My dear Brother,—I was very glad to get your letter, and get news of the dear brethren around you. I trust, too, from them that the Lord is carrying on His work. With us numbers have largely increased, and there have been a good many conversions: but the increase of numbers has tended to lower the barrier against the world, and the very lapse of time, for it always tends to come in imperceptibly; it weakens, too, the competency to deal with evil when it arises. I have long felt that Satan was making a dead set at brethren in this respect, but was anxious not to go before the Lord, but wait on Him, and did. It brought on a crisis in London, but God came in most graciously; not that they are wholly out of it yet. But God has stepped in, and He will, if the brethren are humble, complete His work, and I do not doubt it will be very useful. Out of London, it has been an occasion of sorrow, but has not so much affected them directly. He is ever faithful.
I am engaged in translating the Old Testament into French: we are towards the end, but it will nave to be revised. It has been a laborious work, and it is not the way of reading scripture that nourishes; still it instructs, and makes one’s knowledge of it accurate in detail. It is for others substantially I do it, as is evident. But scripture, and the infinite preciousness of Christ, opens to me more and more: His preciousness is infinite, and yet how near; that comfort in passing through the wilderness! “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” We oust seek to realise these things: how little we believe they are real facts.
Have you weighed how Romans is man on earth, as we all are, but full grace towards him, chapter 5:1-11; then reckoning himself dead (not risen), but Christ his life and he in Him, and Christ in him; experimental, chapter 5:12 to end of chapter 8 Colossians—dead and risen, but on the earth; his hope in heaven and his affections aright; but the presence of the Holy Ghost not the subject. Ephesians on quite other ground (alluded to partially once in Col. and 2 Cor. 5)—not dead to sin, but dead in sins, and sovereign grace putting us into Christ where He is, so that we are sitting there; our new place and relationships. Colossians is fitness for the place. Ephesians the presence of the Holy Ghost fully recognised and spoken of; not experience, but contrast of the two conditions. This is only for you to search into. Its connection with figures from Egypt to Canaan would be more than I could go into here. Love to all the brethren: may they be kept from the spirit of the world.
Ever affectionately yours in the Lord!
Pau, 1879.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—You will have received much later news than I can send you how beloved Mr. Wigram is gone home, and since then the trouble they have had in London. But God makes this, as all else, work together for good to those who love Him. With the details I have had little or nothing to do, being absent in France; with the root and ground of it everything… The result is in God’s hands, so that I go no further. I have long felt the state of things; and that the’ Lord will sift the brethren, or is doing so, cannot be doubted. What struck me was, not the evil, I see as much in the apostles’ days, but powerlessness to meet the evil. I was most thankful to get the news of brethren in Australia, New Zealand, etc. God, I think, is working here in spite of all. There are conversions, and He is binding saints together where there was division and evil… On the whole in England there is much to thank God for. We are not out of the place of patient waiting on the Lord, but the mass of evil which seemed insurmountable is wasting to its own real dimensions, and people s consciences, I trust, are awakening to God’s presence, and realities; and when we are in God’s presence all goes right. I have the Lord greatly with me in it all, though deeply tried. When people were tried with circumstances, I was comparatively at peace, had gone through it with the Lord.
I think I see that Christ is presented in glory as one who leads us on in energy, conforming us to what He is according to the glory; and that when the question is of nourishing the inward life, and the affections and character, it is the humbled Christ on whom we have to feed. This is partly the case in Philippians 2 and iii.: the former the inward state and character, Christ coming down; the latter, a glorified Christ, the Object after which we run. But it is taught in many passages. I have been struck also latterly, in connection with a controversy on certain teaching whose soundness was in question, that while Romans gives us death to sin, the old man or flesh, and Colossians death and resurrection, just touching Ephesian ground, this last has nothing to do with dying to the old man. The object of grace is owned as dead in sins, and then a wholly new creation in Christ; so that we have the contrast of the two things, what by the Holy Ghost we are put into, and what we were in the flesh. Colossians is life, not the Holy Ghost; estate, not place. But I must close. We have nearly done the bulk of our work.
Paw, 1879.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—Thank you much for your kind note. I suffered more than is any good for me to talk about, more or less for these two years or more, but said nothing and did nothing, but bore, till I gave up everything to God; since then I have been as peaceful as possible, and free to enjoy the unspeakable goodness of God. The state of things forced me to act in this matter alone; and when —— gave expression by an overt act to what was going on, and I knew to be going on, for a long while, and he sent me word, I had a full correspondence with him, friendly, but telling him what I saw to be the working of his act; and it was not till all remonstrance and reasoning was useless that I ceased the correspondence, and told him so. Those who backed him up in evil are responsible for a great deal. I then felt I must act individually which I did, and only stated what I had sure and certain ground for, but that definitely and plainly. I have no particular pleasure in the word ‘profane,’ but my business was to make plain what his act was. He pretended to have a kind of private inspiration as to it, and long insisted on being led of the Holy Ghost. Now the thing was wrong, done secretly, knowing that all brethren would be against it: none defend it now. He had been thinking of it before, I know, though I paid no attention to it at the time. So little was there any leading of the Holy Ghost, that in three weeks he had broken with the person he was led to, and they were in utter opposition. The bringing in the Holy Ghost for what was wrong in itself, and done in this way, and really to put down the meeting which was and is there, I felt and feel was a profane thing. The mischief which was at work seemed to blind to all the plainest features of what was right and wrong, honourable and dishonourable. This was what made it urgent to be plain. Having given my personal testimony I have never meddled in the discipline part, and indeed, being out here, could not in the practical part, and I had no advice to give. I cast it on the Lord, .and He has wrought. Consciences are gradually awakening. I do not think that we have got into clear water, but there is much more sense of where we are and were. I am not much in correspondence with England as to what goes on there; till about a fortnight ago, I may say not at all. But as I believe God is working, I am quite at peace.
I have never had for a moment an unkindly feeling toward ——. I do not think he is the most completely leader in the evil, but it was he who did the overt act; but I do not think I am out of charity with any. I have, up to this, kept the greatest part of what pressed upon me to myself. What I dwelt with was a public act done in defiance of brethren: and the state of things was such that it must have led ere long, not to my giving up what are called brethren’s principles, for I believe they are God’s testimony and in His word, but those who were pretending to carry them out—how I cannot tell. With —— I was cordially united, and there was very true union there, but of course I could not make them a meeting independent of others, and go in there and nowhere else. Stay in the evil and see the work corrupted I could not, when it came before the conscience of others—and the very effect of what had been going on was to deaden the conscience. That, I trust, God is awakening up, and if brethren are patient that will bring out clear blessing. I trust God will give me patience still to leave it all to Him, for in seeking to do good we would seek sometimes to hurry His working: but I believe in His mercy He is at work. If brethren are humble and seek His face they will find a blessing. Mere violence against myself I take to be a matter of course; and, save for those who feel it, whom I trust I should be given to meet in the wisdom of grace, it does not in the least degree move me. It is good to be alone with God, and walk in grace with others.
I am glad T. is gone to Canada: it makes links where I can no longer be one, though 1 should like greatly to see them all again.
Pau, June.
* * * * *
* * * Take care, too, that irritation does not come in; the wrath of man never works the righteousness of God. The saints ought to be able to win back to peace many souls, and the way of peace is that which will do it. But let their vexation subside; you will have given up no principle: one’s own soul suffers by being constantly occupied with evil. It is not the place of communion. —— saying he gave up brethrenism has put the thing in its true light; and if left to reflect on it, many will find where they had got to; if carried on as if seeking to carry one’s point, they will not. You should not mind such as——. There is a kind of violence which grace is entirely above. It ought to be above all. God’s ways are His own and wonderful… I have constantly found that bringing things to God, if real, is the way of having them done. Our hearts are very treacherous, and we are in danger of rejoicing in iniquity, if the evil of another proves our point. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and pray for poor —— much. He is one dear, as redeemed in the blood, the precious blood of Christ. Many would think this inconsistent with my letter, but it is not. It was occasioned by a public act which threw the whole testimony of God into confusion. Be assured that God knows how to manage His own affairs: He has shewn it. Give people time to weigh and think.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
1879.
