Selected Ministry of A. H. Rule Volume 2

After the available written ministry of my beloved father had been collected and correlated, it was decided to publish it in two volumes. The first volume contains a general line of truth beginning with the foundational truths of the gospel and extending to the solid exposition of the deep things of God as found in His Word. This second volume opens with an article entitled “Truth,” which may seem to deal in an abstract way with the subject; nevertheless, it gives definite and positive instruction for the soul, which it is well to ponder. It also sets forth in a most heart-searching way the responsibility of those who undertake to teach others in the Word, both as to the character and manner of their teaching.

This volume also contains miscellaneous papers on subjects of an instructive and helpful nature. The LETTER section, comprising about half the book, should be interesting and helpful to the saints of God. There are many letters which dealt with problems arising in my father’s day regarding various trials and matters of discipline among those gathered to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. These problems still arise; hence the need for this practical ministry regarding what properly calls for discipline, and for bringing the Word of God to bear on those who are called upon to exercise it, as to their state of soul, the manner in which it is carried out, and the end to be kept in view.

A number of papers have been included which deal with some sad divisions and, as these breaches still exist, it is well to have a record of what took place, and the principles involved. Also, the papers dealing with the false teachings of certain apostate systems are needed today, for the number of these has greatly increased.

It is the desire and the prayer of the compiler and the publishers that both volumes may be used of the Lord for the blessing of souls, both of saved and unsaved. And if these ends are served, to Him be all the praise.

R. W. RULE

Truth

“Jesus with, I AM the way, THE TRUTH, and the life.” John 14:6.

“Sanctify them through Thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.” John 17:17.

“Truth” I hold to be definite, unchangeable, and perfectly revealed in the Scriptures. These are, as regards man, the only fountain and depository of truth. As to the essence and living embodiment, it is found alone in Him who said, “I AM THE TRUTH” — happily for us, “the way and the life also.” If others hold not this, it is their loss: they have not the anchor that can be trusted in the storm. Truth, I deny not, may be a matter of long and hesitating and anxious inquiry. Because truth, which is but the expression of the mind of God, though perfectly revealed, is not at once, and of necessity, perfectly understood — not even by those who are called “wisdom’s children,” and are “born of God.” “We know in part, and we prophesy in part.” But truth itself in the Scriptures, is perfect, absolute, and unchangeable. There is much in the apprehension of this. It removes doubt from the pathway, and is the hinge of all true inquiry. It lays open the well, and how its living waters may be drawn. It points to the oracle, and the temper in which it must be consulted.

As to the study of truth or its investigation, it must be with intent to obey, and not to speculate: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” (John 7:17). The disciple’s place, and not the Master’s, belongs to every student of the truth. Moreover, if success is to crown the study, truth must be sought for its own sake, or rather for the Author’s. If the secret bent and purpose is to feed the imagination, or to gratify the lust of knowing, then know this, that thou shalt be “ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge (or lull-knowledge’) of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7). On the other hand, “If thou criest after knowledge” (conscious of thy lack of it), “and liftest up thy voice for understanding”; “if thou seekest her as silver” (with an estimation of its value), “and searchest for her as for hid treasures” (willing to dig the field over rather than fail in thy search); “then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.”... “When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee” (Prov. 2:3-11). It is the heart’s estimation of the truth that quickens diligence in its pursuit: and it is this also, and not the mind’s dry activity, that determines the rate and measure of advancement in it.

“Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23): no price is too great for its purchase — no gain sufficient to repay its loss. This is no direction for the world’s marketing: but it tells us plainly why so few obtain what so many profess to seek. “Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?” (Prov. 17:16). Albeit the fool of Scripture is the world’s wise man. To him then who would advance in the knowledge of the truth, Paul’s direction to Timothy must not stand in the letter only: “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.” And he adds, “Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.”

In the communication of truth, when it is drawn directly from the divine Word; or, it may be, learned from others, and verified by that word (for all are not alike successful diggers in the mine, though all should alike possess a value for the ore), it is definite and determinate. When teaching ceases to be definite it ceases to be powerful; for it ceases to be truth that is taught. All truth is definite or ceases to be truth. Teaching that swerves from this may not cease to be exciting or attractive, but it ceases to edify. “He that hath My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord” (Jer. 23:28). But he who deals out as truth that which is unascertained and indeterminate, first imposes on himself the chaff for the wheat, and then practices the same deception upon others. To present truth in the plainest and severest garb, and to unfold it in terms level to the commonest minds, is the plain duty of every teacher who is in earnest in what he does. But to seek to popularize truth by diluting it — to drape it so that its proportions are hidden — to adorn it by the efforts of imagination, in order to make it palatable, and so win for it a place in minds that have no love for it, nor intention to practice it, is to sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind (Hos. 8:7). Spiritual truth can only be apprehended by the understanding becoming spiritual; and the attempt to bring it within the grasp of the unspiritual mind is at best but to leaven and corrupt the truth, instead of using it as a lever by which to bring up the soul to God. Confidence in the truth, or faith, is content to let God work, and to open His own doors for its reception. But there is a bustling activity that is ever thrusting itself forward — a running where there are no tidings prepared; which, though it may put on the guise of zeal for the truth, is in the issue no better than sowing in unploughed land. There is divine wisdom in the exhortation of the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, “Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns” (Jer. 4:3).

I speak not here against pressing the message of the gospel upon unwilling hearers, though in this, both time and wisdom, and an open door, should be sought at the hands of the Lord; and there should be care that love be never absent as the chief handmaid in the work.

But truth can never be popular in this world. Altogether apart from the testimony of Scripture, even philosophers are puzzled “to know how it is that men should love lies, where they make neither for pleasure, as with poets; nor for advantage, as with the merchant; but for the lie’s sake.” And we know who has said, “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not” (John 8:45). Truth shows men’s follies and by — ends too clearly, and sheds too broad a light on the masquerading of the world, ever to be welcomed by it. It is only “he that doeth the truth [that] comes to the light” (John 3:21). Men like to live in a sort of twilight; or to walk by the light of a fire that themselves have kindled, and sparks that they have compassed themselves about with (see Isa. 50:11). And this they are allowed to do, as long as truth is mingled with men’s thoughts and speculations, instead of shining with its own clear light. All human over-valuing, and self-conceit, and false fancies, are detected by the truth; and things that sparkle and look bright by the world’s candlelight, lose their luster when brought into the light of the sanctuary (see Psa. 73:17). This men cannot afford, for it strips the world of its glory, and shows it as a base counterfeit. Supposing the light of truth to be let in upon men and their pursuits, and their estimation of themselves (to go no further), does anyone doubt that it would make them feel themselves to be poor, shrunken things, where the heart had not Christ to fill up the place of that which the truth takes away? But it is the very province of the truth to exhibit things as they are. It is the light which makes all things manifest (see Eph. 5:13). There is no object, therefore, unless I would be untrue to my own ends, as they themselves will be ere long manifested in the light, in so disguising truth as to make it pass through the world unrecognized in its claims, and without accomplishing a single purpose for which it is given. But this is done when it judges neither the conscience nor the ways of those by whom it is professedly embraced. The pleasure that may be professed by such a reception of the truth, or the profit, is as nothing; and I ought to blush, if I have only gained for it a welcome on the condition that it shall be deposed from its authority. It is like making truth a harlot to minister to the lusts of the mind. God is the communicator of truth, and He has given it that the heart may be brought into subjection to His authority, as well as into acquaintance with Himself, His works and ways. If I deal with truth at all, for my own profit or that of others, I am bound to do it in subjection to God. Hence the Apostle’s declaration, “We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2).

Man, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, is only the interpreter of the heavenly oracles. Hence arises a limit in the service of truth. I must cease to interpret when I cease to understand. It may be the consequence of my negligence that I do not understand. Be it so. The acknowledgment of this may prove a spur to my diligence (especially if I bear in mind the word, “to him that hath shall be given”), but it is certainly no warrant to cover ignorance by the pretense of knowledge. How many expositions of Scripture are to be met with, whose contradictions amongst themselves show that it is not truth that is presented, but the uncertain and ever-varying notions of men. What, then, in writing, or in oral teaching, profits? The definiteness of truth; truth doubtless applied by the Holy Spirit to the conscience and the heart — still, the definiteness of truth. That there may be an effect where this is absent, I do not deny. But what is it? The effect of making people think, if they think at all, that Scripture is as vague and pointless as any exposition of its declarations. Still, I affirm that truth is definite, or it is not truth. Boundless in its extent it is, and infinitely varied in its application, but always definite. Where this definiteness is not grasped, uncertainty and unpreparedness for action are the necessary result, “for if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle” (1 Cor. 14:8)? An easy-going orthodox profession may be satisfied with vagueness and generality, nay, with vapidness and insipidity; but if the truth is to detach souls from the world, to bring into peace and liberty, and to direct to the just hope of a Christian, it must be definite. Let those who are teachers of the truth beware, for the streams will not rise higher than the level of the spring; and there is always a (more or less marked) correspondence between the character and condition of the teachers and the taught. People that are caught by the imaginative, the sentimental, the shallow and wordy, as well as those who are captivated by the comprehensive and earnest, will infallibly bear its stamp. Moreover, it is not everything true which profits. Where popular effect may become a snare, the example of Philip, in Acts 8, may well furnish instruction to the heart. But above all should be studied the way in which He, who spake as never man spake, detaches, by the truth He presents, the multitudes that were gathered around Him, from all false expectations which they might have associated with His words and mission, through carnality or a worldly mind. The sermon on the mount (Matt. 5, etc.), and John 6, stand out as prominent examples of this. It is a sore trial to our poor hearts to be obliged, by the presentation of the distinctiveness of truth, to count upon following the experience of the Master, as is recorded in John 6:66: “From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.” But this was only a legitimate, though sorrowful, effect of the Lord’s faithfulness to His mission, as uttered before Pilate, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto THE TRUTH. Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice” (John 18:37).

For the truth’s sake all imitation of others, in their modes of communicating it, should be eschewed. It has the effect of making the message appear unreal in the hands of him who is delivering it. Simplicity of purpose and aim will stamp its own impress on the mode of communicating, and the vessel under this power be seen as God has fitted it, and not distorted by the attempt to emulate that which it may be most unlike, both in original character, and in training for the work.

“Take heed how ye hear” brings before us the responsibility before God under which the individual is placed on hearing the truth. But know this, that truth will never be truth to the soul, unless it is translated into action. Truth appeals to the conscience and to the affections with all the authority of the God of truth. At first it deals with me about ruin and redemption. It claims to be formative of my motives, to be the guide of my actions, the director of my thoughts, the animator of my hopes, the overseer of my whole inner, as well as outer life.

