SECTION V. THE INTERDICTED EXORCIST: ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION
Mark ix. 38-41; Luke ix. 49,50.
The discourses of our Lord were not continuous,
unbroken addresses on formally announced themes, such as we are wont to hear,
but rather for the most part of the nature of Socratic dialogues, in which He
was the principal speaker, His disciples contributing their part in the form of
a question asked, an exclamation uttered, or a case of conscience propounded.
In the discourse or dialogue on humility, two of the disciples acted as
interlocutors, viz. Peter and John. Towards the close the former of these two
disciples, as we saw, asked a question concerning the forgiving of injuries;
and near the commencement the other disciple, John, related an anecdote which
was brought up to his recollection by the doctrine of his Master, respecting
receiving little ones in His name, and on which the truth therein set forth
seemed to have a bearing. The facts thus brought under his notice led Jesus to
make reflections, which supply an interesting illustration of the bearing of
the doctrine He was inculcating on a particular class of cases or questions.
These reflections, with the incident to which they relate, now solicit
attention.
The story told by John was to the effect that on
one occasion he and his brethren had found a man unknown to them engaged in the
work of casting out devils, and had served him with an interdict, because,
though he used the name of Jesus in practicing exorcism, he did not follow or
identify himself with them, the twelve. At what particular time this happened
is not stated; but it may be conjectured with much probability that the
incident was a reminiscence of the Galilean mission, during which the disciples
were separated from their Master, and were themselves occupied in healing the
sick, and casting out evil spirits, and in preaching the gospel of the
kingdom.
John, it will be observed, does not disclaim
joint responsibility for the high-handed proceeding he relates, but speaks as
if the twelve had acted unanimously in the matter. It may surprise some to find
him, the apostle of love,[14.24] consenting to so uncharitable a deed; but such
surprise is founded on superficial views of his character, as well as on
ignorance of the laws of spiritual growth. John is not now what he will be, but
differs from his future self, as much as an orange in its second year differs
from the same orange in its third final year of growth. The fruit of the Spirit
will ultimately ripen in this disciple into something very sweet and beautiful;
but meantime it is green, bitter, and fit only to set the teeth on edge.
Devoted in mind, tender and intense in his attachment to Jesus, scrupulously
conscientious in all his actions, he is even now; but he is also bigoted,
intolerant, ambitious. Already he has played the part of a very high churchman
in suppressing the nonconforming exorcist; ere long we shall see him figuring,
together with his brother, as a persecutor, proposing to call down fire from
heaven to destroy the enemies of his Lord; and yet again we shall find him,
along with the same brother and their common mother, engaged in an ambitious
plot to secure those places of distinction in the kingdom about which all the
twelve have lately been wrangling.
In refusing to recognize the exorcist
fellow-worker, however humble, as a brother, the disciples proceeded on very
narrow and precarious grounds. The test they applied was purely external. What
sort of man the person interdicted might be they did not inquire; it was enough
that he was not of their company: as if all inside that charmed circle--Judas,
for example--were good; and all outside, not excepting a Nicodemus, utterly
Christless! Two good things, on their own showing, could be said of him whom
they silenced: he was well occupied, and he seemed to have a most devout regard
for Jesus; for he cast out devils, and he did it in Jesus' name. These were not
indeed decisive marks of discipleship, for it was possible that a man might
practice exorcism for gain, and use the name of Christ because it had been
proved to be a good name to conjure by; but they ought to have been regarded as
at least presumptive evidence in favor of one in whose conduct they appeared.
Judging by the facts, it was probable that the silenced exorcist was an honest
and sincere man, whose heart had been impressed by the ministry of Jesus and
His disciples, and who desired to imitate their zeal in doing good. It was even
possible that he was more than this--a man possessing higher spiritual
endowment than his censors, some provincial prophet as yet unknown to fame. How
preposterous, in view of such a possibility, that narrow outward test, "Not
with us "!
As an illustration of what this way of judging
lands in, one little fact in the history of the celebrated Sir Matthew Hale,
whose Contemplations are familiar to all readers of devout literature, may here
be introduced. Richard Baxter relates that the good people in the part of the
country where the distinguished judge resided, after his retirement from the
judicial bench, did not entertain a favorable opinion of his religious
character, their notion being that he was certainly a very moral man, but not
converted. It was a serious conclusion to come to about a fellow-creature, and
one is curious to know on what so solemn]emn a judgment was based. The author
of the Saint's Rest gives us the needful information on this momentous point.
