The Christian Church, instituted by the Redeemer and his
Apostles, has often had to pass through troublous times. Sometimes
she has been able to throw off the burden attempted to be imposed upon her; at others, she has succumbed, and has arrayed herself
in the robes, or adopted the gestures,
or incorporated the maxims of the
world attacking her.
But her foes have not always been of foreign
households. She has suffered
more from her friends indeed, than she
has ever done at the hands of her enemies; from friends whose
friendship few would dare to challenge, - men who not only seemed to
love the Redeemer, but really did so. Some of them in this respect
have even been preeminent.
We cannot regard the
heresy of
these men as other than a mistake.
They did not intend to wound the
Redeemer or to obstruct his
cause, but somehow they have done
so.
It constitutes no part of the purpose we have
in view to say a word against the qualities of mind or heart of those
who oppose, what we humbly conceive to be, the truth of God. Our
opponents may be better men than we, may love the Redeemer more,
would perhaps be more scandalized by certain forms of offence than we
should, and they might be prepared to sacrifice more for our Heavenly
Master's cause than we should.
Still, their goodness of heart,
their clearness of mind their prominent love to the Redeemer, are in
no sense guides to us in matters of opinion.
For these, both they and we must stand on some
common ground. Their qualities are not common to both; we cannot upon
these found either our resistance to, or approval of anything; there
must be some rule or standard of authority, to which it becomes necessary
that each of us should submit.
And the question to be settled may be
formulated thus:
Given, certain opinions and a
certain standard of opinion - Do the opinions agree with the
standard?
This formula has the effect of at once
excluding all questions respecting character, and permits us at once
to come to the matters in dispute. As it is important, however, we
may put the matter still more clearly, especially as there is no
small tendency to say,
"You see how these good men take sides
against you,
can it be wrong to introduce anything of which these good men
approve?
You must set yourselves up as
great people indeed when you
cannot
follow the
leading of these good men."
If the correctness of opinions were to be
tested by the goodness, or apparent goodness, or recognised goodness
of their supporters, I fear we should have very unsatisfactory
results oftentimes.
We need a higher standard, one
altogether independent of character, which may, in such
circumstances, be used as a means and appliance not of correctness
but of quite the reverse.
As an illustration, take a common carpenter's
rule, which may be marked either correctly or incorrectly, either in
accurate correspondence with that kept as a standard in the House of
Commons, or according to the fancy or notion of the maker. Carpenters
using rules may also be either honest or dishonest.
The honest man may buy a wrong rule
and perform his work according to it; while the dishonest may buy a
correct rule, and work according to that.
Let a dispute now arise regarding work done,
and appeal be made to a judge in such matters to decide, and what
would the result be?
Simply that an honest man may be
doing wrong all his life by carrying about with him as a standard of
practice a rule not in accordance with the standard;
while a bad man may do what is
right because he is guided by a rule which harmonises with the
standard.
Apply the illustration to the case before us;
the character of neither disputant affects the accordance or
discordance of the matter in dispute with the standard of final
appeal.
In what follows we try, however we may succeed,
to avoid resting anything on human
character or resisting anything on such
ground.
Our appeal is entirely, solely, to
the Divine Word, to which we hope every true man and good endeavours to
make the rule of conscience which he carries in his bosom thoroughly
to correspond, by a diligent study of its sacred contents, and prayer
for the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes
of the understanding and to impress the heart.
"To the law and to the
testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because
there is no light in them."
This Word of God
is the standard of faith and worship,
that standard which God has set up to reveal Himself and to teach us
how, when, and where to worship Him.
All scholars we can find quoted from the ancient times agree with
this. Even Catholics agree but give themselves right to make changes
but only because the Pope is assumed to represent Christ. The only exception is the post 19th century
liberals who assume grand authority with not much Biblical
knowledge.
How thankful should we all be that it is
so accessible; with how much readiness should we be willing to
consult its sacred pages, and to submit without reservation to its
decisions? May God enable us to "see light in His light clearly," to
follow it fully and faithfully even to the end!
It is said that this, and all matters like
this, should be made matters of
liberty; that difference of sentiment,
so moderate in itself, should be tolerated, and difference of
practice permitted.
Liberty is a dangerous thing to
meddle with.
It is entirely a matter of standards.
If any thing accords with the
standard, it is matter of liberty; -
or it is assured by submission counterordered.
But a claim may be made not under the standard - and where there is
no claim for countersubmission.
None dare oppose standard
rights.
No brave
man will tolerate irregular demands.
To say that this is a matter of
liberty is precisely to state our case.
Liberty depends on law;
when there is no law there is no
liberty.
Presumption may presume, and impudence may
assume; but without law, the courageous will take care of their
presumptions and assumptions.
We do not accept the dictates of
either the aesthetical or the rhetorical, far less the followers of
majorities, as definitions of our spiritual liberties.
But the principles on which the demand for the Organ is
made rest upon certain foregone
conclusions.
Certain opinions are held or
professed concerning the powers and prerogatives of our
various ecclesiastical
bodies, and accordingly to that body in
which each reposes confidence, expectation is directed for the
desired issue of discussion.
1. There is a
party which may be named first in
order, who conceive that Synods and Assemblies are bodies possessing
plenary
powers;
that they may not only determine
finally all subjects properly falling to them to adjudicate upon,
but they conceive that there is
no
subject, whether of doctrine or practice, which may not be submitted
to them;
and that they can vote not only on the question,
"whether the matter submitted is in harmony with or in opposition to
the Divine Word,"
but that they may decide "whether
they think it ought to be adopted - the Word notwithstanding."
There is not a little encouragement given to
this view; it is agreeable to human
nature
to conceive itself raised by
learning and popular election above all standards to be in short the
standard of the standard;
and hence we find some men claiming their right
to take into account arguments which would be valid enough for ministers
of the Old Testament, or ministers preaching to please Englishmen or
Scotchmen - not declaring God's truth to them whether they will hear
or forbear - whilst they forget or overlook the only qualification by
which they are ministers or members of Synod or Assembly, viz., that
"God hath made them ministers of the New
Testament." That book alone is the
basis of their powers and prerogatives.
But for it we should have
priests -
not ministers; a Sanhedrim instead of an eldership; and no Christian
people; or, perhaps, a Queen and Parliament dispensing
both civil
and ecclesiastical laws.
2. A second
party having an impression that the
plenary powers claimed for the high courts might not work smoothly,
suggest that the question submitted to the high assemblies should be
"shall congregations and their
sessions be empowered to decide on this matter?"
These have an equally indistinct notion of the
relationship of the church courts to the Bible; but they have a very
satisfactory opinion of the value of peace coming after a struggle,
of contentment of mind after a furious debate, of order out of chaos.
They, if ever the idea cross their
mind that God has anything to do with the matter, overlook the plain
teaching of their Bibles, and
conceive that we have such a number
of good men amongst us that they may
safely be trusted.
Some compliment the members of
their congregations and poll them to decide, even
before synodal discussion has taken place, whether, in their
judgment,
the time has come to add certain
mechanical adjuncts to the service.
They tell us that no organ or
equivalent instrument is mentioned in the New Testament,
but "their people are for
it and so are they."
This view of matters involves the conception
that not synods and assemblies alone, but congregations, and, ex
gratia, each member thereof, in matters of worship and the doctrine
on which they rest,
are a law unto
themselves, being under no Christian
obligation whatever in such matters.
3. A third party in matters of
worship claim for the Old Testament a right to override the decisions
of the New; and, literally rendering some of its declarations, would
transfer
its arrangements regarding worship into the New Testament church.
Such a view rests on the doctrine that
the New Testament is not the revealer of the light by which the Old is read,
but the New must be read by the Old. But of
this we shall see further in the sequel.
4. A fourth party are springing
up who have certain ideas of human nature. They ground their views of
worship on national tastes and
habits, which it pleases them to regard
as inflexible.
They think that certain large and ultimately
important matters may be left to a General Synod to decide, but that
national or
local Synods should be constituted
of materials so elastic as to decide, regarding matters of worship,
without troubling
themselves about God's Word -
it being sufficient for them to study the likings and
practices
of the districts in which they are located.
The favourite question of this party is, must
we have absolute
identity? May not North please itself,
while South does likewise, on minor matters? May not Englishmen get
worship their own way without troubling themselves about Scotch
prejudices?
These parties evidently consider
that matters of worship are matters of country and race, not of the
New Testament; -
they are prepared to
rend the church into nationalities,
to perpetuate the political boundaries and
social
distinctions of nations, not seldom the products of war and wicked
violence; -
but they resist that absolute identity which
would naturally flow from following honestly the leadings of an
intelligible standard of faith and worship.
How differently do Presbyterian ministers and
Prelatic ones comport themselves in regard to this matter.
Transfer an eminent Presbyterian
minister to London, and in course of a few short years he returns to
Synod to claim for nationalities the right to have God's worship
modified to suit their taste.
Transfer, now, a Dr. Wordsworth to St.
Andrew's, and he lectures Scotchmen on their not being within the
fold of the true church,
because they do not submit to a
true Apostolical Succession.
The one overlooks the standard,
the other oversteps it; the course of both would be rectified by closer
study of, and genuine hearty accordance therewith. Would our
nationality men exhort the Irish Assembly to trim their doctrines and
worship in Connaught and Munster to the provincial taste for Catholic
ceremonies? or the Presbyterian church courts in Canada in like
manner to do in Montreal and Quebec? Are our missionaries in China or
India to see themselves to trim their faith and worship to the tastes
of the heathen, and, like the devotees of Rome, to baptise the gods
and make them Christian saints, altering not the character but the
name of the worshipped? Why should our ministers in London or
Lancashire try to Presbyterianize Episcopacy, or Prelatize
Presbyterianism?
Is it not enough of labour to any
minister to be a faithful minister of Christ - rightly to divide the
word of truth - to hold forth the word of life - to be followers of
God so clearly and so faithfully that the people may feel that in
following them they shall reach at last an eternal crown? Ts such a
course not infinitely more dignified than polling their people and
following, not leading them?
5. There is another party, who look on
every form of worship as a manner of aesthetics, of dress,
comfort,
or
taste,
e.g. the editors of the 'Glasgow Herald' and kindred newspapers.
The views entertained by this party
respecting human nature are quite the converse of the last named.
Our fourth party attribute to nationalities
broad features of distinction permanently exhibited. With them the
English nation always liked
organs, and of course always will.
Scotchmen have never cared for organs and never will.
This fifth party, however, look
on this view as a mistake - a form of worship is no greater
distinction than a Highlander's kilt, or a Saxon's trousers; and when
a man once knows the warmth and comfort of the trousers he will never
expose himself in the kilt. So, the Scotchman, feeling the coldness
of his ritual, will instantly forget his nation, and embrace the
English methods. The only noticeable peculiarity in this opinion is
its onesidedness. Scotchmen's worship is like the kilt, to be put
off; Englishmen's worship, like the trousers, to be put on; it cannot
be changed. The Glasgow Herald's' editor, like a true patriot, loves
his next door neighbour better than himself - another's country
better than his own - has only jeers for the church courts of his own
country, whilst a country which has no church courts, and no appeal
in ecclesiastical matters, save to civil courts, has all his
commendation. Such patriotism may be useful; it can scarcely be
gratifying, even to the patriot himself, and is always justly
suspected of selfishness.
6. A sixth hold in special admiration the
rapt musician and poet, whose eye
- In a fine frenzy rolling,
- Doth glance from heaven to earth,
- From earth to heaven; and as
- Imagination bodies forth
- The forms of things unknown,
- The poet's pen turns them to shape,
- And gives to
airy nothing
- A local habitation and a name."
And when the poet has done his part
then the musical doctor takes up his parable, and wedding immortal song to
immortal verse,
their joint contributions to
progress assure them a niche in the temple of fame.
So the enthusiastic pietist, not content to
worship God as His word directs, chooses out a path for himself never
trod before, and bodies forth new forms of religious devotion,
presenting a picture so grandly
enchanting as to captivate some London
ministers, and many others, and approve itself so worthy of being
copied,
that Synods are asked to judge
whether, if they approve the patriot musician,
they can disapprove the worship of the
enthusiastic pietist?
The questioner forgets his Bible - the
musical pietist has no model to follow - his admirer no prescription by
which to be guided in his approbation.
In God's book no frenzy is depicted, no
eye rolling, - but the calm repose of the man whose heart and
understanding being equally engaged, worshippeth God in spirit and in
truth. Will worship never yet pleased God.
To all, whether learned or
unlearned, God said and saith "Read
this." (Isa. xxix).
7. Finally we are
exhorted not to have too
many laws; obedience is always
grudgingly offered to laws regarding
trifling matters. The authority of the
New Testament in regard to all matters which, resting on his own
private opinion, the Christian may think to be of little value, is thus set
aside;
the Redeemer's own sentiment
ignored, that he that is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful also
in much.
And we venture to think that not those who disapprove
of,
but those who introduce
services and peculiarities which are trifling and insignificant,
are the guilty parties
here.
Those who sow discord have
eternally claimed that the ones who resist the introduction of
instruments are guilt of sowing discord. This is the
Guilt Clause.
The Pope tried that on
Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Surely they are not guilty of
petty
legislation
who desire to drink of the
unadulterated stream from the living fountain of God's
Word,
and to distribute that
alone for
the healing and refreshment of the nations;
but those unquestionably
are who would pollute that pure
stream, by introducing the
muddy waters of the outside world to mingle them with its crystal
flood, how infinitesimal soever the mixture may be, and desire to
inveigle Synods and Assemblies by belittling pretences, to
approve by solemn deed of their pettifogging efforts.
"Secretary Walpole," said one, "could not keep
London people out of their own parks;" therefore,
we should not be hindered from having organs in all our
churches; inferring, no doubt,
we can put them in whether you will
or not.
See How Mike Cope absorbs "muddy
waters."
By all this variety of pretence we are induced to
part with the precious
privilege of appealing in all things to
the Divine Word.