Supposing truth to have been rightly taught and rightly received, what will be its legitimate effect? This is answered in the most direct way in the summary the Apostle gives of the effect of the gospel on the Thessalonians. He speaks of them as remembering their “work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” And this answers to his expression in Corinthians, “Now abideth faith, hope, charity [love], these three.” There is that in the revelation of the truths of heavenly grace which thus acts, by the power of God on the soul, when it is yielded up to its power. The “work of faith” is seen in its turning the heart “to God from idols,” in all the intensity of the contrast between utter emptiness and vanity, and eternal living fullness. The “labor of love” expresses itself in the outgoing of life’s energies in the service of Him who, in the all-commanding and constraining power of infinite and unstinted love, makes Himself known to the soul, and by love thus enchains and leads it captive. “The patience of hope” takes the definite form of waiting for the accomplishment of the promise of Him who said, “I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also.” Hope shows its power in the soul by sustaining the patience while “waiting for God’s Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead [with all the pregnancy of this mighty truth in power and love and grace], even Jesus, who delivered us from the wrath to come.”

Now these are presented, not as the ripened fruits of long experience in the truth, but as the very first results of the reception of gospel grace: the upspringing of heavenly fruit from a virgin soil when first brought under culture by the hand of God; the well tuned harmony of the soul touched in its chords by the skill of infinite love. The Lord Jesus Christ was the spring and object of their faith and love and hope. “The work of faith” was there; and “the labor of love” was there; and the “patience of hope” was there. Nothing of the divine testimony was inert. Indeed, apart from this living energy, Christianity has no existence in this world. The truths by which it was first evoked remain, and the divine power remains which gave these truths this living expression. Many things which marked the bright course of the early Church have passed away, but these are emphatically said to remain, “faith, hope, charity, these three,” without which Christianity is not.

Should not, then, a right presentation and a right reception of the truth of the gospel be still productive of the same effects? Should we not view it as a defective gospel, either as preached or professed, if these effects be absent? God’s grace must not be limited: but I am speaking of the responsibility which the truth brings to the soul. The effect of the gospel is not here limited, as it is so often now, to the individual having obtained peace by it, or even the knowledge of the possession of eternal life. If the heart rests in faith on the divine truths on which Christianity is based, must it not claim for them an energetic and transforming power? “Where God is working, I own it becomes the soul to tread softly. But in what are called “revivals,” I think I see this — on the part of God, souls awakened in an extraordinary degree, and many doubtless brought to Christ; on the part of man, nature largely acted on, often a defective gospel presented, and the mind concentrated too much on its own assured and joyous feelings. The result of this is, to a large extent, even where the work is real, the rearing of hothouse plants, which wither and show the yellow leaf when the extraneous heat and forcing influences are withdrawn. Conversion is not everything. Fervor will not stand in the place of truth engrafted in the soul. Activity is not the only sign of spiritual life and power. “I am so happy!” may be welcomed as the soul’s expression of having found in Christ what it could find in nothing else. But there is another word of Christ to be heard besides “thy sins are forgiven thee”: it is, “If any man serve Me, let him follow Me.” It is a great thing that the practical aim of Christians be not lowered. True revival I take to be the leading back of souls to see from whence they have fallen, and to repent and do the first works. The sure token of a revival in the Church (I do not mean the fact of frequent conversions) will be found in Christians being led solemnly to lay it to heart, whether the Church is in a position to meet the Lord, and whether it is a true and faithful witness for Him in His absence. There are dangers of all times, and there are the special dangers of our own; but the fullness of the truth as communicated to us by God is sufficient to enable the simple and dependent saint to meet them all, and so to find the special blessing promised, by the lips of Him whose name we bear, “to him that overcometh.”

The Power of Faith and Prayer in Connection With the Difficulties of God's People

The Lord cursed the fruitless fig tree, and the next morning as they passed by they found it “withered,” “dried up from the roots.” Peter calls the Lord’s attention to it, evidently wondering at what had been done; and the Lord seizes the opportunity to give instruction to Peter — instruction, I believe, of very great importance to us all, in connection with difficulties too great for human power to grapple with.

I desire to notice the principle that underlies the passage, applicable at all times, not the special application of the passage to Israel.

There are three things: Faith, the prayer of faith, and the spirit of grace in forgiving.

“Have faith in God.” More literally, it is “Have faith of God.” It is the faith that is emphasized rather than its object. It is faith that takes its character from the divine object in which it rests, God Himself. That is the kind of faith for great difficulties. In other words, it is faith that has its rest in God, and that brings Him into the difficulty.

Suppose you have a difficulty as great as the highest mountain; have you confidence in God? Can you bring Him into the difficulty? Well, He is greater than the difficulty — greater than the greatest mountain. What is a mountain to Him “who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance” (Isa. 40:12)? “Have faith in God. For verily, I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which He saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever He saith.” It is a simple question of confidence in God.

I need hardly say, however, that this involves the knowledge of God, and communion with Him. If we are living practically at a distance from Him, this confidence is impossible. We cannot know what would be suitable to Him. “He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel” (Psa. 103:7). It is not said that Israel knew His ways. They knew His acts, but Moses knew His ways. This is much more than to know His acts. His acts may be seen afar off, but His ways are learned in the secret of His presence. Moses was one with whom Jehovah spoke face to face; and in the intimacy of communion with Him he learned His ways.

When Israel sinned in the matter of the golden calf, Moses knew how to act in a way suited to Jehovah. He maintained His truth both in judgment and in grace. He burned the calf in the fire, ground it to powder, strewed it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink it. He also stood in the gate of the camp, and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? let him come unto me.” And then he commanded the the sons of Levi, who had gathered to him, to gird on their swords, and to go in and out from gate to gate, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. All this was judgment.

But there was a question of Jehovah’s glory also, of the accomplishment of His purposes, and the fulfillment of His promises to the fathers in blessing the people, and bringing them into the land. And now Moses goes up to the Lord, and falls on his face forty days and forty nights in intercession for Israel. This was the energy of faith that counted on the goodness of God in that dreadful hour. How could he have persevered those forty days and forty nights, if he had not known Jehovah? It was the knowledge of Jehovah he had acquired that gave him confidence, and this knowledge was the secret spring of his whole action.

The difficulty was like a great mountain. Israel had been put under the law as a covenant of works; they had broken the law, and a breach of that law was death. On the other hand, Jehovah had sworn to the fathers that He would give them the land, and bless the seed of Abraham. The people have sinned, and are the subjects of deserved judgment; but if Jehovah consumes them, as He had threatened to do, what will become of His word, His oath, His name? Moses had the knowledge of God and is full of faith — faith that has had its growth in the secret of Jehovah’s presence; and he falls on his face and pleads the word and name of Jehovah. He brings Jehovah into the difficulty. Will the difficulty prove too great for Him? or will He deny Himself? He cannot bless the people because of what they are; but He falls back on His own resources — His own absolute and sovereign grace — as a ground of action. He shows grace to whom He will, mercy to whom He will — and pardons His guilty people. Christ is the true solution of this difficulty in respect of guilty man — Christ in whose Person on the cross grace and judgment were both maintained.

But what we see here is the faith of Moses acting in view of Israel’s fallen state, and the character of Jehovah’s great name. His intercession prevails, and the mountain is removed and is cast into the sea.

Now, if we would have this “faith of God” which renders us superior to all difficulties, we must also have this heart-acquaintance with Him by which we learn His thoughts and ways. There must be a habitual seeking of His face, so that our thoughts and desires may be formed in His presence. And is not this worth while? The right state of the soul depends on it. God’s presence is the atmosphere in which faith is formed, and has its growth. It is when we are near Him that confidence is developed in the heart. He searches the heart, and if the heart is uncovered before Him, and everything judged that is unsuited to Him, confidence is established. If, however, there is guile in the heart, we are not at ease; we cannot hide our real state from Him; our heart condemns us; and “if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 John 3:20-22). “And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us: and if we know that He hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him” (1 John 5:14-15).

We have to do with the Searcher of hearts, and our hearts must be in His presence without guile. There must be submission too, and keeping His commandments; and where there is submission to His will, the desires being formed in His presence, we ask according to His will, and have the confidence that He will give what we ask. When this is our state, our wills do not run counter to His will. We desire what He wills. He forms our hearts, and awakens desires within us; and He answers the desires which He Himself has awakened. We not only ask what He wills, but we ask what we will, and He answers, because our wills are His will. “If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you” (John 15:7). Where there is this dependence — this abiding in Christ — and His words abiding in us, and forming our desires, we have communion with Him. We ask according to His will, but it is our will too, because His words have wrought desires in us, and He cannot refuse the requests He Himself has moved us to make.

This, then, is the great thing: to be in His presence without guile, and to have the heart open to Him, that He may fill us with His own thoughts and desires. This produces confidence and assurance. “Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” There is no limit set to the power of believing prayer. Only, as we have seen, this faith will be in exercise only when we are in a state which is according to God. The next verse shows there must be the grace in the heart that forgives, in order to have such confidence in God: “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

Here, of course, it is no question of eternal forgiveness of sins, or of being justified before God as guilty sinners. It is His governmental ways with those who are in relationship with Himself. Nor is it a question of going to one who has wronged us, and telling him, we forgive. In such a case the word would be, “if he repent, forgive him” (Luke 17).

In the passage before us it is the state of the heart in the presence of God. If I am in His presence whose grace took me up when I was a guilty rebel, and has gone on with me ever since, keeping me day by day, or restoring me when I have fallen, how can I hold something in my heart against my brother? A brother says, “I cannot feel just right toward brother A.” What is at the bottom of such a remark? It is self. The feelings have been wounded in some way, and there is bitterness. Something is held in the heart against the brother. The heart is not formed by grace. Himself forgiven ten thousand talents, he holds the smallest thing against his brother. This is not the way of grace; nor is it the way God has acted toward us in Christ.

You have hard feelings toward some brother on account of some real, or supposed injury. This is no uncommon thing among the saints. Now, speaking with all reverence, can you conceive of God having “hard feelings” toward one of His children, or bitterness in His heart because of something that child has done? Instinctively you shrink back from the very thought, as utterly abhorrent to your soul, and as falsifying completely the revelations of God you have received in Christ. It is not that God makes light of evil in His children; but what we call “hard feelings,” or bitterness one toward another, is impossible to Him.

Now we must rise up to God’s thoughts; we need to get above ourselves and our feelings, judging in ourselves the spring of all bitter thoughts, of all hard feelings, in order to have confidence in His presence. Without this we have no power, and our prayers will be unanswered, and we ourselves will remain the subjects of God’s governmental dealings. “If ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

How often have wars and conflicts arisen among the saints, which had their origin in some little root of bitterness, some lack of grace, or some nursing of feelings toward one or another! And how often the saints are apparently powerless in the presence of these things! Is there, then, no remedy? Thank God, there is; but it is not in anything that we can do, but in the faith that brings God into the difficulty. Is there one among the saints living so in the thoughts of God, that he has God’s mind in the matter, and can count on Him? God is able to solve the difficulty. But do you find yourself in His presence with an unforgiving spirit toward your brother? You must begin with yourself, then, instead of your brother, for until you do, God will not hear. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” When we have judged ourselves, so that the heart is free before Him, He forms the heart, and faith comes into activity, so that we can, with confidence, present our request, and the mountain is removed. When the grace of God gets to working in hearts, troubles and difficulties soon begin to disappear. They pass away like the morning clouds before the warm rays of the rising sun.

