The Lord's Coming Part 5

Abraham, however, showed most fully that his heart had found a nearer and dearer object than Isaac, dear as he was; he showed also that his faith was resting upon another object altogether, with reference to the future interests of his seed, _and that he was as simply resting upon the promise of Almighty G.o.d after the birth of Isaac as before it_.

Behold, then, this man of faith as he ascends the mount, taking with him his "well-beloved!" What a scene of breathless interest![7] How must the angelic hosts have watched this ill.u.s.trious father from stage to stage of his wondrous journey, until at last they beheld his hand stretched forth for the knife to slay his son--that son for which he had so long and ardently wished, and for which he had so steadily trusted G.o.d. Then again, what an opportunity for Satan to ply his fiery darts! What abundant room for such suggestions as the following, viz., "What will become of the promises of G.o.d with regard to the seed and the inheritance, if you thus sacrifice your only son? Beware that you are not led astray by some false revelation; or, _if it be true_ that G.o.d has said so and so, doth not G.o.d know that, in the day you sacrifice your son, all your hopes will be blasted? Further, think of Sarah; what will she do if she lose Isaac, after having induced you to expel from your house Ishmael?" All these suggestions, and many beside, the enemy might bring to bear upon the heart of Abraham. Nor would Abraham himself have been beyond the region of those thoughts and reasonings which, at such a time, would not fail to arise within him. What then was his answer to all such dark suggestions?

RESURRECTION! "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, that in Isaac shall thy seed be called: ACCOUNTING THAT G.o.d WAS ABLE TO RAISE HIM UP, EVEN FROM THE DEAD; FROM WHENCE ALSO HE RECEIVED HIM IN A FIGURE" (Heb. xi. 17-19).

[7] It strikes me that we get, in Abraham's journey to Mount Moriah, a remarkable type of the mysterious scene afterwards exhibited at Calvary, when G.o.d was really providing himself a lamb. We can have no difficulty in losing sight of Herod and Pilate, the chief priests and scribes, the Pharisees and the mult.i.tude, and thus we have none remaining but THE FATHER AND THE SON, who, in company, ascend the Mount and carry out the gracious work of redemption in the unbroken solitude of that place.

Resurrection is G.o.d's mighty remedy for all the mischief and ruin introduced by Satan; when once we arrive at this point, we have done with the power of Satan, the last exercise of which is seen in death.

Satan cannot touch the life that has been received in resurrection, for the last exercise of his power is seen in the grave of Christ; beyond that he can do nothing. Hence the security of the Church's place; her "life is hidden with Christ in G.o.d." Blessed hiding place!

May we rejoice in it more and more each day.

I will now draw this paper to a close. We have followed Abraham in his course, from Ur of the Chaldees up to the Mount Moriah--we have seen him resign, at the call of G.o.d, family and kindred, lands and possessions, worldly ease and prosperity; and lastly, we have seen him, in the power of faith, at the same call of G.o.d, ascend the solitary mount, for the purpose of laying "his only begotten" upon G.o.d's altar, and thus to declare that he could give up everything and every one but G.o.d Himself--and that, being acquainted with the meaning of "THE ALMIGHTY" and "RESURRECTION," he cared not though he were called to look to the stones for the raising up of seed unto him.

On the other hand, we have followed Lot from Ur of the Chaldees also; but alas! his path was a far different one from that of his brother.

He does not seem to have realized the power of the call of G.o.d in his own soul; he moved rather under Abraham's influence than under that of Jehovah; hence we find that, while Abraham was, at every step of his journey, letting go the world, Lot was doing the very reverse; he was grasping at the world in every shape and form, and he obtained that at which he was grasping, but what then? What of the end? Ah, that is the point. What of Lot's end? Instead of being a n.o.ble spectacle unto angels, and a pattern to all future generations of the faithful,--of what faith can enable a man "to do and to suffer" for G.o.d,--he was just the reverse; he was led away by the enemy of his soul, who ensnared him by means of the things of the world; he spent his days amid the uncleanness of Sodom, and the scene closes with the sad circ.u.mstances in the cave. All he did for G.o.d or his people was to beget the Ammonite and the Moabite, the enemies of both.

How wondrous then is that grace, which, speaking of the history of such an one, could say, "And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked; for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" (2 Peter ii. 7, 8).

C. H. M.

"THOU AND THY HOUSE."

