Do the Old Testament Saints Form Part of It. *
("Does 'the Bride' include the Old Testament Saints?" "Old Testament Saints." Two articles in the "Quarterly Journal of Prophecy," for January and April, 1857.)
Reviews.
Bible Treasury, 2nd Edition, Volume 1, June 1857.
(1st Edition, June 1857 [01:202])
(1) [01:198]
Few questions can compare in importance with those which relate to the nature, calling, privileges, responsibilities, and destiny of "the Church of God." There are indeed questions of foundation-truth, as to God Himself, as to the person and sacrifice of His beloved Son, and as to the application of His saving benefits by the Spirit through faith, which take precedence of all others. But where these, through the mercy of God, are settled questions, and the soul by faith knows God in Christ, through the quickening operation of the Holy Ghost, it finds itself associated with many others in the blessedness to which it is thus introduced; and there can scarcely then be a more important enquiry than this, What has God revealed touching the corporate standing of those who are thus linked together by their enjoyment of the common salvation? In what relation do they stand to God? to Christ? to the Holy Spirit? to one another? and to the world? If these mutual and corporate relations do form a subject of inspired instruction, how much must depend on our reception of it, as to intelligent communion, enlightened obedience, faithful testimony, and fruitfulness in every way to the glory of God.
We hesitate, not to avow our conviction, that God has fully revealed His mind on these subjects; and we believe spiritual acquaintance therewith, to be one of the most pressing wants of Christians generally in the present day. With this conviction, we hail the appearance of the papers before us. Hostile as they are, to what we deem the scripture doctrine of "the Church," their publication indicates the hold which that doctrine has gained on many minds; and it tends at the same time, to promote still further enquiry. Total silence as to this doctrine has, for years, been observed by some, who have viewed its propagation with no friendly eye; and that now they should deem it needful openly to resist it, only shows the extent to which, through the mercy of God, it has forced itself on the attention of His people. Nor do we intend anything unkind to the writer (or writers) of these articles, when we add, that the character of their opposition in no degree abates our confidence in the doctrine they assail. For what mode of discussion have they chosen to adopt? Do they meet the whole question fairly in the face, and examine, and test by scripture, the definition of "the Church," given by those whose views they controvert? Do they consider in detail the array of New Testament evidence, by which that definition is sustained? Do they demolish thus the position they assail, and afterwards proceed to give their own definition of the principal term in question, demonstrating, by scripture quotations, that such is its universal or even its ordinary signification and use, in God's holy word? To have discussed the question thus, would have brought it fairly to the test of scripture, and would evidently, on the whole, have best promoted the interests of truth. But we see no want of charity in supposing, that this (or some similar mode of discussion) would have been the course adopted, had it afforded any prospect of success. So far from this, is the line actually pursued in these articles, that, evading the primary question as to what "the Church" is, and silently passing over what has been advanced on this subject, they rest their whole case on objections, having reference to the Old Testament saints, and their place in the scene of future glory. This is little more than a collateral, and certainly a very subordinate question. It derives its importance from the bearing it is represented as having on the general subject. Had more direct and weighty arguments been at command, we may be sure, from the animus of these papers, especially the last, that they would have been employed. But as the inferential reasoning on subordinate points which is used, might lead some to prejudge the whole question, and settle down in conclusions unwarranted by scripture, contrary to its scope, and subversive of some of its plainest teachings on the primary and specific subject of what "the Church" really is, we are ready to examine all that these papers contain. But as truth and edification, not controversy and triumph, are the objects we desire to keep in view, the editor of the Quarterly Journal and his contributor (or contributors) must excuse us, if we seek to keep in relief what they have sought to put in the shade, the doctrine of the New Testament as to what constitutes "the Church of God."
1. We believe that what scripture terms "the Church," did not exist in Old Testament times. If it did, where are the passages which prove it? Where in the Old Testament does the phrase occur? Or where is the subject treated of under any other terms? If there be passages in the ancient scriptures which recognise "the Church" as then existing, what could be easier than to produce them? or what so decisive of the question which these articles discuss? But no such passages are produced; and for the best of reasons, that none such can be found. Indeed these articles themselves do not contend that "the Church" existed on earth in Old Testament times. One of them, the second, admits that "Abraham and the Old Testament saints had not the same fullness of light, nor the same dispensational privileges, as were possessed by Peter, and Paul, and John. Neither the Old Testament saints, nor even John the Baptist, who came between the Old Testament and the New, were dispensationally in the kingdom of heaven as an economy on the earth." (pp. 98, 99.) Now we are far from accepting the quiet assumption of the writer, that "the Church" and "the kingdom of heaven" are equivalent terms; but this affects not his admission, that there are dispensational differences between Old Testament saints and such as are under the "economy" at present existing on "earth." His estimate of these differences may be, that they are of little importance; and he may contend that "heaven is not made a transcript of the dispensational differences of earth;" but the question is, In what light does scripture present these differences? They would certainly not seem unimportant, from such words as the following; words, be it remembered, not addressed to "the Church," but to the disciples during the life-time of our Lord on earth. Even at that time we are told, "he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them." (Luke 10:23-24.) And the disciples were far from having at that time heard or seen the whole of what was intended for them. It was long after this, and just on the eve of their Lord's departure, that He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12-13.) Surely, if what they saw and heard, in the earlier stage of their tuition by our Lord Himself, had been the object of longing, but unsatisfied, desire to the saints of former ages, there must be a still greater chasm between all that those Old Testament saints enjoyed, and the blessedness of the disciples, when the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, had come. Dispensational differences there were, as the articles under review admit: but they were of a character such as these articles would never suggest. This will become more apparent as we proceed. Meanwhile, it is well to remember, that it is not even contended in these articles, that "the Church" existed on earth in Old Testament times.
2. There did exist in those ancient days, and that as recognised of God, a state of things quite incompatible with the scriptural conditions of the existence of "the Church." In "the Church" there is neither Jew nor Gentile; while in Old Testament times these words expressed a distinction divinely instituted, and which might on no account be set aside. To neglect the appointed feasts and holy days was, in the last dispensation, a sin so grievous, that Israel's captivity and dispersion are said to be, that the land might "enjoy her sabbaths; as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land, even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate, it shall rest because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it." (Lev. 26:34-35.) Now, to "observe days, and months, and times, and years," is enough to make an apostle stand in doubt of those who do so. (Gal. 4:10.) Then, there was one place, where the Lord had chosen to place His name, and there alone might He be approached and worshipped. Now, no special sanctity attaches to one place rather than another, but "where two or three are gathered," says our Lord, "in my name, there am I in the midst of them." "The uncircumcised" was then an appellation resting upon all but the favoured, separated race: now we read, "I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." This may surely serve to show, that the differences we are contemplating are not mere variations of circumstance or detail, but radical, fundamental differences. Let it not be forgotten, either, that there were true saints at that time — pardoned, no doubt, and made heirs of ultimate, everlasting felicity, through the retrospective efficacy of Christ's precious blood. But the grace by which such chosen ones were saved, so far from placing them outside the frame-work of the dispensation under which they lived, inclined their hearts to observe, with a faithfulness peculiar to themselves, both the principles and institutions of that economy. With them it was obedience and faithfulness to observe, what it is faithfulness in "the Church" to disregard. How evident that "the Church", not only did not, but could not then exist.
