difficulty in
discerning what Philadelphia stands for. If the "woman Jezebel" makes popery
absolutely plain in Thyatira, Sardis, having a name to live, though dead, yet
with a remnant undefiled, marks out as clearly the state-churches of the
Reformation. Philadelphia, following this, with its "brotherly love," as simply
speaks of the movement to find and to separate the true Church out of this
world-mass. Such has been more or less the character of many "revivals" since
the Reformation, when there was sought a true "communion of saints" and
subjection to the word of Christ, rather than the state-upheld creed. Laodicea
nevertheless closes the series here; a picture, alas, less and less hard to be
read at present, of a church made more and more popular to please the masses,
and lukewarm as to the Christ outside. But we have to do now with Philadelphia.
Here, if "brotherly love "characterizes the assembly, that which the Lord
specially commends is classed under three heads: first, that they keep Christ's
word; secondly, they have not denied His name; thirdly, they have kept the word
of His patience. Their danger is that, having but "a little strength," they may
not hold fast that which they have; the over-coming will, therefore, be in
holding fast.
Of necessity the stream will be against them: that is no
more than is implied in every phase in which men are found cleaving to God. The
world is against God; and, the world having come into the church, the stream
here is against God also. Where shall we find a haven of rest outside of it
all? Not in any earthly refuge anywhere. Philadelphia is no place of rest, but
the centre of a battle-field; and the cry of "overcome" is found here as
elsewhere. Our rest is only in the glorious Leader, who covers our head in the
day of battle, and in the power of the Holy Spirit who can make something out
of things that are not, and out of weakness make us strong. Our trust cannot be
in the attainment of an ecclesiastical position, though a right one,- in
principles of truth, although divine; through all this the enemy made his way
at the beginning, when things were almost in their first freshness; no! we need
tireless energy to resist fresh inroads; never more likely to be successful
than when we are beginning to believe that the battle is over, and that our
victories are to be now only in the quiet harvest-field,-in the ingathering of
souls from the seed sown by the evangelist, or the recovery of the people of
God themselves out of the superstition and error that have inwrapped them. Then
indeed it may be that, while we are congratulating ourselves that we are
leaders of the blind, lights of those who sit in darkness, instructors of the
foolish, teachers of babes, the pit of darkness may be opening at our feet, to
ingulf us all.
A terrible thing it is, in fact, to think of that actual
chasm which swallowed up the church of the apostles' days - the church of Peter
and John and Paul - and left only as the successor of this the legal,
hierarchical, ritualistic church of the so-called "fathers," of which one
well-known to us has said, "It is quite certain that neither a full redemption,
nor, though the words be used once or twice, a complete possessed justification
by faith, as Paul teaches it, a perfecting for ever by its one offering, a
known personal acceptance in Christ, is ever found in any ecclesiastical
writings after the canonical scriptures, for long centuries." In what, then,
were they inferior to us, those men to whom apostles and prophets preached, -
what have we that they had not, which is to assure us that we are not in danger
of making such ship-wreck of the faith as it is certain they did? What but the
most foolish self-confidence could say, with such a warning before our eyes,
that we were in none? Nor can we seriously consider the epistle to Philadelphia
in connection with the character of the present times, without realizing that
Satan's batteries today are turned upon the very central points of
Philadelphian position; and that we are contemplating the beginning of an
apostasy from the Christian faith which will be more complete than any which
have preceded it? What is the so-called "higher criticism," spite of its
lamblike speech where the flock of Christ perchance may be alarmed, but the
most thorough attack that can be imagined upon the Word of Christ? He Himself
was hardly beyond His times in matters of criticism; and grounded His
triumphant argument against the scribes as to David's Son being David's Lord
upon a mere mistake as to the authorship of the hundred and tenth psalm! But,
in fact, who knows if the evangelists have rightly reported Him? or who knows
anything that the critics may please to question? Judgment is removed from the
power of the common man: we have no more our Bibles with the appeal to every
man's heart and conscience; you must have trained specialists to settle the
facts! and what they will leave you after they have completed their dissections
is but the fragments of a corpse without voice or life!
