The Fallibility of
Ministers
by J. C. Ryle
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he
used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back
and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who
belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his
hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I
saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said
to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile
and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow
Jewish customs?" We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know
that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be
justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by
observing the law no one will be justified." Galatians 2:11-16
Have we ever considered what the Apostle Peter did
at Antioch? It is a question that deserves serious consideration.
What the Apostle Peter did at Rome we are often
told, although we have hardly a jot of authentic information about it.
Legends, traditions, and fables abound on the subject. But unhappily for
these writers, Scripture is utterly silent upon the point. There is nothing
in Scripture to show that the Apostle Peter ever was at Rome at all!
But what did the Apostle Peter do at Antioch? This is the
point to which I want to direct attention. This is the subject from the
passage from the Epistle to the Galatians, which heads this paper. On this
point, at any rate, the Scripture speaks clearly and unmistakably.
The six verses of the passage before us are striking on
many accounts. They are striking, if we consider the event which they
describe: here is one Apostle rebuking another! They are striking, when we
consider who the two men are: Paul, the younger, rebukes Peter the elder!
They are striking, when we remark the occasion: this was no glaring fault,
no flagrant sin, at first sight, that Peter had committed! Yet the Apostle
Paul says, "I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
He does more than this—he reproves Peter publicly for his error before all
the Church at Antioch. He goes even further—he writes an account of
the matter, which is now read in two hundred languages all over the world!
It is my firm conviction that the Holy Spirit wants us to
take particular notice of this passage of Scripture. If Christianity had
been an invention of man, these things would never have been recorded. An
impostor would have hushed up the difference between two Apostles. The
Spirit of truth has caused these verses to be written for our learning, and
we shall do well to take heed to their contents.
There are three great lessons from Antioch, which I think
we ought to learn from this passage.
I. The first lesson is, "That great ministers may make
great mistakes."
II. The second is, "That to keep the truth of
Christ in His Church is even more important than to keep peace."
III. The third is, "That there is no doctrine about which
we ought to be so protective about, as justification by faith without
the deeds of the law."
I. The first great lesson we learn from Antioch is, "That
great ministers may make great mistakes."
What clearer proof can
we have, than that which is set before us in this place? Peter, without
doubt, was one of the greatest in the company of the Apostles. He was an old
disciple. He was a disciple who had had peculiar advantages and privileges.
He had been a constant companion of the Lord Jesus. He had heard the Lord
preach, seen the Lord work miracles, enjoyed the benefit of the Lord's
private teaching, been numbered among the Lord's intimate friends, and gone
out and come in with Him all the time He ministered upon earth. He was the
Apostle to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, and by
whose hand those keys were first used. He was the first who opened the door
of faith to the Jews, by preaching to them on the day of Pentecost.
He was the first who opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, by
going to the house of Cornelius, and receiving him into the Church. He was
the first to rise up in the Council of the fifteenth of Acts, and say, "Why
do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that
neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" And yet here this very
Peter, this same Apostle, plainly falls into a great mistake!
The Apostle Paul tells us, "I opposed him to his face."
He tells us "because he was clearly in the wrong." He says "he was afraid of
those who belonged to the circumcision group." He says of him and his
companions, that "they were not acting in line with the truth of the
gospel." He speaks of their "hypocrisy." He tells us that by this hypocrisy
even Barnabas, his old companion in missionary labors, "was led astray."
What a striking fact this is. This is Simon Peter! This is the third great
error of his, which the Holy Spirit has thought fit to record! Once we find
him trying to keep back our Lord, as far as he could, from the great work of
the cross, and severely rebuked Him. Then we find him denying the Lord three
times—and with an oath! Here again we find him endangering the leading truth
of Christ's Gospel. Surely we may say, "Lord, what is man!" Let us note,
that of all the Apostles there is not one, excepting, of course, Judas
Iscariot, of whom we have so many proofs that he was a fallible man.
(Note: It is curious to observe the shifts to which some
writers have been reduced, in order to explain away the plain meaning of the
verses which head this paper. Some have maintained that Paul did not really
rebuke Peter, but only faked it, for show and appearance sake! Others have
maintained that it was not Peter the Apostle who was rebuked, but another
Peter—one of the seventy! Such interpretations need no remark. They are
simply absurd. The truth is that the plain honest meaning of the verses
strikes a heavy blow at the favorite Roman Catholic doctrine of the
primacy and superiority of Peter over the rest of the Apostles.)
