* * * I take prophecy in this passage to mean the subject101 matter of the prophecy when the actual declaration of the mind of God in the revelation made to the mind of the prophet is given, which is the force of ejpiluvsew". But this cannot be gathered like the words of an oracle merely from the words, not carried on beyond their own force on the subject of which the utterance speaks. Coming from the Holy Ghost, the words are a part of the great scheme of God with His ends always in view. Hence I apprehend “prophecy of scripture.” A particular prophecy may be recorded in scripture, not in the sense of a prophecy of scripture. Thus when Pharaoh’s servants dreamed, it was not a prophecy of scripture. Joseph gave the ejpivlusi" (the word used in Aquila), and they were as thus interpreted a prophecy of the fall of the two servants; but could not come under the character of prophecies of scripture. They ended through bringing about God’s purpose as to Joseph in diverse fate of the two servants. In prophecies of scripture the Holy Ghost gives as from one mind, though partially revealed what is in that one mind, what is a link in the chain of all the counsels and purposes of God. Givnetai is practically tantamount to ejsti. Still there is more thought of result. The prophecy (that is, the mind of God in what is said) does not derive its being from a particular interpretation of an isolated communication, like the servants’ dreams.
Prophecy among the heathen was not in the proper sense of the word the revelation itself, but the carmen which expressed the god’s mind. That is, it expressed the import of the revelation as expressed in the language into which it was put for the inquirer; only, as the word of God, He took care that the communication should be as divine as the revelation. (1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21.)
So I should not call Agabus’ prophecy a prophecy of scripture, though it be more connected indeed with the scheme of God in Christianity. Thus the prophets sought what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand; and the prophecy to ejpilelummevnh gave the mind of God as to its place in the divine plans. Prophecy is not properly the revelation of the thing to the prophet, but the communication of it by the prophet as the Holy Ghost moved him to speak. This, when a prophecy of scripture, was not an isolated communication which began and ended in itself in what it had to tell. *Idiva ejpivlusi" (“private interpretation”) does not characterise a scripture prophecy.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I have no doubt at all, that a person, who never has been baptised, ought to be, before they break bread. If a person be inside without one’s being aware of it, or even were dying, or only waiting the possibility of doing it, one might bear and wait, but it is clear that in scripture they came in externally by baptism. I have baptised a great many Quakers’ and Baptists’ children who never had been, and when I found unbaptised persons breaking bread, spoken with them, though then waiting till they saw clear. But it is not order. I look at it as the orderly entrance among Christians —the company God has upon earth. I think from scripture the children of those within have the privilege to be brought in; “Of such is the kingdom of heaven:” and they are holy, not unclean as the children of a Jew who married a Gentile. The being a member of the body is through the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But precepts are given to children, and they are to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Having been once thus admitted, they cannot be admitted over again. But I never seek to persuade any one of children’s baptism. The only commission to baptise was to the twelve to baptise Gentiles (not Jews), and it went from resurrection not ascension; they were (to) disciple nations and baptise them. This they afterwards left to Paul, who tells us he was not sent to baptise; though clearly it was not abrogated.
I do not add any argument against baptist views. Its being obedience is given up by all who have really looked into scripture. The Lord’s supper is the sign of the unity of the body, and that is the bond we own; but it is quite clear from scripture, that when people become Christians they were admitted by baptism amongst the rest: but it has nothing to do with the unity of the body, but admission by a form which expresses Christ’s death as their way in. When thus admitted, they are in once for all, and cannot be admitted again. Hence, even Baptists, if they found a person, baptised by them, unconverted, who afterwards believed, they would not baptise them again; and they are right in my judgment. If a person breaking bread was found never to have been baptised at all, I should merely rectify an irregularity as quietly as possible. It is as men speak, the cart before the horse. We have a case here of a young person just brought to the Lord, and it is quite understood she was to be baptised first.
April, 1871.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * I do not like the tone of——’s letters. I always regret any question being raised on the subject, because baptism forms no part of that mission from Christ on which the church now stands, though never abrogated. I entirely differ from him as to his views of baptism. The answer of a good conscience (1 Peter 3:21) is a mere mistranslation; but I have no quarrel on this score, no more than I have with views which Baptists conscientiously hold. Were it only the health of his daughter, that might, I dare say, be easily arranged, either by modifying the way of doing it, or, if fully purposing to do it when possible, bearing with the lack for the moment. But what I do not accept is, his imposing his views of it on the assembly, and forcing them to give it up entirely, on the ground of his views as to it. This I could not accept. But on his own shewing they ought not to be received; because, if it be what he says, they are not prepared to give the answer of a good conscience towards God. The work of the Holy Spirit in the heart to that effect is not done. But what I object to especially is, that he should impose his views of the matter as the ground of reception. The paedo-baptist, even supposing him mistaken, comes on the ground that he has been bonâ fide baptised: there is no setting aside Christ’s ordinance, even supposing him wrong as to his manner of doing it. I think the Baptist quite wrong, but he does it bonâ fide, and I heartily respect his conscience as to the manner of doing it. I am perfectly satisfied from scripture that ——’s view is wrong; but I leave it there: but he wants the assembly to drop it altogether on his view, and impose his view on the assembly as their ground of action. This I cannot accept. I should convince the assembly, and they had better wait till they see their way clear about it, and not be in any hurry, not as rejecting them, but leaving them time till they see clear. My own disposition would be not to press it, not to have any correspondence about it, but leave it as it is till they see clear about it. At present their ground is, that they are not ready to give the answer of a good conscience to God, but that the assembly must receive them without it. I do not so interpret the text, but—— does.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
June, 1871.
* * * I do not think them102 the same. For eij mhV supposes already that there is that one of the kind to which the negative generally applies; it is an exception. But ajllaV retains its adversative force as to the whole, but something modifies it in result. Thus in Matthew 11:27, there is one who knows— no one else except;—in chapter 12:4 it was lawful to none else except. In Matthew 17:8 they saw no one, oujdevna ei\don eij mhV toVn *I. In Mark 9:8, “and suddenly looking round,” oujkevti oujdevna ei\don, ajllaV toVn *I. Here the scene had disappeared, but they saw Jesus alone with themselves. So in Matthew 20:23, Mark 10:40, oujk e[stin e[moVn dou'nai, that is all denied—only modified by ajllaV oi|" hJtoivmastai. He does not give places at all as His will, or His patronage, but to those for whom, etc. In Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19, if not Matthew, we have oujdeiV" ajgaqoV", eij mhj ei\", oJ qeo". Naturally, good ones were before His mind: He excludes all but God.
