* * * * *
Dear Miss ——,—Conscience—besides the sense of responsibility, obligation to God, which Was before the fall, and belongs necessarily to all morally intelligent creatures—is the knowledge of good and evil entered into at the fall, the sense of things being right and wrong; not a law imposed by authority, and the measure of the right and wrong, but the sense in ourselves that a thing is right, or a thing is wrong. “The man is become, as one of us to know good and evil.” Heart is a very general expression for all the inner man: “if our heart condemns us”— then it is conscience; my heart sheweth me, then it is spiritual perception; we are to love God with all our heart, then it is the ordinary modern sense; but in scripture, heart is all in which moral exercise is in us. “Once purged” is the conscience, as sin being imputed; (see Heb. ix.) “perfect as pertaining to the conscience;” and being done on the cross once for all, when known by faith it cannot change, for it is that one work known which changes not. Our feelings may be dull, and we may look to them, but the blood of Christ has always its same value in the sight of God. He cannot, as undervaluing it, see iniquity in us. Hebrew 10 develops this fully. There can be no altering or repetition of the blood. Imputed guilt does not exist for the believer: but he may fail, and by this his communion with God is interrupted; the operation of the Spirit is to humble him, and lead him to confession—most profitable, but not communion. The word applied by the Spirit works in the soul to judge sin according to Christ’s death, and then its putting away according to it, and so the enjoyment of the love which did it; and then communion is restored. Numbers 19 and John 13 and 1 John 2 develop this. Compare Ephesians 5:26 of the church. The feeling and joy of assurance may be dimmed, but faith rests assured of the acceptance by God of the blood of Christ.
As to temptation, I believe a person may so walk by the power of the Spirit, realising Christ, that no conscious evil thought may be there; but a state in which there is no temptation is a delusion. Nor is temptation all: there is the second class of flesh’s working where there is no temptation, “now ye also put off all these.” Then there is failure in that sense of Christ’s presence which hinders idle words, impatience of spirit. What is called the higher christian life is only the getting out of Romans 7 into 6 and 8—a very real thing; and that which the great body of teachers would have you content without, and this is all wrong, it is not the christian state.
Sincerely yours in Christ.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—The case is evidently an exceptional one. Other considerations too enter into it, as to which I have no information, as whether the providence of God carried them to a place where they have no opportunity of breaking bread, or their own will, or worldly motives. Of this I say, because I know, nothing. But it would affect the question. The presence of one sister, if not sought, would not affect me much. They ought not, I think, to do it as a regular gathering so to speak; if they could occasionally get a brother to come, they might wait for such an opportunity. But if all this be impracticable, I could not say that they should for ever be deprived of it. But in a country where other opportunities may evidently occur, they should do it only when their souls felt the need of it, and assuming that there were no other means of meeting that need, with no teaching or pretension to be a regular assembly. It is only a case of meeting a need when there is no other means. There is neither male or female in Christ Jesus; but everything has its place and order in the church of God. And I repeat, it should not be as a regular assembly, but as meeting a need which could in no other way be met. May the Lord keep them near Himself.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
My dear Brother,—I entirely dissent from the view you refer to as to the bread at the Lord’s supper.107 There is nothing new in it: Bellett took it up at one time and had to give it up as untenable. The name of the ordinance is sufficient to shew its wrongness. Some refer the breaking to each individual’s taking a part; but if this were so, then each individual ought to break the unity of the body for himself, which is absurd. It puts the unity in the place of the memorial of Christ, as the principal thing. Christ, when He had given thanks, brake the bread: the disciples never partook of any but a broken loaf. So Christ was made known to them in the “breaking of bread” —not the full Lord’s supper, I admit, but bearing the stamp of the same truth. That breaking is of the essence of this institution of Christ: it is “the bread which we break;” “they continued in … the breaking of bread.”
There is no such thing in scripture as partaking of an unbroken loaf.. The unity is referred to our partaking of one loaf, not to its being unbroken—which it certainly was not when Christ gave it to His disciples to eat. There is no variation in the account given in the gospels, nor in 1 Corinthians 11, nor in the Acts at Troas. The not doing it departs from the original institution, and what gave it its essential name. We shew forth the Lord’s death in it, though as all partaking of one loaf (not breaking it, which would be absurd) we are all one body: “the bread which we break,” “the cup which we bless” (a word identical with giving thanks)—both of them the actions of the Lord previous to the disciples partaking, and this the apostle did at Troas. It is an entire departure from the original institution, and from the essential character and meaning of the ordinance, which shews forth the Lord’s death till He come; though the unity of the body is betokened in its, in partaking of one loaf. But the body is the body of Christ in the ordinance, as is expressly said. (1 Cor. 10:16.) But you, dear brother, must guard against any restlessness or uneasy feeling as to ——, and seek to walk in unity. I dread notions, but peace we must pursue.
[1877.]
* * * * *
Dear ——,—I send my reply to —— 108. A child can be a Nazarite; but this is the work of God. We have two instances of Nazarites from their birth: one who went on blamelessly, and another who failed sadly—John the Baptist and Samson. John the Baptist was also filled with the Spirit, and walked obediently and faithfully, and died (we may say) a martyr for his integrity. There was none born of women that was greater. Samson served God, and did great things too; but also sought and did his own will, so that his life ended in his being taken prisoner; and though God in a measure restored his strength to him, yet his last great deed brought death upon himself also. So that you see it is not all to be in the place of a Nazarite: there must be self-denial and patient perseverance in the ways of God.
London, April 22nd, 1878.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—If the assembly decided that this person could not be received, as refusing to give up the ‘Oddfellows,’ the absence of some brethren would not be a reason for rescinding the decision; because that depends on the Lord’s being there when gathered in His name, not on such and such an individual being there—assuming that they have been regularly gathered in the Lord’s name. I do not know much about ‘Oddfellows,’ but from what I do know I am surprised a Christian can be a member. It is a thoroughly worldly society. They could not be there in the name of the Lord. You say—‘nothing against his walk;’ but this was part of his walk. I could understand giving him time to think over it, if he were in before taking up the case. His refusal to give it up till he saw fit, when it was brought before him, was a proof of his state of soul, and brings in another point: that the conscience of the individual is to judge of right and wrong, not the assembly. Now there are things that we must have latitude to individual conscience; but to lay it down as a rule, that an assembly is to submit in its walk to the judgment of my conscience is a bad state of soul.