But it is all meant to teach us that even the Apostles
themselves, when not writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were
at times liable to err. It is meant to teach us that the best men are
weak and fallible, so long as they are in the body. Unless the grace of God
holds them up, any one of them may go astray at any time. It is very
humbling, but it is very true. True Christians are converted, justified, and
sanctified. They are living members of Christ, beloved children of God, and
heirs of eternal life. They are elect, chosen, called, and kept unto
salvation. They have the Spirit. But they are not infallible!
Will not ecclesiastical rank and dignity confer
infallibility? No—they will not! It matters nothing what a man is called. He
may be a Preacher, Minister, or Deacon. He is still a fallible man! Neither
the education, nor the anointing oil, nor the laying on of hands, can
prevent a man making mistakes.
Will not numbers confer infallibility? No—they
will not! You may gather together princes by the score, and ministers by the
hundred; but, when gathered together, they are still liable to err. You may
call them a council, or an assembly, or a conference, or whatever you
please. It matters nothing. Their conclusions are still the conclusions of
fallible men. Their collective wisdom is still capable of making enormous
mistakes.
The example of the Apostle Peter at Antioch is one that
does not stand alone. It is only a parallel of many a case that we find
written for our learning, in Holy Scripture. Do we not remember Abraham,
the father of the faithful, following the advice of Sarah, and taking Hagar
for a wife? Do we not remember Aaron, the first high priest,
listening to the children of Israel, and making a golden calf? Do we
not remember Solomon, the wisest of men, allowing his wives to build their
high places of false worship? Do we not remember Jehosaphat, the good
king, going down to help wicked Ahab? Do we not remember Hezekiah,
the good king, receiving the ambassadors of Babylon? Do we not remember
Josiah, the last of Judah's good kings, going forth to fight with
Pharaoh? Do we not remember James and John, wanting fire to
come down from heaven? These things deserve to be remembered. They were not
written without cause. They cry aloud, "No infallibility!"
And who does not see, when he reads the history of the
Church of Christ, repeated proofs that the best of men can err? The early
fathers were zealous according to their knowledge, and ready to die for
Christ. But many of them advocated ritualism, and nearly all sowed the seeds
of many superstitions. The Reformers were honored instruments in the
hand of God for reviving the cause of truth on earth. Yet hardly one of them
can be named who did not make some great mistake. Luther held tightly
to the doctrine of consubstantiation. Melancthon was often timid and
undecided. Calvin permitted Servetus to be burned. Cranmer
recanted and fell away for a time from his first faith. Jewell
subscribed to Roman Catholic Church doctrines for fear of death. Hooper
disturbed the Church of England by demanding the need to wear
ceremonial vestments when ministering. The Puritans, in later
times, denounced Christian liberty and freedoms as doctrines from the pit of
Hell. Wesley and Toplady, last century, abused each other in
most shameful language. Irving, in our own day, gave way to the
delusion of speaking in unknown tongues.
All these things speak with a loud voice. They all lift
up a beacon to the Church of Christ. They all say, "Do not trust man; call
no man master; call no man father on earth; let no man glory
in man. "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord." They all cry—"No
infallibility!" The lesson is one that we all need. We are all naturally
inclined to lean upon man whom we can see, rather than upon God whom
we cannot see. We naturally love to lean upon the ministers of the
visible Church, rather than upon the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd
and High Priest, who is invisible. We need to be continually warned and set
on our guard.
I see this tendency to lean on man everywhere. I know no
branch of the Protestant Church of Christ which does not require to be
cautioned upon the point. It is a snare to the Scottish Christians to pin
their faith on John Knox. It is a snare to the Methodists in our day to
worship the memory of John Wesley. All these are snares, and into these
snares how many fall!
We all naturally love to have a pope of our own.
We are far too ready to think, that because some great minister or some
learned man says a thing, or because our own minister, whom we love, says a
thing—that it must be right, without examining whether it is in Scripture or
not. Most men dislike the trouble of thinking for themselves. They like
following a leader. They are like sheep, when one goes over the hill all the
rest follow. Here at Antioch even Barnabas was carried away. We can well
fancy that good man saying, "An old Apostle, like Peter, surely cannot be
wrong. Following him, I cannot err."
And now let us see what PRACTICAL LESSONS
we may learn from this part of our subject.
(a) For one thing, let us learn not to put implicit
confidence in any man's opinion, merely because he lived many hundred years
ago.
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face,
because he was clearly in the wrong." Galatians 2:11. Peter was a man who
lived in the time of Christ Himself, and yet he could err. There are many
who talk much in the present day about the voice of the early Church. They
would have us believe that those who lived nearest the time of the Apostles,
must of course know more about truth than we can. There is no foundation for
any such opinion. It is a fact, that the most ancient writers in the true
Church of Christ are often at variance with one another. It is a fact that
they often changed their own minds, and retracted their own former opinions.