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—Though I went through sore trial some time back about affairs in London, I am now a good while in perfect peace. It is good to be exercised, and I was thrown wholly on the Lord. God, I believe, is working, and has owned the testimony. I do not think we are at the end, but if He has begun to work, He will, if we wait on Him, carry it through; but it will be in His own time and in His own way, and patience must have its perfect work. But it seems to me there is quite a different spirit at work. I hear very little from England. My place of refuge and of news is with the Lord, and it is a blessed place.
I am inquiring at present what is the meaning of the cleansing on the great day of atonement being wholly what was within, what was heavenly, but have not yet seized it… We are awaiting a letter from —— to know if the hay will allow us to come to the mountain. All is so late that I suppose it will be later than usual. I have yet to see how far my old frame will carry me in mountain work. I am as fresh, through mercy, as ever for home and local work, but drawing close to eighty, of course, takes physical strength more or less away.
Pau, June.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—I was very glad to hear from you, and thank you for giving me the information, too, as to the brethren. My heart clings to them all as ever, though far away; and now far on in my seventy-ninth year, I cannot, humanly speaking, look to travelling to see them as I once did: though my mind is, through mercy, free as ever, my body naturally is not— nearer home in one sense, nearer Christ I hope in every sense. I rejoice in the blessing, both at Sugar Creek and St. Louis, not only for their sakes as I do, but in the Lord shewing Himself in grace. Both places have gone through a sifting, as is common after a first start, and now spring up again under His gracious hand. May it continue and be kept in humility, the sure and only way of enjoying blessing. He always blesses, but we only enjoy it then. On His faithful love we can always reckon—oh how surely! The Lord is working everywhere, but will have what is holy and true amongst His own. Everything seems to shew we are closing in to the end; at any rate, our part is to be ever waiting for Him, who has loved us and will make us like Himself. It is God’s own rest we are called to enter into: what likeness to His thoughts and delights we must have to do so, and how blessed that is! but this is our portion.
Assure dear—— of my unfeigned sympathy. He had been working for the Lord a good deal at one time, nor am I surprised that this blow should have brought back his heart into that channel, but, with all his little children, he is much to be sympathised with…
May God in grace give us all increased devotedness. Soon only what has been Christ in our path will remain. I have been these six months here occupied with the translation of the Old Testament into French, now nearly accomplished. Give my kindest love to all the brethren. May He keep us all close to Himself, where safety, joy, and holiness are found—Christ all and in all. I shall always be glad to hear of the brethren and of you, too, dear brother. Again my unfeigned sympathy with —— in this world of death…
Pau.
* * * * *
My beloved Brother,—I had been thinking of you constantly, but was occupied from six in the morning to eleven at night in the south of France, and a good deal absorbed with my work, now finished in the rough—that is, it has only to be revised. I was comforted, dear brother, on the other hand, by the grace of God given unto you, and your soul’s getting on in quiet resting in Him. I feel daily more that heaven is our place; all our living associations are there, and Christ is all there; the rest is to go through, through grace drawn from Him: “of his fulness have all we received, and grace upon grace.”
I do not read the periodicals—have not even time for it; but I have the feeling that they have a good deal lost their power, and I think the Lord has in a measure blown upon them. A means of food for many who can hardly buy books is useful, but these are too pretentious, and then they have as periodicals run into a worldly form. Dr. Johnson said his “Rambler” was like the stage coach—had to start, full or empty. But there is more; the tone of brethrenism tends to lower with increasing numbers, and the Lord has been exercising them in England, and graciously, though humblingly, for their good. They have the truth, but I had feared for some time that they were taking the place of having it as credit to themselves. But the Lord is graciously working with them.
And now, dear brother, about your plans … it is a question of spiritual judgment and divine guidance. I am sure God ever faithful will guide you. Christ is all, and He will guide and keep you. We shall sorrow at no sacrifice when we meet Him. I find the sure faithfulness of the Lord in working and answering us, though He may exercise our faith.
Liskeard, July 25th.
* * * * *
* * * I cannot doubt that the Lord is working. Had I not had this confidence, I should have left the brethren nearly a year ago, but I felt it would be unfaithful: not as doubting that they had the truth, but as unfaithful to it. I felt it would be hireling work, but God is working and bringing light into the souls of many, and with a little patience He will bring about His will, I mean His blessing. But there is no doubt it was a deliberate plan for breaking up the brethren here. That, at present, is broken down, but in general, consciences are beginning to find that they had got away from the Lord—of course, not every one—and the assemblies trusted a few, and failed in humble reference to God. They had got into a bad state, and this had been brought home to them, but for their good… But I have no doubt, painful as it all is, that God is turning it to blessing: the humbling will be useful, and seeing God is working. I trust there may be patience till He has fully brought about a blessing.
Occupy yourselves with Christ that you may be refreshed and strengthened. It is a great thing to pass through sorrows with Him; they are then turned to a well, and grace comes down too. Pray for the saints—all of them—carry the sorrows to Christ, and in your own spirit bring Christ to the sorrows. The brethren had got puffed up, and were sinking from fidelity towards God, and He has visited them in mercy. In waiting on Him, He will exalt the faithful in due time, and rejoice in the Lord always.
London, July 26th, 1879.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Very dear Brother,—Our passage down here is a time of wars and conflicts, and it could not be otherwise. Now, if the enemy finds us uncovered, if the flesh is active, he can ever harass us. More than this, we must have the whole armour of God to be able to meet him. It is not a question of strength but of wiles, and God allows us to make the discovery of our state by this means, as in the case of Ai, and of the Gibeonites. But in the work there will always be conflict—victory, no doubt, if we are faithful. To stand, that is our business, in the evil days.
I am sure, dear brother, that as to these evil speeches there is only one thing to be done—to be silent, and bear them, and cast all on God, praying even for those who speak thus. I have been struck with the place that patience has in the christian life, in the New Testament: “Strengthened with all might according to the power of his glory”—what great work is to follow?—“unto all patience and longsuffering with joyful-ness:” “Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and complete in all the will of God.” Because then the will of man himself, his own spirit, has no place in our walk. Often, even in seeking to do good, we do not sufficiently expect God to act, who alone is able to do good. I hope the brethren who have been evil spoken of will have perfect patience, and God will judge their cause. Let them place themselves at the same time before God, humbled on account of all this evil, praying God to bring in the remedy Himself. He will compel you, it may be, to exercise patience; He will exercise it Himself; and in His time (and it is the best) He will appear for the blessing and to the joy of those who have waited for Him. Salute the brethren.
1879.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,— … A word on the Park Street circular: I did not like it being sent round the country, but I dare say it may do good. … I was not at the meeting, nor did I go to any of them, the rather as I was in France. The paper, however, was a notification of the conclusion they had arrived at, nor were they the first… . The various gatherings had to act, because the remains at Kennington (a large number had gone out) positively refused to act, so that each gathering that felt the evil had to clear itself. This was an abnormal state of things, but was merely provisional, and could not be helped. The effect of this action was that what remained at K. put —— out; but a very large number of brethren there had gone out already, and this had to be regulated. The assembly in London being silent is not exactly the point. All are agreed that——is out, but formal exclusion has been declared—as to themselves, has been pronounced—by a great many to clear themselves, and in the country a vast mass of gatherings are clear, and clearer than London. What course the Lord will make it take, I know not at present. We wait to learn what K. has done. But there is a work going on in the conscience of those who hitherto have supported ——. But such a demoralising of conscience and insensibility to right and wrong I never saw. It was high time to do something. And the Lord has worked, and is working, and He alone can do it. Some would often go too fast, and others too slow. If brethren had not been demoralised, there would have been deep sorrow of heart for poor——, but five minutes would have settled the case, when a few facts were known, and did with upright minds.
I am off to France, but shall return as soon as I can.