The pious folks about Acton, he tells us, ranked the ex-judge among the
unconverted, because he did not frequent their private weekly prayer-meetings!
It was the old story of the twelve and the exorcist under a new Puritanic form.
Baxter, it is needless to say, did not sympathize with the harsh, uncharitable
opinion of his less enlightened brethren. His thoughts breathed the gentle,
benignant, humble, charitable spirit of Christian maturity. "I," he adds, after
relating the fact above stated, "I that have heard and read his serious
expressions of the concernments of eternity, and seen his love to all good men,
and the blamelessness of his life, thought better of his piety than of mine
own."[14.25]
In silencing the exorcist the twelve were
probably actuated by a mixture of motives--partly by jealousy, and partly by
conscientious scruples. They disliked, we imagine, the idea of any one using
Christ's name but themselves, desiring a monopoly of the power conferred by
that name to cast out evil spirits; and they probably thought it unlikely, if
not impossible, that any one who kept aloof from them could be sincerely
devoted to their Master.
In so far as the disciples acted under the
influence of jealousy, their conduct towards the exorcist was morally of a
piece with their recent dispute who should be the greatest. The same spirit of
pride revealed itself on the two occasions under different phases. The
silencing of the exorcist was a display of arrogance analogous to that of those
who advance for their church the claim to be exclusively the church of Christ.
In their dispute among themselves, the disciples played on a humble scale the
game of ambitious, self-seeking ecclesiastics contending for seats of honor and
power. In the one case the twelve said in effect to the man whom they found
casting out devils: We are the sole commissioned, authorized agents of the Lord
Jesus Christ; in the other case they said to each other: We are all members of
the kingdom and servants of the King; but I deserve to have a higher place than
thou, even to be a prelate sitting on a throne.
In so far as the intolerance of the twelve was
due to honest scrupulosity, it is deserving of more respectful consideration.
The plea of conscience, honestly advanced, must always be listened to with
serious attention, even when it is mistaken. We say "honestly" with emphasis,
because we cannot forget that there is much scrupulosity that is not honest.
Conscience is often used as a stalking-horse by proud, quarrelsome, self-willed
men to promote their own private ends. Pride, says one, speaking of doctrinal
disputes, "is the greatest enemy of moderation. This makes men stickle for
their opinions to make them fundamental. Proud men, having deeply studied some
additional point in divinity, will strive to make the same necessary to
salvation, to enhance the value of their own worth and pains; and it must needs
be fundamental in religion, because it is fundamental to their
reputation."[14.26] These shrewd remarks hold good of other things besides
doctrine. Opinionative, pragmatic persons, would make every thing in religion
fundamental on which they have decided views; and if they could get their own
way, they would exclude from the church all who held not with them in the very
minutiae of belief and practice. But there is such a thing also as honest
scrupulosity, and it is more common than many imagine. There is a certain
tendency to intolerant exaction, and to severity in judging, in the unripe
stage of every earnest life. For the conscience of a young disciple is like a
fire of green logs, which smokes first before it burns with a clear blaze. And
a Christian whose conscience is in this state must be treated as we treat a
dull fire: he must be borne with, that is, till his conscience clear itself of
bitter, cloudy smoke, and become a pure, genial, warm flame of zeal tempered by
charity.
That the scrupulosity of the twelve was of the
honest kind, we believe for this reason, that they were willing to be
instructed. They told their Master what they had done, that they might learn
from Him whether it was right or wrong This is not the way of men whose plea of
conscience is a pretext.
