* * * It is important to bear in mind that, whatever62 may be the display and power of grace, the principles of righteousness are in no way set aside, but, on the contrary, maintained thereby. The day will declare that God renders to each according to his works. Life eternal He will give to those who, by patient continuance of good work, seek for glory, honour, and incorruptibility. He will give this, I say; because here eternal life is viewed on the side of glory, not as a present thing, as St. John does; and hence it appears as the issue of a holy, fruit-bearing course. On the other hand, to such as are contentious and disobedient to the truth, but who obey unrighteousness, there shall be indignation and wrath, tribulation and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil, etc. (Compare John 5:29; Galatians 6:8.) Mark the two-fold truth. “Each of us shall give account of himself to God.” Yet shall the believer not come into judgment (John 5:24)—not into condemnation merely, but judgment. Doubtless, in the unbeliever’s case to give account of himself will be, in effect, both judgment and condemnation. But neither is true of the believer. Nevertheless, it is certain that the believer will be manifested (not judged) before the judgment-seat of Christ. All must be manifested there, in fact, whether saint or sinner; that each may receive the things done in (or by) the body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or evil. Even for the believer, all his ways are far from being the fruit of righteousness by Jesus Christ. As for the labourer, there might be work done with sorry materials, and this will have its consequences in glory, though the person is supposed to be saved.
It is just the same principle in the last passage, as indeed in a crowd of others. 1 John 1:9 does not modify, much less contradict, this. It is involved in repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Nor does Hebrews 10:17 clash either, as some might think. No sin is remembered as a question of pardon; nothing is forgotten as a question of divine vindication and retribution. We shall know as we are known, and God be magnified in all His ways.
* * * * *
Dearest ——,—The objection63 as to Thyatira is all a delusion, as to the principle of the addresses. The churches are addressed as churches and in the character of churches; that is, as standing on the principles on which Christ had placed the church, though noting to the church thus responsible the evils that were coming in. The address is not to Balaam or Jezebel, but to the church, and therein to such as had ears to hear—to the church in character, and in fact to those who had the consciousness of the responsibility in which a Christian stood in that character: the character then, not necessarily the extent of the evil or state, whatever it might be, is noticed. If that state was general deadness, that of course is noticed; if seduction of false doctrine, that is, not to what extent it has acted; the principle of the church being the birth-place of children to Jezebel, and of her adulteries—not the number of her children, but that true saints accepted this condition of things—all this leading to the Lord’s coming. In the first church it had left its first love; it is not said how far: that remains true up to Laodicea, but does not characterise the evil which those who have ears to hear have to judge (at the beginning it did), it was the evil with Jezebel allowed: it would have been out of place to say so, though of course it was true. The churches give the distinction of the character of evil, and those in whom good is found, as specially manifested and directed in respect of the state described. No doubt it literally applied to Thyatira at the time, and was to be so received; while for him that has ears to hear it has a voice in all times—what voice? something not applying to a church state at all. For the direct proofs we must go over the general arguments and details, such as the promise to Philadelphia. (Rev. 3:10.)
Lacking of love, tried faith, persecution, succeeded it—not how many were persecuted. Satan’s seat. Then there was infidelity as regards evil in the professing church, and faith was called to look on to the Lord’s coming and be faithful: given those who had not mixed themselves up with Jezebel, the rest would be chastened if not cut off. I do not think Protestants are the synagogue of Satan: they are much more Sardis—those who insist on traditional successional religion, religion of ordinances, the modern Judaizers—these are the synagogue of Satan as to the spirit of the thing; and that they thoroughly are, though saints, and Barnabases may be ensnared by them.
As to Revelation 17:12—the question is a wider one than the texts cited can decide, not that they are not to the purpose: w{ran in John 4:52 is the object of “inquired,” as in the form ‘inquired the hour at which’—as well as at what hour. So Revelation 3:3, ouj mhV gnw'/" poivan w{ran. Whereas lambavnousi as its object basileivan: and in Acts 10:3 wJseiV marks it as a point. But all this is somewhat beside the mark. I apprehend it is as used to be said, katav left out; and the idea of period, a point, depends on the context in the nature of the word: kataV toV mesonuvktion [Acts 16:25]—a point evidently: kataV deV eJorthVn, during, at the time of [Matt. 27:15]: w{ran ejnnavthn points to the epoch evidently [Acts 10:3], which w{seiV confirms. But with mivan [see Rev. 17:12]—not prwvthn—it is a period. Indeed eJorthvn is not exactly time, but the time having that character. In general it is a known rule, the time at or in which a thing happens, genitive—during which, accusative. As to this I see no great difficulty: it would be merely technical. In Revelation 17:12 I do not see the smallest doubt. I have nothing to uphold here, for the kings receiving the kingdom at the same time with the beast is equally true: the other mode only determines the equal duration also. Acts 10:30, we have at the (ejnnavthn w{ran—there also it is evident) ninth hour: with mivan it is not so, it could have no such sense. See Matthew 20:12; Mark 14:37. Matthew 26:40. Whereas kataV mivan sabbavtwn, 1 Cor. 16:2, has necessarily the sense of the first, because it is after the sabbath. There is no mivan w{ran by itself but for during one hour.
The view of the temple is a mistake. The temple or house is always God’s house and always the same house. “The latter glory of this house” is Haggai’s (2:9) word, not “the glory of the latter house;” and whoever sets up in it or has built it, it has never ceased to be God’s house. So 1 Kings 9:3, “I have hallowed this house which thou hast built to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.” It will be built as God’s house, much more truly than Herod did it. So Christ calls it “my Father’s house;” not in reference to who built it (nor did God in fact dwell there —in that sense He was the temple), but because it was by God’s original declaration, at all times, God’s house. Further, I do not believe in the vast power of Antichrist, though I do in the vast mischief, spiritually speaking. I believe he is the second beast. (Rev. 13)
As to life, it is all captious (though true souls may be troubled by such) from using life in two senses. When I lay down my life I live still with the very same soul I had before. Now I may use life for the state of living, and as living in that state. I live in flesh and blood, and that could not go to heaven: I lose my life, but that only in the state in which I had it—I am just as much alive as ever, “for all live unto him:” “He is not a God of dead but of living.” But if it was said that I had the life I had before, it would be wretched and false; because before, or laying down, refers to the state I had it in. Yet I have the life I had before if I speak of my soul, and of the life of Christ I have received. I use this to shew it is merely a false quibble by using life in two senses. I never die if I take what my life is—I do, if I take its status and condition; I die and take, or am given at least, my life again. I say this, not that there is no difference in Christ, but to shew the point of the fallacy. But Christ clearly never ceased to exist if we take Him in His human soul, to say nothing of His divine nature. But when He laid down His life and took it again, it is not taking again the existence of His soul or His divinity, but the fact of reuniting His soul and body as a living Man. What was essential to Him as His life, He could not take again. It was a living status of soul and body united; as in dying He had given up a living status: but the living status He took up was not the same living status He laid down. This last is distinguished as “the days of his flesh.” He has now as risen a different Condition in manhood than that He had, neither can He die any more.
But I have no wish to enter on these questions with objectors: [difficulties] produced in minds I may meet, but reasonings on them I am not disposed to meet, because I do not believe in the sincerity of the motives of those who do so. And there is no good in reasoning with such, unless to confound them personally where forced to do it. Half and much more of the cavillers I meet are best met by silence. It is the proof that you do not account that they really desire the truth. It is well to let some things die out, and not give importance to them by combating them. One may have to meet such in individual cases, and then may count on God’s help, but positive truth fully taught best meets error. Heretics are generally unsound on something beneath, and deeper than their motives.
I am at this moment doubting about arousing Maurice by a tract on annihilation, and resuscitating one who is evidently to me dying out. Yet he has exposed himself by the greatest effrontery of blundering and done mischief. My conviction is— God has raised up a standard against it (annihilation), though mischief has been done, and it has got into the churches (so-called)… I should hardly think a person who took ouj mhV… eij" toVn aijw'na64 for ‘not for ever’ worthy of replying to; it is evident perverseness. The Greek evidently would be … oujk eij" toVn aijw'na, etc., at any rate, not mhv.
[1861.]
* * * * *
Dear Mrs. ——,—Thank you for your kind note, and the many kind services you have rendered me in times past. I bless the Lord that now that you require more rest and less labour your soul can enjoy so peacefully the Lord’s gracious and faithful love. It is a comfort, after the toil and labour of the way, to feel that after all one’s own proper portion is preserved and kept in Him, so that even before we go hence we can, when He give us a little leisure, rejoice in His infinite and precious love. The perfectness of Christ, when the soul rests on Him, fills and satisfies when we can occupy ourselves with it, as it has sustained and helped us through the toil and danger of the road. He has been manna for the journey through the wilderness, and we are entitled to feed on Him as the corn of the heavenly land, when in spirit we pass beyond Jordan. This supposes that our souls have perfect rest in Him as the true sacrifice, and our effectual and accomplished redemption.
