THE HOLY SPIRIT AND CHURCH PROBLEMS.

It is apt to be overlooked that the truth about the Holy Spirit has an intimate connection with some of the burning ecclesiastical questions of to-day.1 Indeed, it may be said that if this doctrine had been more carefully attended to and more closely adhered to, those questions would never have come into existence, or at least would have occupied only a very secondary place in the thought and life of the Church. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the Church is really our safeguard against many ecclesiastical dangers that are rife to-day and have been so through the ages.

There is the danger of erroneous ideas of Unity. We can see from two passages in St. Paul a clear distinction drawn between ' the unity of the Spirit ' as a present fact, and ' the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God' as an ideal for the future (Eph. iv. 3, 13). A recollection of this distinction would save us from many a danger. We have, and must therefore ' keep the unity of the Spirit,' but we are travelling towards the unity of ' faith and knowledge.' Unity is often confused with a unit of organisation, but this has never existed since the first congregation of Christians met at Jerusalem. Indeed, it is an absolute impossibility in view of differences and difficulties of time, distance, nationality, and races. In the Eastern Churches to-day there is no such unit, for all those bodies are federated as a collection and combination of individual Churches. In the Anglican Church there is no such unit, since the diocese, or at most the province, is the highest form of organisation. And it goes without saying that there is no unit of organisation in the other Protestant Churches. It only exists in Roman Catholicism under the unit of the Papacy, and we know that this is far removed from ' the unity of the Spirit.' It would offer one of the most striking studies in Church History to observe the way in which the Holy Spirit has been set aside in the practical working of the Roman Church.

Unity has also sometimes been confused with unanimity of doctrine. But here again, unanimity on fundamentals has been found compatible with remarkable variety in non-essentials without any breach of unity. Unanimity of opinion on every point is as impossible as it would be intolerable and unnecessary, and yet essential unity can exist under a great deal of doctrinal variety.

Unity has also been identified with uniformity of ceremonial, but, once more, the two are not necessarily one and the same thing. The existence of the great liturgies and the remarkable variety of ritual in all ages show that unity is possible apart from all such outward oneness of ceremonial.

The unity of the Spirit is a unity of life and love in Christ. It springs from unity with Christ, and consists of living unity in Him through the Spirit. The Church is a congregation not an aggregation; a community of those who have Christ for their Centre and Source of life. Our Lord distinguishes between the unity of the fold and the unity of the flock (John x. 16), and makes the latter the more important. If we follow His example, we shall be most thoroughly in harmony with the New Testament teaching on the unity of the Spirit. The trouble has been caused by the endeavour to identify the Body of Christ with a visible organisation, but this is opposed to the very first principles of Christianity as found in the New Testament. The truth taught above 2 is often overlooked, that the Church in the Creed is associated with faith, not with sight, and this simple but significant fact shows that the unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity in which we express our confidence are therefore matters of faith, not of sight. We believe that there is one Church, though we do not see it; we believe that the Church is in this sense holy, or ' consecrated ' to God even though this holiness is very partially realised by any visible community; we believe that the Church is universal even though there are many visible communities of those who ' profess and call themselves Christians.' The Church as the Body of Christ embraces all times, all places, and all people, and the claim to the sole use of the term by any one body of Christians involves a contradiction and in reality is an utter impossibility. The Church Catholic is the Church Universal, not any one Church or combination of Churches with a merely partial following. We believe that the Church is Apostolic, because it is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. The succession is that of truth, and the Church founded by the Apostles is still guided by them in their writings as found in the New Testament. So that any Apostolic Succession cannot be personal, because as Apostles the men were unique and had no successors. But there can be Apostolic Succession by adherence to Apostolic doctrine and life. The Church is therefore Apostolic, Catholic, and Holy, and One, because it is in Christ. Everything is based on life, and life is based on Divine grace in Christ, The scriptural idea of the Church is found in such passages as Romans xii. 5, ' We, being many, are (not, shall be, or, ought to be, but are) one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.' So also in Ephesians the same truth is stated as a fact, not as a hypothesis; as a present reality, not as a prospective hope. The Church is the Body of Christ, and this is a fact that no differences or divisions can alter, or even affect. One community may excommunicate another, but if any person thus rejected is united by a living faith to Christ he is a member of Christ's Body, however much he may be cut off from visible fellowship. No part of the Church can exclude from the whole or from God. Men like Savonarola and Luther were excluded from a part, but not from the entire Church.

