* * * Philippians 3:3. I do not think the sense materially altered by qew'/ [Text. Rec.] or qeou'; because if it is pneuvmati it is qeou', and if laptevuonte" it is qew'/ whether the words be there or not. Only pneuvmati is more my state. I confess in spite of great authorities—Alford says Text. Rec. may have preserved it. Of new authorities a has qeou', but Porphyrian (a new good MS. published by Tischendorf) has qew'/. So has D (Claromontanus) and has been corrected. Vulgate and Italic have both, Deo. So Augustine, save where he makes use of it for special objects. So Tertullian. Ambrose has Dei; but he, too, has a special object and appeals to Greek copies. But Aug. and Amb. have it wrong at any rate, spiritui Dei, namely, “serving God’s spirit,” their object being the doctrine of the Spirit. This is the diplomatic evidence—the internal I judge to be for qew'/. I see that Delveth, a very clear head, takes it up just as I have done. If you can get hold of Sabatier, you will find the Latin part of the subject pretty fully there.
The middle bavptisai and ajpovlousai (Acts 22:16) has nothing particular. It was Paul’s act to Arise and be baptised; self is the “arise” in his doing it. The ajpov governs self as in such cases: he could not actively baptise himself, yet it is an exhortation to him to get it done. Lassen sie taufen, “have yourself baptised.” So in 1 Corinthians 10:2 (where, however, a A C D etc. have passive—not B and what I call P). It is the only accurate tense in either Paul is called on to act in the case, but to receive reflexively. It is the receptive force (so Meyer and Alford) of the middle; as, ‘I will hear,’ namely, I receive a sound in myself. Actively he could not bavptize seautovn; passive was wholly out of place, because he was directed to be active. Acts 10:47, 48, it is passive because the orders are given about them. 1 Corinthians 10 is more significant: the following word is active; they took the profession on themselves.
As to Hebrews 11:10—I take the “city” to be very general in contrast with tents (ver. 9)—a stranger in the land. But the only city is the heavenly Jerusalem—itself a figure. It is not “a city,” but “the city.” In verse 16 it is a city, where the promise is more defined. They look for patrivda. But it is a permanent abode God has prepared for them. I do not see it said of them that they are the city, but they will enjoy it.
I am very thankful you were refreshed. I find my own quiet here a great blessing, for my work (besides study work) is with souls.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
London, September 19th, 1870.
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—Save giving the room they, the assembly, have nothing to do with testimony, though it be altogether happier to do it in fellowship. I say it only when the question is raised. Gifts are in the church, and one teaches at Ephesus or Corinth or wherever he may be by God’s will. I feel it a totally different thing to speak when the saints are assembled as such, and when I stand alone speaking in my gift to people. I say this because the question has been raised here in England too. In one place, I believe, at this moment they are starving through this false notion. Whether an assembly asks any one to do it is a matter as to principle which depends on them. If they deny the individual exercise of the gift by an individual as such, they are denying the authority and title of the Holy Ghost who distributes as He wills, and Christ’s too, whom such are servants of in this gift. All this is a mischievous delusion of Satan. It is a denial of the true liberty and title of the Holy Ghost. If the assembly prefer open meetings and have only one day in a hired room, I have not a word to say; I should fall in with the general desire. But if they reject the individual exercise of gift it is utterly false and pernicious. There could not be if this were true, Christ could not call, an apostle; nor the apostle, if He did, act out of the assembly. The gross absurdity of it in the case of an evangelist is evident, and the exercise of all gifts is alike under the authority of Christ, and ordered in the word.
As to an individual having the care of getting some one to do it, that is a matter of the desire and love to souls of the assembly, who may wish there should be evangelising or teaching. If the room is theirs, and they do not like it, of course no one has a title to do it. If they wish it, it is a matter of service according to their wish. Outside this love and care for sinners or saints on the part of the assembly, a person’s coming, or seeking a person, is an individual matter. The assembly has no business to meddle save as in all things of common interest among the saints of God.
At present I am tied, getting the New Testament printed. When that is done, if in these countries, I may well see you all, and shall be glad to do so.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
London, September 27,1870.
* * * * *
Dear ——,—It is far better that —— should give up the position he is in. Let the brethren pay for their room … and use it as they like, beyond meeting in it. If they pay for the room they have a right to dispose of it: that has nothing to do with my ministry. Their getting some one to be active in getting a lecturer, is merely their confidence in the individual. If there was not liberty when the assembly meets as an assembly, that is another matter. —:— only proves by his tract that he knows nothing about what has passed at Plymouth. There was no such question there ever raised in any way. But as to the principles there I am decided. If Christ has thought proper to give me a gift, I am to trade with my talent as His servant, and the assembly has nothing to do with it: I am not their servant at all. If they wish me to teach them I will teach, but I do not go as into an assembly, but to teach those who are disposed to hear. I exercise my individual gift, the assembly has nothing to do with me. I refuse peremptorily to be its servant. If I do or say anything as an individual, calling for discipline, that is another matter; but in trading with my talent, I act neither in nor for an assembly, rejoiced to do it in fellowship with them. If ——’s doctrine was right, an evangelist could never exercise his gift at all, for he cannot really in an assembly as such. A teacher is just as much a servant of Christ as the evangelist, and bound to wait on his teaching. I believe it an effort of the enemy to deny ministry as service to the Lord.
In an assembly I may teach, but I do not go as a teacher: I may not open my mouth, or merely pray, I am merely one of the assembly. When I go to teach, I go individually to exercise my gift, and not into an assembly at all; and if this be denied, the authority of Christ and the liberty of the Spirit [are denied] to substitute for them the authority of the assembly. Difficulty was made here at one of the meetings, and I am going this day to lecture, the assembly having rejected the idea; and the brother who had the difficulty was silenced by their asking him did he not go and hold meetings in the country—which he did. Why should you object, they said, here? The Lordship of Christ is denied by those who hold these ideas; they want to make the assembly or themselves lords. If I am Christ’s servant, let me serve Him in the liberty of the Spirit. They want to make the servants of Christ the servants of the assembly, and deny individual service as responsible to Christ. I do not go into the assembly when I go to teach or to evangelise, nor am I aware that Lord of the assembly is a scriptural idea at all; if it be it can be shewn me, I do not recollect it; but my liberty in the Spirit and my responsibility to Christ I will not surrender to any one, or any assembly. But you have complicated it with the room. It is far better—— should give up the control of the room if the assembly fays for it. If the assembly as such wish for a teacher to lecture, —— has no right to hinder them; who is he to control the whole assembly in it? But let the assembly do it, if the assembly pay for the room.
There is full liberty. Paul takes Timothy; Apollos will not go where Paul wishes, and Barnabas gets Paul to come; and if they were teaching and preaching, why should not those gifted now? And if Paul and Barnabas were guided of the Spirit, why may not, in their measure, teachers be guided now? Who sent Titus to Crete, or left Timothy in Ephesus? They will say it was apostolic authority. Be it so; but do not let them pretend it is contrary to the liberty of the Spirit in those who serve. Paul went into the synagogue as his manner was; it was an arrangement. He separated the disciples, and discoursed daily in the school of one Tyrannus. This was arranged, and a lecture. Did this destroy the liberty of the Spirit? I am perfectly clear that all this is an attempt of the enemy to destroy the liberty of the Spirit, and the authority of Christ over His servants, and introduce another authority into the church of God. But do not mix this question up with a right over the room. If the assembly in fact pay for it, the room is in fact given up to them, let them dispose of it, and—retire. If he lends the room to them on the old ground let him do so, and pay for it, or rent it to them, and they have nothing to say to it at any other time. But do not mix up the money title to a room with the title of Christ to dispose of His servants as He pleases… Leave the room to the assembly who pay for it, and let the assembly have lectures or not as they wish in their room. I am free to act without consulting them in my service to Christ: they are not the masters of the Lord’s servants.
November, 1870.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Dear Brother,—You ask for a few words upon the apostasy. I do not hold to the word apostasy. It expresses the open renunciation of Christianity rather than the abandonment of its principles by those who have made a profession of it. But the thing, as to the reality of it, is of all-importance for heart and conscience. So long as the word was applied only to the votaries of Romanism, one would have had no difficulty about using it; but when it is understood that if this falling away of Christendom has come, the effect of it has been universal, one is shocked by the use of the word.
The open apostasy, then, has not yet come; but the giving up of the authority and efficacy of the word, and of faith in the presence of the Holy Ghost, the substituting the authority of the clergy for the immediate rights of the Lord over the conscience, the denial of justification by faith, and the putting the efficacy of the sacraments in the place of the work of the Holy Spirit—in a word, the full development of “the mystery of iniquity”—shews us an abandonment of the first condition of the church, and of the principles upon which it was founded, which is a moral apostasy. As John says, “You have heard that antichrist shall come: even now there are many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” Thus the apostasy, in the sense of a public giving up of Christianity, has not come; but the spirit of the apostasy manifests itself, not only in the development of the mystery of iniquity, but in the giving up of Christianity and of the authority of the word, and of Christ Himself, which characterises half the population of Western Europe—Rationalism, as it is called, and the spirit of rebellion which accompanies it. The thoughts of man have taken the place of the word of God; they will no longer have its authority: the will of man will no longer have the authority of Christ. If the antichrist is not there, antichrists have been there long since; if the apostasy is not there, the spirit of apostasy has long since taken hold upon the mind of men.