3. It was not even by the incarnation, or the personal ministry of our Lord upon earth, that "the Church" was formed. No doubt the incarnation was an essential pre-requisite to the formation of "the Church," just as it was to the accomplishment of redemption. But redemption was accomplished, not by incarnation, but by the cross. And while the wondrous Person, confessed by Peter as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," was beyond all question "the Rock," on which not "the Church" only, but all who shall be saved everlastingly are built, we have the authority of that Blessed One Himself for the assurance, that but for His death He must have continued "alone." He was the foundation; but it was in His death on the cross that He was laid as such; and in His very reply to Peter, in which He speaks of Himself as the "Rock" on which "the Church" was to be built, He speaks of the building of it, as a then future work. He does not say "upon this rock I have built," or "am building," but "upon this rock I will build my church." And, as though to intimate at once how He was to be laid as the foundation of this edifice, "from that time forth, began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matt. 16:21.)
"The Church" is again mentioned in Matt. 18 "tell it to the Church." But here also, our Lord evidently speaks anticipatively of His own departure, and of the time when His name should replace His bodily presence, as the centre around which His disciples should be gathered. John 16:23-24, shows, that while He continued with them, they did not ask in His name, but that they were to do so, when His bodily presence had been withdrawn. One thing is undeniable: that where Christ Himself mentions "the Church" He speaks of its formation as a then future event. The above are the only two instances in which we read of the word being used by Him; and further investigation will show, that where without the use of this term, the subject is contemplated in His discourses, He speaks of the existence of "the Church," as well as of that by which it exists, as dependent on His own departure.
4. It was not till after His ascension, that our Lord baptised with the Holy Ghost, and it is by this baptism, that "the Church" exists. If there be one function or prerogative of Christ more insisted on in the gospels than any other, as essentially distinctive of His person and office, it is that of baptising with the Holy Ghost. It is omitted by none of the evangelists. Their histories of our Lord's forerunner vary in length and in minuteness; but each records his testimony, that the greater, the mightier than he, should "baptise with the Holy Ghost." Each records also, in connection therewith, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon our Lord Himself. But on this point, John the Baptist's testimony, as recorded by the beloved disciple, is of deep and special interest. "And I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost." (John 1:33.) What function could be more essentially divine than this? Who but a divine person could dispense, as of His own bounty, heaven's richest treasure? Who else could baptise with the Holy Ghost? And yet He to whom this distinctive glory belonged, was Himself a man, undistinguishable from others even by His own forerunner, till marked out to Him by His reception of that which He was afterwards to bestow. How deep and real was the humiliation of the One who had thus "descended" low enough to receive, as man, that gift of the Holy Ghost, which He alone, as God, could bestow! Surely it behoves us, with unshod feet, and in the spirit of lowliest worship, to tread such holy ground, as that on which these wonders unfold themselves.
But when was this Blessed One to baptise with the Holy Ghost? Was this among the miracles of love and mercy with which His service on earth was replete? Or was it reserved as the crowning miracle, which was to signalise His ascension to heaven, when He had been rejected and crucified on earth? With any one familiar with the New Testament, to ask this question is to answer it. It was after His resurrection that our Lord, "being assembled together with" His disciples, "commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of Me: for John truly baptised with water; but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts 1:5-6). On this passage we would remark:
1. How the Lord refers to the baptism of John; literally quoting his words, as though to place beyond dispute, that the event of which He Himself now spake as imminent, was to be the definite accomplishment of John's well-known prediction concerning Him. The prophecy, and its imminent fulfilment, are placed by our Lord in juxta-position, that their relation to each other may be perceived by all.
2. This passage demonstrates, that when these words were spoken by the risen Saviour, the baptism with the Holy Ghost had not yet taken place. If the disciples had not received it, on whom could it have been conferred?
3. It is equally clear, that this baptism was none other than the descent of the Holy Ghost, ten days after these words were uttered. The disciples were not to depart from Jerusalem but wait, for they should be baptised with the Holy Ghost "not many days hence."
4. Our Lord identifies this baptism with "the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye have heard of me." Can there be a doubt that He here refers to His closing discourse to His disciples, in John 14 – John 16? There, it is admitted by all, the promise of the Spirit is to be understood of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. And when to all this is added the fact, that the first mention of "the Church" historically, as actually existing, is immediately after the record of this event, it may well be asked how demonstration could be more complete, than that which is thus afforded, that "the Church" began to exist on the day of Pentecost?
"And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." This first historical mention of "the Church," so soon after the descent of the Spirit, is no mere incidental, fortuitous connection of events. It is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that "the Church" exists; and there could be no mention of the effect, save anticipatively, before the cause which produces it was in operation. In the chapter in which Paul treats expressly of these subjects — in which he says, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," — in which he speaks of God having set apostles, prophets, etc., "in the church," — in that very chapter he says, "For by one Spirit we are all baptised 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" (1 Cor. 12:13). Could there be a more express declaration, that it is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that "the Church" — "the body of Christ" — exists?
5. What is this baptism of the Holy Ghost? A most momentous question, and of the deepest importance to the correct apprehension of the subject before us. The second of the two articles under review, referring to such as hold the views we are propounding, says, "Abraham and the Old Testament saints, say they, are to be excluded, because they did not receive, whilst on earth, the Holy Spirit, in the same manner * as we have received it, who have lived since Pentecost." Let us see whether Christ and His apostles so speak of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as to warrant observations tending, as these do (however unconsciously to the writer), to depreciate its importance. Let us see whether they treat it as a mere receiving of the Spirit in a different manner from the Old Testament saints. What is the baptism with the Holy Ghost?
{* The italics are thus printed in the article itself.}
First, as to the expression "received" — "because they (the Old Testament saints) did not receive, while on earth, the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as we." The writer's view evidently is, that the Old Testament saints, and we who have lived since Pentecost, have all received the Holy Ghost, only in a different manner. Turn then, dear reader, to John 7:37-38. "In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." What means this wondrous announcement? was it of a blessedness to be at once, during the Saviour's lifetime on earth, experienced by thirsty souls who came to Him to drink, that He thus spake? was it then, at that very time, that such were not only to be themselves refreshed by the living water, but also to be channels through which rivers of it should flow to others? The largeness and graciousness of the Saviour's words might seem to have left them open to this construction. But to prevent this — to prevent all misapprehension as to what those rivers of living were, or as to when they were to flow, the beloved disciple is inspired of God to add, "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." If then, our Lord's own words, authoritatively expounded by the Holy Ghost, are to decide the question, the difference between saints before, and saints after Pentecost, is not a mere difference in the manner of receiving the Spirit. What scripture calls receiving the Spirit had no existence, and could not have, till Jesus was glorified. "The Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive." And as though to preclude the possibility of a question, we are told, "for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]," — surely then not yet received — "because that Jesus was not yet glorified."