London, August 26th.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—Propitiation is properly for sins, as Hebrews 2, and 1 John 2; and Romans 3:25, 26 is to the same effect: only, Christ having taken the condemnation for sin, persons who do not search out words exactly may speak of the effect as for sin. Sin, as calling for it, was not properly known in the Old Testament. Leviticus 1 does not, as far as I see, apply to this, except in a very general way. It was as a periV aJmartiva" that God “condemned sin in the flesh” in Christ for us, so that there was no condemnation for us. In Leviticus 1, though blood was shed and atonement made, all is sweet savour. Man’s state is no doubt assumed, that is, sin; but the condemnation side is not what is in view, but acceptance. In the periV aJmartiva" sin is properly in view: in propitiation sins are in view. Substitution is a human word, though a right one; but properly it is sins; that i3, the scapegoat in contrast with the Lord’s lot. Sin, as such, is never forgiven: God condemned sin in the flesh, but Christ took this place, was given periV aJmartiva", and knowing no sin, the condemnation of sin in the flesh took place, and that in death, and we are dead with Him for faith: it has ceased to exist— the condemnation of it gone. Death in Christ involves both. Guilt is from sins. We are dead to sin with Christ, but He has died for our sins. This last is what is properly atonement, and meets judgment. Death to sin is a question of state, not of guilt, though of exclusion from God. A question of defilement, not guilt, refers (and rightly) to what was done in the sanctuary, which was defiled (not guilty), which in full apprehension of the work has its importance. The scape-goat had to do with personal guilt; the blood on the mercy-seat with approach to God, but the sanctuary was cleansed.
The word “atonement” is very vague, and never used in the English New Testament but once, where it ought not to be. In the Old, rp^K “to make atonement” refers to the removal of positive guilt out of God’s sight. And, as I have said, sin properly does not come into question in the Old Testament, though birth in it is recognised in one place only. (Psa. 51:5.) Even where the sweet savour of Christ’s acceptance is figured, man’s sinful condition is recognised, and the work that is infinitely acceptable is in view of this. But this, though it assumes it, does not deal with sin in itself. Lost and guilt are different: one my state; the other, my responsibility and guilty failure. I believe I have said all I can at this moment.
I doubt whether you have got all the bearing of scripture as to sin. “Now once in the consummation of the ages hath he appeared eij" ajqeVthsin aJmartiva" by the sacrifice of himself.” It is not a question of guilt and imputation that is here. Judgment is according to works, but Christ was periV aJmartiva" when God condemned sin in the flesh; further, as to sin of the world, we have ai[rwn thVn aJmartivan tou' kovsmou. (John 1:29). We have had an innocent garden, then a sinful world, then a world wherein dwelleth righteousness. Of course there can be no sin in mere creation, but the status is one of sin, “the bondage of corruption”: defilement can be, if not guilt; hence the tabernacle and all the vessels were sprinkled with blood. True, because of Israel’s sins, but defilement attached to them: “the heavens are not clean in his sight,” and He who went into the lower parts of the earth, is gone “above all heavens, that he might fill all things.”
Sin in the flesh is not guilt; but it would defile, and not allow us to be with God, were it not condemned in the cross through His death who was made sin for us. The full effect will only be in the new heavens and new earth. Sin is not put away in the lost, I fully admit; but I could not say there was no suffering for sin in the abstract. It is never said sin is put away: I know the work is done, and am at rest. But the fact will not be accomplished as an effect till the new heavens and the new earth. If taking away be not a sacrificial expression, periV aJmartiva" is, and the sacrifice of Himself is. I could not say there is no sin of the world except as regards guilt and responsibility: it does not recognise defilement by sin. Further, rp^K is applied to the holy place (Lev. 16:16-20); so it is to the burnt-offering (Lev. 1), where there was no actual sin committed. The main effect of the burnt-offering is to shew the perfect sweet savour of the sacrifice of Christ to God, but it was made in respect of sin, but not on account of actual sins committed. Man must come by blood because he is a sinner, and though we get Christ Himself here (not “of his own voluntary will,” for that is a mistake, though it was so, but “for his acceptance”—Lev. 1:3), yet, as it is for us, the element of sin must be brought in.
As to speaking of atonement, which, although acknowledged, he did not bring adequately into prominence, the reason for it is very simple, as you may see in reading Leviticus 1:4, where it is especially said to be so in the usual (we may say, technical) word.
Matthew 22:14 seems clearly profession, or outward calling; the chosen, those owned in the wedding. As to Matthew 20 you must connect it with 19. There devotedness and self-sacrifice are made the ground of reward. Only the principles of law and grace are so different, that those great in one would be very little in the other. But lest there should be self and self-righteousness wrought by what preceded, the sovereign grace of chapter 20 is introduced, and the converse stated—many last first, and first last. Here it is grace as to service, only so much work for so much pay is utterly blown upon. The rest trusted the master for what they might get, and free grace acts consequently. God alone can judge what He should do in rewarding. Thus last are first, and first last. Many are called to serve, some chosen vessels, but all in grace.
In a general way we have God’s book as a registry. But then you have specifically in the New Testament, “book of life.” In one case it is said, “whose names are not written in the book of life of the slain Lamb, from the foundation of the world.” These God had written, and it was sure. But they are supposed true, unless shewn to be otherwise—as one on the list of voters, unless proved to have no right.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
1879.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,— … The two things in the Bible Treasury [June, 1878] are true,1 but not connected. But the clear difference was not brought out till the examination of Cluff’s doctrine brought it out. If we wait on God, erroneous doctrines become inlets to clearer truth. Dying to sin, and rising with Christ is experimental; but we enter on this ground by faith, or it is a vain human effort to get at it. In Colossians 3 God says we are dead; Romans 6, faith holds we are dead; then 2 Corinthians 4:10 carries it out in practice. Ephesians is the sovereign work of God setting us in Christ. We say we are dead apart from practice; but it is for all that experimental, but on the discovery of Romans 7, and then, by redemption and the presence of the Holy Ghost, the consciousness of our new place. You cannot connect Ephesians 2 and Romans 6. In Colossians 2:12 is Romans 6, and resurrection added, and in verse 13, Ephesians—only not going on to heaven, as Colossians does not. It is as believers we have died with Christ: still God and faith reckon me there when He died, “crucified with him,” because the sin in my flesh was condemned then: in God’s mind I was there. I only possess it when I have the Spirit, see Romans 8:9, 10; but then I go back to the work there according to verse 3: but there is no union there. Now there is real union.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * I do not think ‘we are hid in God’ is right. I have not the lectures2 by me to look at them, but at any rate (and they were only notes) it can only mean to follow the passage. ‘We are hid in God’ has very little sense to my mind. The point of the passage is Christ is our life, and being hid is merely in contrast with appearing here in glory. ‘What we are’ would not do. The point is life: “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” I have not seen ‘New Creation’:3 I have not time to read the journals. But I believe there is a new being: “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
I have run over the article. … I believe the purpose of it to be right. But the vessel is a part of the old creation. And it is said, “if Christ be in you the body is dead;” because if it be not dead it is what scripture calls flesh. There is a confusion between death and new creation, which is an error. But life is not a mere condition of existence. “In him was life.” “The Father hath life in himself.” We bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus. And as He has suffered in the flesh, “arm ourselves likewise with the same mind.” I do not think you adequately recognise that there is a new life in Christ for us.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * I do not think that any take eternal life for a new soul; and I am afraid your attempt to define will only makes the matter more obscure. Existence is not life: the table exists, but is not alive. “In him we live” is not we have life. But the thing I fear is the unsettling the fact of what life in Christ is. Thus “the Father hath life in Himself.” Is that a mere condition of being? Again, “that eternal life which was with the Father and has been manifested to us.” Your system loses, it seems to me, too much “He that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” The life by which the Lord lived in this world was not in the first Adam at all, even when innocent. “Because I live,” says Christ, “ye shall live also.” He is a life-giving Spirit. Remark, if the tree was not eternal life, it was the tree of life, not of existence, and living for ever, not existing for ever, which is spoken of. So that your attempt to distinguish by definition breaks down the first step. So again, “all live unto him” (Luke 20) breaks down your definition, for the aim of that is to say that though the condition of existence was changed, life was still there. So when you say it is not in us as yet, you touch a vital point: we have life; Christ is our life. “This life is in His Son,” and “he that hath the Son hath life.” Do you mean that none of us have the Son? then the wrath of God abides on us. The ascribing to a person what is true only of a nature, runs through all John’s epistle. “He cannot sin;” “the evil one toucheth him not.” It is not a community of being, because He is also God; but we are all ejz eJnoV",4 and because He lives we shall: He gives us eternal life, and we shall never perish. Our condition of being will change, our life not. Scripture adds the presence of the Holy Ghost for the christian condition of being. But “he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit:” what is that so far but community of being? The life of Jesus is to be manifested in our mortal flesh, and this is said if we which live are delivered to death that it may be so. You make it only born of water, but “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Your effort at defining breaks down, and I fear its taking away the reality of a new life in Christ; quite admitting it is distinct from immortality. I have it in Him as much when mortal as when immortal: that is a change in the condition of being; the life, Luke 20 teaches us, is not touched in that change.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * Metaphysics will never save souls. The real point is do we receive something new? I am not aware that scripture speaks of life in Christ. We have “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ.” But it is said, “Christ is our life.” I suppose that is something new for a sinner, or even for Adam innocent. The point in John 3:6 is not born of the Spirit, but what is “born of the Spirit is spirit.” “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” I believe fully in the immortality of the soul, but that has nothing to do with eternal life. That “was with the Father and was manifested unto us.” It is Christ the Son. And as to us, it is something in us which springs up as a well of water.
