Biblical Essays
THE SABBATH, THE LAW, AND THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY
(A Scriptural Enquiry)
“I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.”
“Charity thinketh no evil;” and, hence, we shall not allow ourselves to think that anyone could willfully misrepresent our opinions; but it is a well-known fact that the most extravagant ideas are current in reference to these opinions; and while we can leave all those, who have given currency to such ideas, to Him before whose judgment-seat all must stand (2 Cor. 5:10), we, at the same time, deem ourselves responsible “to give a reason of the hope that is in us,” and of the ground we occupy, “with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15), in order to meet those who may be scared away from the consideration of truth, by the fact that monstrous errors are attributed to the persons who profess to hold and teach that truth. We all know how prone we are to receive an opinion ready-made to our hand, rather than take the trouble of investigating matters for ourselves, and comparing what is put before us, not with our own or others’ preconceived judgment or opinion, but with the Word of God.
The Bereans were counted “more noble than those in Thessalonica,” not because they consulted the decrees or traditions of the elders, but because “they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Now, this is precisely what we hope everyone will do. We want all to imitate the “noble” conduct of the Bereans. We want all to “search the Scriptures,” with an unbiased mind. We want all to form personal convictions, not amid the darkness of misrepresentation and prejudice, but amid the pure and hallowed light the page of Inspiration sheds around us. We affectionately entreat everyone to watch against a disposition to think people in error, merely because their position differs from our own. Let us seek for a dispassionate judgment, a calm, well-adjusted mind, and a liberal spirit. In this way, if we cannot agree with people, we will, at least, refrain from hard feelings and hard words, neither of which can possibly serve any desirable end, either for us or others. To ascertain truth is the object of every judicious and reflecting mind, and this object should always be pursued with a spirit freed from the defiling and withering influences of narrow and demoralizing bigotry.
We shall now proceed with the special subject of this essay.
There are three important points in reference to which we are often misrepresented – the Sabbath, the Law, and the Christian Ministry.
The Sabbath
If it were merely a question of the observance or non-observance of a day, it might be easily disposed of, because in Romans 14:5, 6 and also in Colossians 2:16, the apostle teaches us that such things are not to be made a ground of judgment. But seeing there is a great principle involved in the Sabbath question, we deem it to be of importance to place it on a clear and Scriptural basis. We shall quote the Fourth Commandment at full length. “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made-heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it” (Ex. 20:8-11).
This same law is repeated in Exodus 31:12-17. And, in pursuance thereof, we find, in Numbers 15 a man stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath-day. All this is plain and absolute enough. Man has no right to alter God’s law in reference to the Sabbath, no more than he has to alter it in reference to murder, adultery, or theft. We presume this will not be called in question. The entire body of Old Testament Scripture fixes the seventh day as the Sabbath; and the Fourth Commandment lays down the mode in which that Sabbath was to be observed. Now, where, we ask, is this precedent followed? Where is this command obeyed? Is seems plain that Christendom neither keeps the right day, as the Sabbath; nor does she keep it after the Scripture mode. The commandments of God are made of none effect by human traditions and the glorious truths that hang around “The Lord’s Day” are lost sight of. The Jew is robbed of his distinctive day, and all the privileges therewith connected, while judicial blindness hangs over that loved and interesting, though now judged and scattered, people. And, furthermore, the church is robbed of her distinctive day and all the glories therewith connected, which, if really understood, would have the effect of lifting her above earthly things into the sphere that properly belongs to her, as linked by faith to her glorified Head in heaven. In result, we have neither pure Judaism nor pure Christianity, but an anomalous system arising out of an utterly unscriptural combination of the two.