There are two houses which occupy a very prominent place on the page of inspiration, and these are, the house of G.o.d and the house of G.o.d's servant. G.o.d attaches immense importance to His house; and justly so, because it is His. His truth, His honor, His character, His glory, are all involved in the character of His house; and hence it is His desire that the impress of what He is should plainly appear on that which belongs to Him. If G.o.d has a house, it a.s.suredly should be a G.o.dly house, a holy house, a spiritual house, an elevated house, a pure and heavenly house. It should be all this, not merely in abstract position and principle, but practically and characteristically. Its abstract position is founded upon what G.o.d has made it, and where He has set it; but its practical character is founded upon the actual walk of those who form its const.i.tuent parts down here upon this earth.

Now, while many minds may be prepared to enter into the truth and importance of all the principles connected with G.o.d's house, there may be but few, comparatively, who are disposed to give a due measure of attention to those connected with the house of G.o.d's servant; although if one were asked the question, What house stands next in order to the house of G.o.d? he should undoubtedly reply, The house of His servant.

However, as there is nothing like bringing the holy authority of G.o.d's Word to bear upon the conscience, I shall quote a few pa.s.sages of Scripture, which will tend to show, in a clear and forcible point of view, what are G.o.d's thoughts about the house of one holding connection with Him.

When the iniquity of the antediluvian world had risen to a head, and the end of all flesh had come before a righteous G.o.d, who was about to roll the heavy tide of judgment over the corrupted scene, these sweet words fell upon Noah's ear: "Come thou and _all thy house_ into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation."

(Gen. vii. 1.) Now, it will be said that Noah was a type of Christ--the righteous head of a saved family--saved in virtue of their a.s.sociation with him. All this is fully granted; but Noah's typical character does not in any wise interfere with the principle which I seek to deduce from this and kindred pa.s.sages, which principle I shall here, at the outset, distinctly lay down--it is this: _the house of every servant of G.o.d is, in virtue of its connection with Him, brought into a position of privilege and consequent responsibility_.[8] That this is a principle involving vast practical consequences we shall, with G.o.d's blessing and grace, see ere we close this paper; but we must first seek to establish its truth from the Word of G.o.d. Were we merely left to argue from a.n.a.logy, our thesis might be easily proved; for it could never be supposed, by any mind at all acquainted with the character and ways of G.o.d, that He would attach such unspeakable importance to His own house, and attach none at all, or almost none, to that of His servant. This were impossible; it would be utterly unlike G.o.d, and G.o.d must always act like Himself. But we are not left to a.n.a.logy on this most important and deeply practical question; and the pa.s.sage just quoted forms one of the first of a series of direct and positive proofs. In it we find those immensely significant words, "_Thou and thy house_" inseparably linked together. G.o.d did not reveal a salvation for Noah which was of no avail to Noah's house. He never contemplated such a thing. The same ark that lay open to him lay open to them also. Why? Was it because they had faith? No; but because _he_ had, and they were connected with him. G.o.d gave him a blank check for himself and his family, and it devolved upon him to fill it up by bringing them in along with him. I repeat it, this does not in the least interfere with Noah's typical character. I look at him typically, but I look at him personally also. Nor can I, under any circ.u.mstances, separate a man from his house. The house of G.o.d is brought into blessing and responsibility because of its connection with Him; and the house of the servant of G.o.d is brought into blessing and responsibility because of its connection with him. This is our thesis.

[8] The reader will not, I trust, imagine that the necessity for the work of the Holy Ghost in the regeneration of the children of Christian parents is denied or interfered with. G.o.d forbid! "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of G.o.d." This is as true of a Christian's child as of every one else. Grace is not hereditary.

The sum of what I would press upon Christian parents is, that Scripture inseparably links a man with his house, and that the Christian parent is warranted in counting upon G.o.d for his children, and responsible to train his children for G.o.d. Let any one who denies this interpret Ephesians vi. 4.

The next pa.s.sage to which I shall refer occurs in the life of Abraham.

"And the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?... For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.'" (Gen. xviii. 17-19.) Here it is not a question of salvation, but of communion with the mind and purposes of G.o.d; and let the Christian parent note and solemnly ponder the fact that when G.o.d was seeking out a man to whom He could disclose His secret counsels, He selected one possessing the simple characteristic of "commanding his children and his household." This, to a tender conscience, cannot fail to prove a most pungent principle. If there is one point above another in which Christians have failed, it is in this very point of commanding their children and household. They surely have not set G.o.d before them in this particular; for if I look at the entire record of G.o.d's dealings with His house, I find them invariably characterized by the exercise of power on the principle of righteousness. He has firmly established and unflinchingly carried out His holy authority. It matters not what the outward aspect or character of His house may be, the essential principle of His dealing with it is immutable. "Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh thy house, O Lord, _forever_." Now, the servant must ever take his Master as his model; and if G.o.d rules His house with power exercised in righteousness, so must I; for if I am in any one particular of my conduct different from Him, I must in that particular be wrong. This is plain.

