Part 3

The conversation is about _one birth_ and entering into _one kingdom_. The whole is in the phrase, “You must be born again,” or the previous phrase, “Except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God.” This figurative expression “born again,” is precisely the same, or includes the same as conversion. A man born again is a man converted. In being born again precisely the same _agencies_ are employed, and the same thing is accomplished as when a man is converted. This is literally a man turned from darkness to light, from the world to God. This is not done by the agency of water without the agency of the Spirit. There is no such thing as a birth of water without the Spirit. A man is “born again,” not by water without the Spirit, nor by the Spirit without the water, but “born of water and of the Spirit,” no matter how many fine theories are spoiled. Nothing leads to more useless theories and speculations than attempts to build a theory on a figurative expression. The literal must always explain the figurative. The clear and unfigurative language of the commission has precisely the same in it as the phrase, “born of water and of the Spirit.” “He who believes and is immersed shall be saved.” Believes, in this passage, is literal. Born of the Spirit, or, which is the same, “begotten of the Spirit,” is figurative. The meaning is the same as, “I have begotten you by the gospel,” or made you believers by the gospel. Begotten of God is _made a believer of God_. Begotten of the Spirit is _made a believer by the Spirit_. It is in some instances ascribed to God in view of his being the Author of it. It is ascribed to Christ in view of it being through his mediation. It is ascribed to the Spirit in view of his inspiring the apostles or speaking in them, and thus making believers, and those thus made believers are said to be begotten of the Spirit, and, when immersed, said to be “born of water and of the Spirit.” This is precisely all there is in it.

There is nothing about the resurrection in it, the first resurrection or any other resurrection, unless it be a resurrection to a new life. Nor is anything in the resurrection ever called “a birth of the Spirit.” We are perfectly aware that the dead will be quickened by the Spirit, and that the Spirit of Christ will quicken their mortal bodies; that Christ was the “first-born from the dead,” the “first-born among many brethren,” and that the dead will be raised at the sound of the trumpet, but there is not one word about all this or an allusion to it in the conversation with Nicodemus. Nor is there one word about or allusion to the everlasting kingdom in that conversation. We must not make something out of that conversation that is not in it.

Nicodemus was standing on his birth-right, “born in thy house,” as expressed Gen. xvii. 13, for membership. The Lord sweeps this away in one sentence: “Except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God.” His being born in the house or family of Abraham availed nothing. “Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God.” No matter in whose family he was born nor whose blood coursed in his veins, a man must be born again, born from above, born of water and of the Spirit, or he cannot enjoy the kingdom of God. As the Spirit is the agent through whom the gospel is preached, and the gospel the instrument by which the Spirit makes believers, the agent is mentioned for the effect, which is belief—made believers by the Spirit and baptized into Christ, into one body. It is of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, of the apostles and by the word.

There is no such thing as the new birth without the Spirit, nor any such thing as entering into the kingdom of God or the body of Christ. The faith, the work of the Spirit in preaching the gospel, through the apostles, and baptism, or, figuratively, “born of water,” must be present. The man who believes the gospel with all his heart and is immersed into Christ is “born of water and of the Spirit” in the sense intended by the Savior.

A HIGHER MORALITY REQUIRED.

We need a higher morality, a more pure and unadulterated piety and greater simplicity of benevolence. We do not want money extracted from the pockets of the people by the Church offering them sensual gratification, amusements and entertainments, to say nothing of the ball, the lottery and other gambling. Let us in the name of the Lord and of religion, in a manly way, come directly to the people for means to _support religion_ and ask them to _give from love to Christ_, and no matter if we do not obtain one-fourth the amount it will do ten times as much good. The Lord needs no money made by lotteries, gambling, fairs, festivals, or any such appeals to the lust of the flesh, the human appetite, the love of fine companies, etc. He needs no money only that _given to him through love and devotion to his cause_. Those who appeal to entertainments, amusements, fine companies of men and women, the dance, lotteries, festivals, fairs, etc., etc., thus publish to the world their impression that there is more potency in these worldly and secular appliances than there is in the grace of God and the love of Christ, and we doubt not they find it to be so, in _raising money in their assemblies_. They have tried it and demonstrated it to be so. We care not if it be so; we care not if it has been demonstrated that the people will give more money for a monkey show than for the kingdom of God; we will not resort to the monkey show; nor do we care if they will give more money for revelling than for the holy cause for which Jesus died; we will not resort to the revelling. There are other matters aside from the question, how much money can we raise, that must be kept in view.