It is a fact that they often wrote foolish and weak things, and often showed
great ignorance in their explanations of Scripture. It is vain to expect to
find them free from mistakes. Infallibility is not to be found in the early
fathers—but in the Bible alone!
(b) For another thing, let us learn not to put implicit
confidence in any man's opinion, merely because of his office as a minister.
Peter was one of the very chief Apostles—and yet he could err. This is a
point on which men have continually gone astray. It is the rock on which the
early Church struck. Men soon took up the saying, "Do nothing contrary to
the mind of the minister!" But what are ministers, preachers, and deacons?
What are the best of ministers but men—dust, ashes, and clay—men of like
passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to
weaknesses and infirmities? What does the Scripture say? "What, after all,
is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to
believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task" (1 Corinthians 3:5).
Ministers have often driven the truth into the
wilderness, and decreed that to be true, which was false. The greatest
errors have been begun by ministers! Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of the
high-priest, made religion to be abhorred by the children of Israel. Annas
and Caiaphas, though in the direct line of descent from Aaron, crucified the
Lord. It is absurd to suppose that ordained men cannot go wrong. We should
follow them so far as they teach according to the Bible, but no further. We
should believe them so long as they can say, "Thus it is written, thus says
the Lord," but further than this we are not to go. Infallibility is not to
be found in ordained men, but in the Bible alone!
(c) For another thing, let us learn not to place implicit
confidence in any man's opinion, merely because of his learning.
Peter was a man who had miraculous gifts, and could speak with the (then
valid) gift of tongues—and yet he could err!
This is a point again on which many go wrong. This is the
rock on which men struck in the middle ages. Men looked on Thomas Aquinas,
and Peter Lombard, and many of their companions, as almost inspired. They
gave epithets to some of them in token of their admiration. They talked of
"the indisputable" preacher, "the angelic" minister, "the incomparable"
pastor, and seemed to think that whatever these ministers said—must be
true! But what is the most learned of men, if he is not taught by the
Holy Spirit? What is the most learned of all divines—but a mere fallible
child of Adam at his very best? Vast knowledge of books—and great ignorance
of God's truth—may go side by side! They have done so, they may do so, and
they will do so in all times.
I do not doubt that the one volume of Pilgrim's
Progress, written by a man who knew hardly any book but his Bible, and
was ignorant of Greek and Latin, will prove in the last day to have done
more for the benefit of the world, than all the works of the schoolmen put
together. Learning is a gift that ought not to be despised. It is an evil
day when books are not valued in the Church. But it is amazing to observe
how vast a man's intellectual attainments may be—and yet how little he may
know of the grace of God! I have no doubt the Authorities of Oxford in the
last century, knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, than Wesley or
Whitefield. But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is
not to be found among learned men—but in the Bible alone!
(d) For another thing, let us take care that we do not
place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he
may be.
Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err.
Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his
preaching and example; but do not make a pope of him! Do not place
his word side by side with the Word of God. Do not spoil him by flattery. Do
not let him suppose he can make no mistakes. Do not lean your whole weight
on his opinion—or you may find to your cost that he can err. It is written
of Joash, King of Judah, that he "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord
all the years of Jehoiada the priest" (2 Chronicles 24:2). Jehoiada died,
and then the religion of Joash died! Just so your minister may die, and then
your religion may die too. He may change, and your religion may change. He
may go away, and your religion may go. Oh, do not be satisfied with a
religion built on man!
Do not be content with saying, "I have hope, because my
own minister has told me such and such things." Seek to be able to say, "I
have hope, because I find it thus and thus written in the Word of God." If
your peace is to be solid, you must go yourself to the fountain of all
truth. If your comforts are to be lasting, you must visit the well of life
yourself, and draw fresh water for your own soul. Ministers may depart from
the faith. The visible Church may be broken up. But he who has the Word of
God written in his heart, has a foundation beneath his feet which will never
fail him. Honor your minister as a faithful ambassador of Christ. Esteem him
very highly in love for his work's sake. But never forget that infallibility
is not to be found in godly ministers—but in the Bible alone!
The things I have mentioned are worth remembering. Let us
bear them in mind, and we shall have learned one lesson from Antioch.
II. I now pass on to the second lesson that we learn from Antioch. That
lesson is, "That to keep Gospel truth in the Church—is of even
greater importance than to keep peace."