Look again at
the denial of Christ's Name! Was there ever a day in which heresies affecting
His Person or work more abounded? or the tendency to leave out any particular
demand for orthodoxy as to either, so long as people accept Him as their Leader
in some way not to be too severely criticized. If you should have mistaken the
Son of the Father for a mere servant of the Father's house, eternity will make
that right, of course, and it is hoped that the mistake will not prove very
serious! After all, the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are the
broad lines upon which religions are to be reconstructed today; and we need not
fear but that they will be found to run on into eternity.
This, it will
be said, is outside the sphere of Philadelphia; but it is what infects the air
which day by day we breathe, and Satan is the "prince of the power of it."
There are plenty of modifications of such principles to ensnare those for whom
the full poisonous dose would be too large; and what is even more to be noted
is that there are apt to be contradictories and opposites of them, born,
indeed, of reaction, which by this opposition may deceive the earnest-hearted.
For the serpent's lie is scarcely ever the mere negative of truth; and he is
apt himself to have an alternative to it, planned directly to catch the
opposers. And he who goes by the safe-seeming rule of steering as far as
possible from Scylla may find the enemy's Charybdis lying before him on the
other side. With God is perfect guidance; but even with the word of God before
our eyes, how far from it may we swerve through the self-will to which we are
so prone!
I have no desire to conceal the thought that prompts me in
writing the present series of papers, which is to examine in the light of
Scripture principles and doctrines which are being put forth at the plesent
time among those who, I believe, have truly filled a position answering to what
the Spirit of God has characterized as Philadelphian, and which are but the
enemy's wile to seduce them from it. Nay, I fear, in the wide-spread acceptance
which they are certainly gaining, the loss of that precious deposit of truth
which the grace of God had committed to their trust. This is, to me, much more
than any ecclesiastical position, however true, which owes its value so largely
to the truth to which it witnesses. I therefore desire to take up, with
whatever ability the Lord may give, the main points that are in question; in
which I shall be in large measure but retracing the outline of truths once
familiar, once how precious!- only necessarily to put them in connection and
comparison with what is now presented for truth, and not without the hope of
some fresh light being elicited by the discussion; which is what God would
surely overrule all our differences for. We shall try to look at the moral
bearing of things; as indeed the one who is very much the cause of the present
inquiry rightly presses: without this they cannot get their just value for our
souls; and this is what, speaking for myself once more, I can say I desire. Oh
that the value of God's truth may be more realized by us all! It is
inestimable, as that which alone can form in us the mind of Christ; and as
this, one cannot help contending for it, though it is nowonderif one's motives
should be challenged, and one should be treated as a mere "accuser of the
brethren." Protestations are of no avail in such a case; specially as those who
charge this are not those most likely to seek to satisfy themselves if there
may be a cause. One may be well content if there be some who go far enough with
me to discern its gravity.
I do not propose, however, to try and
establish any specific charges, or make any quotations from any one with regard
to what we shall consider. I prefer to leave every one to make for himself the
personal application, and thus to eliminate as far as possible the distressing
personal element. Let the inquiry be strictly a scriptural one; though it must
be along lines which are marked out by what has called forth these papers.
Then, if after all one is only fighting a nightmare of the imagination, we
shall still not have made, I trust, a wholly useless survey of some important
truths. If, on the other hand, it should be found that there is some serious
question raised with regard to views that are really current and finding
acceptance with many at the present time, then let my readers, without regard
to persons, take it into the court of their own conscience, with God alone as
the Judge of all, and argue it out there, with all that could distract them put
aside. Truth carries its own authority with it for the true; although that in
no wise means the setting aside of needed exercise, and the absolute subjection
of one's mind to Scripture where Scripture has plainly spoken. And indeed we
have little truth, of any spiritual importance, outside of that which Scripture
has given to us. We shall by the course pursued be as far as possible delivered
from the collision of opinion as to what Mr- .. has said, or what he means by
what he has said, and fasten our minds upon the one question of any prime
importance, "What saith the Lord?"
There is, however, one question with
which I shall now conclude. Looking again at the epistle to Philadelphia, and
referring to the first two points in the commendation there, they are plainly
these: "Thou hast kept My word, and not denied My Name." Serious, then indeed,
would be the issue which raised question as to both of these! If there were
admittedly a question as to the Person of the Lord plainly raised, and
permitted to go at least without any public settlement of it; the thing
dropped, perhaps, yet the offending expressions never withdrawn! not justified;
not condemned; not retracted! And again, if Scripture, while formally admitted
to be the written and authoritative word of God, yet were always in practice
distinguished from the "word of God, living and powerful," as that which does
not exactly teach, and which, but for the failure of the Church, would never
have been needed!
