_THE SPIRIT._
"Quench not the Spirit: despise not prophesyings: (but) prove all
things: hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of
evil."--1 THESS. v. 20-22 (R.V.).
These verses are abruptly introduced, but are not unconnected with
what precedes. The Apostle has spoken of order and discipline, and of
the joyful and devout temper which should characterise the Christian
Church; and here he comes to speak of that Spirit in which the Church
lives, and moves, and has her being. The presence of the Spirit is, of
course, presupposed in all that he has said already: how could men,
except by His help, "rejoice alway, pray without ceasing, and in
everything give thanks"? But there are other manifestations of the
Spirit's power, of a more precise and definite character, and it is
with these we have here to do.
_Spiritus ubi est, ardet._ When the Holy Spirit descended on the Church
at Pentecost, "there appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like
as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them"; and their lips were
opened to declare the mighty works of God. A man who has received this
great gift is described as fervent, literally, boiling (ζέων) with
the Spirit. The new birth in those early days _was_ a new birth; it
kindled in the soul thoughts and feelings to which it had hitherto
been strange; it brought with it the consciousness of new powers; a
new vision of God; a new love of holiness; a new insight into the Holy
Scriptures, and into the meaning of man's life; often a new power of
ardent, passionate speech. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Paul describes a primitive Christian congregation. There was not one
silent among them. When they came together every one had a psalm, a
revelation, a prophecy, an interpretation. The manifestation of the
Spirit had been given to each one to profit withal; and on all hands
the spiritual fire was ready to flame forth. Conversion to the
Christian faith, the acceptance of the apostolic gospel, was not a
thing which made little difference to men: it convulsed their whole
nature to its depths; they were never the same again; they were new
creatures, with a new life in them, all fervour and flame.
A state so unlike nature, in the ordinary sense of the term, was sure
to have its inconveniences. The Christian, even when he had received
the gift of the Holy Ghost, was still a man; and as likely as not a
man who had to struggle against vanity, folly, ambition, and
selfishness of all kinds. His enthusiasm might even seem, in the first
instance, to aggravate, instead of removing, his natural faults. It
might drive him to speak--for in a primitive church anybody who
pleased might speak--when it would have been better for him to be
silent. It might lead him to break out in prayer or praise or
exhortation, in a style which made the wise sigh. And for those
reasons the wise, and such as thought themselves wise, would be apt to
discourage the exercise of spiritual gifts altogether. "Contain
yourself," they would say to the man whose heart burned within him,
and who was restless till the flame could leap out; "contain yourself;
exercise a little self-control; it is unworthy of a rational being to
be carried away in this fashion."
No doubt situations like this were common in the church at
Thessalonica. They are produced inevitably by differences of age and
of temperament. The old and the phlegmatic are a natural, and,
doubtless, a providential, counterweight to the young and sanguine.
But the wisdom which comes of experience and of temperament has its
disadvantages as compared with fervour of spirit. It is cold and
unenthusiastic; it cannot propagate itself; it cannot set fire to
anything and spread. And because it is under this incapacity of
kindling the souls of men into enthusiasm, it is forbidden to pour
cold water on such enthusiasm when it breaks forth in words of fire.
That is the meaning of "Quench not the Spirit." The commandment
presupposes that the Spirit can be quenched. Cold looks, contemptuous
words, silence, studied disregard, go a long way to quench it. So does
unsympathetic criticism.
Every one knows that a fire smokes most when it is newly kindled; but
the way to get rid of the smoke is not to pour cold water on the fire,
but to let it burn itself clear. If you are wise enough you may even
help it to burn itself clear, by rearranging the materials, or
securing a better draught; but the wisest thing most people can do
when the fire has got hold is to let it alone; and that is also the
wise course for most when they meet with a disciple whose zeal burns
like fire. Very likely the smoke hurts their eyes; but the smoke will
soon pass by; and it may well be tolerated in the meantime for the
sake of the heat. For this apostolic precept takes for granted that
fervour of spirit, a Christian enthusiasm for what is good, is the
best thing in the world. It may be untaught and inexperienced; it may
have all its mistakes to make; it may be wonderfully blind to the
limitations which the stern necessities of life put upon the generous
hopes of man: but it is of God; it is expansive; it is contagious; it
is worth more as a spiritual force than all the wisdom in the world.