Surely indeed we may say that goodness and mercy have followed us all the days of our life. In the various scenes and many conflicts I have been in, and the experience of my own weakness, I can bear testimony with my whole heart to His most gracious, faithful, and unfailing love, and bless Him for His great patience, too, with me. It seemed, no doubt, here a somewhat changed house when you were not here; but all changes but that to which God would attach our hearts for ever, and He ever more weans our hearts from all that does change, to make us perfectly happy in Him.
You will be glad and thankful to hear that I have been greatly comforted and rejoiced in meeting the brethren here. The Lord makes all things work together for good to them that love Him. Mr. —— had left, so that the brethren were left very much to themselves as to public ministry, but it has cast them much on the Lord, and I found them, I think, in a very gracious state. In their prayer meetings there seems a reality and humbleness so that you might be sure God was going to bless. The Lord keep us all there. It is not as if many answers from Him were not still needed; but they seem very truly before Him… Peace and grace be with you, and the joy, comfort, and strength of the Lord’s presence, and believe me, dear Mrs. ——,
Your affectionate brother and servant in Christ.
[From the French.
* * * I Was very glad to get your letter and news of our dear brethren in France, now that I am busy in England, where the work is extending. … I always hoped that our dear brother —— would one day be useful. I hope that he will keep very near the Lord, and that he will read the word much for himself. I say for himself, not for his work. That is the right way to read it—“If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, and out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” You drink for yourself, you thirst for yourself, thus it is that rivers flow from us for others… Is the word always very precious to you, and do you read it with power? I see the practical power of the Spirit in the christian life more distinctly than ever; in the word, too, the absolute distinction there is between the life of the last Adam and that of the first. It is nothing new, but more distinct and deep in my heart, as well as the new position in which the Christian is placed… . What a picture that is of Acts 7 for the outward manifestation of these things; the man that resists the Holy Spirit, and the man that is full of it. But I was speaking more of the things in themselves.
[1862.]
* * * * *
* * * This is an important ordinance.65 First, there is tender compassion for the poor in the things of God. Next, as to the sacrifice itself, weighty principles are contained in it. No sin could be forgiven without a sacrifice or offering for sin. This particularly characterises this part of the instructions as to sacrifice. If one failed to discover what he knew, when adjured, to hide sin; or touched, without even knowing it, what was unclean; when he was aware of it, he was guilty. No poverty could bring compassion into play without an offering. Let one be ever so dull in the apprehension of sin, or, consequently, of atonement, still guilt was there if evil was touched. On the other hand, if truth of purpose was there in owning it, and owning it in such sort that the need of atonement before God was felt, which alone consequently is recognised as owning sin, the poverty of apprehension does not hinder the perfect forgiveness. That rests on the value of the sacrifice; only Christ must be seen as a sacrifice for sin as one rejected, a sin-bearer for us. The fact of its being fine flour without blood hardly affects the principle of blood-shedding. It comes where blood-shedding is universally required for sin, and is only an exception in view of poverty to shew that, in no case, without a sin-offering, is there forgiveness, and carries as an exceptional case the character of blood along with it as the principle. It is not that one kind of sin requires blood and another not; but incapacity by poverty puts this in place of a bloody offering, and it is so accounted. Only if a real sense of needed atonement be there, the want of apprehension of the full import of sin and death, that is of Christ’s death and blood-shedding, will not prevent the getting the benefit of that death and blood-shedding. The female sacrifice was accounted of less value. In Leviticus 5 it begins with a female. It was not in the first instance a bad conscience in doing it.
[1862.]
* * * As regards the estimate66 which the Old Testament saints formed of the sacrifices and types of the Old Testament, no one can speak definitely. That estimate was as various as we now see the estimate of renewed souls as to the value of Christ’s work is, if by value is meant the intelligent estimate of it. All that any one could speak of now is what the Old Testament afforded them, so that the Holy Ghost could act by the word upon those who had spiritual intelligence according to the measure of that day. Now I know of no fact in Christ’s history which is not testified of in the prophets—His birth, His sufferings (even the details), His ascension, His sitting at the right hand of God, His coming again, and all the glories that should follow His sufferings. The only truths, that I am aware of, which were not revealed were the church, and His present intercession at the right hand of God—truths, it is remarkable, equally omitted in John i., in the catalogue of the glories of Christ there given, as well as (but for another reason) the fact that He was the Christ. Hence, the only question is, when they had the prophets, how far they were spiritual enough to connect these revelations with the types in order to understand them?
This depended on individual spirituality and divine teaching; only we must remember it could not be said, “Ye have an unction from the Holy One and ye know all things.” They had not the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to guide into all truth. This makes all the difference as to intelligence. Further, it was not the intention of God, while the veil was unrent, to put the consciences of saints in the position in which the rending of it was to set them—so that “the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins.” Alas! many Christians are in a Jewish state in this respect. Had this been the case, the free admission of the Gentiles by faith on the same footing would have been the consequence, as this was not intended. On the other hand, there was the thought, that the time was coming when the nation’s sins and iniquities would be remembered no more, and this faith could look forward to, as to the then rejoicing of the Gentiles with His people, and a heavenly portion for the departed saints. This leads back to the original promise of the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head; and it, again, held out to faith a full restoration of man from the ruin, which though vague might have been complete in expectation. The clothing with skins, and Abel’s sacrifice, and Noah’s, point to covering and acceptance through a sacrifice; Isaac’s, to the faith of resurrection. But when sacrifices were legally instituted and the law given, hopes of forgiveness and restoration in peace in a coming age, but no purged conscience, save occasional at the present time, marked the condition of the worshipper. Before that time it was a larger expectation of restoration and goodness, and founded on sacrifices and covering iniquity and nakedness before God; but, though larger and more complete, more vague, of course, by the seed of the woman, resurrection and heavenly things coming in. For this both Enoch and Abraham, and even Job, furnished evidence. Under the prescription of the law the conscience was more brought under the yoke, present occasional forgiveness by a sin-offering more definite, but it was narrowed into present occasional clearing, and the hope of deliverance put into the age to come and connected with Messiah, as we know also it will be. With all this was connected a feebler estimate of sin and of the need consequently of divine righteousness, though this was prophetically intimated, but also in the age to come. There was sense of sin, of being shapen in iniquity (but no intelligence of a conflict between flesh and Spirit) and thus as a present thing righteousness looked for in the Lord; but, before the law, divine favour and the averting a curse by sacrifice; under the law, a definite sin-offering meeting the actual sins of the individual or of all, and a general sense of maintenance of heart in divine favour by the day of atonement—the state as I have said in which most Christians are.
* * * * *
* * * I do not, in reference to the questions asked,67 attach any importance to the presence or absence of kurio". Griesbach retains it; the more recent editors give it up, with several Uncials and other authorities. As to the question itself, I judge the ejx oujranou' to be more characteristic than relative to any ‘descent’ from heaven, but that character to be drawn from the place He came from: origin is universally used as characteristic. Race and kind are the same word, gevno". Thus the genitive (or really generic) case, and ejk, which expresses origin, are in very many (perhaps all) languages used as characteristic, and in force are adjectives. In Hebrew it is well known, as in Greek, in French, English, and other modern languages; so that it may be considered as belonging to the structure of the human mind. This may be drawn from place or origin, or the material of which anything is composed. It so far differs from an adjective that it is constitutive of character, not the character itself simply.
Here we have ejk gh'" coi>kov" (“of the earth, earthy”). The former is the constitutive cause, the latter the actual character. But the cause was from origin; so with ejx oujranou'. It is characteristic, but because of the place of origin. He has not ceased to be it now; but what is expressed is not what He is now, because gone to heaven, but His character because of His origin. It attaches to His Person. He is so now, because He cannot be otherwise: because His origin was such, He was so on earth. The full display of this is when He takes the place of the ejpouravnio". (ver. 48); that gives the fulfilled consequent place, and, from the subject, is more than characteristic, though it be that. I judge, then, that ejx oujranou' is character from origin, or the place the Lord belonged to, as ejk gh'". Not that He came from, but that He was from, and of, and ever is. The result is, that the first is coi>kov", the second ejpouravnio". This is on high, the natural, normal, and purposed place of one ejx oujranou', who is become a man. But still it is character and nature, though the ejpiV suggests a place, I think. Hence, there is for it an abstract consequence of conformity, not a statement of what will happen: “as is the coi>kov", so they also that are coi>koiv; and as the ejpouravnio", so they also that are ejpouravnioi.” Then the form, not merely character and nature and time, is brought in. It is in the second case future. “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Thus origin, participation in nature and character, abstractedly given, and then actual conformity in glory, are successively, each in its place, introduced. It will be seen that, without much affecting the question, what I have said tends to justify the omission of kuvrio". If it be retained, I apprehend it should be read—“the second man, the Lord, from heaven.” Not that I desire to separate “the Lord” from “from heaven,” but to preserve the characteristic force of the latter.