I suppose no man
knew better the value of peace and unity than the Apostle Paul. He was the
Apostle who wrote to the Corinthians about love. He was the Apostle who
said, "Live in harmony with one another; live in peace with each other; the
Lord's servant must not quarrel; There is one body and one Spirit—just as
you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one
baptism." He was the Apostle who said, "I have become all things to all men
so that by all possible means I might save some" (Romans 12:16; 1
Thessalonians 5:13; Philemon 3:16; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 9:22).
Yet see how he acts here! He withstands Peter to the
face. He publicly rebukes him. He runs the risk of all the consequences
which might follow. He takes the chance of everything that might be said by
the enemies of the Church at Antioch. Above all, he writes it down for a
perpetual memorial, that it never might be forgotten, that, wherever the
Gospel is preached throughout the world, this public rebuke of an erring
Apostle might be known and read by all men.
Now, why did he do this? Because he dreaded false
doctrine; because he knew that a little leaven leavens the whole lump,
because he would teach us that we ought to contend for the truth jealously,
and to fear the loss of truth more than the loss of peace.
Paul's example is one we shall do well to remember in the
present day. Many people will put up with anything in religion, if they may
only have a quiet life. They have a morbid dread of what they call
"controversy." They are filled with a morbid fear of what they style, in a
vague way, "party spirit," though they never define clearly what party
spirit is. They are possessed with a morbid desire to keep peace, and make
all things smooth and pleasant, even though it is at the expense of truth.
So long as they have outward calm, smoothness, stillness,
and order, they seem content to give up everything else. I believe they
would have thought with Ahab—that Elijah was a troubler of Israel; and would
have helped the princes of Judah when they put Jeremiah in prison, to stop
his mouth. I have no doubt that many of these men of whom I speak, would
have thought that Paul at Antioch was a very imprudent man, and that he went
too far! I believe this is all wrong.
We have no right to expect anything but the pure Gospel
of Christ, unmixed and unadulterated; the same Gospel that was taught by the
Apostles; to do good to the souls of men. I believe that to maintain this
pure truth in the Church—men should be ready to make any sacrifice, to
hazard peace, to risk dissension, and run the chance of division. They
should no more tolerate false doctrine—than they would tolerate sin. They
should withstand any adding to or taking away from the simple message of the
Gospel of Christ.
For the truth's sake, our Lord Jesus Christ denounced the
Pharisees, though they sat in Moses' seat, and were the appointed and
authorized teachers of men. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites!" He says, eight times over, in the twenty-third chapter of
Matthew. And who shall dare to breathe a suspicion that our Lord was wrong?
For the truth's sake, Paul withstood and blamed Peter, though a brother.
What was the use of unity—when pure doctrine is gone? And who shall dare to
say he was wrong? For the truth's sake, Athanasius stood out against the
world to maintain the pure doctrine about the divinity of Christ, and waged
a controversy with the great majority of the professing Church. And who
shall dare to say he was wrong? For the truth's sake, Luther broke the unity
of the Church in which he was born, denounced the Pope and all his ways, and
laid the foundation of a new teaching. And who shall dare to say that Luther
was wrong? For the truth's sake, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, the English
Reformers, counseled Henry VIII and Edward VI to separate from Rome, and to
risk the consequences of division. And who shall dare to say that they were
wrong? For the truth's sake, Whitefield and Wesley, a hundred years ago,
denounced the mere barren moral preaching of the clergy of their day, and
went out into the highways and byways to save souls, knowing well that they
would be cast out from the Church's communion. And who shall dare to say
that they were wrong?
Yes! peace without truth—is a false peace; it is the very
peace of the devil. Unity without the Gospel is a worthless unity; it is the
very unity of hell. Let us never be ensnared by those who speak kindly of
it. Let us remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, "Do not suppose that
I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but
a sword" (Matthew 10:34) Let us remember the praise He gives to one of the
Churches in Revelation, "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that
you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found
them false" (Revelation 2:2). Let us remember the blame He casts on another,
"You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess"
(Revelation 2:20). Never let us be guilty of sacrificing any portion of
truth—on the altar of peace. Let us rather be like the Jews, who, if they
found any manuscript copy of the Old Testament Scriptures incorrect in a
single letter, burned the whole copy, rather than run the risk of losing one
jot or tittle of the Word of God. Let us be content with nothing short of
the whole Gospel of Christ.