If these two things should demonstrably come
together, what more would be needed to show the extreme gravity of the
questions to be raised?
2. WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE WRITTEN
WORD.
THINGS must have come to a pass indeed, when with Christians
such as those for whom I am writing, one has to dwell upon - still more, defend
- the value of the written Word. That which has been to us all the revelation
of all the truth which we possess (and it is by the truth we are sanctified);
that which alone brings into communion with the mind of God; that which, as
inspired of God -"God-breathed "- furnishes the man of God to all good works;-
how needless, how unutterably foolish it must appear, to tell any one who owes
his all to it, the value of the written word of God! Is this what those are
thinking who, to one's utter astonishment today are letting pass without word
of audible comment (that has had power, at least, to come across the breadth of
the Atlantic) statements that would seem as if they should rouse to indignation
impossible to be repressed every soul divinely taught as to what Scripture is?
There is only one way besides in which this silence is comprehensible to me.
Perhaps by some strange obliquity of mind words have lost for me their proper
meaning, and I have failed to understand what I have had before me. If it be
so, still let me state this figment of my imagination, and meet it as if it
were a reality. How good it would be to get a strong knock-down reply from some
one somewhere, to dispel for ever this delusion of mine, and assure me that I
was dreaming! Why does not some one in pity to me, who, I think, have no evil
intent, but a real longing over souls who seem drifting away from truth whither
they know not, prick this bubble for me, and give relief to more than myself
from as uncomfortable a nightmare of the imagination (if it be that) as for
long has visited them? The delusion which I am combating (whether mine or that
of others) begins with fair speeches about Scripture (always written
characteristically with a small "s") as being authoritative and the written
word of God. It blurs this, however, immediately by saying, it is more the
record of it than the thing itself. I suppose every higher critic of the decent
kind would say as much. It warns us, for all that (as I have never known the
decent critic do), enforcing this too by personal example, that one can study
it too much, and that a Bible student is not much after all; which means, of
course, that the study of the Bible does not count for much. In fact, we are
told, the method of learning truth by Scripture was not God's original plan at
all: if the Church of God had remained in its first estate, we would not have
wanted the Scriptures. The mind of God which is in the Scriptures would have
been livingly expressed in the Church without them; and that was the divine
idea! A very important thought, as some one remarks, if true; and very
important, of course, to know if it be true: for by it the whole Old Testament
is practically discounted and set aside for us.
But how, then, without
the Word, was the Church to become the "living expression" of the mind of God?
Here a leaf is taken from an old book which is not Scripture, but which many
will recognize. The truth is in the Church. The apostles had it and
communicated it; Paul to Timothy; Timothy to faithful men, who were to teach
others. Here are four generations: Paul; Timothy; faithful men; others: that is
the way the truth was to be transmitted. It is the way which the church of Rome
hold today; and the technical name for it is "Tradition."
But it
failed! Yes; somehow it failed. Rome may be excusable here in believing that
God's plan could not fail; but it could and did. Have you not observed that it
is in the second epistle to Timothy, not the first, that Paul speaks of the
Scriptures in that well known eulogy? That was when failure had fully set in;
and then it was that the Scriptures came to be so important! But at any rate,
one would say, the method of teaching by Scripture is that by which we come
into the truth today; and all that one can say of it in this respect today is
fully justified! Ah, but we must not seize that comfort yet, or all that has
been said just now must go for little. No, the old method has not been given up
like that. The Church is still the method as before; only supplemented by
Scripture because of the failure that has come in. It is a kind of humiliation
to have to send the Bible to the heathen, and it is no good sending Bibles, if
there are not preachers. People do not learn exactly from Scripture, but from
the Spirit of truth; and if you say, "Granted that it is always by the Spirit
of truth that any true work is done in the soul at all, but do you say that God
will not use the Bible to a man's soul without a preacher?" well, it is
difficult to put it that way, because God is sovereign; in a day of decay and
ruin, He may speak through an ass's mouth; but how shall they hear without a
preacher? The divine way, undoubtedly, is preaching. All as glibly said, as
unquestioningly taken, even to the gross irreverence of putting the words of
God alongside of the miracle of a speaking ass! Is it then a mistake of the
apostle that they are "able to make wise unto salvation?" Well, that is asked
and answered, if any one is wise enough to interpret the answer: that "the man
of God wants to be furnished with the Scriptures because of their disciplinary
value "!- the relevancy of which I confess I do not understand; nor do I think
that the apostle's words need any explanation. Why should we not inscribe them
in every Bible sent to the heathen as an all-sufficient justification?