But not only does G.o.d so rule His house; He likewise loves, approves of, and treats with His marked and honored confidence those who do the same. In the above pa.s.sage, we find Him saying, "I cannot hide my purposes from Abraham." Why? Is it because of his personal grace or faith? No; but simply because "he will command his children and his household." A man who knows how to command his house is worthy of G.o.d's confidence. This is a stupendous truth, the edge of which should pierce the conscience of many a Christian parent. Many of us, alas!

with our eye resting on Genesis xviii. 19, may well prostrate ourselves before the One who uttered and penned that word, and cry out, Failure! failure! shameful, humiliating failure! And why is this?

Why have we failed to meet the solemn responsibility devolving upon us in reference to the due command of our households? I believe there is but one reply, viz., because we have failed to realize, by faith, the privilege conferred upon those households in virtue of their a.s.sociation with us. It is remarkable that our two earliest proofs should present to our view, with such accuracy, the two grand divisions of our question, namely, privilege and responsibility. In Noah's case, the word was, "Thou and thy house" in the place of salvation; in Abraham's case, it was "Thou and thy house" in the place of moral government. The connection is at once marked and beautiful, and the man who fails in faith to appropriate the privilege will fail in moral power to answer the responsibility. G.o.d looks upon a man's house as part of himself, and he cannot, in the smallest degree, whether in principle or practice, disregard the connection without suffering serious damage, and also marring the testimony.

Now, the question for the Christian parent's conscience really is, _Am I counting upon G.o.d for my house, and ruling my house for G.o.d?_ A solemn question, surely; yet it is to be feared very few feel its magnitude and power. And here, perhaps, my reader may feel disposed to demand fuller Scripture-proof than has yet been adduced, as to our warrant for counting upon G.o.d for our houses. I shall therefore proceed with the Scripture-quotations. I give one from the history of Jacob. "And G.o.d said to Jacob, 'Arise, go up to Bethel.'" This would seem to have been addressed to Jacob personally; but he never thought for a moment of disconnecting himself from his family, either as to privilege or responsibility; wherefore it is immediately added, "Jacob said unto _his household_, and to all that were with him, 'Put away the strange G.o.ds that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments; and let _us_ arise, and go up to Bethel.'" (Gen. x.x.xv. 1-3.) Here we see that a call to Jacob put Jacob's house under responsibility. He was called to go up to G.o.d's house, and the question immediately suggested itself to his conscience, whether his own house were in a fit condition to respond to such a call.

We now turn to the opening chapters of the book of Exodus, where we find that one of Pharaoh's four objections to the full deliverance and separation of Israel had specific reference to "the little ones." "And Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh; and he said unto them, 'Go, serve the Lord your G.o.d; but who are they that shall go?'

And Moses said, 'We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; _for_ we must hold a feast unto the Lord.'" (Ex. x. 8, 9.) The reason why they should take the little ones and all with them was because they were going to hold a feast unto the Lord. Nature might say, Oh, what can these little creatures know about a feast unto the Lord? Are you not afraid of making them formalists? The reply of Moses is simple and decisive--"We will go with our young ... _for_ we must hold a feast unto the Lord." They had no idea of seeking one thing for themselves and another for their children. They dreamed not of Canaan for themselves and Egypt for their children. How could they taste the manna of the wilderness, or the old corn of the land, while their children were feeding upon the leeks, the onions, and the garlic of Egypt? Impossible. Moses and Aaron understood not such acting. They felt that G.o.d's call to them was a call to their little ones; and, moreover, were it not fully carried out, they would no sooner have gone forth from Egypt by one road than their children would draw them back by another. That such would have been the case Satan was but too well aware, and hence appears the reason of the objection, "Not so: go now _ye that are men_." This is the very thing which so many professing Christians are doing (or attempting, rather, to do) at this present time. They profess to go forth themselves to serve the Lord, but their little ones are in Egypt. They profess to have taken "three days' journey into the wilderness;" in other words, they profess to have left the world, they profess to be dead to it, and risen with Christ, as the possessors of a heavenly life, and the heirs and expectants of a heavenly glory; but they leave their little ones behind, in the hands of Pharaoh, or rather of Satan.[9] They have given up the world for themselves, but they cannot do so for their children. Hence, on Lord's day, the professed position of strangers and pilgrims is taken; hymns are sung, prayers uttered, and principles taught which bespeak a people far advanced in the heavenly life, and just on the borders of Canaan, in actual experience (in spirit, of course, they are already there); but, alas! on Monday morning, every habit, every pursuit, every object, contradicts all this. The little ones are trained for the world. The scope, aim, object, and entire character of their education is worldly, in the truest and strictest sense of the word. Moses and Aaron would not have understood such actings, and neither indeed should any morally honest heart, or upright mind, understand them. I should have no other principle, portion, or prospect for my children but what I have for myself; nor should I train them with a view to any other. If Christ and heavenly glory are sufficient for me, they are sufficient for them likewise; but then the proof that they are really sufficient for me should be unequivocal. The tone of the parent's character should be such as to afford not a shadow of a doubt as to the real, deep-seated purpose and object of his soul.