But I said it was a serious matter. If the assembly—for the word “church” is very misleading, since we ask ourselves what the church is—if the assembly of God has not kept its first estate, if it has said, “My Lord delayeth his coming,” and has begun to beat the servants, and to eat and drink and be drunken —and it has done this for a long time, for centuries—it will be cut in sunder and will have its portion with the hypocrites. It is said that Christ built His assembly upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. This I believe, thank God, with all my heart. But this has nothing to do with the question. That which Christ built, indeed, will not be overthrown by the enemy; surely not. It is a question of what man has built, in that case it is not so. “I,” says Paul, “as a wise master-builder, have laid the foundation … but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.” There it is the responsibility of man, which in some sort—in a certain sense altogether—enters into the question of the building. It is indeed the building of God, the apostle says, but it is built under the responsibility of man: a present thing upon the earth. It is not a question here of the salvation of individuals, but of the condition of the system in which those individuals are. When the end of Judaism under the first covenant came, pious souls—believers—were transferred to the church. God made an end of the dispensation for ever. At the close of the christian dispensation the faithful will be taken to heaven, and judgment will put an end to the system in which they were previously. Nothing is more simple. The old world perished; Noah and his family were saved. The judgment of a system does not touch God’s faithfulness, if it does not prove it by making apparent that He keeps His own even when all around them sink under the weight of His judgment. But what can be more solemn than the judgment of that which God established on the earth, that which had been dear to Him? If Jesus could weep over Jerusalem, how deeply ought His people to feel the thought of the coming judgment of that which had a value far more precious than even Jerusalem. It is thus that Jeremiah, the vessel of the lamentations of the Spirit of God under the old economy, in words of rare and toughing beauty, shews his deep grief in view of the ruin of that which belonged to God: “The Lord has violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he has destroyed his places of the assembly… The Lord has cast off his altar, he has abhorred his sanctuary.” (Lam. 2:6, 7.) This is the spirit in which the faithful one ought to think of the ruin of that which names the name of Christ.
But you will say: Yes, certainly; when it was a question of Judaism, that is plain; but it could not happen to Christianity. In the first place, that is just what the unbelieving Jews in the days of Jeremiah said: “The law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” —a false confidence this, which brought destruction upon the people and upon the holy city. But there is more than this; it is precisely against this very false confidence that Paul (Rom. 11) solemnly warns Christians from among the Gentiles, that is to say, as drawing a parallel between the Jews and Christendom. “Behold then the goodness and severity of God: upon them who have fallen, severity; upon thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” That is to say, the Christian system among the Gentiles is subject to the same judgment as the Jewish system. If the Gentiles, who stand only by faith, do not continue in the goodness of God, they will suffer a like fate with the Jews. Is Romanism the “continuing in the goodness of God”? Are “perilous times” the result of “continuing in the goodness of God;” or is the “form of godliness, denying the power of it” from which the Christian must “turn away” (2 Tim. 3)? If the apostle could say, “All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ”—is that “continuing in the goodness of God”? If the apostle foresaw that after his departure, evil would immediately intrude itself, the strong hand of the apostle being no longer there to keep the door shut against the adversary; if Jude was compelled to say that those who were the subjects of judgment had already crept into the church; if John had said they had left the Christians, had gone out from them—a step beyond that of which Jude speaks—that there were many antichrists, and that by this they might know that it was the last times; if Peter announces to us that “the time was come that judgment should begin at the house of God”—does all this lead us to believe that the Gentiles have continued in the goodness of God, or that the Christian system established among the Gentiles would be terminated by judgment, the terrible judgment of God; that as to outward profession it is a question of drinking of the cup of His unmingled wrath, or of being spued out of His mouth as nauseous because of its lukewarmness? This is what is so solemn for our consciences. Shall we, as a system, come under God’s judgment? The faithful will assuredly enjoy a far more excellent portion, a heavenly glory, but the christian system, as a system on the earth, will be cut off for ever.
With regard to the passages quoted from Mons. Bost, what he says is entirely false. The scriptures speak of the assembly as the habitation of God down here. The whole question lies here. In a house, the question is not of union but of dwelling. With regard to the body of Christ, it could not have dead members. We may deceive men, but in very truth he who is united to the Head is one Spirit. The body is formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12) Then, Christ builds a house which will not be complete till the last stone shall have been placed in it; it grows to be a holy temple in the Lord. But we have seen that down here the building being committed to men, it may be that the house is badly built, and will draw down the judgment of God upon what has been done. That the church has been placed as the pillar and ground of the truth, and that she is still responsible to keep that place, is quite another thing from saying that she has kept it.
Now the first Epistle to Timothy depicts for us the order of the house of God, and how man should behave himself in the house of God. Has he then behaved thus?—this is the question. If he has done so, whence then the papacy? The second Epistle to Timothy directs the conduct of the faithful when confusion has come in. Already christian things were no longer in the condition in which they had been formerly. At the beginning, “the Lord added to the assembly daily such as should be saved.” They were manifested, and were added in the sight of the world to a well-known body. Now when the apostle writes his second Epistle to Timothy, this was already changed. All he can say is, “the Lord knows them that are his:” they might indeed be hidden from man, as the seven thousand were from Elijah. But along with this, there is a rule for the faithful one, “Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” Then comes the thought of the great house. We must expect to find in a great house vessels to dishonour as well as vessels to honour, but again there is a rule for the faithful one. He must purify himself from the vessels to dishonour, and not only so, he must “follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the, Lord out of a pure heart.” In this state of disorder I cannot know, as at the beginning, all those who belong to God; but as to my own walk, I am to associate with those who have a pure heart. Further, in chapter 3, the apostle teaches us that in the last days perilous times shall come, when, under the form of godliness, its power shall be denied. This is not avowed apostasy, for there is a form of godliness; but it is real moral apostasy— the power of it is denied. M. Bost says, I ought to remain in it and be content with it; the apostle bids me “from such turn away”—whom shall I obey?
When he tells me that “it is impossible to distinguish those who are truly faithful from those who make an outward profession,” and the apostle says, Let him who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity, and tells me that I must purify myself from the vessels to dishonour and follow after christian graces with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart—how can I listen to one who tells me that it is not possible to distinguish? If he tells me that there may be many souls, known by the Lord, whom I do not recognise; I reply, undoubtedly: the Lord knows those that are His. But I have directions for my conduct in this state of things which contradict yours. I am to recognise and associate myself with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart; consequently to distinguish them. I am to purify myself from the vessels to dishonour; consequently to distinguish them. I am to turn away from those who have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it; I must then clearly recognise those who are such.
Further, it is a frightful principle to say that we cannot distinguish between the children of God and the people of the world—besides it is not true—? frightful principle, for it is said, “By this shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”: now, if I cannot discern them, I cannot love them, and the testimony which God would have is lost. In the next place, it is not true practically, for we enjoy brotherly fellowship, and every faithful Christian makes a difference between a child of God and one who is not. There are some that we do not discern and that God knows: this is not denied. But in this respect the passages which I have quoted from 2 Timothy guide us. What would become of family affection if a father were to say to his children, You cannot tell who are your brothers and who are not; you must associate with everybody, without any distinction whatever?
I do not look into dictionaries, as they tell us to do, but into the hearts and consciences of those who love the Lord, taking the word of God that I may see what was the state of the church at the beginning, and what it is now; and what that word says to inform us as to what the church would become in the last times. The word is as clear as can be as to the decline of the church, and the character of the last times, and as to the setting aside of the christian system. The word is clear enough as to the unity which should subsist as a testimony borne to the world, that it might believe. (John xvii.) If a letter were addressed by the apostle to the church of God which is at Turin, who would obtain the letter at the Post Office except those of the Roman system? The church, as it was at the beginning, no longer exists. Call it what you will, provided that the heart feels that you have at heart the glory of the Lord trodden under foot by men. If the present state of the church is not the great beast which is spoken of, the indifference of conscience which can say so, and cavil as to the use of the word, is the most obvious proof of that luke-warmness which in the end causes Christ to spue the church out of His mouth.
Besides, there is nothing in this failure of the assembly but what is in keeping with the history of man from the beginning. As soon as man was left to himself, he fell, and, unfaithful in his ways, has fallen from his first estate, to which he has never returned. God does not restore it, but He gives salvation by redemption and introduces man into an infinitely more glorious condition in the second Man Jesus Christ. When Noah was saved in the destruction of the whole world, the first thing that we read after his sacrifice is that he gets drunk. When the law was given, before Moses had come down from the mount, Israel had made the golden calf. The first day after the consecration of Aaron, his sons offered strange fire, and entrance into the holy of holies was forbidden to Aaron except on the day of atonement: he never wore his robes of glory and beauty there. David’s chief son, Solomon, a type of the Lord, fell into idolatry, and the kingdom immediately fell. God’s patience was gloriously displayed in all these cases, but the system which God had’ established was set aside as a system connected with Him—less obviously in the case of Noah, because a formal relationship did not exist in the same way. But the confusion of Babel put an end to the order of the world, and tyranny and wars came in. But with regard to man—Israel, the priesthood, the kingdom—whatever God’s patience may have been, man fell at once, and the system was never restored on the old footing. It is not surprising if this is found again in the history of the church, in as far as it is placed under the responsibility of man. It has said, “My Lord delayeth his coming,” and has begun to beat the menservants and the maidservants and to join itself to the world. It will be cut off.