May the Lord give His beloved saints, amid the increasing difficulties of these last days, to know more of His own grace, and in the presence of that grace, to lay aside all questions of personal feelings one toward another; so that our hearts may be free in His presence, and that they may rise up to His thoughts of grace toward His own. Abiding in the sense of this grace, and acting in the spirit of grace in forgiving others in the heart before God, we have confidence before Him, and can count on that grace which never fails, bringing the God of all grace into the difficulties which beset His beloved people, and removing them out of the way, as mountains cast into the sea.

Trades' Unions and Benefit Societies, and the Christian's Attitude Toward Them

A Trades’ Union we understand to be a number of men, of some particular trade, united together, or organized for the purpose of resisting oppression, or supposed oppression on the part of their employers, and for the purpose of conserving their own interests as members of the Union. Of these there are many different orders, as Printers’ Unions, Bricklayers’ Unions, Stone Cutters’ Unions, etc., etc.

There are also many orders of another kind, which may be called Benefit Societies, into which monies are paid by the members at stated times, with the understanding, that in case of sickness or death of a member, a certain benefit shall go to the sick one, or to the widow and family of the deceased member. Among these may be classed Free Masons, Odd Fellows, Woodmen, and the like.

These orders of both classes, are numerous, and differ in various respects; but they all have one common object, and they all agree in this, that the motive appealed to for joining them is one of self-interest. This self-interest is the principle by which they are governed from first to last, so that in a Trades’ Union not only do they seek to promote the interests of their own members, but in many cases they seek to exclude from the field of labor those who are not members. If a contractor has union men employed, and employs others, the union men refuse to work, and the contractor must either dismiss the non-members, or have his work suffer. This is mentioned only to show the motives which underlie the workings of these organizations: the motives are essentially selfish. The organization may have selfish motives to contend against in the employer; but even so, it is, after all, only selfishness in a struggle with selfishness, and this is not Christianity, even though Christians may be involved in the struggle.

It is not the purpose of the writer to take up the cause, on one side or the other, of those engaged in this struggle.

There may be wrong or right, on one side or on both sides, viewed from a worldly standpoint; but this is not the question. And, viewed from the same standpoint, there may be fairly good arguments presented both for and against the existence of such organizations; but neither is this the question. As to these things we have no contention at all; they belong to the world, and to those who are of it, and there we leave it. What is put forth in this paper is for Christians, with the desire that those to whom it is applicable may see what should be their attitude, as Christians, toward these various orders. And that the Christian may know what to do, it is essential that he should see what is the origin of these orders.

Need it be said that they are purely of the world? It is indeed within the sphere of Christendom they chiefly flourish, but this is no proof that they are of God. Their source cannot be found in Christianity, nor can one word be found in Scripture for their support. They may, with other human organizations, be referred to in the “bundles” of Matthew 13:30; but, if so, it is only to show that they will come under the judgment of God: they are to be burned.

Another scripture shows us what will be the full development of the principle underlying these organizations. This will be manifested in him in whom man’s will, unrestrained, and energized by the tremendous power of Satan, will have its full embodiment — the man of sin, the willful king, the antichrist. “He cause th all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the number of the beast, or the number of his name...” (Rev. 13:16-18). The principle is that of self-will using force, legally or otherwise, to further its own selfish interests and ends regardless of the feelings, or consciences, or welfare of others. This principle will be found largely operative in all these combinations of men, whether combined in the interests of capital or labor.

Can, then, a Christian hold membership in one of these organizations, without compromising the name of Christ by which he has been called? Surely the honest answer of every intelligent and truehearted Christian must be, No.

But while admitting that all these orders are of the world, and that membership in them places the Christian in a false position — a position in which he is uncomfortable, and unhappy, and hampered as to his Christian testimony — nevertheless, there may be not a few ready to ask what they are to do. They have spent, perhaps, the best part of of their lives in learning some trade, and they have their wives and families to support, and the time has come when, unless they join the Union, they will, without mercy and without appeal, be thrown out of employment; and they ask, “Must we refuse membership in the Union at such a cost? May we not hold membership, and, while remaining passive as to all the active operations of the society, simply pay our dues, in order that we may be permitted to pursue an honest trade, and thus support those dependent on us?” For such as have households dependent on them for daily bread, these are not mere idle questions; and they call for a serious answer, in a spirit, too, which knows how to enter into the trials of those for whom labor and money and bread are failing. To the meeting of these questions we desire to give ourselves in the fear of God, and as He may give help. The difficulties are admitted. And our desire is to encourage the Christian to take ground where he can meet them, and go through them, without weakening as to the maintenance of divine principles, or compromising the name of Christ.

In the first place, let it be remembered that, if membership in these orders is contrary to the Word of God, no amount of reasoning, nor plea of suffering, can ever make it right. And if it be admitted, as admitted it must be, that these orders are of the world, it must also be admitted that, for a Christian, membership in them is contrary to Scripture; for the blessed Lord, speaking to the Father about the disciples, says “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16). Thus for a Christian to join one of these orders, would be to do exactly what the Lord prays the Father he might be kept from doing. Nor will refraining from active participation in the workings of the society relieve the difficulty; for, if a member, you pay for its support, and are in your measure responsible for its actings, to say nothing of being under an unequal yoke.

In the second place, we need to remember that suffering is part of the Christian’s heritage in this world. We need not seek it, but we may expect it. “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for My sake, the same shall save it.” “If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after Me, cannot be My disciple.” “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple.” “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world,... therefore the world hateth you.” “In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world” (Luke 9:23-24; 14:26-27,33; John 15:19; 16:33).

These passages show not only that we may expect suffering in this world, but that for Christ’s sake we should also accept it. And the Scriptures show that the saints in early days did accept it, taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing that in heaven they had a better and an enduring substance (Heb. 10:32-34). Many, also, suffered unto death for the name of Christ. Even in Old Testament times, when far less light was enjoyed than we now have, they accepted suffering without question, for the testimony which they held. “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented, (of whom the world was not worthy): they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth” (Heb. 11:37-38). Ah! my tried and fainting brother, you have not come to this yet. You may have thought you saw hunger and want just at the door; but you have still been supplied, and have better than a sheepskin, or a goatskin for clothing, and better than a den or a cave for a home. Why then should you faint? “My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him; for whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Heb. 12:5-6). Every trial that God sends is sent in love, and has a purpose of blessing in it; and instead of despising the chastening, or fainting under the rebuke, we need to be exercised by it; so that it may yield “the peaceable fruit of righteousness,” and that we may be made “partakers of His holiness.”

If called, then, to suffer in being faithful to the Lord, is it not vastly better to accept it cheerfully and without hesitation, looking for His sustenance in it and His blessing through it? “Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7). We are not living in days, or, at least, in lands, where faithfulness to Christ is being tested by fire and sword. Those who for Christ’s sake, refuse to be members of some Trades’ Union, are neither burned nor beheaded. They may suffer inconvenience; they may be hindered from earning good wages; they may be tried in their circumstances; be it so, this is not yet resisting unto blood, striving against sin, and it should only cast the tried one upon God, whose faithfulness will not fail.

In the third place, God pledges Himself, in the most blessed way, to care for all who in faith refuse the unequal yoke. In this connection, special and earnest attention is invited to the last five verses of 2 Corinthians 6. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel [or unbeliever]? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Every sentence in this scripture shows the utter inconsistency of Christians holding membership in these worldly Societies. By reasoning, and by command, God appeals to the Christian to be “separate,” and not to touch the “unclean thing.” The language is clear and unmistakable. God calls His people to be a separate people, as was said of Israel, “The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Num. 23:9).

But there is also the blessed encouragement to be separate: “I will receive you, and will be a FATHER unto you,” is the pledge the Lord gives. It is not here a question of how we enter into relationship with God. As Christians we are already His children. It is here being a Father to us; that is, acting a Father’s part to us. On condition that we keep ourselves separate, and touch not the unclean thing — a course which may involve trial and suffering — Jehovah Almighty pledges Himself that He will act the part of Father to us, and treat us as His sons and daughters. Yes, you may refuse to be a member of what would put you in touch with the unclean, and as a consequence you may be forced from a certain field of labor, and hunger and want may threaten you and your dear ones; but He has said, “I will receive you, and will be a father unto you.” And will He not, my brother, redeem His pledge? “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” Has He not said, “Every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills”? Has He not said, “The world is Mine, and the fullness thereof”? Are not the silver and the gold His? and the wealth of the universe? Does He not love us with a measureless, endless love? And has He not power to carry out the dictates of His love? Ah! yes, He has given us abundant proof of all this; and why should we not trust Him? Why should we appeal to a selfish society governed by the god of this world, rather than leave ourselves in the hands, and under the care, of such a Father? He has not promised us wealth, or luxury, or ease in this world; but He does assure us He will be a Father to us in our need, and what is good for us He will surely give.

Be sure, dear fellow Christian, He will never fail. He cannot fail. He may allow you to be tested; He may allow you to suffer for Christ’s sake; He may allow you to feel your dependence; He may teach you that gain is not godliness; He may pass you through needed discipline; He may allow the poor earthen vessel to be broken, that Christ the Light of life may shine out; but He will never leave nor forsake you, and He will give strength for the day, and make you to know that underneath are the everlasting arms.

I would appeal, then, by the Word of God, to every dear Christian brother who may be tried by these questions, for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the truth, for the peace of his own conscience, and for his spiritual joy, to keep himself free — absolutely free from all these defiling links with the world, and to trust Him who forgets not even the sparrows, and who, numbering the very hairs of our heads, says, “Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than many sparrows” (Luke 12:6-7).

A Word in Season: The Danger of Pride and the Need of Lowliness

(Extract From Words Of Faith, Volume I, 1882.)

The Lord has been giving blessing in the young little gathering here, so that two have been added since I went away, and they seem to be nice earnest souls, now feeding on the Word. I do think that the Lord has given us an open door here, and I trust there may yet be much larger blessing through the Word. There is evidently inquiry, and desire after the truth, while there is also bitter opposition on the part of those who are afraid of having their ranks broken into. But one need not mind this, as it only shows the truth is taking effect. And it is a good thing not to allow ourselves to meet those who oppose, on their own ground.

I believe we need to keep the body of Christ before us, and seek to build up the saints simply as belonging to that, wherever they may be found. Alas! we know how the saints are scattered, but love seeks them out, and seeks to minister to them, because they are Christ’s. I find it very easy to sink down into a kind of sectarian spirit, while the ground may be held intellectually clear enough. It is easy to be seeking to build up something that is for man’s eye. May the Lord keep us from having our hearts set on anything but that which He loves — the Church for which He gave Himself.

How true it is that apart from Him we can do nothing. And have we not much lacked the sense of dependence on Him? And instead of pursuing the lowly path of Him who could say, “I am a worm and no man,” we have thought ourselves to be something, and exalted ourselves — alas! only to be abased. But how much better mercy that He should abase us now, than allow us to go on in pride of heart! He brings us low that He may lift us up in the sense of His own wonderful grace. I have thought that perhaps many of us have not sufficiently realized the utter ruin of all that has been committed to man’s responsibility. We have spoken and written of the ruin of the Church, while secretly in our own hearts we are priding ourselves that at least there was one little circle where all was right, and we are in that. It is a kind of Brethrenism.