[9] It will be said that there cannot be any a.n.a.logy between the actual removal of people from one country to another and the training of our children. I reply, the a.n.a.logy only applies in principle. It is perfectly evident that we cannot take our children to heaven in the sense in which the Israelites took theirs to Canaan. G.o.d alone can fit our children for heaven, by implanting in them the life of His own Son; and He alone can bring them to heaven, in His own time. But then, although we can neither fit our children for, nor bring them to, heaven, we can, nevertheless, by faith, train them for it; and it is not merely our _duty_ (a poor, cold, and unworthy expression), but our high and holy _privilege_ so to do. Hence, therefore, if the principle on which, and the object with which, we train our children are manifestly worldly, we do, virtually, and so far as in us lies, leave them in the world. And on the other hand, if our principle and object are unequivocally heavenly, then do we, so far as in us lies, train them for heaven. This, my beloved reader, is all that is meant in this tract by leaving our children in Egypt or taking them to Canaan. We are responsible to _train_ our children, though we cannot _convert_ them; and G.o.d will a.s.suredly bless the faithful training of those whom He has graciously given us.

But what shall my child say to me if I tell him that I am earnestly seeking Christ and heaven for him, while at the same time I am educating him for the world? Which will he believe? Which will exert the more powerful practical influence on his heart and life--my words, or my acts? Let conscience reply; and oh, let it be an honest reply, a reply emanating from its deepest depths, a reply which will unanswerably demonstrate that the question is understood in all its pungency and power. I verily believe the time is come for plain dealing with one another's conscience. It must be apparent to every prayerful and attentive observer of the Christianity of the present day, that it wears a most sickly aspect; that the tone is miserably low; and, in a word, that there must be something radically wrong. As to testimony for the Son of G.o.d, it is rarely--alas! how rarely!--thought of. Personal salvation seems to form the very highest object with ninty-nine out of every hundred professing Christians, as if we were left here to be saved; and not, as saved ones, to glorify Christ.

Now, I would affectionately, yet faithfully, suggest the question, whether much of the failure in practical testimony for Christ is not justly traceable to the neglect of the principle involved in the expression, "Thou and thy house." I cannot but think it has much to do with it. One thing is certain, that a quant.i.ty of worldliness, confusion, and moral evil has crept in amongst us through our little ones having been left in Egypt. We see many who, it may be, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago, took a prominent place in testimony and service, and seemed to have their hearts much in the work, are now gone back, lamentably, not having power to keep their own heads above water, much less to help any one else. All this utters a warning voice for Christian parents having rising families; and the utterance is, "BEWARE OF LEAVING YOUR LITTLE ONES IN EGYPT." Many a heart-broken father, at the present moment, is left to weep and groan over his fatal mistake in reference to his household. He left them in Egypt, in an evil hour, and under a gross delusion, and now when he ventures, it may be in real faithfulness and earnest affection, to drop a word into the ear of those who have grown up around him, they meet it with a deaf ear and an indifferent heart, while they cling with vigor and decision to that Egypt in which he faithlessly and inconsistently left them. This is a stern fact, the statement of which may send a pang to many a heart; but truth must be told, in order that, though it wounds some, it may prove a salutary warning to others. But I must proceed with the proofs.[10]

[10] There is, I should say, a very serious error involved in a Christian parent's committing the training of his children to unconverted persons, or even to those whose hearts are not one with him as to separation from the world. It is natural that a child should look up to, and follow the example of, one who has the training and management of him. Now, what can a teacher make of a child, save what he is himself? Whither can he lead him, but to where he is himself?

What principles can he instill, save those which govern his own mind, and form the basis of his own character? Well, if I see a man governed by worldly principles--if I see plainly, from his whole course and character, that he is an unconverted person, shall I commit to him the training and instruction of my children, or the formation of their characters? It would be the height of folly and inconsistency so to do. As well might a man who desired to make an oval-shaped bullet cast the melted lead into a circular mould.

The same principle applies to the reading of books. A book is decidedly a _silent_ teacher and former of the mind and character; and if I am called to look well to the character and principles of the living teacher, I am equally so to look to those of the silent teacher. I am quite convinced that in reference both to books and teachers, we need to have our consciences stirred and instructed.