Your speaking of ‘being’ is unconsciously a sophism, because ‘a being’ in English means something having life. Life constitutes in ordinary English an existing thing, a being of which the manifestation is spontaneity. But this does not touch this question, but whether, the soul being supposed which gives personality, I do not receive something positive in receiving Christ that I had not before: “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son;” “he that hath the Son hath life:” Christ is life. It is never said we have life in ourselves, even when Christians, but in Christ. Of course, born of the Spirit is in contrast with born of the flesh, but born of the flesh is beginning to be, or to have life. Life is not a condition of being; it constitutes it: a material substance without life is not called a being. ‘A being’ supposes personal spontaneity; only life in scripture goes further than mere power of personal spontaneity: but life is not what affects the state of a being where personal spontaneity already is, but is the source of it: and this for the Christian is Christ, and not what we have from Adam. In virtue of that I reckon myself dead to sin, “the body is dead,” I am not in the flesh. In your system it is merely a modification of the state of a living being. Now that is being born of water, hence the other is added, born of the Spirit. It is not said ‘is water,’ but it is said “is spirit.” Is life in God a mere condition of His being? ‘Being’ means what has life. Hence to say life is a condition of what has life has by itself no sense. “In himself” may characterise it in God, “in the Son” may characterise it in us—not in ourselves. To this is added the presence of the Holy Ghost: “the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” He is as the perennial spring to the stream, so livingly united, that “because I live ye shall live also:” we are “created in Christ Jesus.” It does not change our personality, even when death affects the body, or present constituted organisation, and we live in our souls for God, though the organised vessel may be turned to dust, but, if Christ be our life, with Him.
As to your reasoning, you contradict yourself in saying life is ‘being’ in a given condition, and yet that you cannot have being without a thing’s having life already: death is a change in our condition of being, not in our circumstances of life. Having the Son as life so that we live by Him is not merely a circumstance of our life. Scripture never speaks so, but says Christ is our life—so thoroughly so that because He lives we shall live. What is scripturally defective in your mind is the real reception of the Son as life, the source of a new spontaneity in the soul. And this is a very grave matter.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * I do not look for the meaning of a word in scripture,5 save on scripture subjects. Yet in this case it does afford proof. Spontaneous movement is commonly taken as the characteristic of life: some spores seem to have it where there is not animal Ufe, but that is all. But it is said, “In him we live and move and have our being:” the moving is the consequent of life. God works in us to will and to do, but we are already alive. But that spontaneity is the expression of life is the common doctrine of all thinkers, unless rank materialists, as distinguishing animal existence from all below it—is identical with life, the expression of it. But in divine things there is no question at all: “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son”: “he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” Because He lives we shall live also: “this life is in his Son.”
You talk of the power of spontaneity. These words have no sense to my mind unless they mean the source of it. But what I insist on is that there is something, called life in scripture, given; not an operation on what is there, but a gift of something that was not there. So that I say, “not I but Christ liveth in me,” not a mere disposition of ‘I.’ What I fear is that you lose this. What you do is to separate what is carefully put together, and you connect what is carefully separated. Nobody thinks there are two souls; but it says, “in me, that is in my flesh:” “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me:” “Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:” “If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin.” It is not merely a condition of the soul, but power that is there by the personal indwelling of the Spirit of God, “the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” It acts in the soul, but it is in virtue of it that even the body will be raised. If there were not more than a condition of the soul, how could it be said, “because I live ye shall live also”? When Christ breathed on His disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” was it only a condition of soul? It was not the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; but the second Adam is a life-giving Spirit.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
September 9th, 1879.
* * * * *
Dear ——,—I could see, without your telling me so, that you have been made up in the teaching of those who deny the immortality of the soul, and make those whom scripture calls “the offspring of God,” a cleverer kind of brute. What you have quoted from my Geneva lectures I hold, as then, or still more, to be of all-importance. The coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the body was lost in the soul’s going to heaven, and that through the Platonists, and it was a sign of the ruin of the church. It made no such impression as you suppose on my hearers, for the immortality of the soul was not in question, was accepted as a recognised truth by them as by myself. I may say the contrary had never been heard of there. The first person who used the passage left out what guarded it, and I feared that I had exposed myself to the charge carelessly, no one doubting it when the lectures were given; but he had to confess he had it in his copy. I added in the next edition some more, I think the quotations, but cannot now be quite sure; but that death was ceasing to exist, none of us dreamt of. Hence, too, there is nothing about eternal punishment; the point was that in the public teaching of the church, going to heaven had taken the place of the Lord’s coming and the resurrection. When I began to preach these, fifty years ago, I was held to be I know not what—enthusiast or heretic— and I am thankful to have been the means of spreading it far and wide. The whole purport and character of the church was and largely still is clouded by this departure from the truth. In America men of standing in the professing church deny the resurrection altogether as to men, not perhaps as to Christ—though the apostle binds them together.
You give an interpretation of Luke 20 instead of receiving what is said. The Lord first speaks of the saints only, those who “shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from among the dead,” “children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” Then He says, even Moses shewed this at the bush: God is not “a God of the dead but of the living”: and then lays the foundation of an absolute fact of which He had not spoken before at all: “For all live unto him.” They have died as regards men, but as to God, wicked or saints, all live: it is not confined to saints, but it is so with every one. Before He had been speaking of the resurrection of the saints, and exclusively of that resurrection; now He declares that for God all live. He denies that death is the cessation of existence, and in an absolute and positive way. Nor is it exact to say it is of the question of resurrection God is speaking, in calling the things that are not as though they were. (Rom. 4:17.) He is speaking of quickening Abraham’s dead state so that he should be the father of many nations.
