(Bishop of Rangoon)
It may be well to give a word of explanation why this tract of Dr. Titcomb’s is noticed. It is not the habit of those he attacks to defend themselves, neither is it intended to do so in this paper. The Lord has been pleased to work by the Holy Spirit amongst the colliers and others in the villages of Hoyland, Wentworth, and all the villages around. This tract of Dr. Titcomb’s has been diligently circulated, with a view to discredit and hinder the work of God. And more, as this tract bears, strange to say, the mark of the “Church of England Sunday School Institute,” it is proposed to examine the truth or falsehood of the statements contained in this tract. We desire to do so in the fear of the Lord, in whose blessed presence we shall so soon stand.
The first words are these: “It is not my wish to speak unkindly about the sect denominated “Plymouth Brethren,” but it is right, nevertheless, that churchmen should be taught the false ground upon which they separate from every body of Christians. They are a good, but misguided, people, and, of all others, the most separating and schismatic in the christian church.” Could he have spoken more unkindly, or more untruthfully? The Christians be attacks repudiate all such names as “Plymouth Brethren,” and it is as kind for him to call them so, as it would be for them to call him a Jesuit! And why are they the most schismatic people in the christian church? Let us take an illustration. Suppose the Doctor had been writing to attack total abstainers. He does not wish to speak unkindly about the people denominated Total Abstainers; he wishes to warn churchmen against the false grounds on which they have given up the sin of drunkenness and abstained from all kinds of drink, whether of beer, gin, brandy, etc.; they are very good, but misguided people, and, of all others, the greatest drunkards in the world. In such a case, who would have believed the Doctor’s kindness? Yet the reasoning is precisely the same. Those Christians he attacks regard all sectarianism as sin and carnality. They have abstained from every form of schism, Roman, Anglican, Wesleyan, etc., therefore they are said to be the most schismatic in the Christian church! To put it short: the abstainer gives up all intoxicating drinks of every kind, therefore he is the greatest drunkard! Brethren have given up every sect, therefore they are the greatest schismatics
We now come to the mode of attack. “They say, first”— they say, without a single proof that they do say as stated— that in a true church the members must be all faithful and holy, both in faith and practice.” The first part of this sentence is untrue; they do not find in scripture “a church,” but “the church of God.” And they believe what scripture teaches — that all believers are baptized by the Spirit into that one body (1 Cor. 12:13). Now, does Dr. T. wish distinctly to teach that true believers, members of the one and only body of Christ, should be unfaithful and unholy? That it is of no moment that men living in sin may come to the Lord’s supper, and be accounted members of the body of Christ? If this is his doctrine, why is he not in the church of Rome? Nay, would even Rome tolerate such teaching?
But he goes on to say, “They therefore call upon every one who is so to come out from the professing church to which he belongs, and join himself to them.” This is also utterly untrue, as all who have witnessed the present work of God can bear witness. It would surely be to make another sect, “to join himself to them.” No, Christ is set forth by the Holy Spirit, and souls have been gathered to Him, as at the beginning. They have discovered that there is “one body,” as there is “one Lord,” and they desire to show it in worship and praise. Now, as they neither believe in a church of any kind, as distinct from the one church of God, composed of all believers, neither do they seek the faithful and holy to join himself to them. It follows, then, that all the subsequent reasoning is simply beating a man of straw of the Doctor’s own making
He says, “Now I am going to show you that this is quite contrary to the Word of God.” What is? He does not seem, in this tract, to have the least idea what the church of God is, but wholly occupied with a church; and the following scriptures seem to be quoted for the purpose of proving that in a true church there ought to be both wicked and righteous.
He says: 1. “Take the Epistle to the Corinthians “ He then quotes 1 Corinthians 1:2, to show that they were called “saints.” And then, in order to prove that some were not really so, “and by no means pure, either in faith or practice. Thus (chap. 3:3) he (Paul) calls some of them ‘carnal.’”
Is this so? Is there a word “about” some of them? Plainly it was the state of the whole assembly; as also, in chapter 1:12; that is, the apostle says it is true of them as a whole. Dr. T. says it was so of some of them. “Now this I say that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I, of Apollos,” etc. (Read 1 Cor. 3:1-5.) If this carnality, however severely condemned, proved they were not Christians, then it proved all the assembly, or church, were not Christians. No doubt, to say, I am of Rome, and I, of the Anglican, and I, of Wesley, is carnality; that is, it is of “the flesh”; but does this prove that all who are in these sects are not Christians? Surely not.
There is the same misuse of 1 Corinthians 11:21. It is not some of them, again, but the sad general state of the whole. Read it: “For in eating, EVERY ONE taketh before the other,” etc. Does a bishop of the Church of England quote this to justify a drunkard being at the table of the Lord?
He then quotes 1 Corinthians 15:34: “Some have not the knowledge of God.” Does this prove that some of the saints of the church of God at Corinth were not truly saved believers? Dr. T. quotes it for that purpose. The apostle here warns the saints against such persons; they had not the knowledge of God, and were teaching doctrines contrary to the holy character of God: the bishop would use the very words of warning to encourage the wicked being owned as part of the church of God. What is the subject of 1 Corinthians 15? Is it not the resurrection of those who are in Christ? — of those who shall bear the image of the heavenly? (vss. 23-24). Now, so general did the loss of the knowledge of this subject become, and the whole truth of the first resurrection, that even sixty years ago it was almost unknown, and all Christendom had returned to the Jewish doctrine of a general resurrection.