In the book of Numbers, "the little ones" are again introduced to our notice. We have just seen that the real purpose of a soul in communion with G.o.d was to go up with the little ones out of Egypt. They must be brought forth from thence at all cost; but neither faith nor faithfulness will rest here. We must not only count upon G.o.d to bring them up out of Egypt, but also to bring them on into Canaan. Here Israel signally failed. After the return of the spies, the congregation, on hearing their discouraging report, gave utterance to these fatal accents, "Wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? Were it not better for us to return into Egypt?" (Numb. xiv.) This was terrible. It was, in reality, so far as in them lay, verifying Pharaoh's wily prediction in reference to these very little ones, "Look to it now, for evil is before you." Unbelief always justifies Satan and makes G.o.d a liar, while faith always justifies G.o.d and proves Satan a liar; and as it is invariably true that according to your faith so shall it be unto you, so we find, on the other hand, that unbelief reaps as it sows. Thus it was with unhappy, because unbelieving, Israel. "As truly as I live, saith the Lord, _as ye have spoken in Mine ears, so will I do to you_. Your carca.s.ses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against Me, doubtless ye shall not come into the land concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. _But your little ones_, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carca.s.ses, they shall fall in the wilderness." (Ver. 28-32.) "They limited the Holy One of Israel" as to their little ones. This was a grievous sin, and it has been recorded for our admonition. How constantly does the heart of the Christian parent reason, in reference to the mode of dealing with children, instead of simply taking G.o.d's ground about them. It may be said, We cannot make Christians of our children. This is not the question. We are not called to "make" any thing of them. This is G.o.d's work, and His only; but if He says, "Bring your little ones with you," shall we refuse? I would not make a formalist of my child, and I _could_ not make him a real Christian; but if G.o.d, in infinite grace, says to me, "I look upon your house as part of yourself, and, in blessing you, I bless it," shall I, in gross unbelief of heart, refuse this blessing, lest I should minister to formalism, or because I cannot impart reality? G.o.d forbid. Yea, rather, let me rejoice, with deep unfeigned joy, that G.o.d has blessed me with a blessing so divinely rich and full that it extends not only to me, but also to all who belong to me; and, seeing that grace has given me the blessing, let faith take it up and appropriate it.[11]

[11] Very many content themselves with the a.s.surance that at some time or other their children will be converted. But this is not taking G.o.d's ground with them now. If we have the a.s.surance that they are within the range of G.o.d's purpose, why do we not act upon that a.s.surance? If we are waiting to see certain evidences of conversion in them before we act as Scripture directs, it is plain that we are looking at something besides G.o.d's promise. This is not faith. The Christian parent is privileged to look upon his child now as one to be trained for the Lord. He is bound to take this ground, in faith, and train him thus, looking to G.o.d, in the fullest a.s.surance, for the result. If I wait to see fruits, this is not faith. Besides, the question arises, What are my children now? They may be going about like idle, willful vagrants, bringing sad dishonor on the name and truth of Christ, and yet all the while I satisfy myself by saying, I know they will be converted yet. This will never do. My children should be now a testimony for G.o.d; and they can only be this by my taking G.o.d's ground with them, and going on with Him about them.

But let us remember that the way to prove our entrance into the blessing is by fulfilling the responsibility. To say that I am counting upon G.o.d to bring my children to Canaan, and yet all the while educating them for Egypt, is a deadly delusion. My conduct proves my profession to be a lie, and I am not to wonder if, in the righteous dealings of G.o.d, I am allowed to be filled with the fruit of my own doings. Conduct will ever prove the reality of our convictions; and in this, as in every thing else, that word of the Lord is most solemnly true, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." We often want to know the doctrine before we do the will, and the consequence is, we are left in the most profound ignorance.

Now, to do the will of G.o.d in reference to our children, is to treat them as He does, by regarding them as part of ourselves, and training them accordingly. It is not merely by hoping they may ultimately prove to be the children of G.o.d, but by regarding them as those who are already brought into a place of privilege, and dealing with them upon this ground in reference to every thing. According to the thoughts and actings of many parents, it would seem as though they regarded their children in the light of heathens, who had no present interest in Christ, or relations.h.i.+p to G.o.d at all. This is, a.s.suredly, falling grievously short of the divine mark. Nor is this a question, as it is too often made, of infant or adult baptism. No; it is simply and entirely a question of faith in the power and extent of that peculiarly gracious word. "Thou and thy house"--a word the force and beauty of which we shall see more and more fully as we proceed.