* * * * *
* * * I do not think the smallest doubt can rest on the sense of Galatians 2:16.103 We have only to read the rest of the verse to make the meaning of the apostle perfectly clear, and more than clear if possible, earnestly contradicting such a sense: ejk pivstew" Cristou' kaiV oujk ejx ejrgwn novmou. That makes his meaning incontrovertible. But he adds as anxious to insist on the point, diovti ejx e[rgwn novmou ouj dikaiwqhvsetai pa'sa savrx. How this can be an explanation that we shall be justified by works of law by the faith of Christ, I am at a loss to understand. But it is a mistake as to the force of eij mhv or eij deV mhv. Not that it is not used as “unless” or “except.” But its connection with the main idea of the previous phrase, and opposition to the manner there stated, is common: it is really stronger than ajllav having the force of only, or but only. Compare Romans 14:14, where the dij auJtou' must be left out, and the “unclean,” or main idea taken by itself. Only in that case a thing is unclean, and the point is the opposition to the way or manner. It is exactly so here. There koinov" is the common idea, justifying here — dij auJtou' the special case hypothetically put and denied. Introduce dij auJtou' into the second member of the sentence and you make nonsense of the whole. And so you do here if we read what follows. So Matthew 12:4. It was not lawful for him to eat nor those with him, but only for the priests. So Luke 4:26, 27, but (or but only) to Sarepta, which was not in Israel: so as to Naaman. There is always the contradiction of, or opposition to, something in eij mhv. The question is to what? In the first case it is of priests to common Jews; in Luke it is to “in Israel;” in Romans “by nature” or to him who so esteems it; in Galatians law and Christ; and there is always a common idea too, as in Matthew, lawfulness to eat; in Luke, widows or lepers; in Romans uncleanness; in Galatians, justifying. Hence the common idea is not uncommonly left out, and only eij deVmhv put in, and the contradicting matter only stated. Meyer, Ellicott, De Wette, Hammond, Fritzsche on Romans 14:14, all take it as “but,” ox “but only” in Galatians 2:16. The difference of ajllav seems to me to be that there is not necessarily a common point or subject as well as contrast, but simply contrast (not this, but that); with eij mhv there is always a common point about which the contrast takes place. But it is a great mistake to think that it makes the whole antecedent clause the common point, which is what the question would do, so that the clause following it is a condition simply of the whole. You may see the grammatical statements in Klotz’s Devarius, Hoogeveen, or Viger, Bos’ Ellipses, and Winer 654 (sec. 66), the rest under eij mhv and the Commentaries in loco. In both, passages from the classics will be found. The point of the difference of ajllav and eijmhv, has not been noticed that I am aware of; but I think it will be found just. There does not seem to me to be the smallest doubt as to the sense of the passage; at any rate, that it means what the question supposes by the grammatical force of the words is a mistake. Passages such as Romans 14:14 demonstrate it, and others, too, as Mark 13:32; Revelation 9:4. In 1 Corinthians 7:17 it stands elliptically by itself for “only.” Romans 3:27 fully confirms what I have said of the difference of ajllav. When the supposed common point is set as to be, and a condition or way of it is negatived, what follows eij mhv is exclusive and contradictory of the condition or way. Thus oujdev ti" a[llo" ai[ti" ajqanuvtwn eij mhv nefelhgerevta Zeuv". A cause is supposed, a[llos negatived, eij mhv exclusive and contradictory of a[llo"; when there is no negative and the case supposed, the eij mhv negatives the supposition and says why. Maraqw'ni eij" toV bavraqron ejmbalei'n ejyhfivsanto, kaiV eij mhV diav toVn pruvtanin eJ evpesen a[n: “if it had not been for the Prytanis, he would have fallen into it.” There are cases where mhv is left out, and eij dev put with a possible substitution. It answers in the cases of exclusion to sp#a# in Hebrew. See Wolff’s Curse in loco.
When the whole sentence is negative, the eij mhv becomes a positive affirmation of what follows, as 1 Corinthians 10:13, Mark 8:14, and others. Schiitz’s Hoogeveen gives a pretty full explanation under the words eij mhv. In result, the negation of works, or faith in Christ to the contradiction or exclusion of works of law, is clearly the sense of the passage.
* * * * *
* * * I was thankful indeed to hear that the doors open to you, for real work (if we are in our place), I do not doubt it. It may not be as seemingly multitudinous as when those connected with the world are at work, but as much and more is done, and not in a way to nourish the flesh, and the testimony to the Lord much greater. If we seek His face He will always lead us right…
I dread intellectualism, too. But following the word in evil days is not intellectualism. Still watching that love and active love be in full play is important. But it is well to take a warning from any. I do not believe comparatively there is inactivity amongst brethren as to their labour of love, though I doubt not it might be more perfect in detail.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
Boston, March 21st, 1873.
* * * * *
* * * I allow myself to send a brief reply to your inquiry.104 Agreeing entirely with your view of the subject in general, there is, it seems to me, one mistake which embarrasses you in this interpretation. It is this: that these Gentiles are brought to the Lord under the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in a larger measure than the day of Pentecost. That comes after the full restoration and blessing of Israel. There is an action of the Holy Ghost more in the character of John Baptist, an Elias work in Israel; and, as regards the Gentiles, it is a regular part of the service of the remnant of the Jews called thereto of the Lord. This testimony is found as to Israel in Matthew 10 which to the end of verse 15 gives the three missions; from verse 16, or more generally, that which went on after the Lord’s rejection, and to the end when the Son of man should come. This ground as to the Gentiles in chapter 24:14 closes the general instruction, verse 15 beginning the time of special tribulation.
It is not “our gospel” with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, but “this gospel of the kingdom” that was preached when John Baptist was there, and by the Lord Himself. Let it be remembered now that we have no date for the rapture of the church—that the dates begin with a week of Daniel 9, and half a week of great tribulation when the sacrifice is made to cease. But this does not affect the general testimony of Matthew 24 which may begin before the week, and be carried on among the Gentiles during the great tribulation at Jerusalem. Only the Church must be caught up, it seems, before the accomplishment of a renewed testimony of the kingdom apart from what has gathered the Church. The final previous testimony to the nations is found in Revelation 14:6. This takes away all date from the testimony to the nations, save the relative one that the Church is gone. But when we remember that all is done with accelerated rapidity in that day, a nation born in a day, a short work to be made on the earth, that before Zion travailed she brought forth, that for the elect’s sake God has shortened the days, we may look for a more rapid accomplishment of this work of testimony among the Gentiles also. There is another mission in Isaiah 66, but this is when the Lord has appeared in glory and judged all flesh, and it results in bringing up scattered Israel. The dispensational value of the gospel of Matthew has not (I think) been adequately estimated by students of the word.
[1873.]
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—I must answer Yes, and No. The Lord by His death has annulled his power (Heb. 2), but death is not yet formally abolished: it is the last enemy that will be. The church and the Christian ought to be out of Satan’s power: Christ has so gotten the victory that those who are His when He comes will not die at all. Still in himself Satan remains, having the power of death, and death itself is not gone. Hence we read of delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord; but the Christian is not properly under his power at all. Death belongs to him: Paul, Apollos, life, death, things present and things to come. But if he gets out of christian walk he may be subjected to it, yet not so as to be out of the control and reach of God’s hand. We see the connection of God’s chastening and Satan’s power in Job. He is not yet bruised under our feet. When allowed he may have this power. “Satan shall cast some of you into prison.” “Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life.” … Hence, so far as we are not walking in the power of that life we may come under it, but not without God’s hand who uses it for chastening.
November 26th, 1873.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—There are many points to be made clear in your letter: first, as to Hebrews 12, it has nothing to say to continual cleansing; “the blood of sprinkling” is a general expression drawn from Judaism, blood being so used for cleansing. But it is used in contrast to Abel’s blood which cried for vengeance, Christ’s for mercy, and indeed speaks of prospective millennial blessing, and the gathering together in one of all in heaven and earth. That the blood of Christ remains in perpetual value before God, I do not doubt a moment; but, spiritually speaking, it has been sprinkled, and that is presenting it to God, not sprinkling it on anything of ours.
But the great point which wants clearing up is confounding imputation and communion and its interruption. First John speaks of fellowship or communion, not of imputation. The priesthood in Hebrews is not for sins, save in the one great act of reconciliation—it is for mercy and grace “to help in time of need” (chap. 4)—for the simple reason that “by one offering he hath, perfected for ever them that are sanctified” through it; and “for ever” signifies without break or intermission: as He is sitting constantly (Heb. 10:12) at the right hand of God, we are constantly perfect. (Ver. 14.) Hence “the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins.”
As to sins after conversion, the whole thing is a mistake, leaving out Christ’s work, and thinking of the state of our conscience and the Spirit’s work in us. The sins we have committed can alone be on our conscience, but as to the effectual work that puts them away, all our sins were future when Christ bore them. Did He bear our sins up to the day of our conversion and not after? If so they never can be forgiven at all, and we must be lost; He cannot die any more; “for then must he often have suffered.” Head Hebrews 9, 10, which treat these questions elaborately.
Washing with water is quite another thing; it is the application of the word by the Holy Ghost. Once thus born, that work cannot be repeated, but the least word or evil act interrupts communion, and the soul must be restored to communion. So Christ is Advocate to this effect; but there (1 John) fellowship is treated of; and the ground of this advocacy, instead of imputation, is, that the righteous One (our righteousness) is always there, and the blood of propitiation always valid. We are in Christ, and there is no condemnation for those who are in Him; and in another aspect He always appears in the presence of God for us. The sprinkling of the leper does not affect the question: there was no repetition of fault for renewed cleansing; it was, when cured, the ground of all restoration to communion. Sins are worse after believing, for it is sinning against known love; and the measure of responsibility is greater; we are “to walk as he walked,” and manifest the life of Jesus in all things. Nor is anything passed over. Advocacy may restore, and we judge ourselves—else we are judged, chastened that we may not be condemned. I think it is a mistake to apply “the blood of Jesus cleanseth us” to past or present faults. It is an abstract statement, as I may say, Medicine cures the ague. “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light,” is the same; it is the Christian’s place as such. “Hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,” etc. (Heb. 10:22), refers, I have no doubt, to the priest’s consecration which was done once for all. The value of Christ’s blood was the ground for everything, we cannot account of it too highly; but it was the golden plate with “holiness to the Lord” which met the iniquities of their holy things.
