p94 [G Biava] [From the French.] DEAR BROTHER, - You ask for a few words upon the apostasy. I do not hold to the word apostasy. It expresses the open renunciation of Christianity rather than the abandonment of its principles by those who have made a profession of it. But the thing, as to the reality of it, is of all-importance for heart and conscience. So long as the word was applied only to the votaries of Romanism, one would have had no difficulty about using it; but when it is understood that if this falling away of Christendom has come, the effect of it has been universal, one is shocked by the use of the word.

The open apostasy, then, has not yet come; but the giving up of the authority and efficacy of the word, and of faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost, the substituting the authority of the clergy for the immediate rights of the Lord over the conscience, the denial of justification by faith, and the putting the efficacy of the sacraments in the place of the work of the Holy Spirit - in a word, the full development of "the mystery of iniquity" - shews us an abandonment of the first condition of the church, and of the principles upon which it was founded, which is a moral apostasy. As John says, "You have heard that antichrist shall come: even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Thus the apostasy, in the sense of a public giving up of Christianity, has not come; but the spirit of the apostasy manifests itself, not only in the development of the mystery of iniquity, but in the giving up of Christianity and of the authority of the word, and of Christ Himself, which characterises half the population of Western Europe - rationalism, as it is called, and the spirit of rebellion which accompanies it. The thoughts of man have taken the place of the word of God; they will no longer have its authority: the will of man will no longer have the authority of Christ. If the antichrist is not there, antichrists have been there long since; if the apostasy is not there, the spirit of apostasy has long since taken hold upon the mind of men.

But I said it was a serious matter. If the assembly - for the word "church" is very misleading, since we ask ourselves what the church is - if the assembly of God has not kept its first estate, if it has said, "My Lord delays his coming," and has begun to beat the servants, and to eat and drink and be drunken - and it has done this for a long time, for centuries - it will be cut in sunder and will have its portion with the hypocrites. It is said that Christ built His assembly upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This I believe, thank God, with all my heart. But this has nothing to do with the question. That which Christ built, indeed, will not be overthrown by the enemy; surely not. It is a question of what man has built, in that case it is not so. "I," says Paul, "as a wise master-builder, have laid the foundation … but let every man take heed how he builds thereupon." There it is the responsibility of man, which in some sort - in a certain sense altogether - enters into the question of the building. It is indeed the building of God, the apostle says, but it is built under the responsibility of man: a present thing upon the earth. It is not a question here of the salvation of individuals, but of the condition of the system in which those individuals are. When the end of Judaism under the first covenant came, pious souls - believers - were transferred to the church. God made an end of the dispensation for ever. At the close of the christian dispensation the faithful will be taken to heaven, and judgment will put an end to the system in which they were previously. Nothing is more simple. The old world perished; Noah and his family were saved. The judgment of a system does not touch God's faithfulness, if it does not prove it by making apparent that He keeps His own even when all around them sink under the weight of His judgment. But what can be more solemn than the judgment of that which God established on the earth, that which had been dear to Him? If Jesus could weep over Jerusalem, how deeply ought His people to feel the thought of the coming judgment of that which had a value far more precious than even Jerusalem. It is thus that Jeremiah, the vessel of the lamentations of the Spirit of God under the old economy, in words of rare and touching beauty, shews his deep grief in view of the ruin of that which belonged to God: "The Lord has violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he has destroyed his places of the assembly. … The Lord has cast off his altar, he has abhorred his sanctuary." (Lam. 2:6-7.) This is the spirit in which the faithful one ought to think of the ruin of that which names the name of Christ.

But you will say: Yes, certainly; when it was a question of Judaism, that is plain; but it could not happen to Christianity. In the first place, that is just what the unbelieving Jews in the days of Jeremiah said: "The law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet" - a false confidence this, which brought destruction upon the people and upon the holy city. But there is more than this; it is precisely against this very false confidence that Paul (Rom. 11) solemnly warns Christians from among the Gentiles, that is to say, as drawing a parallel between the Jews and Christendom. "Behold then the goodness and severity of God: upon them who have fallen, severity; upon thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." That is to say, the Christian system among the Gentiles is subject to the same judgment as the Jewish system. If the Gentiles, who stand only by faith, do not continue in the goodness of God, they will suffer a like fate with the Jews. Is Romanism the "continuing in the goodness of God"? Are "perilous times" the result of "continuing in the goodness of God;" or is the "form of godliness, denying the power of it" from which the Christian must "turn away" (2 Tim. 3)? If the apostle could say, "All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ" - is that "continuing in the goodness of God"? If the apostle foresaw that after his departure, evil would immediately intrude itself, the strong hand of the apostle being no longer there to keep the door shut against the adversary; if Jude was compelled to say that those who were the subjects of judgment had already crept into the church; if John had said they had left the Christians, had gone out from them - a step beyond that of which Jude speaks - that there were many antichrists, and that by this they might know that it was the last times; if Peter announces to us that "the time was come that judgment should begin at the house of God" - does all this lead us to believe that the Gentiles have continued in the goodness of God, or that the Christian system established among the Gentiles would be terminated by judgment, the terrible judgment of God; that as to outward profession it is a question of drinking of the cup of His unmingled wrath, or of being spued out of His mouth as nauseous because of its lukewarmness? This is what is so solemn for our consciences. Shall we, as a system, come under God's judgment? The faithful will assuredly enjoy a far more excellent portion, a heavenly glory, but the christian system, as a system on the earth, will be cut off for ever.