Of course, God’s Word and truth change not, and it ever remains true that where two or three are gathered to Christ’s name there He is “in the midst” of them. The truth is as simple, and the path as plain as ever it was, and thus there is ever a resource for faith. But if pride is lurking in our hearts, thinking we are all right, and that “Brethren” are a kind of asylum into which the people of God are to be gathered, where they can be in safe keeping, and cared for till the Lord comes, surely that is not learning well the truth of the Church’s ruin. And has there not been more of this than perhaps we are aware of? And therefore God is allowing us to learn the ruin of the Church among ourselves, as well as our folly in setting up to be anything. Oh! may we learn the lesson well, that Christ may become everything to us, not only an object of our hearts individually, but the center to which we gather, and the One who can never fail, but who, in spite of the Church’s failure, and even of apostasy which threatens everything, “is able to keep us from falling and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy.”

The way we have to learn these things, because of our pride and foolishness, is indeed humbling, and we might well take up the lamentation of David, “How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest... the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” 2 Sam. 1:19,20. But it is better to learn the lesson at whatever cost, and however great the humiliation may be; it is our blessing surely to learn it, and we can have confidence, too, in Him whose grace can never fail, and who loves all His people with an imperishable love.

May we be kept waiting for Him, yet keeping the word of His patience.

On One Devoting Himself Exclusively to Service: Part 1

My dear Brother

We have felt much for you in all the sorrow you have been called to pass through. But we are sure the dark clouds are “big with blessing.” Sorrow and even bitterness may precede; but the blessing will come. It is His way; and where there is exercise, it never fails — “peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.”

Your path, too, will be made plain. And if a more exclusive path of service in ministry be His mind, He will lead to it and give courage for it. Wait upon Him; wait for courage to be given, or faith. Without faith it would be abortive. There would be be a breaking down in the path, and this would be unhappy for you both, and for all. The Lord’s mind should be very clear, before giving up a present calling. But if it is clear, fear not. Slay the oxen, “boil their flesh with the instruments,” and give to the people, and enter on the path to which the Lord calls, and you will be sustained in difficulties, and in famines, and will be able to minister help and comfort to others. (1 Kings 19:19-21; Luke 9:57-62.)

The Christian path, and still more so, the path of the servant separated to exclusive ministry, is a difficult one. Ease and comfort are not a part of its accompaniment. We are in a scene blighted by sin, and where the heart of man remains in bitter enmity against God, and where even brethren sink down to a level little above that of the world. “All they that are in Asia are turned away from me.” “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.” We may expect disappointment in quarters we little dreamed of. But there is One who never leaves — never forsakes. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” This is our one resource, and it is unfailing.

We have to remember, however, that we are just in the close of a broken-down dispensation, when all is about to be broken to pieces in judgment; and at such a time we must not look for great things. (See Jer. 45:4-5.) But indeed it does not belong to Christianity at all to look for great things of an earthly nature. Death is our portion here. And you are being made to taste a little of this now. It is Marah. But the cross sweetens the bitter waters. This is a comfort in the wilderness. But our true and abiding portion lies beyond. We have nothing here and the Lord would have us feel this. It is through the death of Christ, that we are dead to sin, the law, the world. But it is not a mere doctrine. We have to learn the reality of it in our own souls, so as to be able to say, “I am dead.” This enters into everything. Our life, our conversation, our houses, the training of our children, the literature we allow them to feed upon, and that we ourselves feed upon — in fact it covers the whole life we live here — “Crucified with Christ” — “the life I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God.” Death is applied to all outside of this life. Alas! we sadly fail, but this is where the path leads, and what the cross involves.

And if the Lord is going to lead you out into a path of true service to Him and His, you need not be surprised, if, in various ways, He teaches the practical lesson of death. “For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.” It is worth while to learn the lesson, but death’s waters are bitter — the cross is galling to the flesh.

Well, my dear brother, God will lead you, and He will teach you. And none can teach like Him. He will make the path clear, and He will give courage for it in His own good time.

On One Devoting Himself Exclusively to Service: Part 2

To the same.

Your letter did not reach me until after I was at Port Hope, else I would have mentioned it then. I was glad to get it, and to see again the way in which the Lord was leading, though you had told me much the same when I was with you.

You speak of “Confidence.” To have confidence in ourselves would be a poor and worse than worthless thing, but we cannot place overmuch confidence in the Lord. Yet the heart shrinks from the path in which intuitively faith knows He will lead — a path in which there is no nourishment for the flesh — where we are to carry about in our bodies “the dying of Jesus.” And though confiding in His love, we may follow with trembling hearts. And yet, dear brother, we find when what we dreaded comes, what seemed like a dark and threatening cloud dissolves and scatters, leaving the sun shining as brightly as if the cloud had never been. I think Satan seeks to terrorize us in any stand we make for God, and would turn us aside from the path in which the Lord leads. He makes the difficulties loom up before, the soul as great mountains, while as a fact, when we reach them they are gone. I do not mean to say there are no difficulties: there are, to us, but there are none to God; and if we have Him with us they dissolve and pass away. But He sees it good for us to be tested, and to be cast in dependence on Him. After all, “one thing I do” is the great thing. One Object, a single eye, an obedient heart, and a captured heart, like that of Jonathan, who stripped himself for David; or better, Paul, who could say, “What things that were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ,” etc. Jonathan never gave himself fully to David, though he loved him as his own soul, but Paul gave himself fully to Christ. No kingly courts or royal links, kept him from full identification with a despised and rejected Christ, and His interests here below. Trials he had many, and infirmities, too, but all became but the occasion for the power of Christ to rest upon him, and through all he went “gladly.”

The Lord keep your heart in peace, dear brother, and that of your dear wife.

Affectionately your brother,

The Lord's Sympathy With Us in Suffering

Springfield, Illinois, October 12, 1876.

My dearly loved Wife:

... Well,—, ease is not our portion here. We are associated with a suffering, sorrowing Christ. But our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. And as you say, “The Lord is most precious to us when we are brought low.” How often I have realized this. Death has to be carried about in us — the dying of the Lord Jesus. It is a practical thing. And when this is so, life works in us. When we groan being burdened, our hearts go out after the One who is coining to end our groaning, and the thought of Him gives joy amid the sorrow.

I have been thinking much for a day or two of the sympathy of the Lord Jesus. “He took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” In this I think there was both sympathy and power. If we are in the presence of suffering, we suffer. It is sympathetic, and we will suffer in proportion to the perfection of our sympathy. The power of sympathy in Jesus was perfect, and His suffering was equal therefore to that of the sufferer. As a High Priest He was made perfect through suffering. Sympathy in the Aaronic priesthood was imperfect. In Christ it was perfect. He learned it in the presence of suffering. He has suffered in spirit through sympathy all that poor suffering mortals can suffer. But in Him there was not only the power of sympathy, but the power to relieve the sufferer. He took our infirmities. In taking into His own spirit the power of the suffering that was before Him, He triumphed over it and set the sufferer free. The power of death pressed upon His spirit at the grave of Lazarus and He groaned within Himself; but here He triumphed, and brought life out of death. The power of death gave way before Him. What a High Priest we have!

We are allowed to suffer because it is needed. But His sympathy with us in it is perfect, and when we are in it He gives us power to go through it, or lifts us out of it when the lesson is learned. I suppose there are special needs, and connected with these, special dealing, and when the need is met the dealing is over. And then there may be a continual need, and a continual dealing about it. Paul received a thorn in the flesh. It was not removed, because constantly needed. If we begin to think we are something when we are nothing, some special thing will be sent to teach us our mistake and bring us into the dust. But beside this, something constant may be needed to keep us constantly in the sense of being nothing. So I suppose that Paul’s thorn was a constant reminder to him of his own nothingness. How blessed if we are brought to the perfect knowledge of our weakness and of the power of Christ. “My grace is sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” There is no room for divine strength except where there is weakness. If we realize our weakness perfectly, we will find in the midst of it the perfection of His strength. It is good if we are brought to this: “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

I am glad you went down to see J — and his bride. I trust the discussions with him and Geo. R. may not have been in vain. The Lord may use them. I am sure, too, if they have gained nothing, the truth has become clearer to my own mind, and to yours, too, I doubt not. And this may be the purpose the Lord had in it.

I hope you will write to W— and A— so as to prevent any disappointment. I would like to see them.

I am going on here with the work, having meetings every night. There are very few through the week. But there are two or three deeply interested. I have been visiting much through the day. It takes a great deal of walking, some of them being two and three miles apart. I think the Lord is blessing a little inside and outside. I had a long talk yesterday with an Episcopalian who is very anxious about his soul. He is seeking after assurance, but is sadly hindered through the constant bias his mind has received through long years of formality and legal teaching. But I believe the Lord will lead him on. I think he has got in too deeply to escape....

A Case Calling for Discipline

December 3, 1879.

My dear

... Well, the Lord is full of mercy and He means blessing, though He leads through a great and terrible wilderness. We have not reached the rest of God yet. And it is labor and toil till then. There is refreshing by the way but it is for the way, and we cannot stop. And if there is weariness we are sustained by the manna and refreshed by water from the smitten rock. God is doing the very best for us He can. And that is an immense comfort. The Lord make you courageous, my dear, for the rough and thorny way! However feeble my sympathy, His is perfect. “Cast thy burden on the Lord and He will sustain thee.”

I wrote you a hurried note yesterday, which would not give you much comfort. I think I never had such a day of inward groaning as yesterday. And the people of God here have been groaning. The conduct of Mr. S. is oppressing them like a nightmare. It has been and is a persistent course of railing against the brethren to an almost inconceivable extent. They are “all against” him and he is “the scapegoat,” he says.

I told the brethren I could not go on with meetings in such a state of things. And they thought I was right. They have called a meeting of the brethren for tonight to look into the case.... I don’t know how it will end, but I have confidence in God. My soul has been bowed down within me and I have cried to the Lord to have mercy upon His people and deliver them for His great name’s sake. And I believe He will do it. I have a lighter heart today than yesterday, but it is unspeakably painful. And it is just at a time, too, when a good many are anxious to hear the Word. Last night I did not know whether I would be able to preach or not, but the Lord helped me much when the hour came. There were a good many strangers present. And it was an impressive meeting. But oh! how painful, when it is not happy inside. May the Lord have mercy upon us and deliver us for His name’s sake.

Tell brother L. that I am very thankful that you have been praying for me. I knew it was so, and that God has been hearing, too. Give him my love, please....

Labor Spent in Vain

Oakland, California, December 18, 1893.

My dear

... I am sorry you have been having all this extra work with R— W—. I fear it will be labor spent in vain, as far as he is concerned, but the Lord will not count it so. When it was a question of gathering Israel, the Messiah had to say, “I have labored in vain, I have spent My strength for naught, and in vain.” But Jehovah did not count it such, and gives Him to be a light to the Gentiles, etc. See Isaiah 49. We are in the end of a ruined dispensation as He was, and we do not look for great things outwardly. It is “holding fast,” and serving Him and His till He comes!

I think you have answered R—W—very well and I don’t think he can answer it. But I expect he is not to be moved....

There is real weakness in the meeting in —. One feels it in many ways. It is not strange that one and another gets discouraged. I feel sorry for the young ones, and those who are but babes in the truth....