One cries, trust
the Synod: the learned and pious will
be sure to do right; - a second, let the Synod give up this trust to
the congregation: the pious unlearned will most safely settle this
matter; - a third, trust the Old Testament, it is far clearer than
the New; - a fourth, trust the nationalities, they are sure to decide
aright; - a fifth, don't trust the nationalities, at least the Scotch
one; do that which is most comfortable, nations are easily changed, -
let the Highlander don trousers, the Scotchman copy the Englishman,
and play the organ; - a sixth points to the patriot bard and the
enthusiastic pietist as congregational models; - a seventh presses
the inconvenience of petty legislation, but demands power to deafen
non-progressive minorities with the strains of organ music.
We appeal on the whole subject to
the ever living Word of the ever living God, and make the following
inquiries therein.
DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT.
I. AS TO THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST.
1st. When was it introduced?
2nd. In what manner was it introduced?
3rd. For what end was it introduced? These
three inquiries being so conducted as to guide us in determining this
farther inquiry pertinent to our present purpose, viz.:
4th. Was the Christian Church left in any
sense, other than a numerical one, in a condition of progressive
development?
II. AS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST: we inquire
1st. As to their birth.
2nd. Their growth and manhood.
3rd. Their special distinction.
4th. Their rights.
5th. Their powers.
6th. Their responsibilities.
These six inquiries so conducted as
to guide us in determining this further inquiry, viz.:
7th. Were the members of the church of Christ vested
prospectively with any power of progressively improving the forms or
constitution of the church and its worship?
III. AS TO THE SERVICES OF THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST: we inquire What they were and how to be conducted, and
for what end conducted? so as to enable us to answer the further
inquiry, viz.: - Are we at liberty to decide what is proper or
improper in the service of the church? or, are we at liberty to
introduce novelties under the name or style of improved or
progressive tastes?
(FIRST PREMISE.) - Is the word "Church" a
sacred term of itself?
Before proceeding to the discussion of the
subject in the method indicated, it may be useful to premise a few
observations on the word Church, as not a little has been made of it,
as if any meeting so designated possessed a certain degree of
sanctity and authority.
We hear, for example, ministers pray for the
church and congregation, as if the former had a sacredness not
attachable to the latter. That there is nothing in the bare word as
used in the New Testament to indicate this sanctity may easily be
seen. For example, we find in the 19th chapter of Acts, where Paul's
visit to, and residence in, Ephesus are related, certain disturbances
are set forth as having arisen on his account through the agency and
interference of Demetrius the silversmith. We find the word used in
this chapter without any thing to indicate sanctity, Thus we
read:
Verse 29. And the whole city was
filled with confusion, and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus,
Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the
theatre.
30. And when Paul would have entered in unto
the people, the disciples suffered him not.
32. Some therefore cried one thing, and some
another, for the assembly (i.e. church) was confused.
39. But if ye inquire anything concerning other
matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly (i.e.
church).
40. For we are in danger to be called in
question for this day's uproar, there being no cause why we may give
an account of this concourse.
41. And when he had thus spoken he dismissed
the assembly (i.e. church.)
In these verses notice the word assembly occurs
three times. In each case in the original the word is the same as is
elsewhere translated "church" (ekklhsia). It is used here
as equivalent of the "people" (dhmoj); the
"multitude" (oxloj); this "concourse" (sustrofh). It
is applied to describe either a lawful or an unlawful assembly.
In short it is an assembly
simpliciter, indicating no conjoint idea whatsoever.
If any idea is attachable to it, it seems to be
this - that it could only be lawful when properly called and presided
over by the magistracy. Of course what is not in the New Testament
cannot be imported into it, and yet this word may be illustrated by
its common use and signification. Xenophon relates that Clearchus,
the commander of the Greeks in the army of Cyrus, having endeavoured
on one occasion to force his soldiers to proceed, and finding them
more inclined to pelt him and his beasts of burden with stones than
to commence the desired march, he called a meeting (church) of his
soldiers (sunhgagen ekklhsian twn autou stratiwtwn) Xen. Ana. I,
14.
On the whole then, a word which is equally
applied to a gathering of soldiers, - to a crowd rushing to a
theatre, - to a lawful assembly, - to an unlawful assembly, - to a
riotous concourse (sustrofh), - must have no small difficulty in
establishing its right to a special sacred use.
(SECOND PREMISE.) - The word Church is rendered
sacred by conjoined expletives.
But the word ekklhsia (a church) which as we
have seen possesses no sanctity in itself, is yet made the medium of
describing a sacred and most distinguished body - thus, "The church
of the living God," - "The church of
God," - "The church of Christ." But
all the value lies with the expletives with which it is conjoined -
which express at once its dignity and its servitude.
(THIRD PREMISE.) The word Church indicates a
governed
body.
Another idea connected with this word in the
New Testament when applied to the church of God is,
that it is always a governed,
never a
governing body.
(Acts xx, 28) "Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath
made you overseers, to feed the church, of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood." The word here translated "feed" is, in
this connection, properly govern. Thus in the book of Revelations,
ii, 26-27,
"He shall rule (feed) them with a rod of
iron."
The same word in the same sense occurs in
Revelations xii, 5, and in Revelations xix, 15.
The church had no governing powers per se; it was subject to the decisions of governors appointed
over it in the Lord. Thus in Hebrews xiii, 7, "Remember them that
have the rule over you;" verse 17, "Obey them that have the rule over
you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls as they
that must give account."
But these premises are in part an anticipation
of the argument and illustration to follow, and hence we proceed
formally to inquire under our first head:
I. When was the
Church of Christ instituted? Was it established before his coming,
during his life, or not until after his death?
It is common amongst us to speak, and very
properly so, of the Old Testament Church. The expression is
scriptural, (Acts vii, 38) "This is he that was in the church in the
wilderness." The context of this passage shows that the Saviour is
the personage referred to, and we hence not unnaturally conclude that
the church of Christ must have subsisted in some form from the day on which
the promise was given, that "The seed of the woman would bruise the
head of the serpent."
But this church of Christ which has
subsisted since the promise of a Redeemer, and will subsist until the
redeemed are gathered into heaven, has often subsisted unseen and
unrecognized; as in the days of Elijah when God reserved to himself "seven
thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal," -
which subsists now under every
church organization where the Saviour is loved, and trusted, and
adored.
But when we speak of the Church of Christ
instituted to bear
witness, to the truth,
to hand down from age to age
the knowledge of his salvation through the ordinances he has
appointed, we speak of an organized body having been called into
existence at a certain time, for a specific
purpose,
by certain accredited
agents.
The time of such an organization being
introduced was foreshown by the Saviour when he said, (Luke xxiv, 49)
"But tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on
high."
And while waiting in prayer and supplication,
(Acts ii, 2) "Suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing
wind, (4) and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." And when men
from all the nations surrounding Judea, or from which it was
accessible, came to hear, they hoard "Every man in their own tongue
in which they were born;" and when after Peter preached, there were
added together (proseteqhsan) three thousand souls. (The words to
them in our translation are not in the original, and materially
affect the sense. Without them the word indicates that on the first
day of its institution or inauguration, by the endowment with the
Spirit, and the preaching of Peter, the church summed up three
thousand adherents; whereas with them it supposes a previous body to
whom three thousand were added on the day of Pentecost.) This was the
first of the last days long before predicted in the Old Testament -
(Joel ii, 28) "And it shall come to pass afterward," rendered by
Peter "in the last days." This was the commencement of "the world to
come" (Hebrews ii, 5) "which was not put in subjection to angels."
This was that "fulness of time" (Galatians iv, 4) when "God sent
forth his son (iii, 1) manifestly crucified amongst them." For these
times the world had been predestined by God, as declared by the
prophet Daniel. Here prophecy found its converging point, - when its
dreams came true, its glorious vaticinations were realized. Here
types were lost in their antitypes, - (Hebrews x, 5) "Wherefore, when
he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." (6) "In burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure." (9) "He
taketh away the first that he may establish the second."
Two things were thus apparent at this time;
first, God then did a new
thing. The things which could be shaken
were removed,
that a new kingdom might be
established, not a
continuation of an old one. (Hebrews
xii, 27) "This word, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those
things that are (may be) shaken, as of those things that are made,
that those things which cannot lie shaken may remain."
The new kingdom was the church of Christ.
Secondly, God
then did a thing for the bringing in of which he had prepared the
world. The time of the church's establishment was time prepared by
God for this very end; a model time for the days to come; a fulness
of time for the days gone by.
The cross, midway in history,
terminated the world past, - epitomize the world to come.
2. We come now to our second inquiry under the
first head: In what manner was the Church introduced? As already set forth, the
Saviour enjoined upon the Apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they
should be endued with power from on high.
We have also seen that on the day of Pentecost
the Spirit descended upon them, enabled them to preach the Gospel in
every needful tongue, and by one sermon of Peter drew together three
thousand souls. Now at the 41st verse of the 2nd chapter of Acts we
have the beginning of church organization and worship described.
"Then they that gladly received his
word were baptized." (42) "And they continued steadfastly in the
Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in
prayer."
Here notice an important distinction; they did
these things I have just quoted under the guidance and by the
direction of the Apostles. Those who gladly heard the word and
received
the injunctions of Peter were baptized.
They continued steadfastly in the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer.
Notice, on the other hand that no mention of apostolic guidance or
authority is prefixed or added to verse 47th. "And all that believed
were together, and had all things common."
Another point we notice here. They met both in
the temple and at home. They were still Jews - although the at home
seems to indicate a new and special feature, even in Jewish religious
life.
But the church of Christ was not
established for Jews only. It was to begin at Jerusalem, but the
joyous cry was one day to be heard,
"The kingdoms of this world have
become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ."
Steps were to be taken to this great end, - a
preacher was to be selected, an audience to be collected, a place of
meeting provided, -
from which everything Jewish
should be eliminated.
[It is important that we do not
see this as "God changing His Mind" or extablishing a Spiritual
dispensation as an improvement over a Physical dispensation. Rather,
the Law of Moses was "added because of transgression" and the
Monarchy was permitted by God when Israel's elders rejected the rule
of God said "make us a king" so that we can live and worship like the
nations. This entire period of Monarchy (Saul to Jesus) was a deadly
detour away from living by faith.]
We have the history related in the 10th chapter
of Acts, from which we gather that Cornelius was taught by the Spirit
of God to send for Peter. Peter was taught by the Spirit
that no man was unclean, that two messengers were waiting for him, and that he
was to go with them, nothing doubting. We learn this further singular
thing, that when he went, Peter asked them what they wanted, and they
told him they wanted God's message; on which Peter explained his
Jewish position, God's repudiation thereof, and then preached the
gospel to them. In this Gentile meeting also we find the same results
as on Pentecost, -
the outpouring of the Spirit
the baptism of the believers,
and the grant of repentance unto life, the germ of the heavenly
inheritance.
Here we have, firstly, a preacher
having strong Jewish
prejudices, so to speak, disenchanted
of his prepossessions, and prepared to mingle with, and preach the
gospel to the Gentiles.
Secondly, we
have a church of Gentile men prepared to hear the gospel.
Thirdly,
we have the gospel sermon preached.
Fourthly,
we have the formation of a Gentile congregation on the people
receiving the influences and manifesting the effects produced upon
believers by the Spirit of God.
Fifthly,
we have ABSOLUTE IDENTITY.
1st, of the efficient cause, that is,
the Spirit of God;
2nd, of the proximate cause, the sermon of Peter;
3rd, of the effects produced on the hearers, (Acts xi, 15) "As I
began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as on us at the
beginning."
Sixthly, we
have the fact that these effects induced the self-same Apostle to
administer to them Christian rites, and admit them into the Christian
Church. (Acts xi, 17) "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gifts
as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I
that I could withstand God." (Acts x, 47) "Can any man forbid water
that these should not be baptized."
It is of special value to remember that in
establishing churches among men of different habits and characters,
the Spirit of God himself employed the
same means, used the same men, and produced absolutely identical
results, and in such manner formed the churches both of the Jews and
the Gentiles.
3. We come now to the third inquiry under the
first head - For what end was the Church introduced? The Apostle
Peter thus set it forth, (I Peter, ii, 9)
"But ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar (purchased) people, that
ye should show forth the praises of him who hath
carried you out of darkness into his marvellous light."
This is not a proof-text for
changing the worship from education to a praise service. The word
"praise" in the Greek is:
Arete
(g703) ar-et'-ay; from the same as 730; prop. manliness (valor),
i.e. excellence (intrinsic or attributed): - praise, virtue.
Finally, brethren,
whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just,
whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise,
think on these things. Ph.4:8
According as his divine power
hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
through the
knowledge of him that
hath called us to glory and virtue: 2Pe.1:3
Arren (g730) ar'-hrane; prob. from 142; male
(as stronger for lifting): - male, man
Can any man amplify such a passage as this, and
leave himself, or, the church of which ho is a member,
any
primary legislative function?
His family
connection is selected for him, - for
the church is "a chosen generation;" he is of "royal priesthood,"
possessing not powers to originate rites, but faithfully to observe
them.
The duties of the
priesthood were not of an initiatory
character, but solely consisted in observing to do all the words of the law. Hebrews v, 1-4, clearly sets forth that the priesthood
was made by law; as also does Hebrews vii, 28, "For the law maketh
men high priests which have infirmity." Again, Hebrews viii, 5, "See
that thou make all things according to the pattern showed thee."
The priesthood then do not possess
an originating faculty; their office is "to serve unto the example and shadow
of heavenly things;" to "make all things according to the pattern."
Again in Hebrews ix, 10, you find these
striking words on this subject, "Carnal
ordinances imposed on them till the
time of reformation." The priesthood was thus relative - it was
perfect when in perfect accordance with the law, imperfect when that law was
not observed or set carelessly aside or forgotten.