With regard to the passages quoted from Mons. Bost, what he says is entirely false. The scriptures speak of the assembly as the habitation of God down here. The whole question lies here. In a house, the question is not of union but of dwelling. With regard to the body of Christ, it could not have dead members. We may deceive men, but in very truth he who is united to the Head is one Spirit. The body is formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12) Then, Christ builds a house which will not be complete till the last stone shall have been placed in it; it grows to be a holy temple in the Lord. But we have seen that down here the building being committed to men, it may be that the house is badly built, and will draw down the judgment of God upon what has been done. That the church has been placed as the pillar and ground of the truth, and that she is still responsible to keep that place, is quite another thing from saying that she has kept it.

Now the first Epistle to Timothy depicts for us the order of the house of God, and how man should behave himself in the house of God. Has he then behaved thus? - this is the question. If he has done so, whence then the papacy? The second Epistle to Timothy directs the conduct of the faithful when confusion has come in. Already christian things were no longer in the condition in which they had been formerly. At the beginning, "the Lord added to the assembly daily such as should be saved." They were manifested, and were added in the sight of the world to a well-known body. Now when the apostle writes his second Epistle to Timothy, this was already changed. All he can say is, "the Lord knows them that are his:" they might indeed be hidden from man, as the seven thousand were from Elijah. But along with this, there is a rule for the faithful one, "Let every one that names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." Then comes the thought of the great house. We must expect to find in a great house vessels to dishonour as well as vessels to honour, but again there is a rule for the faithful one. He must purify himself from the vessels to dishonour, and not only so, he must "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart." In this state of disorder I cannot know, as at the beginning, all those who belong to God; but as to my own walk, I am to associate with those who have a pure heart. Further, in chapter 3, the apostle teaches us that in the last days perilous times shall come, when, under the form of godliness, its power shall be denied. This is not avowed apostasy, for there is a form of godliness; but it is real moral apostasy - the power of it is denied. M. Bost says, I ought to remain in it and be content with it; the apostle bids me "from such turn away" - whom shall I obey?

When he tells me that "it is impossible to distinguish those who are truly faithful from those who make an outward profession," and the apostle says, Let him who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity, and tells me that I must purify myself from the vessels to dishonour and follow after christian graces with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart - how can I listen to one who tells me that it is not possible to distinguish? If he tells me that there may be many souls, known by the Lord, whom I do not recognise; I reply, undoubtedly: the Lord knows those that are His. But I have directions for my conduct in this state of things which contradict yours. I am to recognise and associate myself with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart; consequently to distinguish them. I am to purify myself from the vessels to dishonour; consequently to distinguish them. I am to turn away from those who have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it; I must then clearly recognise those who are such.

Further, it is a frightful principle to say that we cannot distinguish between the children of God and the people of the world - besides it is not true - a frightful principle, for it is said, "By this shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another": now, if I cannot discern them, I cannot love them, and the testimony which God would have is lost. In the next place, it is not true practically, for we enjoy brotherly fellowship, and every faithful Christian makes a difference between a child of God and one who is not. There are some that we do not discern and that God knows: this is not denied. But in this respect the passages which I have quoted from 2 Timothy guide us. What would become of family affection if a father were to say to his children, You cannot tell who are your brothers and who are not; you must associate with everybody, without any distinction whatever?