The grand principle of Romanism, and of other systems which are more or less like it, and which makes them essentially false, is that they attribute to Christendom—the assembly organised by means of ordinances—the stability and the unfailing privileges which belong only to that which Christ has built, to that which is the work of the Holy Spirit. All kinds of false doctrines are the result of this error; one is born of God, a member of the body of Christ—then one perishes: one is pardoned—and lost. That is what the article in the Vedetta Cristiana comes to, what the passage quoted by M. Bost involves. He forgets one of the two principal characteristics of the church according to the word, precisely the one where the responsibility of man comes in; that is, of being the habitation of God on the earth. He shews us the title that Ephesians 1 gives us, and overlooks that of Ephesians 2; then he shews us the condition in which the church now is, not surely composed of true members of Christ, without accounting for it, and without giving any information about the matter that might enable us to know whether it is good or bad— whence it comes, where it will end, or how the word judges of this state of things. The expressions which he uses are equivalent to those of the unbelieving Jews in Jeremiah’s time —“We are delivered to do all these abominations.” No one can say that the state of the church of Christendom is at all, in any respect, such as we find it in the word. At the beginning there was no Romanism, no National Church, no Dissenters. There was the church of God, and nothing else; which, it will be said, became very quickly corrupted. Be it so. Has it taken place? But there was a church to corrupt, an assembly into which some men had slipped. Was this corruption a good thing, or does it not bring judgment? Has it not made frightful progress since? Has the church of God been re-established on earth? Ought I to mourn over it? Should I not search in the world to see what its end will be, and pay attention to this? We have quoted this word, let each one judge before God what it says. If we are in grievous times, has not the word given us principles by which we may trace the way in which we ought to walk? If any one has the conviction that we are in those sad times of which he reads in 2 Timothy 2, 3, and will be before God, who has given us those principles, in full confidence in Christ, the result as to his conviction will not be doubtful. May he know how to walk with God!
Let us remember that in every position in which the first Adam failed, man has been gloriously restored in the Second. But this is a subject, interesting as it is, upon which I cannot enter here.
Make any use you like of what I have written, dear brother. I have written hurriedly; from seven in the morning till twelve at night, always at work: meetings every day, then other work of ail kinds in correcting new editions of the English and French New Testaments, often at the same time. The brethren are going on well. I did not know who had sent me La Vedetta till I received your letter. It comes a little late, but that does not much matter. The subject is always important. But ever set forth the gospel rather than controversy. I have been writing on Romans; you may find something there which has not yet come out.
Your affectionate brother.
London, November 22nd, 1870.
* * * * *
[Dearest——,—Your letter was received at the moment of my departure from Pau, and I have been in movement ever since, latterly afoot, which with reading meetings the morning, and preachings the evening, pretty much precludes writing.
Death entered by sin [Rom. 5:12]; sin is taken abstractedly, the thing, sin, even personified, which is the highest figurative form of abstraction. The ejf* w|/ is a common Graecism for a condition, meaning for the existence of something, but which is not the cause, and for the principle on which it exists, though not the cause. Our breathing, or having air, is such a condition. So we are called ejn aJgiasmw'/.9 It is the condition of our existence, not precedent but condition, as that without which the calling would not be what it is. Sin by Adam introduced death, but the sin of each is the state of things in which death works, as we say in French, moyennant. Pavnte" h{marton is not merely sin in the nature; there is culpability of which the conscience can take notice.
As regards crovnwn aijwnivwn (Tit. 1:2), it is not to be doubted that associated with other words aijwnivo" has the sense sometimes of what is not properly eternal; it is the whole period designated by the subject: but as a word it means eternal. I might reply to a child who asked did I lend or give him something for ever, that it was for ever, though the tiling was perishable; this does not change the meaning of ‘for ever’; it is an unrecalled gift. I apprehend that proV crovnwn aijwnivwn refers to that eternal purpose which was in the secret of God’s mind, or to which He was engaged, unknown to the creature, before any revealed age, including the eternity in which we are in relationship with Him, was brought out into existence by God to whom there is no time. This is not foreign to, that is, does not exclude, embraces, your ‘eternity commencing with creation’; but gives another idea to the expression. The “in due times manifested his word by preaching” precludes, I apprehend, any application to a promise merely, before the execution in the age to come. Many promises have been given in time, to encourage God’s people in their course; but this was a counsel and promise before any of the ages in which His government is displayed on earth. It was a promise, and then a word manifested above and without the government of God, though that government might be applied to the details of its accomplishment, as has been the case. Hence, I judge, he speaks of its being specially committed to him; whereas the gospel as revealing Christ in connection with the promises made to the fathers was rather committed to Peter.
As regards taking up Morris’s doctrine, I am not fond of taking up certain heresies needlessly. It is not that I doubt that it is untrue, and miserably untrue, but there are certain metaphysical heresies which disappear before the fulness of Christ much more than before controversy; and often discussing them raises questions where they were not. I doubt much that the course pursued with Morris (it was at Ebrington Street after I left) was in any way guided by the Spirit. He is quite outside; and it would have to be met better, I judge, in individual cases…
I judge that the brethren have to begin their Nazariteship over again. I apprehend W.’s attack on Bethesda was a misapprehension of the whole state of the brethren, and of God’s dealings with them; but God has used it for His own purposes. The result of the Plymouth affair ought to have given to see that the brethren’s place was a quiet guarding of their own consistency with their own position, and a healing, very patient, restoration in their own gatherings, which a gracious hand introducing Christ might have done. Attacking that which had human force was like shooting with a crazy, broken weapon. It was not conscience of the state in which the brethren were; God could not accept it, though He might use it as a chastisement of their pride, as He has done; but it was to begin with it anew; and I believe on much better, stronger, and holier ground. But the result of what was done could not be any other, and God’s hand is plainly manifested in it; but this is what gives me confidence. It is His hand; His quickening power never fails where He acts. If the ark is taken, David and Solomon are raised up: if Jesus Himself is rejected, it is that He may be raised. We cannot lay our poor body in the dust in the weakness of death, but that we may be raised up glorious and new, and yet it is we are raised up. I believe the real testimony, as God gave it to me at the beginning, and of which I never felt rightly the value, the brethren had failed to maintain, and they were not in the capacity of testimony, whatever the immediate occasion of the judgment, and that the test of revival will be greatly the capacity of that testimony. Of this I have no doubt. It is not a question of new truth to me, but of the place this truth takes in the creed of the church.
We treated the seven churches (Rev. 2, 3) at Annonay with much interest, and, I believe, help from above. The Church of England has nothing to do with the matter, for it never had any pretension to be a church at all in any scriptural sense of the word; it is a great unformed mass arranged by men, with many children of God doubtless in it. It is important, specially in these days, to see things as they are. The seven churches do not treat the subject of discipline by them, because they speak of Christ’s judgment pronounced on them without any question of a subject (unsuited at such a time) of the means—amply treated elsewhere—or the means to be employed for avoiding the being subject to such a judgment. It is not the subject; and with the purpose of the Holy Ghost which I judge to be unfolded there, as do the mass of Christians —that is, to apply it to the history of the church professing in all ages—it would have been quite beside the object; but even for present instruction to the church it was not the matter treated. It is Christ’s judgment of the churches, not the means they were to employ, already well known, of dealing with evil when in their regular state as a church; if they were out of it, and incapable of remedy, the candlestick would be removed. The body of Christ is in no way the subject of the seven churches. It is not the subject of judgment and removal. No communication of grace is ever found in the seven churches; responsibility is what is treated, threatenings, promises, all that acts upon responsibility, but nothing of communicated grace. The Holy Ghost directs the church according to the mind of Christ: Christ judges that which bears His name.
I have written to ——, but merely in a few words, judging the monstrous inconsistency” and foolishness of his tract on the seven churches. I have only said that the whole matter rested on proving that Bethesda was such a church, which is assumed, and without which his argument was not worth a straw. Peace be with you; love to all the brethren.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.]
Lausanne, June 14th, 1850.
* * * * *
[From the Italian.
* * * You ask why I ‘believe that the seven churches give us the history of the whole church.’ I will not say I believe; I believe what God has said; my faith is in the word of God itself; what it says I believe. But we can have our understandings enlightened by the Holy Spirit in order to understand what has been written in this word, and set it before our brethren as a matter of knowledge, not of faith. I think, then, as many other Christians do, and, as far as I am concerned, I have no doubt that this series of churches applies as history to the moral successive state of the whole church; the first four to she history of the church from its first decline to its present condition in popery; and the last three, fronv Sardis to Laodicea, are the history of Protestantism. If you examine the structure of Revelation, you find it is divided into three parts. Read chapter 1:19: “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter,” literally, “after these.” Now “the things after these” (or “hereafter”) begin in chapter 4:“The things which thou hast seen” precede evidently “the things which are” since the prophet has seen them; so “the things which are” are in chapters 2 and 3 In chapter 4 the throne of judgment is placed in heaven, not the throne of grace to which we draw near with boldness; from this throne proceeded lightnings, etc., the signs of judgment. Now the judgments which proceed from this throne fall on the earth. The church is not seen still in the world, but in heaven, seated upon thrones around the throne of God. It comes with Christ and all the saints in chapter 19 These things are not the things which are, but those that come after these. “The things which are” refer therefore to the church looked on as placed under the responsibility of man, and judged by the Lord; and the Lord is seen, not as head of His body, not as a Priest to intercede for us, and to help our infirmities, but as a Judge: He is not serving, but He walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks to see what is the true condition of each, and to pronounce His sentence. However, the series is presented as a whole. It begins with the first decline of the church, and goes on to the Lord’s coming, and to the judgment of the church; whether it is judged, and the kingdom and the morning star are substituted for it, or spued out of the’ Lord’s mouth. That this series is looked on as a whole is confirmed by the force of the number seven in the word. It is a whole during the time of the apostle; and the things that take place when God intervenes to judge the world, begin in chapter6 after the throne is set in chapter iv., and the Lamb has taken the book in chapter 5 It is not, however, a whole at the same time, because the state of each church is different. Still, if we examine the church of Philadelphia, we find that a time of tribulation is spoken of which shall come upon all the world, and the Lord adds, “Behold, I come quickly”: this cannot apply to the church of Philadelphia alone. I have already drawn attention to the church of Thyatira, where those who are faithful are to maintain their fidelity until the Lord comes. If we believe—and, for myself, I do not doubt it—that chapters 6-19 relate the history of the judgments of God and of the Lamb after the throne of judgment has been set in chapters 4 and v., then it is certain the seven churches, “the things which are,” give the history of the church from the beginning till the end, until the Lord comes to take it away, and gather it round Himself, in order that the saints should come with the Lord to judge the world, and reign over it.