As regards any difference in meaning in “second” and “last,” I think the Spirit of God means a different thing. “The second” contrasts Him with the first. It is not a modifying or sanctifying or setting right the first, but setting up a second (we cannot have both to continue together) One of and from heaven. “The last” declares that this is final and conclusive. There is no other afterwards. If He be ejx oujranou', that is easily conceived. In these days, both these truths are of first-rate importance— the non-restoration of man, the first man who is set aside and under condemnation, and a new Man, a second Man, is brought in; and then He who is made known is the last Adam, the One, and only One, in whom blessing is to be found. Men will own Christ, even infidels now, to set up the first Adam; they will with hardihood declare Him to be the excellent in His day, but that there is progress through increasing light. Scripture, which foresees all things, declares that He is a “second,” in contrast with the first; and that He is the “last,” so that there is and can be no progress beyond Him: the perfection in which God delights, and the centre and end of all His ways, to which those who are to be blessed with Him must be conformed.
* * * * *
* * * As to aijw'na", Hebrews 1:2, I am not disposed to reject Alford’s view;68 that is, so far as it accepts a course or plan of God in the idea-world. But no person can have entered into the spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews and seen its connection (that is, the way it meets the Kabbinical and Philonic views, giving God’s thoughts on the subjects they were speculating on), and not see that cuwi/as is not merely “ages” or “epochs.” It is bymlou br, or more specifically <lwu arwb, the Creator of the worlds. You may see Bleek, Delitzsch, De Wette, Liinemann, Schleusner, Schirlitz, Wahl—not that I accept all they say, but for the use of the word. Schoetgen (Hor. Heb.) says it is so common that it is useless to quote examples. Further, Hebrews 11:3 seems to me to leave no possible doubt, because it continues, “so that the things which are seen were not made of the things which do appear”—distinctly intimating that he speaks of visible creation. I do not see how it is possible to overlook this, or after it to call.the interpretation in question. ProV tw'n aijwvnwn shews, I think, the connection of the two. The critics refer to Ecclesiastes 3:11, as proving the same use of <l*ou. Hebrews 11:3, and the evident and constant use of the words in Jewish literature of the time, and the character of the epistle, leave no doubt of the meaning on my mind.
The notion of the word of the Son, in connection with His being placed heir, I should demur to. That it was the Son who spoke69 when it is said, “He spake, and it was made,” I have no objection to whatever; but the heir constituting the ages I cannot accept here, because the statement is, “God spoke”— ejn &Uiw'/. For oJ qeoV" lalhvsa" … ejlavlhsen hJmi'n ejn uJiw'/, and so dij ou| k. t. aijw'na" ejpoivhsen is one phrase with one subject; and He who spoke is He who established the Heir of all things. So that I do not see how there is any possibility for the interpretation sought to be given; otherwise there is much I agree with.
* * * * *
* * * I send the Psalms. I dare say I may send you a paper on the Song of Solomon, its connection with the remnant. I am not disposed to take up the question on John 6:53-58 till the way be matured as from the Lord in my mind. To raise discussions on the nature of Christ, or the union of the natures is the last thing I should desire. All of us would go wrong, and piety be eaten out.
I have no doubt C. H. M. has expressed himself unguardedly in his expressions, but the accusing him of denying the true humanity of Christ is simple unrighteousness. He is just as plain and clear as any of us on it. The poor church people glutton on what attacks brethren. I am sorry for it, but how can we help it? That is all the feeling I have about it. Tt is a very bad sign for them. That tract of Dr. Carson’s70 denies the first elements of Christianity, and they cannot find it out.
July. 1862.
* * * “From the beginning”71 is Christ in flesh, the beginning of God’s ways in grace. Man, as man, was only a field for bringing this out, however real a place he had in moral responsibility for this (which assuredly he had); but as to counsel, Christ is the object. Man develops, progresses, changes. “What was from the beginning” in what God does, is perfect. This is a root-principle of Christianity, and makes the Person of Christ the foundation of all—His work displaying God’s moral nature for others, but the Person being that in which He is; and adherence is to Himself. This cannot change. The essence of Christianity is, therefore, that there is no development in it. (1 John 2:24.)
The change from “heard and seen” (ver. 1) to “seen and heard” (ver. 3) is because of the manifestation, I apprehend, spoken of in verse 2. But as hearing His word was the way of knowing Him and having eternal life, Christ having given them the words the Father had given Him, and by His title the Word, hearing was the first thing. They had thus His authority, believing Him (not their sight) as groundwork. But they did see Him. He was a real, living man then: and this was all-important. So we have “looking upon,” or contemplating, Him added. It was not a momentary vision. He was seen as a man walking amongst them. They had “handled” Him too: He was a real man come in flesh. This was the very essence of what they had, Jesus Christ come in flesh.
“If we say” in verse 6, etc., is this: grace and privilege are always in John connected with the Father and the Son; responsibility with God as connected with His nature. The first part of this chapter (vers. 1-4) gives the privilege and joy simply and fully. Verses 5 and 6 test the profession by the divine nature—purity—which, as light, revealing itself, detects everything. If they pretended to have the joy and were not in the light, it was a lie. The true knowledge of God, revealed in the soul such as He is in holiness and truth, must exist to have fellowship in grace. Though it is not necessarily according to the light, it is in the light—only reality is supposed, walking in the light. The next, “if we say,” is a question of truth in us. (Ver. 8.) If Christ be in me as the truth, I shall be conscious of another principle and nature in me, which in itself always has its own will and fruits. I have not the truth in me, as the life of Christ is the truth in spiritual intelligence in me, if I do not know sin, which it is conscious of and judges, because it— truth—is in me. Sin here is the whole condition of the old man, though learnt by indwelling sin—specially this last. Then, if I say that I have not sinned (ver. 10), I make God a liar; for He has declared all men have sinned: Christianity is founded on it, and the death of Christ declares it. God’s word, in such a case, is not in us; for it reveals that all have sinned.
[1863]
* * * * *
* * * I do not think that 1 John supposes that a Christian does not live without sinning. It shews that a holy provision is made for him, in case he does. It declares that he cannot say he has no sin, but sinning is put in the past. James, however, declares de facto we all offend in many things.
1 John 1:9,72 speaks neither of the time of our conversion, nor of our failures after it. Like John’s usual statements, it is abstract confession, which, and which alone, is true integrity of heart, and actual forgiveness goes with it. We are personally forgiven all trespasses, and stand abidingly in the power of that forgiveness, so that nothing is imputed to us personally (that is so as to put our persons out of grace). There is the present grace wherein we stand. But as regards the government of God it is another matter. Then I read, “If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Hence we are to pray for those who have sinned not unto death, to confess our faults one to another, and to pray one for another. Hence in its place the church, and Paul in his, could forgive sins, as we read in Corinthians. There was a binding in heaven of what was bound on earth, and a loosing in heaven of what was loosed on earth. So, when at Paul’s first answer all men forsook him, he prayed that this might not be laid to their charge. The Lord’s warnings to His disciples that, if they did not forgive, they would not be forgiven, equally apply. It is not a question of justification with the believer, but of present relationship in divine favour, which some seem to forget altogether. It is not merely that we have the fruit of forgiveness in restored communion, though that be true; but in the positive present aspect of God. As a Governor over those in relationship with Him, He is displeased with certain things, may cause me to die through His displeasure, if I do not judge myself—has done so, as we learn in scripture, both historically and doctrinally.
The passage in John 13 (as does indeed the red heifer) shews distinctly the way of cleansing when a man has defiled himself in his walk. He is cleansed by the washing of regeneration once for all, but needs to wash his feet and must have them washed. And this it is which carries up, farther than mere discipline, the forgiveness of the church. We are to wash one another’s feet, but we need this washing in its place to have a part with Christ. God takes care we shall be clean; but we must be clean to be with Him, not by renewed blood-sprinkling in respect of imputation, but by washing the feet with water, that we may have the truth in the inward parts with Him, and have no defilement of walk on us.
