My dear ——,—My mind is extremely remote from any purpose of institution, but I was led by our conversation to look into the evidences of the practice of the early church upon the subject, on the principles of which, though feeling the opportunity of instruction, I felt no doubt. For I cannot but feel that the religion of which we profess membership, is not an imposition of observance, a law of carnal commandments contained in ordinances (as indeed it would contradict the whole purpose and counsel of God), but an admission to privileges, exceeding great and precious promises, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; not merely in our hearts, but that, in respect of our consciences, no man should judge us in respect of a sabbath, or of a new moon, “which are a shadow of things to come.” Nor is this any licence to evil, because we are only so far become therein free, as in that we live we live unto God, for all that is in the flesh can never be free from condemnation of the law; but we as alive again from the dead, are not under the law, but made free. True it is that, being in the body in respect of its weakness, even to those who have received the first fruits of the Spirit, grace is ministered; also under ordinance, of which I see Christ Himself, the comprehensive centre; and, for that man is prone to go astray and not only in respect of individuals but more especially when according to the dispensation of God congregations take place, the order of righteousness must be maintained; in this respect laws must be enacted. Yet this is no part properly of Christianity, but the appendage of its dispensation; and even in scripture itself I distinguish between these two things. My mind would gladly go into the nature of precept, which it has had great delight in inquiring into, but it would be far too wide a subject to indulge in. However, in what I give you full leave to account a speculation if you please, I remember, though admiring that God should have afforded such apprehension to a heathen, Socrates ended where Christianity began. He speaks of all the appetites of his flesh as nails which fastened him down to wretchedness and misery, and speaks of death as a benefit which should deliver his soul from this; his other hopes seem to be wholly vague.
But if we consider the nature of the law we shall find its end to be rest from labour; the desire of entering into rest was the foundation of the hopes of the [Jewish system]. It knew the labour of the present, and rest therefore morally was its hope; to it, therefore, the sabbath was afforded, the symbol of that rest derived from the cessation of God from the labours of creation. But we are admitted in some sort by hope within the veil; we know that that rest is not a resting day nor night from the undivided glorifying of the ever living God. This is the new life. To us therefore the earnest is afforded, by Him who is the resurrection, was the Author and Firstborn of the new creation, of this living rest which remaineth to the people of God, aptly signified by the Lord’s day. Both, you see, affirmed one day as God’s, the witness of His universal right; and, so far, both concur. But to us the mystery is far more fully revealed, and we have the Lord’s day—not a compulsory recognition of right, but the blessed pledge of our inheritance amongst the saints. To him therefore who refuses this, and will not recognise himself as the child of eternity, which is all God’s, but will put himself under the law from the freedom of sonship; to him the Sabbath arises again, an unalterable claim of a jealous God. I cannot enter here into the statement of how I distinguish Christianity from all that preceded it, or is out of it, of which the Jewish system is an imputably defined covenant; but I go to what led me to write to you, to communicate to you what my books afforded me on the view which struck your mind.
Now the state of the case seems that all the East observed the Sabbath as well as Sunday; at least the observance of it was settled at the time of Athanasius, when there was, as on Sundays, communion (which, generally speaking, was on these days only), with this difference that they always stood praying on Sunday; indeed that from the first century the Ebionites always observed Saturday as well as Sunday, but they observed it as Jews. They commenced in the first century of Christianity, and became a distinct sect in Hadrian’s time. The origin of its observance seems uncertain in the East; it was observed-as a festival by the church except at Milan. As a fact it was introduced into Spain about a.d. 300 by the Council of Illiberis… . Constantine passed a law that Christians should not work of a Sunday, except agriculturists, who were not to neglect the seasons God afforded them42…
I adduce these evidences of the course and practice of the church then as to the Sabbath and its nature. All refer the observance of Saturday to deference for the Jews for its origin. Augustine is the first, I find, who directs that the honours of the Jewish Sabbath should be transferred to Sunday.43 At this time the Gallic councils forbid rural labour. In the sixth century early, the council of Orleans says, “Because the people are persuaded that they ought not to travel on the Lord’s day with horses and men and carriages, nor prepare any victuals to eat, and use no exercise pertaining to the cleanliness of man and horse… And we think they ought to abstain by which more easily coming to church they may be at leisure for prayer”; and many councils under Charlemagne, etc., enforce further strictness. By both the Theodosiuses spectacles were prohibited on Sunday; but it will be remembered that attendance on them any day was excommunication, before the empire became christian.
In the earlier councils I find only enforcement of attendance on worship; in the still earlier fathers statements of the devotional services of the Lord’s day, and nothing more.44 … Gregory the Great, the author of many of our prayers, says that Antichrist will renew the observation of the Sabbath. I would mention here that, though Brigham himself affirms it, I do not find direct evidence of Saturday being a day of divine service in the week TertuUian has another passage to the effect of the above. I have given no evidence.of Sunday being a day of special devotion from the beginning, as it is not questioned, but there is abundant direction.45 … I find, by the bye, both my learned compilers informing me that the Essenes (which is singular considering their general principles) only among the Jews, and the antichristian Dositheus carried the Sabbath to the excessive strictness. They interpreted the command of continuing where they found themselves on the entering in of the Sabbath, to their very posture. The Jews determined two miles to be the place where they were, and so held it lawful to travel two miles all around because they did not go out of the place where they were; how foreign to the perfect law of liberty!
I confess my apprehension of the nature of the christian Lord’s day (Sabbath clearly it never was called, in scripture or anywhere else, for many centuries) would make it consistent that there would be no direction in the New Testament concerning it, and consequently little notice of it in the early fathers—and of its actual ordinance there is abundance: notice of this seems to flow with its habit of observance. This no way detracts from its validity in my mind, in fact but founds it on clearer and christian ground: but I am running into the expression of my opinion, of which I would only say that I would be a Christian and not a Jew.
Socrates, the historian, says, in a long and valuable chapter, that the apostles and evangelists have by no means left the yoke of bondage on those who come to the preaching of faith, but have left the feast of the Passover (he writes of Easter and other feasts) to the good disposition of those who received benefit in them; and that the observance of Jewish types is abolished. I do not forget that the Sabbath is in the first table, as I have observed that God by His prophets identifies it with the recognition of Himself, placing it, I think, on a much higher ground than formal ordinance.
Yours sincerely.
[Before 1830, according to a note made by the original copyist—‘before he came to Plymouth.’]
* * * * *
* * * I am a bad person to answer this question, though the blessed Lord has not left me without His presence. Yet I love to get on these subjects. A person, I think, who has really found God must in some measure feel as this person does. The passage of St. Paul in the Ephesians is the answer and expression of this, “Oh! the height and depth,” etc. He that, loving, knows God, dwells in God and God in him; and one knowing His fulness must know that he is brought into a depth which none can fathom but God, and be pained at not doing it. It is the way of growth, as a child who uses the compass of strength but cannot reach it; but a Christian’s exerts itself (by that solecism) to know that “which passeth knowledge.” And therefore the soul, when first learning it especially, will feel at a loss and perhaps pained, nor finds its repose till it knows in a certain sense as it is known.46 …
In two ways it thus dwells upon, and because of this seeks, Jesus. [First as] the unfathomable love of God, that is of love in Himself, he learns and knows that it is this too in.itself, yet not as separate from the revelation in Jesus’ body, therefore the apostle adds, “Herein is love,” etc. Secondly, that it may be brought near to familiarise and make [known] yet diminishing nought of its fulness, it is brought into intelligence in the incarnation, and death especially, of the blessed Lord Jesus our Head. Therefore he says, To know “the breadth and length and depth and height … that ye might be filled into (or ‘unto,’ that is, of what fills and its extent) all the fulness of God.” So, hereby know we love “because he laid down his life for us.” It is the stepping-stone of weakness and emptiness and necessity unto that fulness, and the resting-place of the soul, as to its natural powers, at this inexhaustible fulness of God. Yet this is indeed learning the heavenly, having God, the peculiar and distinctive privilege of those quickened by the Spirit, which alone gives capacity to know and fathom such a thought. But as a motive of conduct it is infinitely wholesome that we should feel pained at how little we reach the fulness of God (for it is in this He has acted towards us, and as Christ is the order of this towards us, so is He of it towards Him) by His Spirit, and ever seek for more full manifestations of the power of this in us, accompanied by simple apprehension.
[A very early copy—first two pages only preserved.]
* * * * *
* * * Plymouth, I assure you, has altered the face of Christianity to me, from finding brethren, and they acting together. There are, as you know, individuals here, but scattered as missionaries over the country.
Dublin, April 13th, 1832.
* * * * *
My beloved Brother,—I would not leave the country without a line in the Lord to you, though it has been delayed by things pressing upon me: indeed I felt I owed it for all the comfort and refreshment I got at Westport. It is a refreshment now to sit down and write a line simply as in the Lord, from settling controversy with heresy, and looking over papers for [the] Witness and the like, all which I suppose needful, but in which one’s spirit no way flows free and blessed in Christ as when in the sphere, and so unhinderedness in principle, of one’s own joys—of Christ’s joys (what a blessing to be made partakers of them—may we—and what holiness it requires!) of His sorrows, too. Oh, what holiness! for we must be partakers of the power of His resurrection in order, in the power of that holiness, to feel what sin is, and enter in love into the conflict with the power of evil, in spiritual conflict and endurance, which Christ’s Spirit has according to where He has been and where He is—in us according to where He is, where we are, and also for sympathy and comfort where He was. It always, or love in holiness, brings us into deep conflict, a holy conflict which can be carried on only in sympathy and intercourse with Him, whence indeed and where it flows: its result may be happiness, perhaps peace, and patience. Patience in the hall and before Judas was conflict in tjrethsemane: it was gone through with the Father there. Only that as Christ could say, “The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me,” so we, as far as we walk in the Spirit, will and ought to say, to Christ with whom we are one, The reproaches “of them that reproached Thee have fallen on me. Then we must, like Him in some measure, take care to be faithful witnesses, “The spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.” Oh, if we could be much alone with Him, what fruit might we say would flow!