I believe I have answered from scripture all that you inquire of, or given what’meets them all, at least. If anything remains not cleared up, I shall be glad to write again. It is well for the saints to be clear on these things, and in these days especially.
December, 1873.
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—I am always glad to get your letters with news of the work. Thank God it seems a moment of blessing in general, not that there is not conflict, that the enemy does not seek to embarrass our service by his manoeuvres; still the Lord works, and everything is made to work together for good. All I seek and desire is, that brethren should give a thoroughly faithful testimony, so that the Lord can be with them and put forth His grace with them… But oh, how much more there is to do! but the Lord will assuredly do His own work…
I hope you have learned to nurse your baby: we heard bad accounts of you in this respect. It is a charge the Lord has given you for higher purposes than this world; and thorough confidence in the parents, begotten by tender care and laying oneself out a little for them—is what creates it under God’s goodness, though of course your little one is too young to be much in your care now; but affection begins early. This world passes and ends, but what we do, and are in it, never does— save the poor vessel.
May the Lord bless your babe and you in it.
January, 1874.
Dear——,—My answer has been a little delayed by moving, and then the press of parting for the Continent, where I now am on my way to Italy and then Switzerland. I was much affected by your account of dear——, and his death… It shews what a world we live in, but what a gracious God we have. Death is written upon our fairest hopes and our fondest joy; but where sin and death have come in, grace and the Son of God have come in. after them to more than make up what was done. If we look at what is eternal and real, then at dear—— and ——, both with Christ, and soon to be manifested in glory through sovereign grace: bright hopes cut down, fine expectations and affections blighted here, but the death to them only the seed of what never ends, in joy and rest with God and Him who loved us, and at all cost to Himself obtained it for us. Most thankful was I to hear of——’s confessing Christ before he went. I was not surprised. Sorrowful as his path had been, it was much through that amiability of character which does not know how to resist, and his affections for home remained constant. None of these things are grace; and the former—for such as we are and the world around us —is a channel of evil; but neither are positive will in evil. But all is in that word that he owned Christ according to his need of a Saviour, and it is very gracious of God to have given you all this comfort. What a difference for the heart if all had ended in darkness, or even far away where none might have been to speak to him! It really is a very great mercy, and I am most thankful to God for it, that your——’s course should have ended in owning the blessed Lord, resting for forgiveness on Him. Ah, it is good to have Him, with the love in which He gave Himself for us, without which none of us could subsist, for after all there is no difference. I rejoice that your father and mother have received this consolation; God has been very gracious to them, for death cannot be staid save by sovereign power immediately exercised, but love is sovereign and free in that grace which saves. Death is the wages of sin, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Blessed be the God of all grace! and we wait here or there to be like Jesus and see Him as He is. The more one goes on and gets out of the vain show in which men walk and into reality, the more Christ is everything. As it is said, death and destruction have heard the fame thereof (of wisdom) with their ears: they have not got it, but they tell a tale that ends falsehood if it be not yet truth, and that is something. Infidelity may do to amuse and deceive the mind while the spring of life flows, but when it begins to ebb, and more when it dries up, what can it do or say? You may be an amiable, clever animal with it, not by it, but a divine affection never crosses its path.
Remember me kindly to—— and all at the house, and tell them how seriously I take in all their troubles and Borrows. Still God has been most gracious to them, and even in human things makes everything work together for good to those who love Him. The Lord be with you, dear——.
Affectionately in the Lord.
Paris, February, 1874.
* * * * *
Dear Mrs. ——,—I find the same confusion of sin and sins as among them all consciously and wilfully, the same gross mistake as to where we are to be conformed to Christ. It is the fruit of the generally low estimate of what Christianity is, and in judging this may be useful. Do doubts and fears depart by surrender to Jesus? Take his use of 1 John 3:6 and compare 9, and see if it be just. In 13 all is the same confusion and a perpetual cleansing by blood, which though to be borne with as ignorance, is all wrong. Also it applies to sins, not sin. Again in 1 John 1:8 confusion of sin and sinning, “an omission deliberately decided on,” puzzled her, and trust in Jesus settled it. But, he that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin. It ought to have been a cause for distress, and was not inventing a cause for it. I judge there was very real mischief done her by her new views. She was intensely happy after a thorough evil working of sin in her, various ways of gratifying suggesting themselves to her mind; she was delivered, and no doubt the Lord makes us happy in delivering us, but she appears to me to take this sinful nature and positive dominion of sin in her for a time, uncommon easy. I admit all the grace that delivers, the positive intervention of Christ that delivers, but I should have been, while blessing Christ for His grace, miserable at having had all this working in me; have said, ‘if you had been fuller of Christ this would not have been the case—there has been negligence in prayer, want of diligence of heart, consequent want of the sense of God’s presence—my fault has given Satan an advantage over me.’ I see no trace of what she ought to have felt after such evil working in her heart. I do not stop to notice a very demonstrative nature and much reference to feelings, not that I think that the most expressed are the deepest; but all these traits tell me the low ground they are upon, comparing themselves with themselves—themselves it may be set free, in which I rejoice, but all judged of by feeling of deliverance compared with previous bondage, all about themselves, and I may say, nothing about Christ. It is a sign of christian youth, not of maturity—a babe in Christ speaks of what it feels, a mature Christian of what is in Christ.
All this may be useful in rousing to wants of soul something better than what is going. But it is a pity that if so, there should be so little knowledge of self and knowledge of Christ in it. It is interesting to see deliverance, but to give it out as a kind of wonderful standard is a mistake. It may be well that this side of what a Christian may feel should be set before souls. But you cannot but see that it is all what is produced in us, not what is in Christ and what Christ is. I do not want to depreciate spiritual attainment nor faith in promises. There are cases where we have to watch that mere knowledge does not displace and enfeeble it, but I cannot accept its being substituted for Christ where too the heart has not given itself up altogether to the Lord, the declarations of those who have may awaken the conscience. Many, alas, are far from having done it, and if not watched the world and self creep in, let it be judged. But I ask after reading the book, if Miss F. K. H. and Mr. W—— do not rest on the mind more than Christ. This may be useful to awaken, not to mature. And now mark how dangerously and mischievously scripture has to be changed for the system. He adds to sinning, wilfully and consciously. Scripture says if a man sin wilfully there is no remedy, and what so grieved Paul certainly was not sin in Romans 7. Further, unconscious sins if they flow from carelessness are a more serious ground of judgment maybe than conscious ones. Again, “goes on cleansing,” which was what comforted this lady, is quite false, and mischievously so. It is a bad sign when we have to change scripture to make it do. So, complete in Him; this is what all Christians are said to be. I do not doubt true heartedness and sincerity—superiority to myself in many feelings, but I cannot see maturity in Christ. As I have said, a young Christian speaks much of self and what it feels— natural when they are young—old ones who know themselves, much of Christ. I do not find in any of them Christ has His place. It is well to awaken, but putting it as a model lowers the standard and means of advance towards it. What is beneath the surface is hidden by the glowing expressions of what is in it. 1 want to get the spectrum of what the sun is made of, and not merely the photosphere, and then Christ will have a larger place Himself.
Ever truly yours.
August, 1874.
* * * * *
* * * In the external learning of the Old Testament, my work has advanced me. But it all makes the word of God more precious to me, and as such. The questions and difficulties of men’s minds belong to men’s minds; the proof and sap of God’s word belong to God’s word, and to Him who gave it: and the contrast of the power, riches, depth, moral instruction in which God’s own nature is displayed in it, with the arbitrary suppositions of men, make the latter appear in their naked poverty and littleness. In it I find the whole display of God’s nature in Christ, in reply to all that came out of the heart of man: goodness in the midst of evil; the heart of God meeting the need of man’s heart. We shall see Him as He is, and be like Him; but oh! how is the word its own proof, and how has it its own power, though surely nothing but the Spirit of God can give it that power in us. But in walking with God, alone can we draw out its sweetness and feed upon it. I believe that the Spirit of God is a positive teacher in this respect, and may give, if He sees fit, developed thoughts of its contents; but if rivers are to flow out we must drink for ourselves as thirsty for it.