We must maintain our piety, devotion to the Lord, purity, and must not be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind. We have never consented to this modern element that will appeal to anything and everything that will _raise money_. It is not Godliness, nor the love of God, but sensual; it is devilish. Come directly to the children of God in the name of the Lord and appeal to them for his sake to give, to give freely and of a willing mind; that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” and appreciate what is given in his name.

POIMEEN—SHEPHERD—EVANGELIST—OVERSEER.

We will not go back to the Old Testament to find any office or officer in the kingdom of Christ. What currency, then, has the word “pastor” in the New Testament? The word is in the New Testament, in some translations, in _one place_. That is its entire currency in the new and everlasting covenant. But then the word “Easter” is found in _one place_ in the common version. Is that authority for _Easter_? If it is in the New Testament in one place, rightfully, it is authority as much as if it were in fifty places. But how does it happen to be there in _one place_? If the translators had, in that _one place_, given us _passover_, as they have done in every other instance to represent the same original, we should have had no Easter in the New Testament. In the same way, if the translators had given us the word _shepherds_, Eph. iv. 11, as they have done in every other case to represent the same original word, we should have had no _pastor_ in the New Testament. On this one variation from the rule, to translate _poimeen_, shepherd, hangs the “pastorate,” so called, the _office_ for the pastor, and we might add, all the “installations,” etc. Probably it is Dr. Watts that exclaims, with other matters before him: “Great God! on what a brittle thread hangs eternal things!” On what a slender prop hangs the _pastorate_! Still, on this platform the pastors stand.

In _one place_ and only _one_, in some translations, the original word for shepherd, and so translated in every other place in the New Testament, is translated _pastors_. When the common version appeared, King James issued a proclamation commanding the _translation_ to be read as the _word of God_. If we obey this command we must read the Latin word _pastor_ as the word of God, though the same translators give us _shepherd_ as the English representative of the original word _poimeen_ in every other occurrence of it in the New Testament. In this way we get divine authority in the word of God, and human authority from King James, not only for the unscriptural pastorate in the Church of England, but the equally unscriptural _pastorate_ now trying to grow up among us, first under one plausible pretext and then under another.

Why translate _poimeen_, shepherd, in every other place, and cover up the word shepherd with the Latin word pastor in one place? Whatever idea the Lord and the apostles intended to convey in this matter, they deemed the _one word_ sufficient. What reason can any man give for representing the original word _poimeen_ by the word shepherd in every instance but one, and there using the Latin word _pastor_? Rome loves Latin. It is not the _vulgar tongue_. What reason is there for departing from the otherwise invariable rule and giving us _pastor_, Eph. iv. 11? Why not give us “Chief-Pastor,” or “Arch-Pastor,” and not “Chief-Shepherd?” Why not style the Lord “the Pastor of the sheep,” and not “Shepherd of the sheep?” _Pastor_ would not read well as the correlative of _sheep_. We hear sermons on the offices of our Lord, as King, Priest, Prophet. Why not have a sermon on his office as _Pastor_? Then we might have a sermon on the office of the church as a _flock_, or the office of the members as _sheep_. Could we not say _flock’s_ office, _sheep’s_ office? The Lord has no such office as _shepherd_, or, in Latin, _pastor_. There is no such office as _pastorate_, nor officer as _pastor_. There is not one word in the New Covenant about the qualifications of a pastor, the election of one, the calling of one, or the installation of one. As the correlative of the word _flock_, when the church is figuratively called _flock_, the Lord who cares for the flock and has the oversight of it is figuratively called _Shepherd_, or, when the followers of the Lord are figuratively called _sheep_, the Lord is figuratively called “the Shepherd of the sheep.” When the Lord is called “the Chief-Shepherd,” or “Arch-Shepherd,” the church is in view as the flock of which he is Shepherd, and the _overseers_ in the church are _under_ shepherds, but there is no _shepherd’s_ office, nor _flock’s_ office. The bishops or overseers are as certainly _bishops_ or _overseers_, when figuratively called _shepherds_, as if literally called _overseers_. No other office or work is meant.

Coming now to the practical matter, we desire Bible things and Bible names for them. We desire to preserve the church and everything in it as the Lord gave it. We desire, in the matter in hand, to prevent the creation of any _new office_ in the church. There is nothing new or unscriptural in the idea of an overseer who devotes himself wholly to the word and teaching. There may be other overseers who do not give themselves wholly to the word and teaching. Then there is nothing unscriptural in an evangelist remaining with a church one, two or more years, to set in order things that are wanting, assist in qualifying the church to take care of itself, and preach the gospel to the community. In this capacity he is not a church officer at all, but doing the work of an evangelist. He is not with the church to “perform divine service” for it, to lord it over it, or as a ruler, nor _permanently_, but assisting the church in her infancy and enabling her to take care of herself.