Do we then deny that there were "saints" in Old Testament times? or maintain that before Pentecost, people became saints without the operation of the Spirit? Far be the thought! We have never for a moment questioned the "saintship" of Abraham, Moses, and others: * nor have we ever imagined that any man, in any age, could become a saint, save by the agency and work of God the Holy Ghost. But scripture distinguishes what our brethren unwittingly confound. It distinguishes "the baptism with the Holy Ghost" — "the gift of the Holy Ghost" — "the receiving of the Holy Ghost" — from those operations of the Spirit by which, equally before and after Pentecost, souls are quickened and renewed. Because the faith that saves, as well as every gracious temper, and holy act resulting therefrom, are, and always have been wrought in fallen man by the Holy Spirit, the inference is drawn, that all saints of all ages have received the Spirit, and that any change since Pentecost has only been in the manner of receiving it. But had not Peter, James, and John, been as surely regenerated by the Spirit, as Abraham, David, or Isaiah? Had not Jesus said to them, "Now ye are clean, through the word which I have spoken to you?" Had He not said of them, "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me: and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me?" And yet, according to John 7:39, they had not "received" the Spirit; "for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." It was after all this that their risen Lord assured them, "ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
{* But for the seriousness of the whole subject, we could have smiled at the contradiction to which, on the front page of the April No., the Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy commits himself. We are not sure whether it ever fell to our lot to witness in print so flat a contradiction in terms. His contributor says, "Thus in a tract now before us, we find the words, 'Those risen and glorified saints [mark, reader, saints] who do not form part of the Church."' To this the Editor appends the following: "This is precisely the Popish theory, which gives the title of saint only to those who have lived since Christ came." The work quoted (Plain Papers on Prophetic and other Subjects), referring to the faithful in Old Testament times, calls them "saints" in the very passage which is produced. Popery, it seems, withholds from them the title of saints, and only gives it to certain others. This, says the worthy Editor of the Quarterly is "precisely" the same thing! To give and to withhold are, with the Quarterly Journal, identical terms!}
What is this baptism with the Holy Ghost? May we not receive some instruction as to it from the descent of the Spirit on our Lord Himself? He is never said, indeed, to have been baptised with the Holy Ghost, but He is said to have been "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts 10:38). Again, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me," etc. (Luke 4:18). So characteristic is this anointing of the place which Jesus had been ordained to fill, that this is what the very name "Christ" denotes. "The anointed," "Messiah," and "Christ," are but one and the same title of this blessed One, to whom all glory belongs. Evidently it was as man that He received this anointing. But as man He was already perfect; as to His nature He was so from the first; "conceived of the Holy Ghost," His nature, as man, was essentially holy. The meat-offering under the law — emblem of Christ in the perfectness of His life on earth — was compounded with oil, as well as anointed therewith. He did not need the anointing to make Him what He already was, pure, holy, perfect; but He received it as the broad seal, visibly set upon Him, of the ineffable satisfaction with which God His Father viewed Him in the place He had stooped to occupy. "Him hath God the Father sealed" (John 6:27). And seeing that the place to which He had thus stooped was none other than the subject, dependent, creature-place, it behoved Him that all He did, and said, and suffered, should be manifestly not by any power inherent in Him as man, perfectly holy as He was, but by the power of the Holy Ghost. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him." Accordingly, from the moment the Spirit descended like a dove lighting upon Him, we find everything attributed to the Spirit, as the power in which Christ fulfilled His mission. He was "led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil" (Matt. 4:1). "He returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee'" (Luke 4:14). "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God," said He, "then the kingdom of God is come unto you " (Matt. 12:28). "Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God " (Heb. 9:14). Even after His resurrection it is said of Him, "until the day in which He was taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom He had chosen" (Acts 1:2). Not only was this blessed One "God over all," — "God manifest in the flesh;" not only was He perfect man, holy and without spot; but because He was so, He was the vessel of the full power of the Holy Ghost, with which He was anointed, and in the power of which His whole work was accomplished. But, until His ascension, He was the alone vessel in which the Spirit thus dwelt and wrought. The disciples were, no doubt, quickened by His divine power as the Son, and the subjects thus, as all saints had ever been, of the regenerating operation of the Spirit. From their Master they had received power also to heal the sick and cast out devils, just as prophets of former days had received such power from God for special ends to be answered by their ministry. For such ends there had been individuals even "filled with the Holy Ghost;" as, for instance, Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zacharias (Luke 1:67), and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15). The two former seem to have been so filled for the particular occasion, the latter habitually. But all this is distinct from that of which Jesus was the first and the only perfect example; we mean, the being sealed or anointed with the Holy Ghost, in such sort as to become the temple of His presence, the vessel of His power, so that everything said and done was the expression of His holiness, and by the working of His power. "The Church," by being baptised with the Holy Ghost, is brought, derivatively and subordinately, into a similarly blessed place. In Christ there was no opposing will or power; while in us alas! there is. He received the anointing, moreover, as the seal of what He was intrinsically, while it is only "in Him," by virtue of His person and work and of our union with Him, that we are "anointed," or "sealed." But, giving full place to these and all other essential differences between the saints and Him who "in all things" must "have the pre-eminence," it still remains true, that by the baptism with the Holy Ghost, saints are now so incorporated with Christ, so one with Him, as to form the vessel of the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. A passage, one verse of which has been already quoted, declares this in the most emphatic terms. Both verses are as follows: "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. For by one Spirit are we all baptised 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" (1 Cor. 12:12-13). So absolutely one are the Head and members by the one Spirit, which has baptised all into one body, that to the whole — Head and members together — the name Christ (the anointed) is given — "SO ALSO IS CHRIST." The whole chapter treats of the operations of the Spirit in this body, in which He dwells. All serve as "the manifestation of the Spirit," (1 Cor. 12:7), to demonstrate that "it is the same God which worketh all in all" (1 Cor. 12:6). But whatever variety there may be of gifts, services, or operations, "all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Cor. 12:11). Did anything like this exist in Old Testament times, or at any time prior to the day of Pentecost? Is it not here directly attributed to the baptism with the Holy Ghost? and have we not seen, by the concurrent testimony of several witnesses, that never till Pentecost did this take place? Jesus Himself was anointed with the Holy Ghost on earth. But in that He was alone. To share this holy unction with His people, He had to receive it afresh on high, as the seal of His Father's infinite delight with the whole work He had perfected below. It was to be in answer, also, to His own intercession on high. "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (John 14:16). Himself anointed "with the oil of gladness, above his fellows " (Heb. 1:9), it was to communicate it to them that He thus received it. "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:23). "The Church" is the result.
(2)
2nd Edition, Volume 1, July 1857.