The meeting of the assembly as such is not confined to the breaking of bread: whenever they agree to meet, due notice being given of it, they are met as the assembly. If it were done so as purposely to exclude some, that would be another thing. If godly, serious, brethren have difficulty in putting out, it is better to wait till the Lord makes the case clearer. But this did not apply here, because it was the positive act of receiving which was in question: but his admission might be provisionally suspended in the same case till the matter was cleared up. But if it were merely factious opposition to the common mind of the assembly—one who identified himself with evident positive evil—he must cease or become subject to discipline himself. Such is the rule of the apostle in Corinthians. But such rules are only carried out by grace and the power of the Spirit of God. I can speak only of general principles, for very small circumstances change a case completely, and of course I have only heard one side.
I as a rule, too, object to brethren not in the gathering meddling with its discipline, because the conscience of the gathering is in question; though of course they may be helpful if given grace by God to judge maturely of things. But we are called to peace, and even a mistake in judgment ought not to disturb it. I attach great importance to the judgment of the assembly, but it must be the assembly as such, not individuals however true and wise, because of the promise.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
If the Lord be waited on He will give unity of mind. I trust the refusal may awaken the conscience of this Christian.
Zurich, August 1st, 1878.
* * * My judgment is (but I should seek peace, and there is no rule save that “all things be done decently and in order”), that young children should be with their parents at the meetings, and that growing girls should be so too. When the boys grow up to a certain age, they are better sitting back. If girls are at school, or under a governess, they can sit with the other scholars; as it is only a question of comely protection and shelter, which grown boys do not need. But formal rule there is none: decency and order is one.
As regards the second question: the principle of meeting is the unity of the body, so that a person known as a Christian is free to come: only the person who introduces him should have the confidence of the assembly as to his competency to judge of the person he introduces. In London and elsewhere the name of the person introducing is given out; or if many know him, that is mentioned and they are responsible. Looseness is so prevalent now among the denominations that more care is needed; but I hold that every known Christian has the same title as myself; and membership of an assembly I totally reject. But I do not accept running out at a person’s fancy: they may have been sinning or walking disorderly; and a person breaking bread is thereby subject to the discipline of God’s house, if called for, just as if he had been constantly there. Nor do I accept any condition from them, as that they are free to go anywhere: the assembly is to follow God’s word, and can bind itself by no condition. Nor do I impose any; because as the assembly is bound by the word and can accept none, so is the person subject to the discipline of the assembly according to the word.
I have never changed my views at all. The practice is more difficult because of the growing looseness in doctrines and practice of all around. But if an assembly refused a person known to be a Christian and blameless, because he was not of the assembly, I should not go. I own no membership but of Christ. An assembly composed as such of its members is at once a sect. But the person who brings another is responsible to the assembly, and should mention it; for it is the assembly which is finally responsible, though it may trust the person who introduces another in the particular case. If it were a young Christian, or one of little maturity and weak in the faith, I should like to know what sure ground there was before allowing him to break bread, on the same principle as in all other cases.
Yours truly in the Lord.
[Date unknown.]
* * * * *
* * * The doctrine of the Reformation put forth the view that Christ died to reconcile His Father to us—a statement every way erroneous, confounding the name of relationship in blessing with God in His nature; and teaching, what scripture does not, that Christ’s work was to reconcile God to us, to change His mind. But others have used this to deny real propitiation and atonement.
“God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” He did not need to have His mind changed. But a righteous and holy God could not pass over sin as nothing, and if God so loved, the Son of man must be lifted up. God was not (as a heathen god) one who had to be propitiated that He might not be against us; but He did require that the righteousness and holiness should be maintained in the universe. I think you will find that the New Testament never says God was propitiated, but you will find Christ was an iJlasmov" for sins. (1 John.) And that Christ was a priest iJlavskesqai taV" aJmartiva". It is not, as in Homer, [II. á 386] qeon iJlavskesqai. We have the imperative in Luke 18. iJlavsqhti, “Be gracious.” We have never God for the object of iJlasqhti, in the New Testament; but we have sins; and it seems to me to set the point on very clear ground.
I have elsewhere109 fully shewn that to apply ajnhvegke (1 Peter 2:24) to anything but what was done on the cross is simple ignorance of the use of the word. I add a confirmatory remark here that the three preceding words are in the imperfect, giving them a continuous character—ajnhvnegke, the aorist, shewing one special act.
* * * There is no doubt that ajdovkimo" (1 Cor. 9:27) has its simple force of “reprobate” or “good-for-nothing.” I never could find out the difficulty people have found in it. There is no difficulty in being a preacher and oneself rejected; and that is all he says.
I only add that when the wilderness comes in, as he goes on to introduce it here in chapter 10, it must be crossed, and the ifs come in. I have not a shadow of doubt that God will keep His own to the end: 1 Corinthians 1, John 10, and other passages are far too clear, thank God, to leave a doubt. But we have to be kept. The wilderness forms no part of the counsels of God, but of His ways. No transit is found in Exodus 3, 6, or 15. His purposes will be infallibly accomplished; but more—Christ could take the thief to Paradise from off his cross, perfected by His one sacrifice, and we can say, “Giving thanks to the Father who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.” We are in Christ and Christ in us. There is no “if” there, and no condemnation.
But as a general rule God makes us pass through the wilderness. There (Deut. 8) He humbles us and proves us to know what is in our heart, only learning what is in His, that He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. He does not suffer our foot to swell, nor our clothes to wax old. What we learn then is not salvation: that is the Passover, the Red Sea, and Jordan. But we learn dependence as our part; we learn to know ourselves and be humble, and we learn the sure watchful faithfulness of God—“kept by the power of God through faith;” but we have to be kept, and, if His, surely will be. But why kept if we had not need of it? No one can pluck us out of Christ’s hand; but why say this if there was not real danger, and keeping of us in it? The wolf “catcheth” (same word as “pluck”) the sheep and scattereth them, but cannot catch them out of Christ’s hand : and here our responsibility comes in, our dependence on Him, our leaving ourselves to His infallible care; and one is as precious as the other is necessary. Hence, wherever the journey is spoken of, “ifs” are found-when righteousness and our place in Christ, never. In chapter 10 he goes on to put this to the Corinthians. Many were delivered out of Egypt and fell in the wilderness; but he does not say many were true believers, and fell in the wilderness. When I can talk of beginning and end, I find “if.” Where one is in Christ, that is not the case; nor if righteousness and justification are spoken of. “By one offering he hath perfected for ever.”