But surely this does not mean that there were no true Christians for centuries until this particular knowledge was restored some fifty years ago. And it would be very sad to say that every one who uses a prayer-book in which a general resurrection is taught, and the knowledge of this subject lost, is therefore not a Christian.
It is a pity to state such untruths as that Brethren say that Paul told the really converted believers to leave the church of God at Corinth, and “form a separate body.” If he has read their writings, he knows this is false. We shall see shortly this was impossible.
It is rather remarkable that every scripture the Doctor quotes condemns his own practice. He says: “Now turn to the Epistle to the Galatians.” Let us examine the truthfulness, again, of the quotation. “From Galatians 1:6 we see that some of these converts were removed to another gospel.” Is it so? The very opposite. They were all in danger, great danger — not from some of these converts, but from false teachers, who were seeking to pervert the gospel. Read the verses. Why does the Doctor thus uniformly misrepresent scripture? What was the false doctrine these teachers were bringing which the Spirit of God so denounces? Was it not the very doctrine that Dr. Titcomb maintains in the end of his tract — that Christ is not enough, but that we must also be put under the law? He then says, “From chapter 3:1, they did not obey the truth.” If we look at this verse, we find again no reference to some of the converts; but the assemblies, as a whole, are addressed as foolish Galatians. And what was their folly? Listening to teachers who would lead them, having begun in the Spirit, to seek perfection in the flesh by being put under the law. Then he says, “From chapter 2:4 there were false brethren among them.” Why the apostle is speaking of false brethren at Jerusalem. “Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem,” etc. Is it right, even for a bishop, to use the Word of God in this manner’?
Then he says, “Turn now to the Epistle to the Philippians. Read chapter 3:16-19. Observe how mixed in character were the members of this church. Many walked in it who were a disgrace to the rest, who were only to be called enemies of the cross.” But does the apostle say so? Does he say they were members of this church? or that many walked in it that were a disgrace to the rest? He says the very opposite. Read chapter 1:4-9: “Always, in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel, from the first day until now... Even as it is meet for me to think thus of you all... For God is my record bow greatly I long after you all,” etc. Indeed the whole epistle is just the opposite of what the Doctor says. No assembly, perhaps, is so much commended, from the first verse to the last. Hence they are warned against those who were walking worldly, though evidently not amongst them; though, no doubt, in danger of their creeping in unawares. Is it not a strange argument of the bishop’s, that because Paul warned the assembly at Philippi against these persons, this is therefore an excuse why such enemies of the cross should be in the church of God? It is a, solemn warning for us all in a day like this, when this very enmity of the cross is the established fashion. How many now eat and drink with the world, and mind the politics of the world! “For our conversation (or commonwealth) is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Thus not one of the scriptures quoted proves good and bad in the church of God, or the assembly, in such a place. Is the next a fair quotation? He says: “Now turn to the First Epistle of St. John, chapter 2:19.” He says the wicked went out from the church. This at last is true. But why did they? “If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us,” etc. Then this proves the good and bad should not continue together in the true church.
The Doctor now maintains the contrary. He says, “Everything proves the New Testament to teach that the church will always, more or less, have a mixed character of good and evil, until the Lord comes in judgment. Jesus Himself said it would be so, etc. Read Matthew 13:47-49.”
It is sad to misapply scripture, but this may possibly be from ignorance in every case. But to flatly contradict the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be a mere mistake. The Lord explains one of these parables, so as to determine the sense of the rest. Of the wheat and the tares Jesus said, “Let both grow together until the harvest.” Jesus explains distinctly that the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one: and it is true that they are to grow together until the harvest. Now the question then is, what is “the field,” or place, where they are to be together? Jesus says the field, or place, is the world. The Doctor contradicts the very words of Jesus, and says that He, Jesus, says it is the church. How sad when there is an unscriptural theory to uphold! To affirm that Jesus says a thing, and quote scripture, and when we read that scripture to find the Lord says quite the contrary!
Then, do the scriptures teach that there was no failure or evil, or that evil persons crept into the professing church, or the kingdom? Certainly not; and if the Doctor had been acquainted with scripture, he might have pointed to numbers of passages, without misquoting one; only, while these were vessels of dishonor in the great house of profession, this did not suppose for a moment that they were members of the body of Christ. “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). As we have said, all true believers are baptized into this one body by the Holy Spirit, and He makes no mistakes. Yes, it is the Spirit of God, not these obnoxious Brethren, that thus has formed the church of God. They never dream of making a pure church; wherever did the Doctor get such an idea? It is made! it is formed, by the Holy Spirit, we repeat, and every believer is joined by the Holy Spirit to the Head, Christ, in heaven.
What, then, are these Brethren doing, and why are they separate from all the sects of men? If the apostles did not advise separation from the church of God, even when much evil mixed itself up with the profession of Christianity, why are Brethren now separate from sects abounding with infidelity and superstition?