But how then with regard to the truth as ministered to the believer? Well, in
general, in the early days, we are told that they had to take things on trust.
The Old Testament did not give the truth of Christianity; and the New Testament
was not written till the Church's decline, of course; otherwise, the whole
system taught here would be subverted. The safeguard people had is said to be
(what again is somewhat difficult to understand) that "the spirits of the
prophets are subject to the prophets;" words which are certainly found in
Scripture, though scarcely in that connection. However, now that failure is
come in, and Scripture as the resource in view of it, it is of the utmost
importance to prove all things.
Here the Bereans are commended to us as
a model for imitation; somewhat in forgetfulness that this example comes to us
from before the failure of the Church, and when it is supposed that another
method was in order; yet it seems that they had Scriptures in their hands which
they searched to some purpose. Only it is assured us that what they heard they
first received; and only searched the Scriptures to get confirmation! A severe
critic might say, perhaps, to see what mistakes they might have made in
receiving it! Our clay is an evil day; and God has given us the Scripture that
we may have a standard of truth. Scripture is the limit; and though you don't
exactly learn from Scripture (and indeed it is legality to want chapter and
verse for doctrine) yet the more familiar people are with it the better:
because a man's mind is thus continually pulled up in its tendency to go beyond
the limit! Thus for the outside world Scripture is not to be reckoned on for
the conversion of souls. God may use it for that, because He is sovereign, and
might be pleased to use the speech of an ass; while for the flock of Christ it
is as it were a tether, to prevent their natural tendency to stray! You are
right to search it for confirmation of what you hear; only you are to receive
this first, and search afterwards. Even then remembering that it is legal to
want chapter and verse for doctrines, and that it is possible to study the
authority too much!
It would be perfectly natural to say that that must
be a caricature of anybody's teaching. My comfort is that, at least, those who
think so cannot have received it themselves. If they can find no one who has,
or who knows of its existence, that would only show to me how few take in what
they read; perhaps even while they applaud it. However, let us make it an
occasion for examining what is the use and value of the written Word.
Only think of it as that !- the written word of God! a word prepared for us as
the outcome of past ages which have contributed, age after age, their quota to
the full result; the whole, in every line and word of it, "God.breathed,"- the
quickening breath of the Spirit in it!- from the heart of God to the heart of
man! The more we look into it, the more in faith we credit it with a divine
message and meaning, the more it responds and opens,- the more it draws and
wins us to itself. Had I my life to live over again, I would study it more, not
less, drink it in, live in it, have it my meditation all tile day long. Where
else shall I find the Voice of Him who seeks me for Himself? Can any one tell
me where? Fancy one telling me that the use of Scripture is in its being a
"limit" to my poor human thoughts; when it is that which, as far as may be,
leads me out into the limitless,- into the "deep things of God"! Here are the
things that the Spirit searches - the Spirit, wonderful to say, in me!-and
which, having set before me the infinite, leads me into the measureless delight
of exploring my inheritance! How many people, handing down to me with flawless
accuracy, the traditional truth, could replace for me the scriptures of
prophets and apostles which God has put into my hands, with their tale which
they are never weary of telling,- which I can read and re-read, carry into my
room, set down before me, pray over and look again,- listen to in the quiet of
His Presence who is in them and with them, till the music of their chime begins
in my soul, soothing, quickening, harmonizing, subduing all my nature to them!
If I owe my possession of them to tile failure of the Church,then blessed is
that failure which, under God, has secured me so priceless a result.
I
speak soberly and deliberately while I say, that not the presence of tile whole
of the apostles with the Church to-day could replace for us the loss of
Scripture. Could they all together give us one truth more than God has seen
good to give us in it? Did they communicate, in fact, one truth besides, which
we have lost? More than that, is it certain that they even knew all that was in
their own communications? still more, can we believe that they knew all that
all other inspired writers had communicated from tile beginning? Have we one
shred of truth, or of interpretation of Scripture even, which has come down to
us by this so much lauded tradition, that any one can show us, much less show
us value in today? What can we glean from apostolic "fathers"? Has not God been
pleased to make a clean, broad mark of absolute limitation between Scripture
and all else that went before or followed it, so that it should shine out to us
in its own peerless character to-day? What has God given us through all the
centuries since, which is more than a development from it,-a bit of the
treasure from this exhaustless treasure-house?