But I write to say, dear brother, rather how much I was refreshed and comforted in Westport, and I trust the Lord may continue and abound in His presence with you. It refreshed my spirit and quite set me up. I am afraid sometimes, from the difference I find in myself, [that] I find and do not bring the energy and the Spirit, and, instead of trying one’s own work, rejoice in another and not in myself. (Gal. 6:4.) However at any rate they shall reap the benefit. I do not mean that I might not have desired a great deal more spirituality, more devotedness, more power of separated fellowship for us all; but still God is gracious and patient. I did find great spiritual comfort and refreshment among you, and I thank God for you and them continually. May they abound more and more, and that which is lacking [be] supplied, and that which is worldly and hindering purged out—the conscience affected by it—and the power of the Spirit (the blessed Spirit of power and grace) shewn; and may He rule very detectingly among you, and in all uniting grace in love, that any that are lacking or in whom the world has power may grow up unto the Head in all things.
Do not faint, dear brother, for if we really labour we must be more or less in conflict, trial, and sorrow; for it is a work of faith, if a labour of love and patience of hope; because though blessed fruits be by the way, and we may see them ripening, it is the great in-gathering is the time of joy. And it is a distinct view and reference to that that gives our work a real deep holy character, such as His was, and will prove real in that day. You must labour in sorrow, for it is in the midst of evil, if you would reap in joy; and if we get our corn up into shocks, still it is unprotected out in the field, and we have the watchful care and anxiety till it is housed, though we may rejoice sometimes in a fine day while going on. I pray the Lord to be abundantly with you, and sustain your soul in patient abounding labour towards Him to whom we owe so much. My love to all the saints, and the whole church. I had an interesting journey from Athlone with two who discussed and entered into all things fully… Watching over the saints I feel a very primary thing. Ever, dear brother, with many prayers that you may be blessed and stedfast with all the saints.
Affectionately yours.
Plymouth, August 10th, 1837.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Very dear Brethren,—So long a time has passed since I saw you, without my having addressed to you one word, that you may well believe I no longer was thinking of it; but it is not so at all. I have been, during many weeks since my return, hindered, whether from reading or writing, by the state of one of my eyes, but I use the strength God in His great goodness has given back to me, to address myself to you all. I hope that several brothers, to whom I was also thinking of writing separately, will forgive my silence. I should feel myself, however, dear brethren, wholly unworthy, I say it in all simplicity, to address myself to you, as to a body assembled under the direction of the Lord, a church body, if our dear——had not requested me to do it; but if this is to be the expression of the strength of my remembrance of the love with which you have received me, which you have always shewn me, and of how sweet it is to me to call to mind always that love, I do it with all my heart.
The remembrance of it is extremely precious to me, and that has been to me, dear brethren, of great blessing, and by the Spirit of God who acts in me, I feel often at my dear Geneva amongst you, while blessing God with all my heart for the testimony of His love, which He has given me in the love of you all, my dear brethren, and my heart expands in thinking of the ties which His goodness has established between you all and my feeble heart. You do not know how it has opened my heart, and how I found the grace of God in my visit to the brethren of Geneva; and I find my joy again in beginning to write this letter. A stranger previously, and for the most part unknown, I found a welcome which was the manifestation of the operation of the Holy Spirit, and one is always happy when one finds oneself in subjection at the work of God.
I will communicate to you news of us, dear brethren, persuaded that you will take interest in it. Our dear brother —— will have communicated to you something of this. Our meeting, where I was able to work in public almost for the first time since my return, has been I believe of great blessing. There was a spirit of love and of confidence and of liberty, which always flows from this, which struck even our enemies who were present, and which acted powerfully upon those who there took part. There were a great number of brethren, instructed ones of all classes, a hundred and more from nearly all parts of England and from Ireland. We should have much wished to see some of our Swiss brethren, but God orders all these things. Besides this kindling of love, and the communications of their light among the brethren, and these communings (so sweet) of brotherly love making us anticipate the great congregation which will assemble itself around the Lamb, the direct action, actually manifested, of the meeting was rather upon those who were not of the Anglican establishment. Several deacons who had left their society as not being based upon the word, were much strengthened and confirmed; there was a Presbyterian minister and an Independent fully convinced that their position was false, and they have both acted since in accordance with their convictions. This will produce much more effect in these countries than if it were an Anglican who had left his parish, and will bring out more into light what we seek, and, whatever feebleness there may be, the gathering together of the church- of the living God and not any sect, and that we are not opposed to such or such a sect, in particular; and this is what already has taken place, for the report of it has been spread in the two most populous parts of England, namely, London and Lancashire. However, that does not as yet come to much; God only knows what the result will be. It will be, at least, of Him, for we are very feeble, whether as to the number of brethren or as to the number of ministers. So much the better, in a sense. But there is a great movement, though much hidden, among dissenters: those whom I have met, dare not defend their system by the word, and I hear everywhere that they confess constantly in private that there is something bad in their state somewhere; that is indeed the state of all the systems here, stronger outwardly and more active than ever, but all on the quicksands, and trembling within. What I remark is, that they are more openly attached to the world, and act consequently more openly for their private interests, whether established or dissenting. It is God alone who can withdraw His own from the judgment which must come upon the world. I feel it more and more each day; with much external display, the Establishment becomes every day more popish, the dissenters more feeble.
As for ourselves, our meeting has been, by the grace of our God, in very great blessing. All have felt it, more than any previous meeting. Its character was a little different. We were more in public, and there were other circumstances. God continues, my brethren, to bless our little flocks. They have much increased in Ireland since my leaving, and are walking happily in love; it is only, however, a small thing: the enmity against them increases greatly every day. Their conduct, however, from that which I hear, produces effect, gathers strength in the consciences of those who surround them in several places. In England also there are several flocks recently formed; as that which —— visited at Hereford, whence I write; and a great increase in the numbers of brethren in the North (Cumberland), and I am invited this week to visit Edinburgh, where thirty-six are gathered together. As to our churches formed longer ago, several have also been increased since my going away, and there have been in several parts several conversions, insomuch that (although in great feebleness) we ought to thank God for what He is doing. Still, as in Ireland, the enmity both of Anglicans and dissenters increases also. It is what the children of God must always expect, “Ye know that the world hath hated me before it hated you,” the Lord says.
You see, dear brethren, I have believed that you would take interest in all that concerns us, as I do in all that concerns you, as if I were amongst you, as I have been, with my heart fully occupied and blessed, so many times. May God, who is good, who alone can establish and strengthen us by His grace and His power, be constantly with you, and may His presence be powerfully felt, dear brethren, amongst you. Be united, closely united, united in that charity which is the bond of perfectness. No blessing without that; nothing will be lacking where love abounds. Perhaps we are not perfected in the order in which we are, as to ourselves here. I am persuaded that we are very far from perfection. The only thing which would give me fear for our brethren here would be to see a high idea of themselves, and satisfaction in their present state beginning to rise up among them; for when I compare this state with the Bible, I find such a distance, although we are, and we ought to be, deeply thankful for what God has given us and shewn. But if there are imperfections it is love and union which will prevent their bad effects, and which will give room to weigh circumstances and to find the remedies that the word of God can furnish to spiritual wisdom; at least that love is the bond of perfectness. I pray God with all my heart that you may be united in heart and in the practices of brotherly love which so much nourishes that love, and that your ties may be strengthened and drawn closer by the Spirit of God, bound fast together in the strength of our eternal union with Christ, and in the strength of the grace which flows like the precious oil poured on the head of Aaron, and which went down unto the skirts of his garments. If I may further, dear brethren, express the wishes of my heart for you, it is that you may be large-hearted towards all Christians, and rigid in discipline towards yourselves; a discipline, nevertheless, of love. We are priests, I believe, to separate that which is pure and impure it is true, but to discern, to purify, and to restore; to wash each other’s feet—not judges of what is not of God.
The desires of my heart are towards you, dear brethren, that you may be more and more as true saints, full of love, the means of satisfying the heart of Christ, and accomplishing the object for which He gave Himself, of gathering together the children of God who are scattered abroad. I salute with all my heart, dear brethren, your pastors and your deacons, by means of whom I have so many times communicated with you all, and all the church. How many beloved ones pass before my spirit in thinking at this moment of——. Indeed, dear brethren, I have a deep sense of your love. If God preserve us in life, I have still, if it is His will, the hope of seeing you again, and finding again that same affection that I have met when with you. I salute also our dear sisters. May the God of all surpassing grace keep them near Him. I have confidence that ——, although she may think me her enemy, has not been seduced by that fatal delusion of Irvingism. There was a brother at M.’s whom I was sorry not to have seen. May God keep him, or bring him back from such an error, if he has already fallen into it.