The examples of defective priests are also
exceedingly instructive. Look at. the case of the priest-prophet
Balaam willing to bless or curse for
money, without reference to divine
command. Witness the case of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram,
and then judge, if the churches of
Christ are a royal priesthood, whether
they wear this title best when, as in the next clause, they
"show forth the virtues of Him who
calls us out of darkness into his
marvellous light,"
or when they press the introduction of their
own extravagances. Surely, if this mean anything, we are not to
exhibit
our own virtues, but the virtues of our Great Model High Priest; to
copy, not
invent;
to study carefully and act
according to the pattern set us in the new covenant.
Still further, to show that the end of the
Church's institution, even in little matters, was the Redeemer's glory - not to display her own
virtues - give attention to another
passage (1st Timothy iii, 13-15)
"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come
unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the
Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the
truth."
Here then, most assuredly, we have an apostle
teaching the very singular doctrine that there is a kind of behaviour
becoming the Church; which,
as an assembly called by and in the
name of God,
to display his
truth and be a ground or stay thereof,
must be considered as an assembly not possessed of
legislative, but simply of executive
functions.
Thus it is called to display, not its own
notions or conceptions, but "the truth" whatever that may
be.
And assuredly it was then a known quantity;
they spake that they knew; they testified that they had seen. You
observe also that the apostle is speaking of matters not vital, as we
are accustomed to reckon them. The election of elders and deacons,
and their qualifications, and those of their wives and families, we
are certainly not in this country accustomed to reckon among "the
essentials." And yet it is regarding these very trifling matters that
the apostle wrote, and regarding which he said he had written that
Timothy might know how to behave in the house of God.
Let me now draw your attention to another
passage (Ephesians i, 22, 23) "And hath put all things under his
feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to
the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all,"
Here the Church is presented in a new light, as
the body of Christ, as the fulness of Him who filleth all in all. Thus the
Church is not a primary, but a secondary corporation, -
it is subject to the
control of Christ as the body to the control and government of the soul;
it is permeated by the presence and power of Christ, as the body is
moved by the volitions of the determining mind.
The apostle Paul amplifies this idea in the
12th chapter of 1st Corinthians. There, at verse 12, we read, "For as
the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that
one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." Verse 27,
"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." But does this imply that
we are to have absolute identity? Does the difference between a
Scotch and English race warrant no divergence in custom? Is no
material national liking to be incorporated, either by authority or
toleration, into the character of our church services?
What saith this chapter? Verse 18, "For
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to
drink into one Spirit." (14) "For the body is not one member, but
many." Is it possible to contrive expressions which shall more
directly answer this question? We HAVE ONE SPIRIT, WE CONSTITUTE ONE
BODY.
Every religious manifestation, or manifestation
of religious life, is produced and directed by the one Spirit. The various
ecclesiastical characteristics, differing from each other as the
hand, foot, eye, ear, or sense of smell, are all harmoniously
governed by the one master mind, "that there may be no schism in the
body." Absolute identity, however it may be regarded now, was most
assuredly then, no object of doubtful desire or difficult attainment.
And with reference to those manifestations of spiritual life, can
anything be said more solemn in itself, more pertinent to the subject
of our present inquiry, than the 27th verse, "Now ye are the body of
Christ, and members in particular." Your whole being as a Church, and
every motion and appendage thereof, is determined for,
not by, you.
You are not the soul, but the body;
not the vital part, but the part vitalized; and can no more originate
worship or forms of worship, or improvements or differences therein,
than human bodies can produce ideas, suggest motions, or design
appendages to themselves.
Christ Jesus, not yourselves, is the end of
your institution.
4. But this
brings us to the last inquiry under this head, viz.: - "Was the Church of Christ left in any sense, except a numerical one, in a
position of progressive development?"
Having seen that the Church was called up at a
period prepared by God - in that "fulness of time" when the world was
prepared for it, and it for the world; - that it was introduced by an
agency specially prepared, amongst peoples who were prepared for its
reception; - that amongst races the most widely divergent in
character and habits the Church received the same characteristics,
from the same preachers, employed to introduce it to all classes of
men; -
that the great end of its
introduction was that the souls gathered into church fellowship might
be governed and animated by the Redeemer, by His Word and Spirit,
even as their bodies are governed and controlled by their souls; -
that the whole character, work, and services should be indicated by
the character, work, and word of Christ, and be inwrought by the
Spirit of Christ; -
that in our primitive church
character we are not to
invent services,
but to perform them, not to embellish them
by adventitious ornaments, but to display in all things that fulness
of Christ which is at once our glory, and the description of our
perfect state; -
to illustrate the 4th head, we continue the symbolism of the apostle, and observe
that the Church was not left partially, but was wholly developed.
THE BODY OF CHRIST WAS COMPLETE. (1st
Corinthians, xii, 12) "For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so
also is Christ." And this apostle, to show that he did not anticipate
any one stepping beyond the arrangements then subsisting, or that any
man would adventure into a province so peculiarly the province of
God, affirms, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular;" and goes on to say, "And God hath set some in the
church, apostles, prophets, &c.," enumerating all the orders of
men and of gifts which God had designed for the display of the truth,
and for supporting and maintaining, or for being a ground to, that
truth in the world. Coming down, in chapter 14, to minute matters, as
for instance the manner and power of prayer, the language of prayer,
the style and manner and matter of preaching; then, still lower, to
the manner of singing and the order of services; he winds up the
whole with that appeal to gifted men - "For ye may all prophesy one
by one, that ye may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits
of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the
author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."
Is it not most evident from these passages, not
only that church officers and services were completed, but also, that
God was the author of the whole, and his Spirit so worked in the
whole of the complicated arrangements, that the result from their perfect
exercise was perfect
peace!
The apostle's description of the outcome of the
whole is intensely interesting. The man of the most prominent gifts
having no right to
lordship over a less prominently gifted
neighbour, whilst the fiery impetuosity of no one was ever permitted
to gain precedence of the calm methodicity of the man of more sober
gifts.
No man insisted on giving unrestrained
expression to his views, however laudable or just, but holding his
spirit in subjection bided his time, waited his opportunity, and
took his turn.
The prayers, the preaching, the singing were
all under regulation; and, in like manner, the men who exercised the
various, functions corresponding to these exercises.
Even the women are subject to rule.
In looking back over the whole, we contemplate not a valley of dry
bones, but an army prepared and fully equipped to do battle for the
Lord of Hosts. But if we are now to cast away all this, - if our
eminent men are to set themselves to organize insurrection, -
to nationalize our churches,
rather
than Christianize the nations, -
if there is to be schism in the body, and
unrestrained insisting on the introduction of non-Christian novelties, -
then would the spirit in the Church be
not the
Spirit of Christ,
but that Spirit of
Python, which did not suffer its votary
to be in quietness;
not that Spirit which is the author, not of
confusion, but of peace in all the churches of the saints.
That these were not general arrangements, but
adapted to the regulation of the most minute, as well as the most
important of church matters, let us turn to the 11th chapter of the
1st Corinthians. Paul commences this chapter with this injunction,
"Be ye followers (mimhtai, i.e. imitators) of me as I also am of
Christ."
And our Organ
friends say, "Certainly, Paul, in all
truly important matters; but you must not proceed to demand the
exercise of a coerced conformity in regard to little matters, with
reference to which we demand the most ample elbow room."
But Paul had no such intention. To choke out the spirit of
schism, which invariably boasts of the
littleness of its differences, as if little differences were not
differences as well as great ones; he proceeds to relate, and to
discuss a case which, whether real or imaginary, belongs to the class
of little differences.
The case of the man or woman engaging in public
prayer, with or without a covered head, is surely a matter which,
according to our Organ friends' rule, we should leave to God and
conscience. If a man or woman worship in spirit and in truth, what
does it matter whether the head is covered or no?
The Apostle says it does matter, and he winds
up the discussion with these decisive words, "But if any man be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of
God."
Have the men who are founding their practice on
the basis of national
tastes ever pondered these words of the
Apostle, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God?" Is it
really so that the great Apostle to the Gentiles appealed to custom,
to the custom of the churches then constituted? Is it so that the
apostolic office was exercised in directing and establishing customs
regarding worship in the early churches, - in establishing a coerced
conformity in respect to such trivial matters? Could not Paul, with
the English Synod (1866) of the United Presbyterian Church, have left
these things to the tastes of congregational sessions? In direct
opposition to such a view he says, (1st Corinthians iv, 15-17)
"For though ye have ten thousand
instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ
Jesus I
have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye
followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is
my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into
remembrance of MY WAYS which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church."
Paul then was anxious that the primitive
Christians should be, not
originators of harmless forms and
fancies, but followers - mimics - of himself; copyists of his ways,
as he taught in every church.
Listen to him again, speaking to the church of
the Thessalonians, ii, 14, "For ye, brethren, became followers of the
churches which in Judea are in
Christ Jesus."
Here again we have this apostle
affirming that Greeks on the continent of Europe, having western
minds, tastes, and habits, copied the churches of
Judea.
The gospel - the services of the gospel - are
fitted to all parties of men, to all nations of men, without
exception and WITHOUT MODIFICATION.
Church order was so complete that nothing could
be added to it, so delicately adjusted that nothing could be taken
from it.
But let us contemplate this matter in another
light. Difficulties and divisions arose in the first churches; it is
instructive to consider how they were
disposed of. Attention has already been
called to 1st Corinthians xi, 8 to 16, in which it is related that
the difficulty of inducing men to worship with their heads uncovered was
settled by a reference to the customs of the churches, and the
recusants were warned to take themselves, and the contentions
respecting worship which they were inclined to raise, outside the
church.
Let us now give attention to another. We are
informed in the 15th chapter of Acts, that certain men came down from
Judea, and taught the brethren in Antioch, that,
"Except they were circumcised after
the manner of Moses they could not be saved."
The church in Antioch do not seem to have had,
or to have been permitted to entertain such lofty opinions of their
ability to settle questions of disputable matter, as some of our
modern churches do.
They, instead of settling the matter themselves
(although they possessed some of the finest minds in the Christian
Church), commissioned faithful men to a foreign church, to submit
the difficulty to them for adjudication. And whilst this is, it seems
to me, a matter of no small importance to young churches, with
many advisers who are anxious that THEIR views
should be carried into practice, not to trust ourselves with the
settling of our own matters, as our eyes may too easily be warped by
the contemplation of subjects from our own stand points, whilst those
who are free from our incitements are more likely to consider with
faithfulness the meaning and bearing of God's Word with reference to
any matters of difficulty than we ourselves can possibly be.
But I have drawn attention to this matter for
another principle, which is advanced in the 15th of Acts, viz., the
principle upon which the apostles and elders settled the question
when they had come together to consider it. After considerable
discussion, Peter rose and drew attention to the first introduction
of the gospel by himself amongst the Gentiles (verses 7 to
12).
There is, perhaps, nothing in this speech of
Peter so utterly outraged as his notion of liberty.
If you listen to an organ
discussion, or read a
ritualistic
paper,
you cannot fail to
discover
that "liberty" is
identified with additions to common notions.
The people who seek to hold men
to unadorned notions,
instead of being
accounted friends of liberty,
are held up to execration as bigots,
tyrants, men of contracted notions and shallow minds;
with whom to
identify liberty, is held to be as absurd as would have been for
Gordon, of Jamaica, to have expected justice from a court martial of
aristocratic
cadets and
martinets.
But the truth is that the ways
which are now old-fashioned, were then new. Men had had a long trial of rites and ceremonies, -
of trumpets, and psalteries, and harps,
- and they were new
"MAKING THE EXPERIMENT OF CHANGE."
Shall we put it so? Is it so as
Peter puts it? Let us recall his words,
"Now, therefore,
why tempt ye God to put
a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear."
Peter thus looked upon the
changes effected amongst these churches, -
amongst which we must reckon trumpets, psalteries, and harps,
of solemn sound and grave sweet melody, - as effected by God to
promote the liberty and welfare of the human race;
and he
blames the
restorists, as
tempters of
God and enemies of liberty, as putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples,
which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear. "Not able to
bear!"
Peter, what do you mean? Why, is there not a
deputation before you from the Church of Antioch, reporting a desire
for the restoration of these very
things?
True, but people often want what
they can't bear.
They shout lustily and make great mouths of the
tyranny they are subjected to, in not being permitted to carry the
loads they suggest; but Peter testifies that God,
who understands human liberty, and
has defined human liberty, and has embodied human liberty in the
forms of the Church is "tempted" by the clamour of the restorists.
Tempted to what? What has he done to the
restorists? He has left them to their
yoke; left them to bear, with a
coerced conformity, the burden they chose;
to see with hatred, and
sneer with
malice, at the liberty from the enjoyment of which, by Heaven's
confirmation of their choice, they have been cut off.
"Ephraim is joined to his idols;
let him alone."
Rome's infallibility is God's
curse.
I think, with Peter, that freedom from instrumental service is a more God-like
liberty than freedom to use it, when God does
not want it.
But to return to the things done and the
resolutions passed by this assembly. When the disputants had
exhausted themselves, or been stilled by the clear and pertinent
observations of Peter, they permitted Barnabas and Paul to declare
what God had done among the Gentiles by their instrumentality. And
then James summed up, as we read in verse 18 et seq., and gave forth
the decree of Synod.
Let me ask you to notice the principle of this
decree.
"Known unto God are all his works,
from the foundation of the world."
Our guide (that is, the Synod's) in this matter
is not our own notion, or desire, or opinion; we simply ask what hath
God wrought? - in what manner hath God effected it? - by what agency
hath He accomplished it?
Here the point to which inquiry was directed
was,
"What ceremonies, were to be laid
on the believers among the Gentiles?"
And the guidance they followed in their answer was precisely that
which God, by his providence and grace, had pointed out in the cases
of Peter, and Paul, and Barnabas.
God prepared the meeting in Cornelius's house,
- the circumstances of the meeting, - the preacher's mind for the
meeting, - and prearranged the success of the meeting, - and gave, as
a manifestation of his
satisfaction with and approbation of
the whole, a rich and abundant blessing.