In what way are we to make
PRACTICAL USE of the general
principles which I have just laid down? I will give my readers one simple
piece of advice. I believe it is advice which deserves serious
consideration. I warn then every one who loves his soul—to be very selective
as to the preaching he regularly hears, and the place of worship he
regularly attends. He who deliberately settles down under any ministry which
is unsound, is a very unwise man. I will never hesitate to speak my mind on
this point. I know well that many think it a shocking thing, for a man to
forsake his local church. I cannot see with the eyes of such people. I draw
a wide distinction between teaching which is defective and teaching
which is thoroughly false; teaching which is unscriptural. But I do
believe, if false doctrine is preached in a local church, a Christian who
loves his soul is quite right in not going to that local church. To hear
unscriptural teaching fifty-two Sundays in every year is a serious thing. It
is a continual dropping of slow poison into the mind! I think it
almost impossible for a man willfully to submit himself to it, and not be
harmed.
I see in the New Testament we are plainly told to "Test
everything" and "Hold on to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). I
see in the Book of Proverbs that we are commanded to "Stop listening to
instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge"
(Proverbs 19:27). If these words do not justify a man in ceasing to worship
at a church, if positively false doctrine is preached in it, I do not know
what words can.
Does any one mean to tell us, that to attend your local
denominational church is absolutely needful to a person's salvation? If
there is such a one, let him speak out, and give us his name. Does any one
mean to tell us that going to the denominational church will save any man's
soul, if he dies unconverted and ignorant of Christ? If there is such a one,
let him speak out, and give us his name. Does any one mean to tell us that
going to the denominational church will teach a man anything about Christ,
or conversion, or faith, or repentance, if these subjects are hardly ever
named in the denomination church, and never properly explained? If there is
such a one, let him speak out, and give us his name. Does any one mean to
say that a man who repents, believes in Christ, is converted and holy, will
lose his soul, because he has forsaken his denomination and learned his
religion elsewhere? If there is such a one, let him speak out, and give us
his name.
For my part, I abhor such monstrous and extravagant
ideas. I do not see a speck of foundation for them in the Word of God. I
trust that the number of those who deliberately hold them is exceedingly
small. There are many churches where the religious teaching is little better
than Roman Catholicism. Ought the congregation of such churches to
sit still, be content, and take it quietly? They ought not. And why?
Because, like Paul, they ought to prefer truth to peace.
There are many churches where the religious teaching is
little better than morality. The distinctive doctrines of
Christianity are never clearly proclaimed. Plato, or Seneca, or Confucius,
could have taught almost as much. Ought the congregation in such churches to
sit still, be content, and take it quietly? They ought not. And why?
Because, like Paul, they ought to prefer truth to peace.
I am using strong language in dealing with this part of
my subject—I know it. I am treading on delicate ground—I know it. I am
handling matters which are generally let alone, and passed over in silence—I
know it.
I say what I say from a sense of duty to the Church of
which I am a minister. I believe the state of the times, and the position of
the congregation require plain speaking. Souls are perishing, in many
churches, in ignorance. Honest members of the church are confused and
perplexed. This is no time for smooth words. I am not ignorant of those
magic expressions, "division, schism, controversy," and the like. I know the
cramping, silencing influence which they seem to exercise on some minds. I
too have considered those expressions calmly and deliberately, and on each
of them I am prepared to speak my mind.
(a) The denominational church is an admirable thing in
theory.
Let it only be well administered, and worked by truly
spiritual ministers, and it is calculated to confer the greatest blessings
on the nation. But it is useless to expect attachment to the denomination,
when the minister of the denominational church is ignorant of the Gospel, or
a lover of the world. In such a case we must never be surprised if men
forsake their denomination, and seek truth wherever truth is to be found. If
the denominational minister does not preach the Gospel and live
the Gospel, the conditions on which he claims the attention of his
congregation are virtually violated, and his claim to be heard is at an end.
It is absurd to expect the head of a family to endanger the souls of his
children, as well as his own—for the sake of "the denomination." There is no
mention of denominations in the Bible, and we have no right to
require men to live and die in ignorance, in order that they may be able to
say at last, "I always attended my local denominational church."
(b) Divisions and separations in religion, are most
objectionable.
They weaken the cause of true Christianity. They
give occasion to the enemies of all godliness to blaspheme. But before we
blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is
deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If
people separate themselves from teaching which is positively false and
unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases
separation is a virtue—and not a sin. It is easy to make sneering remarks
about "itching ears," and "love of excitement;" but it is not so easy to
convince a plain reader of the Bible that it is his duty to hear false
doctrine every Sunday, when by a little exertion he can hear truth.
(c) Unity, quiet, and order among professing Christians
are mighty blessings.
They give strength, beauty, and efficiency
to the cause of Christ. But even gold may be bought too dear. Unity which is
obtained by the sacrifice of truth, is worth nothing. It is not the unity
which pleases God. The Church of Rome boasts loudly of a unity which does
not deserve the name. It is unity which is obtained by taking away
the Bible from the people, by gagging private judgment, by encouraging
ignorance, by forbidding men to think for themselves. There is quiet and
stillness enough in the grave, but it is not the quiet of health, but of
death. It was the false prophets who cried "Peace!" when there was no peace.
