🏠 首页 🔝
事奉类 › 召会建造的蓝图与立场 › 第三篇　召会建造的立场

第三篇　召会建造的立场

召会建造的蓝图与立场

📖 研读 📊 汇集 🇬🇧 English 📋 对照
　
　　根据圣经的记载，我们看见圣殿建造的地点，乃是在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上（代下三1）。我们必须认识，若是神没有特别的意思，圣经不会记载这句话。神的圣殿要建造在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这话非同小可，乃是宇宙中一件重大的事。试想，我们若用同样的材料、样式、分量以及建造的人，将圣殿建造在另一个地方，结果会如何呢？那必定会产生严重的问题，使以色列人分裂。因为若是只要材料对，样式对，建造的人也对，以色列人就可以选择自己喜欢的地方建殿，结果以色列南面、北面、东面、或西面都有圣殿，自然就非分不可。
　　因此，神当初不仅启示建造殿的材料、样式、分量和建造的人，也确定的指出建造的地点是在摩利亚山。只有那里可以建造，其他地方不行，这就是一个立场，使以色列人永远不能分。历史上，以色列国虽分为南北两国，但他们在神面前的敬拜却没有分，因为只有一个圣殿的立场。以色列人只能将圣殿建造在一个立场上，除非在地上不建造圣殿，否则非建造在这个立场上不可。只有摩利亚山那块地可以建造，其他地方不能；若是其他地方也可以，以色列人就分裂了。
　　三十年来我们一直注重立场的问题，强调召会是独一的，只能有一个圣殿，只能在一个地方建造。在这个立场上可以建造召会，在这个立场之外不能建造召会。如果在这个立场之外还可以建造，就会使召会分裂。主在这点上给我们亮光，使我们打立场的仗，争立场的问题，这是一件不得了的事。若是在阿珥楠的禾场之外能建造圣殿，历史上也许会有许多个圣殿造出来。然而，已过几千年的历史中，我们看见只有一个圣殿；圣殿虽曾被毁坏，重造时却仍是在那个立场上。
　
　　以色列人的圣殿总共造了三次；头一次是由所罗门建造（王上六），第二次是在以斯拉时重建（拉三6下~13，六13~15），第三次是由希律用四十六年建成（约二20）。希律并非因为圣殿被毁而重造，乃是觉得以斯拉时代所造的圣殿不够大，恢复的也不够。希律是外邦君王，基于政治的考量，为着应付犹太人的心理而建造圣殿。然而，无论圣殿建造了几次，就只能在那基地上，无法在那立场之外。在天地间，以色列人永远无法废掉独一敬拜神的立场。
　　然而，散居在列国的以色列人，为着自己的方便，就在自己所在之地，设立会堂。犹太人虽有会堂，却心知肚明会堂不能代表圣殿。犹太人必须敬拜神，也知道神指定敬拜的地方，是在耶路撒冷阿珥楠的禾场上；除此之外，不能有敬拜的地方。以色列人分散在列国，虽然愿意回去，却无法如愿。他们在自己所在的地方，不能不敬拜神，但他们没有合法的立场建造圣殿，只能盖造会堂，在其中敬拜。虽然如此，却没有人敢说，会堂就是圣殿。例如，纽约有许多犹太会堂，但没有一个犹太人说会堂就是圣殿。圣殿只能在独一的立场上建造，借此保守以色列人不分裂。现今以色列人虽然分散，却没有分裂，他们仍然一直等待，要得着唯一的立场。
　　摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场，就是建造圣殿的立场，如今还存在。现今在那立场上，盖造了世界第三大的回教寺。第一大回教寺在麦加，是回教的发祥地，回教徒都要到那里朝圣。第三大回教寺建在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这个回教寺曾被许多君王，以宝物装饰，其中还有许多宝贝。寺里有个特点，就是有亚伯拉罕献以撒的地方，因为回教徒也承认亚伯拉罕是他们的祖宗。
　　耶路撒冷城经过历代的战祸，许多拆毁的墙垣都经过修建，面积有相当的更动。今天的耶路撒冷城是在几个山峰上，阿珥楠禾场就是圣殿盖造的地方，是在这座城的城墙边上。那城的造法，大部分是城堡，用大石头砌墙，而在大块平地上作基地建造圣殿。圣殿盖造的位置，目前一部分在城内，一部分在城外，无论如何，乃是在城的边上。锡安山是耶路撒冷城里的一个高峰。
　　古代大卫的碉堡就是锡安山，他将约柜接到那里，还搭了不正确的帐棚（撒下六17）。而后神指示大卫，要在摩利亚山，就是他先祖亚伯拉罕敬拜神的地方，造一个圣殿（二四18~25，代上二一18~二二1，代下三1）。当大卫的儿子所罗门将殿造好之后，就把约柜从大卫城，就是锡安，运上来搬到圣殿里（五2，王上八1~11）；大卫所造的帐棚就被废弃了。同时，把基遍的帐幕，那正确的会幕，及其中的器具，搬到圣殿里。所罗门的意思是，帐幕乃是合并在圣殿里（4~6），而大卫照自己意思所造的帐棚就废弃了。往后以色列人无论怎样纷乱，怎样出事，仍然只有一个敬拜中心；他们不能在摩利亚山阿珥楠禾场之外任何地方，盖造圣殿。这个立场是独一的，如此保守了神子民的合一。这里所说的立场不是根基，也不是材料，乃是指建殿的基地。
　
　　我们要把旧约圣殿的建造，以及建造的地点，应用到今日召会的建造，以及召会的立场。圣殿建造的地点，含示立场的问题。从召会历史看，在十八世纪，达秘（J. N. Darby）那班弟兄们兴起，对于圣经中的许多真理，有了重大的恢复；然而，他们对于召会的立场仍然不清楚。他们只看见地方上的召会行政各自独立，却不清楚立场的事。直至一九三四年，倪弟兄花了相当工夫，引用圣经说到召会的界限，才把这事说清楚。倪弟兄清楚看见，召会在实行上，只能设立在一个一个地方。好比在耶路撒冷的召会、在安提阿的召会、在以弗所的召会（徒八1，十三1，启二1），都是在一个一个地方设立的，那就是设立召会的立场。
　　我们不能把召会设立在工厂里，也不能把召会设立在学校，只能把召会设立于所在的城市里。然而，要取得这立场很有讲究。若是你所在的城市已经有召会，就不能再设立召会。好比在阿珥楠的禾场上，已经有一个圣殿，就不能造另一个。你只能接受那个圣殿，合并在那个圣殿里。譬如你到台南，那里若是没有召会，你就有权利在那里设立召会，因为台南是一个能设立召会的立场。若是台南有了召会，你就没有资格和权利，再设立一个召会。再者，台北也是一个地方、一个立场，同样可以设立召会；但因为那里已有了一个台北召会，就不能再设立另一个召会。设立召会的立场已经被占用，就没有立场可以再设立。人只能接受当地的召会，调到那个召会里。唯有如此，召会无论在哪里出现，才能保守合一。
　　若是我们觉得在地方之外可以设立召会，这就会产生许多立场，造成分裂。好比台北已经有召会，若有人要在台北的学校里设立召会，或在工厂里设立召会，好方便那里许多信主的人，这就不正确。可惜，确实有人在地方召会之外，设立了工厂召会或马路召会。所以，我们若是不守住独一的立场，无论在任何地方，召会的合一都很容易受到破坏。
　　若是以色列人没有阿珥楠的禾场，作圣殿独一的立场，恐怕在以色列人的历史中，会出现许多个圣殿。有人造一个方型的圣殿，有人造一个长型的圣殿，样式差不多，都是金包木头。如此一来，以色列人就分开了，敬拜上也分裂了。因着神的子民是联在敬拜上，所以对神的敬拜一分裂，神的子民就分裂了。这意思是，我们聚会敬拜神的地方一分裂，我们也就分裂了。所以，按着神的智慧，神定规召会的设立只有一个立场，就是地方独一的立场，而不容许在这立场之外有别的立场。
　　我们所说的立场，就是每一城市人群聚居的地方；在那个立场上可以设立召会，并且只能有一个召会。一旦那里有了召会，就不能再设立召会。所有神的儿女在那个地方，都该合并于那个地方召会，守住那一个立场。唯有如此，才能使神的儿女即使意见不同，也不能分裂。你可以有意见，但是没有权利设立另一个召会。比方，你可以主张以不同的方式受浸，但不能以受浸的主张当作立场，设立一个浸信会。人可以有浸信的主张，却不能也不该设立浸信会。然而很可惜，多年以来，神的儿女将独一的立场打破，而造成了许多分裂。
　
　　召会的立场一破坏，不只一城可以设立召会，一个工厂、一个学校，甚至三、五个人都可以在家里设立召会。反对者错误的引用太十八20：“因为无论在哪里，有两三个人被聚集到我的名里，哪里就有我在他们中间。”他们以此告诉人，不论在学校、在工厂、或在家庭里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，主就在他们中间，他们就是召会。然而，我们对召会的立场非常坚持，因为按照圣经的启示，召会只能设立在一个城里人群聚居的地方。除此之外，任何地方都不可以设立，因为没有立场，没有权柄可以设立。
　　太十八20，主的确说无论在哪里，都可以在祂的名里聚集，主也会在他们中间；但是并没有说，那样的聚集就是召会。同一章的16~17，给我们看见，有两三个人发生问题，末了，主就对他们说，要“告诉召会”。可见，那两三个人并不是召会。我们从经文看不出，两三个人的聚集，就是召会。我们必须照着圣经，不设别的立场；只有“地方”这一个立场，才能将召会分裂的门关起来。
　　人可以主张受浸，或赞成蒙头，但无论人主张什么，赞成什么，都没有权利在独一的立场之外，设立召会。在旧约里，神不断嘱咐以色列人，他们能作许多事，却不能在他们自己所选择的地方敬拜神，他们必须到神所选择立祂名的地方敬拜神。换言之，神没有许可以色列人在阿珥楠的禾场之外，再造一个圣殿；关于这点，他们必须谨守遵行。很可惜，在新约时代，神子民对此非常忽略。有些人胆子大，用许多借口作遮掩，表明自己是为着追求属灵，就来在一起，在地方立场之外，要成立所谓比较属灵的召会。人要追求属灵、追求圣洁，这都是好的想法。然而，好的想法却变作分裂的护身符，在神的子民中制造分裂，产生称义会、圣洁会、属灵会等种种的会。若是我们将这些遮护除掉，就会显出分裂是错误的，不仅不能得称义，反该被定罪。人不能说，我们要在工厂里传福音，就设立一个工厂召会。那种传福音是一个遮护、借口，我们必须将它除掉。那个分裂不能得着称义，反而要被定罪。我们众人都要看见立场的重要性。
　
　　令人惋惜的是，我们也遇见难处。就如我们虽然得着盖恩夫人（Madame Guyon）一些属灵的帮助，但若是她今天到我们中间来，也许会使我们受影响，跟着她到马利亚的像前敬拜。这是我们无法抵抗的事。再比方，我们都得着慕安得烈（Andrew Murray）的帮助，甚至我们还向圣徒尽力推荐他的书；然而若是今天他还活着，他或许也会带进反对立场的讲论。
　　以此类推，史百克弟兄（T. Austin－Sparks）身上，那一分属灵的供应，我们是极力推崇。然而，当我们邀请他来给我们属灵的供应时，他不该摸到立场的问题。一九五五年，他第一次来时，交通得很好，并没有摸立场的事；所以，我们急切请他第二次来。然而，一九五七年，当他再来时，不幸的事就发生，他摸到立场的问题。那时我们争辩得非常厉害。他说，不论在那里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，召会就在那里。之后，我到伦敦去拜访他，在他的客厅里，与他不知谈了多少次。甚至作他的贵宾，被招待住在一处退隐休息的地方，彼此也是谈了再谈。然而至终，他仍然坚持只要在基督里聚会，就是在召会的立场上；并且只要有两三个人聚集，主就在他们中间，召会就在那里。
　　我们并非批评或是反对史弟兄，而是他的确没有看见这件事的危险性。若是我们接受这种教训，台北召会就会分裂，并且可能不只分成三、五个，更是分成几十个。若说只要有两三个人聚会，有主在他们中间，就是召会；那么台北就可以有许多召会。我们曾经将这些话讲给史弟兄听，并且告诉他，若是照他所说的实行，就会产生无止境分裂的危险。然而，史弟兄从始至终都不接受这些话。
　　我们对于这件事必须有两种看法。史弟兄属灵那一分毫无问题，我们完全推崇，如同推崇盖恩夫人的属灵一样；但是盖恩夫人在天主教拜偶像，我们无法接受。同样的，慕安得烈所著“基督的灵”，我们完全接受，但是他所在的公会组织，我们不能接受。这个辨别相当困难。史弟兄属灵那一面，我们完全推崇和接受，但他对于立场的看法，并不合乎圣经，我们也不能接受。我们中间有些人受了他的影响，就产生极大的难处。
　
　　我们初次请史弟兄来，里头就有数。第二次再请他，当他说到立场时，我们里头也有数。我要再次陈明，立场的争论不是由我们引起的。只是不幸，我们中间有些弟兄，在行动上没有守住自己的地位。不论他们居心为何，因着他们没有守住地位，我们中间有了紊乱的情形。因着紊乱，就使我们中间不稳定，以致我们无法再请史弟兄来。我们中间的情形越稳定，才越有机会再邀请他。我们只需要史弟兄供应他属灵的那一分，在实行的立场上，他应该给我们绝对的自由。
　　事实上，我并非不知道史弟兄在实行一面的难处，我在上海时就已经清楚明白。我所以请他来，是因为我们在台湾已有五、六年的稳定，上下同心，有合一的光景。然而，我过于信赖我们中间的情形，当我对史弟兄的立场提出抗议时，同工们中就有少数人没有守住地位。同工们若是承认我在这里带领，请容许我沉痛的说，史弟兄是我邀的，我要负责；然而，当我起来抗议的时候，你们也应当和我站在一起。我请他来，你们接受；我抗议时，你们应当与我站在一起，守住自己的地位。若是你们肯守住自己的地位，我们还会再请史弟兄来。然而，我们不能再请了，因为我们中间不稳定。
　　从在台湾开工以来，我们中间几乎是同心合意，毫无二致，非常和谐。然而这几年，有了不和谐的情形。推其原因，是与史弟兄来有关。我虽然表明负责的态度，但是同工们没有守住自己的地位。邀请史弟兄来是我负责，抗议也是由我负责，你们受带领，就该守住地位。你们需要领悟这话。我已过多年带领你们，你们都接受，但史弟兄来，基本上破坏了我们的工作；遇到不能相合时，我提出抗议，你们却有异议。也许这样的居心并非恶意，却惹出麻烦。今天我好像船上掌舵的人，即使这个立场不对，我们都不该争吵，争吵的结果就是翻船。
　
　　我说这些沉痛的话，是盼望众人学习严肃的功课。当倪弟兄还在时，他说事情怎样作，我们就怎样作；他怎样说，我们也怎样说，绝无第二个意见。他带领时，他说的算数，我们就是顺服。即使我有时看为不宜，也是跟着走，没有话说，末了都是祝福。我请史弟兄来，你们接受；我提出抗议，你们却有异议，与我意见相反，这是你们的不是。因着这件事，有了风言风语，糊涂的人甚至说出“妥协”、“观变”等话，实在令人厌烦。我们无变给人观，也从来不懂得要和谁妥协，我们只知按真理而行。
　　同工们若要我带领，就要给我一个带领的地位，绝不能像已往一样。当我向史弟兄抗议时，无论是对是错，我在神面前，也在人面前负责任，你们只要守住自己的地位。若是你们不能守这个地位，我无法带领。同工们曾郑重表示，他们接受带领，愿意再往前去。然而我盼望众人都学严肃的功课，不要闯祸还不知悔改。
　　这些话虽然沉痛，却是关乎我们同工将来是否里外和谐，上下一致，因此不得不说。但我恐怕这样说，有的人仍不以为然，所以，我要请求你们站在自己的地位上。若是我们中间情形稳定，我们早就请史弟兄第三次来。然而不幸的是，我们该得的帮助没有得到，却带来不该有的搅扰。这几年来，谁得到史弟兄帮助，谁就与别人分离。得帮助的心是好的，但一得帮助就与人分离，乃是错误的。我为此心里沉痛。你们都是爱主、属乎主的人，我请求你们将这些话带到平静的良心里，从里面安静的思考这事。
　
　　神在历代所给召会的恢复，我们都接受；但我们并非盲目的接受，乃是有分辨力的。正如我们接受盖恩夫人属灵的东西，却不要天主教。我们接受慕安得烈所得的启示，但公会的组织我们不要。史弟兄属灵的东西我们接受，但关于召会实行的立场，他必须给我们自由。若非如此，我们会非常为难。现实的情形给我们看见，史弟兄来了以后，我们的确非常为难。我一生没有作一件事，比这件事更懊悔；你们若各守自己的地位，我就毫无懊悔。我们中间不平静，一直有纷乱的情形，就使我们无法往前。
　　按史弟兄的意见，用预表的话说，只要属灵的材料对就可以，无论在什么地方都能建造。他觉得只要是属灵的材料，出于基督的金、银、宝石，无论在什么地方都可以建造。我们的看见并非如此，虽然金、银、宝石等材料对，但必须在摩利亚山上建造。在摩利亚山之外，即使用同样的材料、样式建造，都是不对的。虽然在基督里，也都是基督，但是在地方立场上建造是对的，在学校立场就不对，在两三个人中间的立场更不对。这是我们的不同观点。
　　一面说，我不满意史弟兄所说的，使我们中间非常为难；但是另一面，我与史弟兄的交通并没有断。我最近到美国，有位从未谋面的弟兄来见我。他是个内行的人，只有一个问题要我解答，就是关于家中的召会。他对地方召会毫无问题，但问到亚居拉和百基拉家中的召会（林前十六19）要如何解释？我指出按圣经的记载，当亚居拉和百基拉住在以弗所时，在以弗所的召会是在他们家里聚集（徒十八18~19，26）；当他们住在罗马时，在罗马的召会也是在他们家里聚集（罗十六3，5）。我解答之后，他便说，听闻我与史弟兄之间交通中断。我告诉他那不是事实，我虽然不能接受他的一些观点，但与他的交通并没有断。圣经也提到，保罗虽然是彼得的晚辈，但当他看见彼得不对，就当面抵挡彼得（加二11）。我与史弟兄虽曾争执过，却一直有交通。
　　召会的立场非常重要。若是我们没有立场，何必在一起聚会？若是没有立场问题，世上基督教团体已经够多，何需再有我们的聚会？基督教团体里各有其优缺点，并非绝无是处。我们坚持立场，并非说我们就是绝对属灵；恐怕我们仍有许多地方不如别人。在众多基督教团体之外，我们聚在一起，乃是基于立场的问题。今天我们若要盖造房子，一定要有确定建造的地方。建造召会，除了要用正确的材料，有同样的样式之外，更要有确定的立场；那就是旧约圣殿建造所在的阿珥楠禾场所表明的。
　　愿主怜悯我们，在这个建造的时刻，使我们对这事都有清楚地看见。我们若在这点上失误，是在原则上犯了厉害的错误。我要郑重地说，那不是好心坏心、有意无意的事，乃是在原则上闯下大祸。这几年来，我们中间的工作，都因此受了亏损。所以，我们要将这事看清楚，知道对史弟兄正确的态度该如何。我们要分清楚，那一面该接受，那一面要守住。我们要知道建造的图样，知道该用何种材料，更知道建造所该有的立场。若是对立场不能确定，我们会相当为难。若是有人持异议，不能接受绝对的立场，盼望能公开讨论、交通，不要私下传说，使圣徒受搅扰。我只能带领在我们中间的人，不能带领吹无定号声（林前十四8）的人；这是关乎同工的问题。愿主怜悯我们，使我们每个人都清楚这事。
　　一九六一年一月二十三日讲于台北（同工聚会）
　
　　根据圣经的记载，我们看见圣殿建造的地点，乃是在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上（代下三1）。我们必须认识，若是神没有特别的意思，圣经不会记载这句话。神的圣殿要建造在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这话非同小可，乃是宇宙中一件重大的事。试想，我们若用同样的材料、样式、分量以及建造的人，将圣殿建造在另一个地方，结果会如何呢？那必定会产生严重的问题，使以色列人分裂。因为若是只要材料对，样式对，建造的人也对，以色列人就可以选择自己喜欢的地方建殿，结果以色列南面、北面、东面、或西面都有圣殿，自然就非分不可。
--------本段经节汇集--------
代下3:1  
所罗门在耶路撒冷，耶和华向他父亲大卫显现的摩利亚山上，就是耶布斯人阿珥楠的禾场上，大卫所预备的地方，开工建造耶和华的殿。
------------------------
　　因此，神当初不仅启示建造殿的材料、样式、分量和建造的人，也确定的指出建造的地点是在摩利亚山。只有那里可以建造，其他地方不行，这就是一个立场，使以色列人永远不能分。历史上，以色列国虽分为南北两国，但他们在神面前的敬拜却没有分，因为只有一个圣殿的立场。以色列人只能将圣殿建造在一个立场上，除非在地上不建造圣殿，否则非建造在这个立场上不可。只有摩利亚山那块地可以建造，其他地方不能；若是其他地方也可以，以色列人就分裂了。　　三十年来我们一直注重立场的问题，强调召会是独一的，只能有一个圣殿，只能在一个地方建造。在这个立场上可以建造召会，在这个立场之外不能建造召会。如果在这个立场之外还可以建造，就会使召会分裂。主在这点上给我们亮光，使我们打立场的仗，争立场的问题，这是一件不得了的事。若是在阿珥楠的禾场之外能建造圣殿，历史上也许会有许多个圣殿造出来。然而，已过几千年的历史中，我们看见只有一个圣殿；圣殿虽曾被毁坏，重造时却仍是在那个立场上。