In short, all the results desirable from the
influence and action of the Christian Church flowed from this
meeting; all the spiritual manifestations which God had given to his
chosen people were here displayed; and the conclusion drawn by the
Synod is, -
This is the true heaven directed
and appointed Church of the Gentiles.
We can lay upon them no
other, no greater burden, than God has
in this divinely arranged model imposed.
You observe the Synod do not reason that
"because the imposition of these ceremonies was not unscriptural,
therefore we might observe them without sin, and that those
congregations who desired them. might have liberty therein,"
but rather that since God had, in
this special instance, taken upon
himself, by his Holy Spirit, to arrange
and prepare both the people, the minister, and the good fruits, we
cannot but be safe in following to the letter tits good model.
They do not go back to Old Testament times and
precedents - although, like the English United Presbyterian Synod,
1866, they were free to do so - to determine whether, in the
proclamation of the gospel, all the adventitious matter of the
Jewish ceremonies, or any portion thereof, might be associated therewith.
They refer indeed to Old Testament prophecy to
show that the Gentiles should eventually turn to the Lord, but do not
use it either to override or run current in authority with, the clear
arrangements made by the Spirit of God in the latter days for the
conversion of them and the Gentiles. They do not, on the ground of
progress, look forward to a time when believers should be free from
coerced conformity to God's simple plan; when advancing humanity,
having risen superior to all littlenesses and weaknesses, would be at
liberty unquestioned to settle all their difficulties according to
their own notions, so long as they held the great doctrines of the
faith. They do not send down to sessions and congregations a
complimentary letter which should give them to understand with how
much confidence they respected their judgment, and felt that whatever
they did would only reflect credit on their Christian profession; nor
do they advise their young men to rise in insurrection for freedom of
opinion. Neither do they, because the Gentiles of Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia were a different race, spake a different patois, resided at a
great distance, and under a different government, refuse to consider
their case and give a decision upon it.
They put on one side the ceremonies proposed to
be laid upon them, but imposed upon them certain restrictions, one of
which is so trifling that, put into modern language, it would have
the effect of preventing the people of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia,
by the decree of the Synod of Jerusalem from eating black
puddings.
But notice the clear answer given by this Synod
to our fourth inquiry under our first head - "Was the Church left in
any sense, except a numerical one, in a condition of progressive development?"
Surely, in a Synod in which were present Peter,
James, Paul, and Barnabas, there ought to have been no lack of
ability or learning to have given a progressive
impulse to
Christian thought, an expansion to
Christian doctrine, an expression to
the liberty of embodying the
refinements of taste, the
inventions
of sanctified science in the service of God. But there is no mention of
anything arising therefrom which can, by any moral twisting, give
countenance to these, or any such progressive notions; and there is
an expressed resolution to fall back upon the developments of church
privilege and practice by the Spirit of God in the establishment of
the first Gentile churches. The Synod says, God knew what he wanted,
- God knew what he intended, - God arranged the minds of the agents
he employed, - God prepared the minds of those he intended to
influence, - God chose the circumstances in which the whole was to
take place, so as thoroughly to serve its purpose and promote to the
fullest extent his own glory. And the Synod's clear deduction from
the whole is, That the Christian Church is in every sense God's
agent, for God's glory, and in no sense or degree is or can be
subject to the phases of human purpose or the variations of human
notions. He, and therefore it, is complete, and is "the same
yesterday, to day, and for ever."
We have, in the first head of inquiry, looked
at the Church as a corporation, and have found that, as a
corporation,
the Church has no-power to add
to her ceremonies or introduce customs not designed or sanctioned by
God's Holy Spirit.
We have seen that, corporately, the
Church of Christ was separated from the Old Testament Church, so that in
her synods,
while the Old Testament might be
quoted with authority in predictions respecting her position, it
afforded no guidance in matters of church institutes and services to
the new body.
We have seen that in her corporate capacity she
followed the direct guidance of the Divine Spirit, as that Spirit
directly arranged and constituted certain Christian churches.
We have traced the lineaments of
the churches established by this Holy Spirit in different countries,
speaking different patois, governed by different rulers, on different
principles of jurisprudence, and have found that amongst what race
soever established the churches were founded on a common model, so
that new churches amongst the Greeks were constituted heirs of the
customs of the "churches which in Judea are in Christ Jesus." We have
found the simplicity of Christian worship defended by an apostle on
the ground of liberty, and the permission sought from the Synod to
impose ceremonies, characterized as "putting a yoke on the neck of
the disciples." We have likewise seen this claimed permission
characterized as a "tempting of God." And finally we have seen the
Synod come to a deliverance on the ground that the churches founded
by God's direct agency were so formed by him with the fullest
knowledge, purpose, and intention; that they secured the salvation of
believers, their establishment in all the graces of the Christian
life, and sufficed for their endowment with all the gifts of the Holy
Spirit, and were thus the ne plus ultra of church associations. To
touch God's work was not to embellish but disfigure it.
To add
a new ceremony, however valuable in the
opinion of its proposer or restorer, was not to add to the Church's
interest or to increase its usefulness,
but would assuredly have the effect of
hiding the
excellencies of the divine arrangement, and of disfiguring the
symmetry of the divine plan.
We have also seen that the trumpets, cymbals,
psalteries, and harps, which had been, with certain dances,
characteristic of the last dispensation, were not incorporated in the
new Church's services, - but of this we shall see more particularly
under our last head.
[Furthermore, we have proven
that the Bible is clear that these were not used for "congregational
worship" but for dedicatory or purification animal sacrifices which
were legitimate only for the "Nation" while in its own land and in
connection with Jerusalem and the Temple. Believers have to "go to
Christ outside the camp" where the common Hebrew people were during
the animal sacrifices with music.]
II. We come now to the second head of inquiry,
viz., respecting the Members of the
Church of Christ.
As members of the Church of Christ they were
"members of Christ, and also members one of another." Their distinctive
peculiarities, both by nature and grace, were very marked, and
each,
according to his peculiar qualifications, was required to devote
himself to some special work. The various classes of work are set
forth in the 12th, 18th, 14th, and part of the 15th chapters of
Romans. This is also done in the 12th and 14th chapters of 1st
Corinthians.
But we find this large variety and distribution
of work was to be undertaken by a very few orders of men; any
single order of believers being charged with a great variety of
services. In the Synod of Jerusalem we read that the apostles, and
elders, and the whole church, came together to consider the reference
from the church of Antioch.
We know that this church had
previously elected deacons, who must have been present amongst the
"whole church," but we conclude, from their not being distinguished
in Synod, that the deacons, as such, did
not take part in church government.
In the city of Ephesus, where a Christian
church had been planted, Paul returning to Jerusalem desired to have
a conference with these leaders of Christian opinion and governors of
Christian morals. "When he came to Miletus he sent to Ephesus and
called for the elders of the church."
Here again we find no mention of
Deacons, because the matters enforced are matters of pure government,
with which we nowhere read it was the province of the deacons to
intermeddle.
We find the Epistle to the Philippians
addressed to all "the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,
with the bishops and deacons." The epistle refers to such matters as
embrace the entire range of duty of the various orders in the Church,
specially to money matters, and was directed accordingly.
There are thus, in the permanently formed
Church, three orders of believers, -
- first, believing Elders;
- second, believing Deacons;
- third, the Faithful in Christ
Jesus.
The Apostles, although they were both believers
and elders, were yet distinct from the other orders, in that they had
no settled resting place, they had all seen the Lord after his
resurrection, and were eye witnesses of his majesty.
Whilst Elders properly so called
belonged to certain localities, the Apostles belonged to the human
race, - they began at Jerusalem, but their wanderings were limited
only by their health and life, or the arrangements of divine
Providence.
The Apostles, under Christ's spirit,
commissioned an order of men called Evangelists. They, the
Evangelists, set in order things which were wanting, - "ordained
Elders in every city as they were appointed." They seem to have been
in a certain sense the supplements of the Apostles.
They waited in certain localities
for a season, to complete
begun arrangements, to confirm
the faith, and superintend the appointments of the churches to whom
they were sent.
They exercised apostolic authority and
functions in newly formed congregations, and had control over certain
districts, being commissioned thereto by the Apostles, to whom they
were subject.
It is doubtful whether they ever imparted
spiritual gifts.
They were not sent to all
districts, but only when such agents were
specially required.
The Apostles were also accustomed to have with
them, on their journeys, certain men of this order, who, while they
could take part in the labours of the
gospel, were in all things guided by
the inspiration of apostolic men.
Of these we find such men as Mark, Luke,
Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus. But we notice that believers in
Christ had - 1st, a common birth, - 2nd, a common growth and manhood;
- and under each of these states they had - 3rd, a common
distinction, - 4th, they had certain rights, 5th, they had certain
powers, - 6th, they had certain responsibilities. And we inquire into
these several properties that we may determine this further point
respecting them, viz.: -
7th, Were they vested prospectively with any
power of progressively improving the forms or constitution of the
Church of
Christ?
1. We have then to speak, first, of the Common
Birth of believers of all classes. Here Scripture again must guide us.
(John i, 12-18), "But as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed
on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John iii, 5-6), "Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of
water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of
the Spirit is spirit." (1st Corinthians, iv, 15), "For in Christ
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (Galatians i, 15),
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and
called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me." (James i, 18), "Of
his own will begat he us, that we should be a kind of first fruits of
his creatures."
They are thus all of noble birth, - members of
heaven's aristocracy. But none born of free will, or to do their own
will, but all conceived and brought forth of God, to be like him, to
be one with him, to show forth his virtues.
2. We notice "The Growth and Manhood of the
members of the Church of
Christ. (1st Peter, ii, 2), "As new
born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow
thereby." (Hebrews v, 12-13-14), "For when for the time ye ought to
be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first
principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of
milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is
unskilful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them
that are of full age (that is are perfect) even those who by reason
of use (or habitude) have their senses exercised to discern both good
and evil." (Ephesians iv, 11, et seq.),
"And he gave some, apostles; and some,
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
till we all come in the unity of
the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we
henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the
truth (or being sincere) in love, may grow up into him in all things,
which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly join
together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love."
(Colossians ii, 18-19), "Let no man
beguile
you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels,
intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up
by his fleshly mind; and not holding the head, from which all the
body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit
together, increaseth with the increase of God."
The members of the Church of Christ are thus
fed on the most aristocratic
food, have the noblest fellowship, the
highest aims, and the greatest perfection. They zealously
avoid voluntaries in humility or
worship, and have no confidence in
anything not springing from, or nourished by, connection with the
Head.
They each, in their several orders, vocations,
and circumstances, contribute to the glory of the common Lord of all,
and promote the welfare and mental, stability of their associates.
In childhood they drink in the milk of the word, and as they advance from childhood they hold more
tenaciously to the word of
life, not being unskilful therein like
the babes in Christ,
but capable of using the strongest food, and,
by its healthy assimilation, being capable of putting forth the most
vigorous efforts in the service of the Master.
3. They have a special Distinction. This
distinction is that they are in Christ Jesus. They are babes in
Christ; they grow up in all things unto Him who is their Head, even
Christ; they are perfect men in Christ Jesus.
If we are true members of the
Church of Christ, we are in Christ Jesus; our wills, our thoughts, our
purposes, our resolutions,
our services of whatever kind, are
in Christ
Jesus. (1st Corinthians i, 30-31),
"But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us wisdom, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption.
That, according as it is written, he that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." Out of Christ Jesus, they are
nothing; in Christ Jesus, He is their all in all.
The "spirit" to rest upon Jesus
was not a little man but the spirit of certain characteristics of the
mind. For this reason, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit with the Mind
of Christ (1 Cor. 2)
AND there shall come forth a
rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his
roots: Isaiah 11:1
And the
spirit
of the Lord shall rest
upon him, the spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel
and might,
the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; Isaiah 11:2
And shall make him
of quick
understanding in the
fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes,
neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: Isaiah 11:3
4. But, fourthly, as members of the
Church of Christ they have certain Rights, - rights which vary according
to their position and standing in the Church.
First, the
members of the Church have certain rights; amongst these we notice,
from Acts vi, that they had the right of open grumbling. The
grumbling recorded in this chapter led to the appointment of deacons.
How thoroughly God held the Church and its interests under his
control, is shown, in that at a period so early after its primitive
formation its various offices and officers were rendered necessary
and completed, and their position and usefulness manifested.
Secondly, the
members of the Church had the right of looking out suitable men to fill the various offices of
the Church. (Acts vi, 3), "Wherefore,
brethren, look ye out among you seven men," &c. There are some
people who think that the election of office bearers is best done by
selection committees.
They fancy that as they thoroughly
understand the work, and know the men, that they therefore
possess all the
qualifications required to make the
appointment.
Nothing can be more opposed to the christian
model. If any one thing has been
entrusted to God's people, most assuredly they may exercise their
common sense respecting the election of their office bearers.
It not unfrequently happens, however, that the
men who think that they have all the wisdom necessary to elect office
bearers, are very clamorous that the people should be allowed to
exercise their common sense on subjects with the settlement of which
they have nothing to do.
Thus in the Church
of Scotland, though they do not allow
the people to choose freely their overseers in the Lord,
they do permit them, and encourage
them, to decide respecting the higher matters of faith and worship.
To all such we say, first, permit the common
sense of the people its appropriate exercise. Let them, as members of
the Church, elect their proper officers, and feel that in doing so
they are performing a scriptural duty, and there is little fear that
they will seek to meddle in matters respecting which they have no
right to interfere.
On the other hand, once let them have the idea
that no faith is valid, no practice
sound, but as they vote for it,
and at once you open up a way for a
state of things even more lamentable than is exhibited in the English
Establishment.
Our second members' right is this, - The
fullest and freest exercise by the people of their common sense in
electing their office bearers, that being the scriptural mode of
election.
There can be no exercise of common
sense respecting matters of revelation, or christian doctrine, or
worship: thorough submission thereto is the will of God. But having
looked, out their men, it is their privilege to elect them. (Acts vi,
5), "The saying pleased the multitude, and they chose Stephen,"
&c.