Every preacher connected with any church is laboring in one of these two senses: as an overseer who labors in the word and teaching, or as an evangelist. In the former capacity he may be there permanently. In the latter capacity he is not there permanently, but setting in order the things wanting, with a view to qualifying themselves to every good word and work; to instruct and edify one another in love, but intending to go on to another place as soon as he has finished his work where he is. But the overseer who labors in the word and teaching is not to assume any airs of authority, or any _great chair_ with his _subordinates_ on more humble seats by his side. We abominate all these great chairs, pulpits and preferences for public men. If they are good men they do not want them, and if they are bad men they certainly should not be honored with them. Really great and good men are plain men—want no great chair nor great titles. They need no priestly robes, clerical coats nor titles. They make a record that tells the story for them. _They do the work._ Let us do the work, seek the simplicity of Jesus and the humility of children. While we sing, “Nearer, my God, to thee,” let us strive to live nearer to God and do our utmost to excel in understanding and practicing precisely what the Lord has laid before us in the Scriptures.

CALL NO MAN REVEREND.

We will call no man _Reverend_. We make this a matter of conscience. There is no more reason or gospel for addressing a preacher differently from other men than there is for a preacher to be attired differently. If a man is not preacher enough to be known as a _preacher_, without the white necktie or the priestly coat, let him pass without being known. We like to treat a preacher, or even a Roman priest, with common civility, but we do all that when we treat him as any other gentleman. We want no preacher’s garb nor titles, and will recognize none of them. Many have those who have never been “born again;” who are not in the kingdom of God—not Christians.

PREACHER DID NOT SUIT.

We must say a few things in the way of _generals_ before we come to _particulars_. We visited a church some years since, and there was quite a general impression among the members that their preacher did not suit them—that he was not “the right man in the right place,” etc. Many fine things were said, as to the kind of a man they needed, etc., and the idea prevailed that they had better turn their preacher off and get another. We suggested to them in a circle one day that possibly they had not at all discovered the real malady; that possibly the main difficulty was not at all in reference to the kind of a preacher they needed, but to the kind of a church they needed; that possibly the change they needed could be effected by _turning off the church_ and getting _another_ and a _better one_.

THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

We need a vast amount of instruction in regard to both the Old Testament and the New, not only in the sunday-school, but in the church, the family, and to individuals. We need some thorough work in this matter. Much of what is now passing for _teaching_ both the Old Testament and New is in no proper sense teaching either the Old or New Testament. The general idea is, that the Old Testament embraces all the sacred writings or the books of the Bible, beginning with Genesis and ending with Malachi, and that the New Testament embraces all the sacred writings or books of the Bible, beginning with Matthew and ending with Revelation. Such is the sense in which these terms are now used. When it is said, the Old Testament is abolished, the idea generally received is that all the sacred writings, or the books of the Bible, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi, are set aside, of no use, and not to be studied. This is a very superficial view, and one that in no sense comprehends the matter.

The word “testament” means _covenant_, and the Old Testament is simply in the Bible sense the Old Covenant. This was made with the seed of Abraham, or fleshly Israel, and includes what Paul calls “the law.” This is what he calls “our _pedagogue_ to bring us to Christ.” It is not “school-master” as the common version has it, but _pedagogue_. His office was different from that of school-teacher. It was to take charge of the children from the time they started from their homes till they reached the school-room and put under the teacher. This was the office of the law of Moses, to take charge of the seed of Abraham, Israel according to the flesh, and bring them to Christ the School-teacher. Paul does not say, as some quote him, “The law _is_ our school-master to bring us to Christ,” but being a Jew, and speaking as such, he says, “The law _was_ our pedagogue to bring us to Christ,” the School-teacher. This law, containing a full development of all that was in the covenant with the seed of Abraham, or fleshly Israel, is what was abolished, had waxed old, and was ready to vanish away in Paul’s day. This most certainly did not include the history in the five books of Moses, or any other history in the Old Book, commonly called the “Old Testament,” the book of Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, or the Prophecies. None of these are abolished, but are all of as much value to those under Christ, and as legitimate books for study, as they ever were to any people in any age of the world. They are not included in the law, or the covenant, or in what was abolished, but have a relation to the gospel, to those in the kingdom of Christ, and are of immense value.

By making ourselves well acquainted with the sacred writings, the dealings of God with man, and the portions of revelation given in various manners and at sundry times, we can see as we can in nature now that we have revelation through which to read it, that there was one Divine Mind before the beginning of time that looked down through the ages, and by the agency of men that did not understand him, carried out his wise and gracious counsels according to his eternal purpose. Going back to the early sacred writings found in the Old Book we look down through these writings to Christ, the kingdom of God, the gospel, as one looking through a telescope at objects in the distance; but, standing at the other end of revelation, we look up through the New Book containing the revelations given at later periods to the persons and events of the Old Book, as one who turns the telescope the other end foremost, and bring Moses and the prophets down near to us.