(1st Edition, July 1857 [01:218])
[01:214]
It is true that, even after the formation of the Church, by the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, divine mercy lingered over Jerusalem and her sons, unwilling to give them up, so long as any means of bringing them to repentance was left untried. The expression of this mercy in the special character of Peter's ministry to the Jews, has been already pointed out in the "Bible Treasury" (see p. 41). But connected with this peculiar ministry of the apostle of the circumcision were two remarkable facts. First, the numerous converts to Christ who were its fruit, instead of constituting the Jewish remnant, of which psalmists and prophets had so largely written, as passing through the final troubles in Judea, and emerging into the light and gladness of millennial times, were "added to the church" — to that new and unique assembly, which had begun to be formed on the day of Pentecost. Secondly, so distinct was this assembly from the Jewish nation, as such, that when Peter and John had been before the rulers, who had threatened the two apostles, and let them go, we read of these, that "being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them." There now existed within the Jewish community, Gentiles not having yet been called, a perfectly distinct body or corporation to which, as to their own company, the apostles returned, when threatened by the rulers. The rejection of the apostles' testimony — in truth the testimony of the Holy Ghost — by the heads of the nation became, at the same time, increasingly distinct, until at last it was definitively declared in the murder of Stephen. But if Jerusalem and the earth thus close their ears and hearts against the testimony of the Holy Ghost, heaven opens to the dying witness for Jesus, and he sees the glory of God, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. Death for Christ on earth, and glory with Christ in heaven, are thus shown to be thenceforth the portion of the Church. With the exception of the twelve, the faithful are scattered from Jerusalem, and go to Samaria and beyond, preaching Christ. By special revelation, Peter is sent to the Gentiles; Saul, the persecutor, converted by sovereign grace, when in the full career of opposition to Christ, becomes the apostle of the Gentiles; Antioch, where he is first introduced by Barnabas to the work, becomes itself a centre from which the evangelising testimony goes forth; Jerusalem thus gradually loses the metropolitan place which, even as to the gospel and the Church, it had held in the earliest days of apostolic ministry; and eventually every trace of difference between Jew and Gentile disappears, being swallowed up in that transcendent grace which gathers out from both those who form the one body of the earth-rejected but heaven-enthroned Christ.
No one can read the New Testament without perceiving, that it is to this new assembly, formed at Pentecost, and gradually developed by the power of the indwelling Holy Ghost, till it embraced Gentiles as well as Jews, that the word "Church" is familiarly and habitually applied. "And the Lord added to the church." " And great fear came upon all the church." "At that time there was a great persecution against the church." "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church." "A whole year they assembled themselves with the church." "Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church." "Prayer was made without ceasing of the church." "The church that was at Antioch." When they were come and had gathered the church together." "Being brought on their way by the church." "When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church." "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church." "When he had landed at Cesarea, and gone up and saluted the church." "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 church of God which is at Corinth." "As I teach everywhere in every church." "Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." " Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." "And God hath set some in the church." "He that prophesieth edifieth the church." "Beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it," "Head over all things to the church." "Christ is the head of the church." "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it." "Nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church." "I speak concerning Christ and the church." "He is the head of the body, the church." "For his body's sake, which is the church." "Nymphas, and the church which is in his house." "The church of the Laodiceans." "The church of the Thessalonians." "The house of God, which is the church of the living God." "The church in thy house." "The church of the firstborn." "Let him call for the elders of the church." "Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church." " I wrote unto the church." "The church in Ephesus, Smyrna," etc. Such are the occurrences of the word in the new Testament. We have not used a concordance in giving them, and the list may not, therefore, be quite complete. Where the word is used in the plural "churches" we have not given it. But can any one seriously glance through these passages, and deny that they speak of a body or community actually existing on earth, and which only began to exist on earth at Pentecost? Some speak indeed of that body in its totality, from the commencement to the close of its existence on earth: such, for instance, as style it, "the church of God," "the church, which is his body," viz., the body of Christ. Others treat of such a portion of this whole, as exists at any given time, in one place or district, and which forms "the church of God" or "the body of Christ" in that place. Some even contemplate the gathering of those who, in their particular sphere, constitute "the body the church," in this or that believer's house. But where is there a passage which intimates, not to say affirms, that Old Testament saints, or saints on earth during the millennium, form part of the church? If any one maintain that this is the case, it is on him surely that the burden of proof rests. It is the more important to observe this, seeing that we are not aware of any who do maintain, that the Church existed as such, on earth, in Old Testament times; and as to millennial saints, most pre-millenarians would, at all events, allow, that the Church will be in some such sense complete at the beginning of the thousand years, as to be reigning with Christ throughout that period. If then the Old Testament saints are to form part of the church in glory; and if even millennial saints are ultimately to be incorporated therewith, it must be by some act, or acts, of divine power, apart from that which formed the Church on earth at Pentecost, and which continues the process of its formation throughout the present period. And where are we told in scripture of any such act of divine power? And if no such scripture testimony be produced by our brethren, how can we be expected to assent to their conclusions?
But it is time we turned to a more detailed examination of the two papers in the Quarterly Journal. The first begins by allowing that there are "great diversities of degree" among "the innumerable company of angels;" while the next paragraph makes the following important admission: "Analogous to these diversities in that race * of unfallen beings, we find among the redeemed from among the fallen considerable diversity of rank and position." The well-known parable of the talents is first cited; and then we read, "we find mention of the 'general assembly and church of the first-born,' as well as of 'the spirits of just men made perfect,' even as we find in the Apocalypse, not only an innumerable company that no man can number, but also a special subdivision of that company, the 144,000 whose song none can learn." It is not to canvass these statements that we quote them, but to show how much is admitted in favour of the principle, that all the redeemed have not necessarily the same place in the scene of future glory. How far the subsequent reasonings of our contemporary, especially in the second paper, can be reconciled with these primary admissions, is another question. It is satisfactory to find that these admissions are made. For more than a distinction between "the church of the first-born," and "the spirits of just men made perfect," we should scarcely ourselves contend. We are told, moreover, that "these distinctions in glory are subservient, no doubt, to the manifestation of divine sovereignty in the ages to come. New Jerusalem is not built on a flat plain, nor are its palaces all of one height, † and after one model. The land of uprightness has its hills and mountains, its fields and its gardens. One star differeth from another star in glory."
{* Might it not be asked, in passing, Where have we scripture authority for terming the angels "a race?"
† This is a somewhat unfortunate illustration, in view of the Apocalyptic description of the city as a perfect cube, "the length, and the breadth, and the height of it," being equal. True, it is of the city, not of its palaces, that this is written, nor do we remember the passage in which these are mentioned. The whole description of the city is, of course, symbolical. But a poetic style, like that of this article, however suited to the description of Eastern travel and scenery, is not to be trusted in the things of God. The play of imagination may seem harmless; but it will generally be found coming unintentionally into collision with some statement or other of God's word.}
But this is not the whole of what the paper before us concedes. "As to the millennial day," says the writer, "we see it quite consistent with the analogy of divine arrangement elsewhere and at other times, that there should be the risen saints above, and on earth a vast population, like the sea and its waves, who are holy and spiritual men, but are not glorified." The difference is, in this case, attributed to the fact of the millennial saints serving on a different platform from "those who lived amid temptation when Satan was loose, and are therefore rewarded then with the rank of kings." Whether these kings and subjects can both alike form the body of Christ (the one class, as this article puts it, being "raised up members of Christ," and the other, "members of Christ who have not passed through death and resurrection); whether scripture speaks of both as "members of Christ," is part of the question in debate. There can be no question as to the one class; and if scripture does anywhere speak of the other in such terms, nothing can be easier than to produce the passages. All that we now wish to point out is this, that our brethren admit the existence, for the whole millennial period, of differences between the millennial saints, and those whom we believe the New Testament calls "the church" — differences of no less magnitude than those which distinguish men in the flesh from risen and glorified saints. According to the "Quarterly Journal," the saints of the present period, whom we believe to be what scripture terms "the Church," will, throughout the thousand years, be reigning with Christ in glory, while multitudes of saints will be still on earth in bodies of flesh and blood. We contend for no such difference as this between "the Church," and Old Testament saints. We believe that the latter will, with the former, be raised and glorified at the descent of Jesus into the air; and that both will reign with Christ throughout the millennial period. We believe them, nevertheless, to be distinct; and when the writer of this paper in the "Quarterly Journal" shows how the differences he admits between glorified and earthly saints are, for a thousand years, "consistent with the analogy of divine arrangements," we will, by the self-same arguments, show the consistency therewith of such differences between the Church and Old Testament saints as scripture appears to us to recognise.