Thirdly, it is
the right of the Christian people to be present in Church courts.
This is evident from Acts xv. (business meetings)
Fourthly, it
is the privilege of the Christian people to join in the decisions of
the Church courts, though there is no
evidence that they had any right to influence those
decisions. This is evident by the
comparison of Acts xv, 6 and 22, "The Apostles and Elders came
together for to consider of this matter." "Then pleased it the
Apostles and Elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men,"
&c. To the business of the Synod and its authoritative
discussions, only the Apostles and Elders were necessary. But the
whole people joined with them in their decisions.
Fifthly, they
had an open Bible. (Acts xvii, 11), "These were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, in that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether
these things were so."
We come, secondly to the Rights of believing Elders. The believing Elders had,
firstly, the right of calling the people together. (Acts xv,
30), "So when they were dismissed they came to Antioch, and when they
had gathered the multitude together."
Secondly, they
had the right of meeting without the disciples' presence, although
with the disciples' knowledge. This I think is obvious, from Paul's
summons to the Elders of Ephesus to meet him, related in the 20th
chapter of Acts.
Thirdly, when
so met they were called a Presbytery. (1st Timothy, iv, 14), "The
hands of the presbytery."
Fourthly, as a
Presbytery they had the right of appointing to office those
selected
by the people. (Acts vi, 8), "Look ye out seven men, whom we may
appoint over this business."
Fifthly, as a
Presbytery they superintended and governed the people, both as
regards their moral and spiritual condition and advancement. (Acts
xx, 28), "Take heed, therefore, to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (that is, govern) the
Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood."
Sixthly, as a
Presbytery they overlooked one another. (Acts xx, 28), "Take heed to
yourselves."
Seventhly, as
a Presbytery they decided respecting errors in doctrine and practice.
(Acts xx, 28-29-30), "Take heed, &c., to govern the Church of
God. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves
enter among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after
them. Therefore watch." (1st Peter v, 1-2), "The Presbytery among you
I exhort, who am a co-presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ. Govern the flock that is among you, taking the oversight
thereof."
Eighthly, they
constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (1st Corinthians,
v, 4), "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered
together."
These, I think, are a very fair, if not a full
specimen of the rights of the Governed People, and their Governing
Elders.
5. We come now to notice their Powers, and,
firstly, the powers of the believing people. The dissatisfied
believing people always had the power to come with their complaints
to the ears of their governors (Acts vi, 1). In their regularly
called meetings or churches they exercised the powers of free speech
and open voting. Fully to bring this out would take up too much time.
The xeirotonia, or voting by holding up the
hand, was certainly openly conceded them, as in Acts xiv, 28, "When
they had ordained them elders in every church;" the word "ordained,"
is ordained by holding up the
hands and involves both the power of
the people and the office of the Apostles, as travelling Elders. The
powers intrusted to the
people certainly bear that no man whom
they have not chosen has any rights whatever amongst them.
Secondly, the powers of the believing Elders.
The passages above quoted clearly show that the believing Elders had
powers to summon the members together; to meet in presbytery; to
summon delinquents; to try causes; to come to findings; to issue
decrees; to send messengers or commissioners; to excommunicate the
refractory, in which, they were joined by the people; and in general
perform such acts with powers, as were necessary, to maintain the
purity and the simplicity of gospel worship.
6. We now notice the Responsibilities of the
Members of the Church of
Christ. All the members were
responsible. First, to give themselves wholly to the Lord. They were
purchased in the blood of Christ, and their first duty was to
recognize that purchase, so to live as to give glory, to the Redeemer
and prove that they had homologated his purchase by giving themselves
up to him without any reservation. (1st Peter, i,:18, et seq.),
"Forasmuch as ye know," &c. What was due to the Redeemer was more
than loyalty or common affection. "He that foreaketh not father and
mother, wife and children, for my sake, is not worthy of me."
Secondly, personal consecration involved
consecration of means and faculties. The private members of the
Church bore expenses, gave their prayers, time, and influence to the
promotion of the cause; while the Elders governed, spoke, wrote, and
laboured, in and out of season, for the same great end. No man
counted any thing his own. All were filled with love to Christ, and
devotion to his name. Each lost his own identity, and felt as if the
soul of the Redeemer were in his own soul's stead, and as if his
members were the members of the body of the Redeemer, and they were
all one as the Saviour had prayed they should be.
7. We come now to the farther question which
connects the subject of our present inquiry with the preceding
observations. Were the members of the Church of Christ vested
prospectively with any power of Progressively Improving the forms or
constitution of the Church of
Christ?
Believers, whether governors or governed,
regarded the Church as
Christ's, not their own. They were
bought with a price, and they glorified God in their body and spirit,
which were God's. God had bought them, had bought each of them in all
their faculties, members, and possessions, with the vast price of the
precious blood of the Lamb, and they judged that the Lord that bought
them ought to enjoy his purchase.
The Church, which when assembled they
constituted, was purchased by God with his own blood, and only he who
had purchased had the right of interference therewith. Farther, as we
have seen in the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians, verse 16, every
individual who did not conform to the customs of the churches, who
did not submit to constituted authorities, were thrust on one side.
(Galatians v, 12), "I would they were even cut off that trouble you."
Where matters were so defined, and powers so limited, we should
expect revelations to be exceedingly clear; and hence we find that
every doctrine and duty, every privilege and responsibility, was
illustrated by example or pattern furnished.
And in respect to no matter of
doctrine, discipline, or worship has the Divine Spirit been so
explicit as respecting the Ritual of the Christian Church. Nothing,
for example, can be plainer than the teaching and illustration
respecting the Lord's Supper.
It is clear that the Bread and the Cup
represent
the Body and the Blood of the Lord; whilst the Water of Baptism is
spoken of no less clearly, as in 1st Peter, iii, 21,
"The like figure whereunto baptism
doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Nor are we left in doubt of the manner of
administration of the bread, the cup, and the water, which elements
were constituted representative of Christ, and spiritual blessings to
his saved ones. So clear and pointed indeed is the information
respecting these, that, even if we were not guarded as we are by
special Scripture from adding to them, one would have imagined that
the guide was sufficiently explicit to have conducted God's people
past guilt or confusion regarding these matters. But we are not only
positively instructed regarding these subjects, we have also the word
of warning imparted so fully and directly to us regarding them, that
no shadow of doubt which is not criminal can possibly remain.
Thus, in the Epistle to the
Galatians, iv, 9-10-11, "But now, after ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye (back) again to the weak and beggarly
elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe
days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I
have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
Thus, converted heathen adopting the practices
of the Jews are
solemnly warned that in turning to them they are turning back to the weak and beggarly
elements of the world,
to be addicted to worshipping through which brings the soul into
inevitable
bondage,
And, farther, we are authorized to resist the
introduction of these elements by the weighty example of the apostle
Paul, and those who were with him. (Galatians ii, 4-5), "And that
because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to
spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not
for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
How true does the description of the class of men who press the
introduction of their silly trifles into the service of the church
continue even till this day? Is it not their custom to steal in their
little matters unawares, and, when they can do so successfully, to
push them little by little upon the christian people?
And how valuable is still the apostles' example, to the
members of the christian church, and church courts, "to give place by
subjection to them, no, not for an hour." But here again, also, we
are struck down by authority.
The example of the learned and pious doctors
and ministers, who originate and
promote the introduction of these
trifles, is paraded against us, and we
need more of the comfort and encouragement of the Word,
firmly to resist and repel
them.
(Galatians iv, 6), "But of those
who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter
to me: God accepteth no man's person; for they who seemed to be
somewhat, in conference added nothing to me."
Here, while we are warned that prominent men may be
deceived by plausibilities, may lend the weight of their great names
to propagate a liberty which is
bondage, and denounce as bondage the
liberty (if the gospel, still great names cannot shroud the glory of,
the Redeemer, or weaken or set aside his just authority;
so neither can their names or
virtues give validity to their foibles, that they should be able to
impose them as solidifies upon the christian people. God accepteth no
man's person.
Peter himself must be withstood to the face.
Jewish ceremonies, neither in whole nor in part, must be restored - neither
on greater nor lesser authority. The prominence of the name does in
no sense give sanction to the thing.
The thing God has condemned and disapproved,
and a prominent delinquent is only a conspicuous offender.
No man has any right to alter or
improve what God has established, and illustrated in his Word.
For "other foundation can no man lay than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ; now if any man build upon this
foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every
man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it,
because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every
man's work of what sort it is." "Know ye not that ye are the temple
of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile
the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is
holy, which temple ye are," "And ye are Christ's, and Christ is
God's."
Thus we have seen, under our second head, that
the member's of the Church of
Christ, in their birth, growth, and
manhood, are distinctively in Christ; that he has
separated them into orders, and given them certain rights, powers,
and responsibilities;
but has conferred
upon none of
them any power of altering, or improving, or embellishing, according to taste (his own or others), the
services of the gospel
church;
and he has also
given into the hands of his people full powers to resist such
encroachment on their
liberty, even if attempted by men of greatest name, and held
otherwise deservedly in the highest esteem.
III. We come now to the third head - The
Services
of the Church of Christ. And here we inquire, 1st, What these Services were?
2nd, How they were performed? 3rd, By whom they were performed? 4th,
For what end they were performed? And these questions so considered
as to enable us to answer this inquiry pertinent to our present
discussion - Are we at liberty to decide as to what is proper or
improper in the Service of Christ?
1. Then in reference to the subject of this,
our last inquiry, we proceed as before, to interrogate the Standard
as to what are the Services of the Church of Christ?
And here we must distinguish between the
life-long service required of every Christian, springing from and
demonstrative of his faith, and those helps to the performance of
christian service which God introduced by his apostles; or readapted
from the Old Testament dispensation.
The great work and service, logikhn latreian, of every
christian man and woman was entire self-consecration (Romans xii,
1).
Only thus could men worship in
spirit and in truth, - only thus could faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
be perfect and sincere, - only thus could that repentance (metanoia)
have its perfect work, which changed the heart and regenerated the
whole man.
This great service, itself the effect and
exponent of conversion, impossible on any but the ground of the
appropriation of Christ's atonement, was produced, aided, and
improved by certain anticipatory and accompanying services,
frequently referred to and fully described in the divine Word.
These subsidiary services are
preaching or exhortation; prayer or supplication; reading
and study of God's Word and hearing it
preached; and singing
praises. It is evident regarding each
of them, that it may either be considered as producing, being, or
helping communion with God.
By the faithful performance of them we receive
grace from God, both for performing the duties of life and for the
higher duties of God's special services. Under such feelings as they
engender and cultivate we honour the Lord with the first fruits of
all our increase, our minds become attempered to the principles of
his holy law, and our wills habituated to the practice thereof with
obedient readiness; whilst, by the reaction of this habitude of mind
and will, we engage in these exercises themselves with greater
fervour and devotion, are more thoroughly fitted to comprehend duty,
and more intelligently commune with God. But the question arises,
Were not these aids to service
themselves accompanied by certain correlates, more or
less bodily, by which they obtained greater power over the mind, and were,
so to speak, rendered more absorbing?
For example, did not the posture of
the body, the architecture and comfort of the building, the mannerism
of the preacher, his dress and surroundings, the attachment of a
certain sanctity to his person, as vicar of Christ, combine to help
faith and edification?
Were the prayers simple, as coming at once from
the heart, or elaborated by cultivated minds from the divine Word and the
christian consciousness, and uttered by congregation and ministers as
antiphonarii?
Was the singing of the most simple kind, or
ornamented
with the arts of the theatre or concert
room?
Was it accompanied with instrumental
aids?
These questions, both general and particular,
are fully and most satisfactorily answered for us in the divine Word.
And here we notice, first, that the Saviour
lays down the principle of christian worship.
The principle of christian worship is very
clearly put for us by the Redeemer, in his conversation with the
woman at the well of Samaria. (John iv, 21),
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain,
nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father."
(23), "But the hour cometh, and now is, when
the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth: for the Father
seeketh such to worship him."
(24), "God is a
Spirit; and they that worship him must
worship him in spirit and in truth."
In these words the Redeemer intimated the
abolition of Jewish
worship and ceremonies as a means of
approaching the Father.
Neither by the superstitions of the
Samaritans, nor by the divinely appointed ceremonies of the Jews, was
the Father to be any longer worshipped.
The days of nonage were now terminated, the
days of personal spiritual religion, unaccompanied with
ceremonies, was to begin, or had already begun.
The Saviour does not say that
spiritual religion may not be, or had not been, accompanied with ceremonies,
but he distinctly states that it
should be so no longer.
By this declaration at the well of Sychar, he
regaled the entire Jewish
ritual, and no portion thereof can be
restored without his sanction.
To say that, as they are contained in the Old
Testament Scriptures, such ceremonies cannot be absolutely
displeasing to God, and may be observed without sin by men, may be a
true saying;
but it is not a saying which can
have reference to the Church of
Christ.
The Saviour, here presenting himself in the
plentitude of his power and prerogative,
declares thc entire circle of ceremony defunct, the Old
Testament notwithstanding.
The very inspiration and divine authority of
the Old Testament thus become an illustration of the
meaning of the Saviour's words.
Had the Old Testament been abolished, we should
have been left in comparative ignorance of the extent and meaning of
His declaration;
but by His preserving it to us in
its entirety and authority as a revelation of God's will to men,
accompanied with this rider, "neither in
this mountain nor Jerusalem," we understand the full extent and
nature of the abolition he effected much more perfectly.
2. This principle was enunciated and entrusted
to the keeping of a simple
woman. Is there not something very
significant in the Saviour making this declaration to a simple-minded
woman?
Does not this argue that this great
principle of christian worship was entrusted to the common heart and
understanding of men?