I desire so much, dear brethren, to receive tidings of you, how all is going on at——, how the little meetings in the town go on, if they still exist, if much work is being done among the unconverted, and if there are conversions and souls added to your number. Seek, dear brethren, personal holiness, devotedness, to have your hearts filled with the Holy Spirit, in order that your hearts may carry the savour of Christ, of whom that Spirit is the witness, and may all things enhance Christ to your souls. Oh what peace, what sweetness, what liberty there is when we are filled with the Holy Spirit. May He not be grieved. May God give you grace to seek that all your comings together may be the manifestation of the Holy Being who is in the midst of you, that other Comforter, that you may be the habitation of God by the Holy Spirit. I find that the flesh manifests itself in the impatience which seeks human means to reach some divine end, instead of trusting entirely to Him: may God keep you from this snare. I am persuaded, dear brethren, of the importance of your position. If you keep simplicity, spirituality, and if you do not attempt to go farther than the strength God has given you, the strength that God allows you—if you keep yourselves from undertaking to be able, by human wisdom, for things in which God, on the contrary, will make the actual feebleness of His church to be felt, from making arrangements instead of following His word, God will use you as witnesses, in the world, of the assembly of His own, of His church, in spite of all your feebleness; a testimony of all importance every day. For every event confirms me in the conviction, in the faith, that we are in the last times, and that this conviction is absolutely necessary, I do not say for salvation, but for the walk of the church, and in order that a faithful witness, sure, and according to the heart of God, may be rendered. The gospel may be preached, and God may bless it, as perhaps at the Oratoire or at Pré l’Evêgne, but that is not the witness of the church of God to the state in which the world is, nor to its hopes in the midst of the disorder. If you are simple and faithful, full of love, united, and spiritual, separate from the world, waiting for His Son from heaven, you will be able to be it, and you will be it. I desire it with all my heart, for the glory of God everywhere, and in your country, which, since my visit, has been so dear to me. I desire it for you, my dear brethren; may God bless you and keep you. Again I greet you all with all my heart, praying God to keep you in humility. You will pardon me my letter, written in the midst of a work constantly increasing, and the produce of a feeble heart. If you receive it as the witness of my faithful love to all of you, I shall be fully content.
I am, very dear brethren, your brother and servant affectionately in our Lord and Saviour glorious and human.
Hereford [not before 1837].
* * * * *
Beloved Brother,—A little more leisure enables me to take up my pen to write to you, having long had your letter lying on my table for that purpose. I know not, but I have a little lingered in my energies or I should have been out of this before now; as it is, with what I have to do I shall hardly be in England before the winter is passed. The Lord however knows, but it seems to me—and yet who knows what the morrow brings forth?—that certain duties lie before me in——. There is considerable blessing in certain portions of the work, but in all the older Christians a certain languor seems to pervade. I know not, alas! whether I ought not to class myself among the number. It is not that I have not laboured plenty; but labour, and labour of faith or love is quite a different thing. The Lord fill us with His own Spirit.
Your letter, beloved friend, left the hope in my heart that you might have gone about and visited many places, whatever your centre or Antioch might have been; since then much time has elapsed, and many circumstances. Lately I have received more than one letter speaking to me of the propagation of Plymouth views, one adding that you had yielded. Whatever the first effect, my soul was with the Lord about them, so as to enjoy perfect peace. I trust His love. I feel more distrust of myself, still I trust in Him that He will be with me in all my ways as to it. But the subject is one of sorrow to me. As to mere details of prophecy my mind is quite open, nor do I find that difference of view, when the view is kept open towards Christ, hinders the fullest sympathy in service. But I do feel the position of Plymouth in the testimony of the latter day is completely changed. It was the power of union and brotherly love, the Philadelphian spirit, which stood as a burning bush in the church; and this was a distinct and positive testimony; as poor dear ——said of you, Get into that slough of love at Plymouth and you are lost. Various portions of light and truth might be furnished by different brethren, and supposing difference or mistake, they dwelt together in unity and were glad to communicate to each other their thoughts even that they might be corrected; and progress was made in the truth. But this has, if not absolutely, all as one disappeared; a hard and rigid dogmatism of view has entirely replaced it: nor am I aware of any one place where the views adopted at Plymouth have been the means of gathering the saints, though they have been propagated in many gatherings, and this is not an unimportant feature to my mind and worthy of your study. I do not say that there is no love at Plymouth: there is in many a Wesleyan or dissenting church within. But Plymouth has ceased to represent this: it represents an opinion, and, alas! yet —— is not conscious of what an immense fall this is, but rather glories in it. If a strange Christian or a brother from another place were to go there, the consequence would be, not that he would find the testimony of the power of love in union and the truth delighted in and sought out, but that he would be instantly subjected to a process of imbruing his mind with certain views. Alas! how sorrowful! and as I have said—not to be aware of what a dreadful fall this is.
To me the testimony once rendered was the proof needed in the church of the presence of the Spirit: comparatively, a view of the details of prophecy was absolutely nothing, and the assiduity of their propagation a moral evil; but that I pass over. I have seen some of the statements, such as the manuscript letters once circulated, much of which were even contradictory, and some things to my mind absurd. Patiently proposed they would have been the subject of gracious consideration and separation of true and false. But this is not the style of the instruction. Of the future that this holds out I do not pretend to judge: whether the Lord means to sink the testimony into the general mass, and so annihilate it, and have views as the only result; or raise up a new one by the determinate action of His Spirit—of this I know nothing, but I have the most perfect and entire confidence in His fidelity and love, so that I am entirely happy as to it, looking simply to Him. I trust to be enabled by Him to walk abidingly near Him in respect of this, for I doubt not His fidelity.
If I know my own heart I am not anxious for an opinion: I feel assured that the doctrine of the church is lost in this teaching. This I think serious, but I am ready to hear everything; but the more I study the more I see (and it has greatly increased in clearness to me lately) this doctrine overlooked, or unknown, or obscured in their views. God’s teaching is not to me doubtful on this.
I have not read all, but I am perfectly assured that the papers on the Revelation are based on an entirely false interpretation of Psalm ex.: the basis is all false; but I desire to learn onward myself for the service of the precious church of God, and to move not a thought or a word in all patience but as He shews it to be for the service of the church of God—His service, when it is His will, as well as if it is His will; for power is with Him and blessing as well as truth. The point important to me in truth is the loss of the doctrine of the church; in this I have no doubt that I am taught of God as far as I have gone, however much I may have yet to learn—alas! how much! but my desire is unity in love. God knows how long this is to last, or if St. Paul’s sighs are to be ours also. At any rate, His will be done: as yet something of it subsists—at any rate in some parts where there is as much difference of opinion, but where brethren are more valued than an opinion. Peace be with you, beloved brother. My soul is in singular peace as to all this, though not without grave and serious thoughts; for we are in serious times. I trust my love is not diminished but increased, but I feel more and more the Lord’s servant, and so of the brethren. He that is nearest to Christ will best serve Him, and there is no serving Him without it. The principle of anticlericalism is making way in and through all that is active for the truth, even where there is notable opposition to them that have been in testimony to it.
Love to all the brethren very tenderly in the Lord. May His abundant grace be shed upon and penetrate their hearts, and all holiness of conversation abound so that His Spirit may be free amongst them. Peace, peace be with them and His presence: my desire is brotherly love.
Very affectionately yours, beloved brother in the Lord.
[1844.]
* * * * *
Beloved Brother,—I reply at once to your letter. I did receive your letter, which lay a good while on my table from constant occupation both of writing and ordinary service at Geneva, where I spent two months. I enter into and enjoy the first part of your present letter and profit by the connection of the passages with the seventh; as to the latter part, it is remarkable that the question you put had occupied me independently of these questions in a particular manner for a good while back; and I had added a long note to a tract on Romans 11.47 on other points which discussions here had given rise to, and I feel that I brought out the point very precisely. And it is precisely on this point, much more clear than heretofore in my mind, that I feel that Plymouth has lost, or for the most part never has attained, the idea which seems to me essential to the church—that is, which essentially distinguishes it in its privileges. I knew that the system which prevails there placed the church on the same ground as Israel in the millennium, and it was one of the things which convinced me that the notion of the church was entirely wanting. Israel will have many things which we have, but had not all that which distinguishes the church—those who have prohlpivkasi “pre-trusted in Christ,” (Eph. 1:12.) Israel believes when they see, but “blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” But my answer to your question, Has the church any spiritual things which it has not received through Israel? is—All that is properly essential to it as the church. The church can be looked at as coming in under the promises and grafted in on the spiritual things of Israel, but it is only the lowest form in which those who compose the church can be considered (nor is it then ever called the church that I am aware of) and only in respect of its administration down here; and in this point of view it will terminate and be cut off to make place for something else. But is that all the idea we are to have of the church, and are those who believe in Christ, when He is not seen, in no different position from those who believe in Him when He is seen? Is union with Christ when He is hid in God the same thing as belonging to Him when He is seen in the exercise of judgment in the earth? Though His life [be theirs] the knowledge of Christ is quite other, as well as the position of the faithful. Will they suffer with Christ; are they conformed to His death having the fellowship of His sufferings; are there no sympathies, no knowledge of Christ which is connected with this which cannot exist when He is reigning? Even the very term Son has a different force here; when God sets forth His Son as King in Zion, He calls on the kings of the earth to kiss Him, and gives as basis of the [decree] which places Him there that He is His Son; “this day have I begotten thee.” Is this the way we know the Son? I admit the truth of what is stated at Plymouth. The evil is this, that all the higher part of truth is left out, and everything which expresses it reduced to this level. Does “To us a son is born, to us a king is given” satisfy the desires of your heart in your knowledge of Christ?