　
　　以色列人的圣殿总共造了三次；头一次是由所罗门建造（王上六），第二次是在以斯拉时重建（拉三6下~13，六13~15），第三次是由希律用四十六年建成（约二20）。希律并非因为圣殿被毁而重造，乃是觉得以斯拉时代所造的圣殿不够大，恢复的也不够。希律是外邦君王，基于政治的考量，为着应付犹太人的心理而建造圣殿。然而，无论圣殿建造了几次，就只能在那基地上，无法在那立场之外。在天地间，以色列人永远无法废掉独一敬拜神的立场。
--------本段经节汇集--------
拉3:6  
从七月初一日起，他们就向耶和华献燔祭；但耶和华殿的根基尚未立定。
拉3:7  
他们又将银子给石匠、木匠，把粮食、饮料、油给西顿人和推罗人，使他们将香柏树从利巴嫩运到海里，浮海运到约帕，是照波斯王古列所允准的。
拉3:8  
众人到了耶路撒冷神殿的地方，第二年二月，撒拉铁的儿子所罗巴伯，约萨达的儿子耶书亚，和他们其余的弟兄，就是祭司和利未人，并一切被掳归回耶路撒冷的人，都开工建造；他们派利未人，从二十岁以上的，督理建造耶和华殿的工作。
拉3:9  
于是犹大的子孙，就是耶书亚和他的子孙与弟兄，甲篾和他的子孙，另有利未人希拿达的子孙与弟兄，都起来如同一人，督理在神殿作工的人。
拉3:10  
匠人立耶和华殿根基的时候，百姓首领所派的祭司穿着礼服吹号，亚萨的子孙利未人敲钹，照以色列王大卫所指定的，都站着赞美耶和华。
拉3:11  
他们彼此唱和，赞美称谢耶和华说，祂本为善，祂向以色列人永施慈爱。他们赞美耶和华的时候，众民大声呼喊，因耶和华殿的根基立定了。
拉3:12  
然而有许多祭司、利未人、宗族的首领，就是见过先前的殿的老年人，现在亲眼看见立这殿的根基，便大声哭号；也有许多人大声欢呼，
拉3:13  
甚至百姓不能分辨欢呼的声音和哭号的声音；因为众人大声呼喊，声音远处都可听到。
拉6:13  
于是，河西总督达乃和示他波斯乃，并他们的同僚，就照着大利乌王所降的谕旨，彻底迅速地遵行。
拉6:14  
犹大长老因申言者哈该和易多的孙子撒迦利亚的申言，就建造这殿，凡事亨通。他们照着以色列神的命令和波斯王古列、大利乌、亚达薛西的旨意，建造完毕。
拉6:15  
大利乌王在位第六年，亚达月初三日，这殿完成了。
以斯拉记没有四十六章，请检查。
约2:20  
犹太人便说，这殿是四十六年才造成的，你三日内就将它建立起来么？
------------------------
　　然而，散居在列国的以色列人，为着自己的方便，就在自己所在之地，设立会堂。犹太人虽有会堂，却心知肚明会堂不能代表圣殿。犹太人必须敬拜神，也知道神指定敬拜的地方，是在耶路撒冷阿珥楠的禾场上；除此之外，不能有敬拜的地方。以色列人分散在列国，虽然愿意回去，却无法如愿。他们在自己所在的地方，不能不敬拜神，但他们没有合法的立场建造圣殿，只能盖造会堂，在其中敬拜。虽然如此，却没有人敢说，会堂就是圣殿。例如，纽约有许多犹太会堂，但没有一个犹太人说会堂就是圣殿。圣殿只能在独一的立场上建造，借此保守以色列人不分裂。现今以色列人虽然分散，却没有分裂，他们仍然一直等待，要得着唯一的立场。　　摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场，就是建造圣殿的立场，如今还存在。现今在那立场上，盖造了世界第三大的回教寺。第一大回教寺在麦加，是回教的发祥地，回教徒都要到那里朝圣。第三大回教寺建在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这个回教寺曾被许多君王，以宝物装饰，其中还有许多宝贝。寺里有个特点，就是有亚伯拉罕献以撒的地方，因为回教徒也承认亚伯拉罕是他们的祖宗。　　耶路撒冷城经过历代的战祸，许多拆毁的墙垣都经过修建，面积有相当的更动。今天的耶路撒冷城是在几个山峰上，阿珥楠禾场就是圣殿盖造的地方，是在这座城的城墙边上。那城的造法，大部分是城堡，用大石头砌墙，而在大块平地上作基地建造圣殿。圣殿盖造的位置，目前一部分在城内，一部分在城外，无论如何，乃是在城的边上。锡安山是耶路撒冷城里的一个高峰。　　古代大卫的碉堡就是锡安山，他将约柜接到那里，还搭了不正确的帐棚（撒下六17）。而后神指示大卫，要在摩利亚山，就是他先祖亚伯拉罕敬拜神的地方，造一个圣殿（二四18~25，代上二一18~二二1，代下三1）。当大卫的儿子所罗门将殿造好之后，就把约柜从大卫城，就是锡安，运上来搬到圣殿里（五2，王上八1~11）；大卫所造的帐棚就被废弃了。同时，把基遍的帐幕，那正确的会幕，及其中的器具，搬到圣殿里。所罗门的意思是，帐幕乃是合并在圣殿里（4~6），而大卫照自己意思所造的帐棚就废弃了。往后以色列人无论怎样纷乱，怎样出事，仍然只有一个敬拜中心；他们不能在摩利亚山阿珥楠禾场之外任何地方，盖造圣殿。这个立场是独一的，如此保守了神子民的合一。这里所说的立场不是根基，也不是材料，乃是指建殿的基地。
--------本段经节汇集--------
撒下6:17  
众人将耶和华的约柜抬进去，安放在所预备的地方，就是在大卫为约柜所搭的帐棚里。大卫在耶和华面前献燔祭和平安祭。
撒下24:18  
当日，迦得来见大卫，对他说，你上去，在耶布斯人亚劳拿的禾场上，为耶和华立一座坛。
撒下24:19  
大卫就照着迦得的话，就是耶和华所吩咐的，上去了。
撒下24:20  
亚劳拿观看，见王和王的臣仆向着他走过来，就出去迎接，面伏于地，向王下拜，
撒下24:21  
说，我主我王为何来到仆人这里呢？大卫说，我要向你买这禾场，为耶和华筑一座坛，使百姓中的灾疫止住。
撒下24:22  
亚劳拿对大卫说，我主我王看什么为好，就拿去献上吧。看哪，这里有牛可以作燔祭，有打粮的器具和套牛的轭可以当柴烧。
撒下24:23  
王啊，这一切，我亚劳拿都奉给你；又对王说，愿耶和华你的神悦纳你。
撒下24:24  
王对亚劳拿说，不然；我必按着价值向你买，我不愿用白得之物作燔祭献给耶和华我的神。大卫就用五十舍客勒银子买了那禾场与牛。
撒下24:25  
大卫在那里为耶和华筑了一座坛，献燔祭和平安祭。如此，耶和华应允国民为那地所恳求的，灾疫在以色列人中就止住了。
代上二一18～二二1（略，若需要被汇集，请勾选“不忽略整章”）
代下3:1  
所罗门在耶路撒冷，耶和华向他父亲大卫显现的摩利亚山上，就是耶布斯人阿珥楠的禾场上，大卫所预备的地方，开工建造耶和华的殿。
代下5:2  
那时，所罗门将以色列的长老们和各支派的首领，就是以色列人宗族的首领，招聚到耶路撒冷，要把耶和华的约柜从大卫城，就是锡安，运上来。
王上8:1  
那时，所罗门将以色列的长老们和各支派的首领，就是以色列人宗族的首领，招聚到耶路撒冷所罗门王那里，要把耶和华的约柜从大卫城，就是锡安，运上来。
王上8:2  
以他念月，就是七月，在节期的时候，以色列人都聚集到所罗门王那里。
王上8:3  
以色列的众长老来到，祭司便抬起约柜；
王上8:4  
他们将耶和华的约柜、会幕和会幕里的一切圣器具，都运上来，是祭司和利未人将这一切运上来的。
王上8:5  
所罗门王和聚集到他那里的以色列全会众，一同在约柜前献牛羊为祭，多得无法计算，无法数点。
王上8:6  
祭司将耶和华的约柜抬进所预备的地方，就是圣殿的内殿，也就是至圣所，放在两个基路伯的翅膀底下。
王上8:7  
因为基路伯张着翅膀在约柜所在之处以上，遮掩约柜和抬柜的杠。
王上8:8  
这两根杠甚长，杠头在内殿前的圣所可以看见，在殿外却不能看见，直到今日还在那里。
王上8:9  
约柜里只有两块石版，就是以色列人出埃及地后，耶和华与他们立约的时候，摩西在何烈山所放的；除此以外，并无别物。
王上8:10  
祭司从圣所出来的时候，有云充满耶和华的殿；
王上8:11  
因着那云的缘故，祭司不能站立供职，因为耶和华的荣光充满了耶和华的殿。
王上8:4  
他们将耶和华的约柜、会幕和会幕里的一切圣器具，都运上来，是祭司和利未人将这一切运上来的。
王上8:5  
所罗门王和聚集到他那里的以色列全会众，一同在约柜前献牛羊为祭，多得无法计算，无法数点。
王上8:6  
祭司将耶和华的约柜抬进所预备的地方，就是圣殿的内殿，也就是至圣所，放在两个基路伯的翅膀底下。
列王纪上一章（略，若需要被汇集，请勾选“不忽略整章”）
------------------------
　
　　我们要把旧约圣殿的建造，以及建造的地点，应用到今日召会的建造，以及召会的立场。圣殿建造的地点，含示立场的问题。从召会历史看，在十八世纪，达秘（J. N. Darby）那班弟兄们兴起，对于圣经中的许多真理，有了重大的恢复；然而，他们对于召会的立场仍然不清楚。他们只看见地方上的召会行政各自独立，却不清楚立场的事。直至一九三四年，倪弟兄花了相当工夫，引用圣经说到召会的界限，才把这事说清楚。倪弟兄清楚看见，召会在实行上，只能设立在一个一个地方。好比在耶路撒冷的召会、在安提阿的召会、在以弗所的召会（徒八1，十三1，启二1），都是在一个一个地方设立的，那就是设立召会的立场。
--------本段经节汇集--------
徒8:1  
就在那日，在耶路撒冷的召会大遭逼迫，除了使徒以外，门徒都分散在犹太和撒玛利亚各地。
徒13:1  
在安提阿当地的召会中，有几位申言者和教师，就是巴拿巴和称呼尼结的西面，古利奈人路求，与分封王希律同养的马念，并扫罗。
启2:1  
你要写信给在以弗所的召会的使者，说，那右手中握着七星，在七个金灯台中间行走的，这样说，
启示录一章（略，若需要被汇集，请勾选“不忽略整章”）
------------------------
　　我们不能把召会设立在工厂里，也不能把召会设立在学校，只能把召会设立于所在的城市里。然而，要取得这立场很有讲究。若是你所在的城市已经有召会，就不能再设立召会。好比在阿珥楠的禾场上，已经有一个圣殿，就不能造另一个。你只能接受那个圣殿，合并在那个圣殿里。譬如你到台南，那里若是没有召会，你就有权利在那里设立召会，因为台南是一个能设立召会的立场。若是台南有了召会，你就没有资格和权利，再设立一个召会。再者，台北也是一个地方、一个立场，同样可以设立召会；但因为那里已有了一个台北召会，就不能再设立另一个召会。设立召会的立场已经被占用，就没有立场可以再设立。人只能接受当地的召会，调到那个召会里。唯有如此，召会无论在哪里出现，才能保守合一。　　若是我们觉得在地方之外可以设立召会，这就会产生许多立场，造成分裂。好比台北已经有召会，若有人要在台北的学校里设立召会，或在工厂里设立召会，好方便那里许多信主的人，这就不正确。可惜，确实有人在地方召会之外，设立了工厂召会或马路召会。所以，我们若是不守住独一的立场，无论在任何地方，召会的合一都很容易受到破坏。　　若是以色列人没有阿珥楠的禾场，作圣殿独一的立场，恐怕在以色列人的历史中，会出现许多个圣殿。有人造一个方型的圣殿，有人造一个长型的圣殿，样式差不多，都是金包木头。如此一来，以色列人就分开了，敬拜上也分裂了。因着神的子民是联在敬拜上，所以对神的敬拜一分裂，神的子民就分裂了。这意思是，我们聚会敬拜神的地方一分裂，我们也就分裂了。所以，按着神的智慧，神定规召会的设立只有一个立场，就是地方独一的立场，而不容许在这立场之外有别的立场。　　我们所说的立场，就是每一城市人群聚居的地方；在那个立场上可以设立召会，并且只能有一个召会。一旦那里有了召会，就不能再设立召会。所有神的儿女在那个地方，都该合并于那个地方召会，守住那一个立场。唯有如此，才能使神的儿女即使意见不同，也不能分裂。你可以有意见，但是没有权利设立另一个召会。比方，你可以主张以不同的方式受浸，但不能以受浸的主张当作立场，设立一个浸信会。人可以有浸信的主张，却不能也不该设立浸信会。然而很可惜，多年以来，神的儿女将独一的立场打破，而造成了许多分裂。
　
　　召会的立场一破坏，不只一城可以设立召会，一个工厂、一个学校，甚至三、五个人都可以在家里设立召会。反对者错误的引用马太十八章二十节：“因为无论在哪里，有两三个人被聚集到我的名里，哪里就有我在他们中间。”他们以此告诉人，不论在学校、在工厂、或在家庭里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，主就在他们中间，他们就是召会。然而，我们对召会的立场非常坚持，因为按照圣经的启示，召会只能设立在一个城里人群聚居的地方。除此之外，任何地方都不可以设立，因为没有立场，没有权柄可以设立。
--------本段经节汇集--------
太18:20  
因为无论在哪里，有两三个人被聚集到我的名里，哪里就有我在他们中间。
马太福音一章（略，若需要被汇集，请勾选“不忽略整章”）
------------------------
　　马太十八章二十节，主的确说无论在哪里，都可以在祂的名里聚集，主也会在他们中间；但是并没有说，那样的聚集就是召会。同一章的十六至十七节，给我们看见，有两三个人发生问题，末了，主就对他们说，要“告诉召会”。可见，那两三个人并不是召会。我们从经文看不出，两三个人的聚集，就是召会。我们必须照着圣经，不设别的立场；只有“地方”这一个立场，才能将召会分裂的门关起来。
--------本段经节汇集--------
太18:20  
因为无论在哪里，有两三个人被聚集到我的名里，哪里就有我在他们中间。
------------------------
　　人可以主张受浸，或赞成蒙头，但无论人主张什么，赞成什么，都没有权利在独一的立场之外，设立召会。在旧约里，神不断嘱咐以色列人，他们能作许多事，却不能在他们自己所选择的地方敬拜神，他们必须到神所选择立祂名的地方敬拜神。换言之，神没有许可以色列人在阿珥楠的禾场之外，再造一个圣殿；关于这点，他们必须谨守遵行。很可惜，在新约时代，神子民对此非常忽略。有些人胆子大，用许多借口作遮掩，表明自己是为着追求属灵，就来在一起，在地方立场之外，要成立所谓比较属灵的召会。人要追求属灵、追求圣洁，这都是好的想法。然而，好的想法却变作分裂的护身符，在神的子民中制造分裂，产生称义会、圣洁会、属灵会等种种的会。若是我们将这些遮护除掉，就会显出分裂是错误的，不仅不能得称义，反该被定罪。人不能说，我们要在工厂里传福音，就设立一个工厂召会。那种传福音是一个遮护、借口，我们必须将它除掉。那个分裂不能得着称义，反而要被定罪。我们众人都要看见立场的重要性。
　
　　令人惋惜的是，我们也遇见难处。就如我们虽然得着盖恩夫人（Madame Guyon）一些属灵的帮助，但若是她今天到我们中间来，也许会使我们受影响，跟着她到马利亚的像前敬拜。这是我们无法抵抗的事。再比方，我们都得着慕安得烈（Andrew Murray）的帮助，甚至我们还向圣徒尽力推荐他的书；然而若是今天他还活着，他或许也会带进反对立场的讲论。　　以此类推，史百克弟兄（T. Austin－Sparks）身上，那一分属灵的供应，我们是极力推崇。然而，当我们邀请他来给我们属灵的供应时，他不该摸到立场的问题。一九五五年，他第一次来时，交通得很好，并没有摸立场的事；所以，我们急切请他第二次来。然而，一九五七年，当他再来时，不幸的事就发生，他摸到立场的问题。那时我们争辩得非常厉害。他说，不论在那里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，召会就在那里。之后，我到伦敦去拜访他，在他的客厅里，与他不知谈了多少次。甚至作他的贵宾，被招待住在一处退隐休息的地方，彼此也是谈了再谈。然而至终，他仍然坚持只要在基督里聚会，就是在召会的立场上；并且只要有两三个人聚集，主就在他们中间，召会就在那里。　　我们并非批评或是反对史弟兄，而是他的确没有看见这件事的危险性。若是我们接受这种教训，台北召会就会分裂，并且可能不只分成三、五个，更是分成几十个。若说只要有两三个人聚会，有主在他们中间，就是召会；那么台北就可以有许多召会。我们曾经将这些话讲给史弟兄听，并且告诉他，若是照他所说的实行，就会产生无止境分裂的危险。然而，史弟兄从始至终都不接受这些话。　　我们对于这件事必须有两种看法。史弟兄属灵那一分毫无问题，我们完全推崇，如同推崇盖恩夫人的属灵一样；但是盖恩夫人在天主教拜偶像，我们无法接受。同样的，慕安得烈所著“基督的灵”，我们完全接受，但是他所在的公会组织，我们不能接受。这个辨别相当困难。史弟兄属灵那一面，我们完全推崇和接受，但他对于立场的看法，并不合乎圣经，我们也不能接受。我们中间有些人受了他的影响，就产生极大的难处。
　
　　我们初次请史弟兄来，里头就有数。第二次再请他，当他说到立场时，我们里头也有数。我要再次陈明，立场的争论不是由我们引起的。只是不幸，我们中间有些弟兄，在行动上没有守住自己的地位。不论他们居心为何，因着他们没有守住地位，我们中间有了紊乱的情形。因着紊乱，就使我们中间不稳定，以致我们无法再请史弟兄来。我们中间的情形越稳定，才越有机会再邀请他。我们只需要史弟兄供应他属灵的那一分，在实行的立场上，他应该给我们绝对的自由。　　事实上，我并非不知道史弟兄在实行一面的难处，我在上海时就已经清楚明白。我所以请他来，是因为我们在台湾已有五、六年的稳定，上下同心，有合一的光景。然而，我过于信赖我们中间的情形，当我对史弟兄的立场提出抗议时，同工们中就有少数人没有守住地位。同工们若是承认我在这里带领，请容许我沉痛的说，史弟兄是我邀的，我要负责；然而，当我起来抗议的时候，你们也应当和我站在一起。我请他来，你们接受；我抗议时，你们应当与我站在一起，守住自己的地位。若是你们肯守住自己的地位，我们还会再请史弟兄来。然而，我们不能再请了，因为我们中间不稳定。　　从在台湾开工以来，我们中间几乎是同心合意，毫无二致，非常和谐。然而这几年，有了不和谐的情形。推其原因，是与史弟兄来有关。我虽然表明负责的态度，但是同工们没有守住自己的地位。邀请史弟兄来是我负责，抗议也是由我负责，你们受带领，就该守住地位。你们需要领悟这话。我已过多年带领你们，你们都接受，但史弟兄来，基本上破坏了我们的工作；遇到不能相合时，我提出抗议，你们却有异议。也许这样的居心并非恶意，却惹出麻烦。今天我好像船上掌舵的人，即使这个立场不对，我们都不该争吵，争吵的结果就是翻船。
　
　　我说这些沉痛的话，是盼望众人学习严肃的功课。当倪弟兄还在时，他说事情怎样作，我们就怎样作；他怎样说，我们也怎样说，绝无第二个意见。他带领时，他说的算数，我们就是顺服。即使我有时看为不宜，也是跟着走，没有话说，末了都是祝福。我请史弟兄来，你们接受；我提出抗议，你们却有异议，与我意见相反，这是你们的不是。因着这件事，有了风言风语，糊涂的人甚至说出“妥协”、“观变”等话，实在令人厌烦。我们无变给人观，也从来不懂得要和谁妥协，我们只知按真理而行。　　同工们若要我带领，就要给我一个带领的地位，绝不能像已往一样。当我向史弟兄抗议时，无论是对是错，我在神面前，也在人面前负责任，你们只要守住自己的地位。若是你们不能守这个地位，我无法带领。同工们曾郑重表示，他们接受带领，愿意再往前去。然而我盼望众人都学严肃的功课，不要闯祸还不知悔改。　　这些话虽然沉痛，却是关乎我们同工将来是否里外和谐，上下一致，因此不得不说。但我恐怕这样说，有的人仍不以为然，所以，我要请求你们站在自己的地位上。若是我们中间情形稳定，我们早就请史弟兄第三次来。然而不幸的是，我们该得的帮助没有得到，却带来不该有的搅扰。这几年来，谁得到史弟兄帮助，谁就与别人分离。得帮助的心是好的，但一得帮助就与人分离，乃是错误的。我为此心里沉痛。你们都是爱主、属乎主的人，我请求你们将这些话带到平静的良心里，从里面安静的思考这事。
　