Let me add to this note a remark: wherever falling is spoken of in Hebrews, it is always fatal and hopeless, drawing back to perdition. It is never a fall, but “falling away.” Christ’s priesthood in heaven is not for sins; but that we may not sin.
* * * * *
* * * As to Romans 5:17, it is not the same as Romans 8:4. There it is the fact that, in walking in the Spirit, the sum of the requirement of the law (and so only) would be fulfilled, the dikaivwma. Much more, perhaps; but as the flesh was not subject to it, that dikaivwma could not be accomplished when in the flesh. But, living in the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ living in us, the body dead, the sum of the law’s requirements, so walking, was fulfilled. Against the fruits of righteousness there was no law. The Christian has a higher rule—to be an imitator of God, as manifested in man in Christ (Eph. 5:1, 2); but as people were looking for legal righteousness, what is in verses 2, 3, was the way of getting it.
Chapter 5:17 is dikaiosuvnh, the abstract thing righteousness given to us, and though taken abstractedly, that thing in its nature and quality; yet as being free gift (dwreav), and that of God, according to grace, goes much farther than the requirement or dikaivwma of the law, which, if fulfilled, was no more than man’s righteousness.
Verse 16 is dikaivwma. But it is not toV dikaivwma tou' novmou: that was measured by the requirement of the law. Here it is of many offences to a sum of recognised righteousness: it is a cavrisma—a gracious gift of a sum of adequate righteousness, judicially estimated and satisfactory. Keeping the law makes that out as a requirement from man: it would be his righteousness as rightly measured by it. But here it is cavrisma; krivma came upon men to katavkrima: it is now a cavrisma dealing with many offences, and so giving us, according to God, an adequate judicial righteousness, but now, according to God’s free gift, not man’s responsibility; the dikaivwma of the law and God’s dikaivwma are different. We have hardly words in English to make these differences, but dikaivwma, is the sum of requirement, the thing righteousness; so 1 Corinthians 1:30. Hence, in Romans 4:23, it is dikaiosuvnh; dikaiosuvnh is ejlogivsqh. These words in osuvnh are the quality. Then the persons of the perfect passive, as a rule, give the thing done, the doing, and the doer: krivma, krivsi", krivth"; dikaivwma, dikaivwsi". We have not dikaivwth"; it is not an office like krithv" but dikaiw'n. (Rom. 3:26; 4:5.)
* * * In Hebrews110 God is approached in His nature as God; we go into the holiest. It is not the relationship of the Father with His child, nor is it union with Christ and the church, the entirely new thing; but ‘‘first began to be spoken by the Lord;” had “by the prophets;” and in “the last of these days.” It connects Christianity with the old thing, only substituting the heavenly reality for the forms or patterns of things in the heavens. We are pilgrims on earth, and Christ in heaven for us. Hence, though it is for partakers of the heavenly calling as we are (not union in the church), it reaches out like Joseph’s boughs over the wall to the persecuted remnant in the last day, who, though not having a heavenly calling, will have a heavenly portion; though Christ has to do with it when we go to God, in that we have a High Priest over the house of God. We go to the “throne of grace,” our great High Priest being there (never to the Priest), though as Lord we do. But while we go in Christ’s name, and so only can, there is no priest with the Father. Deuteronomy 26 does not go beyond the Jewish order developed in Hebrews, and is very beautiful in that aspect. The defect of a tract on worship I saw in old times was that it was only Hebrews’ worship, not the worship of the Father.
The priest in Deuteronomy 26 was the necessary administrator of such things in Israel, and we are all priests; but it was the offerer said all directly. Any thing offered to God must have been by the” priest then. Still we have a High Priest over God’s house, who is at the right hand of God, in the presence of God for us; but this is not as coming to the Father.
* * * As regards the sleep of the soul, it is a miserable doctrine that comes simply from Satan acting on man’s reason. It is generally connected with annihilation, but not always in this country; but it is a heartless doctrine. The Lord tells the thief he shall not wait till the kingdom, but that he should that day be with Him in paradise. Was he to be fast asleep, knowing nothing of Him, or anything else? It is monstrous! We are “absent from the body, and present with the Lord;” but if that means being fast asleep, we might as well be at the other end of the universe! “To depart and be with Christ is far better;” that is, being fast asleep and unconscious is better than serving Christ and ministering to His glory! The apostle did not know which to choose, to live, which was Christ, or— be fast asleep! It was gain, that is to be unconscious, compared with serving Christ faithfully here!
But not only do these passages shew the moral absurdity of this notion to every spiritually-intelligent Christian, but there is no such thought in scripture as the soul’s sleeping. It is a beautiful expression, signifying that death was only falling asleep to awake again; but it is the man always that falls asleep, never the soul. Thus in the case of Lazarus. Then said He “plainly, Lazarus is dead [or has died].” That is, falling asleep means, plainly expressed, dying. So when Stephen was killed, he fell asleep—Stephen did, not his soul: so “some are fallen asleep;” it is in contrast with, “some remain unto this present.” “All live to him.” Were the souls of the rich man and Lazarus fallen asleep? They tell me it is a Jewish figure. I agree with them: but it is not a figure of the soul being asleep. The falling asleep is always attributed to the man, never to the soul, and always means the Christian’s dying; and is a beautiful expression for his not being, as we say, ‘dead and gone.’
Another thing to remark is, that it is never said of the wicked that they will not be raised, or that their souls are asleep, for they will be raised; but it shews the true and lovely force of the expression as to the saints; they have fallen asleep to the day they lived in, but that is all.
But there is no such statement in scripture as the soul sleeping; nor is there such a thought any more than such a statement. It is the living saint who falls asleep, and, according to scripture, it means dying.