And now let me take up certain expressions which bring this out. You speak of union with Christ risen: well, it is clear that it is with Christ risen, and not with Christ alive after the flesh or in the grave, that I am united. But I do not believe the scripture ever speaks of union with Christ risen simply as our portion; at least it is not what is habitually set forward as the acme of the glory. We are set down in heavenly places in Him—will the Jews be that in the millennium? Our life is hid with Him in God—will He be hid in God in that day? The fact is that the highest privileges of the church are no matter, not merely of Israel’s spiritual privileges, but of promises at all; because union with the Son of God one with the Father is no part of promise, but the basis of a mystery hidden from ages and generations, which gives a body to Christ independent of all question of Israel and Gentile, which knows the Son of God as its source above all distinction of Israel and Gentile. In the administration of the promises, I find Jew first and then Greek—in the church, neither Jew nor Greek; in the administration of the promises, I find Gentiles grafted in who were a wild olive, and natural branches never grafted in at all: but all this relates to the administration of promises here below, so that I find the seed of Abraham in the church, the Gentiles fellow-heirs and partakers of His promise in Christ. But I know not where union with the Son of God is promised, where to be loved by the Father as the Son is loved is promised, the result of which is to give us a place with Him in the kingdom— the immense privilege of suffering with Him now, to see Him as He is, to be like Him.
If it be answered that this will be the result, after the millennium, for Israel during the millennium, I answer: first, there is no such revelation in the word; and secondly, it cannot be, because the Son will have given up the kingdom and be subject that God may be all in all; and further, the distinction of Jews and Gentiles is kept up in the millennium, so that there can be no body of Christ, nor the Spirit, or consciousness in their relationships of the body of Christ which depends on union with Him hidden in heaven in virtue of a life which in its power, thus revealed in heaven, knows neither Jew nor Gentile. I do not recognise that resurrection shuts out distinction between Jew and Gentile (though there be in it the power of a life which does, when its full result is revealed), for “the sure mercies of David” are founded on it—but the church union with Christ hid in God does. If you examine the epistle of St. Peter writing to the Jews he never names the church; indeed St. Paul alone does. St. Peter sees Jesus to the cloud, and sees Him when He is [manifested] out of the cloud again— St. Paul only in heaven and the church united to Him there, to Him who said, “Why persecutest thou me?” St. Paul justifies in its administration by the prophets, a system whose principle and root was above all that they had said. Union with a Saviour hid in God formed no part of the revelation committed to them, nor of the promises made to Abraham, though those who have this union are heirs of the promises, because one with Him who is so. But union with a Saviour hid in God, the Son one with the Father Himself, so that we are one body with Him, of His flesh and of His bones, is of the essence of the church; and I cannot see that this forms a part of Israel’s privileges in the millennium, for then there could not be Jews, and Gentiles their servants and dependants. They will enjoy the fruits of His resurrection, but they cannot be said to be risen with Him; they will enjoy the results of His having gone and received the kingdom from the Father, but they will not be sitting in heavenly places in Him, for He is not there.
In a word, all that is distinctive to the church is lost in this system, for that which is distinctive to it is not the subject of promise; though the church is heir by her union with Christ of the promises which are in Him as the true seed of Abraham; for “to Abraham and his seed were the promises made.” But is that all? Where is the promise which conveys to me, “In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you?” And even in administration, when all things are united in one head in Christ for the administration of the fulness of times it cannot be added for them “in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things, after the counsel of his own will.” These words are the Spirit’s contrast of the church—“that we should be to the praise of his glory,” etc. Many, many are the consequences which flow from this: to be ignorant of it may be loss, but to set it aside—I will not say oppose it—is more than loss. I can only give you the outline of the principle. It is a matter of faith and divine teaching which God gives according to His sovereign goodness; but if this be a part of the glory of Christ, the privilege of the church, and the glory of God in the church throughout all ages, it is a serious thing that Christ should, in the minds of saints, be shorn of it, and their condition, and consequently their affections, reduced to those of Israel in the latter day, and deprived of Christ as He is given to the church. That is where I see the evil, and I trust, carry it to God.
I rejoice in all the joy and blessing of the saints, and I trust that a true apprehension of the relationship between Christ and the church will be manifested in holy and patient love, that others may profit by it if so it be. May the abounding of the Lord’s peace and grace be with all the brethren. “The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated… without partiality and without hypocrisy; and the fruits of righteousness are sown in peace to them that make peace.”
Ever very affectionately yours, beloved brother.
Lausanne, November 14th, 1844.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I hardly know how to give you any answer without going into a long detail of evil that I shrink from when needless, otherwise than by stating to you what I stated to the meeting when I left. I do not know whether you are aware that Mr. Harris, though he did not leave communion, declines further ministry, and proposes leaving Plymouth. I stated that practically I felt God was displaced—that was the general ground. I then stated three things: subverting the principles of our meeting; evil and unrighteousness unconfessed and unjudged; and the refusal to re-establish a certain Friday meeting where anything occurred was considered, so that the means of remedy were cut off—this had been sought previously, and the proposal entirely slighted. I expressed my love to all and value for many, that I believed the great body quite innocent in it, but that there was one Table and one bread, and that they were therefore responsible, and as I felt so myself I could not identify myself any longer with the evil I knew. I did not go into any details then; since, I did, on the demand of a large body, but stated only what had led to my leaving, though, alas, much more was known to me. The great body have felt Harris’s leaving very much; he was the only one (brother) who visited the poor.
The evil was both in the assembly and in individuals, and in individuals leading and taking a prominent part—I judge positive actual evil, and it seems to me of a very sad tendency. I have great peace since I left, only doubting very much whether I should not have done better to have left before, when I first thought and spoke of it. It may have made my way clearer, but only by the most sad means of much more individual evil, and grievous evil in the public assembly. At any rate, patience has been had. I think they are comfortable at the results, but I see no softening of heart or repentance in those who have been leading it on—indeed much evil in many. Such is all the sad tale I have to tell you; to enter into all the details would only make you miserable and me, too, and I am not aware that it would do any one any good; publishing evil of others is seldom glorifying God. Kindest love to all.
Ever very affectionately yours.
Plymouth, November 10th, 1845.
Dearest——,—It is to know where the marks are not, not where they are, which is difficult. Compare Acts 2 and 4, and see; though I admit that did not last long. The great yet simple secret is the presence of the Holy Ghost in the body being lost as to power (for He is there), disowned. The ruin then shews itself in various ways, leaning on human wisdom; leaning on clerical importance to give decency and credit to the world; so that it can join the church without suffering or the cross; leaning on particulars, “I am of Paul,” etc., for schisms in the early church were not separations. I suspect the first separation to have been a godly, though an ill-formed thing, that of Novatus; corruption drove him to it, but he had enough of corrupt principles, or habits rather, in his mind, to go wrong in the formal ground of separation; the incapacity to discern the working of the enemy; the having ceased to expect the Lord; not merely divisions but the scattering of the sheep, so that they are not in any division at all, but in the world (Satan’s place) alone. Scattering I think much stronger than division: “he catcheth the sheep and scattereth them.” Nay worse, the building up of immense worldly systems with perhaps some sheep in them, hidden, and starved often too, and calling these immense systems the church; setting up Satan in it as in popery, or selling what they pretend to be the bride of Christ, and where many of Christ’s sheep are, to kings and princes for money; yea seeking them, as Jeremiah reproaches Judah, instead of their seeking it. Is not this ruin? Say a few of us have escaped and fled out. Why so? Because it was all ruin. The denial of the Spirit would be found in the denial of gifts, or in gifts denying the body, no matter which, for the Holy Ghost is in both. But ruin is found in this that the church, such as God formed and fashioned it, does not exist at all save as He sanctions two or three meeting, in the name of Jesus. When this is done, if it be in the spirit of the unity of the whole body (woe to them if it is not) the Lord will be there. I am not uneasy about a hundred meetings; they broke bread from house to house. If it were separating in heart from brethren, or a fleshly spirit of self-will or self-importance, or excluded any saints really walking as such, then of course it would be evil; and a spiritual person would find it out the first day; but, if in unity and love, twenty meetings in a town are all one to me. I like small gatherings provided they are really in the unity of the Spirit. The brethren may come to need them yet. Great power, I believe, would bring them; little power needs them. It is clear self-importance or chagrin may set them up without God; but that which has brought in the ruin I believe to be moral. “All seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s”; “All men forsook me.” “All they which are in Asia are turned away from me”—not from Christ absolutely but they would not go the whole path of faith with the apostle they feared the cross, the rough and unseemly road the Spirit of God led them. The world had come in in the shape of ease and respectability; it is the first form which the devil puts on for it is order and comeliness for the flesh; but it is the world and Satan, hence power is wanting for the purpose of resisting the other forms, heresy (in opinion) and clericalism; and the vessel of power becomes obnoxious because his standard troubles the conscience, instead of his spiritual power acting on the heart as well (for when the former is reached in a Christian, and not the latter, he kicks against it) and the church goes its own way into the hands of Satan in a worldly clerical road. Wise was God indeed to choose not many mighty, not many noble, not many rich; they find it hard to submit their comforts and comeliness to God’s. A rich body of Christians will become practically poor and simple, or practically worldly. Such is my thought said in haste.