I do not know what the question as to Christ’s prayer means. It was intercession. The character of intercession may be different now that He is on high, and refer to a different standing in which we are, but praying for him (Peter) was intercession. The Lord’s intercession for us produces, as its result, the fruits of grace, of which confession is the fruit in every honest heart. Christ’s intercession is to make good our present state in conformity with the place justifying forgiveness has placed us in. It is founded on “Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation.” These being perfect, our faults (instead of bringing imputation, or being allowed to harden the heart and produce falseness in the conscience) call out His advocacy and the soul is restored. Forgiveness in the absolute sense is righteousness, as regards clearance from all imputation of sins of the old man; but in Christ, we being in heavenly places according to God’s righteousness, everything inconsistent with our relationship to God as brought there is a just cause of God’s actual displeasure. God is not mocked; but Christ intercedes for us, and, by that which rests on righteousness and propitiation, the fault becomes the occasion of instruction and a deepened work and state in us. Now, for every true saint, this present condition of our souls with God is the capital thing, founded on the fact that he is reconciled to God, and accepted perfectly in His presence in righteousness. It is being thus in His presence which is the ground of all present relationship with God. God’s character is not changed because we are brought perfectly near Him; but that character acts on our conscience, and forms it. “We walk in the light as he is in the light”; and if we do not walk according to the light, we find it out, because we are in the light; and to this effect Christ’s advocacy comes in. We know God’s displeasure against sin. I do not talk of imputation. I say it is displeasure against sin; and if we have sinned, apprehend that in the light. It is not merely loss of communion, but knowledge of God’s displeasure with the thing. If we do not walk with God, we have not the testimony that we please God, but displease Him. “The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.” Christ’s intercession does not lead to forgiveness (as to imputation, it is founded on the removal of that), but regards God’s nature and character and our present actual relationship with that. By reason of righteousness and propitiation sin calls out (not satisfaction in us with non-imputation, that is hardness and sin, but) the advocacy of Christ. Sin is taken notice of, estimated as an evil in God’s sight, in my soul, but in grace— not in God’s favour, however, as simple non-imputation, but in Christ’s advocacy active about it, so that my feet are washed. Filth is there: neither I nor God are content—not I, when His word searches my heart. He is displeased when He sees it, and as to my present relationship He does see it. Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Ghost—to God—and God knew it, and was displeased with it; those who profaned the Lord’s supper the same. The discipline exercised was only the expression of it, but it was exercised because of the displeasure. Judging ourselves, we should escape this. Godly sorrow works repentance. Are we to repent and not to be forgiven, nor rejoice in having it? For this, we must confess. It is absolutely stated, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us.” If my feet are denied, they are not cleansed till they are washed. Christ’s intercession is the proper means of this. If any one sin, we have an advocate.
The meaning of John 16:25-27 is this. Up to that, they had never gone directly to the Father, nor in Christ’s name. But as Martha said, “Whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.” Now He puts them in direct relationship with the Father: not as if He was to go instead of them and He only could, as Martha said; in His name they were to go themselves direct to the Father. That was when in gracious desires or wants they had to look for something. It has nothing to do with when they had sinned and got away from God in their hearts. Christ’s interceding for them is unasked. We do not ask Christ to intercede. He is an advocate through His own grace when we have sinned, not when we ask. I return to the Father in confession, because He has asked when I went astray; as Peter wept because He had prayed for him—not that He prayed for him because he wept, or looked up to Him. What Christ says is, they should not be asking Him about anything, but go directly to the Father: that is the contrast—not with intercession, when we have sinned or need grace and do not know it.
It is not said, as supposed,73 Christ is able to save us from our sin, because He ever liveth. But He carries through all the snares, difficulties, dangers of the way, and Satan’s power —restoring our souls if we have failed; grace to help in time of need, as well as restoration—because He ever liveth to make intercession for us, is on high immutably to carry on our cause. For we go through the conflict of good and evil, and have to overcome, though nothing is imputed and we are sure to be kept to the end; but we need to be kept. He will deliver us from every evil work and preserve us to His heavenly kingdom, but we must be delivered.
The book of Job gives us a full account of the case in its operation in man, without reference to any dispensation whatever. He was a godly man, none like him. God saw defect in him. Satan appears, on God’s speaking of him, as his accuser. God withdraws not His eyes from the righteous. He deals not first here with outward sin but inward working of ignorance of self, and then its breaking out through God’s ways into actual sin; so that it got out, when brought into God’s presence as a detected thing, into Job’s conscience. The effect of the revelation of God’s presence is, first, submission, and then confession. “I have uttered that I understood not … I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” And God restores him to full blessing. Elihu interprets these ways. These ways are interpreted—“one among a thousand to shew unto man his uprightness.” Job was not upright in the full, true sense of it; there was not truth in his inward parts (though till he cursed his day there was no outward sin) till he abhorred himself and said so; that is, made confession. Then his flesh became fresher than a child’s again. What we have to add is this: Christ’s advocacy, founded on known righteousness and accomplished propitiation, carries on the administration of this for us in heaven, where we have to be in spirit with God: “such a high priest became us.” Next, below, the church in its ministrations and acts ought to be an interpreter, and deal with the conscience, and administratively wash the feet here below: an individual may be by grace, the church (2 Cor.), elders (James), individuals (1 John). At any rate, in faithful grace, the Holy Ghost by the word so deals with us. The result is always confession, certainly to God, it may be to man. There is no uprightness without this. If I have sin, know it, and come to God to commune with Him, as if I had none, I am in that a hypocrite—hiding iniquity in my heart. We see here where the accuser comes in: he is “the accuser of the brethren.”
The advocate74 is one who manages our affairs, and carries on our cause. It has been said “patron,” in a Roman sense; because he supplied the need of his clients—was bound to plead their cause and case for them.
[1864.]
* * * * *
* * * The main difference between Hebrews and 1 John 2:1, is75 that Hebrews refers to our drawing near to God, and includes the whole analogy of the priestly service, even including the sacrifice. Christ stands between us and God to this effect, and for the whole means of obtaining mercy and grace to help. The Advocate is with the Father and supposes a believer and a son, and is for the maintenance in practice of this relationship, that is, our life in it, and in point of fact refers only to the case of one who has sinned being in that relationship, one who has the privilege of fellowship. It refers to fellowship with the Father, not approach to God. I do not say the advocacy is confined to this case of sins. It is stated as a general fact, but it is only applied to this case.
We are and ought to be priests for each other before God, intercede for each other, wash one another’s feet, bear the failures of our brethren on our heart in intercession.
The sprinkling is not in itself, however, properly a priestly act: if my conscience is pure before God, I may apply the word according to the holy power of Christ’s sacrifice to the heart and conscience of another.
The last question is answered already. We could not be priests at all, if we could not do this. But no man can doubt, if he loves another, he can intercede for him—in Christ’s name and in virtue of His sacrifice, but still plead and intercede for him.
* * * The question is a very natural one, and the first part76 of it more obscure, for me at least, than many parts of prophecy. I give my answer under correction—I mean the precise, relative time of the return of the ten tribes. My present impression is that chapter 28 does not refer to the ten tribes as returned as such, but to the Jewish people localised in Ephraim. They are treated as the twelve tribes, and by a word expressing a whole even in the New Testament. Anna was of the tribe of Asher. In Chronicles several of the tribes have their part in the return from the captivity. Further, it is recognised in Ezekiel and as distinct from the ten tribes proper. (Chap. 37:16.) We have the stick of Judah and for the children of Israel his companions; and another for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and the whole house of Israel his companions. They are then united and are all recognised as children of Israel, which is the subject of Ezekiel, not properly Judah. This final union takes place after the deliverance by judgment, when they then come under one head. The ten tribes are purged from transgressors before coming into the land. (Ezek. 20:33-38.) The Jews are purged from transgressors in the land. (Zech. 13:8, 9, and many passages.) Hosea 1, 2, confirms the thought that the final union under one head is at the close of all this process of purging, as it naturally must be if Christ is to take them. (Compare chap. 2:19-24.) If this be so, the ten tribes as distinguished from the stick of Judah will not be in the land when the king of the north comes up: their rebels never enter the land. I believe the last coming up of the Assyrian is Gog. The term is geographic, whoever is king of the north. In Daniel I do not believe it is yet directly Gog, though perhaps dependent on him; for he is mighty, but not by his own power. (Compare Ezek. 38:17.) Of course, the millennial reign will not commence before that invasion, but the then destruction of the beast by Christ from heaven will cause the Assyrian, or Gog, to find Him, the Lord, in Jerusalem, so as to be destroyed by divine power, but by that of His earthly government in Jerusalem. Christ will have established His power there; but He will yet have to destroy Gog and purge intruders out of the country belonging to Israel.
[1865.]
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—I send you a brief outline of the order followed by the Epistle to the Romans in treating the principal subject it presents. This exposition of the order of the epistle necessarily implies a development of its doctrine on the subject of our justification and of our standing before God. This outline, while pointing out the form of the epistle and the distribution of the subjects it treats, will, I think, be profitable to your readers, as regards the doctrine itself. At least, I can say, that I have myself found this point of view both profitable and interesting. What I have to say will be very simple, while, at the same time, it connects itself in part, with the experiences— often so intricate—of Christians; but it explains them also.
The seven first verses of chapter 1 contain the address of the epistle: only, while presenting the claim the apostle had to the attention of the saints at Rome, they give the contents of the gospel which forms the subject of his apostleship, the fulfilment of the promises made with regard to the Son of David, and the testimony given by resurrection that the same blessed One is also Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness. Then, to the end of verse 17, follow a few explanations, as to what had hindered him from seeing them before: and these explanations close with the declaration, that it was not that he was ashamed of the gospel; for in that gospel the righteousness of God Himself was revealed, on the principle of faith, to faith.
