07-Holiness To The Lord

VII. HOLINESS TO THE LORD.

Rom 1:7. “ Called to be saints,” THIS word “saints” has practically fallen out of use in our modern religious language. If we were in the habit of using it as it is used in the New Testament, we should call ourselves here “ saints.” We should not need to make any distinction between those who are truly religious and those who are only nominal Christians; our proper title, taken as we are, would be, the “saints” assembled in this Church. But we do not, and could not, thus describe ourselves. We have long dropped this title, and we use another in its stead. Where the Apostles would say “ saints,” we say “ Christians.” The Church owes this latter title to the heathen by whom the believers in Christ were surrounded in Antioch and other Gentile cities. Amongst themselves they were not “Christians” in the New Testament age, but sometimes the brethren, sometimes the faithful or the believers, sometimes the saints. You may find these names in the addresses at the beginning of the Epistles, as well as incidentally elsewhere. Thus Paul an Apostle and Timotheus a brother write to the “saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colossae,” or, as it might have been rendered, “to the holy and faithful brethren.” And St Paul asks, “ Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” By this name all the members of the Church, all the Christians, are comprehensively described.

I said not only that we do not, as a matter of usage, call ourselves saints, but that we could not. The name has come to have associations in our minds which prevent us from giving it this general application. We do not now understand by “saints” ordinary Christians doing the work of the world, (i) One class which the word denotes to us is that of eminent Christians of the early ages of the Church, who have had days in the Calendar assigned to their memory. Our separation from the Church of Rome, by leading us to reject the commemoration of the great multitude of middleage saints, has helped to clothe the word with this peculiarly primitive character. (2) If by chance we describe any one of our own time as a saint, we mean to denote by.the name excellence of a peculiar type, not such as ought to characterize Christians universally, but such as belongs to an exceptional nature and an exceptional lot in life. The saintly virtue, as we conceive of it, is retiring and contemplative rather than active and energetic, ascetical rather than joyous, feminine rather than masculine. The odour of sanctity is blown away, as it were, by the breezes of the world. (3) It is in accordance with this feeling that we more willingly think of saints as inhabitants of heaven than as living on this earth. This habit of associating the saints with the unseen world has created some important differences between us and those to whom the saints were primarily the members of the Church on earth. Thus, when we profess our belief in the “ Communion of saints,” we naturally suppose it to mean some kind of intercourse between saints in heaven and believers here below. But its more natural primitive sense would be “ the partnership or fellowship of Christians.” And the faith in it would be a belief that Christians, as such, are united to one another by bonds which give them common hopes, common interests, common affections, mutual obligations. This view is in agreement with the doctrinal part of our Collect for All Saints’ Day, which calls to memory that God has knit together his elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of his Son Christ our Lord. And so the dedication-name of an All Saints’ Church, like this, bears witness to the idea of the Catholic or universal Church, as a body of consecrated members.

It is no loss on the whole, perhaps, to drop the title “saints” as a designation of members of the Church of Christ, in order that we may replace it by that of Christians, which appeals with so much power to our hearts. But if the word in falling out of use, has abstracted with it from the general Christian calling any of the holiness which was at first considered an essential feature of it, that, assuredly, is a serious loss. The word “saint,” which is borrowed from the Latin, is exactly equivalent to the word “ holy.” But it has the convenience of having been made a substantive, whilst holy remains an adjective, so that “a saint” can be said for a holy person, and “saints” for “the holy” or holy persons. In the passage I quoted just now, it is doubtful whether it is best to read “the saints and faithful brethren” or “the holy and faithful brethren.” Similarly, we might read with equal accuracy, “ called to be saints,” or “called to be holy.” To sanctify is, as you know, to make holy.