* * * * *
Dear——,—I have long had the conviction, and expressed it, that half the gatherings on the paper should be off. Some since then are. This has been the real evil; the thing was cumbersome, and, what was worse, factitious and fictitious… I should not think of hindering any brother from these places coming on Saturday evening if he wished. In many cases it might be desirable, as so near London people move more about. At the beginning of these meetings, when they were young and weak, desiring the help of older brethren in London, and there were only one or two gatherings, it was all well; but they are grown up, and letters of commendation, as from any other gathering, should be given.
As to the printing I am indifferent. I should prefer writing, because more connected with personal intercourse in giving them in, and less routine; because, too, if sent to printer, then they are without any consultation at all, and if the visitors do not come, which is then very likely, they must be given out without more, or struck out without communication with those who send them. But all these are merely instrumental means of getting things done, and if it all works well I am content… The printing is to gain time; if all non-London meetings were off, half the time would be saved, and more real work done; and the casting of the responsibility on the different gatherings in each place I believe to be most important. In London we are all in one place, however large. I never could have said, If the papers are given up—I might have said that if they were made independent churches—I could not go with them. The papers were a real means of hindering this, and with all defects they had worked well…
The meeting had lost its true character, it has ceased to be real. If brethren who cared for saints in each gathering in London, met to carry out that care in unity, as servants to the different gatherings, it would be a most useful meeting, while admission and exclusion I hold to be the act of the whole assembly and not rightly done otherwise. Practically, as I said in the letter you sent me, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, it is the local gathering which has come to the conclusion, but unity is maintained by intercommunion in it; and in such a place as London it is a great safeguard, and in special cases all are actually concerned in it together—a person may have been teaching false doctrine in many gatherings or troubling them in other ways… A little patience, and weighing the matter before God, and all would be straight.
It is not by much discussion, but readiness to serve, and wisdom as to practical plans, that such things are carried out. But it is not so much plans as work in love that is required. My old letter (I do not know who printed it) I still believe perfectly just.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
* * * * *
To the same.]
* * * It is fair to tell you that reflection has made me much more averse to printed papers than I was. I have not heard anything new from others which acted on me; the grounds of my increased objection have arisen in my own mind. I do not enter into details, for my difficulty has arisen from details in the first instance, and then from the whole tone and bearing of the thing. The mere fact of printing, or writing, is still nothing in itself to me. I still insist on all being put off the list who are not within London itself—I have long done so. Not doing so was all very well to help little assemblies, newly formed, where no principle was concerned in it in any one’s mind; but it subverts, as it stands now, the whole principle of local unity, which is the scriptural one as to localities— holding the unity of all saints, as gathered into one, with that local unity. Helping, as a matter of grace, an assembly that was weak, was all very well, and all that thoroughly maintains general unity. Now the question as to the principle has been raised… Grace will settle it peacefully. But my objection to the printed papers is quite other than it was when I wrote the reply to your letter.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
[1875. ]
My dear Brother,—The work goes on so uniformly here, that there is little to relate. It wanted rousing so far as the brethren went—no gospel, or even a room or a preacher. Yet my work has been of a peculiar kind, receiving all that came to the Tract Depôt at 3 and 7.30. Various persons have come, ministers and others. Several have found peace, and what the true gospel ground is, and also the Lord’s coming; and there for the present it rests. … I hope too, and with many, a plain gospel and a full one has been learned: some feed really on the “Word, and are constantly there. But the state of souls, and even the best gospel they hear is deplorable, and the state of things felt. … Oh, if the Lord Himself was not the workman, how hopeless would be the thought of reaching all the souls that are in need. It is a comfort then to be able to look to Him, that His eye and grace may reach them. We read of the eyes of the Lord running to and fro through the earth to shew Himself strong in behalf of those whose hearts are perfect towards Him; and we may reckon on His grace too, to follow in faithful mercy all the need of His beloved people, and this is a consolation.
We have had through this perfection question, which is only deliverance from Romans 7: the difference of full acceptance through Christ’s work, as in Hebrews 10, and the washing of the feet with water very clearly brought out. The last is unknown to the Christians here: and making all forgiveness through re-sprinkling with blood diminishes the depth of holiness. It is men getting clear—not clean really. I have been struck in connection with this, with the extreme jealousy of defilement in Numbers 19. It was no sprinkling with blood, but that being sprinkled in the tabernacle, and sin consumed—then for communion, all unholiness and nature consumed on the cross, all defilement measured by that cross, and the word and Spirit (the water). Whatever touched was unclean; the priest was, the sprinkler was till even, all in the tent and that were not purged out—all the value of the day of atonement supposed, and the question of communion raised.
I hear from dear——who is anxious about a certain change in himself from evangelist to pastor. I covet evangelising, but the latter gift is more… I got a good shake at New York, but I am through mercy quite well, but it was a notice from the far country a little. Most thankful am I for the blessing vouchsafed to the work around you.
Boston, February 25th, 1875.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—The subject you write on has occupied me lately. The Romans is simply forgiveness and grace taken by themselves, as noted, down to chapter 5:11. The full state of the Christian also is clear. These, though distinct, you cannot separate—John 20:22 and Pentecost—as Romans 8 shews. Thus far all is simple. “Justification of life,” I have lately seen, refers to chapter 5:16, 17: still it is a real thing, meeting death coming in, and all sinning, and many offences. Still it seems to me liberty or deliverance has a double aspect—before God, and from the law of sin. It is all in redemption, it is true; but, though brought to God—delivered as well as forgiven— there was no circumcision in the wilderness. The Red Sea brought out, the Jordan brought in; yet they coalesce. The wilderness formed no part of the object or purpose of God, but only of His ways. He does not say a word of it when visiting Israel in Egypt, nor is there in the song in Exodus 15. Deliverance is complete as to redemption at the Red Sea: they are brought to God. Through the death and resurrection of Christ we are forgiven and delivered: forgiveness sets us free before God. But Romans always looks at the Christian as a man on the earth, alive in Christ and justified, but here. There is no life but the life of Christ, in one sense never was; only now that He is risen He gives it according to the power and in the relationship into which He is entered. But life is not what is preached but Christ—repentance and remission of sins: the state of our relationship with God in ourselves or in Christ. “Ye must be born again”—however true is not gospel. The display of life in us will be according to what faith holds as to these relationships. The ordinary scriptural order was, when convicted, remission of sins, and thereon receiving the Holy Ghost. This gives not a new life, but a life in the relationships into which such an one was entered; and this gave not .only liberty before God in the knowledge of forgiveness, but freedom from the law of sin and death. I then know not merely that Christ died and delivered me, put me in a new place relating to what was past (then does not go any further), but as in this new place that it is identified with power of life and death to sin, as Romans 8:2, 3.
We have no rudiments of the world spoken of in Romans. It is guilt, sin in the flesh, law, justification, life in Christ, being in Him, but so as to have no condemnation and freedom from the law of sin, as the flesh condemned on the cross. I learn then that I am risen with Christ, and talk of rudiments of the world, having put off the old man, and so on. It is all true that I am in Christ and Christ is in me (Rom. 8:1, 10); but a person is not in the christian state till he has the Spirit of Christ. (Ver. 9.) To chapter 5:11 it is simply God for us in respect of guilt and all its consequences in relationship with Him—from chapter 5:12, experimentally learned, our state. You have the Spirit in chapter 5; the love of God shed abroad in the heart. A person may go through chapter 7 before being in the beginning of chapter 5; it may be after, though it will be modified.
But however full the gospel you preach, if effectual it brings the soul to the consciousness of its then actual state with God. But it will never get into peace till it ceases from the search whether it has life, and looks to Christ as a Saviour. It is a matter of teaching that Christ is our life, nor is there any other; and now it is life as risen, but its movements must be according to our conscious relationship with God. The disciples had life in John 20:22. In Romans 8 the Spirit is first named as source and power of life, and then as a personal Spirit in us: that is, both as John 20:22, and Pentecost. But this only is the proper christian condition as chapter 8:9 shews. I would not say with the fullest gospel a man might not get into Romans 7, possibly by mixing it with ideas he had already. But the knowledge of salvation by the remission of sins, and thereon sealing, is the gospel order—whatever we learn afterwards—and life in that relationship; and that is life in resurrection in itself. But faith in the Person of Christ gives life, and thereon a person is not sealed nor has peace, but there is confidence—not law—forgiveness known, but imperfectly: so the poor woman in Luke 7.