　　神在历代所给召会的恢复，我们都接受；但我们并非盲目的接受，乃是有分辨力的。正如我们接受盖恩夫人属灵的东西，却不要天主教。我们接受慕安得烈所得的启示，但公会的组织我们不要。史弟兄属灵的东西我们接受，但关于召会实行的立场，他必须给我们自由。若非如此，我们会非常为难。现实的情形给我们看见，史弟兄来了以后，我们的确非常为难。我一生没有作一件事，比这件事更懊悔；你们若各守自己的地位，我就毫无懊悔。我们中间不平静，一直有纷乱的情形，就使我们无法往前。　　按史弟兄的意见，用预表的话说，只要属灵的材料对就可以，无论在什么地方都能建造。他觉得只要是属灵的材料，出于基督的金、银、宝石，无论在什么地方都可以建造。我们的看见并非如此，虽然金、银、宝石等材料对，但必须在摩利亚山上建造。在摩利亚山之外，即使用同样的材料、样式建造，都是不对的。虽然在基督里，也都是基督，但是在地方立场上建造是对的，在学校立场就不对，在两三个人中间的立场更不对。这是我们的不同观点。　　一面说，我不满意史弟兄所说的，使我们中间非常为难；但是另一面，我与史弟兄的交通并没有断。我最近到美国，有位从未谋面的弟兄来见我。他是个内行的人，只有一个问题要我解答，就是关于家中的召会。他对地方召会毫无问题，但问到亚居拉和百基拉家中的召会（林前十六19）要如何解释？我指出按圣经的记载，当亚居拉和百基拉住在以弗所时，在以弗所的召会是在他们家里聚集（徒十八18~19，26）；当他们住在罗马时，在罗马的召会也是在他们家里聚集（罗十六3，5）。我解答之后，他便说，听闻我与史弟兄之间交通中断。我告诉他那不是事实，我虽然不能接受他的一些观点，但与他的交通并没有断。圣经也提到，保罗虽然是彼得的晚辈，但当他看见彼得不对，就当面抵挡彼得（加二11）。我与史弟兄虽曾争执过，却一直有交通。
--------本段经节汇集--------
林前16:19  
亚西亚的众召会问你们安。亚居拉和百基拉，并在他们家中的召会，在主里多多地问你们安。
徒18:18  
保罗又住了许多日，就辞别了弟兄，坐船往叙利亚去，百基拉、亚居拉和他同去。他因为有愿在身，就在坚革哩剪了头发。
徒18:19  
到了以弗所，保罗就把他们留在那里，自己进了会堂，和犹太人辩论。
徒18:26  
他在会堂里放胆讲论起来，百基拉和亚居拉听见，就接他来，将神的道路给他讲解得更加详确。
罗16:3  
问我在基督耶稣里的同工，百基拉和亚居拉安；
罗16:5  
又问在他们家中的召会安。问我所亲爱的以拜尼土安，他是亚西亚归基督初结的果子。
加2:11  
但矶法来到安提阿的时候，因他有可定罪之处，我就当面抵挡他。
------------------------
　　召会的立场非常重要。若是我们没有立场，何必在一起聚会？若是没有立场问题，世上基督教团体已经够多，何需再有我们的聚会？基督教团体里各有其优缺点，并非绝无是处。我们坚持立场，并非说我们就是绝对属灵；恐怕我们仍有许多地方不如别人。在众多基督教团体之外，我们聚在一起，乃是基于立场的问题。今天我们若要盖造房子，一定要有确定建造的地方。建造召会，除了要用正确的材料，有同样的样式之外，更要有确定的立场；那就是旧约圣殿建造所在的阿珥楠禾场所表明的。　　愿主怜悯我们，在这个建造的时刻，使我们对这事都有清楚地看见。我们若在这点上失误，是在原则上犯了厉害的错误。我要郑重地说，那不是好心坏心、有意无意的事，乃是在原则上闯下大祸。这几年来，我们中间的工作，都因此受了亏损。所以，我们要将这事看清楚，知道对史弟兄正确的态度该如何。我们要分清楚，那一面该接受，那一面要守住。我们要知道建造的图样，知道该用何种材料，更知道建造所该有的立场。若是对立场不能确定，我们会相当为难。若是有人持异议，不能接受绝对的立场，盼望能公开讨论、交通，不要私下传说，使圣徒受搅扰。我只能带领在我们中间的人，不能带领吹无定号声（林前十四8）的人；这是关乎同工的问题。愿主怜悯我们，使我们每个人都清楚这事。
--------本段经节汇集--------
林前14:8  
若吹无定的号声，谁能预备打仗？
------------------------
　　一九六一年一月二十三日讲于台北（同工聚会）
　
THE GROUND FOR THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
　According to the Bible, the site for the building of the temple was on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1). If this had not been God’s intention, it would not have been recorded in the Bible. The temple of God being built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is not a small matter; it was a great event in the universe. If a temple had been built according to the same pattern and materials but in a different location, there would have been a serious problem of division among the Israelites. Using the same pattern, materials, and even builders, the Israelites could have chosen any location to build a temple. There could have been temples in the south, the north, the east, and the west, but the Israelites would inevitably have been divided.
　God not only spoke of the pattern, the materials and their quantities, and the builders for building the temple, but He also chose the building site to be on Mount Moriah. There was only one place for the building. This was the one ground that would forever keep the Israelites from being divided. Historically, however, the kingdom of Israel was divided into the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom because the northern kingdom forsook the one ground for the holy temple. The Israelites could build the temple on only one site. If the temple was to be built on the earth, it had to be built on this ground. Only the piece of land on Mount Moriah could be used for building the temple. Any other location would cause the Israelites to be divided.
　For thirty years we have focused on the matter of the ground, emphasizing that the church is unique, that there can be only one local expression, and that the church can be built on only one ground. The church can be built on only one ground; apart from this ground the church cannot be built. If the building takes place apart from this ground, the church will be divided. The Lord has enlightened us in this matter so that we can fight the battle and contend for the ground of the church. This is an exceedingly great matter. If the temple had been built in a location other than the threshing floor of Ornan, many temples could have been built. However, for the past few thousand years of history there has been only one temple. Although the temple was destroyed, when it was rebuilt, it was built on the same ground.
　
THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
　The temple was built by Solomon (1 Kings 6). Then the temple was rebuilt two times. It was rebuilt at the time of Ezra (Ezra 3:6b-13; 6:13-15) and then by Herod (John 2:20). Herod did not rebuild the temple because it had been destroyed but because he felt that the temple built at the time of Ezra was not large enough or adequately restored. Based on political considerations, Herod, a Gentile king, rebuilt the temple in order to cope with the Jewish sentiment. Nevertheless, the temple was built at its designated site, not at another site. The Israelites did not annul the unique ground for the worship of God.
　The children of Israel who were scattered among the nations built synagogues. Although the Israelites had synagogues, they knew that the synagogues could not replace the temple. The Jews must worship God, and they know that the place that God has appointed for His worship is the threshing floor of Ornan in Jerusalem; there cannot be another place of worship. During the time of the Roman Empire the Israelites were scattered among the nations, but they did not abandon their worship of God. They did not have the proper ground on which to build the temple, so they built synagogues instead as places for worship. No Jew would dare to claim that a synagogue is the temple. There are many Jewish synagogues in New York, but no Jew would claim that a synagogue is the temple. The temple can be built only on the unique ground. This keeps the children of Israel from division. Even though the Jews are scattered, they are not divided. They are waiting to gain the unique ground for the temple.
　The threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is the ground for the building of the temple. The third largest Muslim mosque was built on this site and still stands there. The largest mosque is in Mecca. The third largest mosque was built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah is also the place where Abraham offered up Isaac (Gen. 22:2). The Muslims recognize Abraham as their forefather.
　The city of Jerusalem has suffered many wars and has had its walls demolished and rebuilt. Today the city of Jerusalem is situated on several peaks, and the threshing floor of Ornan, which is the building site of the temple, is on the city border. Mount Zion is one of the high peaks of the city of Jerusalem.
　The ancient fortress of David was on Mount Zion. This is also where he pitched a tent for the Ark (2 Sam. 6:17). Later, God instructed David to build a temple on Mount Moriah, where his forefather Abraham had worshipped God (24:18-25; 1 Chron. 21:18—22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1). After Solomon, David’s son, built the temple, he brought up the Ark from the city of David, which is Zion, into the temple (5:2; 1 Kings 8:1-11), and the tent that David had pitched was abandoned. At the same time, the Tent of Meeting in Shiloh with its vessels was moved into the temple, for Solomon merged the tabernacle with the temple (vv. 4-6). The tent that David pitched according to his will was abandoned. From then on, no matter how confused or troubled the children of Israel were, they had only one worship center. They could not build the temple anywhere other than on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. This ground is unique and keeps the oneness of God’s children. The ground is not the base or the material for the temple but the site for building the temple.
　
THE GROUND FOR BUILDING THE CHURCH
　We should apply the revelation concerning the building and location of the temple in the Old Testament to the building and ground of the church. The location for the building of the temple implies the ground of the church. According to church history, many truths in the Bible were recovered in the eighteenth century by brothers such as J. N. Darby, but they were still unclear concerning the ground of the church. These brothers saw that the churches in every locality are independent in administration, but they were unclear regarding the ground. The truth concerning the ground was not made clear until 1934. Brother Nee spent considerable time studying the Bible concerning the boundary of the church. He saw that the church can be established only according to a locality, such as the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, and the church in Ephesus (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rev. 2:1). The establishing of one church in a locality is the ground for establishing the church.