Now if we believe this, there are some points which may guide our intelligence, and confirm the justness .of this way of thinking. The series begins with the decline of the church. It is necessary to observe, that these pictures of the church are not the history of the operations of God. God does not judge His own work, but when it has had its share in bringing about the result, then God judges this result; and that is what we find here. The Lord is not a servant in grace; He is not the Head of His body, and the source of grace and strength for His own as normally; but He wears a garment down to His feet, and He walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks to examine their condition. But man is not faithful, and the Lord finds that the church has left its first love. Through the faithfulness of God, persecutions follow; then corruption, and false and corrupt teaching. Then we find, not one teacher who teaches error and deceives the disciples, but that the woman Jezebel not only seduces, but is the mother of the corrupt; in the external church the children of corruption are born. Not only this, we find this solemn word, “And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, but she repented not.” Then comes His judgment: there is still time for those who commit adultery with her, but for her children, nothing save judgment. The faithful are exhorted to maintain their fidelity until the coming of the Lord. Then the kingdom and the morning star are substituted for the external church. Thus the history of the church in its responsibility is related from the first decline until its end, brought about by the coming of the Lord, who judges corrupt Jezebel, and her children, and establishes the kingdom and the heavenly glory in their stead.
But in this case, what are the last three churches? I do not doubt that they represent Protestantism. The church of Sardis is not guilty of the horrible corruption of Jezebel, but she has a name to five, and yet she is dead; she is to be treated like the world—solemn judgment. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:4; Revelation 3:3. Philadelphia walks with little strength, but waits for the Lord’s coming, and keeps the word of His patience; and she shall be kept from the day of temptation which shall come upon all the world. Then Laodicea is to be spued out of the mouth of the Lord. Thus we have the history of the external church upon the earth, and the sad result in the hands of men of the grace of God, but to be so much the more a witness of the patience and of the faithfulness of God towards His own.
I send only a few general principles. The understanding of the truth on this point depends on the explanation of all the ways of God towards the church and towards the world.
I send, dearest brother, a few lines on the seven churches— not a finished explanation; but points that may be meditated on if the truth is sought: you can use it as you wish…
Your affectionate brother.
London, December 22nd, 1870.
* * * * *
To the same.]
[From the Italian.
1. The word “everlasting”10 signifies that this order was not provisional and temporary, but established by God for all time, until there should no longer be a priest: mlou (Olam) is thus used. If there were no longer a priest upon earth, the order would no longer have its application.
2. In the Old Testament the veil of the tabernacle was not yet rent, and God was not yet fully revealed. For this reason the standard was not so severe, so high; thus divorce was permitted if the wife did not please her husband: other things, likewise, were allowed which are not allowed in Christianity. But there is another difference. The opposition of the flesh to the Spirit was not known before the death of Christ as it has been known since. A man could say, ‘This is forbidden,’ and yet know that his heart desired it, but he could not say, ‘This comes from the flesh, and not from the Spirit; it is wrong, I cannot do it.’ Thus in this very case the Lord says, when He forbids swearing, “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh from the evil one,” or “of evil.” So it is swearing from the evil, the levity of the heart, not swearing before a magistrate who is ordained by the authority of God, which is forbidden. If I am in Christ, the life of Christ is the only and perfect rule of my life.
3. The whole truth of the gospel depends upon the distinction which is pointed out in these words. [John 1:17.] The law requires from man what man ought to be, in order to be righteous before God. The Lord Jesus Christ is and has done all that was needed to save a sinner. The law was not given, it did not come by Him. He owned all its authority; He fulfilled it morally in His life; as to its typical meaning, for example the sacrifices, the priestly office, and in many other points, it has been fulfilled in what He has done, or in what He is now doing, or even in what He will do in time to come. But the grace that saves and quickens, and the truth that gives light and makes all things seen as they are, came by Jesus Christ. The law can neither save nor quicken; it cannot take away sins; it can impute them and it brings a curse, but Christ has been made a curse for us, and grace flows freely according to the righteousness of God: we share in this righteousness; we are made the righteousness of God in Him. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” We are “set free from the law, being dead to that in which we were held.” The authority of the law is not weakened, but we have died in the death of Christ, and the law has dominion over a man as long as he is alive. But we are dead and the law cannot apply to a dead man: we have been crucified with Christ. The death of Christ confirms the law as nothing else does since it announces its curse, but we believers are set free from the law because we have died with Christ; we are dead to sin as to the law and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Grace and truth have in no way come by the law, but by Jesus Christ the Son of God. The law was not annulled by His coming, but fulfilled: we are not under law but under grace. We do not sin because we have died with Christ; we have died to sin, to the law, by the body of Christ, This is true liberty, being made free from sin that we may live unto God in the new life which we have received from Christ, strengthened by the power of the Holy Ghost, Christ being the only object of our life.
4. The absolutely perfect and living rule is the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him all written rules are united in one solitary living example; but the written rule which ought to govern our whole life is the New Testament. The Old Testament gives the most precious light, and illuminates the path of Christians by the light of divine faith working in hearts; still, before the rending of the veil, it could not be said, “The true light now shineth,” save in the life of Jesus Christ: He was the light of the world. For this reason when the Holy Ghost gives as examples of walking in the path of faith, the faithful of the Old Testament, He adds, “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of faith.” The faithful have, each for himself, gone over a little bit of the path of faith: Jesus is the beginner and completer of this path. But whatever be the light that shines in the Old Testament, it is a precious light, and it can, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus, make us ‘wise unto salvation. The precepts of the New Testament furnish a clear, perfect rule adapted to the Christian such as the Old could not do. Christ having suffered with a patience that was perfect, we have learned to walk in the same spirit; “If doing good and suffering, ye shall bear it, this is acceptable with God, for to this have ye been called.” “Let the same mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” He humbled Himself. We are called to walk worthy of the Lord so as to please Hire, in everything. We must know the Lord in order to walk thus —“worthy of God who hath called you to his kingdom and glory.” This absolutely clear and perfect light is found in the New Testament alone; but the Old, if we have learned to distinguish between the dispensation under which the saints lived in those times, furnishes very fine examples of faith, of obedience, of subjection to the will of God, of constancy in His paths. Happy is he who keeps by His side to learn how one ought to walk, and who understands the riches that are in Christ, the beauty of His ways, to enjoy communion with Him, pleasing Him every day more and more.
I send my manuscripts without corrections, and without reading it over; I have not time. You can make use of it as you like, and as will be most useful and profitable.
Yours affectionately in Christ.
London, December, 1870.
* * * * *
Dear——,—There is no difference between [breaking bread as] a Christian and fellowship, though some may not be always there; because the only fellowship or membership is of the body of Christ, and if a person breaks bread and is thus recognised as a member of the body of Christ, he is subject to all the discipline of the house. I may not enforce constant attendance with us only, because he may come with the desire to shew unity of spirit, and yet think that his ways are more orderly conscientiously. If his heart be pure (2 Tim. 2), I have no reason to exclude him; but if anything in his path require he should be excluded, he is liable to it like any one else. But I know no fellowship other than of membership of the body of Christ. Being met, the question is has he done anything which involves disciplinary exclusion.
Only I believe brethren alone walk in consistency with the fellowship of saints in the unity ,of the body; but I know no particular corporation as that body—not even brethren—nay, these least of all. This would deny themselves. Though they have this, that they meet on the principles of that unity, but for that reason, must own all its members, on the one hand, and maintain its discipline on the other.
Yours affectionately in the Lord.
1870.
* * * * *
[From the French.
* * * It is clear to me that a Christian, free to do as he will, could never be a soldier, unless he were at the very bottom of the scale, and ignorant of the christian position. It is another thing when one is forced to it. In such a case the question is this: is the conscience so strongly implicated on the negative side of the question, that one could not be a soldier without violating that which is the rule for conscience—the word of God? In that case we bear the consequences; we must be faithful.
What pains me is the manner in which the idea of one’s country has taken possession of the hearts of some brethren. I quite understand that the sentiment of patriotism may be strong in the heart of a man. I do not think that the heart is capable of affection towards the whole world. At bottom, human affection must have a centre, which is ‘I.’ I can say, ‘My country,’ and it is not that of a stranger. I say, ‘My children,’ ‘My friend,’ and it is not a purely selfish ‘I.’ One would sacrifice one’s life—everything (not oneself, or one’s honour) for one’s country, one’s friend. I cannot say, ‘My world’; there is no appropriation. We appropriate something to ourselves that it may not be ourselves. But God delivers us from the ‘I’; He makes of God, and of God in Christ, the centre of all; and the Christian, if consistent, declares plainly that he seeks a country—a better, that is to say, a heavenly country. His affections, his ties, his citizenship, are above. He withdraws into the shade in this world, as outside the vortex which surges there, to engulph and carry everything away. The Lord is a sanctuary.
That a Christian should hesitate whether he ought to obey or not, I understand: I respect his conscience; but that he should allow himself to be carried away by what is called patriotism—that is what is not of heaven. “My kingdom,” said Jesus, “is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” It is the spirit of the world under an honourable and attractive form, but wars come from “lusts that war in your members.”