* * * * *
* * * The baptism of the Holy Ghost111 was on the day of Pentecost. The Comforter came; He cannot come twice in this order of things, because He was to dwell for ever. But He is given, says Peter, to all them that believe. Again: “Repent, and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Cornelius was a special case, God demonstrating that He would receive the Gentiles, when even the apostles would not as such. He was not previously baptised, which was the regular order. (Acts 2:38.) Samaria is nothing to the point, but to shew how He was given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands: so with Paul proving He had the same title. (Acts. 19) The pouring out of the Spirit is what happened on the day of Pentecost (so Peter tells us), but individuals receive it on believing in Christ’s work for the remission of sins. That giving of the Holy Ghost to the individual is the unction and the sealing, and becomes the earnest. Being filled with the Spirit is another matter. It is the Spirit which is in me, so taking possession of all my mind and faculties that nought else is there, and the things He reveals occupy the mind, and there is power from God in the soul as to them.
As to a person subsequent to Pentecost being baptised with the Holy Ghost, I should say he was introduced into an already baptised body, but by receiving the Holy Ghost by which he is united to the Head—Christ. I am not anxious as to the word baptism, but it is not generally employed as to the individual reception. Acts 11:16, 17 and 1 Corinthians 12 are the nearest to applying it to an individual or individuals; but it is not actually used. But the receiving of the Holy Ghost is equivalent; they having what was originally treated as baptism of the Holy Ghost, and are looked at, as they are, as partakers of this same thing. The sum of the gathered disciples were baptised on the day of Pentecost. An individual receives the same Holy Ghost, and is a member of the same body, and is one, and is looked at as one of the baptised body. Acts 1:5 tells us when; but Acts 2:38 tells them, that on repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, they will receive this same Holy Ghost; so did Cornelius (see his case before). Thus they were incorporated, and were the same as those to whom the Holy Ghost was first given; and that continued when all the first were gone, for the Comforter was to abide for ever. As to 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4, there is a certain general analogy, but that was baptism with water, the sacramental assembly— not the body. It is only in verses 16, 17 we come to the inner circle of the body.
Abundance of scriptures shew that it was not merely for testimony the Holy Ghost was given. It is the Spirit of adoption: the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. I know that God dwells in me by it, and I in Him; that I am in Christ and Christ in me; the body is dead, and the Spirit is life. A thousand precious things concerning my state with God and the Father depend on the Holy Ghost dwelling in me, and my consciousness of these things abounding as life through Him. He is the Comforter come down withal, on which all our condition depends. He is sent by the Father in Christ’s name, and by Christ from the Father—one giving conscious relationship as sons, the other knowledge of Christ’s glorifying and its consequences; and a great deal more than all this, for He is the power of all good here. No doubt, therefore, He is the power of testimony, and so the Lord plainly declares. (Acts 1) The word itself is the sword of the Spirit. All true power and wisdom so flows into us. All truth is revealed, communicated as revealed, and received by the Holy Ghost.
As to 1 Corinthians 12:12, 13, it is the aorist (ejbaptivsqhmen) and therefore says nothing of continuity: it is continuous, if we speak of individuals receiving the Holy Ghost. But people look for a re-giving of the Holy Ghost, as if He did not abide for ever; and the thought of re-giving denies that, and also the responsibility of the church, consequent upon it, which is a great evil. Asking that an individual who is not free—is not sealed—may receive it, is quite another thing.
Asking in general for the Holy Ghost, for the church, says He is not here, which is wrong; yet I doubt not, where sincerely desired, though expressed ignorantly, God has answered the desire, and blessed. But that leaves the ignorance; and the conscience is left unmoved as to the responsibility in respect of a present ever-abiding Spirit. It is not accurate language I look for, but faith working in the conscience.
[1878.]
* * * * *
Dear Mr. ——,— Baptism is not communication of life. Resurrection may (though all critics do not) be attributed to it, according to Colossians 2:12—it depends on the construction of ejn w|/ —and it is in a certain aspect more than life, because it is being transported from alienation from God, into the place of blessing which He has constituted on earth; it is figuratively washing away sins. Resurrection is not the communication of life. They are formally distinguished in Ephesians 2: and when Christ is mentioned alone in Ephesians 1, resurrection is spoken of, not quickening. Communicating life to Christ is a dangerous expression. Resurrection involves the reunion of soul and body, not the communication of life. If resurrection be connected with baptism, it is coming up out of the water. The baptism proper is death or burial, but it is at any rate connected with faith in the operation of God, which does not refer to death in the act of baptising. “Resurrection of life,” in John 5, is not communicating life, but refers to those to whom life had been given, and explicitly to their coming up out of their graves. Resurrection may be the quickening of the mortal body, but never the communication of life to the soul; and in its full power it involves a vast deal more. The saint is raised in glory, because of the Spirit dwelling in him; the sinner to judgment.
I deny entirely what is called “sacramental grace.” That we are blessed in communion with Christ, in partaking in the faith of the Lord’s supper, I gladly recognise. He is present with two or three, gathered together in His name, in that special and blessed remembrance of His death, according to His grace, in which He, in sovereign goodness, cares that we should remember Him: the soul enjoys fellowship with Him, and in the most excellent way. But it is not grace in the elements. I do not believe there is any grace in the bread or the wine. It is a mere mischievous superstition. There is in scripture no consecration of elements, though they are appropriated with thanksgiving; since they are to represent Christ’s body and blood, and hence to be reverently used in doing so, “discerning the Lord’s body.” But what we break is bread, and nothing else. The history even of the progress to Romanist views is easily traced, though of no importance. We must have “what was from the beginning” or else not abide in the Son and in the Father.
I suppose the chapters alluded to are John 3 and 6. Now the latter chapter proves conclusively that it does not refer to the Lord’s supper, for it affirms that every one is surely and finally saved who so eats of Christ. Christ Himself is the bread of life, and he that eats of it lives for ever. (Ver. 51.) The ‘sacrament’ is nothing here; but more particularly, “he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day,”—that is, he has present and final salvation. We have, too, e[fagon, as well as trwvgw—original faith as well as present exercise of it. In chapter 3 we have only entering into the kingdom, nothing even attributed to water, whatever it means; and then life distinctly attributed to the Spirit, only as communicating a nature, “is spirit”—is water, would be simple nonsense. I have no doubt that it is the word as in Ephesians 5 and John 15, and the necessary sense of chapter 6 confirms it; but in any case it has nothing to do with the communication of life, and verse 6 shews it; and a reference to Ezekiel 36, to which it so very plainly alludes, leaves no doubt, I think, of its force—hence verse 10, and the expression, “earthly things,” in verse 12. I may refer to another chapter, perhaps, as none is mentioned: communion of the blood and body of Christ (1 Cor. 10), but as it is the same word as “partakers” and “fellowship” in what follows, as in verse 18 (not 17), there is no kind of difficulty or uncertainty. It is moral identification with what is set forth there (see verse 20).