(d) Controversy in religion is a hateful thing.
It is hard enough to fight the devil, the world and the
flesh, without private differences in our own camp. But there is one
thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine
tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or challenge. It was
controversy that won the battle of Protestant Reformation. If the views that
some men hold were correct, it is plain we never ought to have had any
Reformation at all! For the sake of peace, we ought to have gone on
worshiping the Virgin Mary, and bowing down to images and relics to this
very day! Away with such trifling! There are times when controversy is not
only a duty—but a benefit. Give me the mighty thunderstorm,
rather than the deadly malaria. The one walks in darkness and
poisons us in silence, and we are never safe. The other frightens and alarms
for a little while. But it is soon over, and it clears the air. It is a
plain Scriptural duty to "contend for the faith that was once for all
entrusted to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
I am quite aware that the things I have said are
exceedingly distasteful to many minds. I believe many are content with
teaching which is not the whole truth, and fancy it will be "all the same"
in the end. I am sorry for them. I am convinced that nothing but the whole
truth is likely, as a general rule, to do good to souls. I am satisfied that
those who willfully put up with anything short of the whole truth, will find
at last that their souls have received much damage. There are three
things which men never ought to trifle with: a little poison, a little false
doctrine, and a little sin.
I am quite aware that when a man expresses such opinions
as those I have just brought forward, there are many who are ready to say,
"He is not faithful to the Church." I hear such accusations unmoved. The day
of judgment will show who were the true friends of the Church and who were
not. I have learned in the last thirty-two years that if a minister leads a
quiet life, leaves alone the unconverted part of the world, and preaches so
as to offend none and edify none—that he will be called by many "a good
pastor." And I have also learned that if a man studies Scriptures, labors
continually for the conversion of souls, adheres closely to the great
principals of the Reformation, bears a faithful testimony against Romanism,
and preaches powerful, convicting sermons—he will probably be thought a
firebrand and "troubler of Israel." Let men say what they will. They are the
truest friends of the Church, who labor most for the preservation of truth.
I lay these things before the readers of this paper, and
invite their serious attention to them. I charge them never to forget that
truth is of more importance to a Church than peace. I ask them
to be ready to carry out the principles I have laid down, and to contend
zealously, if needs be, for the truth. If we do this, we shall have learned
something from Antioch.
III. But I pass on to the third lesson from Antioch. That lesson is, that
"There is no doctrine about which we ought to be so jealous as justification
by faith and not by observing the law."
The proof of this lesson stands out most prominently in
the passage of Scripture which heads this paper. What one article of the
faith had the Apostle Peter denied at Antioch? None. What doctrine had he
publicly preached which was false? None. What, then, had he done? He had
done this. After once keeping company with the believing Gentiles as "heirs
together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in
the promise in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 3:6), he suddenly became shy of them
and withdrew himself. He seemed to think they were less holy and acceptable
to God, than the circumcised Jews. He seemed to imply, that the believing
Gentiles were in a lower state than those who had kept the ceremonies of the
law of Moses. He seemed, in a word, to add something to simple faith
as needful to give a man an interest in Jesus Christ. He seemed to reply to
the question, "What must I do to be saved?" not merely "Believe in the Lord
Jesus," but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and be circumcised, and keep the
ceremonies of the law." Such conduct as this, the Apostle Paul would not
endure for a moment. Nothing so moved him as the idea of adding anything to
the Gospel of Christ. "I opposed him," he says, "to his face." He not only
rebuked him, but he recorded the whole transaction fully, when
by inspiration of the Spirit he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians.
I invite special attention to this point. I ask men to
observe the remarkable jealousy which the Apostle Paul shows about this
doctrine, and to consider the point about which such a stir was made. Let us
mark in this passage of Scripture, the immense importance of justification
by faith and not by keeping the law.
(a) This is the doctrine which is essentially necessary
to our own personal comfort.
No man on earth is a real child of
God, and a saved soul, until he sees and receives salvation by faith in
Christ Jesus. No man will ever have solid peace and true assurance, until he
embraces with all his heart the doctrine that "we are counted righteous
before God because of the work of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, by
faith, and not for our own works and goodness." One reason, I believe, why
so many professors in this day are tossed to and fro, enjoy little comfort,
and feel little peace—is their ignorance on this point. They do not see
clearly justification by faith without their own "good works."