We had a good meeting Saturday night, and good meetings yesterday. A good reading this morning, too. We have just reached chapter 2:12. Mr. C ‘s uncle has just started for home this afternoon. He is full. An old man of 70, naturally intelligent. He said good-bye with tears in his eyes. In the prayer meeting this morning he thanked God for fresh light received. I think all feel that God is giving blessing to the saints. The meetings are very happy. It is a good deal like the meeting we had in Kansas last June....

Again I must close,...

Christ or the World

... You have had a heavy burden on your mind... as to the —’s. And I can well understand what you passed through. It would be a great joy to me if the —’s were entirely delivered from the desire to participate in these worldly things. They do not realize, as yet, what a snare these things are, and how they displace Christ in the heart, and lower the tone of their Christian testimony. Christ is not all to them, and practically these things become more than Christ, because the one thing must displace the other. It is such a rare thing in these days to find a young man or a young woman who is out and out for Christ — to whom Christ is everything, the Alpha and Omega of their life. Yet such are priceless treasures to the Lord, and will be to the saints among whom they move. Everything given up for Christ! That is true giving up, and belongs to the path of true discipleship. I hope both J. and E. may get deliverance from these things, and learn the force of the words in Psalm 16. “I have set the Lord always before me.”...

I am rejoiced to hear of the continued interest and blessing in the readings. I trust this may continue.

I thought perhaps — would not quite accept your letter on the Sabbath question. While he has the knowledge of forgiveness, I do not think he knows what it is to be delivered from law as a principle. And I suppose he does not see that the Sabbath has not been changed. I would be glad if he could get clear on that question....

A Heart Turned in the Right Direction

Walla Walla, Washington, March 29, 1894. My dear —:

... These mission people here, that I mentioned in my letter yesterday, proposed to the brethren to turn over the room to me for a few nights. So they spread the word yesterday, and in the evening I preached to about 150 or 200 people. I was surprised to see such a company. There were many earnest listeners. It seems that a good many evangelistic meetings have been held here during the winter, and the town has been greatly stirred. I could feel that there was an earnest feeling in the meeting last night. I hope good may come of it. The town has about 8,000 people. I preached last night from Isaiah 6.

What you tell me of has been a matter for deep thankfulness. The heart is turned in the right direction, and this is a great deal. If the heart is set for it, and there is a yielding up to God to be used of Him, He will work, bestow gift and love for souls, too. It may be only a little spark now, but if encouraged, it may break out into a flame. I look for the same in.... But we can leave it all to the Lord. As you say, quoting from Caleb, it is everything to have “the Lord with us.” We must cleave to Him with purpose of heart. No doubt the end will soon be here. But while we wait He would have us “doing” as well as waiting.

The Eternal Sonship of Christ: No. 1

Des Moines, Iowa, November 15, 1894.

My dear J

... The more I look into the matter, the more I am convinced that the term “only begotten” cannot be limited to His birth into the world. I believe John 1:14,18 carry it back into eternity. In verse 14 it is His personal glory “as an only begotten with a father,” not something that came true only by His birth into the world. And in verse 18 it is “only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father” — something that never had a beginning. It is an eternally subsisting relationship — not His relationship with God, as Messiah born into the world, according to Psalm 2 and therefore a time relationship. If begotten could be limited to His birth into the world in time, it would of course upset W—, but I do not think it can, and besides, W—would say that Psalm 2 was long before. But it is not a question of upsetting W—, but of truth as to the personal and eternal glory of the Son. Of course the objection is raised as to the term implying a “begetter” as Mr. G says, and also priority of existence, but that will not stand. The term “Son” implies just as much in this respect, and Mr. G does not deny that He was “Son” from eternity. It might be said the term “Son” does not necessarily mean birth relationship. This is true, but there would be no less difficulty as to “adoption.”

Now as to the time relationship He was “begotten.” Psalm 2 says this. But in the eternal relationship there is no scripture which speaks of the act of begetting. It only states what He was as Son with the Father, “an only begotten” — “only begotten in the bosom of the Father” — not one who was “begotten.” I think this is important.

The same difficulty might be raised as to “firstborn of every creature.” Mr. W. would apply that to His birth ages before the foundation of the world. Of course we know it is wrong. The term “firstborn” expresses His position in relation to the creature, without any question as to the time of His birth. “Only begotten” expresses His relationship to the Father as Son, a place that no other has. We are “sons” by birth and by adoption, but He alone is an “only begotten,” and Scripture does not say it is either by “birth” “or adoption.” It is, I believe, what He is simply, from eternity to eternity.

I think, too, it is important to see that in Hebrews 1, a passage Mr. G relies on in connection with Psalm 2, He is not called the “only begotten.” It is “This day have I begotten Thee,” and “the first begotten.” It is time relationship to God and to the creature that is expressed in these two terms, though what He is in His own Person is brought out in the first three verses, “Son,” “brightness of God’s glory, and exact expression of His substance.” His place with, and in the bosom of, the Father is not the point here, and so “only begotten” is not used.

A person might not be clear as to these expressions, but, to deny that “only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father” is an eternally subsisting relationship, would be serious error, robbing the Son of His glory, and the Father of His eternal delight, as well as weakening the truth of the gospel in the expression of God the Father’s love in giving “His own,” “His only begotten Son.”

I am glad my attention has been called again to the subject, for I think it has served to give me a clearer apprehension of the Scripture use of these terms.... I got help years ago from him [J.N.D.] on Psalm 2, and Hebrews 1. The other is what I have gathered in a general way — held when a U. P., though not with the same dearness....

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel: Part 1

Grafton, N. D., July 30, 1895.

My dear

I will have little time to write today, but I want to write you a few lines before taking up other things. I feel that I have very serious work on hand for tonight, and I want to be as free for it as possible. We have afternoon and evening meetings and this does not leave much time for other things.

Yesterday afternoon we had a few out, not many. Among these were the mother and brother of Mrs. A.-both Catholics. They were about to take the train to go and see the father who has been in the insane asylum for years, and who is now not expected to live. They came in in the forenoon and took dinner. I had a long talk with them after dinner — more directly with the young man. Both are exercised, but the young man much more than the mother. I look for him soon to be free. He told his sister yesterday that he was done trying to save himself by his good works. They both seemed deeply interested at the meeting in the afternoon.

In the evening about 20 or 30 were in at the hour, and I gave out a hymn which we were singing, when others began coming in, and within five or ten minutes about 150 or more were in the room. We had seats for over 150 I think, and some stood. I did not understand it but went on and preached from Ephesians 1:7 — “In whom we have redemption...,” etc. The attention was good, save that ten or a dozen young fellows got up and went out. When I stopped speaking, a man, near the front, got up and said he understood me to say that the reason why people did not become Christians was because they did not believe the Bible, and he wanted to know if I would not preach a sermon tonight giving my reasons why I believed the Bible was true and to be received. I told him I had no objection to speaking on that line of things and would do so, though I did not wish to get into any discussion. He said he had been preaching for two nights to the laboring classes, and had been trying to show them that the Bible was like any other book, and he had been influential in getting a lot of these people to come in to this meeting and if I would preach as indicated they would come back again tonight. Well you understand what this means. It is meeting the infidel question, and this in its lowest, grossest form. I understand this is an infidel town, and this man is an infidel who is seeking to curry favor with the laboring classes for political ends. I am satisfied he has been digging a pit for me, and expects me to fall into it. We feel, on the other hand, that God will overrule this effort of the enemy for blessing to souls — use it as a means to get the truth before some who might not otherwise hear it, and perhaps to some extent enlist the sympathy of Christians in the place. I have not the slightest idea what will be the outcome of the matter, but quietly await God’s working. He will take care of His own truth. It is possible that I may be detained here longer than this week, but I cannot tell. There were a number of Christians there last night, whose sympathies were evidently enlisted. Well, God is above all the confusion and above all the reasonings of men and the machinations of the enemy, and we desire to be found standing with Him in the confidence that He is for us, and for His people.

R. and wife and daughter were in yesterday afternoon, and stayed ‘till after the evening meeting. They all hope to be in tonight. Well, I will not try to write more today. Will try to send you a line tomorrow as to how things turn tonight....

The Eternal Sonship of Christ: No. 2

Des Moines, Iowa, November 20, 1894.

My dear J

... What you say of Mr. M is just about what I expected. It is independency — outside all, but wanting freedom to go among all, and no thought of being amenable to the government of God’s house. That is the reason why “exclusivism” is disliked. Not that he would say so, perhaps, but that can be seen at the bottom. And then a wide scope is desired for the use of “my gift.” Still I do not doubt Mr. M’s piety if he has not changed in this respect. But his position is not obedience. There is a path of obedience for God’s children in which they can meet together according to the Word, without being a sect in God’s estimate, and when thus gathered, the Lord is in the midst and His authority must be owned....

I think I see where your difficulty is as to the use of the term “only begotten.” It is in connecting the thought of “begetting” with the word “begotten.” But I believe this misses the force of the word altogether. “Only begotten” must not be confounded either with “have... begotten” or “first begotten.” “Have... begotten” is connected with time and an actual begetting. “First begotten” is His title in relation to the creature, and when as such He is brought into the world all the angels are called to worship Him. This shows His pre-eminence in that connection. Both these terms are in Hebrews 1. John alone uses the term “only begotten” (John 1:14,18;3:16,18, and 1 John 4:9) as applied to the Person of the Son. This of itself is significant, as he in a special way goes back of time, and shows what was the glory of the Person of the Son in absolute deity. Others dwell on His official glories and relative titles, but John develops His personal and eternal glories. Even “Son of man which is in heaven” is His divine glory — glory that flows not from His being “Son of man,” but from what He is as God — it is His Person but as divine, and so in heaven though bodily on earth.

If you take John 1:14, is it a time glory that faith beheld — a glory that began by His becoming flesh? Does not this take us away altogether from John’s purpose, which is to declare the divine glory of His Person? John’s object is to exalt His Person, not by occupying us with Him as Messiah, but with what He was before He came as such. He was “made flesh.” This, of course, was time. But faith saw something more. In the One “tabernacling,” faith saw a glory that was before the tabernacle, shining through it, as it were — “glory as of an only begotten with a father.” I cannot think this was His being “begotten” as in Psalm 2.

In the use of the term “only begotten” John brings out two things — first, the glory of the Son; second God’s love in giving His Son. He was not only a “Son” with the Father, but an “only begotten Son”; not only “the Son” “in the bosom of the Father,” but “the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father.” There is no thought of “begetting” in it at all, any more than when we say “the Son.” It is the unique character of the relationship, as filling up the delight of the Father’s heart. Then in John 3:16, and 1 John 4:9 there is the unfolding the greatness of God’s love. He so loved the world that He gave — not only His Son, but — His “only begotten Son.” Connect “only begotten” here with time, and the force of it is lost altogether.

I remember only one place outside John’s writings where the term is used — Hebrews 11. Abraham offered up his “only begotten.” Even here it is no question of Isaac’s having been “begotten” by Abraham. It is not the point. He was indeed begotten, but Ishmael was too — one just as much as the other, but Ishmael was not an “only begotten,” Isaac was. He had a unique place in the heart of Abraham.