The instruction honestly desired by the
disciples, Jesus promptly communicated in the form of a clear, definite
judgment on the case, with a reason annexed. "Forbid him not," He replied to
John, "for he that is not against us is for us."[14.27]
The reason assigned for this counsel of tolerance
reminds us of another maxim uttered by Jesus on the occasion when the Pharisees
brought against Him the blasphemous charge of casting out devils by aid of
Beelzebub.[14.28] The two sayings have a superficial aspect of contradiction:
one seeming to say, The great matter is not to be decidedly against; the other,
The great matter is to be decidedly for. But they are harmonized by a truth
underlying both--that the cardinal matter in spiritual character is the bias of
the heart. Here Jesus says: "If the heart of a man be with me, then, though by
ignorance, error, isolation from those who are avowedly my friends, he may seem
to be against me, he is really for me." In the other case He meant to say: "If
a man be not in heart with me (the case of the Pharisees), then, though by his
orthodoxy and his zeal he may seem to be on God's side, and therefore on mine,
he is in reality against me."
To the words just commented on, Mark adds the
following, as spoken by Jesus at this time: "There is no man that shall do a
miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me." The voice of wisdom and
charity united is audible here. The emphasis is on the word pacu=V\, lightly or
readily. This word, in the first place, involves the admission that the case
supposed might happen; an admission demanded by historical truth, for such
cases did actually occur in after days. Luke tells, e.g., of certain vagabond
Jews (in every sense well named) who took upon them to call over demoniac the
name of the Lord Jesus, without any personal faith in Him, but simply in the
way of trade, being vile traffickers in exorcism for whom even the devils
expressed their contempt, exclaiming, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who
are ye?''[14.29] Our Lord knowing before that such cases would happen, and
being acquainted with the depths of human depravity, could not do otherwise
than admit the possibility of the exorcist referred to by John being animated
by unworthy motives. But while making the admission, He took care to indicate
that, in His judgment, the case supposed was very improbable, and that it was
very unlikely that one who did a miracle in His name would speak evil of Him.
And He desired His disciples to be on their guard against readily and lightly
believing that any man could be guilty of such a sin. Till strong reasons for
thinking otherwise appeared, He would have them charitably regard the outward
action as the index of sincere faith and love (which they might the more easily
do then, when nothing was to be gained by the use or profession of Christ's
name, but the displeasure of those who had the characters and lives of men in
their power).
Such were the wise, gracious words spoken by
Jesus with reference to the case brought up for judgment by John. Is it
possible to extract any lessons from these words of general application to the
church in all ages, or specially applicable to our own age in particular? It is
a question on which one must speak with diffidence; for while all bow to the
judgment of Jesus on the conduct of His disciples, as recorded in the Gospels,
there is much difference among Christians as to the inferences to be drawn
therefrom, in reference to cases in which their own conduct is concerned. The
following reflections, may, however, safely be hazarded:--
1. We may learn from the discreet, loving words
of the great Teacher to beware of hasty conclusions concerning men's spiritual
state based on merely external indications. Say not with the Church of Rome,
"Out of our communion is no possibility of salvation or of goodness;" but
rather admit that even in that corrupt communion may be many building on the
true foundation, though, for the most part, with very combustible materials;
nay, that Christ may have not a few friends outside the pale of all the
churches. Ask not with Nathanael, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"
but remember that the best things may come out of most unexpected quarters. Be
not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels
unawares. Bear in mind that, by indulging in the cry, "Not with us," in
reference to trifles and crotchets, you may tempt God, while giving His Holy
Spirit to those whom you unchurch, to withdraw His influences from you for your
pride, exclusiveness, and self-will, and may turn your creed into a prison, in
which you shall be shut out from the fellowship of saints, and doomed to
experience the chagrin of seeing through the window-bars of your cell God's
people walking at large, while you lie immured in a jail.
2. In view of that verdict, "Forbid him not," one
must read with a sad, sorrowful heart, many pages of church history, in which
the predominating spirit is that of the twelve rather than that of their
Master. One may confidently say, that had Christ's mind dwelt more in those
called by His name, many things in that history would have been different.
Separatism, censoriousness, intolerance of nonconformity, persecution, would
not have been so rife; Conventicle Acts and Five-mile Acts would not have
disgraced the statute-book of the English Parliament; Bedford jail would not
have had the honor of receiving the illustrious dreamer of the Pilgrim's
Progress as a prisoner; Baxter, and Livingstone of Ancrum, and thousands more
like-minded, by whose stirring words multitudes had been quickened to a new
spiritual life, would not have been driven from their parishes and their native
lands, and forbidden under heavy penalties to preach that gospel they
understood and loved so well, but would have enjoyed the benefit of that law of
toleration which they purchased so dearly for us, their children.