No idea has been more fruitful of error, or more serious in practical results than the identification of the Body of Christ with any visible institution or institutions. The words of Bishop Westcott are particularly valuable in this connection,

' It follows necessarily from what has been said that external, visible unity is not required for the essential visible unity of the Church. The promise of Christ does not reach to the unity of the outward fold at any time.'3

' The conception of unity based on historic and Divine succession in the religious centre of the world was proved to be no part of the true idea of the Church.'4

' No external organization can supersede the original relation in which the Society stands to its founder. The gift of the Holy Spirit was the outward sign of the elevation of humanity to glory at the right hand of God; the sharing in that gift is the life of the Church; the absolute oneness of the source from which the gift flows is the ground of essential unity in the congregations of which the Church is composed.'5

The one complete safeguard against all such errors connected with the unity of the Church is a fuller emphasis on the presence and work of the Holy Spirit of God. It is He Who unites us to Christ and to one another in Him, and in proportion as our life is truly Christian it will express itself in all those graces that find their source and spring in the Spirit of the living God.

Another ecclesiastical danger is that of rigidity in the forms of worship and organisation. This peril, as we have already seen, is the plain message of Montanism, Quakerism, and Brethrenism. In spite of all aberrations these movements represent legitimate assertions of the regenerated soul and the spiritual community. ' Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty' (2 Cor. iii. 17).6 And there is scarcely anything clearer in the New Testament than its emphasis on the liberty of the regenerated believer. Although liberty is far removed from licence, and although it may be difficult from time to time to express in proper terms the reality and limitations of liberty, the truth can never be disregarded with impunity by the Church. The soul that has learned the liberty wherewith Christ makes it free desires to stand fast thereby (Gal. v. i), and is particularly sensitive to anything that may check that freedom of approach to, and intercourse with God. There will always be difficulties in preserving the balance because the human mind is so apt to go to extremes, but in spite of the difficulty every effort must be made. The danger of the older, larger, and more thoroughly organised Churches is always in the direction of usurping the place of the Holy Spirit. But to guard against this will not mean undue individualism, because individualistic Christianity finds no warrant in the New Testament, and it may be said without any question or qualification that there is no future for Christianity apart from a unity of Christians. There have been, there still are, improper emphases on this truth, sometimes in Roman Catholicism, and sometimes from an entirely different standpoint in Ritschlianism, but the truth is undoubted that the Church is important and necessary for the individual, and that no man will ever be a ' saint ' except in connection with the ' Communion of Saints.' Justification comes to a man solitarily and alone, but he is sanctified in relation to others. Christian character needs the Church for its development, and this is only possible in the Christian community. It is not without great significance that twice over in one short Epistle St. Paul associates himself with ' all saints ' (Eph. iii. 18; vi. 18),

Nor will this insistence on Christian liberty lead to anything approaching what may be called ultra-spirituality, opposed to all organised Christianity. Here, again, we have to beware of falling into the fallacy that abuse takes away use. There are many indications to-day in support of Dr. Forsyth's pointed words that ' Free lances are futilities.' We must therefore beware of two extremes; that of exaggerating the place and importance of the Church, and the opposite one of depreciating it. If we attempt to exaggerate the community we shall find that high views of the Church will often tend to low views of Christ, and will result in placing the Church between the soul and its Lord. On the other hand, we must foster Church fellowship, and emphasise to the full the value of the Christian community, and we shall do this in proportion as we allow the Holy Spirit His rightful place in the Church. This will keep us from any exaggeration or depreciation, either of the individual or of the society. We shall rejoice to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church, while we shall be equally thankful for what He is saying to the individual soul. We shall endeavour to glorify Christ as the Head of the Church, and at the same time rejoice in Him as the Lord of the individual. In our worship, our service, our fellowship, if we make room for the Holy Spirit and follow His leading step by step we shall find in that the safeguard against all extremes and the guarantee of a Christian life, love, and liberty that blesses men, builds up the Church, and glorifies God.

1 See also chap, xxii., p. 169.

2 See ch. xxii., p. 183.

3 Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 216.

4 Westcott, op. cit. p. 217.

5 Westcott, op. cit. p. 221.

6 See note N, p. 281.