Throughout the book of Deuteronomy, the children of Israel are again and again instructed to set the commandments, the statutes, the judgments, and precepts of the law before their little ones; and these same little ones are contemplated as inquiring into the nature and object of various ordinances and inst.i.tutions. The reader can easily run through the various pa.s.sages.

I now pa.s.s on to that truly memorable resolution of Joshua, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve ... . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Josh. xxiv. 15.) Observe, "Me and my house." He felt it was not sufficient that he himself should be personally pure from all contact with the defilements and abominations of idolatry; he had also to look well to the moral character and practical condition of his house. Though Joshua were not to wors.h.i.+p idols, yet if his children did so, would he be guiltless? Certainly not. Moreover, the testimony of the truth would have been as effectually marred by the idolatry of Joshua's house as by the idolatry of Joshua himself; and judgment would have been executed accordingly. It is well to see this distinctly. The opening of the first book of Samuel affords most solemn demonstration of the truth of this--"And the Lord said to Samuel, 'Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning _his house_: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knoweth; BECAUSE HIS SONS MADE THEMSELVES VILE AND HE RESTRAINED THEM NOT.'" (1 Sam. iii.

11-13.)

Here we see that no matter what the personal character of the servant of G.o.d may be, yet if he fail in the due regulation of his house, G.o.d will not hold him guiltless. Eli should have restrained his sons. It was his privilege, as it is ours, to be able to count upon the specific power of G.o.d in the subjugation of every element in his house which was calculated to mar the testimony; but he did not do this, and hence his terrible end was that he broke his neck about the house of G.o.d, because he had not broken his heart about his own house. Had he waited upon G.o.d about his willful sons--had he acted faithfully--had he discharged the holy responsibilities devolving upon him, the house of G.o.d would never have been desecrated, and the ark of G.o.d would not have been taken. In a word, had he treated his house as part of himself, and made it what it ought to be, he would not have called down upon himself the heavy judgment of Him whose principle it is never to separate the words, "_Thou and thy house_."

But how many parents have since trodden in Eli's footsteps! Through an utterly false idea in reference to the entire basis and character of parental relations.h.i.+p, they have allowed their children, from infancy to boyhood, and from boyhood to manhood, in the unrestrained indulgence of the will. Not having faith to take divine ground, they have failed in moral power to take even the human ground of making their children respect and obey them, and the issue has presented to view the most fearful picture of lawless extravagance and wild confusion. The highest object for the servant of G.o.d to set before him in the management of his house is the testimony therein afforded to the honor of Him to whose house he himself belongs. This is really the proper ground of action. I must not seek to have my children in order because it would be an annoyance and inconvenience to _me_ to have them otherwise, but because the honor of G.o.d is concerned in the G.o.dly order of the households of all those who form const.i.tuent parts of His house.

Here, however, it may be objected that up to this point we have been breathing only the atmosphere of Old-Testament scripture, and that the principles and proofs have been only thence deduced; now, on the contrary, G.o.d's principle of action is grace according to election, and this leads to the calling out of a man, irrespective of all domestic ties and relations.h.i.+ps, so that you may find a G.o.dly, devoted, heavenly-minded saint at the head of a most unG.o.dly, irregular, worldly family. I maintain, in opposition to this, that the principles of G.o.d's moral government are eternal, and therefore, whether developed in one age or another, they must be the same. He cannot at one time teach that a man and his house are one, and commend him for ruling it properly, and at another time teach that they are not one, but permit him to rule his house as he pleases. This is impossible. G.o.d's approval or disapproval of things flows out of what He is in Himself; and in this matter in particular, inasmuch as G.o.d rules His own house according to what He is Himself, He commands His servants to rule their houses upon the same principle. Has the dispensation of grace, or of Christianity, come in to upset this lovely moral order? G.o.d forbid! Nay, it has rather, if possible, added new traits of beauty thereto. Was the house of a Jew looked at as part of himself, and shall the house of a Christian be different? Truly not. It would be a sad abuse, and an anomalous application of that heavenly word, "grace," to apply it to the misrule and demoralization that prevail in the houses of numberless Christians of the present day. Is it grace to allow the will to ride rampant? Is it grace to have all the pa.s.sions, tempers, whims, and appet.i.tes of a corrupt nature indulged? Alas! call it not grace, lest our souls should lose the real meaning of the word, and begin to imagine it to be what we have called it. Call it by its proper names--a monstrous abuse--a denial of G.o.d, not only as the Ruler of His own house, but as the moral Administrator of the universe--a flagrant contradiction of all the precepts of inspiration on this deeply important subject.