There is not a word of the sense you put into [the parable of] Dives and Lazarus in the passage. They were both Jews: it is the substitution of the unseen world for this. Abraham’s bosom is a wholly Jewish thought. Hades was well known to them, and is found in the Old Testament in the term Sheol. But it is expressly and explicitly making the unseen world seen in a parabolic description; they both alike died. There is no thought of the cross opening the door to the Gentiles, or breaking down the middle wall of partition. The Lord says they are to hear Moses and the prophets, or one rising from the dead would have no effect. It is a mere effort to get rid of the plain testimony, that the soul subsists after death in the case both of wicked and of just. All live for God. The soul is unaffected by death as to existence, save that it is separated from the body. What was the gulf fixed between Jews and Gentiles by the change of dispensation? What had “thou in thy lifetime” to do with dispensations? It did do this, as to Jews and Christianity, that there was an end of riches being a sign of God’s favour, but it was not because of a change of dispensation, but that the truth of things came out in another scene, not in this. The purpose is as plain as possible to those who have not been perverted by this false doctrine. Luke 15 shews the grace that seeks and receives the sinner; then (chap, 16) the use grace makes of this world’s goods; and then the veil is drawn to contrast the effect in that, with the portion of selfishness in this world—“thy good things.” The rich man had a fine funeral, but there it ended for this world. It is expressly declared that death does not reach to the soul. “Fear not them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do; but … him who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell.” Mortal is always confined to the body.
As regards the saints an intermediate state is taught as plainly as words can teach it: “To depart and to be with Christ which is far better”: “Absent from the body and to be present with the Lord”; “To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise”: the express object of which is to teach the blessedness of the intermediate state in contrast with Christ’s coming in (not ‘into’) His kingdom. So Stephen, “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.” The passages I have quoted before shew it as to all; and Peter tells us that the Lord knows how “to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished.” Your reference to 1 Corinthians 15 is of no avail here, because it speaks of believers only in what you quote; they are “raised in glory.” Nor will any bringing of it to 2 Corinthians 5 help you as to the plain statement there as to the saints, which is as plain as plain can be. He was thinking of dying, as chapter 1 shews; he was not wishing it, as weary of the trials, but looking for an eternal weight of glory, and through them; but having spoken of this as God’s purpose, he speaks of what is man’s portion through sin—death and judgment—and yet, having eternal life and the Spirit, is “always confident,” even in view of death. Knowing that if absent from the body, which most assuredly is not resurrection, but the contrary, he would be present with his Lord, that to depart and to he with Christ is far better. He does not quite dislike the idea of death in the first paragraph, but merely says his desire was to be clothed upon, not unclothed, and contrasts it with groaning in this tabernacle, yet not so that he wanted to be rid of it, but to be clothed upon; and in verse 9 formally puts the two cases. I do not agree with you as to identity by the Spirit; I am not the Holy Ghost, nor is the Holy Ghost me. As dwelling in me they are distinguished; He bears witness with my spirit. (Rom. 8:16.) After all your turning about this passage, it remains that when you quit home you are with the Lord, and you are not the Holy Ghost. It just shews where error and our own thoughts drive us. It is not even true that Christ’s neighbour on the cross had the Spirit. You confound the life begotten by the Spirit, and the Spirit itself, which dwelling in us, makes our bodies a temple.
As to the question of eternal punishment, the question is always really of the sense we have of the deserts of our own sin, and is inseparable from that of the immortality of the soul; as if I have one and am at enmity with God, I must be for ever miserable as shut out into outer darkness. But you have confounded, as is very common, law and gospel. The Gentiles have no law: “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” So that all your system is wrong from beginning to end according to scripture. Further, it is never said Christ was substituted for all—it is “that he died for all.” You confound the blood on the mercy-seat and the scape-goat: the Lord’s lot, and the bearing of the sins of the people represented by the high priest. You will find no Scripture which speaks of bearing the sins of all, but carefully the contrary. The passage you quote from Exodus gives the principles of the government of Israel in contrast with atonement, which Moses talked of, and could not make, each person being to be blotted out for his own sin; and besides that, though forgiving their sin governmentally, declares that when He visited He would visit their sin upon them. All this is a misapprehension of scripture. In quoting “the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,” you have confounded sin and sins: one a state in which we are by Adam’s sin, and the other our own guilt, and which are carefully distinguished at the end of Hebrews 9 The effect of this work will not be complete till the new heavens and the new earth. They are equally distinguished in Romans as to the believer and as to the remedy; one, Christ dying for our sins; the other, our having died with Christ: our guilt the consequence of our own sins—our state the consequence of Adam’s. You are all wrong as to making law the measure. It was the measure of human righteousness in a child of Adam. But what we have now is God’s righteousness, and that without law. Nor is the blessing of Christianity, though partially and darkly intimated (for of church blessings there is absolutely no hint, nor meant to be, but the contrary— see Eph. 3; Col. 1), to be found in the Old Testament. Life and incorruptibility are brought to light by the gospel. Nor is the law the measure of human sin, though it is of human righteousness; it is the rejection of Christ, who came when the law had been broken, which is so. “Having yet one Son, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son”—“but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.”
An immortal soul, hating God in grace, must be miserable. You say you consider that it is inconsistent with God’s character to hide these terrible consequences of sin. You had better have looked at what is written. (Gen. 3.) He did then and there a great deal more than He had said. He told him of nothing but human sorrow and misery, and then death as a man on the earth: so in judging, he was to return to dust, and the woman to suffer in child-bearing. But He did a great deal more, giving, in the judgment on Satan, what faith could rest on in hope. He drove out the man, and shut up the way of the tree of life —exclusion from God and what He had established, and no immortality here below. So that in saying that, you are charging God foolishly, and forgetting that when “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses”—come in grace—they rejected Him. Man under the gospel (in a general sense the world, for “there is no difference”) is in a far worse state, though he may be redeemed out of it, than when driven out of Paradise, and a final one if not born again and justified. I, as to the flesh, am at enmity with God. Further, if death be all the wages of sin (it is the wages assuredly, but it is falsely quoted as if it were all the wages of sin, and so you put it) then I pay the penalty for myself even as a Christian, and Christ need not have died for me, only given me a new life. Further, it is utterly false; for the whole consequences of our sins, save mere animal death (the penal arrest of man here) are after the judgment and the result of it. So that this whole view essential to your system is totally unscriptural and false. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
I do say the system subverts the atonement. The theory is that we are animals, and they quote what is said in Genesis to shew that ruach (breath), and nephesh (soul), and ruach-chayim (breath of life), etc., were in animals. I admit it fully, man dies as an animal dies on the earth. God, they tell us, gives eternal life in Christ, but till then we have no immortal soul, but are simply a cleverer, more intellectual animal of superior intelligence. Now suppose God gives eternal life to an elephant or a dog, would a dog be responsible for what he had done before when he was a dog; would he have to repent? If not, neither have I. And what is the atonement for? A mere animal, for that is their theory, is not a responsible being—is not in this, in relationship with God—has never been tested as such—is not at enmity with God as man is in the flesh, so that he cannot please God: there is no law for him of which you say so much. The system falsifies man’s whole relationship with God, on which all rests as to him from creation on. It is as degrading as it is false.
You will say, What scripture have you for saying animals are such? There are plenty, and the man who denies the difference debases himself to them; but suffice it to quote 2 Peter 2:12. But even Genesis 1 is enough: God had formed the whole creation, and having made it complete as such, God saw that it was good; so closes the history of the creation of animals, of whom God had said, “Let the earth bring forth,” and it brought forth. Then God solemnly consults about setting a head over it, the image of Him that was to come; then forms his body first, and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life —making him in His own image and likeness. Thus He placed him in living relationship with Himself. He was His offspring in his created state, responsible, and his responsibility formally tested. Is this mere animal life? If it be as degrading as it is false, it is as false as it is degrading. No one denies man is an animal, a living soul; if you take his blood you take his life as you would a pig’s. The question lies beyond that. We are not to fear them that kill the body but have no more that they can do. Animals do not want atonement, and I do: if I were only an animal, I do not. It makes animals responsible to God, and not mere “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed,” as scripture does; or man not so, if he is only an animal: and with responsibility, repentance and atonement disappear. I have confined myself to your statements. I add, scripture speaks of everlasting punishment. They use eternal life to prove we have nothing eternal till we have Christ, and then when eternal is applied to punishment, say it does not mean it. The simple answer to shew its normal meaning in the New Testament is, “the things which are seen are temporal, the things that are not seen are eternal.” But the real question is, What does my sin deserve? The answer to this is the test of where a man is, and settles by divine teaching what scripture declares as to life and punishment.