However, we desire to refrain from all attempt at developing the deeply spiritual doctrine involved in this great question, confining ourselves to the plain teaching of Scripture on the subject; and, in so doing, we maintain that if the professing church quotes the Fourth Commandment and parallel Scriptures, in defense of keeping the Sabbath, then it is evident, that, in almost every case, the law is entirely set aside. Observe, the word is, “thou shalt not do any work.” This ought to be perfectly binding on all who take the Jewish ground. There is no room here for introducing what we deem to be “works of necessity,” we may think it necessary to kindle fires, harness horses on the farm, and drive here and there. But the law is stern and absolute, severe and unbending. It will not, it cannot, lower its standard to suit our convenience or accommodate itself to our thoughts. The mandate is, “thou shalt not do any work,” and that on “the seventh day,” which answers to our Saturday. We ask for a single passage of Scripture in which the day is changed, or in which the strict observance of the day is, in the smallest degree, relaxed.
We request pausing and thoroughly searching out this matter in the light of Scripture. Let us not be scared as by some terrible bugbear, but let us, in true Berean nobility of spirit, “search the Scriptures.” By so doing, we find from the second chapter of Genesis down to the last passage where the Sabbath is named, it means the seventh day and none other. Further, there is not so much as a shadow of divine authority for altering the mode of observing that day. Law is law; and, if we are under law, we are bound to keep it or else be cursed, for “it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (See Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10).
But it will be said, “We are not under the Mosaic Law; we are the subjects of the Christian economy.” Granted; fully, freely, and thankfully granted. According to the teaching of Romans 7, 8 and Galatians 3, 4 all true Christians are happy and privileged subjects of the Christian dispensation. But, if so, what is the day that especially characterizes that dispensation? Not “the seventh day,” but “the first day of the week” – “The Lord’s Day.” Pre-eminently, this is the Christian’s day. Let us observe this day, with all the sanctity, sacred reverence, hallowed retirement, elevated tone, of which our new nature is capable. We believe the Christian’s retirement from all secular things cannot possibly be too profound on the Lord’s Day. The idea of anyone calling himself a Christian, making the Lord’s Day a season of what is popularly called recreation, unnecessary traveling, personal convenience, or profit, in temporal things, is shocking to us. We are of opinion that such acting could not be too severely censured. We assert that we have never came in contact with a godly, intelligent, right-minded Christian person who did not love and reverence the Lord’s Day; nor could we have any sympathy with one who deliberately desecrate that holy and happy day.
We are aware that through ignorance or misguided feelings some have said things in reference to the Lord’s Day we repudiate, and they have done things on the Lord’s Day of which we wholly disapprove. We believe that there is a body of New Testament teaching on the important subject of the Lord’s Day, sufficient to give that day its proper place in every well-regulated mind. The Lord Jesus rose from the dead on that day (Matt. 28:1-6; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). He met His disciples once and again on that day (John 20:19, 26). The early disciples met to break bread on that day (Acts 20:7). By the Holy Spirit, the apostle directs the Corinthians to lay by their contributions for the poor on that day (1 Cor.16:2). And, finally, the exiled apostle was in the Spirit and received visions of the future on that day (Rev. 1:10). The above Scriptures are conclusive. They prove that the Lord’s Day occupies a unique place – heavenly and divine. But they as fully prove the entire distinctness of the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. The two days are spoken of throughout the New Testament with fully as much distinctness as we speak of Saturday and Sunday. The only difference is, the latter are heathen titles, and the former divine (Compare Matt. 28:1; Acts 13:14; 17:2; 20:7; Col. 2:16).
Having briefly considered the question of the Jewish Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, we now suggest the following questions, “Where in the Word of God is the Sabbath said to be changed to the first day of the week? Where is there any repeal of the law as to the Sabbath? Where is the authority for altering the day or the mode of observing it? Where, in Scripture, have we such an expression as ‘the Christian Sabbath’? Where is the Lord’s Day ever called the Sabbath?”
We love and honor the pious observance of the Lord’s Day with all our hearts. The gracious Providence of God has ordered it so that we can enjoy the rest and retirement of the Lord’s Day without pecuniary loss. On this very special day we feel called on to abstain from business, giving ourselves to the worship and service of God, not as a matter of cold legality, but as a holy and happy privilege.
