1.-The question of the "leading of the Spirit in the assembly," has been raised here, and it seems to me there is a deal of semi-quakerism amongst us, and that the presence of the Spirit, as a semi-distinct person, corporally present, as the Leader of the assembly, is confounded with the presence of the Lord, whether, as anointing the assembly with the authority of His presence (Matt. 18), or to lead the praise of His gathered saints. (Psa. 22, Heb. 2)
I understand the leading of the Spirit as characteristic of the Christian at all times, whether in or out of the assembly. (Rom. 13:1414But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. (Romans 13:14); Gal. 5:1818But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Galatians 5:18).) But any other leading in the assembly, as from a Spirit separately distinct from us and in our midst, I do not see, as though. I should wait upon Him as outside of me till He impels me to act. That I conceive would be inspiration (2 Peter 1:22Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (2 Peter 1:2)), and would hinder any action I took under such impulse from being judged in the assembly according to 1 Cor. 14:2929Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. (1 Corinthians 14:29); while also the waiting for such an impulse would hinder self-judgment in one as to my own spiritual state, which was all the time perhaps the cause of my faulty ways in the assembly, and not that the Spirit had either passed me by, or that it had not yet come to my turn, as if it were a Quakers' meeting. The Spirit in me, if not grieved or otherwise hindered by me, would produce in me a state coincident with His presence in me, in which state I should be alike capable (1 Cor. 2) and free (2 Cor. 3) to answer to the leadings, of the Lord according to my relative place in the body, (1 Cor. 12) as He took His place as Leader of the assembly.
"He is with you and shall be in you" (John 14); that is, when Jesus was there all the fullness of the Spirit was with them, in Him who had received the Spirit from heaven, by-and-by He would be too in them, the fruit of Christ's accomplished work; they too would receive the Spirit from heaven, as they actually did at Pentecost, and the Gentiles afterward. And He is in us now—the Comforter instead of Jesus—the testifier of Him, the Teacher who leads into all truth, the former of the Body in the unity of its members, the dispenser and energy too of every gift He gives according to His will. (1 Cor. 12) He dwells in the church, but it is He who dwells in us who for that reason is there, and not separately, as though there were two Spirits or that I have to look out of myself to find Him in the assembly, save as much as He is in every other Christian; nor that I am to wait upon His acting on me, but rather to know, and that, too, by the state which His presence in me produces, that He dwells in me, to act by me-if the flesh in me be not allowed to control me instead. In a word, I am "not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be the Spirit of God dwell " in me; and it is my business therefore to hold myself as the vessel of the Spirit to be led by Him, and not of the flesh, whether in or out of the assembly; and if the Spirit be not grieved in me I shall be led of Him in the footsteps and imitation of Christ and of God. (Eph. 5:11Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; (Ephesians 5:1) and 1 Cor. 11:11Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1).) Quench not the Spirit (1 Thess. 5), I understand applies to gifts. The clerical system is the quenching of the Spirit; quite different from "grieving."
But now come Acts 13:22As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2) and 15:28. And here it seems to some that the Spirit had a distinct, separate place from them in the midst. That in these cases it was a distinct action of the Spirit is evident; but as I understand it, not as being separate from them, a distinct person corporally present with them, but rather as being in, them, and acting through them, distinct in His own person, but a Spirit and in them—so that I would say in that sense not distinct from them. Thus Acts 13:22As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2), "The Holy Ghost said," doubtless through the mouth of some one present. He acted in him and by him, but it was the Spirit acted, for there was no hindrance to His action, only it was not a Spirit corporately and separately present with them, but the Spirit who was in them.
Again Acts 15, "It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and to us." The decree was thus stamped with the authority of the Spirit, and carried in the council at Jerusalem, and subscribed by the apostles and elders and brethren. Not that the Spirit sat as president at the board, and dictated the terms of the decree, to which the rest subscribed; the Spirit acted in them, and through them, and they acted in the Spirit. And such it seems to me ought to be the conditions of every decree that goes forth to-day. If it does not seem good to the Holy Spirit, of what good is it? And if it does, but does not to the elders and brethren, of what profit if we are not willing to be led by the Spirit? But in every case the Spirit, who dwells in the church, dwells there because He dwells in us, so that the two things are at once true"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3.), and " Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you which ye have of God?" (1 Cor. 6) He is in them individually, and because He is a divine person and Spirit, by that very fact He is in them collectively also.