"But," says the article before us, "nothing of all this affects the question we propose to consider. Does THE BRIDE include the Old Testament saints? That is, it does not necessarily affect that question: for there may be all these diversities, and yet all belong to the one bride," etc. To this we reply, that the admitted existence of certain differences, is, of course, no proof that certain others exist. But if, as is the case in the second article, these other differences are denied, not on the ground of their separate and intrinsic character, but because all who are redeemed, justified, called, and belong to Christ, must therefore "have all things" — "the highest blessings," which any of them enjoy — then the differences, admitted at the opening of this first paper, do most materially "affect the question." They so far affect it that the one paper upsets the other. The reasonings of the latter article are as decisive against the admissions of the former, as against the views which both are intended to contravene. If, as the second article contends, "heaven is not made a transcript of the dispensational differences of earth," how can "the general assembly and church of the first-born" "be distinguished, as the first paper admits it is, from 'the spirits of just men made perfect?"' Be it, if you please, that the writer of the first paper supposes them to be distinguished only as a part is distinguished from the whole. That is a very real distinction; and it is certainly, in this case, supposed to be "a transcript of the dispensational differences of earth." If "the differences of earth, dispensational or individual, do not continue in heaven," (second paper, page 105,) how can the author of such a statement reconcile it either with the admissions of the first paper, or with those he is himself compelled to make, where he says "there will, indeed, be difference of reward among the members of the one redeemed family, as is taught in the words, 'Be thou over ten cities: be thou over five cities?'" He cannot consistently make the exclusion of difference absolute against us, and partial in regard to such differences as he and the writer of the first paper allow. Differences in heaven are absolutely excluded on the grounds alleged by this writer, or they are not. If they are, he is proved inconsistent with himself, and the second paper absolutely subversive of the first. If they are not, their exclusion cannot be used absolutely against the particular difference in debate; and yet this writer argues thus when his object is to condemn, as subversive of foundation truth, the sentiments of those who hold it as dear and as sacred as he can do himself! But more of this anon. We only, at present, remark on the admissions made by the first writer, and the bearing they have on the question under review.
The first writer * gives a list of arguments said by him to have been alleged against the thought of the Old Testament saints forming part of "the Bride." At these and the writer's replies we will glance seriatim; but we would, in the first place, protest against the idea that we, or any of whom we know, are anxious to prove that the Old Testament saints will not form part of "the Church," or "Bride of Christ," in glory. In itself, this seems to us a very subordinate question: and any prominence which may have been given to it has arisen from the efforts made, first, to assume that Old Testament saints will form part of the glorified Church; and secondly, on this ground, to depress the standard of present Church privilege and enjoyment to the level of what was proper to Old Testament saints. It is this studied and laborious effort to depreciate the Church, or rather the grace manifested towards the Church, which is so evil in its character, and withering in its influence. Supposing its full place given to what God reveals as to the present standing, calling, portion, and hope of the Church, and questions yet entertained as to whether ultimately the Old Testament saints may not become part of it in glory, nothing could be happier than humbly and lovingly to inquire together, what foundation there is in scripture for such a thought. But to assume that the Old Testament saints will surely form part of the Church in glory, and to use this assumption, where it gains credit, to deny all that is at present distinctive of the place and portion assigned to the Church by rich and sovereign grace — this is what cannot be too firmly withstood.
{* One can scarcely suppose these two articles to proceed from the same pen. The first is florid in its style, and kindly in its spirit, but evidently written by one who is not at home in the subject. The second is plain in style, bitter in spirit, and seems to us to be the production of one well acquainted with the question, as it was discussed from ten to twelve years ago. If so, where is the fairness of his reiterating objections, which were then so fully answered, without taking the least notice of the answers?}
We do not remember anywhere to have seen 1 Peter 1:12 quoted to show that the Church will hold a place in glory distinct from that of Old Testament saints. It may have been quoted, and fairly, to show the superiority of the present dispensation to those of former times.
Nor secondly, do we remember Heb. 3:1, to have been so quoted. We have no doubt that "the heavenly calling" is an expression of wider import than "the church." The fact is, that they against whom the arguments of the second paper are directed (and it is with these only that we are concerned), hold, and are often reproached for holding, that the mystery of the Church's unity by the Holy Ghost with Christ in heaven was specially revealed to Paul, and so not treated of by Peter, who was the apostle of the circumcision, nor even by Paul himself when writing to his Hebrew brethren. The truths ministered by Peter, James, and John, were all, we need not say, consistent with those specially revealed to Paul. Paul, moreover, writes on other subjects as no one would but he, to whom "this dispensation of the grace of God," as he terms it, had been confided. But it is in Ephesians and Colossians that the subject is formally developed.
And so we pass to the third argument, said by the writer to be alleged against the thought of the Old Testament saints forming part of the Church. As it relates to a passage which has largely been discussed in connection with the question before us, we would consider it somewhat more fully. But let us hear the article under review.
"On no stronger grounds," it says, "is Eph. 3:6, brought forward as excluding them, 'that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.' It is assumed too often, that the 'mystery' was something else than the discovery of that hidden truth, that not Jew only, but Gentile, should share in what Christ had done, not Judea only, but in the end all the world. The promise of the inheritance was not meant here to be spoken of as peculiar to saints of New Testament times. The old saints sang in David's days, and David led the song, 'The righteous shall inherit the earth,' and that pointed to the inheritance which the bride has claim to." This is the whole of what is said in reply to all that has been advanced, not only on the text quoted from Eph. 3 but on the doctrine of the epistle throughout. In reply we would observe:
1. You cannot depreciate the portion of "the bride," without equally depreciating the inheritance of the Bridegroom. The very words, expressive of their relation to each other, imply the bride's participation in all that can be shared with her by her Lord.
2. Can then Christ's inheritance, as revealed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, be brought down to the measure of such Old Testament promises as the one here quoted, that the righteous shall inherit the earth?" "That pointed," we are told, "to the inheritance which the Bride has claim to!" Yes, and so does the sovereignty, of Rutland belong to the Queen of Great Britain! But what would be thought of any one who, in treating of the dominions to which the Prince of Wales is heir, should say, "He is to have the sovereignty of Rutland?" The illustration may appear extreme, but the proportion between Rutland and the British Empire is far greater than between "the earth" and Christ's "inheritance," as set forth in the Epistle to the Ephesians. We read there, of the good pleasure which God hath purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to gather together (or head up) in one "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:10). We read of the working of the mighty power of God, "which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenlies, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things," (observe it, dear reader!) "to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him which filleth all in all." (Eph. 1:20, 23). It is in this headship over all things in heaven as well as on earth, that the Church is associated with Christ, as His body, His fullness.