Is there not a wide contrast between the church of God as at the beginning, and a sect now? The church of God was composed of all true believers on earth, owning one Head alone, the Lord Jesus Christ, gathered to one center -Christ. A sect now does not own Christ as the only center and Head; if it did, it would at once cease to be a sect. But it owns a pope, an emperor, a king, a conference, a Wesley, a Calvin, or it may be an independent fragment of the church, owning for its head a minister over his members. But in all these there is the not holding the Head, Christ, as the only center. There is utter departure, in these and all other cases, from the true scriptural idea of the church.
Now, in these last days the Spirit of God has again recovered the truth of the peerless glory of Christ the Lord — the Head of the church, His body. It is as, when the sun shines forth, the stars disappear. Oh, shine forth, Thou bright and Morning Star, Thou Sun of Righteousness. The soul that knows that Holy, Holy, Holy One can allow no compeer. If there were ten thousand popes or queens as heads of men’s churches, they all disappear before Christ the Lord. It is not believers leaving the sects to join the Brethren; no, it is the inestimable privilege of being gathered from every false center to Christ. Thus, while the church held Christ to be the Head, how could any separate from Christ? And, more, while He was truly owned, there was the power of our Lord Jesus Christ in the church, to deal with evil, and “to put away from themselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:4-13). But to separate from Christ, and form a new body, was simply impossible.
But then another center — the pope — was set up, another head of the church; and then another head, the king; and what a king? And what a struggle betwixt these two heads — the pope and the king! Was not all now changed? and were not both equally wrong, and all wrong that followed? And is anything right, but Christ, the only Head and center of the church of God?’ Dr. Titcomb’s mistake is this; he reasons that because believers were not told to separate from what was right, therefore they ought not to separate from what is wrong. He does not make the least difference between the church of God, with Christ the Head, and a church of man, with a pope or a king for its head.
Separation from evil also is surely taught in Scripture, and holy discipline (1 Cor. 5; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 3:1-5). We bless God that we have now the privilege of owning Christ the Head of the church, His body, to the exclusion of all others. To have done so a little while ago, we should have been punished with a cruel death, either by the pope, or by the church for which the Doctor pleads.
But we must return to the alleged errors of these Brethren. “2. These Brethren say that it is unscriptural for any one man to be ordained as a stated minister or pastor over a congregation; and that, as all true believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit, any one who professes to speak with official authority in a congregation usurps the place of the Holy Ghost.”
We will take the first clause. We suppose what is meant is, one man ordained as THE stated minister, to the exclusion of all others; as a clergyman over a parish, or a minister over a congregation. Now Dr. T. knows, or ought to know, that no such person is found in the New Testament. Since the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost we have no record of any one being ordained either to preach the gospel to the world, or to teach in the church of God. If there is, why did he not give us a single instance? If such a case could be found, Brethren would immediately bow to it, as to every tittle of the Word of God. Why should he again quote words as if they said so, when they say the contrary? In Paul’s journey we read, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church,” or in every assembly. Does ordaining elders, more than one, in every assembly prove that one man was ordained to be the minister or the clergyman’? Nay, does it not prove the opposite, that no one man in apostolic times could possibly be ordained to take such a place of pre-eminence? What were these elders, or bishops, in every assembly? for they are the same persons evidently. See Titus 1:5; “Elders” in verse 7, the same persons are called “bishops.” So in Acts 20, in verse 17 the apostle sends not for the elder, or minister, but for the elders of the church at Ephesus; these same persons are overseers in verse 28. Read 1 Peter 5:1-5. It is plain they were aged men in the assembly, men of experience, able to shepherd, or rule, the assembly; as it says, “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder.” This had nothing to do with the question of ministry in the word, as we learn by comparing this with chapter 4:10, 11. There it is not a question of elders, ordained or not ordained, but, “AS EVERY MAN hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. IF ANY MAN SPEAK, let him speak as the oracle of God; IF ANY MAN minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth,” etc. The same responsibility for every member of the body of Christ diligently to use the gift conferred, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith, is taught in Romans 12:3-9; whether it be ministry, teaching, or exhortation. Can Dr. T. tell us how believers can obey this plain teaching — yea, these commands of Christ — where the world’s system appoints a clergyman to be the only man in and over a parish or assembly, and perhaps be not a Christian at all, excluding the exercise of every member of the body, or gift of Christ?