As a man I would have fought obstinately for my country, and would never have given way, God knows; but as a Christian I believe and feel myself to be outside all; these things move me no more. The hand of God is in them; I recognise it; He has ordered all beforehand. I bow my head before that will. If England were to be invaded to-morrow, I should trust in Him. It would be a chastisement upon this people who have never seen war, but I would bend before His will.
Many Christians are labouring in the scene of the war; large sums of money have been sent to them. All this does not attract me. God be praised that so many poor creatures have been relieved; but I would rather see the brethren penetrating the lanes of the city., and seeking the poor where they are found every day. There is far more self-abnegation, more hidden service, in such work. We are not of this world, but we are the representatives of Christ in the midst of the world. May God graciously keep His own.
1870.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Beloved Brother,—I do not believe that restoration means the recovery of peace, unless it be peace in the consciousness of the favour of God, which is enjoyed anew in the soul—the re-establishment of liberty of heart with God. One meets with cases where a Christian has fallen, yet in nowise doubts his salvation, or the efficacy of the blood of Christ; but the heart has got to a distance from God, has not the sense of what sin is, such as the presence of God always gives.
Now to be truly restored, the Christian must recognise the point of departure where his soul gave up communion with God, and sought its own will. It was thus with Peter. The Lord does not reproach him with his fault, but says to him, “Lovest thou me more than these?” That was the point where his soul had turned aside from the right way, where self had shewn itself, confidence in himself. The Lord probes Peter’s heart, and makes known to him the undercurrent of pride and false confidence which was found there. Until that moment Peter was not restored, although on the way to be so. When a brother in fellowship has fallen, and has sincerely acknowledged his fault as an evil, even when he may have been reinstated, he is always in danger of falling again if he has not judged the root of it. It is there that he got to a distance from God. Communion with God is not thoroughly re-established, self and its will are not thoroughly broken, as long as the Christian has not found the point where his heart began to lose its spiritual sensibility; for the presence of God makes us feel that. I am not speaking of a matter of memory, but of the state of the soul… One meets with cases (where probably true deliverance had never been realised), like that of dear ——, where despair takes possession of one in failure. Then it is a question of finding peace through the blood of Jesus, or at least of power to raise the shield of faith, of confidence in God.
A soul is restored when it enjoys the favour of God, not simply as certainty of salvation, but when the Spirit, instead of accusing, causes it to rejoice in the goodness of God. Restoration is not complete until there is enjoyment of communion with our brethren. I remember having seen horror at having sinned against grace, and at the dishonour done to the name of Christ, as the first effect of the renewed power of the word in the heart: then came the sense that grace has triumphed over all—blessed be God!
London, December 31st, 1870.
* * * * *
Dearest——,—I return——’s letter. As to his statements, I know of no brother who holds that Christ had a life distinct from His communion with God, a life to which sin and death belonged: such a Christ would not be the true Christ at all. It is utterly false doctrine, and I know no one who holds it; and, unless abandoned, should think such a person ought to be excluded from communion. That sin attached to the life He had when on the cross, in the sense that He bore our sins, and was made sin for us, is a fundamental doctrine of scripture; but it was He who knew no sin who was made sin, taking it on Himself, or rather having it laid on Him by God, and, as so, bearing it, He laid down His life, or died; this also is fundamental. Further, that He took life again in a different condition afterwards is stated in scripture—“Being raised from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him.” It was not different as to sinlessness, sinless He always was; but He was “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death:” now, as Man, He is exalted above all principality and power, and cannot die. Before, He could, for He did, and took manhood to do it—for the suffering of death; took flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death—but He was always in relationship with His Father, and in perfect communion, save as drinking the cup on the cross, when He said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”—yet never more perfect than then. If brethren held what he states, I should not blame him for leaving them…
Christ making His own generation is dark enough: He was “made (genovmeno") of a woman,” but miraculously that there might be no sin; but “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” and carefully traced up to Adam in Luke. But when he talks of a generation of light since Seth, and in consideration of their being flesh and blood, Christ took it, he is again away from scripture; for the saved were “sometimes darkness,” and then “light in the Lord”: there is no generation of light but by grace. Here, though obscurely stated, I am afraid there is something radically unsound. In Colossians “the beginning” is connected with resurrection. That Christ had eternally both life and quickening power I do not doubt, and so when here, and that it was a holy thing that was born of the virgin Mary. That Christ had no connection with the sin of human nature, but was as really a man come in flesh as we are, is fundamental as to the truth. That —— has allowed his mind to act on scripture, and got away from divine teaching, is quite plain, and is in danger of denying the real humanity of the Lord; and as to this ‘generation of light’ and the like, his mind is dangerously at work, instead of being subject to God. But gracious communicating might restore him: he studies scripture, but trusts his own mind, and that will not do in the things of God.
It may have been anxiety for Christ’s personal glory but there is enough, to say the least, unclear, as to the Lord’s true humanity, to make one inquire fully what he does hold.
Affectionately yours.
* * * * *
To the same.]
He must learn to learn. The passage is very simple and quite right, that though both the wilderness and Canaan make part of the Christian’s life, they are very distinct parts; and that so it was in Christ. His joys above were distinct; He lived above in spirit and yet walked in the wilderness below: then, though one acts on the other, and in Him all was perfect, yet were they distinct. The Son of man was in heaven, and the Son of man walked on earth; one reproduced itself in the other, but they were distinct things. It is an evil thing to lean to one’s own understanding. We have to learn, and when sound in the faith to suppose others right till we find them wrong.
London, February 2nd, 1871.
* * * * *
Dear W.,—Dr. W. brought us up word of dear T.’s departure. When I heard she was ill I felt for you. But I think when there is no special cause for distress, I have a happy feeling at those one loves going home. It is a natural kind of feeling of liberation with the Lord, and then an end of conflict and watching; and I suppose as one draws on oneself it seems more home and natural to be there, and you will feel this; but then you are left alone, being accustomed to be surrounded by the kindness of those near and dear to you. Well, you must have to take my path now of lonely service, till He comes to call us; and it is not an unhappy one to be more absolutely with only Him. I know what it is. I mean I know what it is to be alone, but I know, weak as I am, His unfailingness and sufficiency. It is only such and such a thing on the road, and He always the same. I was very fond of T., had known her, as you know, since she was born, and thought, and so did others, she had grown these latter times. I feel it is a great blow for you, but our hope and strength is elsewhere. Mortality is dropped, but otherwise there is no change. Christ remains the same, and service till He comes. Sympathy you will have abundantly, and all will feel it deeply, but even that, right and blessed as it is among His saints, is not our strength. The Lord will be graciously with you.
Affectionately yours.
London, March, 1871.
* * * * *
Beloved Brother,—Rejoiced I was to get your letter— always glad to hear from you, and now doubly, that your letter can tell how the Lord has blessed you. May He still abundantly bless your work, I heartily pray. I do not think if we peacefully pursue our way that opposition is much to be dreaded: of course it is a hindrance to unestablished souls, but if we quietly continue our path without retorting, it by no means follows that the door is closed. That depends on the Lord. In one place the apostle remained long because it was open, and there were many adversaries. What I feel anxious about is the godliness of the brethren, and a sober, lowly spirit with desire of Christ. For this we must pray; and there is One that hears and can bless, and loves His church. We are not to be weary in well-doing; in due time we shall reap “if we faint not.” We lay up our rest and reward, if we may speak of such, to another time, and He keeps it. The principle of Matthew 20 is “whatever is right I will give you,” so he went and worked and trusted: trusting Christ is a great matter. I should have very little to shew for my work: I feel it sometimes; think I have not courage enough to face the world, and read, “Herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit, so shall ye be my disciples.” But I pretend to nothing, and if I have only His approval, oh how content I should be, yet feel how little I have to deserve it in any sense. But I am sure it is all right, and He will be glorified, and in that I am wholly content.
—— is working under the reaction of an excited though a true work. We must learn to help in such cases. He has to learn in it, as well as care for others: officers have particularly. The signs of an apostle were wrought in much patience, but he is a beloved, dear man. I have a question how far one can look for out and out Christianity in all—no doubt of what is right, but I fear a kind of despondency as to getting them all out and out with the Lord. A crowd are there never wholly devoted; the first impulse is not there. I am sure one ought not to be disheartened, but go on, and seek all one can, and look for unworldliness. I do not speak of anything pressing here, for in general, with small sorrows in which God’s good hand comes in for good, the brethren are getting on happily; there is cordiality and a good deal of, willing service, and they are apart from the world—a great deal to be thankful for. Still there is an energy of initiation of good which is seldom found in a large number… I learn there are now some 150 brethren in the navy, in general very fresh and full of life, and they watch over one another in all out stations. The exercise as to their position would come in later…
I do not know when I have enjoyed scripture as I have in lecturing on St. Matthew. The Lord has been graciously with me on Colossians and Philippians, and perhaps there was as much for others, but this was Christ Himself for my soul, shewing He must be rejected and His Messiahship replaced by death and resurrection, and the kingdom in mystery, and the church, and glory; but then there is Himself running all through it—Himself, Jehovah in grace, when there; abiding in grace when rejected; His place on earth, the pattern of ours through redemption; and the disciples, children of the great King, with Him, but Jehovah, and in a Man, and in grace, always the same; presented to be received, or rejected, He abides the same, and this is very sweet. It gives a resting-place for the soul, a known Person—may we not say a loved One, though we know “Herein is love, not that we loved him, but that he loved us”; “we love him, because he first loved us”; but that word “first” lets the other come in at least. But the joy is in looking at Himself, and seeing what He is, “the chief among ten thousand,… altogether lovely.” Oh! it is blessed and joy to rest on what He is; to be at home with Him, and adoringly so, but confidence, and confidence in the interest He takes always in His people. His heart can say, “Whose own the sheep are not”; and what confidence it gives for service, too! May the Lord keep us faithful! but I speak particularly of having the secret of His love, a ground of confidence in our intercourse with Him, and so go on a little while through the world.