　We cannot establish a local church in a factory or in a school. A local church can be established only in a city. However, there are many details related to taking the ground. If there is already a local church in a city, another church cannot be established there; just as when there was a temple on the threshing floor of Ornan, another temple could not be built. An Israelite could accept only that temple and be joined to that temple. Suppose a brother goes to Tainan, and there is no church there. He has the liberty to establish a church because Tainan is a ground on which a church can be established. If there is already a church in Tainan, then he does not have the qualification or the liberty to establish another church. Taipei is also a locality, a ground, where a church can be established. However, since there is already a church in Taipei, another church cannot be established. The ground for establishing the church in Taipei has already been taken; hence, there is no ground on which to establish any other church. Believers can accept only the church in a locality and be blended into that church. Only thus can the oneness be kept wherever the church is expressed.
　The thought that the church can be established apart from the ground of locality will produce many grounds and result in division. Once a church already exists in a locality, it is wrong to establish other churches in the same locality out of convenience for the believers. Regrettably, some believers have established churches outside the ground of locality. If we do not hold fast to the unique ground, the oneness of the church will easily be damaged.
　If the children of Israel did not have the threshing floor of Ornan as the unique ground for the temple, many temples might have been built. Some Israelites could have built a square temple of wood overlaid with gold, and others, a long temple with the same material. Thus, the children of Israel would have been separated, and their worship of God would have been divided. God’s people must be united in their worship. Once the worship of God is divided, God’s people are divided. This means that once the place where we meet and worship God is divided, we are divided. Therefore, God, according to His wisdom, determined that there would be only one ground for establishing the church. That one ground is the unique ground of locality. There is no other ground allowed besides this ground.
　The ground is the locality of a city, where people dwell and gather. Upon this ground the church—and only one church—may be established. Once a church is established, no other church can be established. All of God’s children in that locality should be joined to that local church to keep the one ground. Only thus can God’s children be kept from division, even though their opinions may differ. A believer may have opinions, but he does not have the liberty to establish another church. A brother may advocate baptism by immersion, but he cannot take that view of baptism as a ground on which to set up a church. Believers may hold different views on baptism, but they cannot and should not establish a church based on their view. However, for many years God’s children have violated the unique ground and caused many divisions.
　
QUOTING THE SCRIPTURES ERRONEOUSLY
　Once the ground of the church is violated, not only can many churches be established in a city, but it is possible to establish the church on the ground of doctrine or practice. Opposers erroneously quote Matthew 18:20, which says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” Based on this verse they say that as long as two or three believers are gathered into the Lord’s name, the Lord is in their midst, and they are the church. However, we insist on the ground of the church because, according to the revelation in the Bible, only one church can be established in a city. There is no basis and no authority to establish the church on any other ground.
　In Matthew 18:20 the Lord said that His disciples can be gathered into His name no matter where they are and that He will be in their midst, but He did not say that such a gathering is the church. In verses 16 through 17 the Lord said that if there is a problem between two or three, they should “tell it to the church.” These verses indicate that the two or three are not the church. The Bible does not say that the gathering of two or three believers is the church. We must be scriptural and not establish other grounds. Only the ground of locality can close the doors to church division.
　A brother may advocate baptism by immersion or favor head covering, but no matter what he advocates or favors, he does not have the liberty to establish churches apart from the unique ground. In the Old Testament God told the children of Israel that they could not worship Him in the place of their choice. They had to worship God in the place that He chose to put His name (Deut. 12:5, 8, 11). God would not allow the children of Israel to build another temple besides the one built on the threshing floor of Ornan. The Israelites had to strictly comply with and practice this command. Regrettably, in the New Testament age God’s people neglect this. Some believers are bold and use many excuses to come together outside the ground of locality and even set up so-called “spiritual” churches. The desire to seek spirituality and holiness is good. But this desire has become an excuse for divisions among God’s people, producing justification churches, holiness churches, and spiritual churches. Division should be condemned. The desire to preach the gospel in a factory is not a reason to establish a church in the factory. The excuse of preaching the gospel must be removed. Division cannot be justified, but rather it must be condemned. We must see the importance of the ground.
　
PROBLEMS
　We also have encountered problems. We have gained spiritual help from Madame Guyon, but if she were among us today, she might influence us to worship an idol of Mary, and we might be unable to resist. We also have been helped by Andrew Murray and even recommend his books to the saints, but if he were alive today, he might bring in a speaking that opposed the ground.
　In the same principle, we highly esteem the spiritual supply of Brother T. Austin-Sparks. However, when we invited him to visit us, he should not have touched the matter of the ground. During his first visit in 1955 the fellowship was very good, and since he did not touch the ground, we invited him to come a second time. During his second visit in 1957, sadly, he touched the issue of the ground. At that time we had serious fellowship. He said that any gathering of two or three into the Lord’s name is the church. Afterward, I visited him in London, and I was his guest of honor. We had countless talks together. In the end, however, he insisted that as long as a gathering is in Christ, it is on the ground of the church and that as long as two or three are gathered, the Lord is in their midst and that is the church.
　We are not criticizing or opposing Brother Austin-Sparks, but he did not see the danger of this matter. If we accepted this kind of teaching, the church in Taipei could be divided into not only three or five groups but into dozens of groups. If we can say that any gathering of two or three is the church, then Taipei could have many churches. We fellowshipped this with Brother Austin-Sparks and said that if we practiced his fellowship, there would be the danger of endless divisions. However, he would not accept this word.
　We need two views concerning our fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. His spirituality is unquestionable; we esteem it highly, just as we esteem Madame Guyon’s spirituality. But we cannot accept Madame Guyon’s idol worship in Catholicism. Likewise, we fully accept The Spirit of Christ by Andrew Murray, but we cannot accept the denomination that he was in. This requires discernment. We highly esteem and fully accept the spiritual fellowship from Brother Austin-Sparks, but his view regarding the ground is not scriptural, and we cannot accept it. The saints who were affected by him have caused serious problems.
　
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ONE ACCORD
