George Muller of Bristol Part 30

APPENDIX K

FURTHER RECOLLECTIONS OF MR. MULLER

MR. PERRY furnishes also the following reminiscences: As George Muller was engaged in free, homely conversation with his friends on a Sunday afternoon within about three weeks of his departure to be with the Lord, he referred to two visits he had made during the previous week to two old and beloved friends. He had fully appreciated that, though they were about ten years younger than himself, his power to walk, and specially his power to continue his service for his Lord, was far greater than theirs. So that he playfully said, with a bright smile: "I came away from both these beloved brethren feeling that I was quite young by comparison as to strength, though so much older," and then at once followed an ascription of praise to G.o.d for His goodness to him: "Oh, how very kind and good my heavenly Father has been to me! I have no aches or pains, no rheumatism, and now in my ninety-third year I can do a day's work at the orphan houses with as much ease and comfort to myself as ever."

One sentence aptly sets forth a striking feature in his Christian character, viz.: George Muller, nothing. In himself worse than nothing.

The Lord Jesus, everything. By grace, in Christ, the son of the King.

And as such he lived; for all those who knew and loved this beloved and honoured servant of Christ best would testify that his habitual att.i.tude towards the Lord was to treat Him as an ever-present, almighty, loving Friend, whose love was far greater to him than he could ever return, and who delighted in having his entire confidence about everything, and was not only ready at hand to listen to his prayers and praises about great and important matters, but nothing was too small to speak to Him about.

So real was this that it was almost impossible to be enjoying the privilege of private, confidential intercourse with him without being conscious that at least to him the Lord was really present, One to whom he turned for counsel, in prayer, or in praise, as freely as most men would speak to a third person present; and again and again most marked answers to prayer have been received in response to pet.i.tions thus unitedly presented to the Lord altogether apart from his own special work.

APPENDIX L

CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, BAPTISM, ETC.

WHEN brother Craik and I began to labour in Bristol, and consequently some believers united with us in fellowship, a.s.sembling together at Bethesda, we began meeting together on the basis of the written Word only, without having any church rules whatever. From the commencement it was understood that, as the Lord should help us, we would try everything by the word of G.o.d, and introduce and hold fast that only which could be proved by Scripture. When we came to this determination on Aug. 13, 1832, it was indeed in weakness, but it was in uprightness of heart.--On account of this it was that, as we ourselves were not fully settled as to whether those only who had been baptized after they had believed, or whether all who believed in the Lord Jesus, irrespective of baptism, should be received into fellowship, nothing was determined about this point. We felt free to break bread and be in communion with those who were not baptized, and therefore could with a good conscience labour at Gideon, where the greater part of the saints, at least at first, were unbaptized; but, at the same time, we had a secret wish that none but believers who were baptized might be united with us at Bethesda. Our reason for this was that we had witnessed in Devonshire much painful disunion, resulting as we thought, from baptized and unbaptized believers being in fellowship. Without, then, making it a rule, that Bethesda Church was to be one of close communion, we nevertheless took care that those who applied for fellowship should be instructed about baptism. For many months there occurred no difficulty as none applied for communion but such as had either been already baptized, or wished to be, or who became convinced of the scriptural character of believers'

baptism, after we had conversed with them; afterwards, however, three sisters applied for fellowship, none of whom had been baptized; nor were their views altered after we had conversed with them. As, nevertheless, brother Craik and I considered them true believers, and we ourselves were not fully convinced what was the mind of the Lord in such a case, we thought it right that these sisters should be received; yet so that it might be unanimously, as all our church acts _then_ were done; but we knew _by that time_ that there were several in fellowship with us who could not conscientiously receive unbaptized believers. We mentioned, therefore, the names of the three sisters to the church, stating that they did not see believers' baptism to be scriptural, and that, if any brother saw, on that account, a reason why they should not be received, he should let us know. The result was that several objected, and two or three meetings were held, at which we heard the objections of the brethren, and sought for ourselves to obtain acquaintance with the mind of G.o.d on the point. Whilst several days thus pa.s.sed away before the matter was decided, one of those three sisters came and thanked us that we had not received her, before being baptized, for she now saw that it was only shame and the fear of man which had kept her back, and that the Lord had now made her willing to be baptized. By this circ.u.mstance those brethren who considered it scriptural that all ought to be baptized before being received into fellowship, were confirmed in their views; and as to brother Craik and me, it made us, at least, still more question whether those brethren might not be right; and we felt, therefore, that in such a state of mind we could not oppose them. The one sister, therefore, who wished to be baptized was received into fellowship, but the two others not. Our consciences were the less affected by this because all, though not baptized, might take the Lord's supper with us at Bethesda, though not be received into full fellowship; and because at Gideon, where there were baptized and unbaptized believers, they might even be received into full fellowship; for we had not then clearly seen that there is _no scriptural_ distinction between being in fellowship with individuals and breaking bread with them. Thus matters stood for many months, i.e., believers were received to the breaking of bread even at Bethesda, though not baptized, but they were not received to all the privileges of fellowship.--In August of 1836 I had a conversation with brother K. C. on, the subject of receiving the unbaptized into communion, a subject about which, for years, my mind had been more or less exercised. This brother put the matter thus before me: either unbaptized believers come under the cla.s.s of persons who walk disorderly, and, in that case, we ought to withdraw from them (2 Thess.

