A Book of Gems, or, Choice selections from the writings of Benjamin Franklin. Бенджамин Франклин

“He who believes and is immersed shall be saved.” Believes, in this passage, is literal. Born of the Spirit, or, which is the same, “begotten of the Spirit,” is figurative. The meaning is the same as, “I have begotten you by the gospel,” or made you believers by the gospel. Begotten of God is made a believer of God. Begotten of the Spirit is made a believer by the Spirit. It is in some instances ascribed to God in view of his being the Author of it. It is ascribed to Christ in view of it being through his mediation. It is ascribed to the Spirit in view of his inspiring the apostles or speaking in them, and thus making believers, and those thus made believers are said to be begotten of the Spirit, and, when immersed, said to be “born of water and of the Spirit.” This is precisely all there is in it.

      There is nothing about the resurrection in it, the first resurrection or any other resurrection, unless it be a resurrection to a new life. Nor is anything in the resurrection ever called “a birth of the Spirit.” We are perfectly aware that the dead will be quickened by the Spirit, and that the Spirit of Christ will quicken their mortal bodies; that Christ was the “first-born from the dead,” the “first-born among many brethren,” and that the dead will be raised at the sound of the trumpet, but there is not one word about all this or an allusion to it in the conversation with Nicodemus. Nor is there one word about or allusion to the everlasting kingdom in that conversation. We must not make something out of that conversation that is not in it.

      Nicodemus was standing on his birth-right, “born in thy house,” as expressed Gen. xvii. 13, for membership. The Lord sweeps this away in one sentence: “Except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God.” His being born in the house or family of Abraham availed nothing. “Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God.” No matter in whose family he was born nor whose blood coursed in his veins, a man must be born again, born from above, born of water and of the Spirit, or he cannot enjoy the kingdom of God. As the Spirit is the agent through whom the gospel is preached, and the gospel the instrument by which the Spirit makes believers, the agent is mentioned for the effect, which is belief—made believers by the Spirit and baptized into Christ, into one body. It is of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, of the apostles and by the word.

      There is no such thing as the new birth without the Spirit, nor any such thing as entering into the kingdom of God or the body of Christ. The faith, the work of the Spirit in preaching the gospel, through the apostles, and baptism, or, figuratively, “born of water,” must be present. The man who believes the gospel with all his heart and is immersed into Christ is “born of water and of the Spirit” in the sense intended by the Savior.

      A HIGHER MORALITY REQUIRED.

       Table of Contents

      WE need a higher morality, a more pure and unadulterated piety and greater simplicity of benevolence. We do not want money extracted from the pockets of the people by the Church offering them sensual gratification, amusements and entertainments, to say nothing of the ball, the lottery and other gambling. Let us in the name of the Lord and of religion, in a manly way, come directly to the people for means to support religion and ask them to give from love to Christ, and no matter if we do not obtain one-fourth the amount it will do ten times as much good. The Lord needs no money made by lotteries, gambling, fairs, festivals, or any such appeals to the lust of the flesh, the human appetite, the love of fine companies, etc. He needs no money only that given to him through love and devotion to his cause. Those who appeal to entertainments, amusements, fine companies of men and women, the dance, lotteries, festivals, fairs, etc., etc., thus publish to the world their impression that there is more potency in these worldly and secular appliances than there is in the grace of God and the love of Christ, and we doubt not they find it to be so, in raising money in their assemblies. They have tried it and demonstrated it to be so. We care not if it be so; we care not if it has been demonstrated that the people will give more money for a monkey show than for the kingdom of God; we will not resort to the monkey show; nor do we care if they will give more money for revelling than for the holy cause for which Jesus died; we will not resort to the revelling. There are other matters aside from the question, how much money can we raise, that must be kept in view.

      We must maintain our piety, devotion to the Lord, purity, and must not be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our mind. We have never consented to this modern element that will appeal to anything and everything that will raise money. It is not Godliness, nor the love of God, but sensual; it is devilish. Come directly to the children of God in the name of the Lord and appeal to them for his sake to give, to give freely and of a willing mind; that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” and appreciate what is given in his name.

      POIMEEN—SHEPHERD—EVANGELIST—OVERSEER.

       Table of Contents

      WE will not go back to the Old Testament to find any office or officer in the kingdom of Christ. What currency, then, has the word “pastor” in the New Testament? The word is in the New Testament, in some translations, in one place. That is its entire currency in the new and everlasting covenant. But then the word “Easter” is found in one place in the common version. Is that authority for Easter? If it is in the New Testament in one place, rightfully, it is authority as much as if it were in fifty places. But how does it happen to be there in one place? If the translators had, in that one place, given us passover, as they have done in every other instance to represent the same original, we should have had no Easter in the New Testament. In the same way, if the translators had given us the word shepherds, Eph. iv. 11, as they have done in every other case to represent the same original word, we should have had no pastor in the New Testament. On this one variation from the rule, to translate poimeen, shepherd, hangs the “pastorate,” so called, the office for the pastor, and we might add, all the “installations,” etc. Probably it is Dr. Watts that exclaims, with other matters before him: “Great God! on what a brittle thread hangs eternal things!” On what a slender prop hangs the pastorate! Still, on this platform the pastors stand.

      In one place and only one, in some translations, the original word for shepherd, and so translated in every other place in the New Testament, is translated pastors. When the common version appeared, King James issued a proclamation commanding the translation to be read as the word of God. If we obey this command we must read the Latin word pastor as the word of God, though the same translators give us shepherd as the English representative of the original word poimeen in every other occurrence of it in the New Testament. In this way we get divine authority in the word of God, and human authority from King James, not only for the unscriptural pastorate in the Church of England, but the equally unscriptural pastorate now trying to grow up among us, first under one plausible pretext and then under another.

      Why translate poimeen, shepherd, in every other place, and cover up the word shepherd with the Latin word pastor in one place? Whatever idea the Lord and the apostles intended to convey in this matter, they deemed the one word sufficient. What reason can any man give for representing the original word poimeen by the word shepherd in every instance but one, and there using the Latin word pastor? Rome loves Latin. It is not the vulgar tongue. What reason is there for departing from the otherwise invariable rule and giving us pastor, Eph. iv. 11? Why not give us “Chief-Pastor,” or “Arch-Pastor,” and not “Chief-Shepherd?” Why not style the Lord “the Pastor of the sheep,” and not “Shepherd of the sheep?” Pastor would not read well as the correlative of sheep. We hear sermons on the offices of our Lord, as King, Priest, Prophet. Why not have a sermon on his office as Pastor? Then we might have a