Now read carefully 1 Tim. 3:1-7. Granted, as we have seen elders and bishops in the assembly are the same persons. Then let us again compare chapter 3 with chapter 5. Does not the latter mean those who are spoken of in the former? Just as we found in Peter, and everywhere. They were elderly Christian men of the qualities described in chapter 3, or how could the apostle thus contrast them with younger brethren? “Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren” (vs. 1). Perhaps the Doctor will still insist that an elder, or bishop, is the same as a minister, or one who labors in the word and doctrine. Now, if he will examine the scriptures, he will assuredly find he is mistaken, as may be seen in the following verse: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Tim. 5:17). Does this not clearly prove one man might be an elder, and not labor in the word and doctrine, and another might? Elders were ordained by the apostles and their delegates. There is not one instance of a minister, in the sense of a laborer in the word and doctrine, ever being ordained. If there is, let Dr. T. produce the case. If there were a single case of such a minister being ordained over an assembly, to the exclusion of every man who may have received the gift, then clearly scripture would contradict itself, which is impossible. Therefore the Doctor must be utterly wrong, and the world’s system of church government which he defends. Those who minister the word are the gifts of the ascended Christ. (See Eph. 4:8-12). These are responsible to Him to use the gift. (See 1 Peter 4:10, 11; Rom. 12:3-9). Yea, every member of the body is responsible to use whatever manifestation of the Spirit is conferred. (See 1 Cor. 12:4-11). It does not say the Spirit gives all the gifts to the one man. “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to EVERY MAN severally as He will.” Is not this as true of the feeblest member of the body of Christ, as of even a Timothy, who received such an extraordinary gift? (1 Tim. 4:14; 1:18, etc.).
As to Brethren saying that elders, or shepherds, etc., were only meant to continue during the life of the apostles, all this is simply false. Brethren believe the church of God has all that the ascended Christ is pleased to give it, and His love to the church is infinite. He will give faithful pastors and teachers, and evangelists, to the end, and Brethren desire most gratefully to own such. These never were of men, or ordained by men, and never need be. Brethren do not believe there are any apostles now on earth to ordain elders (cp. Titus 1:5). Neither can they find a trace of apostolic succession in scripture. How gracious of our God and Father this is so; well did He know if there had been we must all have remained beneath the rule of Rome. If there be apostolic succession, is not Dr. T. rebelling against it? There could be no honest escape from Rome, therefore those that believe it are going back to her.
The Doctor may say, Then, if that be the case, any man who is a true Christian, and believes himself called of God, and full of love to souls, may ordain himself to the ministry. And, pray, is the church of God to submit to such, without even the official authority of the world’s bishops? This taunt is often thrown at such as desire to be wholly guided by the Word of God. Now, it is remarkable this is the very ordination we find in the apostolic church. “I beseech you, brethren, ye know the house of Stephanas... That they have addicted [or ordained] themselves to the ministry of the saints, that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth” (1 Cor. 16:15-16). This must also have been the case in the infant assembly in Thessalonica. Do we find a minister ordained over that young assembly? It had had the ministry of the apostle for three weeks, for he had to flee for his life. He sends Timothy to see how they do; and he says, “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify ONE ANOTHER, even as ye do; and we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you,” etc. (1 Thess. 5:11-13). What a mercy it is to have such clear scriptures in these days of priestly pretensions! Thus, apart from all this world’s official authority, believers have now pretty much the same as in the beginning — the ascended Christ in heaven, and the Holy Spirit on earth. Christ still gives His gifts to the church. The Holy Spirit still uses whom He will. Brethren believe it is impossible to obey the Word of God, the commands of Christ, if they own the unscriptural idea of one man being ordained the sole minister over an assembly, or over a parish. For proof, read 1 Corinthians 14:29-37, it being understood that this does not refer to preaching the gospel or giving a lecture, but to the assembly gathered, as such, for worship and edification.
We now come to “several very dangerous errors which these good, but misguided, Christians hold.”
1. “They say that it is useless for an unconverted person to pray to God.” Where do they say so? No answer. Brethren find in scripture that true prayer is a sign of life, as the Lord said to Ananias of Saul, “Behold he prayeth.” Still, is it not a serious thing for an unconverted man, living in sin, to say, “Our Father”? Ought he not to be warned? Who is his Father? Again, we visit a dying man; the clergyman has been (there) also. He has said prayers, and, as the authorized minister, he has told the man to pray. Not a word about the finished work of Christ on the cross; not a word about the free forgiveness of sins, and of eternal redemption; not a word about having or knowing that we have eternal life; not a word of the glad tidings of God’s love to poor sinners. Oh, how often this is the case! You bend over that dying man, with eternity before him, and a life of sins behind him, and gently say, “My dear old friend, what are you resting on for eternity?” And he replies, “I am praying.” There is not a thought in his poor dark soul of the finished work of Him who says, “Come unto Me, and I will give you rest.”
Oh, Dr. T., this is the cruel, cruel case with thousands. Is not this putting prayer in the place of Christ as much as if you deceived the dying man, by telling him that a little cake was God, and if he ate it he would be saved. It certainly was not the manner of the apostles, when preaching the gospel to the unconverted, to tell them to pray. Find an instance. The Doctor refers to Simon Magus, but he had professed to believe, and had been baptized. He had taken the place of a Christian.
Should Dr. T. have a case of Simony brought before him, for anything Brethren hold, be may properly use the very language of Peter to Simon Magus. No doubt it is dreadful, willful wickedness in one who professes to be a Christian.
Next dangerous error. “They say that real believers should never pray for the Holy Spirit. Can you think why? Because the Spirit has been already given them, and dwells in them.”
Let us take an illustration. A father gives his child a valuable book; if he reads and enjoys it, because he has it, instead of continually asking the father to give it, he is guilty of dangerous error. The Doctor must be hard up to find a fault.