　We were aware of the problems that could arise the first time we invited Brother Austin-Sparks. We were also aware of this when he spoke of the ground during his second visit. I did not initiate the fellowship concerning the ground. Sadly, some brothers among us did not keep their bounds. Regardless of their intention, a chaotic situation came in because they did not keep their bounds. The chaos that ensued did not allow us to invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again. When our situation is stable, we can invite him for his spiritual portion. However, he should give us absolute freedom concerning our practice of the church.
　I was not ignorant of our brother’s view concerning our practice. I have known his view since I was in Shanghai. I invited him to visit us because our situation was stable and because of the one accord. However, I relied too much on our situation. When I objected to our brother’s view concerning the ground, a few co-workers went beyond their measure. If the co-workers acknowledge that I am taking the lead here, then please allow me to say that since I was the one who invited Brother Sparks, I was responsible for the fellowship. When I objected to the fellowship, the co-workers should have stood with me. When I invited him, the co-workers accepted my invitation; when I objected to the fellowship, they should have stood with me and kept their bounds. If they are willing to stay within their measure, we can invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again when our situation is stable.
　Before that time we had the one accord and were in harmony. But problems arose after those years. The underlying cause of the problems is related to our brother’s visit. I am responsible for inviting our brother, and I am responsible for raising objections to the fellowship. The co-workers are under my leading and should have stayed within their measure. They need to comprehend this word. The work has been under my leading for many years, but our brother’s visit damaged the work because when there was a disagreement and I objected, the co-workers held differing opinions. Perhaps no evil was intended, but it caused us problems. It is as if the boat was capsized.
　
LEARNING A SERIOUS LESSON
　This fellowship is for us to learn a serious lesson. When Brother Nee was among us, we did things as he said they should be done, and whatever he spoke, we spoke; we did not have a second opinion. When he was taking the lead, it was his speaking that mattered; we just obeyed. Even if I did not see things as he did, I followed without questioning, and this brought the blessing. I invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come, and the co-workers accepted that invitation. I raised objections, but they held opinions that were contrary to mine. This was our problem. As a result, rumors arose, and the saints became confused; some even spoke of compromising and waiting to see if we would change our stand. There is no need to wait and see, and we do not compromise the truth. We only know to follow the truth.
　If the co-workers want me to take the lead, then I will take the lead. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong in raising objections to our brother, I was responsible for our fellowship. The co-workers must learn to stay within their measure; otherwise, I cannot take the lead. The co-workers have solemnly indicated that they accept my leading and are willing to move forward. I hope that we have all learned this serious lesson.
　This fellowship is necessary for the co-workers to be in harmony. My concern is that some may still disapprove. Therefore, I am begging the co-workers to stay within their bounds. If our situation were stable, we would have invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come a third time. However, we did not receive the help that we should have received from his last visit; instead, we brought unnecessary trouble upon ourselves. After the second visit those who said that they were helped by Brother Austin-Sparks became factors of division. Receiving help is good, but it is wrong for someone to become a cause of division after receiving help. My heart grieves because of this. We love the Lord, and we belong to Him. Therefore, please consider these words.
　
RECEIVING WITH PROPER DISCERNMENT
　We receive all the truth that God has recovered in the church throughout the ages, but we do not receive blindly; we receive with discernment. Just as we receive Madame Guyon’s spirituality but not Catholicism and Andrew Murray’s revelation but not denominational organization, we receive Brother Austin-Sparks’s spirituality, but he must give us freedom concerning the practicality of the ground of the church. Otherwise, it will make things very difficult for us. Our situation shows that after our brother’s visit, things have indeed been very difficult, and I regret this. If the co-workers had stayed within their measure, I would have no regrets. Unrest and chaotic situations have prevented us from advancing.
　According to Brother Austin-Sparks, the building can take place anywhere as long as there is spiritual material; that is, as long as there is gold, silver, and precious stones that issue from Christ, the building can take place anywhere. This is not the truth that we see. Although gold, silver, and precious stones are the right materials, the building must take place on Mount Moriah. Any building not on Mount Moriah is wrong even if it is built with the same materials and according to the same pattern. Although we are in Christ and are of Christ, only building on the local ground is right; building on the ground of doctrine or practice is wrong, and building on the ground of the two or three gathered together is even more wrong. This is the truth in the Bible and our view.
　On the one hand, I am displeased with what our brother said, but on the other hand, our fellowship did not cease. When I was in the United States, an experienced brother whom I had never met came to see me. He had a question regarding house churches. He had no problem with the local churches but asked how I could explain the church in the house of Aquila and Prisca (1 Cor. 16:19). I pointed out that when Aquila and Prisca were in Ephesus, the church in Ephesus gathered in their house (Acts 18:18-19, 26) and that when they were in Rome, the church in Rome gathered in their house (Rom. 16:3, 5). After my explanation he asked concerning my fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. I told him that even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I do not hold the same view concerning the ground, our fellowship had not ceased. Even though Paul was Peter’s junior, when he saw that Peter was wrong, he opposed him to his face (Gal. 2:11). Even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I disagree concerning the ground, we have always maintained fellowship.
　The ground of the church is very important. If we do not have the ground, why should we gather together? There are many Christian groups. What need is there to form more gatherings? There are many positive things in the Christian groups. We are not saying that we are spiritual by insisting on the ground. In many regards we cannot compare with other Christians. We gather outside the many Christian groups because of the ground. A person who wants to build a house must have a definite site on which to build. Likewise, besides having the right materials and pattern, there needs to be a definite ground in order to build the church. This is indicated in the Old Testament by the building site for the temple—the threshing floor of Ornan.
　May the Lord have mercy on us so that we would have a clear vision concerning the building. If we fail in this point, we will commit a serious error. It is not a matter of having good or bad intentions or of doing something purposely or accidentally but a matter of committing a serious error. The work among us has suffered loss because of this. Hence, we need a clear vision to know what our attitude toward Brother Austin-Sparks should be. We need to be clear concerning what we should receive and hold fast. We need to know the pattern for the building, know what materials can be used, and know the ground for the building. If we are not definite regarding the ground, things will be difficult. If some hold differing opinions and cannot accept the truth concerning the ground, then we need to fellowship. Please do not pass on rumors that trouble the saints. I can lead only those who are one. I cannot lead those who give an uncertain sound of the trumpet (1 Cor. 14:8). This matter concerns the co-workers. May the Lord have mercy on us so that each of us will be clear.
 