I do not look into dictionaries, as they tell us to do, but into the hearts and consciences of those who love the Lord, taking the word of God that I may see what was the state of the church at the beginning, and what it is now; and what that word says to inform us as to what the church would become in the last times. The word is as clear as can be as to the decline of the church, and the character of the last times, and as to the setting aside of the christian system. The word is clear enough as to the unity which should subsist as a testimony borne to the world, that it might believe. (John 17) If a letter were addressed by the apostle to the church of God which is at Turin, who would obtain the letter at the Post Office except those of the Roman system? The church, as it was at the beginning, no longer exists. Call it what you will provided that the heart feels that you have at heart the glory of the Lord trodden under foot by men. If the present state of the church is not the great beast which is spoken of, the indifference of conscience which can say so, and cavil as to the use of the word, is the most obvious proof of that lukewarmness which in the end causes Christ to spue the church out of His mouth.

Besides, there is nothing in this failure of the assembly but what is in keeping with the history of man from the beginning. As soon as man was left to himself, he fell, and, unfaithful in his ways, has fallen from his first estate, to which he has never returned. God does not restore it, but He gives salvation by redemption and introduces man into an infinitely more glorious condition in the second Man Jesus Christ. When Noah was saved in the destruction of the whole world, the first thing that we read after his sacrifice is that he gets drunk. When the law was given, before Moses had come down from the mount, Israel had made the golden calf. The first day after the consecration of Aaron, his sons offered strange fire, and entrance into the holy of holies was forbidden to Aaron except on the day of atonement: he never wore his robes of glory and beauty there. David's chief son, Solomon, a type of the Lord, fell into idolatry, and the kingdom immediately fell. God's patience was gloriously displayed in all these cases, but the system which God had established was set aside as a system connected with Him - less obviously in the case of Noah because a formal relationship did not exist in the same way. But the confusion of Babel put an end to the order of the world, and tyranny and wars came in. But with regard to man - Israel, the priesthood, the kingdom - whatever God's patience may have been, man fell at once, and the system was never restored on the old footing. It is not surprising if this is found again in the history of the church, in as far as it is placed under the responsibility of man. It has said, "My Lord delays his coming," and has begun to beat the menservants and the maidservants and to join itself to the world. It will be cut off.

The grand principle of Romanism, and of other systems which are more or less like it, and which makes them essentially false, is that they attribute to Christendom - the assembly organised by means of ordinances - the stability and the unfailing privileges which belong only to that which Christ has built, to that which is the work of the Holy Spirit. All kinds of false doctrines are the result of this error; one is born of God, a member of the body of Christ - then one perishes: one is pardoned - and lost. That is what the article in the Vedetta Cristiana comes to, what the passage quoted by M. Bost involves. He forgets one of the two principal characteristics of the church according to the word, precisely the one where the responsibility of man comes in; that is, of being the habitation of God on the earth. He shews us the title that Ephesians 1 gives us, and overlooks that of Ephesians 2; then he shews us the condition in which the church now is, not surely composed of true members of Christ, without accounting for it, and without giving any information about the matter that might enable us to know whether it is good or bad - whence it comes, where it will end, or how the word judges of this state of things. The expressions which he uses are equivalent to those of the unbelieving Jews in Jeremiah's time - "We are delivered to do all these abominations." No one can say that the state of the church of Christendom is at all in any respect, such as we find it in the word. At the beginning there was no Romanism, no National Church, no Dissenters. There was the church of God, and nothing else; which, it will be said, became very quickly corrupted. Be it so. Has it taken place? But there was a church to corrupt, an assembly into which some men had slipped. Was this corruption a good thing, or does it not bring judgment? Has it not made frightful progress since? Has the church of God been re-established on earth? Ought I to mourn over it? Should I not search in the word to see what its end will be, and pay attention to this? We have quoted this word, let each one judge before God what it says. If we are in grievous times, has not the word given us principles by which we may trace the way in which we ought to walk? If any one has the conviction that we are in those sad times of which he reads in 2 Timothy 2, 3, and will be before God, who has given us those principles, in full confidence in Christ, the result as to his conviction will not be doubtful. May he know how to walk with God!

Let us remember that in every position in which the first Adam failed, man has been gloriously restored in the Second. But this is a subject, interesting as it is, upon which I cannot enter here.

Make any use you like of what I have written, dear brother. I have written hurriedly; from seven in the morning till twelve at night, always at work: meetings every day, then other work of all kinds in correcting new editions of the English and French New Testaments, often at the same time. The brethren are going on well. I did not know who had sent me La Vedetta till I received your letter. It comes a little late, but that does not much matter. The subject is always important. But ever set forth the gospel rather than controversy. I have been writing on Romans; you may find something there which has not yet come out.

Your affectionate brother.

London, November 22nd, 1870.

[52057F]