Now, does the Doctor really believe in the personality and Godhead of the Holy Spirit? Does he believe that the Holy Spirit has been sent from heaven as promised? (John 14:16-26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-15). That He is as truly with us now, and as truly a Person as Jesus was when in the midst of His disciples? Now, if one, say Peter, had prayed that Jesus might come, when He was there in their midst, would it not have been to deny that He was come in the flesh? Shocking unbelief! If we ask for the Holy Spirit now He has come, is it not to deny He has come; and therefore is it not also shocking unbelief? Perhaps the question put by Paul may be a most important one “Have ye received the; Holy Ghost since ye believed?” If Dr. Titcomb can say, I know that my sins are forgiven, that I am justified from all things, that I have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and that I have received the Holy Spirit — then how can he pray for any of these, any more than the child can pray for the book which his father has given him?
We now look at the next dangerous error. “They say [always, they say, without any proof] that no true believer ought to confess his sins, or ask pardon for them.” This has been denied so often, that it is sad, even for a bishop, to repeat such a deliberate falsehood. We trust he may be led to confess his sin of bearing false witness against his brethren; certainly he never can enjoy the blessedness of sins forgiven without confession. The scriptures teach, that while the adorable Lord has put away His people’s sins, so that they are never to be imputed to them (Heb. 1:3), yet they are actually forgiven us, when, through grace, we confess them. This has ever been God’s way of forgiveness. (Job 33:27, 28; Psa. 32:5; Luke 15:21, 22 John 1:9). The principle is evidently the same, whether when a sinner is first brought to God, or if we who are believers should sin. But the question is this — do we believe God? Forgiveness is preached to men, and God declares all who believe ARE justified from all things. The prodigal came to the Father, and he had nothing to bring but sins; and immediately on his confession, not giving him time to pray, the Father said, “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him.” At once he is forgiven, and made fit for the Father’s presence. The Father’s house rings with joy.
Does the Doctor think it would have been better for him to remain outside, crying for mercy as “a miserable sinner”? There is nothing Brethren would press more than confession of sins to God; but let us also be assured of our Father’s forgiving love. We are told that the distributor of these tracts tells his people that they can never know that their sins are forgiven until just before they die. Surely this is not true, with the Bible in his hands! Were all the Roman believers just going to die when Paul wrote those precious words, “Being justified by faith, WE HAVE PEACE WITH GOD, through our Lord Jesus Christ”?
Now for the next dangerous error. “They say that all believers are so perfectly sanctified, that there can be no room for any growth in sanctification.” Simply false again! They hold both these truths. The scriptures teach distinctly that believers are sanctified by the will of God, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once, and that those who are thus sanctified are forever perfected — this being the work of the Lord Jesus. “For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:10-14). This is indeed the testimony of God, and Brethren believe God. Our sanctification, as it regards the work of Christ for us, is indeed as perfect as it ever can be. But scripture also speaks of the sanctification in us, our walk and ways being brought into more and more conformity to Christ. Brethren, with all Christians, believe this growth in practical holiness to be progressive. It is a pity the Doctor did not inquire, so as to have understood what he was writing about. No doubt great numbers will have been deceived by these untruths.
We now come to the next of their dangerous views. “They say that to preach the duty of repentance, or sorrow for sin, as necessary for salvation, is both legal and dangerous, inasmuch as it is putting something in the place of Christ.” This sentence seems to imply that Brethren do not preach repentance, but set it aside as a dangerous thing. Nothing could be more false, as every one knows who either reads their tracts or hears them preach. At the same time it must be remembered that forty years ago repentance was frequently put in the place of Christ; it was presented as something to be done by the dead sinner before he believed — as good works in man leading God to be gracious to him. And this kind of preaching hindered thousands of souls from enjoying peace with God, as they never knew when they had repented enough. Brethren saw that this view of repentance denied man’s total ruin in sin, and the perfect grace of God to him in that lost state. Now, in exposing this error, and presenting the truth that it is the goodness of God that leadeth to repentance, they may, like the pendulum, have swung toward the opposite extreme. The question is still, what is repentance? Is it merely sorrow for sin? The scripture says it is not, for the Corinthian Christians sorrowed to repentance. “For godly sorrow worketh repentance.” They believed the inspired message of the apostle, and this produced godly sorrow, which worked in them repentance. The Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah. Did they repent first, and then believe God? Let us see. “He cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh BELIEVED GOD, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth,” etc. (Jonah 3:4). Thus they first believed God, and then repented, and turned from their evil way. Was it not so at Pentecost? Did they not believe God that He had raised that very Jesus from the dead whom they had crucified, and had made Him both Lord and Christ? And they were cut to the heart. They were then told to repent.