We have had the small-pox raging in London. A few of the saints and their children have had it: one child died, but otherwise the Lord has graciously restored all that were ill as yet, which I count to be a very great mercy. But dear Miss —— has departed with scarlet fever, but it is a comfort in this sorrow that there seems little doubt that it was taken through service to poorer saints in a family where it was. It is a great blow to dear W., yet relieves him from a natural anxiety in leaving her alone behind. He will have abundant sympathy from all. It was very brief indeed, and she soon unconscious. It did not come out at once. I think most felt she had grown in grace these later times. As W. said, the Lord does all things well.
Peace be with you, dear brother, and patience, and endurance in service. You say nothing of your health: I trust it is better. Our brethren in France have suffered less than we might have feared, and down near Montbéliard abound in thanksgiving for the way they have been kept and blessed by the Lord. I hear the Prussians treated them with more respect than did others, finding what they were. The work is spreading in Germany, and in Switzerland there is some rousing up and blessing. May the Lord keep the dear saints in Canada near Himself, peaceful, sober, and full of love both towards one another and towards all, that they may meet His face with joy.
Ever, beloved——, affectionately yours.
London, March, 1871.
My dear Brother,—Though they have suffered they are full of thankfulness .for the way God has preserved them. Indeed, round Montbéliard, when the Prussians found the Bible among brethren on their tables, they said “Good people,” etc., and protected them. The Prussians were quartered there, ot course; and their cattle were taken as provisions. In Paris, too, though they suffered from bad food and cold, they were peaceful and their meetings happy. I am as yet tied to London by my New Translation, though I shall be at Cheltenham (d.v.) at Easter; but I fear shall have hardly finished and must return for a short time.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
London, March 14th, 1871.
* * * * *
Dear ——, — Though the natural construction is “are” (Rev. 20:10), as you might insert “were,” or “had been cast,” inasmuch as there is no verb, it would not be wise to insist on “are” by itself. It is not “were.” If it is not “are” which I think it is, it is “were cast,” carrying on the sense of ejblhvqh, but in either case basanisqhvsontai takes them all in.
You are quite right as to “destruction,” but some of the annihilationists here do not admit the Lord’s coming. If it be admitted, then 2 Thessalonians 1:9 shews clearly that their use of it is false. But you have only to substitute “annihilated” for the word translated “destroyed,” and the absurdity is evident. He came “to seek and to save those who were annihilated!” “O Israel, thou hast annihilated thyself, but I am thy help!” and the like. Secondly, I believe death and hades (Rev. 20:13) are personified, and that there is no more death or state of separate spirits—that is, in their separate subsisting condition of power. The power of death which Satan has is finally put an end to. But I have very little doubt that the contents of death and hell are included in them, in contrast with those in the book of life. But do not entangle yourself in volunteering explanations of difficult passages, when plain answers to error are there. The “second death” is explained in the word itself. It is the lake of fire: and in that torment is said to subsist, (not chapter 20:14) 21:8. It is—not causes—the second death; they have their part in it. If you ask me what I think of the second death, I believe it is the judicial separation of man from God, in the lake of fire, as death was the separation of soul and body. I had to meet one of these men lately, but I find that they quail before the word if it is known. It involves the immortality of the soul, and there can be no guilt or atonement for a mere beast’s soul.
The non-subsequent existence of death and hades is merely a consequence drawn from general truth. They merge in the lake of fire. In the language they are personified and nothing is said of their destruction or non-existence there. I add this because they may use it as a plea that it means ceasing to exist. It does not. We find those who are looked at as living beings tormented there. It is therefore not ceasing to exist. When I interpret the passage, their power is absorbed in the lake of fire, as the kingdom in eternal glory in which it ceases to exist; and from that and other sources I see that they cease to exist, but not by the lake of fire as they pretend the wicked do. They could not say death and hades were tormented. I have no doubt at all of the meaning. But it is no proof at all that anything ceases to exist by the lake of fire as a punishment. Such a sense would not be applied to death and hell: nor in any case does torment mean ceasing to exist, for it .ceases when the person tormented ceases to exist; that is, the second death is not ceasing to exist, for that is the lake of fire.
I fully hope to be in——, but I am delayed by my translation being only yet printed to end of 1 Corinthians. The Lord be graciously with you all.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
London, March 18th, 1871.
* * * * *
Dear ——,—My feeling is to let it work itself out. Some who spoke to me were really true in heart. And any others I have known will not, as to discipline, recognise the unity of the body. I should hold fast to this… If unity as to discipline be not owned, we are independent churches. When H. B. asked me what was to be done, I said, Bethesda judged or honestly separated from, that is, no one should go there and the meeting openly disowned unless they repented—guarantee for sound doctrine—and the unity of the body owned. But their anxiety is for outward adhesion, and such that the worldly camp can be more or less owned. I have no desire for that— all Christians individually surely owned who walk uprightly. A vast amount of the evangelisation has been by and in connection with brethren, and some of the most efficient are very strong upon the point.
There are those who act in this movement who are, I think, deliberately unfaithful—I mean by that, who deliberately take an unfaithful path for convenience, some who spoke to me in [Dublin] preferred an evil course. I think in the leaders there is the pretension of a successful revival movement; they will find their level. This has no attraction for me, but there are those who are simple and perplexed by the wickedness of the Bethesdaites.
I feel my part is to remain perfectly quiet and let the Lord work. My conviction is that the movers have not a good conscience, and seek to cover their position under the plea of unity and charity. I am far from pretending brethren have not failed in many things: I do not doubt they have; and therefore it becomes them to go softly, but I have no wish to get into the camp.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
London, March 18th, 1871.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Dear Brother,—Very little is known of the history of what is called the church—what is the church as to its responsibility —and of the conduct of the clergy and indeed of everybody. It is happy to have only the word to follow, and to know that it is the word of God. What an immense mercy to have His word, the revelation of His grace towards us, of Jesus the perfect One, of the counsels of pod, and what God has ordained for our glory. It is in His kindness towards us that, in the ages to come, He will shew forth the immense riches of His grace.
From the beginning, trusting the enemy rather than God, man was alienated from God, and the two questions: Where art thou? What hast thou done? shewed where man was as the consequence of it. Responsibility put fully to the test up to the rejection of Christ; then, God glorified in righteousness, His love, and the counsels of His grace from before the foundation of the world have been manifested—that puts the gospel in a very special place, and then shews the connection of responsibility and sovereign grace with great distinctness. Moreover, there is no longer any veil over the glory of God. Thence, His wrath is revealed from heaven; but also, the glory of God is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ, witness that all the sins of those who behold it exist no longer before God; then, all that God is morally is fully revealed and established. We know Him according to that glory, and our relationship with God, our standing before God, are founded upon it. We are transformed from glory to glory according to that image, for we can look upon it: it is the proof of our redemption, and the proof that our sins no longer subsist before God. We are also renewed in knowledge after the image of Him who created us; we are created according to God in righteousness and true holiness; for, according to that glory, He hath shined in our hearts in order to shew out this glory of Christ in the world. We are like a lantern: the light is within, but it is to shine without; but dull glass (the flesh if it interferes) will prevent the light from shining as it should. Thus, that which is given us becomes inward exercise: the treasure is in an earthen vessel, and it is necessary that this latter be only a vessel; that we should be dead, in order that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
It is not only a communication of what is in Christ, as knowledge; but if it is real, we drink of that which makes the river. It is a communication that exercises the soul, makes it grow, and judges the flesh in everything, in order that we may not mar the testimony which is thus committed to us. In Christ Himself, the life was the light of men, and the light that we receive must become life in us, the formation of Christ in us, and the flesh must be subjected to death. “Death worketh in us,” says Paul, “but life in you.”
This is the history of ministry, of true ministry. What we communicate is our own; it enlightens us, but it works in us morally; the glory of Christ is realised in us, and all that does not suit Him is judged: now flesh never suits Him. The death of Christ put an end to all that was Paul; thus the life of Christ acted from him in others, and nothing but that. That is saying a great deal. Thus, in this respect there may be progress. For as to my position before God, I reckon that I am dead; for in order to live, death works in me. There is the vessel, but it must be only a vessel, and the life of Christ acting in it and by it. If the vessel acts, it spoils all. In reality, we live; but we must always bear about death, in order that the glory of Christ, the image of God, may shine for others. But all the glory of God is revealed; there is no longer any veil over it on God’s side; if it be veiled, the veil is on the heart of man through unbelief—truth of all-importance! Under the law, man could not go in; God did not come out. Now He has come out, but humbling Himself, to bring grace. Then, the work of redemption accomplished, He has gone in, and there is no veil over the glory.
March 25th, 1871.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Dear Sister,—I have got the two books about which you spoke to me. They contain a mixture of old religious notions and new light obtained second-hand. I have no doubt at all as to Mrs. S.’s uprightness, nor of her desire to serve the Lord, and very likely her book may be useful to some souls. But it does not seem to me that the tone of the book is quite according to the Lord. It savours rather of the school to which she belongs: she hardly rises above the condition of her soul, and the circumstances in which she is. A. S., not the Lord Jesus, is the principal figure of the picture. Experience holds the place which redemption and the Redeemer ought to hold. Jesus becomes the servant of the soul, in place of the soul being at peace, serving the Lord. And so it ever is; I have never seen a soul living in its experiences and occupied with itself, with whom the “I” had not a place, without the person’s being aware of it, and even without his having a suspicion that it was so. The Lord Jesus, in His infinite grace, uses us, but it is a bad thing to be occupied with ourselves and not with Him. We do not become acquainted with ourselves by thinking about ourselves; for, while we think of Him, the “I” disappears; one is in the fight, where one is not when occupied with oneself.