The truth of risen life in Christ and the coming of the Holy Ghost are distinct; but now that both are fulfilled the divine order is the knowledge of the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Ghost, and thus the two are inseparable. Then I know, or may know, that I am in Christ; whereas the forgiveness known before by the gospel is of past sins—what my conscience needed. The life we receive is in Christ risen, but I am not consciously—much more than knowledge—in John 20:22, now that the Holy Ghost is come, till I receive the Holy Ghost. Romans 8 puts them inseparably together. I have to see that a man in faith’s relationship is in Romans 7, or whether it is merely lack of knowledge; for in Romans 7 he has not in fact received the Holy Ghost, is not married to Christ. A man may have to learn himself afterwards, but if he has the Spirit he is married to Christ, though he may have to learn things experimentally.
As regards Titus 3 the renewing here is an absolutely new thing ajnakaivnwsi". Renewing when connected with justification always comes first. Justification is true only of a renewed person : we are sanctified to the blood of sprinkling. Brought into this new place administratively by baptism, and effectually by being created anew, we have this justification in hope of eternal life. The Holy Ghost does renew continually ajnaneu'sqai (Eph. 4:23.) Colossians 1:12 is always the state of the Christian, and the apostle looks at the Christian as in the christian state (should even his mind be warped as in Galatians). Receiving the Spirit is an actual change of status not of title; but not merely knowing something.
I write with my head or nerves only just above water, but better and fully taken care of. It may be well to remember that, in a certain sense, the Red Sea closes the history. It is the salvation of Jehovah: the wicked come under death and judgment: the people of God are saved and brought to His holy habitation, as the thief went straight to Paradise.
Philadelphia, April, 1875.
* * * * *
Dear Brother,—Your friend must be very prejudiced to think it Jesuitism, and not meeting the point that brethren are exclusive, because they will not go on in what they think disobedience, while they receive all true saints: as if my refusing to walk with some of a family who were doing what their father forbad proves surely [the want of] love to the rest of them, when I am free with all who are not disobeying. This is a poor piece of reasoning—a want of any clear conception of the case.
I have run over M. Rainsford’s: it is better than nine-tenths of what they get in the Establishment, but is as far as possible from clear truth”. But his explanation of dead to sin is not sound at all, and leaves a person undelivered: it is a question of living in it pr not, not of a penalty. No doubt Christ has taken the penalty, but there is a great deal more. And he leaves the Christian where he finds him, as to the point the apostle is treating, and I think, with a fuller statement of Christ being all, leaves saints where they generally are in the Evangelical world. His explanations and applications of scripture are very commonly incorrect. He knows nothing of the presence and anointing of the Holy Ghost—union is by faith. Nor do I think there is real acquaintance with the exercises of a soul, nor of how scripture truth meets it. If a man is in Christ (and he puts him there at once as the first thing), penalty is gone (sin and sins being confounded), the man is judicially perfect but that is all: as to all else he is left pretty much where he was. Hence the extreme weakness of 13, and the false teaching of 14. Of deliverance from the power of sin in being out of Romans 7, he has not an idea. See again pp. 190, 191, 214. This absolute identifying of “justified from sin” and “freed from sin” (the difference of which he notices to confound them again) characterises his state and doctrine— besides confounding sin, and sins or guilt. Many other things I might remark, but the point of error in his teaching is the upsetting the special teaching of chapter 5:12 to end of 8, specially 6, 7 and 8. That he makes Christ all for any souls is all well…
Chicago, June 3rd, 1875.
* * * * *
* * * What I think serious in the state of all these bodies is, not one is really outside the camp. God has opened out much truth from His word, that is widely spread outside all gatherings; but there they do not move, and spoil it; but the loose brethren have generally lost it. For my own part, I feel what I have to do is to minister Christ to the want of the soul with which I have to do. As to a public testimony, though we may be humbled, the Lord is wise. If it were merely a question of New Zealand, Canada was worse till R. Evans went there. He was decided, and only one brother would let him into his house; now such a thing as a loose meeting is hardly known, and blessing has spread very widely. Christ suffices for the present state of the church, as for all. But one man in Israel’s history went up to heaven without dying, and the state of Israel was such that he could not find a faithful man, though God knew such. There is no epistle where the apostle so much insists on courage as in 2 Timothy, when all was gone to the bad. My own deep conviction is that the church failed immediately the apostle was gone, just as Adam, and Noah, and Israel in Sinai, and the priesthood. The church as an historical body never knew what it was to be perfected for ever, and did not continue to own the Holy Ghost. God has taken us back to the Scriptures, to the word of God, and faith rests there owning the Holy Ghost as present till the blessed Lord takes us away. The standing of the Christian and of the church was lost at once with those to whom it was revealed, save as consigned to the written word. There I turn, owning the need and power of the Holy Ghost, while perfect acceptance in Christ is the starting-point for all our service as for all our hopes… But I must close, casting myself on the Lord for all our service. The more we know of Him, the more we know He is everything. All else passes but He abides for ever, the Son of the Father’s delight, and we associated with Him— wondrous thought! but God’s purpose, and now due to Him who has suffered that He may see the fruit of the travail of His soul and be satisfied—satisfied in having us with and like Him. What infinite blessedness, and all to the glory of God for ever and ever. Must not our hearts be filled with it, and His love is our present joy!
Your affectionate brother.
* * * * *
* * * I entirely acquiesce in the general purpose of ——. The I of individuality needs no proof; it is in the consciousness of everybody. I cannot use the word without declaring it. So that I have not accepted the famous dictum of Des Cartes: ‘I think, therefore, I am.’ The moment I say “I,” all is said and proved, and better known than if attempted to be proved.
The thought of excusing oneself because it is the old man who acts is utterly false and evil. I am responsible and ought through the power of Christ who has set me free, to have kept the old man, or the flesh, if we are so to speak, down; not merely reckoning it dead, “but bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body.” But it seems to me this paper105 is {pb 2440defective in not adequately recognising the existence of flesh— of what lusts against the Spirit.
I do not think there is any difficulty in scriptural statements where difficulties have not been made by those who wished to obscure the truth. When I say, “Not I, but Christ liveth in me,” the soul taught of God knows that the I which does not live—is not owned—is the old Adam 1 And when it says, “Not I, but sin that dwelleth in me,” it gets the comfort of knowing, though not yet delivered, that the new life is a distinct thing. To the heart that walks experimentally, and is taught of God, all this is light, not obscurity. It is only so when false teachers seek to puzzle the soul.
‘As in Adam he has died’ (p. 13) is an unhappy phrase (though I understand it) because in scripture it is used in the exactly opposite sense, and all have died in Adam. “By man came death,” but that was by, not to, sin, which is what the writer means here.
Next, I do ‘attribute all evil found within to the old man.’ Negatives are always dangerous things. ‘As though’ qualifies it, I admit, but very inadequately, because the evil is in and from the old man, or at least the flesh. The object of the sentence is right, but the form regrettable. So again: ‘Strictly speaking, the old man has no present existence.’ Now what is the meaning of this? Has the flesh no present existence? and am I not to distinguish it? I admit my responsibility fully to keep the flesh down, and I am to blame if I do not. But, though the old man may be used to signify my Adam existence without Christ, yet it is so used here as that the distinct existence of what lusts against the Spirit is ignored. We are told: ‘If he find sin there, he must not plead for it in excuse that it is his old man [so far very well, only I should leave out ‘for it,’ and say ‘in excuse’—meaning plead for himself in excuse, not for it], but must honestly confess that it is himself.’ I admit his fault, his responsibility fully. Through the Spirit he should have mortified the deeds of the body, and been full of Christ in the new man. But to say that it is himself, with the rejection of its being the old man, destroys, it seems to me, the force of the apostle’s words: “Not I, but sin that dwelleth in me.”
I admit the personal 1 I admit the responsibility, and no excuse because the sin is there; but there is an ignoring the flesh, the two things contrary the one to the other, because scripture teaches, which it does, that the old man is put off. “We are told the old man is of the past. In one passage the fact is admitted that the flesh lusts against the Spirit, but then how is what people really and experimentally mean by the old man, a part which has no present existence? If the paper adequately recognised the fact that the flesh is a present thing, I should not object at all to saying that the old man is a past thing; but this is not the case. I have put it off and put on the new; I am not in the flesh; and this is important, very important, to make clear. But the old man being habitually used for the flesh, even if incorrectly, and this being said to have no present existence, while the flesh is practically ignored—I fear that defectiveness as to this latter point may mislead, as well as the error the paper justly combats.