It may be noticed that Job never repented until he saw God; and then what was his repentance? Nothing could make the subject more clear than this: he says, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42). This is repentance. There will be sorrow for sins leading to it, and ever accompanying it, and confession of sins to God (Psa. 32). But repentance itself is both at conversion, and to the last chapter of the Christian’s life, that deep loathing of self — the judgment the new nature has of the old man, the utter abhorrence of all that is of the flesh — sins and sin. God by His Spirit works this true repentance in the soul in a variety of ways. No soul is ever saved without it; but so much, repentance is never put in scripture as the price of salvation. The more clearly we see God revealed in Christ, the brighter His glory who is the image of the invisible God is revealed to our souls—the more we know and believe the love that He hath to us; the deeper will be our unutterable abhorrence and judgment of self. And this is repentance. Thus repentance is not produced in the conscience so much by teaching how to repent, as by the full preaching of Christ. Truly, the writer can say this repentance is a far deeper work in his own soul than it was when he first believed, forty-six years ago. God only knows the sense the aged Christian has of his own vileness; but oh, the grace of God!
It will be noticed, every word the Doctor says is wide of the mark. The Corinthians were believers who did believe, not dead sinners pressed to repent (2 Cor. 12:10).
And Simon Magus, as we have seen, was a professor, and baptized. Brethren hold it to be quite right, when the gospel is preached, to tell that it is God’s command to all men everywhere to repent (Acts 16:30). They count on God to give repentance. They would especially press on themselves, and all Christians, lowly dependence on God, great diligence in the confession of sins or failures, and constant self-judgment. Indeed, had any one amongst them — that is, those who have left sectarianism, and are gathered (together) to Christ, the center — written a tract, full of false statements against Christians, he never could enjoy their confidence, until he had repented and confessed his sins. No doubt these false statements please those who hate the Brethren, but do they please Him who says of all His brethren, “That the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me”? Blessed Jesus, teach us more of Thy blessed ways. Read John 15:9. Oh, wondrous love!
We now come to the last charge of dangerous error. “They say that true believers are not now under the moral law as a rule of life. They hold that the resurrection-life of Christ is the only standard in the Christian dispensation; that the moral law was put away by Christ as binding on Christians; and that we are not ‘under the law’ in any sense, because we are wholly under grace. The Doctor then says, “Now it is quite true we are not under the law as a covenant of works.” But what is it else in scripture but a covenant of works? He then asks the Brethren, “Where do they find a text which proves that christian believers are not under the law as a rule of RENEWED LIFE?” We reply, Where does the Doctor find such a thought in the New Testament as renewed life? This is a fundamental, though common, mistake — the very root of Ritualism. When the gardener buds a rose on a briar, does be renew the life of the briar, or does he introduce a wholly new life and nature, namely, the rose? This is a feeble figure of the Christian. His old nature is the briar, his new nature the rose. There cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that the new birth in scripture is the old nature renewed — the briar renewed. Whether it be by baptism, the incarnation of our blessed Lord, sacraments, or anything else, there is no such thought in scripture as renewed life in any way. “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The very words of “our Lord Jesus.” As distinctly as that which is grown of the briar, is briar; and that which is grown of the rose, is rose. That sinful humanity could not be either renewed or engrafted, by the incarnation, is clear from John 12:24. This error of “renewed life” is leading souls to Rome. The teaching of Christ is that man must be born wholly anew (John 3). Just as with the briar, it must have a wholly new rose-nature.
Now, does not every Christian find two natures in him, as distinct, though one person, as the two natures in that one stock rose? Where this important truth is not known, the Christian is full of perplexity and doubt. He says, After all my efforts after renewed life, and to keep the law as the rule of renewed life, I find such an evil nature in me that is not subject to the law of God; it must be sin, for whenever it acts, it sins (Rom. 7). He questions whether he can be a Christian at all, and may sink into such darkness as the person who says, he can never tell whether be is saved or not until just before he dies. The whole thing is utterly false. The scriptures, as well as experience, recognize two distinct natures in the Christian, as distinct as the two natures in the stock rose. If the briar sprouts, it is briar; if the rose blooms, it is rose. If the flesh is allowed to act, it is sin. And, more, if the briar does not sprout, it is briar; and if the flesh does not act, it is sin. “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit,” etc. (Gal. 5:17). It is blessedly true that the new man is renewed, just as the rose is renewed year by year. It is not renewed life, the life of the old man under law, but new life, even eternal life; for “He that hath the Son, hath life; and be that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.” What is the record of God — that He hath renewed our life? No; “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” Read 1 John 5:10-13; John 3:3-8; 5:24; 10:27, 28.
Now, as there is no such thing as renewed life to put under law, what life is it the Doctor wishes to put under the law? Or what nature is it — the old, or is it the new? — flesh, or Spirit; briar, or rose? The old, or man in the flesh, has been put under law, from Moses to Christ, and there was no law found that could either renew or give life (Gal. 3:21-25). If there had, righteousness would have been by the law (vs. 21). But all are concluded under sin.
If the Doctor does not understand the truth of the two natures, we will put the question in another form. Is the law for Christians as righteous men; or is it for the ungodly? He says it is for and binding on Christians. Paul says distinctly it is not. “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly,” etc. Read 1 Tim. 1:8, 9. And, speaking on the practical walk of believers, he says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). Still, he maintains the truth, “that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth” (Rom. 7:1). It was clearly given to man in the flesh. “For when we were in the flesh,” etc. How, then, are we believers delivered from the law? If we talk of renewed life, or reckon ourselves still alive in the flesh, we are not, and cannot be, delivered from it, for the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives (Rom. 7:4).