Yours truly in the Lord.
[1879.]
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I bless God more than I can tell you for His gracious working. His way is “in the sanctuary” if His way is “in the sea,” and if we are with Him there, the sea bows to His power; but to none else that I know of. After my first deep distress, I trusted His love, though sometimes depressed; and He has worked constantly and wonderfully. I have been surprised all has subsided so soon, but when He works all is soon still…
What I now look for is God’s grace, that brethren may lay it to heart, humbled before the Lord, breaking off from worldliness, and having their conversation in heaven. I am a poor thing, but I can see that we are not what we were, I fear, in any way; and I do trust brethren will not lose the blessing of this awakening shake they have had, nor of the wondrous grace God has shewn us. It would then be sad indeed. But I trust the Lord may arouse them, and am most thankful for what He has done.
I have written to dear ——, in consequence of your letter. There are, I believe, complications there, but I put the matter before him in itself. But it is more difficult sometimes to get out of a position than into it. But the Lord has shewn so much grace that we ought to count on Him—only to have patience. As to the other point, the regular thing would be just to follow London without saying anything: 1 hardly suppose there is any need of doing anything special. What I hear to-day seems to say that London is getting quietly into its usual course. If so, there is no need. If there were doubt about restless minds at ——, it might be a question of wisdom whether to raise the question there, unless to re-assure others. If London needed the support of testimony from without, there would be a motive; but this seems hardly to be the case. If——is suspected, but really firm, it may clear itself. In itself it would be an unusual and irregular thing to write and say we accept your judgment; for, unless some special case of remonstrance were there, in a case more or less common to both, it would be of course. The sending everywhere the first notice from Park Street raised these difficulties. No one, I think, judges that to have been wise, but that will gradually quiet itself. If there be any bonâ fide uncertainty as to —— being clear, it would have to clear itself. If it be as you seem to say, it is clear: I see no great use in raising questions in your midst. If there are others to re-assure, grace may do it.
We have had a useful little conference for two days here, and other meetings.
Les Ollières, Ardèche, September 10th.
* * * * *
Dear——,— … What I am anxious about, now that the Lord has delivered us from this very serious assault of the enemy, and in wonderful grace preserved His testimony amongst us, is a greater though less ostensible work; that the brethren should be devoted, faithful, unworldly (and that in all then-ways) and spiritual, Christ being all. It has been a much more serious question and struggle than many brethren suppose, and God in sovereign goodness has preserved us, and, however feeble and unfaithful we may have been, His testimony amongst us. If the brethren do not lay it to heart, both the humiliation and the goodness, as largely shewn to encourage, God will take away the testimony from us, and who shall deliver us then? This is what occupies me now. I look to Him to do it, He only can, for who can make spiritual but He who works by His Spirit? Let brethren know they are nothing, and know no motive for anything but Christ, and all will be well. There is a testimony for the last days, and God will maintain it, but the brethren have been, through grace, the vessels of it. They rose in thoughts of themselves as they declined in consistency with the testimony. When God is at work, it is love for the truth, grief at the condition of the church of God, and separation of heart and ways to the truth, while waiting for Christ— not thinking of ourselves as vessels of it. It is said of Jehovah Himself, that He was grieved at the misery of Israel. God allowed an assault of the enemy to shew us where we were— nothing more humbling. In mercy He has delivered us: are we going to learn the lesson He teaches, and to go on with thankful hearts in the path of single-eyed devotedness, to meet the Lord? That is the question now. I have long said, brethren began by practical separation from the world. Though certain great truths for the last days were there, still what the world saw was that they were not of it. Is there going to be this testimony now? It was so in houses, ways, conduct—many faults, I doubt not, but there was that stamped upon and characteristic of them. It was not a discussion whether they were Philadelphia or not. But I stop: you will understand what I mean… But God is good, and has been most good to us, and I trust to Him to arouse the sleeping brethren. Many I know have had their consciences awakened: may their hearts follow with faith in God’s goodness. We read, “My soul followeth hard after thee; thy right hand upholdeth me.” … Here I have not much to tell you of. We have had some good meetings; but it is not in the part I have been, yet in it there is much fresh work. But there has been attention and interest, and they are getting on well in general. They had a little shake themselves, but it has done them good, for they too were getting sleepy. London has had its sound everywhere, with those who are aware of what is going on at all elsewhere. In about a fortnight or so, I shall be getting (D.V.) to Pau. This is a poor country to get about when you cannot take long walks on foot as I used; but the Lord provides.
Vernoux, September 13th.
* * * * *
My beloved Brother,—I have waited to reply to your letter till our London troubles could at least be seen through. You will have sorrow at any rate, but God has been most gracious to us. It was a question of the existence of brethren. Satan made a violent effort to destroy their testimony. I had long felt it was in the air, and it pressed on me to return to England, though till I was back there was nothing precise in my mind. Dear Wigram, three years ago, said (not to me) that it was all over: he did to me in his last illness. But I felt the Lord was above it, and above everything; and so He has been. I suspect it helped to keep him out of England, and I believe hastened his end, though he had long been ailing. But Satan’s effort has been confounded. There are details to be brought into order outside London, where, as it seems to me, they acted too hastily, though right at heart. But in London there is common action, and peace, and, save the places I have alluded to, clear conviction all over the country… I was in France nearly all the time—at first suffered intensely, but was enabled to commit it to the Lord, and pray. And though I put my finger on the public act, now judged, I took no other part, unless a soothing one to individuals, and on my return to England went to no meetings about it (but continued to pray the Lord) till the very last. But the Lord’s hand was there, and I trust many consciences awakened all over the country; and this is what I have rejoiced in, for brethren had declined, the world crept in, and it was the fullest truth, with generally practice little better than their neighbours. I had, before it broke out, anxiously thought about leaving the public body of brethren, but felt it would not be faith.
What I am anxious about now is that there should be a real testimony; I mean, unworldly, spiritual, devoted, such as ought to be with such truth as is given us, and such wondrous grace. The Lord has spared the testimony. What do we not owe Him, unworthy as we were? But I look to and trust the Lord for it, Who else can do it? I do look to His blessed goodness and love for, to me, a greater, though not so visible work as the bringing us out of the strait we were in. This is the thing that presses on my heart now, that a true living testimony may be given. Bethesda was nothing to what we have gone through, because B. was outside. But except the two places I have alluded to, which may require patience, I do not know one soul that has been lost to the path we are in, God’s path I believe. I think of writing a little paper on what I hope for. But at present I am living under the sense of the wonderful goodness of God. I am thankful more than I can tell.
What as to my own state, beloved brother, I believe has kept me, for it is God’s absolute grace always, is that I have from my starting had no thought of myself but of being wholly vile. I know it more than ever: as I drew nearer to God I saw more of what vileness was. And I have, though I well know it is all grace, been consciously nearer to God now a good long while—I trust more consciously and settledly so; yet it is all grace. One cannot be near to Him without knowing it is so, and wishing it to be so. He has kept me, even outwardly, wonderfully. I cannot go long journeys on foot as I used, but otherwise, though in two months I begin my eightieth year, holding my two meetings a day often, and in the open air. His goodness never fails. Yet I have had sorrows plenty, but that is all right: soon there will be the opposite. What a joy, besides Christ, to see all the saints exactly what His heart would have them; what an immense joy—all to His glory, the eternal witness to the efficacy of His work! I have learned more than ever in these last affairs to count on the Lord… I have been having some good meetings here among the mountains of the Ardèche, chiefly among the Christians.
Ever affectionately yours.
September.