(b) This is the doctrine which the great enemy of souls
hates, and labors to overthrow.
He knows that it turned the world
upside down at the first beginning of the Gospel, in the days of the
Apostles. He knows that it turned the world upside down again at the time of
the Reformation. He is therefore always tempting men to reject it. He is
always trying to seduce Churches and ministers to deny or obscure its truth.
No wonder that the Council of Trent [Roman Catholic Council that established
their present doctrines] directed its chief attack against this doctrine,
and pronounced it accursed and heretical. No wonder that many who think
themselves learned in these days, denounce the doctrine as theological
jargon, and say that all "serious minded people" are justified by Christ,
whether they have faith or not! The plain truth is that the doctrine is all
bitterness and poison to unconverted hearts. It just meets the wants of the
awakened soul. But the proud unhumbled man who knows not his own sin, and
sees not his own weakness, cannot receive its truth.
(c) This is the doctrine, the absence of which accounts
for half the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
The beginning
of half the unscriptural doctrines of Catholicism may be traced up to
rejection of justification by faith. No Catholic teacher, if he is
faithful to his Church, can say to an anxious sinner, "Believe in the Lord
Jesus—and you will be saved." He cannot do it without additions and
explanations, which completely destroy the good news. He dare not give the
Gospel medicine, without adding something which destroys its
effectiveness, and neutralizes its power. Purgatory, penance, priestly
absolution, the intercession of saints, the worship of the Virgin, and many
other man-made services of Roman Catholicism, all spring from this source.
They are all rotten props to support weary consciences. But they are
rendered necessary by the denial of justification by faith.
(d) This is the doctrine which is absolutely essential to
a minister's success among his people.
Obscurity on this point
spoils all. Absence of clear statements about justification will prevent the
utmost zeal doing good. There may be much that is pleasing and nice in a
minister's sermons, much about Christ and union with Him, much about
self-denial, much about humility, much about love. But all this will profit
little, if his trumpet gives an uncertain sound about justification by
faith.
(e) This is the doctrine which is absolutely essential to
the prosperity of a Church.
No Church is really in a healthy
state, in which this doctrine is not prominently brought forward. A
denomination or church may have good forms and regularly ordained ministers,
but a denomination or church will not see conversion of souls going on under
its pulpits, when this doctrine is not plainly preached. Its schools may be
found in every town. Its church buildings may strike the eye all over the
land. But there will be no blessing from God on that denomination or
church—unless justification by faith is proclaimed from its pulpits. Sooner
or later its candlestick will be taken away. Why have the Churches of Africa
and the East fallen to their present state? Did they not have ministers?
They had. Did they not have forms and ceremony? They had. Did they not have
councils? They had. But they cast away the doctrine of justification by
faith. They lost sight of that mighty truth, and so they fell.
Why did our own Church (Church of England) do so little
in the last century, and why did the Independents and Baptists do so much
more? Was it that their system was better than ours? No. Was it that our
Church was not so well adapted to meet the wants of lost souls? No. But
their ministers preached justification by faith, and our ministers, in too
many cases, did not preach the doctrine at all.
Why do so many English people go to dissenting churches
in the present day? Why do we so often see a splendid Gothic local church as
empty of worshipers as a barn in July, and a little plain brick building,
called a Meeting House, filled to suffocation? Is it that people in general
have any abstract dislike of formal worship, the Prayer-book, and the
establishment? Not at all! The simple reason is, in the vast majority of
cases, that people do not like preaching in which justification by faith is
not fully proclaimed. When they cannot hear it in the local church—they will
seek it elsewhere. No doubt there are exceptions. No doubt there are places
where a long course of neglect has thoroughly disgusted people with the
Church, so that they will not even hear truth from its ministers. But I
believe, as a general rule, when the local church is empty and the
meeting-house full, it will be found on inquiry that there is a cause.
If these things be so, the Apostle Paul might well be
jealous for the truth, and oppose Peter to his face. He might well maintain
that anything ought to be sacrificed, rather than endanger the doctrine of
justification in the Church of Christ. He saw with a prophetical eye coming
things. He left us all an example that we should do well to follow. Whatever
we tolerate, let us never allow any injury to be done to that blessed
doctrine—that we are justified by faith without any of our own "good works."
Let us always beware of any teaching which either
directly or indirectly obscures justification by faith. All religious
systems which put anything between the heavy burdened sinner and Jesus
Christ the Savior, except simple faith, are dangerous and unscriptural. All
systems which make out faith to be anything complicated, anything but a
simple, childlike dependence, the hand which receives the soul's medicine
from the physician, are unsafe and poisonous systems. All systems which cast
discredit on the simple Protestant doctrine which broke the power of Roman
Catholicism, carry about with them a plague-spot, and are dangerous to
souls!