2.-The thing I do not think clear in your letter is that you seem to give no place to the personal, not "corporeal," presence of the Holy Ghost in the House, as apart from His presence in the individual saint. You say, "He is in them individually, and because He is a divine person and Spirit, by that very fact He is in them collectively also." I quite think His actings are through the individual in ministry and direction, and only intelligible and recognizable in this way; still, I think He comes on persons now, as He did in king Saul's days, and uses persons instrumentally where He does not dwell in them. "Partakers of the Holy Ghost" in Heb. 6 is of this character, and thus in Acts 4—He shook the place where They were assembled, an action distinct from His individual power for ministry.
3.-You say my letter is not clear because I "seem to give no place to the personal (not corporeal) presence of the Holy Ghost in the House, as apart from His presence in the individual saint." And then you quote my words, which prove that I do, at least, believe in the presence of the Spirit as well as in the individual, for I say, "because He is a divine person and Spirit, by that very fact He is in them collectively also." The "how" of it I do not pretend to explain, because I cannot explain the nature of a divine person (compare for a similar thing in the Lord's case John 3:1313And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13), and such-like expressions), only to your expression I entirely object, when you say, “He is present apart from His presence in the individual." That to me would make two Holy Ghosts. Did scripture use such an expression I would bow, but I object to such an expression being used to explain what scripture says.
It has been long taught, at least I have been told so, and received here, that there is more Holy Ghost on Lord's day morning, when the assembly is gathered, than on other occasions. It is like a company, every one bringing his lamp, and a great chandelier let down from the ceiling. Every man brings the Holy Ghost, and there is a big Holy Ghost in the middle. The figure I give of the chandelier and the lamps is the figure used.
To that I demur. I do not believe that there is more of the Person of the Holy Ghost present on Lord's day morning than at other times. The Holy Spirit is as much in two as in two thousand, though not as much manifestation, for that is "given to every man," &c. Every fresh member has a fresh gift of the Spirit; "but it is the same Spirit " (1 Cor. 12:1111But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (1 Corinthians 12:11)) in contrast to the thought of men with their many spirits. There is as much, that is to say as really present the HOLY SPIRIT in one as in two, only that in the "two or three" there is a company, and His workings would be different. He is in the individuals, and when they are together in the assembly He is in them collectively. "He shall be in you:" only that while the Lord takes His place in the midst of the assembly, in a corporeal, though invisible, manner, to lead their praises, that could not be so said of the Spirit. Christ is the leader, as I understand it, of the assembly; the Spirit is the leader or conductor of the soul set in christian liberty, as in contrast with its being under law (Rom. 8; Gal. 5); but that is no more in the assembly than out of it, and He is the power of action in ministry, in or out of the assembly. All that is there done should be done τῷ πνεύματι καὶ τῷ νοί, not ἱπὸ πνείματος (2 Peter 1:2121For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)), as if He were there apart from His being in us; for then no one could judge the ministry as we are now told to do. (1 Cor. 14:2929Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. (1 Corinthians 14:29).)
You say "He comes on persons, as on King Saul (and you might have added Balaam) and uses them instrumentally where He does not dwell in them."—"Partakers of the Holy Spirit," as in Heb. 6. But these examples are Old Testament, and only speak of the operation of the Spirit, not of His presence, or the manner of it in the church.
I do not at all deny the presence of the Spirit in the assembly, as well as in the individual saints, only it seems to me to be a spiritual presence, in contrast with that of Christ (Luke 24:3939Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)), who takes His place amongst the assembled disciples corporeally and invisibly. (See Luke 24:3131And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. (Luke 24:31).) He ceased to be seen of them (ἂφατος ἐγένετο), but it does not say He left the room, and He is found among the gathered ones further on in the chapter; but the presence of the Spirit is spiritual, and FILLS the house, at least by the effect of His presence.