As to union with an exalted Christ, what Acts 2:33-36 has to say to it, it would be hard to tell. It shews that the writer has nothing serious to object, and no more. I have no doubt that the exalted Christ authorised Peter, and gave to Peter, by the Holy Ghost, to say, “Repent and be baptised.” Why that makes baptism union would be very hard to tell, and so much the more that it is distinguished from the receiving of the Holy Ghost, which is a consequence of it: repent and God would give. This is hardly serious.
I say that a man must be born again before he receives the Holy Ghost. “Ye are all the children [sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus… and because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts:” “in whom, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” “He that stablishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God.” I might multiply passages. (It is so according to the writer’s theory, for they, he says, are born by baptism; and Peter says it was consequent thereupon—they would receive the Holy Ghost.) And the point is important. By one I get a life and a nature; by the other my body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and I am sealed for the day of redemption. One is a nature derived from God; the other, God dwelling in me. Indeed, as to the practical state of the church, I know of no truth more important—the christian state hangs upon it. It is through the presence of the Comforter I know I am in Christ. (John 14) By it we were baptised into one body on the day of Pentecost; by it we are sealed for the day of redemption. Confounding finally the mission of the twelve in Matthew 28 with receiving Peter’s as well as Paul’s teaching, is a mere blunder of mind. For the believer, Peter’s and Paul’s writings are the word of God, and received as such. The commission of the Twelve was from a risen, not an ascended, Christ, and only to Gentiles—Luke’s from an ascending, and embraced the Jews. The point which makes it of any importance to us is, that we learn, in Galatians 2, that the three great apostles gave up the mission to the Gentiles, and- agreed that Paul should undertake that; and none mentions the church but Paul. What he calls “the mystery” was committed to him, and he was a minister of the church as well as of the gospel, declaring he was not sent to baptise — which would be incredible if such received life by it.
As to Matthew 16, all the false system of the Papists and Ritualists flows to this point, from their confounding Christ’s building and man’s. “I will build,” says Christ, against that the gates of hell cannot prevail. That building is not finished yet. In 1 Peter 2, the living stones come, but we hear of no human builder. In Ephesians 2, all is fitly framed together, and “groweth unto an holy temple;” but no builder is named. In 1 Corinthians 3, we have a wise master-builder, Paul, and wood and hay and stubble—the contemplated fruit of man’s responsibility—and warning against it (not Christ’s being the builder) and corrupters: reward of labour lost, and the person saved, the person purged, in these cases. Now, these men attribute the title and privileges of Christ’s progressive building to the wood and hay and stubble of foolish and bad workers among men; yea, many to the corrupters and corruption themselves. In all this they are not taught of God at all. He tells us where there is the form of piety, denying the power, to turn away. To say that the wood and hay and stubble built in by bad workmen, or positive corruption, is the body of Christ, is a very monstrous thing; nor is the house the same thing as the body. There is no recognition of a finished salvation, and that I am in Christ, and for ever, and united to Him by the Holy Ghost. The failure of the outward professing church is a positive declaration of scripture, and that perilous times would come in the last days. And we are referred to scripture as the only sure guide in those days. (2 Tim. 3)
I believe I have touched on most points you have mentioned. I can in a letter only touch on them, but I think I have met them all.
* * * * *
Dear Mrs.——,—I am somewhat surprised that——should be so far back on these subjects. But I can only touch on what is important in it. Thank God it has never injured fellowship amongst us a moment. Those of baptist views were—a few of them, really only one I think—excited for a moment, not (as ——thinks) by some retaining tradition, but by a very great many who had had baptist views giving them up, and when there were families, having their children baptised. I had last week two letters from such to get their children baptised. This those seeing otherwise, cannot understand. The great and mischievous mistake which baptists make is not seeing that there is a place of blessing set up by God, besides the fact of individual conversion. “What advantage then hath the Jew?… much every way: chiefly that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” They were not converted, the apostle is proving them all under sin, and as to the Jews just by reason of this. Then they say that was of Jews. No doubt: but this the apostle transfers to the christian body. The Israelites he says, warning Christians (1 Cor. 10), “were all baptised to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, but with many of them God was not well pleased.” … That is, there is a sacramental introduction into the place of blessing which does not secure a person. The apostle goes on to warn them of the like thing happening to them. I am not using this to prove that infants are to be baptised, but that there is (the ignorance of which is the spring of all baptists’ thoughts, namely) something set up by God on earth where He has set His promises, His blessings—now His Spirit. “Ye are God’s building,” says he. But if a man build in wood, hay, stubble, his work will be burned: that is, what was set up according to God on earth may be spoiled when entrusted to the responsibility of man, but it did not cease to be God’s building. Again, Romans 11 is the direct assertion that the Gentiles were graft into the tree of promise, where the root and fatness of the olive tree were, and were to take heed lest they also should be cut off, if they did not continue in God’s goodness. That could not be if it were real conversion; here they are brought in where the blessing was, and yet are cut off for unfaithfulness. Judgment begins at the house of God.
The tares are the devil’s sowing by false doctrines: that does not apply to a child. The Lord received children entirely differently; “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” Again —— calls them heathen, the word of God calls the children of a christian parent holy; that is the opposite to heathen. If a Jew married a heathen the Jew who was holy profaned himself, and the children had no title to be received as holy. Grace reigns now, and if one party be converted, this one sanctifies the unbeliever, and the children are holy, and have a right to the privileges of the place of God set up in blessing, as in the Jewish case he had not. The child is not sanctified, but holy in contrast with unclean; that is, in scriptural phraseology, has right to come in.