3. It is after having declared this, and treated of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition by the cross, Jew and Gentile becoming, in Christ Himself, "one new man," even the Jewish sanctuary being superseded and replaced by this living temple, this "habitation of God through the Spirit" — it is after all this, that the apostle begins to treat of "the mystery."
4. It has not been "assumed," as the writer in the Quarterly Journal states, but largely proved, that the "mystery" was something else than the discovery, that not Jew only, but Gentile, should share in what Christ had done, not Judea only, but in the end all the world. Let any one read Eph. 3 and the latter part of Col. 1 and say whether the apostle does not evidently labour to express, that what had been revealed to him, and by him made known to others, was something new, unprecedented, unique, and previously unrevealed, unheard of, and unknown. But could the matter have been truly represented thus, if all that he meant by "the mystery" was, that Gentiles share in what Christ had done? So far from this being a mystery hid in God, there is nothing which had been more definitely revealed. Had it not been promised and sworn to Abraham, "In thee shall all families," and "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed?" Had not Moses said, "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people?" Had not both Psalms and prophets largely testified, that "all the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord"? that "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hands to God"? that in the true Solomon, men shall be blessed, yea, and "all nations call him blessed?" Was he not to "sprinkle many nations," and to be "a light to the Gentiles," and God's "salvation to the ends of the earth?" As every one acquainted with the subject knows, such quotations might be greatly multiplied. How then can it be supposed by any, that it was a "hidden truth," "the mystery" for the first time revealed in the apostolic age, that Gentiles "should share in what Christ had done?"
5. But while the Old Testament explicitly foretells that Gentiles should partake of salvation through Christ, it is always as distinct from Israel, and subordinate thereto, that they are represented in the ancient scriptures. "Ten men shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Jerusalem is to be called the throne of the Lord; the sons of strangers are to build up her walls, feed the flocks of her sons, and be their plowmen and vine-dressers; while they themselves are named "the priests of the Lord," "the ministers of our God."
Such are the conditions of Gentile blessing as revealed in the Old Testament, and to be accomplished in the ensuing dispensation. For though certain principles embodied in the prophecies on this subject may and do apply to the present period, it is in the millennium they are to be definitely fulfilled. But "the mystery," of which Paul says so much in Ephesians and Colossians, is that of the present formation of a body, in which all distinction between Jew and Gentile is unknown, by virtue of the union and identification of both with a rejected and glorified Christ. The very verse, quoted in the article we review, speaks of Gentile believers, not only as fellow-heirs, but also "of the same body." That they should be of the same body, even with Jews, had never been intimated: but that both should be of the same body with Christ, constituting the body of which He is the glorified Head, this was a mystery indeed, the existence and revelation of which amply justifies all that the apostle says.
We have no recollection of Luke 7:28 being used by any in proof of the special place and distinctive glory of the Church. This is the fourth passage alleged to have been so used. It may, like Peter 1:12, have been employed to show the superiority of the present over former dispensations: but no one who understands the doctrine impugned in the two articles under review would urge this passage in its support. "The kingdom of God," or "of heaven," evidently includes the subjects of the heavenly rule thus designated. The members of the Church are doubtless individually, while on earth, subjects of God's kingdom; but the relation of the Church, as a whole, to Christ, is that of His bride, His body, whose place is to participate in His reign, instead of being its subjects.
(3)
2nd Edition, Volume 1, August 1857.
(1st Edition, August 1857 [01:231])
[01:227]
Heb. 11:40 is treated at considerable length in both papers. In the former it is first sought to be shown that the passage says nothing in favour of any special place being assigned to saints of the present period; and then it is used as a positive argument for the equality of the Old Testament saints with these. The second paper still further considers the passage in both points of view. But the doctrine of the one paper seems to us utterly subversive of that taught by the other. The writer of the January article reasons from what he judges "the better thing" provided for us to be; but in April we are told that the passage "does not teach that God had provided something better for us than for them." The explanation of "the better thing" in the first article we are quite at a loss to understand. First, it is urged "that the apostle was speaking of what these Old Testament saints were yet to obtain (the italics are not ours) in connection with us and along with us." Then it is argued that "they were not without us to be made perfect (i.e., thoroughly set at rest from guilt, and introduced into full confidence toward God"). Are we then really to suppose that these departed saints have yet to obtain rest from guilt, and full confidence toward God? No such depreciation of Old Testament saints as this can justly be charged on such as hold them to be distinct from what scripture calls "the church."
The second paper proposes a new version of the passage altogether. "But if the central clause be placed, as it should be, in a parenthesis, and if the ellipsis be supplied, then all appearance of ambiguity is removed. These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, (God having made a better provision for us than that, viz., that they should at present receive the promise,) in order that they, apart from us, should not be perfected." This is indeed a bold proposal. To insert the demonstrative pronoun "that," and then explain it, as though it were a part of the passage, inserting the explanation also, as a mere supplying of an ellipsis, is to use a liberty with God's word by which it might be made to say anything. In this instance it is used to make the passage say the very opposite of what is said by the words actually found in the Greek. But let us hear what is said in favour of the change.
"The substantive instruction of the passage is contained in the first and last clauses:— 'they received not the promise, in order that they might not be perfected apart from us.' (choris hemon.) The central parenthetic clause does not teach that God had provided something better for us than for them (that would contradict the word choris, apart from); but it teaches that he had provided for us a better thing than to allow that they should be perfected apart from us. The word choris (apart from) could not on the other supposition, have been used; for if we had the calling and glory of the Church, and they not, then, indeed, they and we should be perfected 'apart' one from the other, the very thing which this verse declares to be impossible." On all this we remark:
1. that to read the central clause parenthetically is a purely gratuitous change, uncalled for by anything in the passage, which makes good sense just as the translators have left it.
2. To read it parenthetically creates the ellipsis which the writer supplies, and which exists not as the passage stands.
3. The construction of the passage is against the reading the central clause as a parenthesis. The words peri hemon and choris hemon so connect the two phrases, ("a better thing for us," "that they without us,") as to make the latter dependent on the former. But if so, how could the former be part of a parenthesis?
4. So far is choris from excluding the idea of their perfection (that of Old Testament saints) being different from ours, that it is used in passages where similar differences are undeniably recognised. "Without (choris) me, ye can do nothing." Does the word here exclude all difference of dignity or glory or power between Christ and His disciples? "The man is not without (choris) the woman in the Lord." Does this mean that they are in all respects equal? Why, the whole drift of the passage is in proof of the man's superiority. That is, the word is used in scripture in a sense quite different from that which this writer wishes to fix upon it absolutely in the passage under consideration.