Looking at Acts 2 to-day, I remarked three things at the coming of the Spirit. First, the effect of His coming was a sound as a mighty blowing, and this sound filled the house. I do not say the Spirit did not fill the house, only this passage speaks in respect of the house, of the sound filling it, as in Isa. 6:11In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1), "His train filled the temple," and (ver. 4) "the posts of the door moved at the voice.... and the house was filled with smoke." This, it seems to me, answers to Acts 4:3131And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:31). Secondly, there appeared unto them cloven tongues, &c. Thirdly, they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. First, the place was filled with the EFFECT of His presence—the sound, and those present were so far partakers of the Holy Spirit. (Heb. 6) Secondly, the manifestations of His presence were to every member of the community. (1 Cor. 12) Thirdly, they were all (each individually and all collectively) filled with the Spirit; but I cannot see that common or collective was apart from His being in each of them, nor that He took up His abode in the house, or in them in any way separate from, or distinct from, His being in them individually. By the fact of His being in them individually and being Spirit, He was of necessity in them collectively, and in no other way that I can see.
In Acts 8:3939And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:39), the Spirit caught away Philip. This is believed to be a sort of balloon action, by which Philip was taken off his feet and carried off. I said, I thought it was the action of the Spirit in Philip, not on him, by which he left his fish with the Master of the fisheries, and retired himself to fish elsewhere.
"He is with you and shall be in you;" on this verse is founded the whole thought of the presence of the Spirit with us, apart from His being in us, as the leader of the assembly. I understand the Lord to mean that He Himself, having received the Spirit, He, the Spirit, was with them, because Jesus Himself was with them, and He was in Jesus; but that by-and-by the Spirit would be in them in like manner as He was in Jesus; that at Pentecost they should themselves receive the Spirit, and that now the Spirit is not with us in the sense in which that verse speaks of His having been with the disciples.
4.-I have not the least doubt that the interpretation of John 14:1717Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17), though very common, is a mere blunder. "Dwells" is the same word as "abide" in verse 16. Christ the Comforter would not "abide" with them as He then was, nor was He "with" them. The other Comforter would, abide "with" them, and be in them. The "will abide" in Greek is the same as "abide," save an accent, and there were none originally. μένει, he abides; μενεῑ, will abide.
Next, Acts 13:22As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. (Acts 13:2), two was not the assembly. The prophets were fasting and praying together and the Holy Ghost spoke with authority by one of them, "Separate me." The state of the individuals sent had nothing to do with it. God in His government may employ a fitting vessel, but no state of fitness can separate by divine authority a person for a specific apostolic work. And this is the great point. The "free” action, and divine authority of the Holy Ghost; that is of God. I have no doubt, as a general rule for edification, usefulness in service depends on the state of the servant, but to use this as a plea for denying the direct action of the Spirit is ruinous. It is not a chandelier of light, though each should be filled with the Spirit, but the personal free action of the Spirit.
Scripture recognizes the diligent use of the word. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them, &c., but to use this to deny the sovereign freedom of the Spirit is also ruinous and destroys our dependence on and guidance by Him.
In Acts 8 we have first "the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip." Now, I do not doubt that the Lord chose a fit person in Philip, but the angel's speaking to him, was not the state of Philip's soul. Then we find the Spirit telling him to go to the chariot. Then the Spirit "caught away,”—a word in Greek or English leaving no pretext for the interpretation given to it—"and the eunuch saw him no more." In Paul's journey the Spirit of Jesus did not allow him to go into Mysia, and they were forbidden to preach in Asia or in Bithynia.
It is alleged that this independent action of the Spirit belongs only to the Old Testament, as Saul, Balaam, &c. This is a mistake; Caiaphas prophesied. It will be said this was in Judaism. But Paul teaches it doctrinally (1 Cor. 13), "If I speak with the tongues of men, and have not love I am nothing." The very fact of tongues is an independent action of the Spirit, for they did not understand what they said, and if there was not an interpreter were to remain silent. Tell me that this is lost, I understand you, but then do not deny that the Holy Ghost so acted. But there is a difference to be made between 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4. In the former the Holy Ghost down here acts with divine authority and power, but it is simply giving power (in gifts) to whom He will; but the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, not more than two or at the most three were to speak. The word of God, the authority of Christ in the church, ordered the exercise of the power. If a man spake with tongues, and it was so completely the Holy Ghost that He did not understand what He said, a case supposed, he was to be silent, unless he or another could interpret. The apostle preferred to speak with his understanding, and edify the assembly, to which end all was to be directed. In the latter case (Eph. 4), it is Christ ascended on high, having received the Holy Ghost from the Father, gives for the spiritual need of the church (and here there are no gifts which are miraculous, in the ordinary sense, but) "apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers," and the promise that these will continue to the end, and then what every joint supplies in the measure of every part. But the Holy Ghost has been given, and come down, and all goodness and wisdom in exercise is from Him. He formed the Body, He also makes us members. Even Christ by the Spirit of God cast out devils. We are to be led by the Spirit, and surely in the most solemn part of our lives here, our spiritual activity in the church of God, this is not to be given up, and we do without it.
