IT is our present purpose to call attention to the testimony of the New Testament on the above subject. The Church now lives under a new dispensation, and we find that there are directions in the Word of God fitted to give guidance amidst the peculiar difficulties that attend her altered case and circumstances. While the Old Testament contains the same general principles as the New, yet it is to the latter we chiefly appeal as our guide and authority as to what should be done in respect of separation from unsound religious bodies in these latter days. The New Testament speaks directly to the Church in its present position, as emancipated from the bondage of ritual and confinement to locality which was her divinely appointed lot during the earlier period of the world’s history. We have already given the testimony of the Old Testament on this subject.
II. Let us look, in the second place, at the testimony of the New Testament.
(1) Consider the words of Christ in the tenth chapter of Matthew. He there addresses His disciples, immediately before they go forth at His command to preach the Gospel to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He says, at the 14th verse, “And whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” Again, at v. 34-38—”Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” The fourteenth verse indicates that the apostles were not to persist in obtruding themselves and their message where these
were deliberately rejected, and we find that this principle was invariably carried into practice, as may be seen in the book of the Acts. It is a vain charity or faithfulness that leads men to take an opposite course from that prescribed by Christ Himself.
The other verses plainly intimate that the declaration of the true Gospel of Christ will be accompanied with results the reverse of pleasant to the flesh, and that all who will follow Him must be prepared to sacrifice, when His cause demands it, the favour of the dearest earthly friends, yea, to lay down life itself. It has been made a cause of reproach to our Church that its existence was the occasion of divisions in congregations and families. But has it been the means of producing any more serious results than those indicated in the above chapter? Again, many persons make a great cry about peace, as if that were the one thing needful. Well, we by no means disparage the value of peace, and deplore every unwarrantable division. But peace of conscience before God is more precious than peace with one’s neighbour, and the former peace is absolutely consistent with the utmost opposition to sin and error, whilst the latter is frequently not so. It may be, therefore, necessary to separate from a so-called Church, to lose friends, comforts, and all earthly things in order to have a good conscience and to follow Christ.
(2) Observe the example of the Apostle Paul at Ephesus, in Acts xix. 8, 9. There we are told that “he went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.” This incident informs us that there is a time at which it is the highest duty of Christ’s faithful witnesses to separate from men who contemn the way of the Gospel. The Jews, in the above case, not only hardened their hearts and refused to believe the truth, but began to speak evil of it. This revealed a deliberate opposition to the Gospel, and when there was added to this, the aggravation of venting this enmity “before the multitude,” the Apostle withdrew from them and separated the disciples. When religious bodies, therefore, by their representative courts deliberately reject “the form of sound words,” “the way” of the Gospel, we are at perfect liberty by apostolic example to separate from them.
(3) Note the following words of counsel which the Apostle, by the Holy Ghost, gives to the Church at Rome. “Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”—(Rom. xvi. 17.) If this advice is valid in regard to our duty toward individuals, it is no undue application of it to say that it points out the same duty toward collective bodies who cause offences contrary to sound doctrine. Frequently it is the small dissenting body that is charged with division and offence, and the
large body is esteemed innocent. This is a prevalent notion in our times, but in the vast majority of cases it is a delusion. Again, it is written, “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.”—(2 Cor. vi. 15-17). Infidelity has gone to a greater height in the Free Church of to-day than ever it did since the Christian era began in any body professing to be a part of Christ’s visible Church. If the above command—”Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord”—does not apply to people within her pale, we confess we don’t know where to apply it.
(4) Lastly, let us observe the Apostle’s injunctions to Timothy. The latter was a minister of the Gospel, and the Holy Ghost by Paul gives special directions as to how discipline is to be exercised in the Church. At the close of the First Epistle it is written—”These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyself.”—(1 Tim. vi. 2-5). Again, Timothy is warned that in the last days perilous times shall come, when men shall be lovers of their own selves, blasphemers, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; and a dark description of their several features is given, which concludes with the words—”having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” We do not know words that describe better the condition of things in the greater number of the professing Churches of our time, and we think the duty of all who would be faithful to Christ is unmistakable.
In a future article we hope to answer objections to the above views anent separation, objections that have been drawn from the example of Christ in relation to the Church in His time on earth, and from some other passages of the New Testament.
A NOTE FROM REV. JOHN KENNEDY, REDCASTLE.—On one occasion, when this eminent minister was preaching about the forgiveness of sins, he asked the question—”How am I to know if I got the forgiveness of sins?” He answered—”If you got the forgiveness of sins, through the blood of Christ, you did not get it with a dry eye. I do not speak of the bodily eye, but of the soul’s eye. Secondly, if you got forgiveness through the blood you will not forgive yourself. And thirdly, if you got forgiveness through the blood of Christ you will think more of the Author who gave you the forgiveness than the forgiveness itself.”
A Sermon.
BY THE REV. JONATHAN RANKEN ANDERSON.
PREACHED IN KIRKFIELD CHURCH, GLASGOW, 24TH DECEMBER, 1837.