I have hinted at ways in which the Spirit is quenched; it is sad to
reflect that from one point of view the history of the Church is a
long series of transgressions of this precept, checked by an equally
long series of rebellions of the Spirit. "Where the Spirit of the Lord
is," the Apostle tells us elsewhere, "there is liberty." But liberty
in a society has its dangers; it is, to a certain extent, at war with
order; and the guardians of order are not apt to be too considerate of
it. Hence it came to pass that at a very early period, and in the
interests of good order, the freedom of the Spirit was summarily
suppressed in the Church. "The gift of ruling," it has been said,
"like Aaron's rod, seemed to swallow up the other gifts." The rulers
of the Church became a class entirely apart from its ordinary members,
and all exercise of spiritual gifts for the building up of the Church
was confined to them. Nay, the monstrous idea was originated, and
taught as a dogma, that they alone were the depositaries, or, as it is
sometimes said, the custodians, of the grace and truth of the gospel;
only through them could men come into contact with the Holy Ghost. In
plain English, the Spirit was quenched when Christians met for
worship. One great extinguisher was placed over the flame that burned
in the hearts of the brethren; it was not allowed to show itself; it
must not disturb, by its eruption in praise or prayer or fiery
exhortation, the decency and order of divine service. I say that was
the condition to which Christian worship was reduced at a very early
period; and it is unhappily the condition in which, for the most part,
it subsists at this moment. Do you think we are gainers by it? I do
not believe it. It has always come from time to time to be
intolerable. The Montanists of the second century, the heretical sects
of the middle ages, the Independents and Quakers of the English
Commonwealth, the lay preachers of Wesleyanism, the Salvationists, the
Plymouthists, and the Evangelistic associations of our own day,--all
these are in various degrees the protest of the Spirit, and its right
and necessary protest, against the authority which would quench it,
and by quenching it impoverish the Church. In many Nonconformist
churches there is a movement just now in favour of a liturgy. A
liturgy may indeed be a defence against the coldness and incompetence
of the one man to whom the whole conduct of public worship is at
present left; but our true refuge is not this mechanical one, but the
opening of the mouths of all Christian people. A liturgy, however
beautiful, is a melancholy witness to the quenching of the Spirit: it
may be better or worse than the prayers of one man; but it could never
compare for fervour with the spontaneous prayers of a living Church.
Among the gifts of the Spirit, that which the Apostle valued most
highly was prophecy. We read in the Book of Acts of prophets, like
Agabus, who foretold future events affecting the fortunes of the
gospel, and possibly at Thessalonica the minds of those who were
spiritually gifted were preoccupied with thoughts of the Lord's
coming, and made it the subject of their discourses in the church; but
there is no necessary limitation of this sort in the idea of
prophesying. The prophet was a man whose rational and moral nature had
been quickened by the Spirit of Christ, and who possessed in an
uncommon degree the power of speaking edification, exhortation, and
comfort. In other words, he was a Christian preacher,[21] endued with
wisdom, fervour, and tenderness; and his spiritual addresses were
among the Lord's best gifts to the Church. Such addresses, or
prophesyings, Paul tells we are not to despise.
Now despise is a strong word; it is, literally, to set utterly at
naught, as Herod set at naught Jesus, when he clothed Him in purple,
or as the Pharisees set at naught the publicans, even when they came
into the Temple to pray. Of course, prophecy, or, to speak in the
language of our own time, the preacher's calling, may be abused: a man
may preach without a message, without sincerity, without reverence for
God or respect for those to whom he speaks; he may make a mystery, a
professional secret, of the truth of God, instead of declaring it even
to little children; he may seek, as some who called themselves
prophets in early times sought, to make the profession of godliness a
source of gain; and under such circumstances no respect is due. But
such circumstances are not to be assumed without cause. We are rather
to assume that he who stands up in the Church to speak in God's name
has had a word of God entrusted to him; it is not wise to despise it
before it is heard. It may be because we have been so often disappointed
that we pitch our hopes so low; but to expect nothing is to be guilty
of a sort of contempt by anticipation. To despise not prophesyings
requires us to look for something from the preacher, some word of God
that will build us up in godliness, or bring us encouragement or
consolation; it requires us to listen as those who have a precious
opportunity given them of being strengthened by Divine grace and
truth. We ought not to lounge or fidget while the word of God is
spoken, or to turn over the leaves of the Bible at random, or to look
at the clock; we ought to hearken for that word which God has put
into the preacher's mouth for us; and it will be a very exceptional
prophesying in which there is not a single thought that it would repay
us to consider.