That whilst it might be argued on by the learned,
it might also by them especially be resisted, -
whilst it might be maintained by the rich, it might by them also be
resisted, -
but to the poor and the simple, it would always
be matter of interest to conserve the simplicity of gospel rights, as
entailing least expense, and hence
permitting the maintenance of christian
equality amongst the members of the Church with greater
success.
Instrumentalists, choirs,
worship "teams," theatrical preaching or "dance teams" or any
"idolatry of talent" repudiates this primary principle of Worship of
God as Spirti in or spirit as clearly opposed to and superceding any
worship through external ritual. While we meet for many purposes it
is never defined as "assembly for worship."
3. The actual
services, introduced were of the most
simple kind. The spirit of Christ also, in introducing and extending
the Church of Christ, established the same principles.
The Disciples went everywhere
preaching the Word. No
mention is made of any peculiarity of
dress or corporeal furniture being taken with them.
No house in which they ministered is described
as previously fitted for the performance of christian ceremony.
On the contrary, as in the case of
Cornelius, there could be no accessories of any kind but such as were
to be found in the house of a Roman
Centurion.
And the Synod of Jerusalem refused to lay on
the converted Gentiles any other
burden
than God in his providence had
imposed on them, in arranging and determining for them the
circumstances of their conversion and salvation.
With respect to the special matter before us,
the words of Hebrews xiii, 15, are most conclusive - "By Him
therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of
lips (confessing), giving thanks to His
name."
Can any one say in plainer terms that
christian praise is not accompanied by any instrument, than to say it
is the "fruit of lips?"
The word toutesti, (that is), has an office so
well known that it seems idle to point it out more fully. And yet a
few passages may be noted which will show its value here.
(Hebrews ii, 14), "Him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil." (Hebrews vii, 5), "The people according
to the law, that is, of their brethren." (Hebrews ix, 11), "A
greater and more perfect tabernacle, not
made with hands, that is, not of this
building" (or creation). (Hebrews x, 20), "Through the
vail, that
is, His flesh." (Hebrews xi, 16), "They desire a better, that is,
an heavenly." (Acts xix, 4), "On Him which should come
after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." (Philemon, 12), "Thou,
therefore, receive him, that is, mine own bowels." (1st Peter, iii,
20), "Few, that is, eight souls." (Acts i, 19), "Akeldama, that is,
the field of blood." (Romans vii, 18), "In me, that is, in my flesh."
(Romans ix, 7-8), "Neither because they are the
seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be
called.
That is, They which are the
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God:
but the children of the promise are counted for
the seed."
The word in question (toutestin) coming between
two members of a sentence shows that the obscurity of the former is
to be explained by the clearness of the latter. And in the connection
before us, "By Him let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God
continually, that is, the fruit of lips confessing to His name," it
is worthy of notice that the pronoun in italics in our version, our,
is not in this passage, although it seems to be in the LXX
[Septuagint] Version of Hosea, xiv, 2, from which it has been
supposed to be derived. The absence of this pronoun is of special
value, as it plainly puts the case in
the abstract form, as if the Apostle
had said in so many apposite words, Praise is a God-confessing lip
service.
|
Take words with you and return to the
LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us
graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our
lips. [a] a2
Or 'offer our lips as sacrifices of bulls' Heb 14:2NIV
Paul commands something spiritual in
replacement for something carnal and even idolatrous.
However, this is not a "dispensational change" but God has
never wanted animal sacrifices during which David's
instruments were used to make a great crashing sound.
Hosea begins with the musical idolatry
at Mount Sinai:
- "Return, O Israel,
to the Lord thy God; for the people have fallen through thine iniquities.
Hosea 14:2LXX
-
- Take with you
words, and turn to the Lord your God:
speak to
him,
that ye
may not
receive the reward of unrighteousnesness,
-
- but that ye may receive good things: and
we will render in return the fruit of our
lips.
Hosea 14:2LXX
The literal worship of idols is
explained by Hosea earlier:
- WHEN Ephraim spake
trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he
offended in Baal, he died. Hosea 13:1
-
- And now they
sin more and
more, and
have made them molten images of their silver, and idols
according to
their own understanding, all of it the work of the
craftsmen: they say of them,
Let the men that
sacrifice kiss the calves (female calf, heifer). Hosea 13:2
However, the "calves" in masculine
form is:
- Egel (g5695) ay'-ghel; from the same as 5696;
a (male) calf (as frisking round), espec. one nearly grown (i. e. a
steer): - bullock, calf.
The association of the calf and
dancing:
- And he received
them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool,
after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These
be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the
land of Egypt. Ex.32:4
-
- And it came to
pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw
the calf, and the dancing (circular dance): and Moses anger waxed
hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and
brake them beneath the mount. Ex.32:19
-
- And Miriam the
prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her
hand; and all the women went out after her with
timbrels and with dances. Ex.15:20
As Israel "rose up to play" David also
experienced the joy of being worshiped by music and
dance:
- And it came to
pass as they came, when David was returned from the
slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of
all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of
musick.
1S.18:6
Because David was too fearful to go
into God's presence, he was permitted to make sacrifices in
the City of David. While moving the Ark from God's
presence:
- And David danced
before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded
with a linen ephod. 2 Samuel 6:14
Karar (g3769) kaw-rar'; a prim. root; to
dance (i. e. whirl): - dance (-ing).
- So David and all
the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with
shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 2 Samuel
6:15
However, during the first Move:
- And David and
all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of
instruments made of fir wood, even
on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. 2
Samuel 6:5
-
- And as the ark of
the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Sauls
daughter looked through a window, and saw king David
leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. 2 Samuel
6:16
Remember that David was considered
naked even though it is possible that he still wore the
ephod or priest's vest. His leaping before the "serving
girls" would have disgusted God also:
- Pazaz (h6339) paw-zaz'; a prim. root [rather
ident. with 6338]; to solidify (as if by refining); also
to spring (as if separating the limbs): - leap, be made strong.
-
- Pazar (h6340) paw-zar'; a prim. root; to
scatter, whether in enmity or bounty: -
disperse, scatter (abroad).
To "rise up to play" both at Mount
Sinai and during David's first ark movement and condemned by
Paul in 1 Cor 10:5
Neither be
ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The
people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to
play. 1Co.10:7
In Exodus 32:6 the word is the same
but spelled differently;
- Cachaq (h6711) tsaw-khak'; a prim. root; to
laugh outright (in merriment or scorn); by
impl. to sport: - laugh, mock, play, make sport.
In 1 Samuel 18:7 the word
is:
- And it came to
pass as they came, when David was returned from the
slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of
all cities of Israel,
singing and
dancing,
to meet king Saul,
with
tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick. 1 Sam 18:6
- And the women
answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath
slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.
1S.18:7
Answer is
responsive singing or shouting and PLAY is:
- Sachaq (h7832) saw-khak'; a prim. root; to
laugh (in pleasure or detraction); by impl. to
play: - deride, have in derision, laugh,
make merry, mock (-er), play, rejoice, (laugh to)
scorn, be in (make) sport.
-
- Shachaq (g7833) shaw-khak'; a prim. root; to
comminate (by trituration or attrition): - beat, wear.
-
- Then did I
beat
them as small as the dust of the earth, I did
stamp them as the mire of the street, and did
spread them abroad. 2 Sam 22:43
Interestingly, Paul defines the
"melody" in Ephesians 5 and Colossiand 3 as "in the heart."
If Paul had defined external melody he would have in effect
contradicted himself and commanded that we "rise up to play"
because the effect of external melody and the mocking,
derisive understanding of David as the meaning of "praise"
-- making a fool of yourself because "the gods cannot punish
an insane person."
Melody is the Greek:
- Psallo (g5567) psal'-lo; (to rub or touch the surface; comp.
5597); to twitch or twang, i.e. to play on a stringed instrument
(celebrate the divine worship with music and accompanying
odes): - make melody, sing (psalms)
This twitching was not "strumming" on
a harp. Rather, like shooting an arrow, the "player"
assaulted others by pulling the string as far as it would go
and then letting it go in violence. This was the meaning of
"shooting with the bow" or "plucking out a hair." None of
these are spiritual exercises.
Melody, like "play" is derived from a
word which defines it totally away as an external "act of
spiritual worship."
- Psocho (g5597) pso'-kho; prol. from the same
base as 5567; to triturate, i.e. (by anal.) to rub out (kernels
from husks with the fingers or hand): - rub
Another word repudiating the "rising
up to play" in modern pagan-like "worship" rituals with
instruments (weapons in both Hebrew and Greek) and singing
and or dancing by female worship teams which in the case of
David's victory parade would have been seen as
prostitutes.
This word is the "sop" which Jesus
hand fed to Judas whose "bag" was "for carrying the
mouthpieces of wind instruments."
- Psomion (g5596) pso-mee'-on; dim. from a der. of
the base of 5597; a crumb or morsel (as if rubbed off), i.e. a
mouthful: - sop.
|
This passage, occurring in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
receives special importance, inasmuch as this Epistle,
which sets aside the Levitical priesthood and administration as a
whole,
here most clearly does
not; restore the use of instruments of
music in
the christian service of praise.
How easily might the Apostle in this place have
settled with a word all this angry
controversy in the sense of the use of
instruments,
by quoting one of the Psalms, now
considered so apposite to the purpose.
Was it more difficult for Paul to quote the Old Testament than for
us?
He has no difficulty in doing so in connection with other subjects;
his silence on
this, taken in conjunction with the
above expression, is surely most impressive, most decisive.
4. Notice the Simplicity of the Services
imposed to preserve faith and purity. The protective exercises of the
members of the Church are also slated in a form, and surrounded with
circumstances which are exceedingly instructive. Thus, for example,
(Ephesians v, 18-19), "Be not drunk
with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking
to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody in your heart to the Lord." Also the parallel passage
in
Colossians iii, 16, "Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom: teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace
in your hearts to the Lord."
From these Scriptures we infer that christian
praise was an individual exercise. It was not performed
for, but by, each member.
Its social influences depended upon
its individual
performance.
This is plain from the use of the pronoun
eautoij (eautois, to
themselves) in Ephesians, and eautoij
(eautous, themselves) in Colossians, in place of allhlouj (allelous,
one another).
I am not aware that this use of this pronoun is
ever employed by the sacred writers when this, or a similar sense is
not to be conveyed.
We find, for example, in Colossians iii, 13,
and in Ephesians iv, 9, xarizomenoi eautoij (charizomenoi eautois)
rendered in our version
"forgiving one another," but
literally forgiving yourselves; a form of expression which seems, in
connection with forgiveness, to be strikingly in accordance with the
prayer the Saviour left his disciples, and in harmony with his
subsequent commentary thereupon,
He taught us to pray, "Forgive us
our debts
as we forgive our
debtors;" and added, "For if ye forgive
men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you; but
if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses." "Forgiving yourselves" then, following such
expressions as,
"Be ye kind to one
another," is, in this christian sense,
specially appropriate, inasmuch as we cannot be forgiven if we do not
forgive, whilst forgiveness by us secures its exercise in our own
behalf.
With a similar weight of significance are we
instructed to speak, teach, and admonish
ourselves in psalms, hymns, and
spiritual songs, inasmuch as this is an exercise to be
individually performed,
and one which cannot be properly
performed without producing the same effects both upon the singer and
the hearer.
The exercise begets in the hearer a desire to
join, - a sense of individual appropriateness, whilst each singer
feels his heart enlarged and his mind elevated and improved.
Like the exercise of forgiveness, it is, and
brings, a private blessing on the private performer of the service.
"Is any merry? let
him sing
psalms."
The exercise, when no one hears but
God, invigorates the mind, accords with its healthy action, and is
promotive thereof.
As a private exercise, "when two or
three are gathered together," who has not felt its invigorating
energy? Since that night when "Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises
unto God" in the prison at Philippi, how often has the sacred song
lighted up the cheerlessness of the prison, strengthened the martyr's
faith, and astonished the enemy?
The performances in the churches were but
larger reunions, - those present in public acted as they did in
private, the effect being a stronger expression of the same feelings
and sentiments, and livelier resulting emotions.
But let the churches change this christian
plan, and we shall have singing only employed when it can be
suitably performed,
and homely people will cease
to sing at home, as they know they cannot perform there with
so called proper effect.
If our members begin to associate with the ear
and heart of Almighty God, the financial perfunctoriness which our
scientific musical
friends display,
then we need not be surprised if in
our families the voice of psalms is hushed, - if in
our private meetings few can lead the psalm, or care to join in it
with heartiness. In our singing let us lay this specially to heart,
That we speak, teach, and admonish ourselves. Securing that, every
other good effect will follow of course.
Objection 1.
But it is objected that the Book of Revelation refers to
instruments.
We believe that according to all of the
evidence of the time that the harps in the book of Revelation are
symbolic of the end of their human responsibilities and, to the Greek
mind, playing the flute or harp was a favorite pasttime and proof of
their idle richness. On the other hand, for those still alive the
duty was to "teach the Word" and not to play harps. We are not yet
dead so we are not yet free of our duties as humans. Click for
Evidence and photos of instruments for
the dead.
This reference to the Book of Revelation is
very instructive, and the manner in which that portion is treated is
also instructive. Nothing can be clearer from Revelations v, 8, and
xiv, 2, and xv, 2,
that the service described was a
temple service,
that Jehovah the Lamb was recognizably present,
and that each individual
performer had a harp.
Now, the New Testament churches were not temples, -
Jehovah the Lamb was present, not
recognizably, but spiritually and
effectually in them, -
whilst no meeting of disciples is
elsewhere described as being accompanied with a service of harpers.
Do our Organ friends desire to conform to these
requirements, - to introduce a temple
service, - to have one large building
for a yearly meeting of
a nation, or a building large enough to hold such masses of people
that priests in courses will need to be employed therein?
Do they desire to rob home worship of its
sanctity, and to restrain the praise and prayer ascending from our
family altars?
Do they desire us to believe that "God is in
His temple as in Sinai," and to forget that "Him must the heavens
receive till the times of the restitution of all things?"