It breaks the heart to think that a true Christian would be found taking common ground with the ungodly, profane, thoughtless, and pleasure-hunting multitude, in desecrating the Lord’s Day. It would be sad if the children of the kingdom and the children of this world were to meet in some ungodly location on the Lord’s Day. We feel persuaded that any who, in any wise, profane or treat with lightness the Lord’s Day, act in direct opposition to the Word and Spirit of God.
The above are our personal thoughts in reference to the Lord’s Day, and we therefore consider ourselves unfairly dealt with when we are represented as having any sympathy with the wickedness and infidelity that would propose measures for the open and deliberate profanation of the Lord’s Day. We abhor such measures, and the spirit from which they emanate.
We now proceed to the consideration of the other points.
The Law
Regarding the law, it is looked at in two ways: first, as a ground of justification; and, secondly, as a rule of life. A passage or two of Scripture will suffice to settle both one and the other. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (v. 28). Again, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16).
Then, as to its being a rule of life, we read, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” (Rom. 7:4).
“But now are we delivered from the law, being dead to that [see margin] wherein we were held: that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (v. 6; emphasis added). Observe two things in this last-quoted passage: First, “we are delivered from the law;” Second, not that we may do nature’s pleasure, but “that we should serve in newness of spirit.” Though delivered from bondage, it is our privilege to “serve” in liberty. Again, we read further in the chapter, “And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death” (v. 10). It evidently did not prove to be a rule of life to him. “I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came sin revived, and I died” (v. 9). Whoever “I” represents in this chapter, was alive until the law came, and then he died. Hence, therefore, the law could not have been a rule of life to him; yea, it was the opposite, even a rule of death.
In other words, it is evident that a sinner cannot be justified by the works of the law; and it is equally evident that the law is not the rule of the true believer’s life – “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse” (Gal. 3:10). The law knows no such thing as a distinction between a regenerated and an unregenerated man; it curses all who attempt to stand before it. It rules and curses a man so long as he lives; nor is there anyone who will so fully acknowledge that he cannot keep it as the true believer, and hence no one would be more thoroughly under the curse.
What, therefore, is the ground of our justification? And what is our rule of life? The Word of God answers, “We are justified by the faith of Christ,” and Christ is our rule of life. He bore all our sins in His Own body on the tree; He was made a curse for us, on our behalf He denied the cup of God’s righteous wrath; He deprived death of its sting, and the grave of its victory; He gave up His life for us; He went down into death, where we lay, in order that He might bring us up in eternal association with Him in life, righteousness, favor, and glory before our God and His God, our Father and His Father 1. One who will prayerfully ponder all these passages of Scripture will clearly see that we are not justified by the works of the law; and not only so, but he will see how we are justified. He will see the deep and solid foundations of the Christian’s life, righteousness, and peace, planned in God’s eternal counsels, laid in the finished atonement of Christ, developed by God the Holy Spirit in the Word, and made good in the happy experience of all true believers.
Then, as to the believer’s rule of life, the apostle does not say, to me to live is the law, but “To me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). Christ is our rule, model, touchstone, and our all. The continual inquiry of the Christian should be, not is this or that according to law? But, is it like Christ? The law could never teach us to love, bless, and pray for our enemies; but this is exactly what the Gospel teaches us to do, and what the divine nature leads us to do. “Love is the fulfilling of the law,” and yet were we to seek justification by the law, we would be lost; and were we to make the law our standard of action we would fall far short of our proper mark. We are predestinated to be conformed; not to the law, but to the image of God’s Son. We are to be like Him 2.
It may seem a paradox to some to be told that “the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:4), and yet that we cannot be justified by the law, nor make the law our rule of life. Nevertheless, thus it is if we are to form our convictions by the Word of God. Nor is there any difficulty to the renewed mind in understanding this blessed doctrine. By nature we are “dead in trespasses and sins,” and what can a dead man do? How can a man get life by keeping that which requires life to keep it – a life he does not have? And how do we get life? Christ is our life. We live in Him who died for us; we are blessed in Him who became a curse for us by hanging on a tree; we are righteous in Him who was made sin for us; we are brought nigh in Him who was cast out for us 3. Having life and righteousness in Christ, we are called to walk as He walked, and not merely to walk as a Jew. We are called to purify ourselves even as He is pure; to walk in His footsteps; to show forth His virtues; to manifest His Spirit 4.