To refer to John 1:14 again — suppose it had been said, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of a son with a father,” this would have been relationship; but when “only begotten” is added, it shows that He is alone in this. Or, if we say “the Son which is in the bosom of the Father” there would be no question as to its being His eternal relationship in that blessed position. But if we add “only begotten” would it reduce it to a time relationship? Would not this destroy the whole force and beauty of the passage? But when it is seen that where the term “only begotten” is used, it is never said He was begotten as such — that begetting is not the point — and that the term is used to express a relationship, which was His alone — an Only One — an Only Son — it enhances the Son’s glory, and the Father’s love in giving Him, and all is simple and beautiful.

It seems clear to me, and most precious, too, but I do not know that I can make others see it in the same way. I have no shadow of doubt on my mind as to it.... It is an interesting subject, but one that must be looked at with care, and holy fear. Mere reason will go for nothing in handling it. We have the Spirit to give us the force of the Scriptures. And that we have through grace. I have put my thoughts down on paper because it is sometimes easier to weigh what is written than what is said by word of mouth....

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel

July 31, 1895.

... I wish you had sent Potter one of “Is Sin Burnt Out?” I think it is just the thing for that case. If you would rather not send, send it to me, and I will send it to him. Potter has work on his hands at that place, and it looks as if the Lord is working. One can see that souls are being tested by the Word. I hope Mrs. McD. may get on. If she does, perhaps others, too, will get help. I would hope the young man who was “searched,” will make progress.

Well, I must tell you a little about our meeting last night. It seemed to me a somewhat extraordinary meeting. During the day we got more lumber and increased the seating capacity to over 300. I somewhat dreaded the responsibility which I felt resting upon me, and the more so when I learned that this man Haight was a bold and unprincipled infidel. The brethren who know him greatly feared that he would disturb the meeting by asking annoying questions. I was told that his wife was a Christian, and was driven to desperation by his infidelity, and hung herself some years ago. Well, before going to the meeting I made special request of the Lord, that He would seal the man’s mouth, and not allow the meeting to be disturbed, and that He would magnify His own Word and Name and work for blessing to His own.

There were nearly 300 people present. Many of the Christians of the town were present. The B’s were all in and the R’s were all there, and R. had got word to R-n and J., and R-n was there and J. and his wife. It showed some real desire to see these people coming, 8, 10, 20 and 25 miles. One felt that they helped by their prayers, too. Then the infidel was there with his crowd — all expectation!

I spoke from 1 Kings 18 — “How long halt ye between two opinions?” and entered almost immediately on the question of the veracity of Scripture as the Word of God, making the Word of God its own proof, showing that the great events recorded in the book, such as the crossing of the Red Sea, the giving of the law, the crossing of the Jordan, the resurrection of Christ, etc., were marked in such a way that deception and falsehood were impossible. And then at the last I called attention to the character of the revelation given through Jesus Christ — a revelation of perfect love — perfect goodness — in the midst of universal evil — a revelation in which the heart can find perfect rest and peace — something outside all the natural mind’s mode of thinking — never found outside of Christianity, and so proving its divine origin. By this revelation I appealed to those present to open their hearts to it, and to submit to it, and to Christ as a Savior of men. A feeling of deep interest and solemnity seemed to pervade the meeting throughout. The infidel himself listened with great attention, most respectfully, and at times, apparently, with absorbing interest. And there was no move of any kind to give the least disturbance. After I had prayed, Mr. Haight arose and said, as he had requested the address on this subject, he now desired to request a vote of thanks to the speaker! After the meeting a good many stayed back and talked in groups. A number of Christians came to me and in a most hearty manner expressed their gratitude for the word, which had been a confirmation of their faith. It was most manifest that we had the hearty sympathy of the Christians there, and I do not doubt good has been done. I look for a fair attendance tonight, though, no doubt, many will drop out, now that curiosity has been satisfied. Then there are prayer meetings in the churches tonight. I expect to be here at least today and tomorrow. There have been only a few at the afternoon meetings, but I think God has been working in the afternoon meetings, and several getting real help....

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel: Part 3

August 1, 1895.

To the same.

... We had a few out again yesterday afternoon. There have been only 10 or 12 in the afternoons, but I have felt the Lord was giving blessing... in the way of establishing souls in the gospel. I am satisfied that some Christians who have been coming, have been getting blessing.

Last night before the meeting began, our infidel Haight came to me and wanted to know if I would give way to him tonight, and let him tell the same audience why he was a skeptic! I told him, No. I had acceded to his request in stating publicly my reasons for believing the Bible true, but this was further than I could go — I had no fellowship with infidelity, and to give him the floor would be that. I could not do it. He tried to argue the case, and to show I ought to do to others as I would have them do to me! I think he was a good deal chagrinned. A crowd was waiting outside to hear the decision. He went out to them and I heard him say: “No, sir, he won’t do it,” with a good deal of acrimony in his tone. But he failed to hinder the crowd from coming back. A great many came in who had come the two nights previous, of the laboring men. And quite a number of Christians were present last night. There were not as many people as the night before — we did not expect this — but there was a company of from 150 to 200, and the roughest of them listened very attentively, and some seemed touched. I spoke last night from Luke 15. Some of the Christians have been rejoicing in the things they have heard, and speak of it one to another. I have just been trying to get before them the grace of God in connection with such Scriptures as Romans 3;4;5 Eph. 1:7; 1 John 2:12, etc. And the interest has seemed very real....

God's Image Reflected in Those Who Come Through the Fire

Springfield, Illinois, September 10, 1898.

My dear

... Those to whom Peter wrote were not to think it strange concerning the fiery trial that was to try them, as though some strange thing happened to them. God could have kept them out of it, but He saw it best they should go through it. And it seems so still. If it is not trial in one way, it is in another — if not by persecution, in circumstances, or in body, or in both. But He brings blessing out of it, and causes His own image to be reflected in those who come through the fire. How precious are the Lord’s words to Jacob and Israel in Isaiah 43:1-2: “Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by name (Jacob the supplanter becomes a prince with God); thou art mine. When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.”! If the Lord’s care for His earthly people be such, how much more will God care for His children, the trial of whose faith is much more precious than of gold though it be tried in the fire. But the results will be seen fully only at the revelation of Jesus Christ, and the trial will then be found to be unto “praise and honor and glory.” Sustained now by the “power of God through faith,” we wait in faith for the results of His work. For myself I am constantly made to feel the need of being kept lowly and in the sense of my own nothingness. And yet the pressure sometimes seems heavy. But I suppose it would be useless if we did not feel it, as in the case of a child that has been chastened saying, “It did not hurt.” Pride and self-will are still unbroken. Well, I am sure it is good if we can trust ourselves thoroughly in His hand.... Poor Jeremiah felt the way in which he was treated by Israel, and complained to the Lord, “Why is my pain perpetual, and my wound incurable, which refuseth to be healed? Wilt Thou be altogether unto me as a liar, and as waters that fail?” But the Lord did not fail him. Compare Jeremiah 15 and 40. And He will not fail us.... the Lord has made you a “polished shaft,” and He still goes on with His work, and the results will be according to His bright designs. Therefore, do not be discouraged. Let us seek together to go on with His service ‘till He comes. It will not be long. But if He tarry a little, the results of your faithfulness will be seen...

Declension Preparing the Way for the Apostasy

Dear Brother: ... Intelligence in the things of God is good if used for Him and in His fear, but of itself, it is no safeguard against the inroads of the enemy. “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” The voice of wisdom is heard by those who watch and wait: “Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors” (Prov. 8:34. One of the humbling things connected with the last departure from the truth, is just the fact, that many noted for their intelligence in the truth, have been carried away in the flood. How the very thought of this should lead us to cleave to the Lord, in lowly dependence and fear! But we are in the closing days, and the end draws very near. You speak of Romanism in England “sweeping in all classes,” so I believe it is on this side too. A mere casual observer, I think, must see that Romanism is making very rapid strides in this country. And at the present rate of progress, it cannot be very long before the power is in their hands. This great mistress of seducing power has not forgotten how to use her blandishments with the kings of the earth. No doubt she will soon ride the beast again, and incite to persecution, and martyrdom, as of old, though we look for the Lord to come, and to be above, with Him, ere that time of trial comes. But how near it all is! Infidelity preparing the way of the beast and of the antichrist, at the same time that the woman is getting ready to ride the beast. How serious it makes the hour in which we live! The “higher criticism” question is raising a storm in this country, too. It is just infidelity, inside the ranks of those who bear the name of Christ. These clever “lawyers” in the churches, are taking away the “key of knowledge,” and leaving the masses in hopeless confusion and darkness. Thus the way is being rapidly prepared for the apostasy, which will carry away all Christendom, and give the antichrist the place of supreme spiritual power on earth. But God is over all, and no changes can take place, nor assaults of Satan upon His people, without His permission. And while we see the forces of evil in motion, and preparing for the final conflict, we wait for our coming Lord.

What Leads Astray, and the Principles of Restoration

Des Moines, Iowa, December 3, 1896.

Dear Brother:

I have now been home some weeks since my long journey through Canada and the Eastern States. In general the Word of God is loved, and the ministry of it appreciated. When souls feed upon that with evident relish it is a good sign, whereas if they are occupied with questions which gender strifes, it is just the opposite; and when fanciful interpretations are sought after, we may be sure the mind is at work, rather than the heart subject to the Word and feeding on what is divine. It is a great mercy when we find in the saints a healthy spiritual appetite. We may then look for growth, and well directed energy. Now I think I found a real relish for the simple ministry of Christ from the Word; energy also for getting together over the Word for mutual benefit, as well as in reaching out to others.

On my way home from P—, I stopped at C—, where five brothers have got free from association with false doctrine. Three others were exercised, but I have not heard if they have made any progress. In the first of these cases, deliverance came with loss of both health and property. Our brother had been ill for a year, and was scarcely expected to recover, but the Lord had mercy on him, and he is much better than he was, though still feeble, and suffering. I trust the Lord may be pleased to use him for the deliverance of others also. God only can work real deliverance; no mere work of man will suffice. Had not the Lord laid His hand on our brother, I dare say he would still be just where he was. Our brother himself says his sickness was necessary. The Lord had a controversy with him, and He took this way to break him down. I speak of this because we might suppose it is merely a question of understanding the bad doctrine. I am sure it is not that. I have long been convinced that the going wrong in these questions is connected with a state of soul which is not pleasing to the Lord. And as long as this state is not reached and corrected, no good could come of souls being put right in a mere ecclesiastical way. This does not prove that we who are right ecclesiastically are necessarily in a good state of soul. We may be far from that, and still have been preserved as to our position. But I believe it to be the case that those who have gone wrong in these great questions, had first got wrong as to their spiritual state. And it shows the importance of seeing to our own state, or rather seeing to it that Christ and His glory govern our hearts. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” is a solemn word of warning for us all. May the blessed Lord keep us very near Himself. If we abide in His presence, we are safe. How blessed to be able to look on to a scene of rest and peace where no storm and no sorrow shall enter! If humble, dependent, and obedient, we shall be kept, and shall find the Father and the Son making their abode with us even here, and giving us to realize the sweetness of the divine affections, of which we are the objects.