Christ is the soul of the Bible, _the theme_ of the revelation from God to man. Turn the portions of revelation given at early periods, next to the eye and look down through the Bible, and through the ages to Christ, and then turn the last part of revelation to the eye, and look up through it to Christ, and we thus find that it all centers in Him “who is Head over all things to the church.”

It is not right in the church, family, or anywhere, to teach the Old Scriptures _exclusively_, or the New, but _teach both_, in their relation to each other. The New can not be thoroughly and successfully studied without the Old, nor the Old without the New.

The popular custom of memorizing and repeating verses in view of prizes to the most successful, or the study and answer of such questions, as who was the first man, who was the oldest man, who was the meekest man, etc., gives us no understanding of the Scriptures. Much of this is a mere exercise of the memory, and there is nothing in it to make a pious impression, or give any comprehension of the mind of God. It appears at times wonderful how many things can be taught, and correctly enough too, _about_ the Bible, and at the same time keep out of view entirely the _divine purpose_, the very _import_ and _intention_ of the wonderful book professedly taught. The eternal purpose of God, running through the Bible from side to side, as it does through the works of nature, should be taught and kept in view, not to find any definite number that will certainly be saved or lost, but to find the Lord’s Anointed, his gospel and kingdom; a revelation of the mystery, an unfolding of the secret hid in God from before the beginning of time, but now made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.

WILL YOU ALSO GO AWAY.

No matter how many go the wrong way, nor how popular they are, nor how much money they have, the Lord is able to bring them to judgment, and he will most certainly do it. When the people went away from the temple and abandoned him, and only a few disciples remained with him, and he inquired of them: “Will you also go away?” the prospect looked dim, but the Lord did not change his course. When he expired on the cross the enemies exulted and triumphed; but their triumph did not last long. “He was quickened by the Spirit.” God raised him up. “He was justified by the Spirit.” The armies in heaven were with him. The upper world was in motion. God vindicated him, as he did all who will listen to him. When they burned Tyndale at the stake they thought they had put him down; but, while the names of his persecutors have, with few exceptions, gone into oblivion, the name of Tyndale is held in esteem by all good men. The name of Luther will live to the end of time, while the time-servers who opposed him are rapidly sinking into forgetfulness. The man that leads the people to God, to the Lord Jesus, by the gospel, and maintains the will of God, will abide forever; while the man that tries to catch the giddy throng with a little show of some human devices, and who may attract their attention for a time, will pass away and be forgotten forever.

We are for _progress_ in the true sense in every department, but not for the _progress backward_. We are for the _progress_ in the church that goes forward and converts sinners, and builds up churches; that infuses piety, devotion to God and to the right way of the Lord; but not for the progress that is _nearly all money_, and _almost no work_. We are for the progress that goes _forward_ and not _backward_.

THE GROUND OF UNION.

“In what are Christians to be united?”

They are to be united _on Christ_—on _being Christians_. This embraces the entire revelation from God to man, all the truth uttered, the commandments given and the promises made by our heavenly Father. The truth must all be believed, the commandments obeyed, and the promises must be hoped for. This includes the entire faith, obedience and hope of the gospel. _In this_ we must be united.

II. “What are the essentials of Christianity which can not be compromised?”

_Christianity itself_, as a whole and in all its parts, is essential. All that is in it is essential, and all that is not in it is not essential. We are for christianity itself, not in part, but the whole of it, as it came from the infallible Spirit of all wisdom and all revelation. It is all essential. Nothing may be added to it or taken from it. The “doctrines and commandments of men,” the doctrines of “expediency,” of “deductions” and “inferences,” from _principles_, are not essential; but these are not christianity, nor any part of it. Nothing in christianity can be compromised except at our peril. The wisdom of God gives us no non-essentials. If the wisdom of man pronounces anything given by the wisdom of God, or, which is the same, any part of christianity, non-essential, such wisdom of man must be set aside as presumptuous.

What an idea for men to sit on the _grave_ question of _essentials_ and _non-essentials_, in the divine institution given by our Lord and confirmed by the most indubitable signs and wonders! What part of that which has been given by the wisdom of God is essential, and what part is not essential? It is all essential, or the wisdom of God would not have given it, and the authority of God would not have required it. The very circumstance that the infinite wisdom devised it and the infinite authority required it makes the whole of christianity binding. There is not a non-essential in it.

III. “How far is diversity to be tolerated?”