We close our remarks on this part by suggesting two questions: (1) would the Ten Commandments without the New Testament be a sufficient rule of life for the believer? (2) Would the New Testament be a sufficient rule without the Ten Commandments? Surely that which is insufficient cannot be our rule of life.
We receive the Ten Commandments as part of the canon of Inspiration; and, further, we believe that the law remains in full force to rule and curse a man as long as he lives. Let a sinner try to get life by it, and see where it puts him; and let a believer shape his way according to it, and see what it makes of him. We are fully convinced that if a man is walking according to the spirit of the Gospel, he will not commit murder nor steal; but we are also convinced, that a man, confining himself to the standard of the law of Moses, would fall far short of the spirit of the Gospel.
The subject of “the law” demands much more elaborate exposition, but the limits of this essay do not allow it, and therefore we entreat all to look for the various passages of Scripture referred to and carefully ponder them. In this way we feel assured he will arrive at a sound conclusion, independent of all human teaching and influence. He will see how that a man is freely justified by the grace of God, through faith in a crucified and risen Christ; that he is made a partaker of divine life, introduced into a condition of divine and everlasting righteousness and consequent exemption from all condemnation; that in this holy and elevated position, Christ is his object, theme, model, rule, hope, joy, strength, his all; that the hope set before him is to be with Jesus where He is, and to be like Him forever. And he will also see that if, as a lost sinner, he has found pardon and peace at the foot of the cross, He is not, as an accepted and adopted son, sent back to the foot of Mount Sinai, there to be terrified and repulsed by the terrible anathemas of a broken law. The Father could not think of ruling with an iron law the prodigal whom He had received in purest, deepest, richest grace to His bosom. No; “Being justified by faith we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace; wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1, 2). The true believer is not justified by works, but by faith; he stands not in law, but in grace; and he waits not for judgment, but for glory.
The Christian Ministry
We now come to briefly treat the subject of the Christian ministry, in reference to which we hold to be a divine institution – its source, its power; its characteristics are all divine and heavenly. We believe that in resurrection the great Head of the church received gifts for His body. He, and not the church, or any section of the church, is the reservoir of the gifts. They are vested in Him, and not in the church. He imparts them as, and to whom He will. No man, nor body of men, can impart gifts. This is Christ’s prerogative, and His alone. We believe that when He imparts a gift, the man who receives that gift is responsible to exercise the same, whether as an evangelist, an elder/pastor, or teacher, independently of human authority.
We do not believe that all are endowed with the above gifts, though all have some ministry to fulfill. All are not evangelists, elders/pastors, and teachers. Such precious gifts are only administered according to the sovereign will of the divine Head of the church. Man has no right to interfere with them. Wherever they really exist, it is the place of the assembly to recognize them with devout thankfulness. Christians are exhorted to remember them that are over them in the Lord, to know them that guide them, and those who addict themselves to the ministry of the saints and those who have spoken to them the Word of life. Were they to refuse to do so, they would be forsaking and rejecting their own mercies, for all things are theirs 5.
All this is simple enough. We can easily see where a man is divinely qualified for any department of ministry. It is not whether a man says he has a gift, but if in reality he has it. A man may say he has a gift on the same principle as he may say he has faith (James 2:14), and it may only be an empty conceit of his own ill-adjusted mind, that a spiritual assembly may not recognize. God deals in realities. A divinely-gifted evangelist is a reality; a teacher is a reality; an elder, i.e. pastor, is a reality; and such will be duly recognized, thankfully received, and counted worthy of all esteem and honor for their work’s sake.
Now, we hold that unless a man has a bona fide gift imparted to him by the Head of the church, all the instruction, education, and all the training that men could impart to him would not constitute him a Christian minister. If a man has a gift, he is responsible to exercise, cultivate, and wait on his gift. Such a one may, or may not, be extensively read in human literature; he may, or he may not, be able to enlist his extensive reading in the Master’s service. But, clearly, if a man has only the qualifications that human literature, human science, and human culture can impart, he is no more competent to be a Christian minister than a self-constituted quack is entitled to be regarded by the faculty of medicine as a duly-recognized practitioner.