The ruin I see how none can deny; our feelings in it are a further question because they depend on our sympathies with Christ, and that is spiritual power. Every one would not [have] wept over Jerusalem even though not going with its guilt. I judge that dwelling on divisions marks a very feeble estimate of the state of ruin the church is in, but if it be not a name for acquiescence in evil, which is an abomination, I hail every apprehension of the truth. Whatever the door of approach, once in the truth by divine teaching, it will be perceived on every side as men grow in the conscience of what the church is. For where is the bride of Christ, His beautiful flock which He gave us? But, I judge, divisions are rather falsely apprehended, for what are called such in scripture were not separations, but divisions in spirit, etc., among those united; separation there was none but of abandoners of Christianity. I remember the text alarming me on quitting the Establishment, “They went out from us because they were not of us,” till I said, To be sure, because I was not of them; that is just the truth, and I would not be.
St. Hippolyte, April 14th, 1847.
* * * * *
* * * I do not judge temperance societies to be good or scriptural, because they impose another law, and give other motives and other obligations, than scripture or the doctrines of Christ give, and though in particular instances where followed with an unfeigned desire for good, God may have in sovereign mercy overruled them for good (as I dare say may have been the case), yet their general moral effect has been harmful, as all unscriptural things must be. But this is not the ground I go on here, though it is a monstrous thing to substitute an unscriptural invention of man for the institution of God, in a matter which, as to institutions, forms the central expression of the christian system. Further, I think all vows or undertakings of this kind to be positive sin: and am I really to give up the scriptural remembrance of Christ to support a system whose basis I believe to be really (though unwittingly) a sin?
But what is the character of the act? It is not respecting the scruples of others, and leaving them free to act on them, even if seeking to enlighten them, but it is claiming to impose a law instituted by man on the whole church of God, a law which they cannot pretend to see in scripture. This is not respecting individual conscience, nor could I tolerate that the institution of Christ should be subordinated or made to vary for the fancies of men. It is not a question of a certain number at ——, who may perhaps have no very clear idea of the importance of the question. You are changing the institution of Christ for the whole church of God, if indeed in principle you count yourselves one body with it, and imposing unscriptural inventions on the whole body of Christ. Supposing other Christians to come to——who have clear enough judgment to condemn morally the whole notion and principle of temperance societies, and who felt scandalized at the institutions of Christ being subjected to the inventions and vows of men, what are they to do? I avow to you I would not break bread where I saw Christ’s order (in a most touching part of His service too) made the sport of man’s inventions. It is the very idea of the dishonour done to the Lord’s institution which offends me: the acquiescence of twenty or thirty saints in ——, dear as they may be to me, could not affect that.
To me, therefore, I avow to you, it is intolerable: I mean the pretension to subject the whole church of God (for, let it be well weighed, that is what it amounts to) to a notion which is not or cannot be pretended to be a rule of scripture, and which I judge to be sinful in its very nature, and to subject the institution of Christ to it. I judge Christians ought not to break bread where it is knowingly done.
April 21st, 1848.
* * * * *
Beloved Brethren,—I have no intention of commenting on the proceedings in the case of poor Mr. Morris, as I never had any part in it, and believe that the enemy and not the Spirit of God was working in the whole matter; but as some one has sent me “A Letter addressed,” etc. (I do not know who), I felt desirous to make a remark to you, beloved brethren, whose names are appended to it, as to all who concur, though there be but one to whom I am known after the flesh, and present to you a very important principle which seems to me involved in the statement you have made—or, at least, leaves it in a dangerous uncertainty: that union in “faith in the blood of Christ, the Son of the living God,” is to become a kind of allowance of error in those who may claim fellowship on that ground. This principle, I judge, it is of all importance to repudiate. Whatever means may be used, I am bound to see that no man fail of the grace of God, and that there be no root of bitterness, whether it be manifested in doctrine that alienates from God, or in any carnal workings. I should fail in charity towards humble, simple souls did I not. Heresy is a work of the flesh, as other grosser things, and surely has to be checked: words may eat, as doth a canker. Errors are often found to affect fundamental truth which many a simple saint may not perceive to do so.
There is another thing I apprehend sorrowful in your paper: you appear at least to excuse the doctrine, and you lay as a basis of this, that the only sense in which it would be said to affect the doctrine of the cross is asserting that there is another way of obtaining pardon of sin besides the death of the Lord Jesus. Do you think, then, that Satan will always declare his object? This is surely most dangerous ground to take. Supposing it was said that the Divinity of Christ was not necessary seeing suffering was not eternal—an argument, I apprehend, difficult to answer—or for whatever other reason; would that not affect the doctrine of the cross? An inefficient atonement is as bad as another. I use the word suffering instead of punishment, because it seems to me that the word punishment is used a little equivocally; and that to call eternal punishment where the punished person no longer exists is something very like evasion.
What pains me is that you seek to justify the doctrine or excuse it, and not merely to blame the conduct of certain parties as to Mr. Morris. Degrees in punishment do not do away to my mind with what we mean by infinite punishment, no more than degrees of glory with infinite bliss. You give out a deliberate opinion and commit the whole of the meeting to it, not that M. was ill-treated, but that his doctrine does not affect directly, or undermine, the value of the cross or of the Person, work, or blood-shedding of our blessed Lord and Saviour. He who communicates with you must do so on the footing of accepting this theological statement—at least, that he is bound also to accept all such, and hold full communion anywhere and everywhere with Mr. M., and any others who receive and publicly propagate this doctrine. This is a very serious position you have taken. It effectually identifies you with M. and his doctrine. For if it does not directly nor indirectly affect that, and you pronounce him guiltless in holding it, you oblige communion with those holding it and teaching it. It is not, you say, connected with faith in Him: an astonishing statement, as I know of no truth that is not. If any person is convinced that your theology is wrong, and that the wonted doctrine of Christians is to be maintained, and resistance distinctly to be made to the view in question, or that seeking followers for it is heresy, you exclude them completely from your communion: because that serious error and truth are to be on the same terms in communion is a principle insupportable in the church of God. You affirm it is not important, hence nothing ought to be done. You will find it hard to convince the great body of Christians of it. And indifference to error makes truth no truth at all.
I say nothing of the excommunication, as you well know I could have nothing to say to it; and I see in your tract the expression of that of which I have been long conscious—the result of what all know I have considered a work of Satan elsewhere. But I look to the goodness of God, dear brethren, to set it all right: His power is above all the workings of the enemy. I have never been at —— in my life, and it is very possible never may, but as your letter was sent to me, I should nave failed in faithfulness and in love, too, if I had not communicated with those who have signed it, and with all the brethren adhering to it. It is not a blame of the excommunication, but a theological judgment on the doctrine as a ground of the reception of persons teaching it. You have committed the meeting to the doctrine being harmless and blameless. I only want to press this fact, beloved brethren, on your consciences before God, and that you may consider the position in which it places yourselves and others. Though I address my letter necessarily to one, I shall feel thankful if it were communicated to all. I have nothing to add but unfeigned affection in Christ to all.
Taunton, May, 1848.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—Thank you much for your note. The prospect of the death of your dear mother gave me a peculiar feeling of rest and peace in the Lord. I felt it well, as it were, that one who had gone through many storms and trials, and known and served Him through them, should be at rest with Him; and that rest and His love seemed exceeding sweet to me. It is not that I do not feel what an object and link and centre of affection has been lost to you all, and your dear mother was so eminently calculated to be so; but the world is made for that, and whatever new ties and new affections come in, they never after all, though occupying while the mind is busy, destroy in the secret of the soul the consciousness that some are lost for man, as water spilt upon the ground that cannot be gathered up again here. There is one tie that never breaks, and that your dear mother has now sweeter and more intimate enjoyment of than heretofore and, freed from all hindrance, what her heart desired. It is all well, and far better. I had thought of running down, but on pondering it before the Lord, I have relinquished it. My place is rather in service, fulfilling as a hireling my day until I am called away too. Could I have been useful to your dear mother living; or if she had not been surrounded with love and honour from her own and the saints now she is gone, I would have gone twice as far; but that I know she will be in far better hands than mine, and that the dear saints at Hereford will surround her grave with all that could soothe those who are in sorrow around it. Give my kindest love, I beg you, to all your family… Peace be with you all, and much of His blessed presence in committing the body of your dear and valued mother to the care of Him who will produce it in glory and beauty in that day. I had thought she might yet have been a blessing among the dear saints at ——, but the Lord had a shorter and therefore happier path to rest for her, and it is all well, for we are not at the end yet… .
Ever, beloved brother,
Affectionately yours in unfeigned sympathy, and I pray you to say so to all, for indeed there were few I valued as I did her who is gone.
[Exeter, June 20th, 1848.]
* * * * *
[From the French.