Will you now notice that the doctrine of scripture is the very opposite of Dr. Titcomb’s error? Dr. T. considers himself still alive, his life renewed, and therefore under law. The scripture not only teaches that Christ died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification — and thus we are justified by faith, and have peace with God — but that, as to sin, the root, we are accounted dead with Christ. “Likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:11). This is God’s principle as to sin. Seek to live the life of the Rose — Christ. Do not allow a single sprout of the briar. Reckon yourselves dead to that, to sin. Beloved reader, study this principle, as unfolded in this chapter. Is it not the very place we take in the figure of baptism? As is shown, it is the very opposite of being under the law. Then, further, can a man be both under the law and married to Christ? or, in other words, can a Christian be both under Christ and the law? Read Romans 7:1-6. Is it possible for Dr. T. to be right? The apostle shows it is impossible, and he quotes the law of marriage to prove it. It is as impossible for a woman to be married to two husbands at the same time, as for a Christian to be married to the two husbands, Christ and the law.
Then how was a Jew, who had been married to the law, delivered from the first husband — the law? Of course if he as to the flesh still lives he could not, the law must still have dominion (vs. 1). What is the answer? “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law, by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” The law is not dead, or abrogated, but we are dead to it, by the body of Christ. If Dr. Titcomb can prove that this is not so, and that man’s life has been renewed by incarnation, infused into humanity; or by sacraments; then every word in the epistles will be found false. Men will be still alive, and therefore under the bondage of the law. For the very starting-point of Christianity is that the believer is accounted dead and risen with Christ; and by that death in Christ, and resurrection, delivered eternally from sin, and law. So that there is “now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.” “Knowing that our old man is crucified.” Not renewed. “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live to God.” Dead that I might live: not renewed that I might live. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I [not I renewed], but Christ liveth in me” etc. (Gal. 2:19, 20). Not I; but Christ. What a truth!
Have we accepted it? How blessed! Christ died for our sins: holy Substitute. Christ was raised for our justification — now the glorified representative. Our righteousness: He who knew no sin, made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Yes, our sin, the very root was judged in that sacrifice for sin. Read 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:3. How great the deliverance and eternal the redemption
We trust no reader will suppose the epistles speak of the ceremonial law merely. 2 Corinthians 7 is conclusive as to that. The law, means the law: “the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones” (2 Cor. 3:7). Is there any wonder then that the apostle should so vehemently denounce the doctrine defended by Dr. T.? Read Galatians 1:6-9. This is the leaven which has now leavened the whole lump (Gal. 5:9).
To the Hebrews, the danger was the giving up Christ altogether, and going back to Judaism (Heb. 6; 10). The far greater danger to the whole church was seen in Galatia. The mixing up of both Christ and the law, just what man likes to do, this was to subvert the gospel. The very believing Jews had wholly given up the law as to righteousness; that they might be justified by Christ. The apostle himself could say, I am crucified with Christ. What could the law say to a dead man? He was dead to the law; Christ crucified, not the law, had been set forth before them. Surely then it was utterly senseless for them, having begun in the Spirit, to seek to be perfected by the works of the law. Read and study every verse in this epistle. Now if it were foolish in them, is it wise in Dr. T.? He would have us begin with Christ (at least I suppose so), and then be put under the bondage of the law! “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,” says the scripture. By no means, says Dr. T.; let both dwell together, Moses and Christ.
This brings us to an important point. If I am justified by faith, have peace with God, am dead with Christ, delivered from sin and law, born of the Spirit; have a new, yea eternal life: is this all I have for an holy life, practically, I mean, here below while in the body? No; I might have all this, and yet find Romans 7:7-23 to be my bitter experience. Yea, this really is the experience of every soul put under the law, and ignorant of deliverance through Christ in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:2). You notice, the Holy Spirit is not named while examining the condition of a quickened soul under law (Rom. 7). Why? Because, as we see in Galatians, the two things cannot go together. Now study Romans 8:2-17. What a stupendous fact, God the Holy Spirit dwelling in us! “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Read Galatians 5:18. “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Then can Dr. T. be led of the Spirit in trying to put us under law? Read chapter 5:22 -24. These are the fruits of the Spirit dwelling in us. Is there any law against these? Now read the catalog of the works of the flesh (vss. 19-21). But the Spirit dwells in us, so that we may not fulfill the lust of the flesh. “What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you?” “Wherefore glorify God in your body.”
The believer has thus a new nature born of God that cannot practice sin (1 John 3:9). He has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, infinite power to enable him to overcome the lusts of the flesh. The love of God shed abroad in his heart, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus fulfilling in him “all the righteous requirements of the law.”
Is the law of Moses then the Christian’s standard of holiness? No; while he owns the law is good, he says, “For me to live is Christ.” Christ’ is his standard. Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,” etc. That is surely a higher standard than the law given to Israel when Baalam was hired to curse them. Did He not give a new commandment? (John 13:34). “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love another.” Read also John 15:12. Again, “He laid down His life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:16).