Let us not be misunderstood. We hold that unless a man has a direct gift from Christ, though he had all the learning of a Newton, all the philosophy of a Bacon, all the eloquence of a Demosthenes, he is not a Christian minister. He may be a gifted and efficient minister of religion, so called; but a minister of religion and a minister of Christ are two different things. And, further, we believe that where the Lord Christ has bestowed a gift, that gift makes the possessor thereof a Christian minister, whom all true Christians are bound to accept and receive, apart from human appointment. Whereas, though a man had all the human qualifications, human titles, and human authority that it is possible to possess, and yet lacked that one grand reality, namely, Christ’s gift, he is not a minister of Christ.
Such is our judgment regarding the divine institution of the ministry; and hence, it is not fair or candid to accuse us of throwing that institution overboard. God forbid. We bless His name for Christian ministry; and we feel assured that there are many truly gifted servants of Christ around us; but they are ministers of Christ on the ground of possessing His gift, and not on the ground of man’s ordination. Man cannot add anything to a heaven-bestowed gift. As well might he attempt to add a shade to the rainbow, a tint to the violet, motion to the waves, height to the snow-capped mountains, or daub, with a painter’s brush, the peacock’s plumage, as attempt to render more efficient, by his puny authority, the gift that has come down from the risen and glorified Head of the church. No; the vine, the olive, and the fig tree, in Jotham’s parable (Judg. 9), needed not the appointment of the other trees. God had implanted in each its specific virtue. It was only the worthless bramble that hailed with delight an appointment that raised it from the position of a real nothing to be an official something. Thus it is with a divinely-gifted man. He has what God has given him; he wants, he needs, he asks no more. He rises above the narrow enclosures that man’s authority would erect around him, and plants his foot on that elevated ground where prophets and apostles have stood. He feels that it lies not within the range of the schools and colleges of this world, to open to him his proper sphere of action. It appertains not to them to provide a setting for the precious gem that sovereign grace has imparted. The hand that has bestowed the gem can alone provide the proper setting. The grace which has implanted the gift can alone throw open a proper sphere for its exercise. What! Can it be possible that those gifts which emanate from the church’s triumphant and glorious Lord are not available for her edification, until they are dragged through the mire of a heathen mythology? As well might we say that the fatness of the olive and the pure blood of the grape must be mingled with the contents of a quagmire to render them available for human use.
But, it may be asked, “Were there not elders/pastors and deacons in the early church, and should we not likewise have such?” Unquestionably, there were elders, i.e. pastors, and deacons in the early church. They were appointed by the apostles, or those whom the apostles deputed. That is to say, they were appointed by the Holy Spirit, the only One who could then, or can now, appoint them. We believe that none but God can make or appoint an elder/pastor; and, therefore, for man to set about such work, is but a powerless form, an empty name. Men may, and do, point us to the shadows of their own creation, and call on us to recognize in those shadows divine realities; but, when we examine them in the light of Holy Scripture, we cannot even trace the outline, to say nothing of the living, speaking, and features of the divine original.
We see divinely-appointed elders, i.e. pastors, in the New Testament, and we see humanly-appointed elders/pastors in Christendom; but we cannot accept the latter as a substitute for the former. We cannot accept a mere shadow in lieu of the substance. Neither do we believe that men have any divine authority for their act when they set about making and appointing elders/pastors. We believe that when Paul, or Timothy, or Titus ordained elders, i.e. pastors, they did so as acting by the power and under the direct authority of the Holy Spirit; but we deny that any man, or body of men, can so act now. We believe it was the Holy Spirit then, and it must be the Holy Spirit now. Human assumption is perfectly contemptible. If God raises up an elder/pastor we thankfully accept him. He can and does raise up such. He does raise up men fitted by His Spirit to take the oversight of His flock; to feed His lambs and sheep. His hand is not shortened that He cannot provide those blessings for His church, even amid its humiliating ruins. The reservoir of spiritual gift in Christ, the Head, is not so exhausted that He cannot shed forth on His body all that is needed for the edification thereof.