God does not recognise individuals unconverted as such, save as to responsibility and judgment, as to which He does fully recognise them. But—— is quite wrong when she says that God recognises no third class. He does recognise as the church (Christ does) what He spues out of His mouth in judgment. He does recognise as His servant him whom He cuts asunder and appoints a portion with the unbelievers. “Blessed is that servant … But and if that servant say in his heart, …” and he is judged as such, and by much more terrible judgment because he has been in that place. All this I refer to to shew that a state of things, and a relationship with God, is positively contemplated and taught in scripture, and on which judgment depends, which is not founded on personal conversion: not merely responsibility because of what they knew, but which is called church but spued out of Christ’s mouth, or servant yet has a portion with hypocrites and unbelievers, yet the Lord is “the Lord of that servant.” We get plain directions in 2 Timothy 2, 3, what to do in this case: turn away, purge ourselves, etc., when the corruption and evil have taken the form there designated. But it does not cease to be God’s building because wood, hay, and stubble are built in; the Holy Ghost is there which makes it God’s building. Scripture, therefore, does speak of a third class; that is, of persons in relationship with God and responsible according to that relationship and cut off, rejected, judged, but whom the Lord judges as “Lord of that servant,” and individually even cut off from the olive tree into which it had been grafted.
Besides, children of God and children of the devil are not called so till manifested. Take a person unconverted, afterwards brought to the Lord: I do not call him chaff, he is not burned with unquenchable fire; dead and lost he is, but not chaff: that is manifested in judgment, may be before. This seems to me precipitate. Further——would have them presented to God and sanctified, that is flesh (chaff) presented to God and sanctified. Nothing can be more totally unscriptural. When a parent comes to me, to the church or assembly in principle, to do this, as they naturally would as——feels; I say I cannot receive what is born of the flesh but by death, the death of Christ, and I baptise them to His death: ——presents them, sanctifies them without it. As to putting on Christ, ——does not believe what she says. Does she mean that a believer when baptised really and actually puts on Christ, as to life and being in Him? In contrast with becoming or being a Jew or Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, he puts on none of these things. A circumcised Gentile puts on Judaism in his profession and place, a baptised person puts on Christ. If not, every baptised person would be saved, and those not would be lost. But——does not believe that by baptism they put on Christ thus. It applies professedly and explicitly to every baptised person absolutely, without any condition or limitation, and so I take it.
These views then to me are in every respect unscriptural, nor did I ever find a Baptist who could stand on scripture. They are conscientious, and if they think they are not baptised at all, of course they ought to be so; I have no quarrel with them. Paul was not sent to baptise—the Twelve were to baptise the Gentiles—but baptism was accepted by Paul as already instituted. But he had no mission for it; whereas a special revelation was given to him of the Lord’s supper, though both were alike instituted by the Lord. The commission of the Twelve was never that we know fulfilled. It was to disciple the nations and baptise them. The commission was on and from earth, not from heaven. Luke’s was from heaven, beginning with Jerusalem. Mark makes it necessary to salvation, because it was professedly becoming a Christian; and I have so used it with a Jew who said he believed but would not be baptised, it would kill his mother. I cite it to shew the force of the passage. The cases of Philip and Cornelius prove conclusively that it was not obedience, but admission into christian privileges and position. I am now in the midst of a great baptised profession in which 2 Timothy 2, 3 tell me how to act. I may add, it is not a testimony to privileges already conferred, but the act of admission to them. I am baptised to His death, not because I have died. I wash away my sins, not because my sins are washed away. I put on Christ, and am not baptised because I have put Him on. That is, it is the formal entrance into the privileges, not a witness that I have received them. I see no trace in scripture of its being a testimony to others, though every faithful confession of Christ turns to a testimony. Most of the ground—— takes is given up by those who maintain baptist views among brethren as untenable before scripture. I have never sought to convince or influence any one, and have no intention to do so. If they are content to follow their conscience I have nothing to say. But I am sure if scripture be right their views are wrong. If there be any light which I have not got which would lead me to it, that is another thing; but I am sure they have false views of the whole matter according to scripture. The root I conceive to be, making it all individual and obedience (which is absurd, for a man cannot baptise himself), and not seeing that there is a place of blessing, and ground established by God on earth, which is not individual conversion, but is responsibility— branches grafted in but broken off.
Yours very truly.
Dear Brother,—I have no wish to keep up the Bethesda question, not that I judge the evil as less than I thought it, but that from the length of time many there are mere dissenters, and know nothing of the doctrine; so that they are really in conscience innocent, though gone in there as they would into any dissenting place. If this brother had never had anything to do with B. as such, I should have asked him nothing about it, as happens every day. But your account is that his separation was on account of looseness in discipline. What I think I should do would be not to discuss B. but shew him, say J. E. Batten’s confession, where he states what they taught, and ask him simply if he held any of these, as they were the things that had made the difficulty. I should not ask anything about B. If he does not hold them I should not make any difficulty. I should gladly have patience with a godly brother who had seriously a difficulty. If it were merely wilful I do not feel that an assembly is bound to satisfy his wilfulness. This principle is recognised in 1 Corinthians distinctly. Otherwise one perverse person might keep evil in the assembly perpetually.
He would allege his conscience being governed by the word of God, and not yours.
November, 1878.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—I am very thankful your conscience has been exercised about the music. I can sympathise with you, for as far as ear goes, music had the greatest power over me, though never taught to play. But the ground of those who wrote you to keep it up is all wrong and not true. It is not for Christ they wish you to keep the harmonium, and that decides the case. I am not a Jew, nor am I in the New Jerusalem where all will be to God’s glory, though not in the highest way, for the Father does not come in there. I could suppose a person earning his bread by music, though I think it a very dangerous way, as Peter did by fishing, which is no excuse for a person spending his time fishing to amuse himself.