But let us turn to the New Testament and see if we cannot find in its sacred pages ample proof of our thesis. Does the Holy Ghost, in this grand section of His book, exclude a man's house from the privileges and responsibilities attached thereto in the Old Testament? We shall see very plainly that He does no such thing. Let us have the proofs.

In Christ's commission to His apostles, we find these words: "And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into a house, salute it. And if the house [not merely the master] be worthy, let your peace come upon _it_; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you again." (Matt. x. 11-13.) Again, "And Jesus said unto Zacchaeus, 'This day is salvation come to _this house_, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.'" (Luke xix. 9, 10.) So in the case of Cornelius--"Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words whereby _thou and all thy house_ shall be saved." (Acts xi. 13, 14.) So also to the jailer at Philippi--"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and _thou shalt be saved and thy house_." (Acts xvi. 31.) Then we have the practical result--"And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in G.o.d _with all his house_."

(Ver. 34.) In the same chapter, Lydia says, "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into _my house_ and abide." (Ver. 15.) "The Lord give mercy unto _the house_ of Onesiphorus." Why? was it because of its actings toward him? No; but "because _he_ oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain." (2 Tim. i. 16.) "A bishop must be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of G.o.d?"

Now, under the term "house," three things are included, viz., the house itself, the children, and the servants. All these, whether taken together or separately, should bear the distinct stamp of G.o.d. The house of a man of G.o.d should be ruled for G.o.d, in His name and for His glory. The head of a Christian household is the representative of G.o.d.

Whether as a father or as a master, he is to his household an expression of the power of G.o.d; and he is bound to walk in the intelligent recognition and practical development of this fact. It is on this principle he is to provide for and govern the whole. Hence, "if any provide not for his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." By neglecting the sphere over which G.o.d has set him, he proves his ignorance of and unlikeness to the One whom he is called to represent. This is plain enough. If I want to know how I am to provide for and rule my house, I have only carefully to study the way in which G.o.d provides for and rules His house. This is the true way to learn. Nor is it here a question as to the actual conversion of the const.i.tuent parts of the household. Not at all. What I desire to press upon all Christian heads of houses is, that the whole affair, from one end to the other, should distinctly wear the stamp of G.o.d's presence and G.o.d's authority,--that there should be a clear acknowledgment of G.o.d on the part of every member. That every thing should be so conducted as to elicit the confession, "_G.o.d is here_;" and all this, not that the head of the house may be praised for his moral influence and judicious management, but simply that G.o.d may be glorified. This is not too much to aim at; yea, we should never rest satisfied with any thing less. A Christian's house should be but a miniature representation of the house of G.o.d, not so much in the actual condition of individual members as in the moral order and G.o.dly arrangement of the whole.

Some may shake their heads and say, This is all very fine, but where will you get it? I only ask, Does the Word of G.o.d teach a Christian man so to rule his house? If so, woe be to me if I refuse or fail to do so. That there has been the most grievous failure in the management of our houses every honest conscience must admit, but nothing can be more shameful than for a man calmly and deliberately to sit down satisfied with a disordered condition of his house because he cannot attain to the standard which G.o.d has set before him. All I have to do is to follow the line which Scripture has laid down, and the blessing must a.s.suredly follow, for G.o.d cannot deny Himself. But if I, in unbelief of heart, say I cannot reach the blessing, of course I never shall. Every field of blessing or privilege which G.o.d opens before us demands an energy of faith to enter. Like Canaan of old to the children of Israel; there it lay, but they had to go thither, for the word was, "Every place that thy foot shall tread upon." Thus it is ever. Faith takes possession of what G.o.d gives. We should aim at every thing which tends to glorify Him who has made us all we are or ever shall be.

But what can be more dishonoring to G.o.d than to see the house of His servant the very reverse of what He would have it? And yet were we to judge from what constantly meets our view, it would seem as if many Christians thought that their houses had nothing whatever to do with their testimony. Most humbling it is to meet with some who, so far as they are personally concerned, seem nice Christians, but who entirely fail in the management of their houses. They speak of separation from the world, but their houses present the most distressingly worldly appearance; they speak of the world being crucified to them and of their being crucified to the world, and yet the world is stamped on the very face of their whole establishment. Every thing seems designed to minister to the l.u.s.t of the flesh, the l.u.s.t of the eye, and the pride of life. Magnificent pier-gla.s.ses to reflect the flesh; sumptuous carpets, sofas, and loungers for the ease of the flesh; glittering chandeliers for the pride and vanity of the flesh. But it may be said, It is taking low ground to descend to such particulars. I reply, The daughters of Zion might just as well have pa.s.sed the same comment upon the following solemn appeal: "In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains and the bracelets and the m.u.f.flers, the bonnets and the ornaments of the legs and the headbands and the tablets and the earrings, the rings and nose-jewels, the changeable suits of apparel and the mantles and the wimples and the crisping-pins, the gla.s.ses and the fine linen and the hoods and the vails." (Isa. iii. 18-23.)