You will think me cold and hard, but this book is just a study, and one does not write a book when one is occupied with one’s own history without self appearing far too much. I do not quite admit that all these things take place in a Christian, but when we are occupied with Jesus, the littleness of all that one is, and of all that one has done, remains in the shade and Jesus Himself stands out in relief.
I do not question the sincerity nor the christian truth of this book, but rather its christian reality. The harm which I see in it is the importance which it attaches to what one has done oneself—the making and publishing a book about oneself; though I do not deny that more than one detail may be useful to other Christians. Still, the system which induces them to work because others have worked, instead of confiding in the Lord, because He sends us, and His love and His Spirit constrain us, is, according to my experience, a bad system. One works with; a degree of lightness.
Your attached brother in Christ.
London, May 2nd, 1871.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—As long as a child is of the household, actually in relationship with its parents, the duty of obedience remains. If a man is married, he begins a new house, and is the head of it, leaves his father and mother. But as long as he or she is of the house, obedience is the duty, as the relationship remains. “In the Lord” is the limit and character of the obedience. If I had a Jewish or heathen parent who commanded me to deny Christ, I could not do it. It is not “in the Lord.” If the parent be merely unjust in ways, and no duty be compromised, I believe the part of children to be patience and casting themselves on the Lord. I can suppose a child engaged in a positive duty, which the parents in such case would have no right to cause the child to break through. “In the Lord” has nothing to do with the character of the parents, but the conduct of the child; otherwise it would absolve from all obedience the child of heathen or Jewish parents. The obedience is “in the Lord.”
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
June, 1871.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—Thank you for your letter. I do not at present see that it is God’s will I should be with you at your meeting at Ottawa, though I should greatly rejoice to see the beloved brethren again. My heart is in their blessing, and I pray God with all my heart to lead them on in what He gives, and keep them, and make them very humble, that they may be near Him. I feel deeply how only One can keep His church, even humanly speaking, for we all know (it is always true) it outreaches one’s hand. But what a comfort to be able to apply to Him for its blessing, whose ear is ever open, who can, in grace, reach all, and whose interest in perfect love is far deeper than any interest of ours, only that He graciously allows us to have a part in it. May we know how to use the privilege!
I have felt my translation work a good deal as absorbing me from direct interest in the positive work, not as to my heart, but as to occupation of heart with Him. But it is nearly done, for which I am very thankful. Nature, of course, shrinks from suffering: still when it comes, if we are with God, strength and joy are there. I have found in the little difficulties I have had, much more trial in expecting trial than when it was there. When there I was calm and quiet, and no way uneasy—whereas I was when expecting it. Out of it, if it threatens, you are thinking of it. In it, you are looking out of it to the Lord. Of course, there must be the power of the Holy Ghost. It is true I have a sadly fearful mind. But Paul (Philippians) was there in presence of the danger. He was in presence of his trial for his life, but he was surely wonderfully sustained. Still it was not a question of avoiding but going through, and then comparatively it is easy.
The difference of nature and the power of the Spirit you see in comparing Philippians 3 and Mark 10—in this, in the young man, you have legal righteousness—all given up as worthless in Philippians 3: money clung to in Mark 10—all gain to self, dross and dung in Phil. 3: the disciples amazed and following trembling in Mark—a privilege to have the fellowship of His sufferings in Philippians 3. But in Philippians you have the full power of the Spirit all through. Sin is never mentioned in the epistle, nor flesh as affecting the experience of the apostle. It is the experience of one living in the Spirit, in its power, and is exceedingly beautiful in this light, in every respect—does not know which to choose, death or life—one gain, the other labour for Christ; and so, self having gone, he decides his own trial, for it was good for them he should stay—Christ had all power, so he was going to stay: the same mind as Christ in going down to the death of the cross, and so, perfect and delicate consideration for others admirably coming out in unconscious fruit: energy in following Christ—before him as his object in glory—to win Christ, and then with the resurrection from among the dead: a humbled Christ formed the character; a glorified one gives the energy of “this one thing I do:” then superiority through experimental acquaintance, with Christ’s sufficiency, to all circumstances. It is the Epistle of proper christian experience. I do not think he was asking for trial, though we may desire generally to have fellowship in Christ’s sufferings: that one can earnestly do. “To you it is given not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his name’s sake.” But one does not desire suffering in itself. Only when there, they are a subject of all joy. Faith is given for them. He was in prison and just awaiting his trial. But he could say, in his ordinary life of service, “without were fightings, within were fears; nevertheless, God who comforteth those who are cast down,” etc.
As to suffering for Christ, I am sure if the Lord lead one into trial for His name, He will give us strength to glorify Him. We can do nothing. But if living with Him in the secret of our souls, we shall not find it hard to die for Him. See how bright Stephen was, how quiet, kneeling down to pray for them. He was full of the Holy Ghost. We have to pray that we may be so filled, that what comes forth may be Christ, and Christ fittingly for what is before us. I find this a great test in practice of how far I am practically identified in spirit with Him. From Him came forth not merely what was right, but just the right thing in what He had to do or say…
I look for a more conscience-consecration to Christ. Oh! how earnestly I desire this. Those who first came out were all devoted—came because they were, most of them giving up their place, perhaps everything in the world. Some have done so all along, and recently. But then many have come in converted, or because they saw it right, and remain pretty much where they were, and this affects the whole testimony. However, the world is utterly opposed as yet, which is a mercy, and I think that the Spirit of God is working. … I trust our meeting at Cheltenham was blessed. The Person of the Lord was much before us, and I trust His coming is getting practical power. I think the Lord’s presence was felt. I was glad it closed, for I feared that happiness turning into excitement, which had not been the case, and there was much liberty…
The Lord make us, dear brother, to find Christ everything, that whatever comes with Him we may joy in, so be with Him that we have the consciousness of common interests, though He be Master, but who have His secret with us, His counsels, His objects—stewards who have His interests at heart more than their own, and then go to see Him and be with Him. How sweet will that word sound, “Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord”—poor and worthless creatures that we are! Well, we must go with Him now, take up our cross and follow Him: “If any man serve me, let him follow me.” There is a great deal in that word. May He keep us near Himself. It is Himself that makes all clear and simple to the soul… The Lord be with you.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
1871
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I am most thankful that the Lord has come in to deal with the case you mentioned. It is very sweet to find His hand and grace over us thus when difficulties arise —that He is still near His people who wait upon Him, though what is impassable seems before them.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
Dublin, June 22nd, 1871.
* * * * *
* * * A broken vessel, but dependent on the Lord’s love, and in peace, you see that she has been a good deal smashed; but then broken vessels are often better than whole ones, to shew the sufficiency and grace of Christ—indeed always, unless inwardly broken, which is the real thing. So you must be content to be a broken vessel, too.
I think Christians ought to be more heavenly; but two things are needed: first, that one should be broken, otherwise God has to act downwards, so to speak, in breaking. Indeed, this goes on in detail to the end. But there is a discovery of self, experimental discovery, which makes a total difference; otherwise, though, like Peter, we have been taught of God blessed truths, the flesh is not judged to the measure of them; what answers to them here is not received; and we may earn the name of Satan—not savouring the things which be of God, but which be of men. But, secondly, we must be bearing about the dying, and Christ thus be the one spring of judgment, thought, and action. Then our state and mind is heavenly, for His life is so—“Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” That is, the Christ who is my life, is the object of that life, too, in the sense of His love; and this is the true christian state, Christ living in us. But it supposes occupation with Christ, or the Spirit is grieved. It is the old man put off, the new man put on, created after God, and the Holy Ghost dwelling in us. The body is dead because of sin, the Spirit life. This is the state, but it is realised as I have said, or rather the word says. Then heaven becomes—is, the natural home of that life. Our conversation is in heaven. Now a Christian can live thus, and ought, and the flesh not intrude; only he must be much occupied with Christ, for Christ’s own sake, otherwise, when there is no actual evil thought, his views, judgments, feelings, are natural ones, as to what he is passing through. They ought to be christian ones. Another thing is to be fully in the path of God’s will. We cannot have power out of it, and so the enemy can… Here grace may shew itself in the broken vessel, and there are very few of us that are not more or less in associations, the effect of the acting of our will, and so cast on grace. But then, that is not only sufficient, but much more abounds, and we Dad God is all, after all.
There are some remains—a ground swell—after the Rathmines storm; but I say, noisy rivers run all the same into the sea. It is not so much arranging, as bringing in Christ. Sweeping away snow is long work; if the sun is well up, it is gone. A night covers the earth a foot deep—what millions of men could not do, a day takes it all away if God’s warmth comes in.
Affectionately in the Lord.
Dublin, [June, 1871].
* * * * *
Dearest——,—My impression is, for I do not dogmatise on such points, that “the third part” (Rev. 8:7) is the Roman earth considered in its body in the West. In chapter 9 I apprehend there is the action of the Euphratean horsemen, so-called, against the powers of the Roman earth. In chapter 8 the judgments fall on the Roman earth. Chapter 12:4 confirms the idea of this use of “third,” because this is clearly, I suppose, the power of Satan in the Roman empire, and his tail draws down the third part of the stars and casts them to the earth; that is, a third part of the independent but smaller powers were reduced into subjection to Satan’s power displayed in this form.
Dublin, June, 1811.