This is not giving up, or acting without our understanding. The apostle preferred action with understanding, but that did not exclude the direct action of the Spirit. Men speak of impulse, so that the notion of the Spirit's action is lost, and it is of man. But if it is not of the Spirit, it is merely of man. The apostle would have the Spirit and the understanding. The saying we could not then judge is a strange blunder of human reasoning, for it was when there was direct revelation they were called on so to judge.
Faith, direct looking to God and His power, is identical with the action of the Spirit in its source and results, and what is called faith in Heb. 11 is constantly referred to the Spirit in the Old Testament. All direct action of God as to the creature, and finally in divine things, from creation on, is by the Spirit in scripture. No good thought in us but from the Spirit, no wisdom. It is the Spirit that lusts against the flesh. Waiting humbly on the Lord, that He may lead us to act, or not to act, and lead us in acting, and that habitually and in all things, is not acting from impulse, but the contrary, and the leading will not fail. If we are to judge, what are we to judge—whether what is said or done is of the Spirit, or not? If it is not of the Spirit, it is of the flesh, only the paramount authority and order of the word, which is certainly by the Spirit, is maintained.
Further, the Holy Ghost being individually in our bodies, as temples, is not all. He forms the Body, or rather formed it on the day of Pentecost-not by spiritual progress, but by coming personally down, and baptizing into one body. Nor is that all. The Holy Ghost is not in an assembly as God's house or dwelling, but in the assembly. In 1 Cor. 3 they are collectively God's temple, Christendom (see 1 Cor. 1:22Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2)) only realized especially at Corinth. Some will say it is doctrine. It is so, but realized in men; as the seed is the word, the good seed are the children of the kingdom. So, in Eph. 2, "Ye are builded together for a habitation
of God through the Spirit." That is not individual; and if the Holy Ghost dwells in the habitation, is He to do nothing there, or direct everything? The assembly is as much the house, or temple of God, as it is the Body, only all the members of this last are personally dwelt in by the Spirit and members of Christ. As to two Spirits, it has no ground at all. It would be much more applicable to dwelling in individuals, but this is carefully guarded against (1 Cor. 12), in contrast with demoniacal inspiration. Whatever is not of the Spirit is of the flesh.
5.-I was thankful to get your critique of my letter. I quite see I might easily make a great mistake in this matter, though, whatever might have been at the top, at the bottom I had no idea of denying the personal presence of the Spirit in the house. I most fully believe He is present there; but I would have much liked you to have added something on the presence of the Lord, as distinct from the presence of the Spirit, and whatever connected with His presence, as leading the praises of the assembly. He is Head of the assembly, and Son over the house, and personally present in the midst of the two or three gathered in His name. In this sense I understand Him to be the leader of the assembly (president, it is sometimes said, though I think the word inapt, only that whatever truth the word conveys, it is the Lord that is in it, and not the Spirit). The Spirit, as I understand it, leads after Him, but He is the leader—that is, if I am in the Spirit, I am looking by the Spirit to the leadings of the Lord in the assembly, and not looking within one myself, or on the Spirit's acting in me. "In the midst of the assembly I will praise thee."
6.-It is not only the presence of the Spirit in the house, but His acting in the service of the saints, which I look for. As to the other point, though I believe that often there is no harm meant, and that by presidency is merely meant that His leading should be followed, that where it is substituted—a rare case, but which I have known—for the presence of Christ, it is an evil. He is in the midst spiritually, no doubt, but still Himself. I cannot have the same affections towards the Holy Ghost as towards Christ. He was not humbled, did not die for me, and so on. The ministrations are under the Lord, too, as such, but the active power is the Spirit. I do not think, "leads after Him" is right, because the Father and Christ are objects. In ministry the Spirit is active, but He brings the word from on high: "whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak."
The Spirit does act in us (Luke 12:1212For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. (Luke 12:12)), and I do look to the Spirit acting in me. I do not say, pray that He may act; I pray to the Father, or to the Lord, but I wait for the Spirit to act. Christ is Head, but it is the Spirit acting in us which gives what He would have said. Z.