We are of opinion that, were it not for our impatient attempts to provide for ourselves, by making elders/pastors of our own, we would be far more richly endowed with elders/pastors and teachers after God’s own heart. We need not marvel that He leaves us to our own resources when, by unbelief, we limit Him in His. Instead of “proving” Him we “limit” Him; and, therefore, we are shorn of our strength, and left in barrenness and desolation; or, what is worse, we find ourselves in the miserable provision of human expediency.
However, if we do not have God’s reality we believe it is far better to remain in the position of real, felt, confessed weakness, than to put forth the hollow assumption of strength. We believe it is better to be real in our poverty than to put on the appearance of wealth. It is infinitely better to wait on God to whatever He may be pleased to bestow, than to limit His grace by our unbelief, or hinder His provision for us by making provision for ourselves.
We ask, “Where is the church’s warrant for calling, making, or appointing elders (i.e. pastors)? Where have we an instance in the New Testament of a church electing its own elders/pastor?” Acts 1:23-26 has often been adduced in proof. But the very wording of the passage is sufficient to prove that it furnishes no warrant whatsoever. Even the eleven apostles could not elect a brother apostle, but had to commit it to higher authority. Their words are, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all, show whether of these two thou hast chosen.” This is plain. They did not attempt to choose. God knew the heart. He had formed the vessel. He had put the treasure therein, and He alone could appoint it to its proper place.
Therefore, it is evident that the case of the eleven apostles calling on the Lord to choose a man to fill up their number, affords no precedent whatsoever for a congregation electing an elder/pastor; it is entirely against any such practice. God alone can make or appoint an apostle or an elder/pastor, or an evangelist. This is our firm belief, and we ask for Scripture proof of its unsoundness. Human opinion will not avail; tradition will not avail; expediency will not avail. Let us be taught from the Word of God, that the early church always elected its own elders/pastors or teachers. 6 We positively affirm that there is not so much as a single line of Scripture in proof of any such custom. If we could only find direction in the Word of God to make and appoint elders/pastors, we would at once seek to carry such direction into effect; but, in the absence of any divine warrant, we can only regard it as a mimicry on our part to attempt such a thing. Why was not the church at Ephesus, or why were not the churches at Crete, directed to elect or appoint elders (i.e. pastors)? Why was the direction given to Timothy and Titus, without the slightest reference to the church or to any part of the church? Because, as we believe, Timothy and Titus acted by the direct power and under the direct authority of God the Holy Spirit, and, hence, their appointment was to be regarded as divine by the church.
But where do we have anything like this now? Where is the Timothy or Titus now? Where is there the least intimation in the New Testament that there should be a succession of men invested with the power to ordain elders/pastors? True, in his Second Epistle to Timothy the Apostle Paul says, “The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). But there is not a word here about a succession of men having power to ordain elders/pastors. Assuredly, teaching is not ordination, still less is it imparting the power to ordain. If the inspired apostle had meant to convey to the mind of Timothy that he was to commit to others authority to ordain, and that such authority was to descend by a regular chain of succession, he could and would have done so, and in that case, the passage would have run thus: “The power which has been vested in you, the same do thou vest in faithful men, that they may be able also to ordain others.”
However, such is not the case; and we deny that there is any man, or body of men, now on earth, possessing power to ordain elders/pastors, nor was that power or authority ever committed to the church. We hold it to be absolutely divine, and, therefore, when God sends an elder/pastor, an evangelist or teacher, we thankfully hail the heaven bestowed gift; but we desire to be delivered from all empty pretension. We seek God’s reality or nothing. We will have heaven’s genuine coin, not earth’s counterfeit. Like the Tirshatha of old, who said “that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” (Ezra 2:63), so would we say if it must be so, remain without office-bearers than substitute the shadows of our own creation for God’s realities. Ezra could not accept the pretensions of men. Men might say they were priests, but if they could not produce the divine warrant and divine qualifications, they were rejected. In order for a man to be entitled to approach the altar of the God of Israel, he should not only be descended from Aaron, but also be free from every bodily blemish (See Lev. 21:16-23). So, now, in order for any man to minister in the church of our Lord, he must be a regenerated man, and have the necessary spiritual qualifications. Even St. Paul, in his powerful appeal to the conscience and judgment of the church at Corinth, refers to his spiritual gifts and the fruits of his labor as the indisputable evidences of his apostleship (See 2 Cor. 10; 12).