1875.
* * * * *
* * * Man is here as everywhere—perhaps rather more— occupied with earthly things… I hardly feel any difference between England and Canada. When one is near heaven, when Jesus is all, one place scarcely differs from another; God remains God, holy and love, and man remains man.
Toronto, 1876.
* * * * *
* * * The Lord be with you, dear brother, and help you in your work. It is a mercy to be allowed to work for Him. The time will come when we shall know all else is vanity. Keep close to Him; there only is strength or help or wisdom. We must expect combat, and sorrow over failure, but let our eyes look straight forward. The Lord exercises us in these things. We have only to do His will, and walk in grace to others as those who may be tempted themselves.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
August, 1876.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,— … I write at once as to Hebrews 9. Diav is used for a state or condition, which affects the principle on which we act or receive anything, on which anything takes place. Thus, Romans 4:11, dij ajkrobustiva"; Romans 2:27, diaV gravmmato" kaiV peritomh'". So it is in Hebrews 9:11. As to paragevnomeno", though it be having come, it is not the act of coming e[rcomai, but being present in or for something by coming; coming into a certain condition, so that He is there, or come, in view of what is to be done when arrived. The verb in the sentence is eijsh'lqei ejfavpax, verse 12. He had taken the position of High Priest of coming good things; and this office was to be fulfilled, not in the present earthly tabernacle, but in a greater and more perfect one. The tabernacle is not, therefore, I think, the incarnation, for His priesthood (save the fact of atonement) was not on earth; it is exercised in connection with heavenly things, though there securing earthly ones for Israel: paragevnomeno" is entering into the condition of priesthood, not incarnation or glory, and that is connected with the heavenly tabernacle. The fact of His going in is in 24 as in 12; this referring to eternal redemption, which He had found; that, to the fact of His abiding presence before God there for us; but in both eijsevrcomai, the act of going in— not paragivnomai what He had come to be or do, the condition entered into or in view. I do not consider diaV ai{mato", or tou' ijdivou ai{mato" as instrumental, but to be used in the sense already referred to.
The “end of the ages,” or “consummation of the ages,” are all the dealings of God with man to test his general condition. In this general sense the state of innocence comes in; but the proper connection is what is after the fall, yet not looking at man as lost, but testing his state and whether he was recoverable, or was lost and had to be saved. Without law; under law; God manifested in the flesh, were the great features of this. Hence in John 12 the Lord says, “Now is the judgment of this world.” Though there was testimony, there were no religious institutions before the flood, unless the fact of sacrifices. There were after: government; promises to Abraham, shewing it was grace to one separated from an idolatrous world and head of a new race; the law; the prophets; and at last the Son as come, not as offered. Then God laid the foundation of His own purposes in righteousness.
The difference is that in John 1:29 it is the sin of the world; in Hebrews 9 it is to put away sin more generally. Neither will have full accomplishment till the new heavens and the new earth. In this last passage we have to distinguish between it and bearing the sins of many. The last concerns us, and purging our conscience. I do not think it has been adequately seen how all good and evil has been brought to an issue in the cross—in that place of sin before God, that is, in Christ made sin (though in the last words it is for us, 2 Cor. 5:21). We have the absolute wickedness of man and enmity against God in goodness; the complete power of Satan, “your hour and the power of darkness;” the prince of this world leading all men, the disciples having fled; man in his absolute perfection, in whom that prince had nothing, but there was perfect love to the Father and perfect obedience; man in absolute perfection, and that as made sin before God, where it was needed for God’s glory, for it was where He was made sin that the obedience was made perfect, obedient unto death; God absolute in righteousness against sin, and perfect in love to the sinner. This, therefore, is the finished and so immutable ground of eternal perfectness. We cannot say as to the result sin is actually put away, save for us (2 Cor. 5) who by the Holy Ghost know it; but the work is perfectly done on the ground of which there will be a new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
We must not confound “sin” and “sins.” He has borne the sins of many (they never can be remembered against us); loved and washed from them in His own blood—our conscience, once purged, is made clean for ever. But sin is that alienation of all things, and first of all of our hearts, from God, which requires reconciliation of things in heaven and earth, which is not yet, and of ourselves which is; see Colossians 1:20, 21, and many confirmatory passages. Christ then has been manifested for the total abolition of sin out of heaven and earth, defilement and alienation gone, besides our guilt being atoned for and our sins remitted; but both are by His sacrifice, in which God withal has been perfectly glorified in all that He is. The result is not yet wholly accomplished, nor will be fully till the new heavens and the new earth. The katacqovnia of Phil. 2:10 are another thing; they bow but are not reconciled. I say this to avoid mistakes. The burnt-offering alone took the ground of sin, the sin-offering of sins. Romans also, 1:17—v. 11, treats of sins; 5:12 end of 8 of sin only, here only as to man on the earth: fevrein is as to sins, ojai{rwn goes on to sin; sins are borne, sin put away. Of course our sins are wholly taken away, but that is “our.” He is never said to have borne the sins of all or of the world, or taken them away, but our sins, or those of many; but He is the oJ ai{rwn of sin out of the universe, the taker-away of it, the result being not yet accomplished: eij" aJqevthsin (Heb. 9:26) is the result proposed, hJqevthse is not said. The work is done, the full result not yet brought about; but it is all in virtue of that, though power comes in to make it good, just as it does in the microcosm of ourselves, even as to the body in due time.
As to the question of “covenant” or “testament”: “covenant” is always right, save in Hebrews 9:16, 17. Even here it has been contested; but it seems more simple to take it as “testament,” an observation or allusion by the bye, SiaOijxr) being in Greek covenant or testament or disposition. The voice of tou' diJaqemevnou has been the great bone of contention where it has been discussed; translated, if covenant, “the appointed” [sacrifice.] But this has seemed to me forced. Some have even made Galatians 3:15, 16 “testament,” but this, I judge, is entirely wrong.
Ottawa, America, Oct. 27th, 1876.
Dear Mr. ——,—I do not know if you were at the meeting, and at any rate I can answer your questions undistracted here. Both sides of the gospel ought to be preached, and personal conviction of sin too, or repentance only founded on grace “my name.” As regards saint and sinner, a great many saints want a clear gospel, and at any rate rejoice in it, if they possess it. If sinners come, there ought to be a gospel for them. But a full plain gospel is good for both.
There is what I have called a teaching gospel, say, like Hebrews 9 and half 10, 2 Cor. 3, and other places. The facts are generally known, and much gospel preaching must be on the worth and bearing of facts, and that on heart and conscience, but the more the facts are insisted on, the more power I believe there will be. Christ, and what He has done. Dwelling exclusively on meeting the sinner’s need, though true, and revealing God’s love, always sweet to the soul, lays a narrow basis for after-growth.
As regards the arrangement. If there is a desire in the assembly to have the gospel, and there is an open door, both being most heartily to be desired of the Lord—and there is no evangelistic gift in the assembly—I know nothing to hinder, without a dream, their saying “Come over and help us.” The individuals being employed to seek one to come, is merely that the whole assembly cannot do it, and get one they trust to do it for them, and it is to be supposed that he does it in fellowship with the assembly; but except the moving spring of love to souls, the assembly merely furnishes the external opportunity, as I might open my house for the same purpose. He who comes to preach does it in the free exercise of his gift in his own responsibility to the Lord; for such ministry is directly from the Lord, and to be exercised in responsibility to Him.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—Not one of the passages which Mr.—— quotes applies to the question. That those who have occupations, as —— and others, should evangelise all they can, is all very well, but that is not being given up to the work of evangelising where God has called us to it. —— speaks of deacons or evangelists. But deacons are not evangelists. Serving tables was set up that the apostles might not be hindered in evangelising; and when Stephen and Philip became evangelists, they gave up their place as deacons, at any rate Philip, for he left Jerusalem.
Next, that when a person is an aged widow, or an elderly matron, she should teach young wives to be stayers at home is all well, but what it has to say to an evangelist haying an occupation—I am at a loss to see.