This naturally introduces his subject. But he first of all declares the need there was for that gospel on account of the condition in which man was. The wrath of God was upon men, a wrath which the condition of sin in which man was had kindled. But it was no longer merely a wrath which was kindled on account of the repeated rebellion of a people, which He had taken unto Himself on earth from among the nations that had spread over its surface—a wrath which manifested itself and was appeased through punishments, which, as to their sphere, did not go beyond the world where the visible government of God was exercised and manifested; but it was the wrath of God, which was revealed from heaven upon all impiety, and upon the unrighteousness of men who hold the truth while walking in unrighteousness (that is to say, upon all the world, both Gentiles and Jews). He develops his thesis from verse 19 to the end of the chapter. The awful condition of the Gentile world is presented. (Vers. 19, 20.) They are guilty, on account of the testimony of the creation (ver. 21 and following); they abandoned the knowledge of God when they possessed it.
Chapter 2 The apostle condemns the philosophers, who moralised and were not better than the mass, and who were thus treasuring up wrath for the day of wrath. For God demanded realities. The form of the law would be of no avail. All shall be judged according to their works, whether Jew or Gentile; and the Gentile who, pressed by his natural conscience, fulfilled what the law required, would be in a better case than the Jew who possessed that law and who broke it. As many as had sinned without law should perish without law, and those who had sinned under law should be judged by law, in the day when God should judge the secrets of the hearts of men (not the conduct of the nation by earthly judgments) according to the gospel committed to the apostle.
Such is the general exposition of the ways of God in judgment upon every soul of man, judgment founded on the testimony of the creation, the knowledge which man (in Noah) had got of God, the testimony of the natural conscience, the positive testimony of the law, adding that one despised the goodness of God which was leading man to repentance. But the Jews, who pretended to special privileges, needed a few words beyond this. The apostle, by the law itself, brings them out guilty. The Jew, towards the Gentile, boasted in the law, in the light he had, in the divine teaching he had, and afterwards he did the very contrary of that which that light and that law required from him. Again, I say, God demands that which is real and true, and the Gentile, who, having no law, did what the law required, should be in a better place than the Jew, who had the law and broke it. Had not the Jew then any superiority above the Gentile? He had, without any doubt, and every way. Specially he possessed the oracles of God. Now, says the apostle, let us see what they say. The Jew was saying, They are for us alone; the Gentiles have nothing to do with them. I agree to it, says the apostle. Whatever the things the law says, it speaks to them who are under the law. It will shew you therefore what you are. Here you are: not one righteous, not one who seeks after God, not one who understands. According to your assertions, that is what it says of yourselves. The Gentiles have nothing to do with it: outside all righteousness and slaves of sin, it is no question of them here. Such then is the picture that God gives of your condition, and every mouth is stopped, and all the world become under judgment to God.
I come now to what led me to send you these lines—the remedy which God Himself has prepared, and which He presents to us, for the condition of wretchedness into which sin has plunged us.
From chapter 3:21 to the end of chapter 5:11, the apostle takes up the question of sins; and from verse 12 of this last chapter to the end of chapter viii., the question of sin. In both cases he shews the blessing which is the result of God’s intervention in grace. At the end of chapter 3 the blood of Jesus is presented to us as the means of our justification. God Himself has presented Jesus to us, as a mercy-seat, through faith in His blood. The righteousness of God in the passing by the sins of the Old Testament believers is manifested, righteousness which becomes the foundation of our hopes in the present time, that is to say, since the accomplishment of the work of Ghrist. In chapter iv., he speaks of the effect of the resurrection of Christ on this question. He has been delivered for our offences, and has been raised for our justification. The efficacy of the death of Christ has been clearly shown by the resurrection, as well as the power of a new life for us—the life of Jesus risen— which has its place, when all our sins have been atoned for by Christ. But all this refers to sins—to what has been committed: He has been delivered for our offences, and has been raised for our justification. The first eleven verses of chapter 5 shew us the blessings which flow from this, peace and grace now, glory in hope, and the knowledge of the love of God by the Holy Ghost which is given to us; so that we also boast in tribulations, being made capable, through that love, to interpret them; then we make our boast in God Himself. This chapter goes even farther than the eighth in this, that the fifth presents to us more God Himself in His sovereign grace, and our joy in Himself; whereas the eighth chapter shews more our position before Him and what He is for us. Nevertheless, in the latter, there is deeper experience.
At chapter 5:12 begins the teaching of the apostle with respect to sin. The difference is evident. If it be a question of sins, you, my reader, you have yours, and I, I have mine. If it be a question of our nature, of our flesh, we are but one, one sole nature, one sole mass. Hence the apostle turns to the heads or sources of our nature, whether as to good or as to evil: Adam and Christ.
Now, to the end of chapter 8, it is a question of sin, and not of sins. Sin shall have no dominion over you—sin taking occasion by the law. Here Christ died to sin, not for our sins. I learn, not what I have done, but what I am. I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell. Thus the experience is deeper; often, also, gone through after having understood the forgiveness of our sins, and, consequently, casting the soul into perplexity and uncertainty. But peace, also, is much deeper when once it is founded on the truth which is taught here; but it is learnt in an experimental way. My faith here does not rest upon the fact that Christ died for my sins, but on the truth that, He being dead, I am dead with Him. Hence, mark it well, there is no question of forgiveness here. I forgive my child his faults; I do not forgive the evil disposition which produced them—I try to correct it. The correction of sin in the flesh is death. Now, we are dead in Christ. The apostle begins this teaching, by shewing that, by the obedience of Christ alone, those who are linked with Him in the sight of God, are constituted righteous; that, as Adam’s disobedience placed in the position of sinners before God all those who were connected with Adam by descent, so the obedience of Christ placed all those who would be found connected with Him by grace in the position of righteous persons, and this in contrast with the law that killed each guilty sinner for his own faults. No doubt we, each one of us, have committed our own sins, completing the evil each one to his own account. But it is none the less true, that, if by the disobedience of Adam we are constituted sinners, the obedience of Christ, has constituted us righteous—us, I say, who believe in Jesus.
The objection made to the doctrine of justification by the obedience of Christ first presents itself to the apostle: the value of the work of Christ does not stop in Him who accomplished it, but it extends to others; it matters little, therefore, if they continue to live in sin. Here is the answer: How live, if we have died? It is a very simple thing. We are baptised unto His death, identified with Him in the likeness of His death. Our portion—in that He died to sin once for all, and that He lives to (or, for) God—is to reckon ourselves dead, and alive to (or, for) God in Christ Jesus. We thus obey, according to the new life of which we are made partakers. This same truth as to death applies (chap, 7) to the law, for it rules over a man as long as he lives. But we have died; nature, the old man to which the law applied, no longer exists. We were in the flesh: we are not in it (that is, not in Adam), but in Christ. The end of chapter 7 is the experience gone through, of the effects of the law on the soul of a renewed man still under law, known now as being spiritual.
In these experiences the soul learns, by the teaching of God, that sin is not the true I (which, in effect, detests sin), but is the sin that dwells in me; then, that sin has dominion over the I, although the latter wills that which is good. The soul learns that in it (in the old I, that is to say, in the flesh) good does not dwell. Such is the lesson which is so needful, but so humbling. One has come to the end of what man is viewed as he is, a child of Adam, enmity against God; but he who, though not willing it, had been a slave, is delivered through redemption. He is in Christ dead to sin, and alive to God by Him. He gives thanks to God; he is not in the flesh at all. It is not, as we have said, Christ dead viewed as bearing our sins in His body on the tree, that the believer owns as his Deliverer, however precious and needful this truth may be; but Christ dead to sin, and the believer dead with Him. Our resurrection with Him is less in evidence here; but we must reckon ourselves dead, and alive to (or, for) God by Him.
Thus this second part of the teaching of the epistle shews us as dead, as to the old man, as regards the flesh, for faith (that is, as to our position as children of Adam), and alive to (or, for) God by Christ. The effect of the desires of the new man, when we are under law, is to render us unhappy; but we learn, through this moral discipline, to have done with the flesh for faith, by distinguishing between self and the flesh, and having learnt that the flesh is too strong for me. But then redemption comes in; and we are in Christ risen, and not in the flesh; we belong to the second husband, Christ risen, and not to the first. But we learn that the flesh has been—not forgiven, but—condemned. When? When Christ was made (a sacrifice) for sin. The flesh is dead and condemned already, when I belong to Him who is risen; but I am not in the flesh, I am in Christ. In this second part of the doctrine, we find therefore our place in Christ, before God; as we saw in the first, that God has blotted out our sins, as responsible beings in the flesh, by the death of Christ.
I do not develop the happy consequences which the apostle draws from this in chapter 8 We are children; the Holy Ghost dwells in us, shews us our inheritance, helps us in our weaknesses; while everything is secure, seeing that God is for us, as He who gives and He who justifies, and that His love in Christ (who has, in grace, gone through all our sorrows, and is now at the right hand of God) keeps us when we realise the experience of it.
Chapters 9, 10, 11 conciliate there being no difference between Jew and Gentile, with the special privileges of the Jews; they form a supplement, added to the main doctrine of the epistle. But I have attained my object, if I have presented clearly to the Christian the difference of the work of Christ for our sins (chap. 3:21 to 5:11), and of Christ dead to sin, and ourselves dead with Him, so that, for faith, we have done with sin (chap. 5:12 to the end of chapter 8), sin having been condemned when Christ died on the cross, and ourselves as having part in His death, dead with Him to that which was condemned, belonging also to the second husband—Christ risen. We have peace through forgiveness; deliverance, by the Spirit of life, in that we are in Him, and alive by Him, in consequence of accomplished redemption.