　　根据圣经的记载，我们看见圣殿建造的地点，乃是在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上（代下三1）。我们必须认识，若是神没有特别的意思，圣经不会记载这句话。神的圣殿要建造在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这话非同小可，乃是宇宙中一件重大的事。试想，我们若用同样的材料、样式、分量以及建造的人，将圣殿建造在另一个地方，结果会如何呢？那必定会产生严重的问题，使以色列人分裂。因为若是只要材料对，样式对，建造的人也对，以色列人就可以选择自己喜欢的地方建殿，结果以色列南面、北面、东面、或西面都有圣殿，自然就非分不可。

　　因此，神当初不仅启示建造殿的材料、样式、分量和建造的人，也确定的指出建造的地点是在摩利亚山。只有那里可以建造，其他地方不行，这就是一个立场，使以色列人永远不能分。历史上，以色列国虽分为南北两国，但他们在神面前的敬拜却没有分，因为只有一个圣殿的立场。以色列人只能将圣殿建造在一个立场上，除非在地上不建造圣殿，否则非建造在这个立场上不可。只有摩利亚山那块地可以建造，其他地方不能；若是其他地方也可以，以色列人就分裂了。

　　三十年来我们一直注重立场的问题，强调召会是独一的，只能有一个圣殿，只能在一个地方建造。在这个立场上可以建造召会，在这个立场之外不能建造召会。如果在这个立场之外还可以建造，就会使召会分裂。主在这点上给我们亮光，使我们打立场的仗，争立场的问题，这是一件不得了的事。若是在阿珥楠的禾场之外能建造圣殿，历史上也许会有许多个圣殿造出来。然而，已过几千年的历史中，我们看见只有一个圣殿；圣殿虽曾被毁坏，重造时却仍是在那个立场上。
 
　According to the Bible, the site for the building of the temple was on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah (2 Chron. 3:1). If this had not been God’s intention, it would not have been recorded in the Bible. The temple of God being built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is not a small matter; it was a great event in the universe. If a temple had been built according to the same pattern and materials but in a different location, there would have been a serious problem of division among the Israelites. Using the same pattern, materials, and even builders, the Israelites could have chosen any location to build a temple. There could have been temples in the south, the north, the east, and the west, but the Israelites would inevitably have been divided.

　God not only spoke of the pattern, the materials and their quantities, and the builders for building the temple, but He also chose the building site to be on Mount Moriah. There was only one place for the building. This was the one ground that would forever keep the Israelites from being divided. Historically, however, the kingdom of Israel was divided into the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom because the northern kingdom forsook the one ground for the holy temple. The Israelites could build the temple on only one site. If the temple was to be built on the earth, it had to be built on this ground. Only the piece of land on Mount Moriah could be used for building the temple. Any other location would cause the Israelites to be divided.

　For thirty years we have focused on the matter of the ground, emphasizing that the church is unique, that there can be only one local expression, and that the church can be built on only one ground. The church can be built on only one ground; apart from this ground the church cannot be built. If the building takes place apart from this ground, the church will be divided. The Lord has enlightened us in this matter so that we can fight the battle and contend for the ground of the church. This is an exceedingly great matter. If the temple had been built in a location other than the threshing floor of Ornan, many temples could have been built. However, for the past few thousand years of history there has been only one temple. Although the temple was destroyed, when it was rebuilt, it was built on the same ground.
　　以色列人的圣殿总共造了三次；头一次是由所罗门建造（王上六），第二次是在以斯拉时重建（拉三6下~13，六13~15），第三次是由希律用四十六年建成（约二20）。希律并非因为圣殿被毁而重造，乃是觉得以斯拉时代所造的圣殿不够大，恢复的也不够。希律是外邦君王，基于政治的考量，为着应付犹太人的心理而建造圣殿。然而，无论圣殿建造了几次，就只能在那基地上，无法在那立场之外。在天地间，以色列人永远无法废掉独一敬拜神的立场。

　　然而，散居在列国的以色列人，为着自己的方便，就在自己所在之地，设立会堂。犹太人虽有会堂，却心知肚明会堂不能代表圣殿。犹太人必须敬拜神，也知道神指定敬拜的地方，是在耶路撒冷阿珥楠的禾场上；除此之外，不能有敬拜的地方。以色列人分散在列国，虽然愿意回去，却无法如愿。他们在自己所在的地方，不能不敬拜神，但他们没有合法的立场建造圣殿，只能盖造会堂，在其中敬拜。虽然如此，却没有人敢说，会堂就是圣殿。例如，纽约有许多犹太会堂，但没有一个犹太人说会堂就是圣殿。圣殿只能在独一的立场上建造，借此保守以色列人不分裂。现今以色列人虽然分散，却没有分裂，他们仍然一直等待，要得着唯一的立场。

　　摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场，就是建造圣殿的立场，如今还存在。现今在那立场上，盖造了世界第三大的回教寺。第一大回教寺在麦加，是回教的发祥地，回教徒都要到那里朝圣。第三大回教寺建在摩利亚山阿珥楠的禾场上，这个回教寺曾被许多君王，以宝物装饰，其中还有许多宝贝。寺里有个特点，就是有亚伯拉罕献以撒的地方，因为回教徒也承认亚伯拉罕是他们的祖宗。

　　耶路撒冷城经过历代的战祸，许多拆毁的墙垣都经过修建，面积有相当的更动。今天的耶路撒冷城是在几个山峰上，阿珥楠禾场就是圣殿盖造的地方，是在这座城的城墙边上。那城的造法，大部分是城堡，用大石头砌墙，而在大块平地上作基地建造圣殿。圣殿盖造的位置，目前一部分在城内，一部分在城外，无论如何，乃是在城的边上。锡安山是耶路撒冷城里的一个高峰。

　　古代大卫的碉堡就是锡安山，他将约柜接到那里，还搭了不正确的帐棚（撒下六17）。而后神指示大卫，要在摩利亚山，就是他先祖亚伯拉罕敬拜神的地方，造一个圣殿（二四18~25，代上二一18~二二1，代下三1）。当大卫的儿子所罗门将殿造好之后，就把约柜从大卫城，就是锡安，运上来搬到圣殿里（五2，王上八1~11）；大卫所造的帐棚就被废弃了。同时，把基遍的帐幕，那正确的会幕，及其中的器具，搬到圣殿里。所罗门的意思是，帐幕乃是合并在圣殿里（4~6），而大卫照自己意思所造的帐棚就废弃了。往后以色列人无论怎样纷乱，怎样出事，仍然只有一个敬拜中心；他们不能在摩利亚山阿珥楠禾场之外任何地方，盖造圣殿。这个立场是独一的，如此保守了神子民的合一。这里所说的立场不是根基，也不是材料，乃是指建殿的基地。
 
　The temple was built by Solomon (1 Kings 6). Then the temple was rebuilt two times. It was rebuilt at the time of Ezra (Ezra 3:6b-13; 6:13-15) and then by Herod (John 2:20). Herod did not rebuild the temple because it had been destroyed but because he felt that the temple built at the time of Ezra was not large enough or adequately restored. Based on political considerations, Herod, a Gentile king, rebuilt the temple in order to cope with the Jewish sentiment. Nevertheless, the temple was built at its designated site, not at another site. The Israelites did not annul the unique ground for the worship of God.

　The children of Israel who were scattered among the nations built synagogues. Although the Israelites had synagogues, they knew that the synagogues could not replace the temple. The Jews must worship God, and they know that the place that God has appointed for His worship is the threshing floor of Ornan in Jerusalem; there cannot be another place of worship. During the time of the Roman Empire the Israelites were scattered among the nations, but they did not abandon their worship of God. They did not have the proper ground on which to build the temple, so they built synagogues instead as places for worship. No Jew would dare to claim that a synagogue is the temple. There are many Jewish synagogues in New York, but no Jew would claim that a synagogue is the temple. The temple can be built only on the unique ground. This keeps the children of Israel from division. Even though the Jews are scattered, they are not divided. They are waiting to gain the unique ground for the temple.

　The threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah is the ground for the building of the temple. The third largest Muslim mosque was built on this site and still stands there. The largest mosque is in Mecca. The third largest mosque was built on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah is also the place where Abraham offered up Isaac (Gen. 22:2). The Muslims recognize Abraham as their forefather.

　The city of Jerusalem has suffered many wars and has had its walls demolished and rebuilt. Today the city of Jerusalem is situated on several peaks, and the threshing floor of Ornan, which is the building site of the temple, is on the city border. Mount Zion is one of the high peaks of the city of Jerusalem.

　The ancient fortress of David was on Mount Zion. This is also where he pitched a tent for the Ark (2 Sam. 6:17). Later, God instructed David to build a temple on Mount Moriah, where his forefather Abraham had worshipped God (24:18-25; 1 Chron. 21:18—22:1; 2 Chron. 3:1). After Solomon, David’s son, built the temple, he brought up the Ark from the city of David, which is Zion, into the temple (5:2; 1 Kings 8:1-11), and the tent that David had pitched was abandoned. At the same time, the Tent of Meeting in Shiloh with its vessels was moved into the temple, for Solomon merged the tabernacle with the temple (vv. 4-6). The tent that David pitched according to his will was abandoned. From then on, no matter how confused or troubled the children of Israel were, they had only one worship center. They could not build the temple anywhere other than on the threshing floor of Ornan on Mount Moriah. This ground is unique and keeps the oneness of God’s children. The ground is not the base or the material for the temple but the site for building the temple.
　　我们要把旧约圣殿的建造，以及建造的地点，应用到今日召会的建造，以及召会的立场。圣殿建造的地点，含示立场的问题。从召会历史看，在十八世纪，达秘（J. N. Darby）那班弟兄们兴起，对于圣经中的许多真理，有了重大的恢复；然而，他们对于召会的立场仍然不清楚。他们只看见地方上的召会行政各自独立，却不清楚立场的事。直至一九三四年，倪弟兄花了相当工夫，引用圣经说到召会的界限，才把这事说清楚。倪弟兄清楚看见，召会在实行上，只能设立在一个一个地方。好比在耶路撒冷的召会、在安提阿的召会、在以弗所的召会（徒八1，十三1，启二1），都是在一个一个地方设立的，那就是设立召会的立场。

　　我们不能把召会设立在工厂里，也不能把召会设立在学校，只能把召会设立于所在的城市里。然而，要取得这立场很有讲究。若是你所在的城市已经有召会，就不能再设立召会。好比在阿珥楠的禾场上，已经有一个圣殿，就不能造另一个。你只能接受那个圣殿，合并在那个圣殿里。譬如你到台南，那里若是没有召会，你就有权利在那里设立召会，因为台南是一个能设立召会的立场。若是台南有了召会，你就没有资格和权利，再设立一个召会。再者，台北也是一个地方、一个立场，同样可以设立召会；但因为那里已有了一个台北召会，就不能再设立另一个召会。设立召会的立场已经被占用，就没有立场可以再设立。人只能接受当地的召会，调到那个召会里。唯有如此，召会无论在哪里出现，才能保守合一。

　　若是我们觉得在地方之外可以设立召会，这就会产生许多立场，造成分裂。好比台北已经有召会，若有人要在台北的学校里设立召会，或在工厂里设立召会，好方便那里许多信主的人，这就不正确。可惜，确实有人在地方召会之外，设立了工厂召会或马路召会。所以，我们若是不守住独一的立场，无论在任何地方，召会的合一都很容易受到破坏。

　　若是以色列人没有阿珥楠的禾场，作圣殿独一的立场，恐怕在以色列人的历史中，会出现许多个圣殿。有人造一个方型的圣殿，有人造一个长型的圣殿，样式差不多，都是金包木头。如此一来，以色列人就分开了，敬拜上也分裂了。因着神的子民是联在敬拜上，所以对神的敬拜一分裂，神的子民就分裂了。这意思是，我们聚会敬拜神的地方一分裂，我们也就分裂了。所以，按着神的智慧，神定规召会的设立只有一个立场，就是地方独一的立场，而不容许在这立场之外有别的立场。

　　我们所说的立场，就是每一城市人群聚居的地方；在那个立场上可以设立召会，并且只能有一个召会。一旦那里有了召会，就不能再设立召会。所有神的儿女在那个地方，都该合并于那个地方召会，守住那一个立场。唯有如此，才能使神的儿女即使意见不同，也不能分裂。你可以有意见，但是没有权利设立另一个召会。比方，你可以主张以不同的方式受浸，但不能以受浸的主张当作立场，设立一个浸信会。人可以有浸信的主张，却不能也不该设立浸信会。然而很可惜，多年以来，神的儿女将独一的立场打破，而造成了许多分裂。
 
　We should apply the revelation concerning the building and location of the temple in the Old Testament to the building and ground of the church. The location for the building of the temple implies the ground of the church. According to church history, many truths in the Bible were recovered in the eighteenth century by brothers such as J. N. Darby, but they were still unclear concerning the ground of the church. These brothers saw that the churches in every locality are independent in administration, but they were unclear regarding the ground. The truth concerning the ground was not made clear until 1934. Brother Nee spent considerable time studying the Bible concerning the boundary of the church. He saw that the church can be established only according to a locality, such as the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, and the church in Ephesus (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rev. 2:1). The establishing of one church in a locality is the ground for establishing the church.