Yours affectionately in Him,

Standing in the Evil Day; Christ Our Example; Holding Fast

Des Moines, Iowa, February 9, 1897.

My dear Brother:

... In spite of the tendency to allow discouragement to take the place of power, we are called to stand in the evil day, and to serve the Lord and His people to the end. When He was here things were dark enough. Infidelity, hypocrisy, and dead formalism characterized the leaders, and there was but a feeble remnant that feared the Lord. Yet those who composed this remnant knew one another, and spoke with one another. Aged Anna seemed to know them all at Jerusalem. She “spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem”; and instead of growing weary in well doing, she “served with fasting and prayers night and day.” Thus there were faithful ones, but the mass, alas, far from God in heart, however they might draw near with their mouth, and however much they might honor Him with their lips. In this state of things was cast the lot of our blessed Lord Jesus in His path of service. But what unwearying, patient, faithful service was His! He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and more than that, to lay down His life, to give it a ransom for many. And when He reached the end, He could address the Father and say, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Instead of growing weary in the path of service, the evil state of men seemed only to draw out His heart the more in compassion and in service to meet their need. One can see it in a marked way in the Apostle Paul. It comes out especially in his second letter to Timothy, in which he exhorts his son in the faith to stir up the gift that was in him, and not to fear nor be ashamed, because evil was apparently in the ascendency. He himself had stood alone — no man stood with him — yet not alone: there was One with him and that One was more than all that were against him, and he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. His was the spirit of the Master he knew and served so well. Oh, that there were more of this amongst ourselves today! Surely the moment calls for it. What a precious deposit has been committed to us! And His word to us is, “Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” And this too, just on the eve of His coming. A struggle is indicated, but a short one: “Behold I come quickly.” Soon all will be over. Shall we hold fast, and have the crown, or lose all?

The Lord has been showing mercy to some in this country, in delivering them from the delusion that has carried away so many. Besides those delivered last fall in Columbus, Ohio, a number have been delivered and restored in Detroit, and I think some in Cleveland, and several where brother Close has been working in Illinois. This has been an encouragement to us on this side, and I am sure you will rejoice with us.

On the other hand I hear of a family in—, carried away through the cry of misrepresentation....

Your affectionate brother in the Lord,

A Day of Ruin; the Coming of the Lord, the Church's Hope

Des Moines, Iowa, May 11, 1897.

My dear Brother:

The old blind sister, who has made her home with us during the last 16 or 17 months, has been called home, after a fourteen weeks’ illness from a broken leg. She was over 80, when she fell and broke the thigh bone, and was never able to be up again. We all felt it was the Lord’s mercy that He took her to Himself, to rest from her weary path here. Another old sister, 78 years old, was called home the same week, after much suffering, accompanied by a sweet testimony. These were the two oldest in the gathering, and now rest in the Lord’s presence, till the moment of our gathering to Him at His coming. And surely it will not be long till we all see Him face to face. What a moment that will be! And what joy to our hearts — a joy that will only be enhanced by having known trial and sorrow here — joy after sorrow, rest after toil!

As we get nearer the end, we learn more and more how complete is the ruin of all that is here: no hope for the Church but the coming of the Lord. Of course we have long known this, but what we have been passing through enables us to realize it more than we otherwise would. Even among those who have been preserved from following after men, what feebleness we find in many places. The tendency is to discouragement, and to letting things fall into decay. Often my own heart has been encouraged by Paul’s word to Timothy in his second letter. When all is falling into decay is no time to give up: it is then there is more need than ever to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. Men admire a regiment of soldiers that stand till the last man is cut down. How blessed, if through grace, we thus stand in the spiritual warfare we are called to wage!

... We are looking forward to having a Conference at Pella, 47 miles from here, at the end of June, if the Lord will.

In various ways the winter has been a time of much pressure and care, but the Lord has cheered us through some dear women being brought into the knowledge of their acceptance and eternal security in Christ through grace.. Our love to all the dear brethren.

Your affectionate brother in the Lord,

The Truth Restored; the Testimony Given; Our Responsibility

Des Moines, Iowa, October 18, 1898.

... The weakness of which you speak is, I believe, very general; at least it is so in this country. And in going about among gatherings, we find our work is largely seeking to “strengthen the things that remain.” It is very different now from what it was 30, 40, and 50 years ago, or even when I first came among those gathered to the Lord’s name, 25 years ago. God had raised up a special testimony in the early part and middle of the present century; and He wrought in and through vessels which He had specially fitted for the work, keeping them in touch with Himself, and opening up to them from the Scriptures, by the Spirit, a vast range of precious truth which had long been practically lost. And He did this in such a way as to bring before the whole Church this precious truth. In this testimony, the Spirit of God wrought powerfully in restoring to us what we had so long been without.

This work has been done; the testimony has been given; the truth has been clearly placed before the people of God, and many have received it. This testimony, as it seems to me, has been finished. It is no longer a question of a powerful and energetic work to put the people of God in possession of what they had lost, but a question of holding fast what we have. The special danger is in letting it slip; and we know we have an ever watchful foe, who never wearies in his efforts to rob the people of God, and dishonor Christ; so that we need to be specially watchful on this point.

Of course, our responsibility is to go on with the truth, witnessing to it as we have opportunity, and in this sense the testimony still goes on; but this is a very different thing from the special testimony from God, which puts us in possession of the truth, so that we might hold it fast and live in the power of it. Now that God has wrought and put the truth in our hands, there is a special responsibility to hold it fast and to make a right use of it, and here is where we see failure coming in. We have not valued the truth according to its real worth, and so have not walked in it as we ought. The result is decline in the soul of one and another, and general declension sets in, and the masses go with the current. This is what makes it so difficult at the present moment. Attacks are made upon the truth, and souls are not in a state to resist these with energy; and thus the enemy gains ground, and souls become powerless, except as God comes in in sovereign mercy to deliver them.

Well, how much we need to seek God’s face in such a day! Thank God, the conflict will soon be over. The Lord is coming quickly, and we are thus encouraged to “hold fast.” But one does not expect it to become easier as the end draws near. The efforts of Satan are more desperate to swamp the truth as the end of his career approaches, and God permits this for the testing of His people. We need to be cast upon God, who is our resource at all times, and who will not fail those who with integrity of heart seek His face.

There is nothing very special to mention in connection with the work in these parts, just now. The meetings are generally going on quietly — perhaps too much so — too little of that special energy, which arouses the opposition of the enemy. We had a nice conference, somewhat local in character, at Armington, Illinois, from the first to the fifth of September. A number spoke of help received through the ministry of the Word, and the fellowship was very real and refreshing. After that, I made visits at Springfield, Greenville, St. Louis, Victoria, and Pella. In all these places, real interest in the Word was apparent, and I trust it was not without blessing. In the last mentioned place (Pella), I fear they are yet to be tested on the question of doctrine; for, except where God keeps souls, they are more ready to go wrong than right. What is needed is the fear of God in a conscience tender and sensitive when the truth of God is in question.

I have in mind, if the Lord will, to get to some points in Nebraska and Kansas, as soon as I can get matters arranged for the winter at home, going as far west as Denver, where the gathering is going through a good deal of trial just now. These out of the way gatherings are not visited much, and there is a good deal of need among them. The laborers are few, and there is much weakness; but it is an encouragement to think that the twos and threes are enabled to go on at all, even if it be in much weakness. If we give the Lord His place, our weakness only gives the occasion for the gracious operation of His power. How good to lean only on Him!

Now with much love in the Lord to yourself, dear brother, and all the brethren, I am, your affectionate brother in Him,

Bermuda; an Interesting Account

Hamilton, Bermuda, December 26, 1899.

My dear Brother:

Having notified you of our purpose to come to this place, I am sure you will be interested to hear a little of what we find.

We arrived here on the 8th of this month, and on the following day, after looking to the Lord for help and guidance, we started out to see if we could find any of the brethren. We had several names, but no house addresses. We only knew that they lived in a country district called Paget, across the bay from Hamilton, which is the chief town of the island. So we took the Salt Kettle Ferry, and asked the boatman if he knew Lemuel Tucker. He said that he did, and that he was a “great man for religion.” We told him we guessed he was the one we wanted, and asked if he could direct us to him. He then called to a man on the boat, who came forward with glistening eyes and a broad smile on his ebony face, who proved to be brother Waldron, returning home from his evening work. He was, or had been, with the Open Brethren, but is now among those gathered. He was full of joy to meet us, and he very gladly conducted us to the home of Mrs. Tucker, who has largely been, through God’s grace, the stay of the few faithful ones here. We found her ironing clothes, and when she found out who we were, she was scarcely able to speak.

She afterward explained to us that her heart was too full for utterance, because the Lord had at last, in His own time, answered their prayers. They had for months “labored in prayer,” that the Lord would send some brother to help them, and confirm their faith; and now He had sent “both a brother and a sister!” Last New Year’s Day they met specially to pray that the Lord would send someone to them; and now they want to meet together next Monday (New Year’s Day) to give special thanks.

We found that six brothers and seven sisters were breaking bread. Rather over twenty years ago a gathering was begun here through some sailors, and went on well for a time. But subsequently trouble arose and they were scattered, many of them falling in with some Open Brethren who had come to the island. Several kept separate from all the different parties, and firmly resisted the effort of those who sought to lead them into their evil association ten years ago; but they remained without any breaking of bread. Our brother C visited them in 1894, but was obliged to leave before matters were cleared up. He did not encourage them to resume the breaking of bread, fearing that the trouble would break out again. So they still waited on, until about sixteen months ago, God began to exercise four of the young men, who had been converted during the time of waiting. They did not know what to do, save cry to the Lord to send them deliverance, which He did in His own way. One attempt they made to get help from without, remained without result. About six months ago, however, acting on the advice of Mr. King, of Barbadoes, these four young men began to break bread; and the others came in one by one after, until they were as we find them, thirteen in all. Another says that she feels she ought to be there, but she has been staggered, and has had little courage.

On Lord’s days, we have found their meetings to be simple and real, with a distinct sense of the Lord’s presence. There is neither haste in taking part, nor any long waiting, and their exercises are simple and scriptural. They are quiet and orderly, and have more intelligence than one might think. They have a good hall, which is sub — let to them by some “Lodge.” Their gospel meeting is really an open meeting; no one in particular is delegated to conduct it. Each evening, the young brothers have both opened and closed the meeting; and on two of the evenings they also spoke a little, much to the point. The first meeting we were present at, began by singing and prayer, then there was a pause of some length, when I got up and spoke for about halfanhour; then there was singing and prayer again, after which young Leighton rose and spoke for about ten minutes, in a very simple and practical way, after which there was singing again, and the meeting was closed by prayer. Last Sunday evening, one of them gave out a hymn, another prayed, then another hymn was given out. After a pause, I spoke for about thirty-five minutes, from Hebrews 10, on the completeness of the work of Christ. Then the hymn “Nothing either great or small,” was given out; and it would have done you good to hear these dear colored people sing it. They have good and powerful voices, which carry soprano, bass, and alto, and they sing as if they meant every word. They stand while singing in the gospel meeting, and some of them keep time with their hands and with a gentle sway of the body, every face bespeaking thorough earnestness. They would wake up some of our dull, prosy meetings in the West. After this hymn Lemuel spoke for about ten minutes, pressing the point, “It is finished.” Then, after a short prayer, there was another hymn, and a second short prayer closed the meeting.