Before dismissing the subject of the Christian Ministry, we offer a remark on the practice of laying on of hands, which is presented in the New Testament in two ways. First, we find it connected with the communication of a positive gift. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:14). This is again referred to in the second epistle: “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). This latter passage fixes the import of the expression “presbytery,” as used in the first epistle. Both passages prove that in Timothy’s case the act of laying on of hands was connected with the imparting of a gift. But, secondly, we find the laying on of hands adopted simply for the purpose of expressing full fellowship and identification, as in Acts 13:3. It could not possibly mean ordination in this passage, because Paul and Barnabas had been in the ministry long before. It simply gave beautiful expression to the full identification of their brethren in that work unto which the Holy Spirit had called them, and to which He alone could send them forth.
It is our belief that the laying on of hands as expressing ordination is worth nothing, without the power to impart a gift; but if it be merely adopted as the expression of full fellowship in any special work or mission, we would rejoice in it. For example, if two or three brethren felt called of God to go on an evangelistic mission to Africa, and those with whom they were in communion perceived in them the needed gift and grace for such a work, we would deem it exceedingly happy were they to set forth their unqualified approval and brotherly fellowship by the act of laying on of hands. Beyond this we can see no value whatsoever in that act.
Thus, so far as our limits permit, we have briefly treated the questions of the Sabbath, the Law, and the Christian ministry – having hopefully shown that we honor and observe the Lord’s Day, that we give the Law its divinely-appointed place, and, finally, that we uphold the sacred and precious institution of the Christian Ministry. We might close this essay, did we not feel called on to meet another charge someone might through against us, i.e., the maintenance of a Jesuitical reserve regarding our peculiar opinions until such time as we have persons under our influence. Such a charge would be totally unfounded. In our general teaching and preaching, we seek to set forth the fundamental truths of the Gospel, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture, the eternal counsels of God regarding His elect, and yet the fullest and freest presentation of His love to a lost world; the solemn responsibility of everyone who heard the glad tidings of salvation to accept the same; man’s total ruin by nature and by practice; his inability to help himself in thought, word, or deed; the utter corruption of his will; Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection; His absolute deity and perfect humanity in one person; the perfect efficacy of His blood to cleanse from all sin; perfect justification and sanctification by faith in Christ, through the operation of God the Holy Spirit; the eternal security of all true believers; the entire separation of the church in calling, standing, and hope, from this present world.
Further, we hold that the hope of the true believer is set forth in these words of Christ: “I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am there ye may be also” (John 14:3). We believe that the early Christians were converted to “that blessed hope;” that it was the common hope of Christians in apostolic times. To adduce proofs would swell this essay into a volume.
Furthermore, we believe that all disciples should meet on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7), and when so met, they should look to the Head of the church to furnish the needed gifts, and to the Holy Spirit to guide in the due administration of these gifts.
We accept the truth of baptism exactly as revealed in God’s Holy Word, when the apostle Peter answered the question of those cut to the heart who desired to know what they must do (Acts 2), and we look on it as a beautiful expression of the truth that as believers we are associated with Christ in death and resurrection 7.
Regarding the precious institution of the Lord’s Supper, we believe that Christians should celebrate it on every Lord’s Day, and that, in so doing, they commemorate the Lord’s death until He come. We believe that, as baptism sets forth our death with Christ, so the Lord’s Supper sets forth Christ’s death for us. We do not see any authority in the Word of God for regarding the Lord’s Supper as “a sacrifice,” “a sacrament,” or “a covenant.” The word is, “This do in remembrance of me” 8.