　We cannot establish a local church in a factory or in a school. A local church can be established only in a city. However, there are many details related to taking the ground. If there is already a local church in a city, another church cannot be established there; just as when there was a temple on the threshing floor of Ornan, another temple could not be built. An Israelite could accept only that temple and be joined to that temple. Suppose a brother goes to Tainan, and there is no church there. He has the liberty to establish a church because Tainan is a ground on which a church can be established. If there is already a church in Tainan, then he does not have the qualification or the liberty to establish another church. Taipei is also a locality, a ground, where a church can be established. However, since there is already a church in Taipei, another church cannot be established. The ground for establishing the church in Taipei has already been taken; hence, there is no ground on which to establish any other church. Believers can accept only the church in a locality and be blended into that church. Only thus can the oneness be kept wherever the church is expressed.

　The thought that the church can be established apart from the ground of locality will produce many grounds and result in division. Once a church already exists in a locality, it is wrong to establish other churches in the same locality out of convenience for the believers. Regrettably, some believers have established churches outside the ground of locality. If we do not hold fast to the unique ground, the oneness of the church will easily be damaged.

　If the children of Israel did not have the threshing floor of Ornan as the unique ground for the temple, many temples might have been built. Some Israelites could have built a square temple of wood overlaid with gold, and others, a long temple with the same material. Thus, the children of Israel would have been separated, and their worship of God would have been divided. God’s people must be united in their worship. Once the worship of God is divided, God’s people are divided. This means that once the place where we meet and worship God is divided, we are divided. Therefore, God, according to His wisdom, determined that there would be only one ground for establishing the church. That one ground is the unique ground of locality. There is no other ground allowed besides this ground.

　The ground is the locality of a city, where people dwell and gather. Upon this ground the church—and only one church—may be established. Once a church is established, no other church can be established. All of God’s children in that locality should be joined to that local church to keep the one ground. Only thus can God’s children be kept from division, even though their opinions may differ. A believer may have opinions, but he does not have the liberty to establish another church. A brother may advocate baptism by immersion, but he cannot take that view of baptism as a ground on which to set up a church. Believers may hold different views on baptism, but they cannot and should not establish a church based on their view. However, for many years God’s children have violated the unique ground and caused many divisions.
　　召会的立场一破坏，不只一城可以设立召会，一个工厂、一个学校，甚至三、五个人都可以在家里设立召会。反对者错误的引用马太十八章二十节：“因为无论在哪里，有两三个人被聚集到我的名里，哪里就有我在他们中间。”他们以此告诉人，不论在学校、在工厂、或在家庭里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，主就在他们中间，他们就是召会。然而，我们对召会的立场非常坚持，因为按照圣经的启示，召会只能设立在一个城里人群聚居的地方。除此之外，任何地方都不可以设立，因为没有立场，没有权柄可以设立。

　　马太十八章二十节，主的确说无论在哪里，都可以在祂的名里聚集，主也会在他们中间；但是并没有说，那样的聚集就是召会。同一章的十六至十七节，给我们看见，有两三个人发生问题，末了，主就对他们说，要“告诉召会”。可见，那两三个人并不是召会。我们从经文看不出，两三个人的聚集，就是召会。我们必须照着圣经，不设别的立场；只有“地方”这一个立场，才能将召会分裂的门关起来。

　　人可以主张受浸，或赞成蒙头，但无论人主张什么，赞成什么，都没有权利在独一的立场之外，设立召会。在旧约里，神不断嘱咐以色列人，他们能作许多事，却不能在他们自己所选择的地方敬拜神，他们必须到神所选择立祂名的地方敬拜神。换言之，神没有许可以色列人在阿珥楠的禾场之外，再造一个圣殿；关于这点，他们必须谨守遵行。很可惜，在新约时代，神子民对此非常忽略。有些人胆子大，用许多借口作遮掩，表明自己是为着追求属灵，就来在一起，在地方立场之外，要成立所谓比较属灵的召会。人要追求属灵、追求圣洁，这都是好的想法。然而，好的想法却变作分裂的护身符，在神的子民中制造分裂，产生称义会、圣洁会、属灵会等种种的会。若是我们将这些遮护除掉，就会显出分裂是错误的，不仅不能得称义，反该被定罪。人不能说，我们要在工厂里传福音，就设立一个工厂召会。那种传福音是一个遮护、借口，我们必须将它除掉。那个分裂不能得着称义，反而要被定罪。我们众人都要看见立场的重要性。
 
　Once the ground of the church is violated, not only can many churches be established in a city, but it is possible to establish the church on the ground of doctrine or practice. Opposers erroneously quote Matthew 18:20, which says, “Where there are two or three gathered into My name, there am I in their midst.” Based on this verse they say that as long as two or three believers are gathered into the Lord’s name, the Lord is in their midst, and they are the church. However, we insist on the ground of the church because, according to the revelation in the Bible, only one church can be established in a city. There is no basis and no authority to establish the church on any other ground.

　In Matthew 18:20 the Lord said that His disciples can be gathered into His name no matter where they are and that He will be in their midst, but He did not say that such a gathering is the church. In verses 16 through 17 the Lord said that if there is a problem between two or three, they should “tell it to the church.” These verses indicate that the two or three are not the church. The Bible does not say that the gathering of two or three believers is the church. We must be scriptural and not establish other grounds. Only the ground of locality can close the doors to church division.

　A brother may advocate baptism by immersion or favor head covering, but no matter what he advocates or favors, he does not have the liberty to establish churches apart from the unique ground. In the Old Testament God told the children of Israel that they could not worship Him in the place of their choice. They had to worship God in the place that He chose to put His name (Deut. 12:5, 8, 11). God would not allow the children of Israel to build another temple besides the one built on the threshing floor of Ornan. The Israelites had to strictly comply with and practice this command. Regrettably, in the New Testament age God’s people neglect this. Some believers are bold and use many excuses to come together outside the ground of locality and even set up so-called “spiritual” churches. The desire to seek spirituality and holiness is good. But this desire has become an excuse for divisions among God’s people, producing justification churches, holiness churches, and spiritual churches. Division should be condemned. The desire to preach the gospel in a factory is not a reason to establish a church in the factory. The excuse of preaching the gospel must be removed. Division cannot be justified, but rather it must be condemned. We must see the importance of the ground.
　　令人惋惜的是，我们也遇见难处。就如我们虽然得着盖恩夫人（Madame Guyon）一些属灵的帮助，但若是她今天到我们中间来，也许会使我们受影响，跟着她到马利亚的像前敬拜。这是我们无法抵抗的事。再比方，我们都得着慕安得烈（Andrew Murray）的帮助，甚至我们还向圣徒尽力推荐他的书；然而若是今天他还活着，他或许也会带进反对立场的讲论。

　　以此类推，史百克弟兄（T. Austin－Sparks）身上，那一分属灵的供应，我们是极力推崇。然而，当我们邀请他来给我们属灵的供应时，他不该摸到立场的问题。一九五五年，他第一次来时，交通得很好，并没有摸立场的事；所以，我们急切请他第二次来。然而，一九五七年，当他再来时，不幸的事就发生，他摸到立场的问题。那时我们争辩得非常厉害。他说，不论在那里，只要有两三个人被聚集到主的名里，召会就在那里。之后，我到伦敦去拜访他，在他的客厅里，与他不知谈了多少次。甚至作他的贵宾，被招待住在一处退隐休息的地方，彼此也是谈了再谈。然而至终，他仍然坚持只要在基督里聚会，就是在召会的立场上；并且只要有两三个人聚集，主就在他们中间，召会就在那里。

　　我们并非批评或是反对史弟兄，而是他的确没有看见这件事的危险性。若是我们接受这种教训，台北召会就会分裂，并且可能不只分成三、五个，更是分成几十个。若说只要有两三个人聚会，有主在他们中间，就是召会；那么台北就可以有许多召会。我们曾经将这些话讲给史弟兄听，并且告诉他，若是照他所说的实行，就会产生无止境分裂的危险。然而，史弟兄从始至终都不接受这些话。

　　我们对于这件事必须有两种看法。史弟兄属灵那一分毫无问题，我们完全推崇，如同推崇盖恩夫人的属灵一样；但是盖恩夫人在天主教拜偶像，我们无法接受。同样的，慕安得烈所著“基督的灵”，我们完全接受，但是他所在的公会组织，我们不能接受。这个辨别相当困难。史弟兄属灵那一面，我们完全推崇和接受，但他对于立场的看法，并不合乎圣经，我们也不能接受。我们中间有些人受了他的影响，就产生极大的难处。
 
　We also have encountered problems. We have gained spiritual help from Madame Guyon, but if she were among us today, she might influence us to worship an idol of Mary, and we might be unable to resist. We also have been helped by Andrew Murray and even recommend his books to the saints, but if he were alive today, he might bring in a speaking that opposed the ground.

　In the same principle, we highly esteem the spiritual supply of Brother T. Austin-Sparks. However, when we invited him to visit us, he should not have touched the matter of the ground. During his first visit in 1955 the fellowship was very good, and since he did not touch the ground, we invited him to come a second time. During his second visit in 1957, sadly, he touched the issue of the ground. At that time we had serious fellowship. He said that any gathering of two or three into the Lord’s name is the church. Afterward, I visited him in London, and I was his guest of honor. We had countless talks together. In the end, however, he insisted that as long as a gathering is in Christ, it is on the ground of the church and that as long as two or three are gathered, the Lord is in their midst and that is the church.

　We are not criticizing or opposing Brother Austin-Sparks, but he did not see the danger of this matter. If we accepted this kind of teaching, the church in Taipei could be divided into not only three or five groups but into dozens of groups. If we can say that any gathering of two or three is the church, then Taipei could have many churches. We fellowshipped this with Brother Austin-Sparks and said that if we practiced his fellowship, there would be the danger of endless divisions. However, he would not accept this word.