Do they wish us to forget that now
we have neither the Shecinah nor the more
immediate heavenly presence of Jehovah, without one or other of which
we read in the Bible of the use of no instrument?
Do they choose the harp, not the organ? Do
they put a harp into the hand of each worshipper, or of
each elder? Do they abandon the idea of having one large instrument for a building,
and let each individual choose his harp, God's instrument, (see
Revelations xv, 2) for himself?
Without raising these or such like issues, the
Book of Revelation cannot be made to serve
their purpose. It will not do to say that the glorified ones have
harps in heaven, and, therefore we may have organs upon earth; for
the harps they have are the harps
of God. Again, each performer there had
a harp, given him by God, and it must be wrong to have only one
performer, with an organ, on the earth. Nor will it do to say that
these are not prominent or essential features of this heavenly
example, -
for observe that the sound
described is brought out, not by strength of instrument but by the
number of performers. "I heard the voice of harpers harping with
their harps."
And again notice very specially, these
performers are not straitened with the difficulties we encounter
on the earth, should we try to copy their example.
Unglorified fingers, unaccustomed and untrained
here, might, if drawn along harps, produce not a pleasant, but a
discordant sound; and the combination of such effects might be, not a
voice, but a noise.
But there is ground to hope that "when this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal,
immortality," when we shall no longer think as children, or sneak as
children, - when we shall see "not through a glass darkly, but face
to face," - then, with our illustrious glorified congeners out of
every nation, and people, and tongue, we shall find our untuned
fingers ready to fulfil, without training, the behests of love and
pure understanding, and touch our golden God-given harps in time and
tune and perfect harmony with the holy bands of heaven. Unglorified
bodies are no more able to copy heaven's music than to dispense, like
heaven's .inhabitants, with the ordinance of marriage. Let us wait
till we hear the cry, "The temple of God is with men, and he will
dwell with them;" when we, seeing him as he is, - our members
delivered from the dross and stiffness of earthly clay, having
obtained spiritual bodies, - may join the heavenly chorus with our
God-given harps, and swell the song of victory. No imperfection will
then mar the voice, no indelicacy of touch produce from the
instrument a harsh sound, no differing notes introduce discords; but
perfect science, perfect instruments, and perfect instrumentation
shall fill the .holy courts of heaven with voice of praise.
Objection 2. The radical meaning of the
words yallw and yalmoj is playing on an instrument.
That the words yallw (psalto) and
yalmoj (psalmos) had the signification of striking a harp attributed
to them, in the translation of the Old Testament, does not admit of
doubt.
In the Old Testament temple service all the
musical
services were accompanied with instruments, and the
psalms were both sung and played.
But the words named do not help
the demand for the organ, unless the organ is struck, and by being
struck emits a musical sound.
If the authoritative word yallw (psallo)
indicates "I strike
lightly," and the organist does not
strike a distended cord, but lifts a valve which liberates confined
air, the word does not help, but oppose the instrument
contended for.
It is not as if the words in question were the
only words applied to an instrument of music. The pipe, not less than
the harp, is a subject of reference and illustration,
as in 1st Corinthians, xiv, 7; but
the aulos (autos) is not in any case applied to the singing of
psalms, or hymns, or spiritual songs, in the New Testament.
Look at a table of the Psalms to see that flutes and pipes were not used with the
Psalms and in fact were considered obscene.
But not only do the words in
question radically point to the employment of the wrong instrument as the
musical accompaniment,
they are used so, and hedged about so, with
significant words and circumstances in the New Testament, that they
cannot be
applied to instrumentation at all.
Thus, in 1st Corinthians, xiv, 15,
"I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the
understanding also;
I will sing (yalw, psalo)
with the
spirit,
and I will sing (yalw) with the understanding
also."
Here it is plain that prayer and musical service were to be
performed on the same
instruments, that is to say, on
no instrument at all.
In Romans xv, 9, the word yalw (I will sing) is
also used in a connection in which it would be absurd to attach to it
the idea of instrumentation.
And this instance is all the more impressive
that it is a quotation from the Old Testament, where it is (Psalm
xviii, 49), and will sing
praises. Whatever may have been their
Old Testament signification, it is obvious, from these passages, that
the words in question were employed in the New, where no sense would
be tolerable but that of singing
praises.
(For the choir director. A
Psalm of David the servant of the Lord, who spoke to the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord
delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of
Saul. And he said,) "I love Thee, O Lord, my strength." Psalm 18:1NAS
To the chief Musician, A Psalm
of David, the servant of the Lord, who
spake unto the Lord the
words of this song in the day
that the Lord delivered him
from the hand of all his enemies, and) Psalm 18:1KJV
The Lord is my
rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom
I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high
tower. Psalm 18:2
Therefore will I
give thanks unto
thee, O Lord,
among the
heathen, and
sing praises unto thy
name. Psa 18:49
The word SPAKE
is:
Amar (h559) aw-mar'; a prim. root; to say
(used with great latitude): - answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast
self, call, certify, challenge, charge, / (at the, give) command
(-ment), commune, consider, declare, demand, * desire, determine, *
expressly, * indeed, * intend, name, * plainly, promise, publish,
report, require, say, speak (against, of), * still, * suppose, talk,
tell, term, * that is, * think, use [speech], utter, * verily, * yet.
This desire to further a cause by straining the
interpretation of words,
to suit not the context in
which they stand,
but the radical meaning, of the word employed,
if carried out in every case, and
insisted on as in the case before us, would produce some rather
awkward, results.
Our organ
ministers are proud to be called
clergymen.
They wear a clerical
dress, they distinguish themselves from
the members of other professions by calling
themselves "the clergy."
Now the words clergy, clergymen, clerical, come
from the Greek word klhroj (cleros), and klhroj comes from a Hebrew
word lrOg (goral), a small stone, - then a small
stone for casting lots.
Are the clergy then to be called
small stones or pebbles, from the radical meaning of the
word by which they delight to be called?
So hast thou also
them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Revelation 2:15
Nicolaitaines literally means
"the clergy dominating the laity."
Again, the above Hebrew word passed into Latin,
as well as Greek, and became "glared," fine sand; in
English it became gravel or grit. It also passed into Scotch, in
which dialect the word "glaur" speaks for itself.
Are we then to extend the idea of
an organ clergyman to embrace this also? and is he to become a sandy,
gritty, gravelly individual or, - Scottice, a humplock o' glaur? The
epithet would be not altogether inapplicable,
as some of these gentlemen are
gritty and klabbery enough in all conscience; but it may be doubted
whether it would be as acceptable as applicable, notwithstanding its
ancient radical origin.
Objection 3.
The language of the Psalms in the Old Testament.
The manner in which the
Old Testament is adduced to aid in settling the Organ controversy, in
favour of the instrument, is not less infelicitous.
We are told, for example, that we
cannot
sing the
Psalms
without introducing cymbals, harps, and instruments of music in
general.
This is most true: we cannot. But it is equally
true that we cannot use the Psalms without introducing offerings, and burnt-offerings, and offerings for sin. Are we to
delete the authority in the latter case, and to retain it in the
former? Are we not justified in using the entire Psalms in the
Christian sense? Not to interpret the New Testament by the Old, -
but to read the Old in the light
and sense of the New?
Secondly, How are the Services of the Church to
be performed? Taking all these matters together with the Saviour's
declaration at the well of Samaria, we are surely justified
in concluding that the New
Testament, worship left no room for embellished services, or for
instruments of music, except in the heart of the worshipper,
a position not favourable to such instruments
as our organ friends have it in their hearts to introduce.
If any thing is established in the New
Testament it is surely this,
that we must serve God with the
whole heart, at all times, in all
places, having no guide in, any filing
but His holy will.
Thirdly. They were performed by all the members
of the Church, by the individual in the closet, by the parent in the
family, by the teacher or elder in the church, by any or all whom He
might call by his providence through his people.
Fourthly. We come now to consider for what end
these services were performed?
The exercises of devotion above
referred to are fitted for men in seclusion, or in the family; in the
social gathering or the public assembly.
Worship ceased, at Pentecost, to be a
matter of place, and became a matter of
mind and heart;
it ceased to be performed by proxy, and
became a matter of personal concern to every believer.
We are now saved, not by being born of the "seed of Abraham, according to the flesh," but by being "followers of
Abraham's faith."
No temple service now throws its
shade over the imperfections of the individual, and imparts grace to
the crowd.
Ye are, each of you is, the "temple of the Holy
Ghost," sanctified by his indwelling, and purified by his grace;
and no
ceremony, on the part of another, will
add to your acceptance, or redeem your soul from impurity.
It is no doubt a most blessed truth that we may
help each
other's faith, and hope, and joy; what we may, by earnest
supplication, secure the divine interference in the heart and life of
those whom we love; open their hearts to attend to the things of the
kingdom; bring their souls into healthy action; constitute them, by
faith in Christ Jesus, the children of God.
By our singing we worship God,
edify our souls, or convert the souls of our neighbours; -
by our prayers we worship God, secure blessings
to our own souls, and converting and restraining grace for others; -
by the reading of the Word we edify our own
souls or the souls of all who hear; -
and by the word of exhortation we exercise
faith, and grow in grace, and set before others the ways of truth
with more or less perfection. There is no promise in the New
Testament, to a great congregation assembled in any special place,
which is not equally promised to the two or three gathered in the
name of the Lord; and whilst Christian association and fellowship is
becoming and proper, and is the just expositor of Christian love and
affection, and the season of many a blessing, yet our God and
Redeemer does not confer on these large assemblies such unique tokens
of his love and grace as to discourage the hearts of the believing
few who may, under press of circumstances, meet in some obscure and
humble dwelling.
In singular
contrast - speaking contrast - to this
were the arrangements made by Almighty God for the establishment of
Jewish worship.
God might have established such a
form as might have been performed in every Jewish tent large enough
for the reception of two or more families.
The ceremonious
services, simple in themselves,
might have
been part of the common furniture of every dwelling,
and the priests have been merely public helpers
of the faith or metals of the entire community.
At first sight we almost conclude that such a
system would have had its advantages over that which was adopted. But
a nation was to be born and constituted, to be made the custodiers of
a specific faith, to be a witness against the idolatry of the world,
and ultimately, when all should be ready, to furnish men to go forth
into all the earth to proclaim the termination of their special
observances, and the occurrence of the hour of the "world to come."
This nation and religion was to be constituted,
not in the busy marts of trade, commerce, and population, but at the
foot of Horeb, in the midst of the wilds of the Arabian desert. It
was a complicated ritual, observed in an ornate temple, performed by
priests in order of succession - the first only receiving a call. To
originate this, and establish it, there were necessary not only wise
and good men, to whom might be entrusted the work of legislation and
social combination, but for the construction of a tabernacle so
ornamented and adapted for the performance of so complicated a
service, and which, moreover, should admit of removal at pleasure,
there was required especially the labour of the genius in mechanics
and art.
And hence we find that to Moses and Aaron, and
their associates in the legislation and priesthood, there was added
Bezaleel and Aholiab, and others, wise hearted like them. These, far
away from the workshops of Egypt or Greece, in the midst of the
fastnesses of Horeb, or the burning sands of the desert, must
construct this tenement, to be a repository of the new religion about
to be inaugurated, or already inaugurated, amidst the most terrific
exhibitions of divine power and majesty. What God intends he
certainly will accomplish. To construct a tabernacle in the
wilderness, with a ceremony so ornate, and a priesthood drilled to
the veriest details thereof, seems to our notions exceedingly
impracticable, but, on the authority of the Old Testament, we are
assured of its having been accomplished.
Fifthly. May we
alter these Christian services? And
now, when we come to a new religion, appointed and instituted,
without such ornaments,
we can have no other conception of
the reason of their absence than that God so willed it, -
that, in the services of the Christian church,
he had no intention to introduce any of the forms or rites by which the old
had been distinguished.
That had been fitted for one nationality, and had
served its end by establishing and keeping it together; but
this was to be spread over the wide earth.
To be clogged with
ceremonies, to be loaded with forms,
would be to cripple its resources and cramp its energies; and God cut
from it every fetter, and set it
free.
The Saviour, to his Church, as to Lazarus at
the grave, said "Loose him, and let him go" free. Free in spirit, to
meet the soul of humanity, and reveal to it its lost and ruined
state; - free in form, to accommodate itself, without expense or loss
of time, to the wants of the nations needing its light; - free in the
simplicity of its arrangements, as in the numbers and functions of
its officers, that every new nation might have its own faithful ones
preaching in its own tongue. The Jerusalem synod, contemplating these
bald
services, marvelled at the power of Jehovah, but concluded,
that since He had saved men by
them, they should lay upon the disciples no farther burden.
We are confirmed in our views of the
simplicity
of the Gospel services, and of their unalterable character, when we
notice also that these services had their correlates in the
abstemious and simple social usages established amongst the members
thereof.
The Gentiles had lived in riot and
drunkenness, in sleep and wantonness, in gluttony and debauchery, of
every kind and degree,
and their worship was correspondingly,
sensuous; (and
musical)
the Christian regarded himself as only a
stranger
and pilgrim on the earth, -
his joys were not of this
world,
he found no enduring city here,
but sought one to come. Hence he lived in the
world as living above it, - he was a citizen of heaven, - he
looked on the tastes and habits of the worms of earth - on their
varied inclinations and pursuits, with
the most supreme contempt, and their
insidious snares with the most constant vigilance.
He was constantly looking out for the coming of
the Lord Jesus Christ. Mortifying his members which are upon the
earth, he set his affections upon the things above. He "put on the
new man,
which after God was created in righteousness and true holiness." He
"looked diligently, lest any should fail of the grace of God, lest
any root of bitterness springing up should trouble him, and he should
thereby be defiled."
Thus was Christian society modelled, not in the
interests or for the gratification of worldly feelings or joys, but
in the interest and for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. No mere
gratification could be sanctified, or made holy; the holy man (the
only subject of holiness) displayed his character by restraining his
"fleshly lusts, which warred against the soul," and the cultivation
of that simplicity of habit which forms the best preservative of
purity of mind and of life.