When the Apostle claimed respect for the Christian preacher, he did
not claim infallibility. That is plain from what follows; for all the
words are connected. Despise not prophesyings, but put all things to
the test, that is, all the contents of the prophesying, all the
utterances of the Christian man whose spiritual ardour has urged him
to speak. We may remark in passing that this injunction prohibits all
passive listening to the word. Many people prefer this. They come to
church, not to be taught, not to exercise any faculty of discernment
or testing at all, but to be impressed. They like to be played upon,
and to have their feelings moved by a tender or vehement address; it
is an easy way of coming into apparent contact with good. But the
Apostle here counsels a different attitude. We are to put to the proof
all that the preacher says.
This is a favourite text with Protestants, and especially with
Protestants of an extreme type. It has been called "a piece of most
rationalistic advice"; it has been said to imply "that every man has a
verifying faculty, whereby to judge of facts and doctrines, and to
decide between right and wrong, truth and falsehood." But this is a
most unconsidered extension to give to the Apostle's words. He does
not say a word about every man; he is speaking expressly to the
Thessalonians, who were Christian men. He would not have admitted that
any man who came in from the street, and constituted himself a judge,
was competent to pronounce upon the contents of the prophesyings, and
to say which of the burning words were spiritually sound, and which
were not. On the contrary, he tells us very plainly that some men have
no capacity for this task--"The natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit"; and that even in the Christian Church, where all are
to some extent spiritual, some have this faculty of discernment in a
much higher degree than others. In 1 Cor. xii. 10, "discernment of
spirits," this power of distinguishing in spiritual discourse between
the gold and that which merely glitters, is itself represented as a
distinct spiritual gift; and in a later chapter he says (xiv. 29),
"Let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others" (that is,
in all probability, the other prophets) "discern." I do not say this
to deprecate the judgment of the wise, but to deprecate rash and hasty
judgment. A heathen man is no judge of Christian truth; neither is a
man with a bad conscience, and an unrepented sin in his heart; neither
is a flippant man, who has never been awed by the majestic holiness
and love of Jesus Christ,--all these are simply out of court. But the
Christian preacher who stands up in the presence of his brethren
knows, and rejoices, that he is in the presence of those who can put
what he says to the proof. They _are_ his brethren; they are in the
same communion of all the saints with Christ Jesus; the same Christian
tradition has formed, and the same Christian spirit animates, their
conscience; their power to prove his words is a safeguard both to them
and to him.
And it is necessary that they should prove them. No man is perfect,
not the most devout and enthusiastic of Christians. In his most
spiritual utterances something of himself will very naturally mingle;
there will be chaff among the wheat; wood, hay, and stubble in the
material he brings to build up the Church, as well as gold, silver,
and precious stones. That is not a reason for refusing to listen; it
is a reason for listening earnestly, conscientiously, and with much
forbearance. There is a responsibility laid upon each of us, a
responsibility laid upon the Christian conscience of every
congregation and of the Church at large, to put prophesyings to the
proof. Words that are spiritually unsound, that are out of tune with
the revelation of God in Christ Jesus, ought to be discovered when
they are spoken in the Church. No man with any idea of modesty, to say
nothing of humility, could wish it otherwise. And here, again,
we have to regret the quenching of the Spirit. We have all heard the
sermon criticised when the preacher could not get the benefit; but
have we often heard it spiritually judged, so that he, as well as
those who listened to him, is edified, comforted, and encouraged? The
preacher has as much need of the word as his hearers; if there is a
service which God enables him to do for them, in enlightening their
minds or fortifying their wills, there is a corresponding service
which they can do for him. An open meeting, a liberty of prophesying,
a gathering in which any one could speak as the Spirit gave him
utterance, is one of the crying needs of the modern Church.
Let us notice, however, the purpose of this testing of prophecy.