I do not expect, then,
with whatever amount of prayer or meditation, to obtain from my poor thoughts,
which have indeed to be kept in order so, one thing which directly or
indirectly has not come to me from the Word. Nor can I think of anything higher
for myself or any other, than to be an expositor of this glorious Word. Tell
me, then how I can study it too much? You need not tell me that I can pray too
little: Alas, I know that well. I suppose, we have nothing to assure us how
early in Christian times the Gospel of Matthew may have been written. It is
pre-eminently, as all are aware, the Jewish Gospel; as the church in Jerusalem
was for some time a Jewish remnant, and little more.
Luke shows us at
the end of his Gospel what special pains the Risen Saviour took to ground His
disciples from the beginning in the Old Testament, and its relation to the New.
Here their feet always stood firm; and the example of the Bereans a good while
afterwards makes plain to what good use it could be put by those who had not
had the advantage of such instruction. When they had thus assured conviction as
to the trustworthiness of those through whom they had received the knowledge of
the Saviour, and the pledge and witness of the Holy Spirit, there was of course
abundant warrant for their reception through a channel so certified, of those
additional communications which God was pleased to give. But notice here that
the very slowness with which we know such communications came, gave the fullest
opportunity to incorporate them one by one with all that they had known before;
the scattering of the truth abroad being itself gradual, so as to carry better
together the whole body of disciples. The more we reflect upon all this, the
more we shall realise how fully from the beginning of Christianity the Lord
grounded His people upon the written Word; and that this was no after-plan when
the Church had fallen. Such thoughts may catch those who do not study Scripture
too much; and alas, there are plenty of them. They are the mere vagaries of a
dreaming mind, to which the word of God is not even a 'limit. We have no need
to undervalue the preacher, because of the efficacy of the Word. I would
emphasize it more, indeed, than all this system does. Instead of saying for
instance, that God does not use us instrumentahly as effecting anything,
Scripture assures us that men can "so speak" that others shall believe (Acts
xiv. 5). It makes the character of the speaking effective in the production of
the result. But there is another reason for "how shall they hear without a
preacher?" without dishonouring Scripture to furnish one; and that is serious
and sad enough. It is that men, alas, have to be pursued by the grace that
seeks them and the living voice of the preacher is the most effectual means in
this way. Wisdom has to cry aloud, and utter her voice in the corners of the
streets. "Go out into the highways and the hedges, and compel them to come in!"
Scripture had always been, while necessarily safeguarded by the barrier-wall
thrown around Israel, yet placed in the very centre of the chief civilizations
of the world, and on the highways of commerce. Had men desired the treasures of
it, they were readily accessible, and there was no prohibition of their
acquirement; but they manifested no desire. And in the midst of Christendom
today, with the completed Word in our hands, what would we do without that
publication of it in various ways, by which it is forced upon the notice of the
unwilling-hearted? That does not in the least affect the power existing in the
Scriptures to make men wise unto salvation which they assuredly have - a power
which is being proved continually.
We have spoken, perhaps, enough of
the Bereans, and their readiness to receive the word preached to them. No doubt
that there is in the truth always an inherent acceptability to an earnest mind.
But the belief of it is distinctly put here after that searching of the
Scriptures which they are praised for, not before it. Think of the consequences
of a principle such as is advocated, of receiving first, before proving! when
the proving will surely follow with a laggard and indifferent step; and during
the delay how many falsehoods may spring out of one error received, which may
not be destroyed, even when they have lost their attachment to the root from
which they sprang! How would such a principle account for the rapid and wide
spread of a movement like that which we are now contemplating, in which the
captivating brilliancy of many new ideas may with the ready aid of the emotions
sweep the traveller off his feet too far away for any present recovery. A
voyage of exploration always has its charm; and to be told that you need not
know whither you are going, but may give yourself up to the guidance of one who
seems so impressively confident of his ability to carry you safely, is a luxury
in itself. Certainly you make progress: everything moves. By and by you can
take your bearings and see where you have arrived. You can return by the way
you have come, if in the end you are not satisfied. But have you gauged then
the strength of the stream that is bearing you on it?