All these pleas of gifts of God are bringing in nature when it is fallen into the worship or service of the new man and the Lord, and spoiling it. I have known hunting justified by the hounds having scent. No instrument can equal in effect (Haydn said so) the human voice. Besides, as I said, it is not true. It is merely helping the pleasure of fallen nature, not a thing evil in itself, but connecting sensual pleasure with spiritual life. It is not the thing to begin with with a ruined soul, but we have to live by God’s word. Harps and organs down here began in Cain’s city, when he had gone out from the presence of the Lord. In point of fact, artistic musicians as a general rule are not a moral class; the imagination is at work, not the conscience, nor the heart. Judaism did take up nature to see if they could have a religion of it, only to prove it could not be, but end in the rejection of Jehovah and His anointed. We are dead, and risen with Christ, and belong to another world. Hence I cannot seek my own enjoyment in what belongs to the old, though I may recognise God’s work in it, but not seek it as a world I belong to now. It is not a legal prohibition, but the heart elsewhere. If I could put a poor sick father to sleep with music, I would play the most beautiful I could find; but it only spoils any worship as bringing in the pleasure of sense into what ought to be the power of the Spirit of God. They cannot go really together, save as water may take away the taste of wine. It is a wholly false principle that natural gifts are a reason for using them. I may have amazing strength or speed in running; I knock a man down with one, and win a prize cup with another. Music may be a more refined thing, but the principle is the same. This point I believe to be now of all importance. Christians have lost their moral influence by bringing in nature and the world as harmless. All things are lawful to me. But as I said, you cannot mix flesh and Spirit. We need all our energies under grace to walk in the latter, always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies. Let Christ be all, and the eye is single and the whole body full of light. The converse is if our eye be evil, because it shuts out Christ; our affections are not set on things above where Christ sits at God’s right hand. That is the point for us, happy affections there, and steadfastly, not being distracted.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
1881.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—Your questions all are really questions as to spirituality. The spiritual man discerneth all things, and if thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light. There are as to many details directions as to speaking in the assembly. These of course we have to follow. Not more than two or at the most three to speak, and all for edification. As to being led of the Spirit, while clearly scriptural and characteristic of the Christian (Rom. 8:7, etc.), the realising it depends on the spiritual state. When we are washed in the blood of the Lamb, the Holy Ghost comes to dwell in us, and then leads us on following Christ. We know Him because He is in us. (John 14:17.)
Now the word is inspired by Him, and no path can be His which is not according to it. But in many details of life there is no positive direction. Here the Spirit will guide us, sometimes by motives, love to others or practical righteousness; charity to a soul, or christian kindness, may make me take a long journey, but in all Christ must be the one motive. Then and then only the eye is single, and when not single is evil and requires attention or one may take human kindness for christian love. When the blessed Lord heard, “he whom thou lovest is sick,” He abode two days in the same place. Then God’s time and will, living there He went. God had allowed death to come in for His glory and Christ’s!
This connects obedience, and being thus led. In the days of scripture there were voices of the Spirit. I do not expect this, but it shews that in its nature it was not unscriptural, and I believe He will guide us and may suggest things to do, but the mind must be subject and lowly to enjoy this guidance, and if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. Such as are meek, them will He guide in judgment, them will He teach His way. But it will be in the spirit of obedience, not the acting of our own wills, however hidden the motive. The state of the heart and the word hidden in it is always in question here. The word forms the judgment in forming the state of the heart without perhaps a particular text being in the mind, and God is faithful not to suffer us to be tempted above that we are able.
Christ must be the only motive. His Spirit and grace form our spirits, besides His being ostensibly to oneself the motive (Luke 9:55, 56), and the motive and tone of heart do correct and guide us from deceiving ourselves. But in everything we should be led of the Spirit; this supposes true liberty in Christ and known salvation. The Holy Ghost first shews us the Father’s love is a Spirit of adoption in us; next shews that we are in Christ and Christ in us, and sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts. Its fruits are love, joy, peace, then the walk, long-suffering, temperance, etc. Thus if living near to God He may specifically lead us to special efforts in which the life and spirit of Christ is displayed. But general precepts help to guide here. Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, etc. This will guide in any suggested service. The mere fact of intending Christ’s glory, though right, is not enough. Is it what will glorify Him, not me? Paul was to preach to every creature under heaven, but at a given moment not in Mysia, nor Phrygia, not in Asia. A reading meeting is in a general way a most useful thing, and I do well to use it diligently as other things, but we have to seek. But while the one object is the first great thing for light, the principle of obedience must come in; if not self-will, that is, our own will, is a spring of action.
There is one point I have not noticed, though I must soon close. Acts 3:19-21 are quite clear, but God knows beforehand how the testimony will be received, and acts in that knowledge. Our responsibility is quite another thing. Christ presented Himself as Messiah to the Jews to confirm the promises, and they were bound to receive Him, yet His rejection was the basis of the accomplishment of all God’s purposes. So in Jeremiah you will find calls to repentance and promising blessing thereon and actually accompanied by a declaration that they would all go to Babylon. One was the present responsibility of man, the other the way and purpose of God’s counsels which always go far beyond the result of responsibility even if attained, as Christ’s heavenly glory and universal lordship go beyond the accomplishment of Messianic promises, though in another way I believe these will be. But long ago it struck me as a remarkable thing that Acts 3 should come after Acts 2. I shall be very glad, if anything occurs to you, to help as far as God enables me. Love to the brethren.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
1881.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—Another word is used for death as to the saints falling asleep, otherwise, in reasoning on man’s state, death is often spoken of. But death and going to heaven have mischievously taken the place of the Lord’s coming and being like Him. Going to glory when we die is quite unscriptural. As to funerals, I would not go to any where the clerical system is kept up, I did not to my father’s. If it gives offence, you cannot expect other than the offence of the cross. As to the age of infants, the statement you refer to is as to when conscience begins to work. I have no doubt that little children are saved. We cannot fix a date, for it varies with each. Matthew 18 seems to me quite clear.
It is true that when justification and sanctification come together in scripture, sanctification comes first, because the Spirit of God sets a man apart to enjoy the efficacy of Christ’s precious blood, and this is important because evangelical teaching sets justification as a kind of imperfect work, and that we were made meet afterwards for something higher. This is not scriptural, as the thief was fit to go and be with Christ. There is progress, or ought to be; little children, young men, fathers, growing up to Him who is the Head in all things, changed into the same image from glory to glory, and perfecting holiness in the fear of God. But as to acceptance, “As he is, so are we in this world.” By faith in Christ I am quickened, and that life is in itself a perfectly holy thing, and believing in Him and His work I am perfectly justified. The actual state I am in then comes in question, but as to my person I am set apart to God. As to an assembly meeting, it is when those who compose it meet as such in Christ’s name. What Paul’s heart was upon was first to possess Christ; that I may win Christ, then that he might have part in the first resurrection. He was running for these. Philippians, though based on it, never treats of a finished salvation, but of the race we run towards the glory, towards being like Christ.
I should not frequent my uncle’s house, as I might meet the infidel there; did I find him there I should not stop. What deference to his relationship demanded I should shew, but should not be free with him while he makes no difference with an unbeliever.
Yours sincerely in the Lord.
1881.