Christ died for sins; Christ dead to sin, and we in Him, in consequence of redemption: such is the doctrine of the Epistle to the Romans, which distinguishes clearly its two parts.
Dublin, 1865.
* * * * *
[From the French.
My dear Brother,—I received your note in due time, but waited to read your paper before replying; and I was going about to meetings from morning till night, sometimes because brethren from the neighbourhood were brought together, sometimes (in Ireland) because there was a remarkable movement there. I have been overwhelmed with work; still, I have read it. I have but one observation to make. You give the churches a more formal position than they have in my mind. I do not speak of error, for I see plainly that you recognise the church as the body of Christ, but only of an impression left on my mind. I do not recognise that there may be members of a church; I do not know that you said so: it is only an impression. Perhaps what comes nearest to it is the expression ‘the several members with their respective churches.’ This does not say so, it is true; but it would perhaps imply it to those who are. accustomed to this thought. Do not think, dear brother, that I say this because I wish to find fault with the pamphlet; I thought it very good, and I am pointing out the one thing that presents itself to my mind as possibly raising a question. I hope it will be a summary very useful to your countrymen. I intended to have written to you when I had read half your paper over again, and had a little more quiet here in Edinburgh… Union is always good in itself, but faithfulness to Christ comes before even union. I am very glad that you saw those two dear brothers. I would beg you to carefully seek information on the subject of the meeting, before committing yourself in this respect: not—God forbid—to make difficulties, but to ascertain whether the holiness of the Lord’s table is really maintained. I can rejoice in work if, in the main, souls are delivered, even if I cannot go along with it. With regard to Bethesda, certainly I should be very clear that they were fully delivered, before mixing myself up with them. I should never have thought of introducing these questions into Italy; but they have been introduced. It is this which has hindered my going there or mixing myself up with it. I said to myself that it was a cruel thing to occupy brethren who had just come out of Popery with these difficulties, and impossible to walk with the Newtonians; and I committed the matter, with much prayer, to God, and have been waiting on Him, for the work has deeply interested me. Now, dear brother, Bethesda and the fruits of the spirit which reigns there shews itself more every day—the worldliness and the destruction of all integrity and all conscience in those who are implicated in it. It has been found to be so in Switzerland, France, Germany, everywhere; where one could not say that it was party spirit. So, if the meeting at M. is in fellowship with it, certainly I do not go there. Probably most of them knew nothing of the matter, so that they would not be personally denied; but when once they have taken their side (those who know it) they will be assailed. And it would be important that these two, and that other who is not ignorant of it, should be very decided. Do not be in a hurry. The Lord’s table—secured from this known corruption—sufficient discipline—this is what would be absolutely necessary for me. I would yield to much weakness and infirmity in the condition in which they are, if only the foundation were good; I mean always that the principle of meeting was the unity of the body of Christ.
You must understand, dear brother, that if you mix yourself up with it, and do not continue in it, and others leave the assembly, you withdraw under the weight of an imputation of causing division. For my own part, I doubt that if the truth, as you possess it, should penetrate there, all would bear it. You must weigh all this, and not be in a hurry, while you receive these dear brothers cordially, and make things as clear to them as you can. Be brotherly towards them all; at least if they do not individually maintain what is wrong: in that case, faithfulness, and even brotherly love, oblige you to shew that you cannot go on with evil. Do not relax fidelity to Christ and the truth for the sake of avoiding narrowness. Our normal condition is having but little strength, and not denying His name and His word. The Lord had but a hundred and twenty to gather (around Himself) after three and a half years’ work; “the servant is not above his master.” …
If they give up the salary, which causes endless trouble, they must trust in God, and not in the brethren. Still, I fully own the duty of the brethren to help those who devote themselves to the Lord. The path is a path of faith; for the wealthy in the established systems are annoyed when one gets free, and when their wealth no longer influences the course of the church as it once did. But this is just what is needful in order that the Spirit of God may resume His place, and His rights in her. God grant this; and may He give these brethren, and all who are labouring, faith to allow the Spirit of God to act freely. How good God is to go on working, in spite of the infirmity, the failure, the sins which are in the midst of His own people! Be cordial then, dear brother, not hasty. Take care that they are fully cleansed from the defilement of B.; and that in principle—even where there may be feebleness— the holiness of the Lord’s table is preserved. I desire nothing more than what you set forth as true in your paper. Keep to that, with as large a heart as possible. I shall be very glad to have news of you, and of your work. There are many important details, but it is impossible for me to enter on them now. Eemember me to the brethren with you, though I do not know them. Many have lately broken with the Bethesda system; some of them were labourers in Ireland, who did not know how the case stood. I believe God is working in this matter. I dare not say that they are all able to keep the meetings, which are being formed in pretty large numbers in Ireland now, pure.
We have lost, as far as this life goes, our beloved brother Trotter, and another well known evangelist can no longer labour; but He has raised up fresh ones, and the meetings are increasing very much.
Peace be with you; and may our good God, always faithful and full of grace, guide and sustain you. Never be discouraged or anxious about anything, but make your requests known to God, and His peace shall keep your heart. Remember that Christ is ever faithful, and cannot fail His own.
Remember me affectionately to those two evangelist brothers; I earnestly desire anyway that God may bless their labours.
Yours affectionately in Christ.
Edinburgh, December l3th, 1865.
* * * * *
[From the French.
Beloved Brother,— … You must ever keep before yourself and the brethren this truth of the unity of the church —of the presence of the Holy Ghost, and of the coming of the Lord. I say the brethren, because, I suppose, they are grounded not only in the forgiveness of their sins, but also in the precious fact that we are dead and risen with our precious Saviour. This is deliverance; we are not in the flesh. Not only has the blood sheltered us, but we have been brought out of Egypt by the power of God and the deliverance which He has wrought. We are in Christ. The blood of Jesus has procured pardon for us; we are in Him. The first truth disposes of what we have done, of all the works of the flesh; the second, that we are dead with Christ, places us in an entirely new position, accepted in the Beloved. The first disposes for ever of what we have done; the second, of what we were in the flesh, and that we are no longer. To enjoy it, self must be judged—I know that in me there is no good thing. You will find that Romans 3:20 to 5:11 treats of the former question; 5:12 to the end of 8, of the latter. The first part speaks of sins, the second of sin. Remember me affectionately to the brethren, though I do not know them; to——, too. Let her be of good courage; if it is her turn to bear the cross for love of the Lord, she will not be sorry for having borne it in faith and bravely.
London, January 12th, 1866.
* * * * *
To the same.]
[From the French.
* * * Keep close to the Lord, dear brother, and get your strength from Him. I have been struck the last day or two with how, at the end of John i., He makes Himself the centre of gathering outside the world; this is to be God, otherwise He would turn us away from God; afterwards He shews the way, as Man, through the world in which we are—“Follow me;” then, as Son of man, heaven opens upon Him. He is the object of the delight of God. The angels, powers in the world of creation, become the servants of man; we have part in it, as heirs with Him. Many other things in this chapter struck me, but I stop.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
* * * A human attempt at precision sometimes leads us astray.77 The blessing meets the particular want of the church and characterizes the ways of God towards it as to the encouragement needed for its faith; but this does not mean that the church exclusively has the blessing. Thus in Laodicea he that overcomes will sit at Christ’s throne—the lowest degree of promise, I apprehend; but that does not mean that only they will, for all will. Escaping the hour of temptation is not true only of Philadelphia; all who have died in the Lord before it comes will have escaped it. But this characterizes the blessing of Philadelphia, because they come so near towards it that a promise to escape it is of the greatest value to them—a cheering and welcome message and truth, in their weakness and consciousness of the power of evil and little strength. Others than those of Ephesus will eat of the fruit of the tree of life, others than those of Smyrna will not be hurt of the second death; but those were the suited encouragements to lead to overcome in the states and difficulties there described. We must seek elsewhere a positive revelation on the subject, and not draw conclusions, nor, I would add, the least weaken the warning; for the warning applies to the state in which Philadelphia is. A like conclusion has been drawn from “all those that love his appearing,” and “to them that look for him will he appear;” but all the wise virgins were awaked to look for Him, and even others, too. We must distrust conclusions from scripture, for ever man’s mind enters into them.
Those in Laodicea who open to the Lord reign with Him; and He enters in and sups with them, and they with Him— have their part with Him in fellowship and joy under His reign. I do not say there may not be speciality in results which take the shape of reward; but the promises apply to the state of the church in which they are found, and woe to him who neglects them so applied, not to the exclusion thereby of others. Thus in Thyatira the whole millennial blessing of Christ Himself and the reign are promised, because it is the close of the ecclesiastical system, and the whole succeeding blessing is substituted for it: Christ, the heavenly Christ Himself, and the kingdom of power and judgment, for those who had been oppressed by the idolatrous rule of Jezebel.