3. LETTER AND
SPIRIT.
WE have not yet done, however, with doctrines which affect
Scripture; and I place these first, because the character of all the teaching
may be rightly judged by them. If that which is the standard of truth be taken
from us,- if it be obscured even, or made less available to the common mass of
Christians,- it is plain that this will have disastrous effect upon every truth
drawn from it, or to be compared with it. Rome herself makes great parade of
late of her reverence for the word of God. She will exalt it as much as you
please, - and the more she does the more gain will it be to her,- if only you
will let her interpret it for you. It is the interpretation that is the great
point; and if a system of interpretation is adopted which takes this out of the
reach of the simple man, then you have set an esoteric teaching which is not
subject to Scripture, however much you may accredit those who receive it (as it
is quite easy to do) with a higher spirituality which enables them to do so. No
doubt spirituality is of all importance in the things of God; but it is not
this which will refuse to submit to the plain word of Scripture: "If they speak
not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa.
viii. 20).
Now the system before us, as represented in its chief
exponent, avowedly sets aside the letter of Scripture, in the interests of what
it is pleased to consider the "spirit" of it. Scripture, has been put alongside
of a supposed faulty hymn, to say-" I do not read those hymns in the letter; I
do not read Scripture in the letter: I try to get the spirit of the hymn, and I
do." The self-complacence of the last two words is characteristic. Are we not
left to infer that as with the hymns, so with Scripture, he not only seeks to
get the spirit of Scripture, but he does? Most people would have left others to
say that of them. Whatever conviction they might have as to their success in
such a matter, they would not expect to move others by their own conviction -
at least those of the class that it would be worth while to convince: "let
another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth" (Pro. xxvii. 2) is a rule
which has long been commended to us as a maxim of wisdom.
But the
important point is, that we are not, as it seems, to read Scripture in the
letter. It would be gratifying to know whether this is what the Book itself
teaches, and how it teaches it. The thought is not altogether a new one; others
have equally proclaimed their belief in Scripture as "read by the illumination
of that Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in us," as contrasted with "the letter
that killeth" But one can hardly think of the one from whom I before quoted as
meaning to refer us to a text which gives the contrast between the old covenant
and the new, and this last even as ministered by grace to us in the present
gospel. It could not be said indeed rightly of the new covenant in any wise
that the letter killed, although as Gentiles we should not come under it. Those
who do come under it will certainly not be killed, even by the letter of it.
The spirit is the spirit of the letter and that is the sweetest grace.
In Romans again (vii. 6)," the oldness of the letter," in which as Christians
we are not to serve, is that legal bondage which the old covenant implies, and
has nothing to do with Scripture as such. For the Christian in the liberty to
which God has called him, the very letter of the law as such remains, not only
without injury, but with plenty of profit in it. There is absolutely no
scripture which so much as suggests that the letter of God's blessed word is
something to be put aside, even in favour of the spirit which resides in it. If
I want to be in communion with the spirit of a man, I do not kill his body for
that purpose; and grotesque as such a comparison may seem to be, it is a joy to
me to believe that God's word is as it were a living organism, in which even
far beyond what we find in man (as man is now) the spirit residing is expressed
in every part; so that every jot and tittle has importance from it, and must be
preserved, for the spirit to be in any proper manner realized.
I own,
therefore, with gladness and thankfulness of heart, that I do read Scripture in
the letter - that is, in the very form and expression which God has been
pleased to give it - and that more and more. Can I give it a form more suited?
To convey to another what I find in it I may use other terms, and find them
useful, to break through that crust with which a mere external familiarity
often encrusts them:- all well; yet shall I find that not only will the same
crust form over these new inventions, so that to those familiar with them in
the same external way they shall become still a lifeless verbiage, but also
that, after all, the words by which I have expressed what I have found will in
the end be proved too narrow to contain the fulness of the divine meaning, if
happily they may not be proved in some way inaccurate and really misleading. I
do not deny at all the very great usefulness, therefore, of other phraseology
than that of Scripture, for the explanation of Scripture; while yet I am sure
that for the rectification of all our phrases, and also that Scripture may not
he narrowed into the littleness of human conceptions, we must go back, and ever
back, to refresh and purify and enlarge our thoughts by the very words - the
only adequate, the divine words of the peerless Book which infinite grace has
given us.