* * * * *
Dearest ——,—I do not think all is gone through, but I believe God is able to bring it through. Let London keep its place in lowliness, those that are faithful not individually taking part in any evil, and waiting on God’s action: “He that believeth shall not make haste.” The mass of brethren have need of quiet. I am glad there is a meeting for humiliation; if genuine, as I trust, it will bring blessing. Its tone will distinctly shew where brethren are. Where activity is distinctly wanting is in bringing up Christ to souls, and devotedness to Him, unworldliness, a life where we do one thing, a home, dress, manners, which say that Christ is all. There is danger of being too much occupied with evil. It does not refresh, does not help the soul on. “Abstain from every form of evil,” but be occupied ourselves and occupy others with Christ. The evil itself becomes not less evil, but less in comparison with the power of good where the soul dwells. I have almost feared being too much occupied with evil in this letter, for what I really have at heart is to occupy souls with Christ and good. There, too, power is found as well as a sanctuary of peace for our souls. To be simply occupied with evil is always a weakening thing; God is not there, though we may be forced to turn and do it for Him in care for others. It is just going beyond this I have feared in my letter. One only, blessed be His name, can touch the leper and not be defiled. Of all else, even where right to be done, “the soul that toucheth it shall be unclean until the evening.” God is a jealous and a holy God—blessed be His name, a God of infinite grace!
I have had a happy and I trust profitable tournée through Haute Loire, Ardèche, etc., and seen the brethren, save in two places, and many who came even thence. We had readings in the different centres, and lectures in the evening: here three days, and there are many around, and large attendance everywhere. Blessings and conversions are given of God, but there is a tendency to sink into things that are seen, as nature does: but I was very happy with them—four of five meetings forced into open air from numbers. Tired I have been, and threatened with my eye, but it is better. After St. Hippolyte and Mont-pellier, please God, Tuesday at Pau.
September, 1879.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—My path is to be quiet, feeding souls with Christ as far as God enables me. It restores the tone of the soul for every emergency. My impression is, my letter expressed the desire to be with brethren in the perilous times of the last day, not any break up of brethren. The pretensions of brethren I had seen growing, and it alarmed me a good deal. But God has been putting that down, and that is a very good sign: “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.” I counsel patience on all sides. Consciences are awakening and getting humbled as to the state brethren are in, and that was what was wanting.
I could not leave brethren, I felt it would not be faith, and I feel I was right. I have never a moment doubted that it was the testimony of God. But there was a regular plan to break it up in London, and, with this, the most precious truths, connected with deceit and evil, and this sectarian pretension of what brethren were. This was my difficulty. When a positive act took place, I could deal with it for myself; up to that, it was going on without anything positively culpable to lay hold of. Now we have only to wait patiently the Lord’s working. “Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him, and he will bring it to pass.”
1879.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—As you speak of humiliation, I desire to reply a word. I think humiliation quite the thing called for, for the general state of brethren—their worldliness, their decay in positive testimony, their low spiritual state generally. I thought I had spoken to you of Bochim when I wrote before, but I did not, though I did to another, at the same time. I accepted the general idea of Bochim, but not the special character. Bochim was instead of Gilgal, the place of circumcision, where the angel of the Lord (unknown to them) was. That was a judicial giving up of Gilgal. I do not as yet accept that for brethren: God might give us up, and we must bow; but as yet I trust that He does not.
The difficulty as to common humiliation was, that what some judged as sin, others advocated and defended, or at least judged very light of. How could there be honest common humiliation? What defended the evil was exactly what the humiliation had to be for. The mere state of brethren was caring for brethrenism, not for God’s glory. I do not say there was nothing of this last feeling, but, in general, it was shame for the state, not going to the root. However, God has judged the overt act, and, I suppose I may say, has cleared brethren from the principle that was at work so far … but godly souls are fully convinced that the demoralisation I spoke of has been manifested, The question of the existence of brethren as a testimony depends upon their recovery from this. If they do not, they will be at Bochim; but there, Gilgal and blessing were over. I trust the Lord will maintain His testimony. I think the question a most solemn one. ——takes the ground of Hebrews 12:27, that brethren are to be removed as things that can be shaken, he and a few more being taken up afresh as a fresh testimony before the Lord comes. Now this being done as I affirm it to have been done, is an immensely vital point. If it has that character, it is not of God. It is no personal question. It is a question if, as he affirms, brethren are to be set aside or to remain a testimony for God. He has acted, as privately led of God, to set them aside. Half the brethren, I dare say much more, do not know what is involved. But God has wrought to judge the overt act. It now remains to see if brethren answer to His mercy, in drawing closer to Him…
I do not expect the mass of brethren to see the issues involved, but I look to God to work by His Spirit to preserve for Christ’s glory a testimony to Himself, in awakening the consciences of brethren, and drawing them in heart and ways out of the world, so that He may use them as vessels of His testimony.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
October 1st.
* * * * *
Dear Mrs. ——,—They confound the whole of the truth in Ephesians. It is the act of God who took Christ, and set Him at His right hand, and us by the same power, setting us in Him, making us sit together in heavenly places in Him. Canaan under Joshua is warfare, and in this sense experience—warfare carried on by us in grace, as led by Christ in Spirit: and confounding these two things is one of the great mischiefs. But the use of the rest of the images is also false. The Red Sea is, I doubt not, an image of Christ’s death and resurrection for us: but it is so as bringing us completely to God, not experience at all, but redemption, dying, and rising again: the wilderness and Canaan are experience. Thus “Thou hast led forth the people whom thou hast redeemed. Thou hast guided them by thy strength to thy holy habitation.” They were not in Canaan as an inheritance, but “Ye have seen … how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.” It is God’s work bringing them to Himself, complete—not experimental, as of journeying or conflict experiences. It is all wrong confounding these. Even to Sinai, where originally they were to worship, all is simple grace. There they enter on the process of experimental knowledge of themselves.
The wilderness is no necessary thing nor part of God’s purpose, nor mentioned when coming out of Egypt. (Exo. 3, 6, and 15) The thief on the cross never went through any wilderness, nor any Joshua (Canaan): redemption put him straight into Paradise. The “Ifs” of scripture are all connected with the journey and conflict, and met by the sure promise of God, because we and (so to speak) God, for faith, are both tested there. I admit fully there is a deliverance by dying with Christ to sin, in Romans, and to the world, in Colossians. But the wilderness, and Canaan as in Joshua, are not sitting in heavenly places, but man tested in his journey in this world, and conflict in heavenly places with spiritual wickedness. Now, for this last we have to be dead with Christ. Hence, Joshua is “every place that the sole of your feet shall tread upon;” it is active taking possession as the Lord’s host, not sitting in heavenly places: in Ephesians we wrestle against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places, but having done all to stand. It is confounding the responsible man with the redeemed man. Redemption is always absolute and perfect: the responsible man, whether past Jordan or not, tested. I may war as in the flesh and be captive to sin, and set free and in the Spirit obtain the victory or stand fast. As to culpability and redemption, Egypt is the flesh even when started on the road. The wilderness is a usual but not necessary part of God’s ways— what the world becomes to those who are redeemed, or stand on that ground, and individually tested if they get to the end, viewed not as in heavenly places, but through redemption on a journey there; for scripture does so consider us: so in Philippians, so in Hebrews, though otherwise very different. Joshua—Canaan—is another thing; being God’s host, we are realising what belongs to those who are risen with Christ.
I may look at redemption as complete in Christ, and then in Christ I am brought to God: I may look at it as the beginning of exercise fof myself, tribulation working experience, and find a Joshua and Caleb place through God’s faithfulness; or I may be fighting God’s battles as the Lord’s host; but neither are sitting in heavenly places. I may have eaten the grapes of Eshcol in the wilderness, and fail before Ai in Canaan: but redemption is perfect, and sitting in heavenly places in Christ —one the absolute power, the other the blessed effect, of God’s work. I have no going to Gilgal, constantly there, to renew the moral condition before God which even victory endangers.
Be assured these people never know themselves. There is an anecdote of John Newton: when a person wrote to him he was in his C of Cardiphonia (a work I quite forget), he replied that he had forgotten one trait of C, that he never knew himself to be there… We must not confound righteousness with experience, though complete judgment of self ministers to the knowledge of divine righteousness.
I have had a good journey through the Cevennes, and a good deal to encourage, though the world creeps in.