Baptism is a sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, and to
be used with reverence and respect by all professing Christians. When it is
used rightly, worthily and with faith, it is capable of being the instrument
of mighty blessings to the soul. But when people are taught that all who are
baptized are as a matter of course born again, and that all baptized persons
should be addressed as "children of God," I believe their souls are in great
danger. Such teaching about baptism appears to me to overthrow the doctrine
of justification by faith. They only are children of God—who have faith in
Christ Jesus. And all men do not have faith.
The Lord's Supper is a sacrament ordained by Christ
Himself, and intended for the edification and refreshment of true believers.
But when people are taught that all persons ought to come to the Lord's
table, whether they have faith or not; and that all alike receive Christ's
body and blood who receive the bread and wine, I believe their souls are in
great danger. Such teaching appears to me to darken the doctrine of
justification by faith. No man eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood,
except the justified man. And none are justified until they believe.
Membership in the local church is a great privilege. But
when people are taught that because they are members of a church, they are
as a matter of course members of Christ, I believe their souls are in great
danger. Such teaching appears to me to overthrow the doctrine of
justification by faith. They only are joined to Christ who believe. And all
men do not believe.
Whenever we hear teaching which obscures or contradicts
justification by faith, we may be sure there is a screw loose somewhere. We
should watch against such teaching, and be upon our guard. Once let a man
turn away from justification by faith alone, and he will bid a long farewell
to comfort, to peace, to lively hope, to anything like assurance in his
Christianity. An error here is decay at the root.
(1) In conclusion, let me first of all ask every one who
reads this paper, to arm himself with a thorough knowledge of the written
Word of God.
Unless we do this we are at the mercy of any false
teacher. We shall not see through the mistakes of an erring Peter. We shall
not be able to imitate the faithfulness of a courageous Paul. An ignorant
congregation will always be the curse of a Church. A Bible reading
congregation may save a Church from ruin. Let us read the Bible regularly,
daily, and with fervent prayer, and become familiar with its contents. Let
us receive nothing, believe nothing, follow nothing, which is not in the
Bible, nor can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of faith, our touchstone
of all teaching, be the written Word of God.
(2) In the next place, let me entreat all who read this
paper to be always ready to contend for the faith of Christ, if needful.
I recommend no one to foster a controversial spirit. I want no man to be
like Goliath, going up and down, saying, "Give me a man to fight with!"
Always feeding upon controversy, is poor work indeed. It is like feeding
upon bones! But I do say that no love of false peace should prevent us
striving jealously against false doctrine, and seeking to promote true
doctrine wherever we possibly can. True Gospel in the pulpit, true Gospel in
the books we read, true Gospel in the friends we keep company with—let this
be our aim, and never let us be ashamed to let men see that it is so.
(3) In the next place, let me entreat all who read this
paper to keep a jealous watch over their own hearts in these controversial
times.
There is much need of this caution. In the heat of the
battle we are apt to forget our own inner man. Victory in argument—is not
always victory over the world or victory over the devil. Let
the meekness of Peter in taking a reproof, be as much our example as the
boldness of Paul in reproving. Happy is the Christian who can call the
person who rebukes him faithfully, a "dear brother" (2 Peter 3:15). Let us
strive to be holy in all our life, and not least in our tempers. Let us
labor to maintain an uninterrupted communion with the Father and with the
Son, and to keep up constant habits of private prayer and Bible-reading.
Thus we shall be armed for the battle of life, and have the sword of the
Spirit well fitted to our hand when the day of temptation comes.
(4) In the last place, let me entreat all members of a
church who know what real praying is, to pray daily for the Church to which
they belong.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit may be poured out
upon it, and that its candlestick may not be taken away. Let us pray for
those churches in which the Gospel is now not preached, that the darkness
may pass away, and the true light shine in them. Let us pray for those
ministers who now neither know nor preach the truth, that God may take away
the veil from their hearts, and show them a more excellent way. Nothing is
impossible. The Apostle Paul was once a persecuting Pharisee; Luther was
once an unenlightened monk; Latimer was once a bigoted Catholic; Thomas
Scott was once thoroughly opposed to evangelical truth. Nothing, I repeat,
is impossible. The Spirit can make ministers preach that Gospel—which they
now labor to destroy. Let us therefore be urgent in prayer.
I commend the matters contained in this paper to serious
attention. Let us ponder them well in our hearts. Let us carry them out in
our daily practice. Let us do this, and we shall have learned something from
the story of Peter at Antioch.