Let us now endeavour to recover distinctly the original and guiding sense of these words, at least so far as their usage in Scripture is concerned. That sense stands out more obviously, perhaps, in the Old Testament than in the New. The idea of holiness pervades all the institutions of the Jewish people. Places, times, offices, things of all sorts, were made holy to the Lord. That is, they were separated from other common uses, that they might belong to the express service of God. To be holy was to be set apart for God. You will do well to hold fast to this, brethren, as the essential and permanent idea of holiness. It is the condition of being consecrated to God. The Jewish people were frequently reminded in their sacred books of the reason why there was so much setting apart of things for Jehovah in their appointed customs. Their elaborate ritual service, with its multitudinous consecrations, and the distinctions of clean and unclean by which their life was burdened, were all intended to bear witness to them and keep them in mind, that they were themselves a people holy to the Lord. By word and by symbol alike it was pressed upon them that their God Jehovah had called and chosen them for his own people. They belonged to him; he had made them his own from amongst the surrounding nations; by his voice of calling, by signal deliverances, by guidance, and by promises, he taught them his purpose of election. But they were slow and careless to remember him to whom they belonged. The principle of separation or setting apart was therefore wrought into their life, private and public, from morning to night, that they might feel their God Jehovah to be a calling and separating God. “ I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them,” this may serve as a key of all the ordinances of consecration amongst the Jews; they were symbols and witnesses of the holiness of the people, that is to say, of the fact that Jehovah had called and chosen them, that he might dwell among them and they might be his. “ I am Jehovah your God, and you are my people,” this is the assurance which with incessant iteration runs through the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, and in being thus appropriated to Jehovah consisted the holiness of the Jewish people. In passing from the Old Covenant to the New, we do not observe any change of the essential principle of holiness. Still the calling of God is the cause of holiness, separation unto God who chooses is the meaning of it Christians are holy in that they belong to the Father who chooses them for his own in his Son. In the instructions which our Lord gave to the Eleven before his Passion, he was careful to impress upon them that they had received this holiness. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you:” thus he reminded them of their special calling.

Through this calling and the continuous personal discipline by which he had attached them to himself they were to regard themselves as having been made holy and clean. The Apostles were in the most solemn sense consecrated persons; and this meant that they were chosen out of the world and set apart for the special service of Christ and the Father. The task assigned to the Apostles as founders of the Church was a special one, but their consecration was not exclusive. Every believer taken into the Church was taught that he too was a “ saint.” The faith to which he was invited was that God had chosen him and was calling him, and that he was henceforth to consider himself as separated and holy to the Lord. The Apostles were not in the habit of making distinctions between the members of the Church. It would have been entirely contrary to their feeling and conviction to use for example such language as this, “ Some of you, who shew by your lives that you are truly devoted to Christ, we shall gladly recognize as saints, the rest we must sorrowfully regard as unholy and profane.” Speaking to a mixed multitude of Christians, St Peter says freely, “ Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” And if any one urges that though the Apostle does not in word discriminate, yet he must have had in his mind an implied distinction, between those who were truly religious and those who were only nominal Christians, I answer that the distinctions of personal character were not one but many, but that St Peter was not thinking of personal character in the Christians whom he was addressing, but of God’s calling. From this point of view it is certain that any distinction between some members of the Church and others was foreign to the Apostolic mind. The first teachers of the Church wished every Christian to believe that he was chosen and called. To those who were still outside the Church the preachers of Christ said, “ God has sent us to you, and to every one whom the offer of salvation can reach, to assure you that he forgives you and calls you into reconciliation.” As many as consented to believe, they washed with water in sign of cleansing through forgiveness; and then to the baptized they addressed their appeals on the ground that they had been chosen, called, washed, consecrated, and were therefore no longer their own.

It is most true, however, that there is a distinction between the consecration of unconscious things and that of the conscious spiritual creatures of God. A building can be set apart for Divine worship; and a living soul can also be set apart for Divine worship: but a living soul is a very different thing from a building. In the conscious being, consent is required; and until the consent of the heart is won, the consecration remains in a manner frustrated. So that there is profound reason in the twofold Apostolic exhortation, though it may sound illogical, “ You are holy; therefore be holy.” These two clauses sum up the New Testament teaching as to sanctification. Each clause, the affirmative and the imperative, was spoken with solemn earnestness; but I am inclined to believe that the former was then felt to be the more important of the two. The former declared the foundation, laid by God, the latter pointed to the superstructure, to be built by the Christian. And it was through knowing and feeling what God had done, that men were drawn and enabled to contribute their part to the accomplishment of God’s purpose. To say with inward thankfulness and joy, “ Thou hast chosen me and made me thine own, let me be thine!” is the instinctive utterance of Christian holiness. Our Lord himself is the Holy One for us to imitate, in that he perfectly surrendered himself to his Father’s will. “ They are not of the world,” he says to his Father, of those whom the Father had given to him, “ even as I am not of ths world...As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” The Lord Jesus sanctified himself. It is usual, I think, and right, to regard this as meaning, “ I devote myself, in my approaching sacrifice.” It was in his Passion and Death, most completely, though not only, that our Lord offered himself to his Father. But this self-consecration or sacrifice of Christ did not originate in himself. As he so often said, the Father sent him, commissioned him, sealed him, anointed him. It was his glory, his meat, his life, to fulfil the will of the Father who had sent him. This was the sanctification of the Holy One. And the same kind of consent to be taken and used for God’s service is the holiness of Christians. Holiness is not any more than righteousness the laborious discharge of a ceremonial; it is, let me repeat it inward consent to God’s election. If we would be holy, the sense that God calls us to be entirely his must master us, so that we shall desire and strive to be in all things and effectually his.