The quotation from John 17 proves exactly the contrary of that for which it is cited.78 That to which ejk applies, they are to be kept wholly out of; they are not to be taken ejk tou' kovsmou, but they are to be wholly and absolutely ejk tou' ponhrou': so here (Rev. 3:10), wholly and absolutely, not ‘through’ and in, but ejk th' w{ra".
[1866.]
* * * * *
* * * It is not as if God forgot the things, but He does not79 remember them—hold them in His mind—against them in any way. If I say I forget as well as forgive, it only speaks of the completeness, not, if the thing is called up, that my memory has ceased to know it as a fact. If I give an account of myself to God, I must do it completely or I should lose something of the goodness of Him who has called and saved me. Paul lost nothing in saying, “Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee.”
* * * As regards Romans 6:2, the wished-for translation80 is the result of a misconception of the whole passage. It makes it a motive drawn from a previous evil result and no more; whereas it is perfectly certain that the passage contemplates our dying in becoming Christians, not by our sins. Those who have been baptised unto Christ have been baptised unto His death. “We have been made one plant with Him in the likeness of His death; and this is in order that we might walk in newness of life. Hence it is perfectly certain that the doctrine of the chapter is dying out of our old man, and living in newness of life—not our dying by our sin so as to be afraid of living in it now. And such is the whole tenor of the chapter; “our old man has been crucified with him;” and the use too of the dative at the close. How the writer can take novmw/ in Galatians 2:19, as “by the law,” is hard to conceive; because it is preceded by diaV novmou, meaning “by the law,” which makes it simply impossible. 2 Corinthians 13:4, is ejk dunavmew". I suppose he only quotes this for the sense.
Living in sin, and being dead in it, is not the same thing. One is the continuity of the old man in sin, the other is his state in respect of God; but both are true: “alienated from the life of God.” A reference to Colossians shews, in the analogous passage, nekrouV" o[nta" ejn toi'" paraptwvmasi kaiV th'/ ajkrobustiva. Now ejn can be used as an instrument or power too. But I think no intelligent Christian could doubt what it means here; and I do not see how it is possible with ajkrobustiva to take it in any other sense than “in.” Besides, nekrouv" would not be the word. It signifies properly “a corpse.” It is not dying as a punishment for them, but a state in which they were. Then God creates again. They are viewed not as dying by or for their sins. It is not ajpeqavnete, but being nekrouv" He has quickened. The first work in the corpse is quickening with Christ, God’s act. In Romans and Colossians, being alive in sin, ye have died (ajreqavnete) in Christ. In Ephesians, being nekroiv, we have been quickened with Him: it is a new creation. It does not seem to me there can be the smallest doubt of what is the right translation.
As to 1 Corinthians 15:3, again, I know of no objection, if used in a general way of saying, Christ died for any man’s sins. In the passage, however, Paul is addressing believers as such, but still speaks vaguely, so that “he that hath ears to hear” may apply it. “He is a propitiation for the whole world.” But this is never said of bearing sins. That is carefully avoided in scripture. It will not be found other than dying for our sins. But ‘bearing sins’ in all parts of scripture is thus specifically confined. So we read, “We pray in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled… for he hath made him to be sin for us.” Scripture is accurate here—a propitiation set out before all, and sure remission of all, if we come; but bearing sins never extended to those who are lost, or His doing it might be in vain for believers. “Our,” to saints or sinners, is the scriptural way of putting it.
* * * * *
* * * Your result in the tract paper,81 that is, fourth paragraph, is all right; but the third seems to me to confound a little the water and the blood: we have both in Christ. Living cleanness is practical, but does not cleanse from guilt, though the two cannot be separated because Christ is both and cannot be the one without being the other. But one is not the other; and if an exercised and troubled conscience had to find the living cleanness quite white, in order to know forgiveness, that is, non-imputation, the soul of such an one might be perplexed and cast down, as is often the case. It is mixing internal and living righteousness with non-imputation. Being quickened with Christ, I have part in the righteousness in which He is before God, but the working and effect of that life is not the measure of that righteousness before God, nor for peace of conscience. Conscience will be exercised where the Spirit is, as to the living righteousness; but it rests on Christ as its unchanging righteousness before God. We are righteous by faith objectively before God, not subjectively by experience; though there will be experience according to the working and judgment of the Holy Ghost in him who is righteous by faith. The Holy Ghost witnesses to one and works the other in us, or refuses inconsistencies contrary to it. But it carries on this moral discipline within in those that are at peace through the other; otherwise judgment of practice always puts us and must put us under law.
Whenever we believe on Christ, or on Him that raised Him up, righteousness is imputed to us. It is not a question of progress, it is always simply true of the believer as such. It is God’s judgment on his behalf of the value of Christ’s work and His position as risen before Him; but grace reigning by righteousness is the principle on which the whole matter jests. It is the principle of Christianity.
Righteousness does not reign: it will in the day of judgment. Grace reigns yet. God cannot but maintain and require righteousness, but Christ has accomplished it in a divine way and it is settled for ever in heaven, and this not for any temporal blessing or particular promise but for eternal life. Grace reigns. Sin has reigned through man unto death: had righteousness thus reigned, it was everlasting ruin. Now God who is love has had His work; and grace reigns and righteousness has now been established, divine righteousness through Christ. “Him that raised up Jesus” is not merely a confidence in power to be employed as Abraham, but in power already employed in deliverance, already accomplished in the very place and matter of our bondage, and in a God of love who has come down in such sort in power to our estate to take us out of it in Christ. God acts in love and power and the work of deliverance by it is accomplished. But death for offences and resurrection for justification is not a stage past; it is a work done outside us of eternal efficacy, [by] the grace that reigns through it. For now righteousness being accomplished and established for us, love is no longer straitened, as it was till God’s claim of death was satisfied, and Christ baptised with that baptism. And grace reigns through righteousness; and all blessings even to the fulness of glory, flow from and are dependent on this; but Romans 4 gives us the same basis. Only here we have the source and principle which was at work and has triumphed so as to have all its own way in this time and for ever in them who are brought in by it. God and His work has taken the place of man and his, as the ground of our relationship with God. Hence, of course, all blessings flow.
* * * * *
* * * I have read your tract. I am not sure that scripture ever speaks of life being given because we have righteousness. God in giving life does so after righteousness is accomplished, so that when we receive life we enter into divine righteousness already perfect; but never that I know into life by righteousness, save as wrought in the resurrection of Christ; so that the communication of His life introduces us into it. “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” But righteousness has been wrought out, life freely given by love and that in Christ, so that we become the righteousness of God in Him. We can say grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life in the sense of our full ultimate enjoyment, and what Christ has accomplished for this purpose… Righteousness was accomplished in Christ before life was communicated to us; and when through grace it is communicated to us it places consequently in that righteousness in which He is before God, thus it produces it in us as fruits according to the power of the Holy Ghost given to us as seal of that righteousness, and which sheds abroad the love that is in God, who has done all this, in our hearts.
* * * * *
My Beloved Brother,—I have not the hope of satisfying every restless mind, unless they judge their own way of dealing with these questions, and the views by and from which they judge. I do not find a statement in any paper (it may. have escaped me) that Christ entered into the experiences of souls conscious of sins, and not knowing the fulness of grace. I think I recollect it in Mr. Hall’s accusations, but could not find it then. But such a soul, when upright through grace, dreads death, dreads judgment—is before God in view of it. Christ was perfectly upright, feared death, feared wrath, cried to God under the sense of it, and can enter into such a soul’s exercises, so as to minister needed grace to it.
As to smiting; I do not believe there was any direct infliction of wrath from God on Christ by reason of any state or relationship He was in, save only as atonement, when made sin for us. But since all these questionings, I have examined scripture, and I cannot find there smiting used for atoning work, but always for the fact of the cutting off of Messiah, and not for the atoning value of His work. I have no objection to the vague using of it, giving it this force; because as I said, all infliction of wrath from God was atonement, and smiting is so understood. But the question having been raised, I have done my best to ascertain what scripture says, how it speaks, and “let God be true and every man a liar;” as far as I can find it speaks so. Divine wisdom has decided how to speak, and how to express itself. I have sought here by positive statement as to what I do not believe, to relieve the mind of a brother from the effect of false statements; but a Hebrew and Greek Concordance will give the best answer to the question, where the word smite hk*n` or patavssw) are used in scripture.
I believe Christ is competent to enter into all the sorrows of the human heart by means of what He went through, sin apart. I believe in a special manner He entered into the sorrows of Israel. The fundamental and mischievous error of my accusers is, assuming (just Newton’s error) that entering into the sorrows of any one’s position meant being in the state or relationship which brought the sorrow on. But I think the doctrine of my accusers horrible, and a total denial of the truth of Christ’s sufferings. It is those who have been under the pestilent influence of thinking sorrows or sufferings of heart in Christ implied the state that had brought them on man (an error on which all H.’s reasonings with me depend), who are troubled and uneasy. My good friends will have to learn that they can go wrong as well as those they are in such a hurry to condemn. If they fall into the snare of taking other people’s representations of my doctrine, or read my words under the effect of them, they will have to deal with God about it, and see why.