The above is a brief but explicit statement of our opinions and practice, and we affectionately ask where anything of the Jesuit is? We meet in public, our worship meetings, our prayer meetings, our Bible-teaching meetings, our lectures, our Gospel preaching, are all open to the public.
No intelligent person could suppose that in preaching the Gospel to the unconverted we ought to introduce the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, or the church of our Lord. The Lord Jesus spoke the Word to the people “as they were able to hear it” (Mark 4:33). The Holy Spirit, by the apostle, did the same 9. Should not every judicious teacher adapt his instructions to the condition of the taught? Who would teach conic sections or Euclid’s elements to a child who had just learned the alphabet? At all times, it must be a question of spiritual wisdom as to what character of truth one ought to bring before those with whom he comes in contact; and sometimes it may be a question of grace to withhold a topic that would only produce controversy and hinder Christian fellowship; but surely wisdom and grace should not to be dubbed with the opprobrious epithet of Jesuitical reserve.
In these closing lines, we entreat all to “search the Scriptures” – to try everything by that standard. We pray that all of us will see to it that we have plain Scripture for everything with which we are connected. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is. 8:20).
We can honestly say we love those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; and wherever there is one who preaches a full, free and everlasting salvation through the blood of the Lamb to perishing sinners, we wish him Godspeed, in the name of the Lord.
We now commend the reader to the blessing of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If he be a true believer, we pray that in his course down here he may be a bright and faithful witness for his absent Lord. But if he be one who has not yet found peace in Jesus, we say with solemn emphasis and earnest affection, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
Footnotes:
1 John 20:17; Romans 4:25; 5:1-10; 6:1-11; 7. passim, Romans 8:1-4; 1 Corinthians 1:30, 31; 6:11; 15:55-57; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 3:13, 25-29; 4:31; Ephesians 1:19-23; 2:1-6; Colossians 2:10-15; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Peter 1:23.
2 Matthew 5:21-48; Romans 8:29; 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Galatians 5:14-26; Ephesians 1:3-5; Philippians 3:20, 21; 2:5; 4:8; Colossians 3:1-7.
3 Romans 5:6-15; Ephesians 2:4-6; Galatians 3:13.
4 John 13:14, 15; 17:14-19; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6, 29; 3:3.
5 Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 3:21-23; 12; 14; 16:15; Galatians 1:11-17; Ephesians 4:7-16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13; Hebrews 13:7, 17; 1 Peter 4:10, 11.
6 Perhaps we’ll be forgiven for here offering a personal opinion or remark regarding the appointment of Deacons in Acts 6. This case hasbeen adduced in proof of the rightness of a congregation electing its own elders (i.e. pastor); but the proof fails in every particular. In the first place, the business of those deacons was “to serve tables.” Their functions as deacons were temporal, not spiritual. They might possess spiritual gift, independently altogether of their deaconship. Stephen possessed such. But more than this. Although the disciples were called on to look out for men competent to take charge of their temporal affairs, yet the apostles alone could appoint them. Their words are, “Whom we may appoint over this business.” In other words, although there is a vast difference between a deacon and an elder/pastor, between taking charge of money and taking the oversight of souls, yet even in the matter of a deacon, the appointment in Acts 6 was entirely divine; and hence it affords no warrant for a church electing its own elder/pastor. We might further add that office and gift are clearly distinguished in the Word of God. There might be, and were many elders (i.e. pastors) and deacons in any given church, and yet the fullest and freest exercise of gift when the whole church came together into one place. Elders/pastors and deacons might or might not have the gift of teaching or exhortation. Such gift was independent of their special office. In 1 Corinthians 14, where it is said, “Ye may all prophecy one by one” and where we have a full view of the public assembly, there is not a word about an elder/pastor or a president of any kind whatsoever.
7 Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:38; 10:47, 48; 16:33; Romans 6:3, 4.
8 Matthew 26:26, 28; Mark 14:22- 24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26.
9 1 Corinthians 3:1, 2; Hebrews 5:11-14.