* * * * *
Beloved Brother,—Most glad was I to get your news of Canada, and more of them if you had had them to give. I first turn, on answering, to your scripture questions. As to the verse you quote (Rom. 5:16), the “many offences” is clearly, I think, to heighten the picture. The general argument seems to me to be this in direct connection with the two heads. The whole object is to bring in a new standing and nature in contrast with the old. The former part of the epistle, to chapter 5:11, deals with sins and guilt: this with nature and the place we are in; not “what hast thou done?” but “where art thou?” In order to this he goes up to the heads in which the standing is involved. He will have a new nature in the power of the Spirit of God, and the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, not a law applied to the old. In chapter 5, consequently, he shews that sin, its reign and power proved by death, was there when no law was, between Adam and Moses, where no transgression like Adam’s was (Hos. 6:7), and then says, You are not going to make grace have a narrower sphere than sin, and then he enhances the argument by bringing the “many offences” (which are especially—not exclusively—under law) as a greater difficulty, so that grace had to be stronger and greater than the evil. Having laid the two headships of sin and its remedy as the real ground and truth of God’s dealings, he adds with a “moreover” (chap. 5:20), where it is the law came in as an occasional thing (pareish'lqen), “that the offence might abound, but where sin [not offence] abounded grace did much more abound [uJpereperivsseusen].” But in all, when he comes in with the pollw'/ ma'llon which is a moral à fortiori, not the excess in the thing, but that is in the many offences, and in the much more abounding.
As to Ephesians 4:11, 12. I do not think the ministry, etc., is the object of the perfecting of the saints, but this last is the primary object, the rest the secondary. The perfecting the individual saints is divine and final, the ministry and edifying the body here in time, though the result be perpetuated in glory; and in all the Epistle the individual, as formed for God, is set first; so in chapter 1, like Christ before God, and sons with Him, is the first thing; relationship with Him as Head, being the body, comes in at the end of the chapter; even quickening together with Him is individual, though raising up together and making sit together in Him involves union; and in what follows the verse you quote, you have individuals first (vers. 13-15), and then the body in verse 16. Verses 13-15 being the perfecting the saints, verse 11 gives distinct ministries, verse 16 edification of the body by what every part supplies.
…Here the work progresses rapidly, I trust on the whole soundly. There is a thirst for the word, and a general and I think serious attention to it. The week I left London there were three new meetings just sprung up in Northumberland. There are twenty-seven in Hampshire alone, I am told; I suppose on to 3,000 in London; but this all presses on one’s spirit as to their being cared for, specially the young gatherings —I trust casts one on the Lord, for it is a serious thing. In Scotland and Ireland also there is conversion and spread of the truth, and we are in general at peace, with much to be thankful for. “What I dread is the world and want of devotedness, though still thoroughly looked down upon and disliked. Things are breaking up fast, all feel—ours a kingdom which cannot be moved, that is a comfort; may it lead us to serve God reverently. There are two or three clergymen come out, others moved; but it is hard for them in England to get rid of the cloth.
I have been helped in ministering, and scripture opens continually; but I find it hard, if moving about, and out of my den, to keep always close to the Lord, so that nothing but Christ should come out. I feel a Christian ought so to live to Christ as the motive and spring of all within, that nothing but Christ should come out—be there to come out—though the flesh be ever the same. But if we are in Him, He is in us and the flesh is for faith dead, and we have to carry about the dying daily. The Lord raises up more labourers. Would I were as simple as some of them. My age now hinders the kind of work in which, in one sense, I would be, and the multiplied occupation with so many in many places somewhat turns aside from direct work: that I feel, but His will is all.
Kindest love to all; the Lord Himself be with you.
Ever affectionately yours.
The work is spreading a good deal in Germany, too.
Dublin, June, 1871.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * My meaning in saying the tie was broken was this, that God never allowed the Christian to break the tie; but when adultery was committed the one doing so had broken the tie, and the Lord allowed the other party to hold it to be broken and act on it by formal divorce—did not require it, but allowed it. The legalisation of it is submission to the powers that be, for common order, just as the divorce was in Jewish law. Things are so loose in many parts of the States as in Illinois, that Christians should be very particular. A person having left and being a long time away is not sufficient, as they may come back, and the tie had not been broken—only that, as to criminality, after some seven years, in England the courts would not hold a person guilty of bigamy.
On the other hand, according to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that the Christian, deliberately deserted by the unchristian partner, was in every way free, free that is to marry; but it assumes deliberate forsaking by the one who went away. The Christian was never to do it, and if obliged to leave, to remain unmarried or return. Romans 7:3 has nothing, I think, to do with it; the case supposed is of being (not “married”) to another man while the tie subsists; then she is guilty of adultery—not, if the husband be dead. Divorce is not in question, but acts of sin while the marriage subsists. This is evident. Mark 10 does not annul Matthew 19: a man putting away his wife is looked at as his act or will. If he puts away, he has broken a tie God formed, by his own will; then marrying another is adultery. By act of sin the tie was broken already, and judicial divorce allowed.
If all had passed before conversion, I should take it as I found it; but when a person has merely gone off now, when a person is a Christian, I should be very slow to accept a marriage as in the Lord. Have they sought them out, or proof of the unfaithfulness? If so, let them obtain a divorce, and then they are free to marry. But if not, I could not accept their doing their own will, any more than the unfaithful one doing his. The marriage is not in the Lord, and it says even of widows— “only in the Lord.” Matthew 5 is to me equally clear with chapter 19, but I think the person should obtain a divorce, otherwise they remain legally married, and the new connection is concubinage. In any case forgiveness is allowed.
I was aware of the state of——, but it had got a good deal better: in one family I knew there was still a .feeling of rancour. It was partly baptism working on partially healed griefs. One has to work on in grace seeing the evil to be overcome, even if the more we love the less we are loved. We work for Christ, and His love was perfect. I am afraid I take it sometimes too much for granted that we are so to work on, for Paul cultivated the affections of the saints much. Here, thank God, with such trials as are incident to working where the world and temptation and flesh are, there is blessing and progress. Though we are far short of what we might be, and I look for more, still we have much to be thankful for. Here in the west, where I was somewhat downhearted, I find things much better than I thought.
As to my translation, it is all printed these two or three months, but a new edition of the French was transferring the notes and emendations, and in doing it they collected errata, and we waited till they had gone through it to publish it, but I have the last sheet of French in hand, so that it will be soon out now. But I have no satisfaction in critical labours. —— wanted to publish an edition of what my translation has adopted as the reading to be accepted, but I declined. I feel no sufficient competency, though I have done the best I could, and am satisfied they have no adequate history of the text. I shall be glad, if the Lord permit, to see you all; but, at past seventy, such of course is on every ground uncertain. Kindest love to all.
Ever affectionately yours.
[July, 1871.]
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—A judgment of an assembly, even if 1 thought it a mistake, I should in the first instance accept and act upon. My experience has been that the path of God is to respect the judgment of an assembly of God, while free to remonstrate and beg them to renew their judgment. My writing to you now is entirely individual and in your own interest. I do not judge the case one way or another. But when I first heard of your act of excommunication, I told ——, being informed of the circumstances, that it would be impossible to recognise it as an act of the assembly. What I have heard since has amply confirmed this. What you say of females is all true as to teaching, but they form part of the assembly as much as brothers. The weight of an assembly’s act is not from the individual voice or judgment of its members, but from the Lord’s being in the midst of them when gathered together. What I would press upon you is that there has never been any act of the assembly at all. Grave and godly brethren may give counsel in and help the assembly to a right judgment, but the assembly must act as such if a person is excluded. This has never been the case. I do not judge of the advisableness or Tightness of the act. With that I do not meddle. I only say as your brother, for your own sake, that I do not see how it is possible for any sober person to recognise your act as the act of the assembly at all.
May the gracious Lord give you peace in every way. Personally unacquainted with you, I can only have sincerely brotherly affection towards you all, and desire, for the Lord’s glory and your comfort, that you may all be blessed and guided aright. Your affectionate brother in Christ.
August, 1871.
* * * * *
Dear Brethren,—It is quite right that brethren who care for the meeting, who have, as Paul says, “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,” should consult together, and much to be desired, and when there is confidence their counsel may guide the assembly most profitably. As I said to a Swiss gathering, engineers must plan a road, but all the carters in the country know it is good when made; so men taught in the word may point out a path which the mass of brethren would not have discovered, but which they see to be scriptural when suggested. But when excommunication is in question, then the rule is, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Now you are aware that a great number of the gathering protested against this excommunication after it was declared, which, with other facts to which I have already alluded, clearly shewed that it was not the act of the assembly.
Though I dislike meddling in such cases, as the servant of my brethren I would gladly help you all, but I am just now going abroad to a general meeting of brethren. But I trust much more to the grace of God than settling things.
Do not be discouraged. God, I believe, is working to bring about everything if you have patience, and the most humble will be the best off. If you take my advice you will withdraw the excommunication, as it cannot be scripturally maintained. Do not be afraid of the consequences. If we do right, God will take care of them
Your affectionate brother.
August, 1871.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I will, the Lord helping, keep Leeds on my heart. Our comfort is that the blessed Lord has His people on His heart, and we can trust Him. I have been anxious to be about England a little, and only await opportunity. May He bless and keep you.
Our meeting here I trust has been useful. It has been a bonâ fide study of scripture: 1 and 2 Corinthians, John, Genesis, and the sacrifices, etc., in Leviticus—no lectures, but (save meals) from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. working—some unpractised heads a little, but, I believe, blessed to several, I hope all, and certainly enjoyed by them. It was a sign of the times, we had eleven ex-officers active in the work.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
Belfast, August 5th, 1871.
* * * * *
9 [ouj gaVr ejkavlesen hVma'" oJ qeoV" ejpiV ajkaqarsia/, ajll* ejn aJgiasmw'/. 1 Thess. 4:7.]
10 [See Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13.]