Distil the blessed words in your alembic and give me the
result: to justify it, you must show both the material and the method. But to
show me that what you have got is the full equivalent of all the material is
still another matter; when your material is scripture, a very difficult thing
indeed. But at least you must justify all that you speak of as the spirit by
the letter, which is the only thing to begin with which we have. The Spirit
within us does not give any new revelation, but "searches the deep things of
God" which are contained in what has been already given. The spirit of
Scripture is that contained in the letter: it is the spirit of the letter; I
read it in the letter to get the spirit of it. The letter has the spirit in it,
and more than all that we may please to call the spirit. How important to
remember, when you contrast, as in this case, the letter and the spirit, that
the letter is of God, the spirit is that in which you have to fear the
instrusion of an element which is not of Him!
The principle which we
have had asserted is, undoubtedly, one of contrast: "I do not read Scripture in
the letter;" but, if that which has been stated is the truth, then there is as
to practical apprehension, in this case, no such contrast. The letter is but
the wisest possible expression of that which you may express otherwise
sometimes with benefit, no doubt, but yet in a way which is still in reality
something less wise than the old one. How unsafe then would it be to say, "I do
not read Scripture in the way it is written, but according to what I take to be
the meaning of it"! Would it not assume, in fact, that wisdom was in my poor
words, beyond that of those who wrote, "not in the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth?" (i Cor. ii. 13). Where can you
show me the spirit of Scripture in words which have the sanction that such
words have? After all, will it not be your letter in contrast with the actual
letter, neither more nor less?
The whole statement is such arrogant
assumption that it is hard to believe that a spiritually sane man could make
it. The effect of it, if carried out, would be to give us a Bible, or rather,
Bibles many, which would be anything rather than the endeared, familiar,
well-proved friend of all our hearts. The adoption of such a principle would be
at once to blur all lines and bring in everywhere confusion and uncertainty.
This is not the Voice of the Spirit that would enfeeble and degrade what the
Spirit Himself has given, as this system does; putting it at one time in
company with a faulty hymn, at another time with the speech (miraculous though
it were) of Balaam's ass! I do not envy the quietness of those who can take all
this (go with it or not, as they may) without a protest. "I do not read
Scripture in the letter"! Why, it is just the most literal part of it that of
necessity must be used to interpret all the rest. That there are figures,
types, parables in it, who is not aware? But who would like to build his soul
upon things such as these, without the plain letter of doctrine which alone can
interpret them definitely and surely? Is it not "letter" that "God so loved the
world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life "? Am I to read that in the
spirit, and not in the letter? Who will stand forth then and tell me, in
contrast with the letter, what the spirit of it is?
See now how it all
works together: I am justified in accepting this guidance that is offered me,
of one so spiritually wise and competent that he can give me the spirit of that
which I, poor dullard, have been reading in the letter. What can I do but
submit myself to this, and let tue proof abide a more convenient season? I may
be bewildered at first to find how things immediately begin to change, and how
little remains absolutely what it was before. But then, if I am humble, this is
all proof of how I needed a teacher,-how without a teacher (and indeed, with
all the teachers I have had hitherto) I have been going astray. I learn to
distrust myself the more, and cling to my guide. By and by indeed, I must come
to a halt, and begin to see where I am,- to see if perchance anything may have
gone wrong with me. I have heard that "in a day of evil it is of the utmost
importance to prove all things, and not accept the dictum of anybody." That is
all right, I suppose: it is the same guide says it; I am yet to prove all by
Scripture! But Scripture, what Scripture? He does not read it in the letter; no
more must I then, if I am to reach the same results! God has somehow provided
me with a Bible in the letter; and this Bible in the spirit I have got to form
for myself out of it, and by its help; or, at least, I have got to prove the
new Bible in the spirit which has been put into my hand by that old Bible which
is so different, and which it will be my wisdom in due time to give up! Think
of the perplexity to a simple soul, of using in this way a standard which has
to be renounced, and for the very purpose of being able to renounce it; while
at the same time, it is capable in some way of putting me on a platform higher
than itself! Must not all this end in inextricable confusion? Is it not, in
fact, confusion all the way through?
Chapter
Five. The New Birth, what is it?
Home | Links | Literature