Despise not such utterances, the Apostle says, but prove all: hold
fast that which is good, and hold off from every evil kind. There is a
curious circumstance connected with these short verses. Many of the
fathers of the Church connect them with what they consider a saying of
Jesus, one of the few which is reasonably attested, though it has
failed to find a place in the written gospels. The saying is, "Show
yourselves approved money-changers." The fathers believed, and on such
a point they were likely to be better judges than we, that in the
verses before us the Apostle uses a metaphor from coinage. To prove is
really to assay, to put to the test as a banker tests a piece of
money; the word rendered "good" is often the equivalent of our
sterling; "evil," of our base or forged; and the word which in our old
Bibles is rendered "appearance"--"Abstain from all appearance of
evil"--and in the Revised Version "form"--"Abstain from every form of
evil"--has, at least in some connections, the signification of mint or
die. If we bring out this faded metaphor in its original freshness, it
will run something like this: Show yourselves skilful money-changers;
do not accept in blind trust all the spiritual currency which you find
in circulation; put it all to the test; rub it on the touchstone; keep
hold of what is genuine and of sterling value, but every spurious coin
decline. Whether the metaphor is in the text or not,--and in spite of
a great preponderance of learned names against it, I feel almost
certain it is,--it will help to fix the Apostle's exhortation in our
memories. There is no scarcity, at this moment, of spiritual currency.
We are deluged with books and spoken words about Christ and the
gospel. It is idle and unprofitable, nay, it is positively pernicious,
to open our minds promiscuously to them; to give equal and impartial
lodgment to them all. There is a distinction to be made between the
true and the false, between the sterling and the spurious; and till we
put ourselves to the trouble to make that distinction, we are not
likely to advance very far. How would a man get on in business who
could not tell good money from bad? And how is any one to grow in the
Christian life whose mind and conscience are not earnestly put to it
to distinguish between what is in reality Christian and what is not,
and to hold to the one and reject the other? A critic of sermons is
apt to forget the practical purpose of the discernment here spoken of.
He is apt to think it his function to pick holes. "Oh," he says, "such
and such a statement is utterly misleading: the preacher was simply in
the air; he did not know what he was talking about." Very possibly;
and if you have found out such an unsound idea in the sermon, be
brotherly, and let the preacher know. But do not forget the first and
main purpose of spiritual judgment--hold fast that which is good. God
forbid that you should have no gain out of the sermon except to
discover the preacher going astray. Who would think to make his
fortune only by detecting base coin?
In conclusion, let us recall to our minds the touchstone which the
Apostle himself supplies for this spiritual assaying. "No one," he
writes to the Corinthians, "can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy
Ghost." In other words, whatever is spoken in the Holy Ghost, and is
therefore spiritual and true, has this characteristic, this purpose
and result, that it exalts Jesus. The Christian Church, that community
which embodies spiritual life, has this watchword on its banner,
"Jesus is Lord." That presupposes, in the New Testament sense of it,
the Resurrection and the Ascension; it signifies the sovereignty of
the Son of Man. Everything is genuine in the Church which bears on it
the stamp of Christ's exaltation; everything is spurious and to be
rejected which calls that in question. It is the practical recognition
of that sovereignty--the surrender of thought, heart, will, and life
to Jesus--which constitutes the spiritual man, and gives competence to
judge of spiritual things. He in whom Christ reigns judges in all
spiritual things, and is judged by no man; but he who is a rebel to
Christ, who does not wear His yoke, who has not learned of Him by
obedience, who assumes the attitude of equality, and thinks himself at
liberty to negotiate and treat with Christ, _he_ has no competence,
and no right to judge at all. "Unto Him that loveth us, and loosed us
from our sins by His blood; ... to Him be the glory and the dominion
for ever and ever. Amen."
[21] The contrast drawn by Dr. Hatch in his Hibbert Lectures between
the early Christian prophet and the modern Christian preacher--the
"rhetorical religionist," as he calls him--is, like every other
contrast in that notable book, strained till it becomes utterly false.
It would not be true to say that there was no difference between the
prophet and the preacher; but it would be far truer than to say that
there was no likeness. The prophet was one who spoke, as Paul tells
us, edification, exhortation, and comfort; and as that, we may hope,
is what most preachers try to do, the ideal of the callings is
identical. And it is only by their ideals that they ought to be
compared or criticised.