As regards my taking up the matter on my return, I did fully take it up, and searched my own publications, scripture, and my accusers’ correspondence, as fully as I could. I replied to every one who wrote to me honestly to inquire. If brethren think I am going to give up my direct service committed to me (however unworthy I may be) by the Lord, to pander to what I believe to be mere wicked accusations, I can only say I cannot do so. I am persuaded that more spiritual apprehensions of the sufferings of Christ, and true knowledge of conflict in their own souls, would have made brethren capable of juster decision in the matter. Not suspecting the kind of attack and accusations, expressions might be found in my papers which gave a handle to them; hence I have taken no high ground, but patiently awaited brethren’s minds clearing up.
I do not think an upright willing mind could for a moment have interpreted what I have said as has been done. It amounts to the allegation that Christ was a condemned sinner, a saint through grace, and learning when a sinner. I do not believe my adversaries think I hold this, however my expressions may afford a handle to what they say; and I must take them (my accusers) as I find them, seeking to feel as God would have me feel; but I do think that their views ought to have awakened brethren’s minds to a sense of the false grounds on which their accusations rest. What they deny forms an integral part of my Christianity. I should as much think of giving that up, as of accepting their views. But I have not neglected the subject since I left England… But see what I have to deal with, or rather what troubles the minds you speak of. It is alleged that I say Christ entered into the experiences of souls, etc., which I cannot find—this means in their minds that He had these experiences, and He is then considered as Himself involved in them from God. And it is next added, it must be from the relationship He was in; not one word of which I have ever said or thought, and it flows from the abominable false principle that Christ suffered only from atonement or sympathy; that is, that besides atonement He never really suffered at all, and if there were any other, He must have been in the relationship that caused it. I must again express my astonishment that such doctrine, which is avowedly Mr. H.’s, has not opened people’s eyes.
The only real ambiguity I know in what I have written is the word suffering, because suffering may have the sense of outwardly inflicted pain, and inward sense of any evil; and when I say Christ passed through these sufferings, it may be taken as inflicted on Him (and as to circumstances, outwardly in the main He did go through them), or as inwardly entering into the pain and grief of it, in whatever way brought to His soul. As to His being in the relationship and meriting it (or, as Mr. H. wrote to me, God smote the wrong person), I can only look at as an evil denial of all Christ’s true sufferings except atonement. But the ambiguous sense of the word suffering gave probably a handle to those who sought it.
You will please to bear in mind, as to my not satisfying people, that I have answered to every one who has written to me. I much prefer giving people’s minds time to get clear on the subject, than being in any hurry to defend myself. I can trust the Lord if they cannot; nor do I expect to be able to satisfy the cravings of those who do not. When I think of what doctrine it would have been the acceptance of, I am quite thankful I did not withdraw my papers.
As to the alleged entering into the experiences, allow me to ask: Do you think Christ can enter into the sorrows of a broken and contrite heart, fearful, and pressed within? If so, further, do you think what He went through on earth enables Him to do it in a special way? Yet it has nothing to do with His being contrite—though I by no means think this is the highest way of looking at it. The true aspect of it all is objective, the “man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” I believe I have no more to add as to the papers called in question. Ever your affectionate brother in Christ.
Those who have written against me were fully aware that I denied holding what they allege to be my views long before their pamphlets came out. There is another source of their error. Having assumed that smiting is infliction of atoning wrath from God, or, at any rate infliction from the state or position Christ was in, they have concluded I involved Him in this position. Now Messiah was cut off, the necessary consequence of Israel’s state. In this He did go to accomplishing the work of atonement, or wrath against sin, which He bore from God; but in scripture it is not used for the atoning part of the work. In God’s wisdom that in which Messiah was cut off was made to be the accomplishment of atonement for Israel and for us. It is this the Jews discover in Isaiah 53. The mingling both would not stumble me, but it makes the Psalms unintelligible and has led those who deny scriptural language as to it, to deny all Christ’s sufferings, except atonement.
New York, November 2lst, 1866.
62 ‘I much wish to know your thoughts on the following passages: “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory and honour and incorruptibility, eternal life, etc. etc., but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” (Rom. 2:6-11, 16.)
“So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Rom. 14:12.)
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:9, 10.)
“But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons.” (Col. 3:25.)
‘Note the last passages in reference to “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive, vs our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” and Hebrews 10:17.’
63 Elliott’s.
64 John 8:51, 52; 10:28; 11:26.
65 ‘What way are we to understand Leviticus 5:11, which speaks of the offerer bringing a sin offering of the fruits of the earth (without any sweet savour it is true)? We know “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” In chapter 4:28, we have a female offered—why?’
66 ‘How far did the Old Testament saints understand the types and offerings, and sacrifices; and what was the extent of their knowledge of Christ; and did they see Him in those types, etc.?’
67 ‘1 Corinthians 15:47. Does the expression, “the Second man is [the Lord] from heaven,” necessarily mean descent? That is, is it affirmed of Christ, as now on high, or of Him in incarnation? It is known that “the Lord” is expunged by the best editors. Is there any difference in meaning between “the last Adam” (ver. 45) and “the Second man?”’
68 ‘For whereas Ebrard includes God’s revelation of Himself in a sphere whose conditions are time and space, and so would understand by it all things existing under these conditions, I would include in it also, these conditions themselves.’
69 ‘It is not the word spoken by angels, or fathers, or prophets that made the ages; but the word spoken by the Son. This follows from the Son being made or placed heir of all things, and that the heir constitutes the ages,’ etc.
70 See Col. Writ., vol. 10:49, et seq.
71 ‘What is meant by “from the beginning”? (1 John 1) Why the change from “which we have heard, which we have seen,” etc., in verse 1, to “which we have seen and heard,” in verse 3? Why have we the further words, “which we have looked upon and our hands have handled”? And what is the point of the three “if we say” (ver. 6, 8, 10)?’
72 ‘How does our being forgiven if we confess our sins (1 John 1:9) agree with chapter 2:12, and many other similar passages?’
73 ‘Is Christ’s being able to save us (Heb. 7:25), from our sins eternally, or from all the dangers of the way, to the end? And what has intercession to do with it?’
74 ‘What is the meaning of Christ being our Advocate? Is it in sense of pleader, or more as a friend at court? It has been translated “Patron.”’
75 ‘How do you distinguish the office of High Priest and Advocate, especially as reference is made to sin? “If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father.”
‘In what sense can we be said to act in our priestly character towards each other? We cannot say we are priests to each other; but may we not be for each other before God? In the type of the heifer, the clean person was to sprinkle the unclean: is this, spiritually, a priestly act?
‘Practically, we are not always in priestly condition of soul. May not, then, a spiritual believer draw near to God on behalf of one who practically cannot, without allowing the thought of any one coming between the soul and God?’
76 ‘Isaiah 28, 29—If these chapters are mainly prophetic of the last days, how is it that the first attack of the Assyrian falls on Ephraim? Will the ten tribes be in the Holy Land when “the king of the north “comes against “the king”? Can his second attack and fall be identified with the invasion and ruin of Gog in Ezekiel 38, 39? Will the millennial reign begin before that invasion, or will there be a transition, after the judgment of the beast and the false prophet, before the Lord reigns with His saints over the earth?’
77 ‘Revelation 3:10.—The promise here seems made to a particular class described as those who have kept the word of Christ’s patience, and who appear to be contrasted with those who “dwell upon the earth,” which, I presume, expresses a moral condition. If this be so, on what ground can the whole Church take this promise to themselves?’
78 ‘When the Lord prays that His disciples should be kept from the evil of the world, it is plain He does not mean that they should be taken out of it.’
79 ‘Hebrews 10:17.—“And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” How is this to be understood in connection with 2 Corinthians 5:10? Will the sins of a believer’s unconverted days be again brought before him at the judgment seat of Christ?’
80 ‘Dead by sin. If sin is such a dreadful thing as to have exposed us all to the punishment of death, from which Christ’s death alone frees us, how can we think of continuing in it any longer?’
81 “If you whitewash your cabin, it gets dirty again, and you must give it another coating. And lo! it gets dirty again. So it is with confession and absolution (as far as that goes). Trespasses and sins return, and you go again; and bo it goes on like the whitewashing.
“Now ask any one that is anxious to please God, and whose sins are a real trouble to them, whether this is not so. Is it not, therefore, a poor remedy that never brings a surer cure?
“But if the walls of your cabin had a pure and living cleanness in them, would they not be freed continually from this growing dirt, and be purified continually?
“So it is with the heart that receives Christ into it by faith, and loves to have Him there, that looks to Him as the true and living righteousness given to us freely of God. Such a one shall find a living cleanness springing up in their heart, purifying them continually, and they rejoice in Him who bore all their sins.”