As to the passage itself, and its bearing on the question in debate, so far from its being "the text most relied on to prove that the Old Testament saints are" not included in the glorified Church, we know of no work in which it is so urged. There may be such works, but they have not fallen under our notice. We ourselves have long hesitated as to whether by "the better thing provided for us," was meant our present dispensational privileges, or some special place of future glory, and have never therefore relied on the passage as a proof of the latter. But the present discussion inclines us, more than previously, to the latter view. The distinction made but a few verses farther on between "the spirits of just men made perfect," and "the Church of the first-born ones * which are written in heaven," certainly seems to teach that the class denominated "spirits of just men," will, when made perfect, which is only in resurrection, be still distinct from "the church of the first-born ones written in heaven."
* The word "first-born" is here in the plural, and may be thus rendered. It applies to those of whom the Church consists, not in this text to the One to whom the Church belongs.
The January article closes with a series of numbered paragraphs, which, after all that has been considered, may be very briefly dispatched.
"1. Does the Church not mean the whole body of the redeemed?" The answer is, this is precisely the question at issue, to which these articles give an affirmative, and we a negative reply. Neither therefore can assume their own view, and reason from it, as the writer here does.
"2. If the redeemed all form Christ's body, then all of them of the Old Testament, even as of the New, shall rise to the same glory." Yes, but first prove that "Christ's body" and "the redeemed" are interchangeable terms. Christ is never spoken of as head of the body except as risen and ascended. If He is, let the passages be brought forward. To produce Isa. 26:19, and thus represent Christ as the head of a "dead body" (!) is the plainest possible confession that no texts more to the purpose could be found by the writer, in the Old Testament.
3. "The Queen in gold of Ophir" is represented by the writer of Ps. 45 as the bride of "the king." The psalm consists of things he had made "touching the King." No doubt there are principles in common between such scriptures as the Canticles and this psalm, and those in the New Testament which treat of the Church's bridal relation to Christ. Much found in the one may thus, for uses of edification, be applied to the subject of the other. But, still, the subject is distinct. Jerusalem is the King's bride. It is of her that Ezek. 16, Isa. 54, and Hosea 2 treat. It is to her people that it is said, "Thy maker is thine husband;" of her land that it is written, "thy land shall be married;" and of herself, "as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." But the Church is "the bride, the Lamb's wife." Betrothed and affianced to Him, during His rejection by Israel and the earth — the lone companion of that rejection, and inheritor of the griefs of which, as the Father's faithful witness and servant, He drank so full a cup — it is in that character of heavenly grace in which alone she has known and confessed her unseen and absent Lord, that she is to be associated with Him in the glory, in that day when the glory shall be revealed.
4. The remarks on the transfiguration take for granted that to be glorified with Christ is equivalent to being "of the church, or bride." But there is nothing said either of the body or bride of Christ in the scripture accounts of the transfiguration. It was "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" of which the favoured three beheld a specimen in the holy mount; and we know of none who question that Old Testament saints will, equally with those who compose the Church, be raised and glorified at Christ's coming.
5. The reasoning on the types needs no comment, as there is not even the pretence of giving scripture authority for the application of them made by the writer. Many seriously dispute that the cherubim were types of the Church.
6. The psalms are referred to in proof that Old Testament saints are to rise in the first resurrection, and to reign as kings in the millennial age. Neither of these positions should we for a moment think of disputing. But when it is said that "the general import and drift of such passages evidently is, that these saints were led by the Holy Spirit to look for the same honour as we of the New Testament Church are led to expect," it does but mournfully evince how this system of interpretation reduces what it calls "the New Testament Church" to the standard of Old Testament truths.
We turn now for a moment to the second paper that we may not omit noticing anything it contains. Its leading arguments have been already considered in their connection with, or contradiction to, the previous article. It opens by denouncing the doctrine which distinguishes between the Church and the Old Testament saints, as "strange, "novel," "disastrous in its consequences," and "necessarily affecting that which the scripture reveals respecting the redemption that is in Christ." These are heavy charges, indeed so heavy that they ought not to be made unless supported by the most substantial proofs. What then are the proofs by which such charges are supported in the present instance? The only proof alleged is a most glaring misrepresentation of what the question at issue is; and the only evidence brought forward in support of the charge is a quotation which completely repels it. But our readers shall judge for themselves. The question is stated in the following terms:—
"Surely there can be no more important question than this — what is it that gives title of entrance into the Church and all the Church's blessings? Is it not simply and only the redemption that is in the blood of Jesus?"
Undoubtedly it is; and woe to the man whose hopes are based on any other foundation. But is it on the question of the Church's title to glory that this writer is at issue with those whom he opposes? God forbid! They acknowledge, at least equally with him, that redemption in the blood of Christ is the only ground on which any of Adam's race can be entitled to a place in glory. But it is a pure fallacy of this writer to suppose, because the title is the same, that there can be no diversities of glory among those who all, and all alike, owe their blessedness to the blood of Christ, and to that blood alone. Has God ceased to be a sovereign because in His grace He has given Christ to accomplish redemption by His blood? Is the Holy One so limited by His own purely gratuitous provision for man's recovery, as to be precluded by it from bestowing various dignities on those whose only title to anything but perdition is the precious blood of Christ, and the grace which places its value to their account? Let this writer account for the immeasurable difference between the glorified saints and the saved inhabitants of the millennial earth throughout the thousand years; let him show how this diversity can consist with the blessedness of both being based solely on the value of Christ's blood; and let his explanation be what it may, it will serve equally to show how any distinction that God may please to make between one portion of the redeemed and another, throughout eternal ages, is consistent with the same blessed fact.
Besides, what becomes of the millennial saints? They either form part of the Church or they do not. If they do, then all the arguments about the Old Testament saints having part in the first resurrection, and reigning with Christ go for nothing; for here are myriads of the Church who evidently do not share in either. If they do not form part of the Church, then all the reasoning about redemption is null; for here are saints redeemed by Christ's blood, who instead of constituting the Church, are living on the earth, while the Church reigns in glory with her Lord.
But the article under review asserts dogmatically that "the heavenly city is a symbol of corporate condition. It represents the glory of the Church as a whole." "As a whole," let it be remembered: and so positive is the writer on this point, that he adds, "Not to belong to it is spoken of as equivalent to perdition." Now when is it, we ask, that the Church answers to this symbol of its glory "as a whole?" Is it only in the post-millennial, eternal state? Or does not the detailed description of it, as shown to John by the angel, exhibit it in connection with the millennial earth? Are not the leaves of its tree of life for the healing of the nations? And do not the nations [of the saved] walk in the light of the heavenly city. Still "it represents," says this writer, "the glory of the Church as a whole." Clearly, then, the saved nations of the millennial earth do not form part of the Church: and the conclusion drawn by others as to Old Testament saints, and condemned by him as affecting fundamental truth, follows necessarily, as to millennial saints, from what he himself affirms.