iii. 6); or they do not walk disorderly. If a believer be walking disorderly, we are not merely to withdraw from him at the Lord's table, but our behaviour towards him ought to be decidedly different from what it would be were he not walking disorderly, _on all occasions_ when we may have intercourse with him, or come in any way into contact with him.

Now this is evidently not the case in the conduct of baptized believers towards their unbaptized fellow believers. The Spirit does not suffer it to be so, but He witnesses that their not having been baptized does not necessarily imply that they are walking disorderly; and hence there may be the most precious communion between baptized and unbaptized believers. The Spirit does not suffer us to refuse fellowship with them in prayer, in reading or searching the Scriptures, in social and intimate intercourse, and in the Lord's work; and yet this ought to be the case, were they walking disorderly.--This pa.s.sage, 2 Thess. iii. 6, to which brother E. C. referred, was the means of showing me the mind of the Lord on the subject, which is, _that we ought to receive all whom Christ has received_ (Rom. xv. 7), _irrespective of the measure of grace or knowledge which they have attained unto._--Some time after this conversation, in May, 1837, an opportunity occurred, when we (for brother Craik had seen the same truth) were called upon to put into practice the light which the Lord had been pleased to give us. A sister, who neither _had been baptized,_ nor considered herself under any obligation to be baptized, applied for fellowship. We conversed with her on this as on other subjects and proposed her for fellowship, though our conversation had not convinced her that she ought to be baptized. This led the church again to the consideration of the point. We gave our reasons, from Scripture, for considering it right to receive this unbaptized sister to all the privileges of the children of G.o.d; but a considerable number, one-third perhaps, expressed conscientious difficulty in receiving her. The example of the Apostles, in baptizing the first believers upon a profession of faith, was especially urged, which indeed would be an unsurmountable difficulty had not the truth been mingled with error for so long a time, so that it does not prove wilful disobedience if any one in our day should refuse to be baptized after believing. The Lord, however, gave us much help in pointing out the truth to the brethren, so that the number of those who considered that only baptized believers should be in communion decreased almost daily. At last, only fourteen brethren and sisters out of above 180 thought it right, this August 28, 1837, to separate from us, after we had had much intercourse with them. [I am glad to be able to add that, even of these fourteen, the greater part afterwards saw their error, and came back again to us, and that the receiving of all who love our Lord Jesus into full communion, irrespective of baptism, has never been the source of disunion among us, though more than fifty-seven years have pa.s.sed away since.]

APPENDIX M

CHURCH CONDUCT

I.--QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE ELDERSHIP.

(1) _How does it appear to be the mind of G.o.d that, in every church, there should be recognized Elders?_

_Ans._ From the following pa.s.sages compared together: Matt. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42.

From these pa.s.sages we learn that some are set by the Lord Himself in the office of rulers and teachers, and that this office (in spite of the fallen state of the church) should be in being, even down to the close of the present dispensation. Accordingly, we find from Acts xiv. 23, xx.

17; t.i.t. i. 5; and 1 Pet. v. 1, that soon after the saints had been converted, and had a.s.sociated together in a church character, Elders were appointed to take the rule over them and to fulfil the office of under-shepherds.

This must not be understood as implying that, when believers are a.s.sociated in church fellowship, they ought to elect Elders according to their own will, whether the Lord may have qualified persons or not; but rather that such should wait upon G.o.d, that He Himself would be pleased to raise up such as may be qualified for teaching and ruling in His church.

(2) _How do such come into office?_

_Ans._ By the appointment of the Holy Ghost, Acts xx. 28.

(3) _How may this appointment be made known to the individuals called to the office, and to those amongst whom they may be called to labour?_

_Ans._ By the secret call of the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 1, confirmed by the possession of the requisite qualifications, 1 Tim. iii. 2-7; t.i.t. i.

6-9, and by the Lord's blessing resting upon their labours, 1 Cor. ix.

2.

In 1 Cor. ix. 2, Paul condescends to the weakness of some, who were in danger of being led away by those factious persons who questioned his authority. As an Apostle--appointed by the express word of the Lord--he needed not such outward confirmation. But if he used his success as an argument in confirmation of his call, how much more may ordinary servants of the Lord Jesus employ such an argument, seeing that the way in which they are called for the work is such as to require some outward confirmation!