Look at the things that men do, good and bad, right and wrong, from the point of view of this. principle of holiness. They do them from various motives, or from almost no motive; from some inward prompting and preference, or because others have done the same things before. The principle of holiness will constrain us to discriminate between these in a certain manner. We are in the world, immersed in the general human life, conscious of the influence of custom and desire; but we are not of the world, we belong to God. Our question will be, Which of these things fall in with our resolve to yield ourselves to God’s service? Which of them do we know by instinct or learn by experience to be contrary and destructive to it? These latter we call unholy, profane, and they ought to become thoroughly repulsive to us. The right feeling will be that they defile, as dirt does the clean body, a spirit that is pledged to entire dedication to God.

One word here, to meet a difficulty which the conception of holiness as meaning separation to God’s service may suggest. If we mean by “ holy” that which is set apart, unconsciously and consciously, to God’s service, how can we speak of God himself as holy? What we imply, I think, when we call God holy, is that he disapproves and repels these human acts and affections which we learn to be inconsistent with our devotion to God.

God’s holiness is not another element or attribute of his nature, it is another aspect of it. It expresses the repugnance that there must be between the perfect nature of the just and loving God, and the things which in us are unholy and produce defilement. It is wholesome for us to remember with awe that we have to do with a jealous and a holy God.

There can surely be no doubt, dear brethren, as to the powerful influence which the consciousness of having been made and claimed for God’s service, of having been chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless before him, would have upon our lives. There would issue from it a perpetual condemnation of the cruelty, disregard of ties, and sensuality, by which this world which Christ redeemed is still denied. And therefore it is well that we should cherish all recollections and habits which may impress upon us our sanctity as Christians. We, like the Jews, have holy seasons, holy places, holy things; and of late years there has been a considerable revival amongst us of reverence for all things that minister to the worship of God.

Sacraments, Churches, holy days, have been rescued from comparative neglect, and are the objects of pious and increasing consideration throughout all classes in the land. This revival of reverence is good, upon one condition, that we do not look upon external things as inherently sacred, but as witnesses that we ourselves who live and work are sanctified by the Lord our God. God, we ought to know, does not want holy tilings, but holy persons, minds and hearts and members given up in rational sacrifice to him. Our holiness is essentially spiritual; and God, who knows our weakness and does not blame us for it, gives us a Spirit which the Church has always called the holy and sanctifying Spirit. Without his inspirations, how would it be possible for us to live for God? God is invisible, and we are creatures of flesh and blood, upon whom the visible world is always crowding its impressions. It is so natural for us to live as children of the world! Yes, if it were not that we are subject to other impressions also; that our heavenly Father is continually appealing to us by higher influences, and making himself known to us, and stirring up in us the consciousness in which we may know that we are not of the world, even as our Saviour and Master was not of the world. Do not believe that there is anything arbitrary, unmanly, or obsolete, in true Christian sanctity. Christ as our Head, and the Holy Spirit moving in us, make it natural for every one who professes and calls himself a Christian to be holy. We are not bound to any strained asceticism, to any desertion of our appointed industry, to any gloomy religious fears. The ideal we shall aim at in giving ourselves to God will be to become guileless and pure and gentle and courageous and diligent as well as devout and prayerful. We are to desire, as followers of Christ, to be innocent as little children, not in their mere ignorance and inexperience, but through the power of those affections of the children of God which lift us above the world, and give us a hearty distaste for all that is base and vile.

He that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and though he does not seek their approbation, he ends by being also approved of men.