3. The divided state of the church has ever been
a cause of grief to good men, and attempts have been made to remedy the evil by
schemes of union. All honest endeavors having in view the healing of breaches,
which, since the days of the Reformation, have multiplied so greatly as to be
the opprobrium of Protestantism, deserve our warmest sympathies and most
earnest prayers. But we cannot be blind to the fact that through human
infirmity such projects are apt to miscarry; it being extremely difficult to
get a whole community, embracing men of different temperaments and in different
stages of Christian growth, to take the same view of the terms of fellowship.
What, then, is the duty of Christians meanwhile? We may learn from our Lord's
judgment in the case of the exorcist. If those who are not of our company
cannot be brought to enter into the same ecclesiastical organization, let us
still recognize them from the heart as fellow-disciples and fellow-laborers,
and avail ourselves of all lawful or open ways of showing that we care
infinitely more for those who truly love Christ, in whatever church they be,
than for those who are with us ecclesiastically, but in spirit and life are not
with Christ, but against Him. So shall we have the comfort of feeling that,
though separated from brethren beloved, we are not schismatical, and be able to
speak of the divided state of the church as a thing that we desire not, but
merely endure because we cannot help it.
Many religious people are at fault here. There
are Christians not a few who do not believe in these two articles of the
Apostles' Creed, "the holy catholic church" and "the communion of saints." They
care little or nothing for those who are outside the pale of their own
communion: they practice brotherly-kindness most exemplarily, but they have no
charity. Their church is their club, in which they enjoy the comfort of
associating with a select number of persons, whose opinions, whims, hobbies,
and ecclesiastical politics entirely agree with their own; every thing beyond
in the wide wide world being regarded with cold indifference, if not with
passionate aversion or abhorrence. It is one of the many ways in which the
spirit of religious legalism, so prevalent amongst us, reveals itself. The
spirit of adoption is a catholic spirit. The legal spirit is a dividing,
sectarian spirit, multiplying fundamentals, and erecting scruples into
principles, and so manufacturing evermore new religious sects or clubs. Now a
club, ecclesiastical or other, is a very pleasant thing by way of a luxury; but
it ought to be remembered that, besides the club, and including all the clubs,
there is the great Christian commonwealth. This fact will have to be more
recognized than it has been if church life is not to become a mere imbecility.
To save us from this doom one of two things must take place. Either religious
people must overcome their doting fondness for the mere club fellowship of
denominationalism, involving absolute uniformity in opinion and practice; or a
sort of Amphictyonic council must be set on foot as a counterpoise to
sectarianism, in which all the sects shall find a common meeting-place for the
discussion of great catholic questions bearing on morals, missions, education,
and the defense of cardinal truths. Such a council (utopian it will be deemed)
would have many open questions in its constitution. In the ancient Amphictyonic
council men were not known as Athenians or Spartans, but as Greeks; and in our
modern utopian one men would be known only as Christians, not as Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, Independents, Churchmen, and Dissenters. It would be such a
body, in fact, as the "Evangelical Alliance" of recent origin, created by the
craving for some visible expression of the feeling of catholicity; but not,
like it, amateur, self-constituted, and patronized (to a certain extent) by
persons alienated from all existing ecclesiastical organizations, and disposed
to substitute it as a new church in their place, but consisting of
representatives belonging to, and regularly elected and empowered by, the
different sections of the church.[14.30]
One remark more we make on this club theory of
church fellowship. Worked out, it secures at least one object. It breaks
Christians up into small companies, and insures that they shall meet in twos
and threes! Unhappily, it does not at the same time procure the blessing
promised to the two or three. The spirit of Jesus dwells not in coteries of
self-willed, opinionative men, but in the great commonwealth of saints, and
especially in the hearts of those who love the whole body more than any part,
not excepting that to which they themselves belong; to whom the Lord and Head
of the church fulfill His promise, by enriching them with magnanimous heroic
graces, and causing them to rise like cedars above the general level of
contemporary character, and endowing them with a moral power which exercises an
ever-widening influence long after the strifes of their age, and the men who
delighted in them, have sunk into oblivion.