Dearest Brother,—It appears to me that what is said in Romans 8:13 is, like a great many of the dicta of St. Paul, the expression of an abstract principle which belongs even to the nature of things, or rather of God Himself and His principles of government, comprehending certain great truths connected with them, as, for example, here, “through the Spirit.” Any man whosoever who lives according to the flesh, shall die; this is the end of a life according to the flesh. He reaps what he has sown: one may listen to the flesh, and that for long enough; and the remorse and anguish and distress, and, in the end, the getting out of this condition, shew that there was a principle which was struggling with the flesh, and to which God, at last, gives the victory. Still we may be in doubt for a time under what principle such a case ranges itself, but God knows those that are His. In Romans 2:6-10 there is a similar abstract principle, of which the apostle makes use in connection with the introduction of the Gentiles. Also it is not a question of the Spirit in chapter 8; he had already said enough to introduce the power by “which this life acted, and the principles or the rule by which it was guided. In this point of view the passages seem to me very simple, only, as it has happened in so many cases, in the application there are to our undiscerning eyes some very equivocal cases—but this is a matter of discernment which, besides, does not concern us often, and does not touch the interpretation of the passage…
Probably at V— one needs to be steeped in love; love covers a multitude of sins, if they are not covered. For that matter there is no remedy but an increase of love, for if they are not covered, they ought then to be judged; and the spiritual feebleness which leaves them uncovered, shews plainly the incapacity to act aright with regard to them when they appear. We have to seek power from on high for such a condition of things, and Jesus ‘is faithful, perfectly faithful to intervene, and to answer the necessities of His people. The little public discipline is harrowing, and it is most hurtful to piety. But what is to be done if full grace does not sustain holiness? My comfort is that the Lord is watching over these dear friends at——dear to Him, thank God, and through His great grace, very dear to me. I hope that His goodness will cause them to avoid the snares that there are in the separation of the brethren into several meetings, and that it may grant to the brothers to watch as to this by an increase of mutual love and openness at other times, and in seeking each other out.
Greet them most affectionately from me. I desire earnestly to see all our dear brethren in Switzerland. I do not know when God will grant me this sweet privilege.
Your very affectionate.
[Plymouth, July 27th, 1848.]
* * * * *
Dearest ——,—As regards Isaiah 66, there cannot be a doubt that the Lord’s words refer to Hinnom, where they burnt the filth of Jerusalem; Isaiah 66 refers to the same; Gehenna is the valley of Hinnom. I take the passage as simply as possible, that the apostate Jews judged at the coming of the Lord will be then a memorial of their folly and the Lord’s judgment, to those who come up; their carcases also I take simply as such (it is used, it seems, of man or beast), left there an instructive spectacle of divine judgment terrible to behold. But this is just what shews that it has nothing to do with souls, nor resurrection for judgment.
But the use of Gehenna in the New Testament, beyond all controversy, goes beyond this. In Mark 9:42-48, it is evident it is no question of the judgment of Jerusalem at the last day. But Luke 12 puts it out of all question, where the Lord says, “Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell;” and, Matthew 10:28, “Able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” These passages shew that though the Lord uses the figure of the valley of the son of Hinnom, He uses it figuratively in reference to what is not of this earth; and hence “worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” must be used in a like way.
The quotation of Isaiah 66 is absolutely futile, and proves nothing at all about the matter, save as a figure; and the figure is, that the judgment should not disappear, as in ordinary cases. I know they would use the word “destroy,” but that is not the question here, but the value of Isaiah 66. I have discussed it elsewhere; it is false to suppose it means to cause to cease to exist. I do not remember the three passages in which aijwnivwn is used for the past, but I think there is proV crovnwn aijwnivwn used in reference to all the dispensed ways of God. The promise of eternal life was in eternity, before the question of dispensational dealings, for in Christ was life, and we receive of His fulness; but the word crovno" here gives the clearest force (it is 2 Tim. 1:9) to aijwvnio" as aijw'na tou' kovsmou touvtou. There is no doubt that aijwvn is used in this way, the end of this aijwvn, etc.; that is not the question: is it not used in an eternal sense? Now several passages prove it is; as eternal God, eternal Spirit, eternal covenant, eternal life, along with which is eternal punishment. As to Romans 2:6-10, there is no doubt that eternal life is presented as the portion of those who are characterised by the conduct there described, leaving aside, that is, Jew and Gentile, and fixing the portion given of God on realities, realities of moral state, be they found in Jew or Gentile. I do not see any difficulty here; he shews plainly enough how this can be found in a man, that is, solely through Christ, but it is found in those that are really His.
As to Romans 5, it is not exact to say that all sinned in Adam; though, as a general expression, I should apprehend a person. All fell in him who descend naturally from him, and are under sin, katestavqhsan aJmartwloiV, which it is important to maintain; but in dealing with conscience we have always ejf* w|/, “for that all have sinned.” Death does not merely follow as a corruption of nature—that, is a terrible mistake; death came on Adam and all his descendants at once by sin, as a judgment of God—a very different thing. Moreover, Satan has the power of death; that is not mere corruption of nature, as the Lord fully felt, who had no corruption of nature. “Sinned” is ambiguous, because it conveys the idea of personal responsibility in will; all were involved in sin, in Adam’s sin. If you have further difficulty in this, let me know, for it is important to be clear…
I have no doubt the Lord is sifting, most rightfully, and I am disposed to think God in grace has stepped in and turned the tide, and that blessing may flow—I speak of England. But the sifting was needed; corruption and laziness, Laodiceanism, was creeping in, and fearfully; it was quite polite to be a brother. Peace be with you. Kindest love to the brethren around you. The Lord be with them and all His beloved ones.
Your affectionate brother in the Lord.
Nimes, December 12th, 1849
* * * * *
[From the French.
Dearest Brother,—I apply myself to the critical questions in order. I see no proof whatsoever that either Elijah or Moses is one of the two witnesses; I see that the two witnesses are in the same moral position as these two saints, but no proof that they are identical. Besides, if John the Baptist was not Elijah, he never can be literally. That the same person should be “angel of his presence,” and afterwards be man, is indeed possible; but one who is not a certain individual can never become so literally. “In the spirit and power of Elias,” well and good, but we are speaking of personal identity.
I believe that the 144,000 of Revelation 7 are the twelve tribes as a whole; the mystical number of the elect of Israel in its totality; the 144,000 of chapter 14, the special remnant which will have suffered intelligently in the times of trouble at Jerusalem, and which, having been in the same position as Jesus on the earth (according to the thought of grace) will be with Him in the earthly royalty, although they will not be in heaven. They understand and learn the song, being more associated with heaven than any other. They form a part necessarily of the whole; this is the reason I said not absolutely.
Again, as to Hebrews 10:12, you are mistaken in supposing that there is transposition, for there is none; on the contrary, I say, that to connect eij" toV dihnekeV" with prosenevgka" is neither order nor sense, and that a person who in some measure seized the habits of expression could not connect them. Mivan ……… prosenevgka" qusivan eij" toV dihnekeV" is not, I take it upon myself to say, without pretending to be very learned, which I by no means am, a Greek expression, nor is it even intelligible; whilst eij" toV dihnekeV" ejkavqisen, as the effect of this sacrifice is perfectly natural, and follows, and connects itself with the train of reasoning; and that no other way of taking the words is admissible. Besides, eij" toV dihnekeV" is not the same thing as eij" toVn aijw'na; it is used in contrast to the business of the Jewish priest, who got up, and remained standing, being a priest, and in order to renew the sacrifice, whilst Christ is seated continuously. This force of the word becomes so much the more manifest because the use of the word with sacrifices has quite a different sense in this chapter even, and to attach to it the sense that you suppose in connection with the sacrifices would overturn the whole reasoning of the apostle. In the sense that I attach to it, all is simple (and it is its true sense). Look at verse 1. You have there sacrifices offered continuously eij" toV dihnekeV". Give to the word in this passage the sense that you desire to give it in verse 12, and the apostle cuts the ground from under his feet before beginning his reasoning. The priests offered them continually—nothing more simple. Efavpaz is the word to express what you desire to attribute to eij" toV dihnekeV". I take eij" toV dihnekeV" (ver. 14) in the same sense; there is no interruption in their perfection which demands a fresh sacrifice. (Apply this to the question of forgiveness.) This implies perpetuity, because if the sacrifice is not renewed, its efficacy is perpetual; but the conclusion that the apostle draws from it is oujk e[ti prosforaV periV aJmartiva". There are many of these things about which I have deliberate convictions, and of which I am more or less ready to give an account, but on which I do not insist when I do not see that the profit of souls is involved in it; and about which in any case I do not like to enter into a contest, because this very seldom tends to profit. Here, for example, I do not admit that the original bears any other translation than that of the English version…
As to myself, you should never consider it a reproach to have thought differently from me. In general, I like better reading what is not according to my own thought, because one always gains (if there is piety, and the foundations are solid) something by reading it. Divine truth is of such vast extent, and is so many-sided, taking up the nature of God, His dispensations, His ways with men, their responsibility, the positive revelations of His counsels, the moral and eternal relations which flow from what He is, and from what other beings are; that on all points the truth may be looked at in many ways, and one fills up the gap left by the others. I see this even in the apostles. John speaks of the nature of God; Paul of His counsels; Peter of His ways. All have the same truths; only as one goes on everything becomes increasingly absorbed in Christ; and if even there were mistakes in what the man writes, one eliminates them through grace, and one takes what is given of God, which is not according to one’s own way of looking at things. So that it does not trouble me to find in your work ideas different from my own. Besides, if the foundations are well maintained, I like that there should be great breadth amongst brethren, and not a party formed upon certain views, provided also that devotedness and separation from the world, and the truths that lead us to this, be also maintained in all their energy, because the blessing of souls is in question in this.