* * * * *
My dear Brother,—The ordinary rule of scripture is in the calling wherein a man is called he should therein abide with God. The blessed Lord was a carpenter till called to His own fuller service, and Paul was a tent-maker, and at times supplied his own wants. In a certain sense all things are lawful for me. There are many where the motive is everything. Christianity does not change the order of the world, even where sin has given rise to it. I could not systematically sell gin. If gin was of use I could give it to the sick, unless it were a stumbling-block to others. The disciples were taken out of the world to represent God in it, walking in His ways, not its ways, deriving their life and all their ways from Him, to live as Christ did. The world is an immense system built up by Satan around fallen man to keep man insensible to his ruin. (Gen. 4:20-22.) The Lord does not pray we should be taken out of it, but kept from the evil.
Your friend is solemnised by the voluntary! Is he content to be unfit for worship till he hears the organ? This is a poor plea and putting nature instead of grace, which has even boldness to enter into the holiest. This lowers and falsifies the whole nature of our relationship with God and Judaises it. As to conversion, wherever Christ is presented souls can be converted, but this is not worship but preaching. Christians becoming more and more worldly is no reason for our going with it, but the contrary. No doubt people may be attracted, but so they are to gin palaces. The Puseyites recommend it in church on that ground, so they are largely as popery. God may rise above all mistakes in grace, but it is one of the strongest marks that worldly attraction has taken the place of grace and Christ. Did you ever find Christ or Paul have music or a band to draw people? It covers the whole character of Christianity. The earthly promises to the Jews do not directly apply to us, but in general God’s faithfulness and loving care is, “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee,” is used in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Read the latter as written for us for our instruction on whom the ends of the world are come, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. 1 Peter is, after redemption stated, a treatise on the ways of God, now using the Old Testament for it. The Old Testament scriptures cannot give us an accomplished redemption nor glory into which Christ was not yet entered, but they are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. You have to discern what is earthly Jewish promises. It is important to do so; but what is in God, faithfulness, grace, love, condescending care of us is always true. We get it perhaps more clearly applied in the New Testament. Thus, “seek ye first … and all these things shall be added unto you.” I should be sorry to reduce Christianity to mere Jewish promises, but what is in God is always true. 2 Thessalonians 2 shews that where people would not receive the love of the truth that they may be saved, they are, when Christ rises up, given to darkness.
What I said as to the transfiguration was that those three men were going to be pillars (see Gal. 2) and that this was to clear and strengthen their faith. The tendency of having a companion with less faith is to weaken ours, still faith may overcome this.
Your affectionate brother in Christy
1881.
* * * * *
I doubt whether Mrs. N.’s case was not one for warning, prayer, and pastoral care, and not for exclusion.
It is a mistake sometimes made, and the fear of a reproach and discredit arising from having a person who does not honour the gospel in our midst, leads the saints, who desire it may be honoured, in a false course. Righteousness, specially when connected with character and honour, is rigid and repulsive because it is afraid of itself and for itself. Grace which dwells in perfect righteousness being above the thought of self, because it is divine in its nature, and being secure in perfect righteousness within, is gracious in tone without, can think for others. Such was Christ. How perfect in all His ways and love. He had never to think nor did not think what the effect for Himself would be of His intercourse with sinners. He thought entirely of and for others. This is the effect of intrinsic holiness and grace. He was holy enough to have no thought of aught else, and thus to be the companion of sinners for their sakes to deliver them, regardless of self. Now the Christian ought to be able through grace to do this, only he has to be on his guard for himself. There is this difference that the church has to be jealous and watchful for the glory of Christ and the holiness of the walk of its members. Still, I am persuaded that were we nearer the Lord, more thoroughly identified ourselves in spirit and walk with Him in the security of His grace, there would be more capacity to seize the good grace had wrought in others and be above the evil, dealing with it to heal in grace. For this no doubt straight paths must be made for the feet.
May the Lord guide the feet of His saints in all things.
1880.
* * * * *
Dearest Brother,—Thank you for your very kind letter We both believe that the blessed Lord is at all times sufficient for His church both in love and faithfulness and power. Nor does the state of the saints expose them by the departure of any one to what it was at the first. The church is not a concentrated whole as it was then. Still I believe my going would make a change; not that I have an idea that anything depends on me. God forbid it should. How could it? Depend on what? A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above, but the last link with the first start of this truth would be gone. If it does come, may it only link them more together.
But I am much better. I was as low as I could well be and the bad fall I had at Dundee shook me I do not doubt more than I thought. My heart and lungs were a feeble spring to my body, but this like all the rest is in the Lord’s hand. Last night, I did not even sleep any part of the night. At first I had to sit up all through propped up and sleeping. I take a little food, too, at night.
I had long felt my place was to be quiet here, so the Lord in His wisdom kept me here. Thank God my mind is as clear as ever and I enjoy the word and the Lord’s goodness, I suppose more than ever. At first I could not long fix to work. Now I do as much as usual, only I do not hold meetings, save one reading of labourers at the house. I went last Lord’s day morning. My lungs are the most sensibly weak. I have not been ill but knocked up and overworked.
There is a great desire for the Word I may say everywhere, and blessing, too, in the way of conversion in a good many places. The shake112 has done the brethren a great deal of good, though we are far from what we ought to be, but there is more health perhaps of tone, and regard towards God.
A great effort in S. L——to make a party, but some active in it I think that any body who knows them respects, and they labour under God’s hand to bring about His judgment concerning themselves. And the rest go on quietly and leave it all to Him, and so I trust they will. I am sure He is faithful and true. What a comfort it is to think He watches over us and condescends to take notice of all we need and to order our ways.
I work morning and afternoon as far as I can and in the evening let the strain go and indulge in the Word and feed on His own love. One of my present studies is Adonai.
Please tell R—— that I will write when I can; though I answer some daily, I have still an arrear of close on 30 letters which are a pull upon me.
The Lord be with you and guide you in your work. Love to the brethren.
Affectionately yours in the Lord.
February, 1881.
J. N. Darby
Departed to be with Christ
29th April, 1882
Aged 81 years.
107 ‘That the loaf should not be broken before it was passed round, and that each should partake of an unbroken loaf, as a symbol of the unity of the body.’
108 “Can a child be a Nazarite?”
109 [“Collected Writings,” vol. vii., p. 445.]
110 ‘What is the worship of the Epistle to the Hebrews?’
111 ‘Is it once for all, or continuous?’
112 This refers to a crisis among the saints.