　We need two views concerning our fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. His spirituality is unquestionable; we esteem it highly, just as we esteem Madame Guyon’s spirituality. But we cannot accept Madame Guyon’s idol worship in Catholicism. Likewise, we fully accept The Spirit of Christ by Andrew Murray, but we cannot accept the denomination that he was in. This requires discernment. We highly esteem and fully accept the spiritual fellowship from Brother Austin-Sparks, but his view regarding the ground is not scriptural, and we cannot accept it. The saints who were affected by him have caused serious problems.
　　我们初次请史弟兄来，里头就有数。第二次再请他，当他说到立场时，我们里头也有数。我要再次陈明，立场的争论不是由我们引起的。只是不幸，我们中间有些弟兄，在行动上没有守住自己的地位。不论他们居心为何，因着他们没有守住地位，我们中间有了紊乱的情形。因着紊乱，就使我们中间不稳定，以致我们无法再请史弟兄来。我们中间的情形越稳定，才越有机会再邀请他。我们只需要史弟兄供应他属灵的那一分，在实行的立场上，他应该给我们绝对的自由。

　　事实上，我并非不知道史弟兄在实行一面的难处，我在上海时就已经清楚明白。我所以请他来，是因为我们在台湾已有五、六年的稳定，上下同心，有合一的光景。然而，我过于信赖我们中间的情形，当我对史弟兄的立场提出抗议时，同工们中就有少数人没有守住地位。同工们若是承认我在这里带领，请容许我沉痛的说，史弟兄是我邀的，我要负责；然而，当我起来抗议的时候，你们也应当和我站在一起。我请他来，你们接受；我抗议时，你们应当与我站在一起，守住自己的地位。若是你们肯守住自己的地位，我们还会再请史弟兄来。然而，我们不能再请了，因为我们中间不稳定。

　　从在台湾开工以来，我们中间几乎是同心合意，毫无二致，非常和谐。然而这几年，有了不和谐的情形。推其原因，是与史弟兄来有关。我虽然表明负责的态度，但是同工们没有守住自己的地位。邀请史弟兄来是我负责，抗议也是由我负责，你们受带领，就该守住地位。你们需要领悟这话。我已过多年带领你们，你们都接受，但史弟兄来，基本上破坏了我们的工作；遇到不能相合时，我提出抗议，你们却有异议。也许这样的居心并非恶意，却惹出麻烦。今天我好像船上掌舵的人，即使这个立场不对，我们都不该争吵，争吵的结果就是翻船。
 
　We were aware of the problems that could arise the first time we invited Brother Austin-Sparks. We were also aware of this when he spoke of the ground during his second visit. I did not initiate the fellowship concerning the ground. Sadly, some brothers among us did not keep their bounds. Regardless of their intention, a chaotic situation came in because they did not keep their bounds. The chaos that ensued did not allow us to invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again. When our situation is stable, we can invite him for his spiritual portion. However, he should give us absolute freedom concerning our practice of the church.

　I was not ignorant of our brother’s view concerning our practice. I have known his view since I was in Shanghai. I invited him to visit us because our situation was stable and because of the one accord. However, I relied too much on our situation. When I objected to our brother’s view concerning the ground, a few co-workers went beyond their measure. If the co-workers acknowledge that I am taking the lead here, then please allow me to say that since I was the one who invited Brother Sparks, I was responsible for the fellowship. When I objected to the fellowship, the co-workers should have stood with me. When I invited him, the co-workers accepted my invitation; when I objected to the fellowship, they should have stood with me and kept their bounds. If they are willing to stay within their measure, we can invite Brother Austin-Sparks to come again when our situation is stable.

　Before that time we had the one accord and were in harmony. But problems arose after those years. The underlying cause of the problems is related to our brother’s visit. I am responsible for inviting our brother, and I am responsible for raising objections to the fellowship. The co-workers are under my leading and should have stayed within their measure. They need to comprehend this word. The work has been under my leading for many years, but our brother’s visit damaged the work because when there was a disagreement and I objected, the co-workers held differing opinions. Perhaps no evil was intended, but it caused us problems. It is as if the boat was capsized.
　　我说这些沉痛的话，是盼望众人学习严肃的功课。当倪弟兄还在时，他说事情怎样作，我们就怎样作；他怎样说，我们也怎样说，绝无第二个意见。他带领时，他说的算数，我们就是顺服。即使我有时看为不宜，也是跟着走，没有话说，末了都是祝福。我请史弟兄来，你们接受；我提出抗议，你们却有异议，与我意见相反，这是你们的不是。因着这件事，有了风言风语，糊涂的人甚至说出“妥协”、“观变”等话，实在令人厌烦。我们无变给人观，也从来不懂得要和谁妥协，我们只知按真理而行。

　　同工们若要我带领，就要给我一个带领的地位，绝不能像已往一样。当我向史弟兄抗议时，无论是对是错，我在神面前，也在人面前负责任，你们只要守住自己的地位。若是你们不能守这个地位，我无法带领。同工们曾郑重表示，他们接受带领，愿意再往前去。然而我盼望众人都学严肃的功课，不要闯祸还不知悔改。

　　这些话虽然沉痛，却是关乎我们同工将来是否里外和谐，上下一致，因此不得不说。但我恐怕这样说，有的人仍不以为然，所以，我要请求你们站在自己的地位上。若是我们中间情形稳定，我们早就请史弟兄第三次来。然而不幸的是，我们该得的帮助没有得到，却带来不该有的搅扰。这几年来，谁得到史弟兄帮助，谁就与别人分离。得帮助的心是好的，但一得帮助就与人分离，乃是错误的。我为此心里沉痛。你们都是爱主、属乎主的人，我请求你们将这些话带到平静的良心里，从里面安静的思考这事。
 
　This fellowship is for us to learn a serious lesson. When Brother Nee was among us, we did things as he said they should be done, and whatever he spoke, we spoke; we did not have a second opinion. When he was taking the lead, it was his speaking that mattered; we just obeyed. Even if I did not see things as he did, I followed without questioning, and this brought the blessing. I invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come, and the co-workers accepted that invitation. I raised objections, but they held opinions that were contrary to mine. This was our problem. As a result, rumors arose, and the saints became confused; some even spoke of compromising and waiting to see if we would change our stand. There is no need to wait and see, and we do not compromise the truth. We only know to follow the truth.

　If the co-workers want me to take the lead, then I will take the lead. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong in raising objections to our brother, I was responsible for our fellowship. The co-workers must learn to stay within their measure; otherwise, I cannot take the lead. The co-workers have solemnly indicated that they accept my leading and are willing to move forward. I hope that we have all learned this serious lesson.

　This fellowship is necessary for the co-workers to be in harmony. My concern is that some may still disapprove. Therefore, I am begging the co-workers to stay within their bounds. If our situation were stable, we would have invited Brother Austin-Sparks to come a third time. However, we did not receive the help that we should have received from his last visit; instead, we brought unnecessary trouble upon ourselves. After the second visit those who said that they were helped by Brother Austin-Sparks became factors of division. Receiving help is good, but it is wrong for someone to become a cause of division after receiving help. My heart grieves because of this. We love the Lord, and we belong to Him. Therefore, please consider these words.
　　神在历代所给召会的恢复，我们都接受；但我们并非盲目的接受，乃是有分辨力的。正如我们接受盖恩夫人属灵的东西，却不要天主教。我们接受慕安得烈所得的启示，但公会的组织我们不要。史弟兄属灵的东西我们接受，但关于召会实行的立场，他必须给我们自由。若非如此，我们会非常为难。现实的情形给我们看见，史弟兄来了以后，我们的确非常为难。我一生没有作一件事，比这件事更懊悔；你们若各守自己的地位，我就毫无懊悔。我们中间不平静，一直有纷乱的情形，就使我们无法往前。

　　按史弟兄的意见，用预表的话说，只要属灵的材料对就可以，无论在什么地方都能建造。他觉得只要是属灵的材料，出于基督的金、银、宝石，无论在什么地方都可以建造。我们的看见并非如此，虽然金、银、宝石等材料对，但必须在摩利亚山上建造。在摩利亚山之外，即使用同样的材料、样式建造，都是不对的。虽然在基督里，也都是基督，但是在地方立场上建造是对的，在学校立场就不对，在两三个人中间的立场更不对。这是我们的不同观点。

　　一面说，我不满意史弟兄所说的，使我们中间非常为难；但是另一面，我与史弟兄的交通并没有断。我最近到美国，有位从未谋面的弟兄来见我。他是个内行的人，只有一个问题要我解答，就是关于家中的召会。他对地方召会毫无问题，但问到亚居拉和百基拉家中的召会（林前十六19）要如何解释？我指出按圣经的记载，当亚居拉和百基拉住在以弗所时，在以弗所的召会是在他们家里聚集（徒十八18~19，26）；当他们住在罗马时，在罗马的召会也是在他们家里聚集（罗十六3，5）。我解答之后，他便说，听闻我与史弟兄之间交通中断。我告诉他那不是事实，我虽然不能接受他的一些观点，但与他的交通并没有断。圣经也提到，保罗虽然是彼得的晚辈，但当他看见彼得不对，就当面抵挡彼得（加二11）。我与史弟兄虽曾争执过，却一直有交通。

　　召会的立场非常重要。若是我们没有立场，何必在一起聚会？若是没有立场问题，世上基督教团体已经够多，何需再有我们的聚会？基督教团体里各有其优缺点，并非绝无是处。我们坚持立场，并非说我们就是绝对属灵；恐怕我们仍有许多地方不如别人。在众多基督教团体之外，我们聚在一起，乃是基于立场的问题。今天我们若要盖造房子，一定要有确定建造的地方。建造召会，除了要用正确的材料，有同样的样式之外，更要有确定的立场；那就是旧约圣殿建造所在的阿珥楠禾场所表明的。

　　愿主怜悯我们，在这个建造的时刻，使我们对这事都有清楚地看见。我们若在这点上失误，是在原则上犯了厉害的错误。我要郑重地说，那不是好心坏心、有意无意的事，乃是在原则上闯下大祸。这几年来，我们中间的工作，都因此受了亏损。所以，我们要将这事看清楚，知道对史弟兄正确的态度该如何。我们要分清楚，那一面该接受，那一面要守住。我们要知道建造的图样，知道该用何种材料，更知道建造所该有的立场。若是对立场不能确定，我们会相当为难。若是有人持异议，不能接受绝对的立场，盼望能公开讨论、交通，不要私下传说，使圣徒受搅扰。我只能带领在我们中间的人，不能带领吹无定号声（林前十四8）的人；这是关乎同工的问题。愿主怜悯我们，使我们每个人都清楚这事。

　　一九六一年一月二十三日讲于台北（同工聚会）
 
　We receive all the truth that God has recovered in the church throughout the ages, but we do not receive blindly; we receive with discernment. Just as we receive Madame Guyon’s spirituality but not Catholicism and Andrew Murray’s revelation but not denominational organization, we receive Brother Austin-Sparks’s spirituality, but he must give us freedom concerning the practicality of the ground of the church. Otherwise, it will make things very difficult for us. Our situation shows that after our brother’s visit, things have indeed been very difficult, and I regret this. If the co-workers had stayed within their measure, I would have no regrets. Unrest and chaotic situations have prevented us from advancing.

　According to Brother Austin-Sparks, the building can take place anywhere as long as there is spiritual material; that is, as long as there is gold, silver, and precious stones that issue from Christ, the building can take place anywhere. This is not the truth that we see. Although gold, silver, and precious stones are the right materials, the building must take place on Mount Moriah. Any building not on Mount Moriah is wrong even if it is built with the same materials and according to the same pattern. Although we are in Christ and are of Christ, only building on the local ground is right; building on the ground of doctrine or practice is wrong, and building on the ground of the two or three gathered together is even more wrong. This is the truth in the Bible and our view.

　On the one hand, I am displeased with what our brother said, but on the other hand, our fellowship did not cease. When I was in the United States, an experienced brother whom I had never met came to see me. He had a question regarding house churches. He had no problem with the local churches but asked how I could explain the church in the house of Aquila and Prisca (1 Cor. 16:19). I pointed out that when Aquila and Prisca were in Ephesus, the church in Ephesus gathered in their house (Acts 18:18-19, 26) and that when they were in Rome, the church in Rome gathered in their house (Rom. 16:3, 5). After my explanation he asked concerning my fellowship with Brother Austin-Sparks. I told him that even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I do not hold the same view concerning the ground, our fellowship had not ceased. Even though Paul was Peter’s junior, when he saw that Peter was wrong, he opposed him to his face (Gal. 2:11). Even though Brother Austin-Sparks and I disagree concerning the ground, we have always maintained fellowship.

　The ground of the church is very important. If we do not have the ground, why should we gather together? There are many Christian groups. What need is there to form more gatherings? There are many positive things in the Christian groups. We are not saying that we are spiritual by insisting on the ground. In many regards we cannot compare with other Christians. We gather outside the many Christian groups because of the ground. A person who wants to build a house must have a definite site on which to build. Likewise, besides having the right materials and pattern, there needs to be a definite ground in order to build the church. This is indicated in the Old Testament by the building site for the temple—the threshing floor of Ornan.

　May the Lord have mercy on us so that we would have a clear vision concerning the building. If we fail in this point, we will commit a serious error. It is not a matter of having good or bad intentions or of doing something purposely or accidentally but a matter of committing a serious error. The work among us has suffered loss because of this. Hence, we need a clear vision to know what our attitude toward Brother Austin-Sparks should be. We need to be clear concerning what we should receive and hold fast. We need to know the pattern for the building, know what materials can be used, and know the ground for the building. If we are not definite regarding the ground, things will be difficult. If some hold differing opinions and cannot accept the truth concerning the ground, then we need to fellowship. Please do not pass on rumors that trouble the saints. I can lead only those who are one. I cannot lead those who give an uncertain sound of the trumpet (1 Cor. 14:8). This matter concerns the co-workers. May the Lord have mercy on us so that each of us will be clear.

返回召会建造的蓝图与立场 ｜ 返回事奉类首页