I think, indeed, dear brother, that, as you say, you have studied too much, and read the Bible too little. I always find that I have to be on my guard on this point. It is the teaching of God and not the labour of man that makes us enter into the thoughts and the purpose of God in the Bible. We search it without doubt, but the cream is not found through much labour of the mind of man. I do not think that any one will believe that I do not wish that it should be much read, but I do wish that it should be read with God. It seems to me that there is too much labour in your way of reading it; but in this, as in all else, man learns himself, and purifies himself. I doubt whether the literal application which you sometimes make is warrantable, and whether the ways and the scope and the purposes of God bend and limit themselves to human accuracy, to what man divines as to accuracy. I am perfectly sure that all is divinely accurate, but the subject being vast, and seen only in part, to reduce it to human accuracy is, at times, simply to falsify everything. I see two ends of an immense rainbow, I suppose that they never meet. Were I able to see the whole, I should only deem that my parallel line has only destroyed the bow; that not only are the beauty and the unity lost, but that which was in the nature even of the refraction which is necessary to the existence of the phenomenon. The word of God is the communication of divine things to the understanding (rendered capable by the Spirit) of man; but we know in part, and the whole not being communicated as God knows it, as indeed it could not be, and ought not to be, we often lose it by attempting to put it into a frame.
After this long, but as to its principle, important preface, I come to the wise and foolish virgins. I think that the virgins who accompany the queen (Psa. 45) are probably the cities of Judah; but the use of the same figure to signify the same thing (a thing common enough among students of prophecy) often betrays the one who uses them thus into serious mistakes; and there is still less ground for this when the nature and the moral order of the writing is entirely different. That the virgins in Matthew 25 should be the cities of Judah, is a thought that never crossed my mind till I saw it in your letter, and it seems to me that the passage would not allow of it for an instant. I have never had any other thought than that which interprets them as Christians, from the rejection of Christ till the rapture of the church. Bellett, for a moment, wished to make it the Jewish remnant. I did not deny the analogies, but he gave it up himself. I am fully and perfectly assured that it is disciples during the Lord’s absence, not the church as a body, but those who take the place of professors in the responsibility that attaches to it. Up to the end of verse 30 in chapter 24, we see what concerns the Jews and Israel as a body complete and entire: all His elect are gathered from this whole people. He resumes (chap. 25:31) to shew the judgment of the Gentiles; between the two the Lord gives the instructions needed for His own during His absence. This is why the bride is not named. I admit that chapter 24:32 to 44 looks at the judgments in relation to the earth, and does not speak of the rapture of the church; but from verse 45 the Lord considers the conduct of His people as to their responsibility during the whole time of His absence. In the parable of the talents it is so unquestionably; in this (24:45-51) that of servants. The thing is clear in principle. Now, when responsibility is in question for any one, it is always a question of the manifestation of Jesus. This is what takes place here. The conduct taken account of is during His absence. When Jesus appears the effect of this conduct will appear; thus the Tore is but the time of the application of the manifestation of Jesus to the conduct which preceded it. Now the conduct here is the conduct of professors, I do not at all doubt. All the elements of the parable confirm for me the application that I make of it. I do not see in the case of the Jewish remnant, or of the cities of Judah, anything resembling the going forth of the virgins to meet the Bridegroom, the sleep during the delay of His coming, the awakening afterwards which causes them to rejoin the Bridegroom before He reaches the bride— such as takes place in the case of the virgins. Nothing is more simple than the application of it to professors. Going out to meet Jesus is the calling of the faithful; alas! they have fallen asleep. The cry of the Bridegroom awakes them, because they accompany Him when He comes to Jerusalem. In the parable they have nothing to do with the bride. The heavenly bride is never the relation of the members of the church in their responsibility; the bride enjoys without fail her privileges in heaven. The Bridegroom does not enter, as you make Him do, into His earthly kingdom before the marriage at Jerusalem: it is there that He is king. There is no question of the Son of man in the parable; the passage where the expression is found (ver. 13) is rejected by all the editors.
As to your remaining explanations, I consider them without foundation, because when Christ will be at Jerusalem, Antichrist will be destroyed. It seems to me that you seek for details too much, instead of seizing the bearing of the passages. You say, dear brother, “that it is certain that the word of the Lord tells me that when the Lord shall descend with the church, then the kingdom shall be likened unto the virgins.” Allow me to tell you that the word of the Lord does not say so at all. You think, I do not doubt, that you can prove that this is what the passage means, but the word of the Lord does not say it. I admit that the church is not presented here as the heavenly bride, but the virgins are not presented as friends of the earthly bride, or in any relation with her whatsoever, but exclusively of the Bridegroom, which is the place of the church alone, that is, of its members, for we are not speaking here of angels.
As to the result of your researches, I do not see any harm in your having given it forth, but it is possible that you would have done better if you had kept your work for some time in order to weigh it in the presence of fresh light; but God makes all things work together to the greatest blessing of those who love Him. It is my habit scarcely to put one foot before the other in the study of the word, and to give forth nothing until I am able, in measure, to say (while still liable to make mistakes, of course), This is the mind of God. This makes me go on very slowly, but I seldom have to retrace my steps—a few details that I have adopted from others, without observing it, affecting sometimes, but rarely, the thoughts that I have received. And now I am about to make a confession to you which may perhaps annoy you; I have not read your work on the Revelation, except a part on the seven churches. 1 had more than one reason; amongst others, I do not like reading in fragments anything on which I have to form a judgment; I take the whole. I am waiting until the whole has come out, and I shall gain this by it, that the controversy will be over, and that I can with greater calmness make my own of what is good, and pass over the rest in silence. This is what I do when I have time to read works, which is seldom the case. We need to know how to use the word by the Spirit; without this the letter killeth; it is only a labour of which the mind of man is capable, nothing but a concordance is needed for it… I own that I think that you rest in the letter in such a way as often to lose the purpose of God… . I do not doubt that I shall find useful things, and others that I can profit by in many ways, although I do not accept the conclusion to which they lead you. I often find brethren who have received ideas from the Spirit of God, and I profit by these; the conclusion which they draw from them, what they like as the system which they have formed from them, I totally reject; this is by no means an unusual case. A good many brothers seek edification, and are not able to suck the honey and leave the flower, however beautiful it may be, without further occupying themselves with it; sounding, comparing, judging between rival systems is not their part. This is the reason I have thought that perhaps it would have been better to devote Le Témoignage to what would not have required this kind of labour—but no matter. In short, when all has appeared, I hope to read it and examine… A want of agreement about details’ is not for me a reason for controversy; it must be something essential.
As to repentance, God proposed it as a matter of government and of His ways with man, as a means of obtaining pardon; and if Israel had repented in this sense they would have been pardoned. In the end they will have received double for all their sins. In fact, God forgave His people individually, always in view of the work of Christ. (Rom. 3:25, 26.) We must never forget this; otherwise the foundations are shaken, and the meaning of all the sacrifices from Adam on. If man had received Christ, this would have proved that he was good, and there would have been no need of the sacrifices; but it was far from being so, as the rejection of Christ has proved.
As to the other point, it is impossible that our sins should be imputed to us; “once purged” we “have no more conscience of sins.” God, as judge, sees the blood which has taken them away, and His unchangeable righteousness has now been manifested. It is here that we find the force of eij" toV dihnekeV". Besides, when once sprinkled with the blood of Christ this sprinkling is not repeated, its efficacy lasts for ever; but with the Father I seek forgiveness as from a Father whom I have offended. I am humbled before Jesus because I have dishonoured Him, but I have no thought that anything can be imputed to me which demands the sprinkling of blood. The ashes of the red heifer, and the washing of the feet are the figures to apply here; the sprinkling of blood has been made, and it is not repeated. In the sense of imputation and sprinkling, forgiveness is not now sought; in the sense of having offended one’s Father, it is. The confession of one’s faults with humiliation is all right, if grace is fully maintained before the heart.
I beg you earnestly, dear brother, to be diligent about your temporal business. You know well that I am very far from wishing to see you leave your work, but what our hand finds to do we are to do it with our might. Limit your expenses at once, if they exceed your income, and arrange your business as a good steward of the Lord. Disorder in one’s business is dishonouring to the gospel, as being careful to increase our wealth like the world dries up (one can do no more) the soul. The word has told us that it is the way and the root of every sort of evil. But the principles are simple; to live simply in order to be able to give of what one has, and to be faithful in one’s own things, making use of them as having been entrusted to us to have in order to use them according to the Lord. The Book of Proverbs teaches us clearly in detail about these things.