(4) _Is it inc.u.mbent upon the saints to acknowledge such and to submit to them in the Lord?_

_Ans._ Yes. See 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16; 1 Thess. v. 12, 13; Heb. xiii. 7, 17; and 1 Tim. v. 17.

In these pa.s.sages obedience to pastoral authority is clearly enjoined.

II.--_Ought matters of discipline to be finally settled by the Elders_ in private, _or_ in the presence of the church, and as the act of the whole body?

_Ans._ (1) Such matters are to be finally settled in the presence of the church. This appears from Matt. xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 4, 5; 2 Cor. ii.

6-8; 1 Tim. v. 20.

(2) Such matters are to be finally settled _as the act of the whole body,_ Matt. xviii. 17, 18. In this pa.s.sage the act of exclusion is spoken of as the act of the whole body. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, v. 12, 13. In this pa.s.sage Paul gives the direction, respecting the exercise of discipline, in such a way to render the whole body responsible: verse 7, "Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump"; and verse 13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." From 2 Cor. ii. 6-8 we learn that the act of exclusion was not the act of the Elders only, but of the church: "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment [rather, public censure] _which was inflicted of many."_ From verse 8 we learn that the act of restoration was to be a public act of the brethren: "Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm [rather, ratify by a public act] your love towards him."

As to the reception of brethren into fellowship, this is an act of simple obedience to the Lord, both on the part of the elders and the whole church. We are bound and privileged to receive all those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, according to that Scripture, "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of G.o.d." (Rom. xv. 7.)

III.--_When should church acts (such as acts of reception, restoration, exclusion, etc.) be attended to?_

_Ans._ It cannot be expressly proved from Scripture whether such acts were attended to at the meeting for the breaking of bread, or at any other meeting; therefore this is a point on which, if different churches differ, mutual forbearance ought to be exercised. The way in which such matters have hitherto been managed amongst us has been by the church coming together on a week-evening. Before we came to Bristol we had been accustomed to this mode, and, finding nothing in Scripture against it, we continued the practice. But, after prayer and more careful consideration of this point, it has appeared well to us that such acts should be attended to on the Lord's days, when the saints meet together for the breaking of bread. We have been induced to make this alteration by the following reasons:

(1) _This latter mode prevents matters from being delayed._ There not being a sufficiency of matter for a meeting on purpose every week, it has sometimes happened that what would better have been stated to the church at once has been kept back from the body for some weeks. Now, it is important that what concerns the whole church should be made known as soon as possible to those who are in fellowship, that they may act accordingly. Delay, moreover, seems inconsistent with the pilgrim-character of the people of G.o.d.

(2) _More believers can be present on the Lord's days than can attend on week-evenings._ The importance of this reason will appear from considering how everything which concerns the church should be known to _as many as possible._ For how can the saints pray for those who may have to be excluded,--how can they sympathize in cases of peculiar trial,--and how can they rejoice and give thanks on account of those who may be received or restored, unless they are made acquainted with the facts connected with such cases?

(3) _A testimony is thus given that all who break bread are church members._ By attending to church acts in the meeting for breaking of bread, we show that we _make no difference_ between receiving into fellowship at the Lord's Supper, and into church membership, but that the individual who is admitted to the Lord's table is therewith also received to all the privileges, trials, and responsibilities of church membership.

(4) There is a peculiar propriety in acts of reception, restoration, and exclusion being attended to when the saints meet together for the breaking of bread, as, in that ordinance especially, we show forth our fellowship with each other.

Objections answered.

(1) This alteration has the appearance of changeableness.

_Reply._ Such an objection would apply to any case in which increased light led to any improvement, and is, therefore, not to be regarded. It would be an evil thing if there were any change respecting the foundation truths of the Gospel; but the point in question is only a matter of church order.

(2) More time may thus be required than it would be well to give to such a purpose on the Lord's day.

_Reply._ As, according to this plan, church business will be attended to _every Lord's day,_ it is more than probable that the meetings will be thereby prolonged for a few minutes only; but, should circ.u.mstance require it, a special meeting may still be appointed during the week, for all who break bread with us. This, however, would only be needful, provided the matters to be brought before the brethren were to require more time than could be given to them at the breaking of bread.*

* The practice, later on, gave place to a week-night meeting, on Tuesday, for transaction of such "church acts."--A. T. P.

N.B. (1) Should any persons be present who do not break bread with us, they may be requested to withdraw whenever such points require to be stated as it would not be well to speak of in the presence of unbelievers.

(2) As there are two places in which the saints meet for the breaking of bread, the matters connected with church acts must be brought out at each place.

IV.--QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE LORD'S SUPPER.

(1) _How frequently ought the breaking of bread to be attended to?_