Montpellier, October 4th.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * I agree that we are sitting in heavenly places, in not with Christ; but I do not know in speaking of its being by faith, by which of course it is known, if you have allowed quite enough for union with Christ by the Holy Ghost. Again there are things which we enjoy by experience which are not acquired by experience: every sealed believer is in Christ before God, and his place is to know it (John 14); but there are those who do not, through imperfect teaching. Hence, to the Corinthians he writes as to carnal (not natural) not as to spiritual. “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect”—perfect meaning simply grown men in Christ. So Philippians: “Let us therefore as many as be perfect.” We take the place by faith (beyond Jordan), but when taken we realise being in it by the Holy Ghost; and this is experience. It is not based on experience or progress in it. We are in it if in Christ. I reckon myself dead. But the wilderness is as much the fruit of redemption as Canaan.
It is quite false to make it a matter of progressive experience, as at the end of the desert: it is our identification with Christ’s death, and Jordan is identical in fact, though not in application, with the Bed Sea. But at the Red Sea it is a redemption wrought for me: in Jordan I died—not by experience, but I died; that is, it connects itself with our state, though we do not change that state by experience. But I experience that I have changed my position. This is not a play on words. A process of experience is not the operative cause; but I have been brought into a new experience which is the fruit of the change. It is important to see that it is no subject of progressive experience. Experience is that I cannot get it at all (Rom. 7)—no good to be got in me, nor a new position out of me, by any process. I then learn by simple faith, as taught of God, that He has condemned sin in the flesh, which I find in me, in the cross of Christ. (Rom. 8:3.) This is simple faith and divine teaching; the effect is I am free according to verse 2, and take the ground of chapter 6. Ephesians 2 is quite another thing; there is no experience at all, but a new creation, if there, dead in sin. The new creation has nothing to do with dying, but we are viewed as dead in sin.
I do not know if you have seen what I have taught, that the wilderness is no part of the counsels of God but of His ways; and that the Red Sea and Jordan coalesce, only at Jordan they go up into the land. Further, in its full character the Red Sea closes all: they are brought to God, to His holy habitation, but not to the result of His plans as to us. The thief had no wilderness. All that experience learns is that I must have a deliverer; and then I learn that it is all done on the cross. The realisation of this (2 Cor. 4) by the Holy Ghost is another thing; but then it is reckoning myself dead—always carrying about the dying. It is important to see that Ephesians is on a totally different footing: and when on the ground of reckoning ourselves dead, there is an always carrying about the dying.
As to relationships, it is all nonsense: I may be called out, as Christ Himself was but, save that calling, He was subject to, and afterwards lovingly owned, His mother. If a person is not called out, or giving up all for Christ, there is no question that these relationships are clear duties, and so treated everywhere in the New Testament. If they come into competition with Christ, everything gives way to Him.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * As regards your estimate of my thoughts on our reckoning ourselves dead—it requires a practical consciousness that we have no force to arrive at it; and there it is so many fail, often mistaking the joy of forgiveness for true deliverance. In Germany there has been much of this, and indeed a good deal everywhere. Practically there must be a single eye upward, or we do not discover our want of force.
As to disowning such relationships it requires the word. It may come to a question between Christ and these ties, and then everything must give way. We belong to the other world as risen with Christ, not to this; but as belonging to it, the acknowledgment of what God has established is part of our christian life. Is a wife to disown her husband, or children their parents? There is at bottom a great deal of self-licence in all this. It is monstrous. Where that is disowned which God has established, self, not Christ, has the first place in people’s hearts. If the unbeliever disowns it it is another thing. If he breaks the tie, there is liberty; or if he requires what is contrary to Christ, for he receives his authority from Him, and cannot use it against the direct authority of Christ. We cannot feel too strongly that we belong to another world, not to this; but that is not the question, but the path of those who do belong to it according to the word.
I have written because the idea of not owning the relationships is monstrous. You will find it a difficult task, because I greatly dread any diminution of the feeling that we are dead and risen with Christ, or of having our conversation in heaven. But so false a use of this, which I feel more strongly every day, is just what would tend to alarm upright souls as to the truth.
Yours truly in the Lord.
Was Christ wrong when, after refusing all connection with His mother when engaged in His service, which was of course and in every sense outside such relations—when His hour was come, in a positive and demonstrative way, He gave testimony to the relationship and acted so touchingly in it? It is remarkable it should be introduced.
There is a loosing from the power of our surroundings (as the Americans say), and sometimes from the surroundings themselves, as called away by the Lord, or as driven out by themselves. The absence of natural affections is an evil sign of the last days; but we have to live in natural ties as those who are not in them, to act from Christ in them. What God established of natural relationships He always owns, carefully so; but a power has come in, which, as sin has ruined all, overrules or makes independent of them.
* * * * *
To the same]
* * * Miss —— seems to me to have mistaken the ground on which these matters rest. As to Christians she puts it on legal ground. If I am one, and have even a needless scruple, I must act on it, but that is not the true governing principle; but that another object has possessed it, and the other things die down, lose their hold as objects. It does not hinder enjoying what God has created; it may and will hinder my seeking it as an object now all is fallen. Christ had seen the beauty of lilies of the field, but who would think of His seeking to cultivate beautiful lilies? In such things the principle is to do all in His name. So an overwrought mind may rest in a changed scene, as He took His disciples into the wilderness to rest awhile. But Christ is to be all.
With unconverted children it is another thing, they have for themselves no such object: then health has to be considered in cheerful exercise, occupation of mind without overstraining, and so on. But where there is wise interest of parents in them, they can, while providing for this, lead children to find their enjoyment with themselves, in kindly care of the poor, and a thousand healthful enjoyments and occupations; and this I have seen done, and children grow up attached to home and family. And this scripture contemplates. For schools I can only speak of general principles. As a rule music is a very dangerous occupation: it cultivates sentiment without conscience: as a general character musicians are not a moral body. It may have to be taught or learned where worldly parents require it.
Yours truly in the Lord.
* * * * *
* * * I have little time to reply to your letter, which I was very glad to get. I feel ripening on towards Home, and more weaned from the outward activities of the work; but I trust my heart not less interested in it. I have just come from the Rhone and Cevennes district. In more than one place there are conversions, and a great number of Christians in the Haute Loire and Ardèche, and, though the world everywhere exercises too much influence, yet walking in peace, and as far as I know blamelessly. Externally it has been a very trying year; the vineyards rooted up far and wide, and the silkworms a failure. But there is One who is a stay through all.
As regards England, it has been as you know a time of trial. The general state of brethren was really what God was judging. Partizans seek to keep up uneasiness… In Kent there was haste in those who sought to do right. This gave a handle, but has been the means of bringing out the party-feeling at work. God saw, I believe, that sifting and purifying was needed there. But for God, the want of principle would have been crushing, but with Him is always peace. And we have to ask, “Whither goest thou?” and trust Him. Even if the Messiah and Son of God (Psa. 2) was rejected, it was only to bring out the Son of man in the glory of the Father. God is never baffled. It has been a time of blessing for myself; and many consciences, I would say of all the godly, have been deeply awakened. There was a want of faith in some, but this was not surprising: there is in us at all [times]. We read, “My flesh and my heart faileth me: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for. ever.” It has made what is eternal more and more everything to me. It was cheering to see how upright souls soon saw all clear. And how precise God’s government is! We have only to lean on Him and all is right.
I rejoice in your work as in my own, though I sometimes envy evangelists a little; but we have to fill the little niche God has put us in faithfully, and we cannot do more.
Ever affectionately yours in the Lord.
Pan, 1879.
1 ‘The believer has died out of his old Adam standing in the death of Jesus, and has been quickened, raised up, and seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.’
2 [On the Addresses to the Seven Churches, Col. Writ., vol. v., p. 483.]
3 “Voice,” etc., Aug., 1879.
4 ‘Of one’ Heb. 2.
5 ‘Where does scripture teach that life is the source of spontaneity, not only the power of it?’