There is a practical difference between oneself and one’s sins. The renewed soul is much more pained at the discovery of the root which shoots up after the knowledge of the love of Jesus, than at the remembrance of past sins, the forgiveness of which it much more easily understands. Besides, you put the judgment of self before the judgment of sins, whereas sins committed generally act first on the conscience; after that comes the experience of what the flesh is, and this is so true that often in the early days of conversion one thinks that there is no more sin in one. That of which I have spoken as coming afterwards is not exactly the knowledge of sin in oneself when judging it, but the fact of being in the presence of God—what we are in the presence of the light. To judge the flesh, myself, is a different thing from being in the presence of God in judgment, being such. What you quote from your letter to——is perfectly right. When he says that the knowledge of self is the business of the whole life, I think this a very sad idea. God makes us known to ourselves simply as a means; the object of life is to know Christ. Fathers in Christ have known Him who is from the beginning; and one does not even know oneself except by knowing Him. To be occupied only with evil (and there is nothing but evil in oneself) is a sad life, and it is not the thought of God. His desire is that for our happiness we should be occupied with Him. It is a thought as false as it is sad, and it means nothing but ignorance of the grace of our God. The truth is just the opposite of this, that I ought to be occupied only with Christ, and that this is the grace of God to me. Sometimes, when I have neglected to do this (so much the worse) to bring me back again He is forced to occupy me with myself; but I cannot say that the knowledge of myself is the first element of faith—the knowledge in general that we are sinners, and even that there is no good in us—be it so, but we know ourselves badly, very badly, and God causes us to pass through a spiritual eighth of Deuteronomy in order to understand our dependence on Him and His grace, a very difficult lesson for the heart of man to learn.
I must stop; I am called elsewhere. Greet warmly our dear brethren, and after all my severe criticisms receive, dearest brother, the assurance of my sincere affection.
Your brother in Jesus.
Pau, March 25th, 1850.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I am at last come to England, and with the hope, the Lord willing, of working there a while, exceedingly happy in the thought that it is with the Lord’s will.
My declaration at Rawstorne Street was, in general purport, that, without condemning or justifying any one, not having been here, nor even knowing what had been done, I began on my own definite ground of Christ, and the unity of the church of God; that I felt the need of being on the ground of, and occupied with Christ, and seeking the blessing of His church— not as undecided, but because the question was for me decided, and that, being on the Lord’s ground, as I did not doubt I was, and a service to perform to Him, I could deal with each case individually as it arose, as His servant. I believe it relieved and set free many who were arrived there in need and desire, and this furnished the positive expression to their minds. I am very immovable on this ground, the Lord’s strength helping me. I accepted the entire humiliation; and told them that I thought we should only have a blessing in proportion as we did. I believed I had failed but not in being decided, but in being so too little, or rather too late; so that I bowed, but that I believed the Lord now permitted me to resume my course—I believe with more blessing than ever, though different (less agreeable, perhaps, but more real and deeper). I feel very strongly indeed on the ground I am on, and that it is the Lord’s, of and with Him, however poor an instrument I may be when there.
I have not entered into the discussions on Craik’s doctrines. I dread dissecting, if I may venture so to speak, Christ; it is not the way to honour Him. Very few will speak so as not to commit themselves; “No man knoweth the Son but the Father.” We may know many precious things of Him which enable us to condemn error, but nice definitions of what He was, and how He was it, human language and human thoughts are not competent to, I judge. I do condemn many things I have heard said, but I have not examined into the details of the teaching objected to, having been out of the country. Most of the papers I have never read, nor have I an intention, unless for the need of some soul; that is the ground I go upon, each individual soul to whom my service applies, and I wait till the Lord brings things before me. I have seen and heard what I doubt not is very bad, and fear it is much worse. I have also looked at Bellett’s paper. I see expressions liable to objection, but I have no doubt of his soundness of soul and doctrine as to Christ. I apprehend I judge what he says; but it says, I think, nothing; revelations of what Christ is, or unfolding of such, I accept—definitions, scarcely, for what is it that defines?
I had a letter from—— which I answered. I do not think his conscience is adequately awake to the evil at Bethesda; but I have never thought that souls have been sufficiently individually dealt with. When one is on unquestioned ground with Christ Himself, one is able then to do so. That is the ground I take, and with God’s help I shall not get off it. I act broadly as being right; we shall see whether God sanctions and justifies it. I hope to act in grace, being right.
I know nothing of how anybody has been dealt with anywhere; I am willingly ignorant of abroad: it is undesirable to meddle in the details of what you cannot be answerable for in principle, and are unable to set on any footing in which your conscience can act. I refer to your question as to Plymouth. I repeat, I begin and afresh on the broad ground of my service to Christ. If alone, I act alone; if with others, so much the happier for me. I apprehend things are opening out in a renewed and somewhat altered character of service in England —altered as to form and machinery of work, I mean, but this is only beginning, but so it seems to me: what our need is is spiritual energy and love to work. But God is, I believe, working to produce a new movement in work. Here they seem to me in a very gracious spirit, humble, and accepting the humiliation as of the Lord, and hence surely for good; and the meetings I have been at have been happy, serious, and godly, free too with a very godly freedom. I have been very happy at them. There is less dispersion than I supposed; I should think it had all done them a deal of good: indeed, the gracious Lord makes all things work together for good.
I close. I am working hard, having much study work, but happily; occupied somewhat with books in connection with attacks on scripture; it has at any rate enhanced it to my eyes. What a difference when you have found the universal mind of God in the word! In vain people reason—if kept by grace— there they are, blowing 5 ith their breath at a mountain to upset it; it remains just where it was, and the character of presumption looks like madness if it was not malice, and the total ignorance of what they are, and what the mountain is— the only thing proved; but the believer gets truth out of it, and the eternal power of the word is more clearly recognised. Peace be with you, dear brother…
Many doors were open in France, and blessing; only I felt my duty here, I should have been unwilling to leave; but I am at peace because I did. The Lord grant you to walk in love and grace towards others, serving Him, for the time is short… .
Your affectionate brother.
London, July 25th, 1851.
* * * * *
To the same.]
Dearest ——,— I do not hold that the church is to be ignorant of the times because her period is not determined by them; “There are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time.” Surely if Pharisees ought to have discerned [Matt. 16:3], we ought. She ought by the word morally to discern all things, but she is doctrinally by the word set outside these times and signs. The Revelation is given to the church that she may understand her place; that does not necessarily place her in it. She is not of time, though in it; not of the world, though in it. As to the second remark as to the author of the Apocalypse being the same as of the Gospel, etc., it is merely ignorance, which would lead me to judge the author incapable of any sound judgment at all about the matter. The relation of the Father to His children never appears in the Revelation. It is the throne, and the language and style and spirit so unique as to prove totally the contrary to what you refer to. —— would have been wiser if he had heard both sides, but in his position he is not likely to be free from the deceit of the enemy… I do not meddle with other people’s judgment as to Bethesda, because I have my own, and as I believe this is a deceit of the enemy; unless delivered from it I do not expect a sound judgment. The word abiding in us, and the unction of the Holy One can alone deliver us from the world, and Antichrist in his various forms. The world and its spirit are not discerned else, so that I expect delusion.
I have not seen the last edition of Horæ Apocalypticæ. I read the third, I think, a year or two ago. As to four parts of the earth, there seems no ground for it at all. The Vulgate follows the corrected order of the words adopted by all the editors. As to the “measure of wheat,” others have had the same thought before him; still one man’s daily food for his whole wages is at least a scarcity, for as the commentaries say he may have a wife and children, and at any rate must have a house and clothes; however it would prove scarcity, and exact measurement rather than famine: moreover, I pronounce nothing upon it.
As to Hebrews 12:22-24, kaiv divides the terms. You are come to Mount Zion; to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; to an innumerable company of angels, the general assembly; to the church of the firstborn whose names are written in heaven; to God the Judge of all; the spirits of just men made perfect; Jesus, Mediator of the new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel. It ascends from the lowest point of millennial glory uniting heaven and earth, the earthly seat of royal grace in contrast with Sinai the nation’s responsibility (Zion was after Ichabod), and then gives the heavenly Jerusalem in contrast with earthly Zion as in general the city of heavenly glory. He then opens out the whole panhvguri", the great multitude of angels just there meeting his eye; then as a special company he singles out the elect heavenly church: this gives the full display of grace in its heavenly character. Then he rises up to God, but in the character of righteousness which, whatever the life-giving grace needed, was His character in connection with the Jews or Israel, “God, the judge of all;” hence he next sees “the spirits of just men [an Old Testament designation, as Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke] made perfect,” (perhaps from the use of that word for the winning combatants not yet crowned) that is, the saints of the Old Testament; then, to the means of establishing the new covenant with Israel, “Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant,” and the blood which cried for grace for the earth, for sinners and for Israel. The whole order of things in connection with millennial blessing is introduced, giving withal the present condition of souls, and the efficacy of what was accomplished to bring it in, leaving it, as continually in the Hebrews, open to heavenly or earthly accomplishment, though addressing those concerned in the heavenly.
I have no great light and no great difficulty as to the glorious place. I believe there will be a visible glory which will have in a certain sense a place for man to see it; it is the glorious state of the saints, not the saints simply. But then we must not leave out what is the very object and value of a symbol, moral characterisation. In Hebrews it is a place, but that place is the church’s glory hereafter, which, for instance, Abraham may enjoy, though not it. In Hebrews it is always an objective thing, for the epistle never rises to it as a condition…
Affectionately yours in Christ.
August 28th, 1851.
I think the seven angels are the mystical representatives of the churches in connection with the authority to be exercised on Christ’s part in them, in whosever hands that may be found.
* * * * *
42 [Athanasius, Tertullian, Eusebius are here quoted, but being in Latin and Greek were not given in the copy.]
43 [Latin quotation not preserved.]
44 [The interpolated Epistle of Ignatius is here referred to, but quotation not given.]
45 [Clement of Alexandria, Latin quotation, and not preserved.]
46 [Copy defective.
47 [“Collected Writings,” vol. i., p. 472, new ed.]