And whilst it is abundantly true that the
Christian propagandist could travel in every clime, live according to the
social usages of every country, partake of common food - sit at the
common table - with men everywhere, asking no questions for
conscience sake,
yet, when mention was made of an
idol, or of the food presented being brought as sacred, - not from
the public market, but from the idol's temple, - then the Christian
must enter his protest.
With the Jews he might live as a Jew, with the
Greek as a Greek, for the kingdom of God was "not meat and drink, but
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
And yet, in the circumstances above referred
to, social usages raised themselves into matters of supreme
importance. The weak conscience could not discriminate between the
food eaten and the reason of its being eaten. Those foregone
conclusions which had prevalence during the presence and power of
heathenism, could not at once be eradicated; and, in the treatment of
these difficult cases, a principle of Christian conduct was
introduced (valuable in all ages) viz., the principle of Christian
expediency. It is of importance to understand this principle; not
only from its bearing on our present matter, as showing the
abstemious
character of Christian morals,
but also because it has been
appealed to by our Organ
friends as a principle under which, in
certain circumstances, their instrument may be introduced.
We have just seen that the social usage
difficulty was, that Christian liberty
was, in certain cases, destructive of Christian
principle, - as when meats, which might
be freely eaten, were, by their connection with idolatrous worship, a
means of keeping the partially emancipated neophyte in constant
weakness of conscience.
The expedient suggested was abstinence from the
food offered. "For the kingdom of God was not meat and drink, but
righteousness," &c. Thus, not only was simplicity and purity of
manners inculcated, but all remedial measures took the abstemious
form, which was continued, until the conscience, by habitual
abstinence, had regained its power, and the man was reinstated in his
freedom as a follower of Christ Jesus. This Christian law was a very
different thing from a permanent compromise, nor did it in any sense
partake of the looseness of principle of that common mode of
determining disputes in these latter days. As we have seen, its
object was, by abstinence for a season, to confer the power, of
permanent enjoyment, and it was enjoined not alone upon the man
exposed to spiritual injury, but even upon those whose habitual power
was superior to temptation. We never see the Apostle Paul so much the
Christian as when he says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will
eat no flesh while the world standeth." His own liberty, his own
power over temptation, was nothing when weighed against the weakness
and waywardness of his brother. If, by his abstinence, he could
succeed in aiding his weak brother to break the idolatrous spell
under which he. was held, he would crucify every taste, however
simple and innocent in itself. Thus this Christian social principle
exactly tallied with the simplicity of the church services.
But how do our Organ friends want to
apply this principle of expediency? They say, We are very numerous in
certain districts: and in some congregations;
and we consider that
expediency counsels our gratification in
these localities,
lest we and our young men should proclaim an insurrection.
This last kind of expediency is not in the
Bible. I am not aware that ever the Apostle Paul said, Because I have
a notion of my own, and a considerable following, therefore you
should allow me to carry it out. We, as Christians, may ask our
neighbour, for our soul's health, to give up the use of anything
which to him is innocuous.
I am not aware that we may ask our neighbour to
add to his practice, or even to tolerate, a non-legal exercise, that
we may be gratified.
The one is a
noble Christian principle, the other is the meanest selfishness.
For organs some men would rend the Church of Christ.
We are told at this point that the Organ,
though not used was simply not
ready for the church, and that its
non-use was a condition of the times.
If it was not ready for the New
Testament Church, it is very obvious that it could not be ready for
the Old Testament Psalms.
But notice - we have seen that as a corporation
the church was founded by God, was composed of members purchased by
the blood and filled with the Spirit of Christ, were endowed with the
power of working miracles,
and yet with the resources of Deity
at his disposal, and the hearts and minds of the children of men in
his hand,
he did not interfere to introduce or arrange
matters
which should eventuate in the
introduction of instruments into the service of the Christian church.
Here notice the following particulars:
1. Under the Old Testament dispensation, on the
contrary, "which stood in meats and drinks and carnal ordinances," God did raise up and install "workmen in
gold and silver and in brass, and in cutting of stones to set them,
and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship," and
for these purposes "filled them with the spirit of God in wisdom and
in understanding and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
to devise cunning works."
These men designed and executed in
the midst of the Arabian desert the Tabernacle for His worship,
directed by him in the grandest conceptions and the most minute
details.
2. Nor was this his only such interference, for
he raised up "a preacher of righteousness" in the great prototypal
carpenter Noah, who constructed, in spite of the sneers of the
antediluvians, and in the midst of their constant revilings, an Ark
to float upon the waters of the deluge, and bear his family and
dependants in safety to the renovated world.
3. The same God subsequently inspired Solomon
with wisdom to build him a Temple to his praise; to the admiration of
the ancient world and the glory of the Jewish name.
4. He also called forth from obscurity and
captivity Ezra and Nehemiah, to build with the trowel, while begirt
with the sword, till the wall of Jerusalem and the house of the Lord
were in some measure restored in their ancient grandeur.
5. The same great God put up and put down the
kingdoms of the world, intermixed the races and the deities of men
established over the face of the earth, introduced an empire nearly
commensurate with the limits of civilization, thus forming a
groundwork of freedom, - then took a Jew of most intense Hebrew
feeling, and fired with a sense of intense determination to root out
from his sacred land every vestige of heresy, - broke his spirit,
demolished his prejudices, and laid him meek and humble as a little
child at the feet of the arch heretic
Jesus Christ, whose sect he had
resolved to destroy, sent him, with his chosen companions, abroad
into the Gentile world, with his noble learning, his true genius, his
indomitable spirit, and this substantial human protection, "I was a
freeborn Roman." In the world, prepared for him and the Gospel he
preached, he could say "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat; to the
Jews have I done no wrong." These magistrates "have beaten us
uncondemned, being Romans, and now do they thrust us out privily?
nay, verily, but let them come themselves and fetch us out."
Are we to be told that the God who
did all that to establish the Jewish Church, and for the Gospel and
its preachers, could not have made an
organ in the primitive church if he had
wanted one?
Have we not seen that the men who were
separated from the world and united to Christ, were purchased by him,
body and soul, and filled with enlarged
powers of mind, rendered capable of
performing the most astounding miracles, - that in their days the
lame man leapt as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb did sing, that
men of all lands and all classes flocked together at their preaching?
Was it beyond the power of the
Spirit who accomplished these things, to have produced some apostle,
evangelist, pastor, or teacher, who might have introduced the grand
accessory to cultivated worship - the Organ?
It is an impious limitation of the Holy One of
Israel.
It now only remains to add a little word
upon church history. We all know that that Church, originally so pure, so
simple, so perfect, fell from its stedfastness and parity; that its
downfall was gradual, and continued through long dreary ages;
that daring all that time there was
a constant tinkering with the psalmody of the
Church,
that heretics (Arians) used it by
their
hymns to
introduce their conceptions of the person of Christ, and of the
condition and prospects of men, into the intellectual life of the
church;
and ritualists introduced
change after change, until there was at length a period so dark that
singing became a performance, and the
organ was
introduced.
Perhaps no testimony of a bygone age comes to
us more impressively attesting the simplicity of the rites of
primitive Christians, the object of their worship, and the manner in
which it was performed, than the testimony of their Roman
persecutors.
Under the Emperor Trajan, Pliny, the second of
the name; A.D. 110, held the governorship of Bithynia, and being
sadly distressed that the temples were deserted, the sacrifices not
purchased, and the ancient priesthood and their long established
powers derided, resolved to get to the bottom of the matter, and had
the parties summoned before him. All were threatened with punishment.
Some confessed themselves Christians a second
and third time, and died rather than retract. Others, however, denied
the Redeemer, and worshipped the gods, and the image of the Emperor.
These last, however, were very few in number.
Pliny was making no progress,
seized two female slaves, "deaconesses" of the church, and subjected them to
torture,
when they made confession to the Roman governor.
They affirmed that the sum of their crime or
error was, that on a certain day they were accustomed to meet before
day-break, that they alternately sang
hymns to Christ as to God, and bound
themselves under an oath that they should neither be guilty of theft,
robbery, or adultery; should never break faith or deny what had been
deposited with them; such things having been done, they were
accustomed to depart, and at times to partake of a joint and very
harmless repast.
Such was the testimony of those put to the
torture respecting their ceremonies at the end of the first century,
some eighty years after the ascension of Christ.
Passing over some three hundred years we take
up again the chronicles of ecclesiastical history, but we find every
thing altered, the people, the services, the preachers, the churches.
We meet with festivals and fasts, with pictures and ornaments, and
other matters too, all which we are accustomed most justly to regard
as defections from the soundness of the Christian faith, Still, with
all its defection, it is a period of no small Christian vitality, and
is rendered illustrious by the names of Chrysostom, Augustine,
Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, &c.
"Church music was cultivated at
this period more according to rule. Besides the Psalms, which had
been used from the earliest times, and the short doxologies and
hymns, consisting of verses from the holy Scriptures, spiritual
songs, composed by distinguished church teachers, such as Ambrose of
Milan, and Hilary of Poictiers, were also introduced among the pieces
used for public worship in the Western Church.
To the last-named practice
much opposition it is true was expressed. Click for most of
these scholars.
"It must already have become a matter of complaint,
however, as well in the Western as in the Greek Church, that the
ecclesiastical music had taken too artificial and theatrical a
direction, and departed from its ancient simplicity." Neander's Church History,
Vol. 3, pp. 450-451.
- Augustine Psalm 41 Judas Will Not Triumph Over
Jesus
- Augustine Psalm 149 Literal Musical Warfare
Replaced
- John Chrysostom Homilies Acts Chapter 7, Acts 7,
Stephen Against Law, Temple and Ritual
- Chrysostom 1 Worship Music Or Christ
- Bill
Swetmon on Gregory of Nyssa on Psallo
Let us now pass on to a later period in which
the vital spark of Christian truth has all but expired; when,
overlaid with forms and ceremonies, it is scarcely possible to
extricate the wheat from the chaff; when we have a special Priesthood
interposed as the only medium of intercourse between God and
man.
"By the force of custom, the Latin
had already been a long time established as the predominent liturgical language. ..The striving after conformity with the
Church of
Rome
naturally promoted an attachment to the liturgy as expressed in the
Roman language and form,
while the latter again would react
upon the former. King
Pipin no doubt found a Latin
church psalmody existing in the Frankish
church,
which had been transmitted downward from the
ancient Gallic church. But as this differed originally from the Roman
church psalmody, especially since Gregory the Great had done so much to
improve the music of the church,
and as it had moreover been corrupted by the
barbarism
of the intervening time, Pipin endeavoured to
restore it after the model of the church
music at Rome. .. It was found
impossible to suppress entirely the old Gallic form of church music,
.. and hence the Emperor Charles, when attending the high festivals
at Rome, could not but notice the great difference between the
Franco-Gallic and the Gregorian church music of Rome. Hence he was
led to desire that the Frankish
psalmody should be altered and improved
wholly after the pattern of the Roman."
"NOTE. From the French church proceeded
the use of the organ, the first musical instruct employed in the Church. A
present of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus to King Pipin gave
occasion to its use."Neander's Church
History, Vol. 5, pp. 174-175-176. In
his note above quoted he refers, as his authority, to the Annal
Einhard, a. 757.
It is evident that whilst there was a constant
declension in the service of the Christian church, it had reached its
climax on the introduction of the Organ.
In conclusion we have seen that this
instrument
instead of being handed down from age to age from apostolic men,
was itself the crowning act of defection
from Christian simplicity; and though in justice He might, the guilty
and we have reason to thank God that he does not, mingle the blood
with the sacrifices of those who continue it, still we have the
conviction, begotten by many proofs, that it is a measure of
departure from Scripture authority,
which leads to more ungodliness, and
gradually unsettles the mind on the great matters of Christian
worship.
The first was a gift, we read, from
Emperor Copronymus to King
Pipin. Kings and Emperors have
never
heartily loved the religion of Christ.
Their additions are always of a suspicious
character, not in any degree promotive of religion, but often so
thrust in upon it that it requires long years of toil and suffering
on the part of God's people to sever the connection.
Does Christianity rank no higher in
your estimation than to incorporate, without examination, this
present from an Emperor into the worship
of the Presbyterian Church?
Is it no honour to our Christianity, that when
others, in vast masses, have sillily adopted this present, and have
used it without consideration, we have, on the non-authority of the
Scripture, refused it admission?
Rally around the Word of the living God,
study its meaning, submit to its dictation in all things. Its
definitions are the standards of liberty against priestcraft and
kingcraft;
against infidels without, and rationalists and
ritualists
within.
It narrows the platitudes of the
latitudinarian, by the prescriptions of the divine law;
it quenches the dogma of the rationalist in the deep
things of God;
it tears off the rags of the spiritualist; it
arrays all believers in the spotless robes of the Redeemer; it
obscures altar lights by the clear and heavenly light of divine and
sacred doctrine;
it makes true believers no longer "children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait
to deceive." Its heavenly truths fire our souls with bravery, with
head erect, and mien of manly courage, to refuse the gew-gaws of the
world, in exchange for the glories of immortality. And when
haughtiness and power step out, and with lordly tongue make
proclamation, "What time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute,
harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all people, nations,
and languages shall fall down and worship the golden image" set up by
power, - this holy book, the treasury of the bravest and purest,
counsels, with its loudest note, cries No! When power compels thee to
"walk through the waters, I will be with thee; through the rivers,
they shall not overflow thee: when thou passest through the fire thou
shalt not be burned, neither shall the flames kindle upon thee."
Let neither the wrath of man, nor the love of
the present world, seduce thee from attachment to thy precious Bible.
Lose it, and in all the world besides: thou wilt find nothing by
which, in any degree, to replace it. "I testify," saith our glorious
Redeemer,
"unto every man that heareth the
words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book."
From the Reformed Presbyterians
Musical Instruments in
Worship
Home
Page
Counter atted 11/10/04 1597