If it should be pleaded that they belong to the Church prospectively, that though not forming part of the city — the Bride — during the thousand years, they are afterwards to be incorporated with it, we answer, that such a plea can never be admitted. First, because it contradicts the writer's own assertion that "the heavenly city represents the glory of the Church as a whole." Secondly, because it contradicts scripture. Is it not at the beginning of the thousand years that it is said, "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready?" But how "ready," if myriads who are to form part of her are yet unborn? And when our Lord says, not of His disciples only who surrounded Him, but of all who should believe on Him through their word, "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them: that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me, that they be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me," to what epoch does He look forward for the accomplishment of these things? Are they accomplished in the millennial period, when the millennial world beholds in the heavenly city the proof that the Father has loved the saints composing it as He loved His Son? If so, the nations of that period are not part of the Church, for it is already "made perfect in one;" and the nations are spoken of as "the world," distinct and apart from the heavenly saints. And if it be said, in accordance with the objection we are examining, that not till the end of the thousand years will the words of our Lord be accomplished, that the millennial saints are included among those to whom He gives the glory which has been given to Him, and who are finally to be made perfect in one, where in that case is "the world of which our Lord speaks, as knowing by the glory of the Church how the Father has sent the Son and loved the Church as He loved the Son? No "such world" will exist in the eternal state, at least according to the system we are considering: and if its existence could be supposed, it would subvert the system altogether. It is, in fact, untenable. It contradicts itself, and contradicts God's word; and the writer of this second article argues as though he would conceal its inherent weakness by the severity with which he censures the views with which his own system stands contrasted.
Having misstated the point in debate, by representing it as a question between him and others as to the title of entrance into the Church, he proceeds to charge his opponents with excluding Old Testament saints from "the great result of redemption altogether,"* and asks, "And what is the ground of this supposed exclusion? Abraham and the Old Testament saints, say they, are to be excluded, because they did not receive, whilst on earth, the Holy Spirit in the same manner as we have received it who have lived since Pentecost. Such is the doctrine of the appended passage. [A passage extracted from "Plain Papers," etc.] Thus it is taught that our title to belong to the Church of God in glory does not depend on that which we are in Christ, but on that which we are in the Spirit."
{* Just as though redemption had but one result! If he had said that according to his opponents' views, the highest result of redemption is not that exhibited in the case of Old Testament saints, he would have so far done justice to their sentiments. But this would have afforded no ground for the denunciations that follow.}
Would the reader credit it, that the extract from "Plain Papers" which is thus stigmatised, is one in which the following sentences occur? After mentioning Abraham, Moses, and others, as men of faith and referring to the brightness of their devotion and obedience, it affirms,
"They were quickened by the Spirit beyond all doubt. By virtue of the foreseen sacrifice of Christ, they were forgiven and saved. They will all have part in the first resurrection and partake of heavenly glory. † There can be no question as to any of these things … The church shares these things, life, justification, resurrection, and heavenly glory, with the saints of Old Testament times; but what constitutes the Church is something distinct from and beyond all these things. It is the actual living unity with Christ and with each other of those who, since Christ's resurrection, are formed into this unity by the Holy Ghost come down from heaven. Was there anything like this in Old Testament times?" (Plain Papers, p. 83.)
{† Is this to exclude them from "the great results of redemption altogether?"}
Can the reader see in this extract any justification of the charges above quoted from the "Quarterly Journal?" Will the writer in the "Quarterly Journal" himself affirm that anything like what is here described existed in Old Testament times? Will he deny that it is this which "constitutes" the Church? Cannot he distinguish between what constitutes a body, and that which entitles anyone to belong to it? Might not the same title, the will of a monarch, for instance, introduce a person both to the family of that monarch and to his cabinet council? But are both constituted alike? Because it was the will of Her Majesty which alone entitled a person to be her secretary of state, must he needs be her consort also? And if this writer in the "Quarterly Journal" has in his haste overlooked so obvious and important a distinction, ought he to make his own carelessness the ground of impugning the orthodoxy of a writer, who, in the very extract produced, (the only one, moreover, that is produced,) repudiates the charge now sought to be fastened upon him? "The sacrifice of Christ" is the alone title mentioned or recognised in the extract, and it is alike recognised for the Church and for the Old Testament saints.
Again, to confound, as the writer does, Christ's headship of "his body the Church" with that federal headship of all the redeemed, in regard to which the first Adam, our sinful federal head, was a "figure of him that was to come," is merely to evince total unacquaintance with what scripture teaches on the former subject. Are we members of Adam's body of his flesh, and of his bones, or merely his offspring? Eve was bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. The Church is such to Christ, and not merely possessed of a life derived from Him, as is the case with all the redeemed people of the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.
The argument from Galatians is based on a mere assumption: viz., that in it "we who live in this Pentecostal dispensation, are taught respecting our own final blessings." This language is evidently used to express our own highest as well as final blessings. But where does the Epistle itself inform us that it is of our highest blessings that it treats? Many of those blessings of which it does treat we doubtless share with saints of other dispensations. But our being, in so many respects, "blessed with faithful Abraham," by no means proves that nothing special attaches to saints of the present dispensation. As to the editorial note on this paragraph, (asserting that the question discussed by the apostle was, "Are believers in Christ really to get up to Abraham's privileges and standing?") we would ask, Does the editor forget the occasion of the Epistle? Were not certain teachers pretending that it was not enough to believe in Christ, but that to enjoy the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant the Gentile converts must become Jewish proselytes, be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses? To be children of Abraham had been held out to the Galatians by their deceivers as something most desirable, and as only to be attained by obedience to the law. "You are children of Abraham already," was the apostle's answer: nay, more, "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." A most pertinent, blessed answer to the sophistry of those who would have subverted their souls. But certainly it is not in connection with such reasonings that we should look for a development of the highest privileges of the saints. Being Christ's we are Abraham's seed, because He is "the seed" to whom the promises were made. But has Christ no higher title than that of "the seed of Abraham?" Why say then that He has no greater or higher blessedness in which to associate us with Himself than that of being Abraham's seed.
It is of the believers at Colosse, and of their fellow-believers in the present dispensation, that Paul predicates the being "circumcised in Christ." So that whatever this expression may imply, its use by the apostles in the passage referred to can prove nothing as to Old Testament saints.
No doubt we are taught in Heb. 7 that Abraham had " THE PROMISES." But this is an unfortunate quotation, to prove that no expression could "be more unlimited than that;" seeing that the whole drift of the passage is to show that even Melchisedec, another Old Testament saint, was greater than Abraham.
No one questions that Abraham looked for a heavenly city; but when the writer says, "that heavenly city, is elsewhere termed 'the bride, the Lamb's wife,'" we must be excused for asking some proof of his assertion. If heaven itself, as the object of Abraham's hope, is mentioned in Scripture under the figure of "a city," as well as "a country," are we obliged to identify it with "that great city, the holy Jerusalem," which was shown to John "descending out of heaven from God!" Why should we conclude, if a city be named, that it must be the one city of Rev. 21, Rev. 22? Or if a marriage, or bride, be spoken of, why must it of necessity be "the marriage of the Lamb," "the bride, the Lamb's wife?"
Against one misapprehension we must, in concluding, guard. We would not be supposed to confound individual faithfulness with corporate privileges. Many a saint in olden times, with immeasurably inferior light and privileges, walked more closely with God than many, perhaps we might say most, of those to whom the special calling and glory of the Church have been vouchsafed. The righteous Judge of all will surely know how to reward the individual, while His own rich sovereign grace is equally magnified in the blessings common to all, the blessings distinctive of each class, and the new name in the white stone for the individual, secret token as it will be of what is known only to the individual and his Lord.
The Lord keep us near to Himself, and subject in everything to His word.