Providing for one’s own—though, of course, a man is bound to cherish and care for his wife—speaks of a wholly different and indeed opposite case; that the church should not be charged with widows who had children, but that they, or young members of their family, should provide for them.
1 have gone through them all, and none apply at all, unless 2 Corinthians 12:13, 14; nor does that. Paul had no wife, and no home, and no fortune, and tells us he had no certain dwelling-place. He would not take from the Corinthians because they were fond of money, but talks of it as a wrong, and that it was an extraordinary thing (but he took from others for the gospel’s sake); and in 1 Corinthians 9 he discusses the whole matter on the ground that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Peter led about a sister, a wife, and Paul insists that he and Barnabas had the same right, so did the brethren of the Lord, and the apostles. (1 Cor. 9:5.) So that the direction of the word is quite plain: and heaps of brethren have done so on the Continent. If they have families, no doubt they must have a house; but the Lord has taken care of them, and their families have been educated, and get on just as other people’s have. In one case there were eleven children. Of course, such cases require faith in a woman to undertake when in it. I have often seen them have more courage than men. My experience is wholly against him, called to be an evangelist, taking up a means of providing by other occupation. It is putting this world and human care before God’s calling; and their spiritual work is spoiled in its very root. It is a wholly different thing, and the opposite as to faith, where those who have occupations break out of their bounds to evangelise. If a man be called of God to give himself up to evangelising, that is another matter, but departing from the path of faith is a serious thing.
* * * * *
“Trust in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him.”
My dear Brother,—There are two quite distinct truths or objects of thought brought before us in the Lord’s supper: the death of the blessed Lord, and His remembrance now He is gone: and the unity of the body as partaking of one loaf. We have to avoid at the same time any breaking away from scriptural truth on the one side, and harshness and narrowness of feeling on the other. If love to all the saints is not present in my spirit, I break the unity of the Spirit, while keeping it up in form rightly according to scripture in outward practice. On the other hand, I cannot deny in practice what scripture teaches, and especially in that which is given as a sign of the scriptural truth. The words, Table of the Lord, are used to signify that identification with Him in confession which was found in the priests partaking of the altar, and the heathens eating of what had been offered to idols. I do not therefore object to use “the Lord’s table” as an expression significant of this. Hence it necessarily embraces in principle all that are His, if not excluded by just discipline.
Now, as the various denominations either let in anybody, or meet professedly as such denomination, though they may allow, being such, a stranger to partake of it, the unity of the body and Christ’s presence in the assembly is lost to faith, and they are still the church. But pious persons going to the communion at one of these places can enjoy, according to their piety, the remembrance of Christ, and of His dying love. I believe they lose by it, and certainly do, the present sense of the unity of Christ’s body as a present thing on earth, for their faith does not embrace it; and in a measure the sense of Christ’s presence —that is, as there in the assembly, though they may realise it by the Holy Ghost for their own souls. I do not attach importance to words; but I could not own, with the light I have as to the unity of the body, that these denominational ordinances are the Lord’s table; but I am quite ready to believe that souls may go there with a deeper sense than myself of the Lord’s love personally. I do exceedingly enjoy the sense of His love there; but more than that, I own, as associated in heart with Him, the unity of the body, of those He gave Himself to gather together into one,106 and own it scripturally according to His will in practice in that in which He has given expression to it; and denominationalism by being such does the contrary. But if I walk with my feet in the narrow path, from which I dare not stray, and find blessing in it, I desire to have my heart large enough to embrace all God’s children walking before Him; and I lose in spirit the very blessing I am speaking of if I do not. “Your love,” says the apostle, “to all the saints,” “to comprehend with all saints.” We cannot properly realize the love of Christ in communion without taking in in its place all He loves as His. “Fellowship one with another” is one of the three elements of the christian state, its import far larger than we are apt to think; and if hindered in its manifestation by others, it ought only to be stronger within in our hearts in grace, and thinking of them with the Lord Himself. “Everyone that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.” But then, if it is love for His sake, this will be in obedience. Hereby we know that we love the children of God, if we love God, and keep his commandments. I cannot go out of the path He has marked out, to be with those I yet love. It would not be true love to them, not the love of God, to be disobedient, and set them at ease in what was wrong, treating it as no matter.
[1877.]
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I have read the Lösepenningen of Dr. Waldenstrom. I had previously read his Latin thesis on the Lutheran symbolical books. There he was all right in combating the common error, that Christ’s work changed God’s mind, and that God was then but a Judge, and practically that love was in Christ, and only judgment in God, as if the work of Christ procured His love. I have very often insisted on the truth as to this. You have both sides in John 3:14, 16. But he drops out “the Son of man must,” and holds only that “God give His Son.” And thus it is a very wrong production. Still the error that is in it arises from having got hold of the love, and so getting onesided. The interpretation of the passage is all wrong, but that is not so material; but he confounds purchasing and redemption. If what he says means anything, all sins of all men are put away.
Dr. W. is also careless in his use of scripture. He contradicts himself; for though sins are blotted out the curse abides on sinners continually. Wrath and the curse remain for those who are sinners, yet there was no wrath in God! The justified are taken from under the curse; but they had been under it then it appears, and, in their sins, were under the wrath of God and condemnation. He mixes up all this confusion and contradiction with just refutation of errors. And note, What did Christ suffer and be forsaken of God for? It is all well to say God’s love gave Him, and that was the source of all. No doubt. But why did Christ suffer as He did? Why had He the stripes? He is a propitiation, an iJlasmo", He suffered iJlavskesqai. God had not to be reconciled, but His righteous holy nature required the sin to be put away. Then he uses “we” and “us” in the mouth of believers, as if it was all the world. His doctrine as to not living under law and experience is dangerous. I resist looking to experience as much as he does; but, in citing the lost sheep and the father of the prodigal, he has dropped the return of the prodigal, so carefully brought out in detail by the Lord to make the difference between conversion and salvation clear. I reject utterly self-examination for peace; but a soul will have to know itself—not merely its sins forgiven, but that “in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.”
He resists reconciling God, in which he is right. But he has neglected one side of scripture truth; has quoted scripture without heed, and contradicts himself. It is confusion of redemption and purchase that has made all his doctrine wrong. Christ is an ajntiv lutron uJpeVr pavntwn: but that which is the strongest statement is very different from ajpaluvtrwsi". It is a pity that he could not be set straight, for the point of departure of his mind is just: but he has followed it out hastily, not weighing scripture. He has lost the iJlasmo" side of the work, and this is dangerous. It has not gone to denying that the sins had to be put away, and therefore has thrown all his teaching into confusion. The blood of the goat was presented to God on the mercy-seat, and Christ is entered in not without blood; why if it were not needed to iJlavskesqai taV" aJmartiJa" tou' laou'? Why was it presented to God? Not surely to change His mind or make Him love (a horrid thought), but needed for His righteousness and holy nature. “It became him … in bringing many sons to glory.” So He says to Israel, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you.” There is wrath and the curse he admits—why? and what met it so that it should not be executed on us? Hence he always confounds God and the Father, making us all His children. “God so loved the world.” It is never said “the Father” loved the world. The Father is a name of relationship with His children, not with the world. Dr. W. admits they are not all saved. The question is not, Did Christ undertake a partial restoration? but, Did He undertake the restoration of all? He died for all, I believe, but that is a very different thing. Here you have purchase and redemption as the same, and their perfect restoration the same as He undertook. All this is confusion and mist. He is wrong even in saying purchase is always spoken of all. In 1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23 it is not so; and 2 Peter 2:1 is quite another thought, and so is Matthew 13:44, where the field is clearly bought to have the treasure. There are two other cases in Revelation where it is distinctly not all, and peripoiou'mai, where the same is true. I cannot find one passage where it is all. To state that it is so always is not careful.
Boston, U.S., January, 1877.