The difference is this, the law was a perfect rule for man in the flesh. Man being a sinner, it became the righteous ministration of death (Rom. 7:8-18; 2 Cor. 3:7). The believer is wholly delivered from it, by being dead to it in Christ. But he is also risen in (with) Christ; he has a new life, stands in a new creation, and relationship. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17). And being now a son of God, the Spirit of God dwells in him (Gal. 4:6-7). Now he has thus a ministration suited to the new nature, and that far more glorious than the law; which was the ministration of death, which ministration is declared “abolished.” “How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?” (2 Cor. 3:8-18). The scriptures teach, that if under law, sin has the mastery (Rom. 7). They also teach that “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” How suited, and how beautiful, this ministry of the Spirit! “But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Thus the Spirit sets Christ in glory before the church of God as the only standard, declaring the ministry of the law abolished for believers, as it could only condemn such poor things as we are. All this seems foolishness to the Bishop of Rangoon. He says, “How foolish then to say that the resurrection life of Christ is our only standard, and that we are not in any sense under the law.” Brethren do not say the resurrection life of Christ, but Christ Himself now glorified. This was not foolishness to the aged apostle John. What a contrast to this bishop! John says, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself as He is pure” (1 John 3:2-3). Does not the Spirit use John to set the risen, glorified, and returning Jesus, before us as the true standard? Blessed yearning of the heart for that moment when we shall see Him as He is, and be like Him.
Let it not be supposed for a moment that this ministry and liberty of the Holy Spirit means license or antinomianism. It is a liberty from the power of sin, in grace, that more than fulfills the law. It is the power of divine love in the soul, that goes beyond the law as perfectly seen in the blessed Lord. Did the law command a man to die for his enemies? or even for his friends? And thus when speaking, not of righteousness before God, but righteous walk in the relationships amongst men; then very often that divine principle of love is shown, fulfilling not only the law, but goes as we shall see beyond it. Not seeing this, the Doctor has seized these passages to put the, believer under law, and so establish the dangerous leaven so strongly condemned in the Epistle to the Galatians.
You will see this distinctly if we look at the texts he now quotes. He gives Romans 13:9 as proof that “the old moral law of Moses is still binding on Christian consciences.” Read the context. Is it not to show that he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law? He had already proved that Christians are not under the law (Rom. 6; 7). And yet he shows blessedly that though not under it, yet all these commandments are fulfilled by the power of divine love. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling, of the law.” Now take Dr. Titcomb’s next quotation, Ephesians 6:1-3. Read the context. The division of the chapters rather hides this. You will find from Ephesians 5 this exhortation to “walk in love.” Verse 2 takes the very love of Christ to the church as the only standard of love, in all these relationships — beginning with the love of the husband, and his duties to the wife. Carry this thought forward into Ephesians 6 and it will be found in harmony with the great principle, love is the fulfilling of the law. On the other hand, lay that law down as a rule, and place the believer under it, he is fallen from Christ. This is just what Dr. T. does.
The same remarks apply to the other texts he quotes. The few words in Galatians 5:6 answer them all, and show their true meaning. He will have the law to be the perfect standard of holiness, taking no notice of what the Lord says in Matthew 5:43-48. One would suppose he had never read this. Now a standard is that beyond which you are not expected to go. But the Christian is born of God, a child of God, and the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Spirit is expected in divine love to go beyond the law; therefore it (the law) cannot be said to be his standard. Take one out of the many scriptures. The law says, Thou shalt not steal. Man placed under this law became immediately excited to covet. There was the righteous standard, and its effect was to bring sin out, in transgression. Now what is expected of a Christian? “Let him that stole steal no more: but rather labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28). The Bishop must be very dull if he cannot see that this goes far beyond his standard of holiness. Put him under law, of course the thief is cursed. By faith he can say, I have been crucified, executed, judged in the person of my blessed Substitute. In Him also I am alive, and now in the power of the Spirit he goes far, far beyond the law: though love is the fulfilling of the law.
We must notice one more text. He says, “Turn in the last place to 1 Corinthians 9:21 [To them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law.] What can be clearer than this”? St. Paul says, “we are under the law... under the law to Christ.” Now is it fair for a Bishop who knows Greek, to write to Sunday-school teachers who may not know Greek, and tell them what he knows is not true? He knows Paul says no such thing. How could he when he says he became to them that were under law as under law, taking the ground distinctly that he was not personally under the law? He was not lawless, “but duly subject to Christ.” Dr. T. must well know that this is the meaning of the Greek. If Paul did say, We are under the law, would he not have contradicted the decision of the Holy Spirit on the very subject? (Acts 15:5 -28). Would it not have flatly contradicted all that the Spirit had spoken on the subject by himself? (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:15-21; 3:1-25). Was Abraham under the law four hundred and thirty years before it was given? Was Enoch two thousand before the law? Yet both walked with God. In conclusion; may we all be duly wholly subject to Christ, as He was subject in all things to the Father. We are sanctified unto the obedience of Christ. And the new man in Christ Jesus delights to own every word of God. If Enoch walked with God two thousand years before the law, surely we have power in Christ by the Spirit dwelling in us, to walk with God, even now eighteen hundred years after the law (Gal. 3:24). “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”