This was descending to very minute particulars. The same might be said of the following pa.s.sage from Amos: "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ... that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David." (Chap. vi.

1-5.) The Spirit of G.o.d can descend to particulars when the particulars are there to be descended to. But it may be further objected, We must furnish our houses according to our rank in life.

Wherever this objection is urged, it reveals very fully the real ground of the objector's soul. That ground is the world, unquestionably. "_Our rank in life_"!--what does this really mean, as applied to those who profess to be _dead_? To talk of our rank in life is to deny the very foundations of Christianity. If we have rank in life, then it follows that we must be alive as men in the flesh--men according to nature, and then the law has its full force against us, "for the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." Hence this rank in life becomes a serious matter.

But, let me ask, how did we get rank in life? or, in what life is it?

If it be in this life, then we are liars whenever we talk of being "crucified with Christ"--"dead with Christ"--"buried with Christ"--"risen with Christ"--"outside the camp with Christ"--"not in the flesh"--"not of the world which fadeth away." All these are so many splendid lies to those possessing, or pretending to, a rank in this life. This is the real truth of the matter; and we must allow the truth to reach and act upon our consciences, that it may influence our lives. What, then, is the only life in which we have a rank? The resurrection-life of Christ. Redeeming love has given us a rank in this life, and truly we know that worldly furniture, costly array, ridiculous parade and retinue, have nothing to do with rank in this life. Ah, no; the circ.u.mstances which comport with rank in heavenly life are, holiness of character, purity of life, spiritual power, profound humility, separation from every thing which directly savors of the flesh and the world. To furnish our persons and our houses with these things would be furnis.h.i.+ng them "according to our rank in life."

But in point of fact, this objection does really bring out the true principle at the heart's core. It has already been remarked that the house reveals the moral condition of the man, and this objection confirms that statement. People who talk, or even think, of rank in life have, "in their hearts, turned back again into Egypt." And what does G.o.d say will be the end of such? "I will carry you away beyond Babylon." Yes, it is greatly to be feared that the great millstone of Revelation xviii. presents but too true a picture of the end of much of the sickly, spurious, hollow Christianity of the present day.

It may, however, be further urged that Christianity affords no warrant for filthy and irregular houses. This is most true. I know few things more distressing and dishonoring than to see the house of a Christian characterized by filth and confusion. Such things could never exist in connection with a really spiritual or even a well-adjusted mind. You may set it down that there must be something radically wrong wherever such things exist. Here, in an especial manner, the house of G.o.d presents itself before us as a blessed model. Over the door of that house may be seen inscribed this wholesome motto: "Let all things be done decently and in order;" and all who love G.o.d and His house will desire to carry out this precept at home.

The next point suggested by the expression, "Thou and thy house," is the management of our children. This is a sore and deeply humbling point to many of us, inasmuch as it discloses a fearful amount of failure. The condition of the children tends, more than any thing, to bring out the condition of the parent. The real measure of my surrender of the world, and my subjugation of nature, will constantly be shown in my thoughts about and treatment of my children. I profess to have given up the world, so far as I am personally concerned; but then I have children. Have I given up the world for them as well? Some may say, How can I? They are in nature, and must have the world. Here again the true moral condition of the heart is revealed. The world is really not given up, and my children are made an excuse for grasping again what I professed to have given up, but my heart retained all the while. Are my children part of myself, or are they not? Part of myself, a.s.suredly. Well, then, if I profess to have relinquished the world for myself and yet am seeking it for them, what is it but the wretched anomaly of a man half in Egypt and half in Canaan? We know where such an one is wholly and in reality. He is wholly and really in Egypt. Yes, my brethren, here is where we have to judge ourselves. Our children tell a tale. The music-master and the dancing-master are surely not the agents which the Spirit of G.o.d would select to help our children along, nor do they, by any means, comport with that high-toned Nazarites.h.i.+p to which we are called. These things prove that Christ is not the chosen and amply sufficient portion of our souls. What is sufficient for me is sufficient for those who are part of me. And shall I be so base as to train my children for the devil and the world? Shall I minister to and pamper that in them which I profess to mortify in myself? It is a grievous mistake, and we shall find it so. If my children are in Egypt, I am there myself. If my children savor of Babylon, I savor of it myself. If my children belong to a corrupt worldly religious system, I belong to it myself, in principle. "Thou and thy house" are one; G.o.d has made them one; and "what He has joined together, let no man put asunder."