My dear Brother,— It seems to me that you are only acting unkindly with ——, going on with him as if nothing had happened. “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject.” You encourage him in this error and enable him better to mislead others. I wrote to him, but as I shewed him plainly from scripture it was unsound, I got no answer. What Bellett says may be obscure, but is what all believe, that eternity returns after the course of dispensations. The heavens which had disappeared since Genesis iii., has no real sense. But all this has nothing to do with the error in question. It is when the Son delivers up the kingdom that without are the fearful, unbelieving, etc. Scripture says that “The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” All this use of Greek and Hebrew by persons who do not really know them, with those who do not know them at all, is a very bad sign. It is just what—— is partly deceived by, and it is not honest. When God says, “It is done,” and the judgment of the great white throne is over, and God’s tabernacle is with men, then the evil doers are without, cast into the lake of fire “which is the second death.” “I am” is as much applied (indeed only so) to the present time, as in the eternal state; and God is as eternal now as He will be then. It is never used of that state itself, though always true. All this is gossamer and cobweb, and the various applications of eternal are taken up without the smallest reference to the passages in their sense. Who is spoken of in Isaiah 9? But this word has been fully discussed.
It is not true that revelation is only of the ages. Proverbs 8, and every statement of God’s counsels and plans must be before the ages, for they are the source of this: so 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; where it is expressly before them, and yet the life is aijwvnio". Is that for the ages? “In the beginning was the Word” is not in the ages. Nor do I admit that God is a relative term, nor Spirit. “I am” is not the only term that implies abstract being. It has been seriously called in question whether it does at all when first used, whereas another word does in Hebrew. The LXX have so taken it, namely, as ‘being:’ but thus aijwvn is the same word and so defined by Aristotle and by Philo. But the whole thing is fancy, unwarranted by scripture. And it seems to me a real want of charity to encourage him in the propagation of error, which must shut him out from the fellowship of those who respect the word of God, strengthening his hands in misleading others. I feel this part deeply.
See what folly all this talk about aijwvn and aijwvnio", when the word is applied to the life of God Himself; His characteristic name in Revelation 4:9, 10. And this is exactly the one of whom——puts eternity at beginning and end of chapter 4:8, and further puts the “who is” (what he calls ‘the being’) only in the dispensational part, whereas “was” and “is to come” applies to time. Hence as in chapter 1:4, and frequently, oJ w\n —“who is”—is put first. The whole thing is an unfounded mess. Next he tells us that we look at the things that are agial (aijwvnio"): this is too bad. The scripture says exactly the contrary, “for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal”—agial if he likes— aijwvnio". It is deplorable to see any one setting about to teach things with no trace of divine guidance. Many have known and loved —— years before you ever saw him; but the truth is he has been off the track for years, and this is only the result. He knows I never had any unkindly feeling, but the contrary; but it will not do to sacrifice those, with whose faith he is tampering, to any personal kindness. I send back the paper, I could only notice what was palpable.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
New York, February 14th, 1877.
* * * * *
[From the French.
My dear Brother,—Our brother —— has communicated to me the state of your mind regarding our brother——. It is no question of brotherly affection, but of the truth of God. Many of those who are most firm with regard to his position as teaching the error, have known him much longer than any among you, and have loved him before you knew him; but it is a question of the effect of the error on souls, and “he that loveth father and mother more than me,” said the Saviour, “is not worthy of me.” The point to ascertain is, if this error is such as to touch the foundations of faith and the integrity of the word of God.
I know that—— speaks of the Greek, but the force of the word eternal is perfectly clear in the word. “The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:18.) The word signifies that which is not for time: it is the opposite. I am alarmed when they talk of Greek to those who know nothing of it. I know Greek and have examined it carefully, and I do not at all accept what they say of it. But the passage 2 Corinthians 4:18 is there, without any need of the Greek; and when it is said, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment,” the word has the same force. It is said that God shall be all in all. But that takes place when Christ shall have given up the kingdom to God the Father, but at that time it is said (Rev. 21:8), that the wicked “shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.” This doctrine touches then the authority of the word, and thus the foundations of faith. For when God shall be “all in all,” will the devils and the demons be saved? What they say [of the expression] is but a fable. It is only the human race that have profited by it, and God is not “all in all” according to their idea. But if the demons are saved, it is not true that the death of Christ would be necessary for salvation, for here are those who are more wicked saved without His having died for them. Further, Revelation 20:10 says expressly the contrary.
What we need to know then is, whether affection for an individual should lead us to renounce the truth of the word of God. I do not believe it
would be charity to encourage a brother in evil doctrine by acting as if it did not matter. I have seen a long list of passages quoted by our brother that had no reference to the question. I have already read numbers of books that propagate this doctrine, and it is only an effort to twist the word, by human sentiment and reasonings to decide what God ought to do, and by no means submission to what He has said. It denies the expiation of Christ, for one can be saved without it: Judas himself, though “it had been good for that man if he had not been born,” and the wicked, saved by means of long personal suffering, and not by the perfect redemption of Christ through faith, and that after their death in a sort of purgatory. Thus the evil of sin is attenuated. They invent on behalf of the man who has rejected Christ a sentimental mercy, which is not the mercy of grace, and which makes little of the blood and of the sufferings of Christ. Those who have openly rejected Him are saved like others, and it is a salvation that is not preached through Christ, who says that he that believeth hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. They must find life somewhere else than in the gospel. I know they speak of “the restitution of all things,” but they leave out what follows, the end of the sentence, “of which the prophets have spoken.” I do not deny that a Christian may be seduced by these things—then it is desired that we should not judge him; but this is not according to the word. We only judge those who are within, and the word of God tells us to reject a heretic “after the first and second admonition.” I repeat, dear brother, there are those who have loved—— before you knew him, but that does not alter the truth of God. True charity is firm, whilst at the same time gentle, for the good of others. May God keep you, and restore our brother——, is the wish and prayer of yours
Affectionately in Christ.
New York, February, 1877.
Dear Brother,—I must be short with you. I received some fifteen or twenty letters and seven or eight paper proofs to correct, besides others since. … I was troubled in the same way when a clergyman, but never had the smallest shadow of it since. I judge it as Satan: but going from cabin to cabin to speak of Christ, and with souls, these thoughts sprang up, and if I sought to quote a text to myself it seemed a shadow and not real. I ought never to have been there, but do not think that this was the cause, but simply that I was not set free according to Romans 8. As I have said, I have never had it at all since. I went through a day’s mental process as to the word, at the time I was set free. This may have strengthened me as to it by grace. But God’s word has ever since been God’s word, from God.
Halifax, April, 1877.
* * * * *
To the same.]
Dear——,—People will have to take the truth for the love of it, and live it as Christians. The apostle has warned us about those in the Christian’s place not enduring sound doctrine. I have already had to do with the Swedes on the subject of the atonement, and similar subjects are current here. But oh, how different is the simple word of God! How refreshing and strengthening, and from Himself! I dread filling my mind with notions, but reading any quantity of them only shews how wretchedly poor they are. How should man’s mind reveal God’s thoughts? nationalism and mysticism may resist or mingle them up, but they remain themselves and only themselves. Revelation all these things deny, and that is the real point. And what a thing it is to have one! …
Your affectionate brother in the Lord.
August, 1877.
101 ‘What is the proper force of givnetai in 2 Peter 1:20? Is it true that the verse refers to the coming of prophecy, whence it draws its origin, rather than how its meaning is to be interpreted! Is it true of all prophecy alike (for example, 1 Tim. 4:1) that it is not of self-interpretation?’
102 When ajllaV is used substantially as eij mhV, are they precisely the same, as after the transfiguration scene, etc.? Compare Matthew 17:8 with Mark 9:8.
103 It has been lately asserted on the strength of ejan mhv in this verse that, since it is by faith of Him who is the end and fulfilling of the law that men are justified, it involves in itself the full virtue of a legal righteousness. The apostle does not say, as he often does elsewhere, that man is not justified by works but by faith simply; but that he is not justified by works of law, “except through faith of Jesus Christ,” etc. Is this just? Is it true that this is the natural force of the words here as contrasted with ejk pivstew" cristou', and that it would be possible to justify the authorised verse only on the assumption of a large ellipsis, “man is not justified by works of law (and therefore not justified at all), except by faith of Jesus Christ”?
104 In Revelation 7, taking it for granted that the Church has been taken up; that verses 4-8 are the expression of God’s providential care of the elect of Israel, that verses 9, etc., are the same care of Gentiles, other than the risen saints brought to the Lord by the ministry of restored and converted Israel, under the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in larger measure than on the day of Pentecost—does not all the above indicate that the time between the raising and taking up of the saints, and the destruction of Antichrist and his host, must be larger than is generally supposed to be?
105 “The Old Man,” “The New Man,” “I.” (“Food for the Flock.” Vol. 2:1.)
106 This is more as Christian than in the sense of the body, the church— till as all one.