They have a prayer meeting on Monday evening, a reading meeting for all on Wednesday evening, and a reading meeting on Friday evening especially for the “strengthening” of the brothers.” Since we came, one white man has been added, whose father was a Scotchman, and his mother a native of Barbadoes. He had been in the Salvation Army, but much dissatisfied, and has been attending the brethren’s meetings now and again. He has now definitely left the Army. His wife also has applied for fellowship. Mrs. Tucker has been very helpful to both. Others we trust will be helped on. The brethren are confident of this, and regard our coming as a distinct answer to prayer. Just the day before we met them, Mrs. Tucker had told her son that help was coming, though when it did come, they were like those who prayed for Peter’s deliverance from prison, and were “surprised,” so Lemuel told us.

So far, they have been prompt in attendance at the hour. They were a little late the first Lord’s day morning, in coming over from Paget in two boats, but in the evening they were all on time, and the meeting promptly began at 7:30. We took occasion to commend them for their punctuality, and to speak of its importance; this seems to have encouraged them.

The young men are really devoted and zealous, and we believe there is real spiritual energy. Indeed everything indicates that the Lord has helped and led them; only they desired to have their faith confirmed by some one sent to them of the Lord.

The Islands here are a group belonging to Great Britain, coral reefs that have grown up above the water; about eighteen miles long, and two or three miles in the greatest width. There are about 15,000 inhabitants, two-thirds of the people being colored, but they are far more steady and reliable than the colored people of the States. The Islands are thus thickly settled. From one of the highest hills, the houses look like villages scattered all over the islands. The roads are fine, never muddy, as the rock is porous, and the water soon settles in after a shower. They wind about among the little hills, and are very interesting. The climate is equable, the gulf stream on the north tempering cold blasts. The mercury rarely falls below 55, and does not rise above 85 in summer. We have both benefited by the change. Mrs. R. has got to work among the women, and has two or three meetings a week with them.

We have begun a kind of Sunday school on Lord’s day afternoons, in which Mrs. Tucker and my wife have charge of the young, while I have a reading with the elder ones. This can easily be arranged, as the hall is large, and there is also a side room capable of holding 20 or 30. Outside, tracts are always thankfully received....

Affectionately your brother in Christ,

A Further Word on Bermuda: The Blow of 1890; Ravenism

Des Moines, Iowa, May 4, 1900.

My dear Brother:

... Since returning to this country we have had several letters from Bermuda. I will quote from one written by a colored brother 23 years of age, dated April 25.

“On Lord’s day, 22nd inst., at 2:30 P. M., fourteen brothers and sisters left for Somerset, to meet the Lord with those in that place at 4 P. M. We were all much blessed, and those at Somerset much revived. In the evening we had a gospel meeting; the place was crowded, and as many more had to remain outside. At the four o’clock meeting some believers not yet in fellowship were very much aroused...”

I may mention that Somerset is ten or twelve miles from Hamilton round by the mail coach road, but these brethren probably went in a couple of boats, so that the distance was reduced to about seven miles. There were only four at Somerset breaking bread, restored from an independent position while we were there, and several received at Hamilton.

Most of those in Bermuda were young, and have never gone through the storms some of us have known; a few only have been through trouble. I appreciate what you say about the weight of the blow of 1890 being still upon us. I have felt it to be so in this country. But what a mercy that some have been found ready to take it from the Lord, and suffer under it, as His rebuke for the state we were in. Many of the gatherings which have fostered the evil are, as you say, apparently flourishing; but alas, what a state they are in... puffed up beyond measure by what they consider as new light, while a few seem to feel that things they once prized are being taken away from them.... Copious extracts of notes of readings in this country having recently been sent to me, I do not think I ever read with deeper grief and sorrow of heart, any production of men who were once supposed to know and hold the truth.... One may well weep to see the desolations that have been wrought. Yet is it not an unspeakable mercy to be outside of all this wickedness? But we would be hard-hearted indeed, did we not feel the dishonor done to Christ, and the loss the saints are suffering. May God keep us humble, and not allow us to be discouraged....

A Day of Weakness; the Open Door; the Final Apostasy

March 15, 1902.

... During my late visits along the Western Coast, I have been seeking chiefly to “strengthen the things that remain.” Here and there I have found encouragement in the way of some young people announced as desiring to break bread. Restoring grace has also been manifested, and little tokens of the Lord’s gracious working in different places all along the journey. Yet one feels it is a day of small things, no outward show of much doing. Indeed it is largely a question of “holding fast,” though wherever there is devotedness to the Lord, with a holy and separate walk, the Lord owns it and gives the open door. If there is what answers to Christ as the “holy” and the “true,” — He who has the key will give the open door, which no man can shut; and I believe this will continue to the end. There may be no parade, no show, no sounding of trumpets; but the Lord will own the faithfulness of those who keep His word and deny not His name. But we must not forget that He is the Holy One and the True. Holiness and truth are the marks of those who answer to the character in which He presents Himself to Philadelphia.

May we covet the conformity to Him which ensures the open door, cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart, and walking with Him as Enoch did of old, who walked with God 300 years. Such is our only means of safety.

We must not close our eyes to the fact that all is rapidly moving on toward the final apostasy, and only the power of God can keep us from the blinding influences connected with the general movement. I see a tremendous power of Satan leading along many lines toward the same goal — apostasy: Higher Criticism, Christian Science, Spiritism, Theosophy, “Millennial Dawn,” Christadelphianism, Seventh Day Adventism, and much else. Many once with us are on the same road. One can speak of it only with shame and sorrow.

The great truths brought afresh to light in the last century are fast being given up, and the darkness which is taking the place of the light is being gloried in. This is deeply humbling and sorrowful. But can we shut our eyes to the fact? Among those who have not “held fast” what they once had and enjoyed, there no longer seems one able to raise the feeblest protest against the false teaching they say they do not accept. Oh, how sad! And it is our common shame that such a state has come in — “neither cold nor hot.” The Lord give us to cleave to Himself, so as not to be found sleeping when He comes. Surely the end is near.

It is a comfort to know Christ loves the Church, and is able to provide all needed ministry, even in the darkest days. He loves all His own, and will not fail in anything they need.... My wife and son have had smallpox during my absence, but are well again through mercy, God turning the trial into a blessing, as He always does.

With much love in the Lord,

Yours affectionately in Him,

A Series of Letters to a Brother

Detecting False Teaching

Des Moines, Iowa, May 3, 1897.

Dear brother N—:

... We have had a good deal of extra work and care of late through the sickness and death of two old sisters here, both of whom passed away last week.... What a comfort to think of those we love as present with the Lord, when absent from the body. Not glory yet, but rest and blessedness, and glory when the Lord comes, and the body puts on immortality, after the likeness of Christ’s body of glory.

I am glad you have fully detected the bad teaching of the Raven School. It is easy enough for one who is simple. I do not mean easy to be understood, but easy to detect as being wrong. But many mighty ones have fallen through it. And this is very sad and humbling. One feels that everything is breaking up. Surely the end is near. “Behold I come quickly” is a sweet sound for one who knows there is no hope for the Church but the coming of the Lord. And it is a comfort to think that if we have failed, He will not fail. He will present the Church to Himself a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. Indeed this is our only hope. The Church will never be restored on earth, although the path of simple obedience is ever open to all who will walk in it, even if it be only two or three here and there in great feebleness gathered together to His name, and seeking by divine grace to answer to His thoughts.

... You may not have heard that... Mrs.— has lost her child. He died very suddenly of brain fever, after only ten hours’ illness. It has been a great blow to them all. But they bow nicely to the Lord’s will, knowing that He makes no mistakes. And no doubt they will find His blessing in the trial. God has blessing only, in His thoughts and purposes as to His people, and controls everything in heaven and earth to bring about that purpose, using the very ills to which we are subject, and even Satan himself, to contribute toward that end. The cases of Job and Peter are proof of this. The latter end of Job was better than the beginning and Peter’s state was better after sifting than before....

Very affectionately your brother in Him,

Courage to Stand in Remnant Days

Des Moines, Iowa, October 19, 1898.

Dear brother N

... I am hoping to see you very soon, if the Lord will. Indeed I had hoped to be in L. before this, but one is not always able to make the feet go as fast as the heart, and God makes us feel our dependence on Him, which is ever good. My health has not been good, and I feel the need of taking care, and am not able to work as vigorously as in former days. I am hoping I may be able to go to L. sometime next week, and while there I will also hope to go out to M. and see you and others there, and perhaps we may see you at L. also, if the Lord will.

Perhaps we can have a few meetings in the schoolhouse near you... some gospel meetings. Perhaps the neighbors would turn out. We shall see, and in the meantime we can look to the Lord for guidance. It is a day of small things, and we must not be discouraged if we find people taking little interest in the truth, or even opposing it. We are just in the end of a broken-down and ruined dispensation, on which the judgment of God is about to fall, and we must not expect to see results such as were seen at the beginning when an ungrieved Spirit was working in great power.

I think we find much instruction in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai and Malachi for the present day, which is somewhat analogous to the time referred to in those books. The ten tribes had been carried away by Shalman-ezer, and were lost. Judah had been carried into Babylon, and spent 70 years in captivity. A remnant from Judah returned in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the temple and the walls of the city were rebuilt. This return, and the building of the temple and walls of the city were all pure grace from the Lord. But we see on the part of the people so favored, a constant tendency to decline. They did not go on with the work as they should. They yielded to the influence of the enemy and the work ceased. Haggai charges them with living in celled houses, while God’s house lay waste, and they had to be stirred up afresh to go on with the work.

Then in Malachi, a little over 100 years later, we see most dreadful declension — a mass of profession without reality, in the midst of which were to be found a feeble few who “feared the Lord and spake often one to another.”

This little remnant alone gets the approval of the Lord, with the assurance that they should be His when He makes up His jewels. About 400 years later we still find this feeble remnant in such as Zachariah and Elizabeth, Mary, old Simeon and Anna, and the shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem. But oh! how few and how feeble. And it is something the same now, as we draw near the end — a great mass of profession, with but little reality.

But there are those the Lord owns, and of whom He can say, “Thou hast kept My word and hast not denied My name,” those too who have kept their garments, and who shall walk with Him in white.

But these are the few — not the many. Well, in such a day, what we are called to is to “hold fast.” “Behold I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast that no man take thy crown” (Rev. 3:10).

The struggle will be short, for He is near, but it is real, and we need courage to stand, even if it be alone. There was a time when no man stood with Paul. But the Lord stood with him, and the testimony was given, and he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. How blessed to be able to count on Him, though all others forsake! May we, dear brother, be strong in Him.

Hoping to see you soon...

Your affectionate brother in Christ,

The Sabbath

Des Moines, Iowa, March 2, 1899.

Dear brother N—:

Brother G. has sent me this article on the Sabbath, asking me to look over it and return it to you, with my judgment of it; so I enclose you the clipping in this.

I consider this paper a complete blunder throughout... He makes statement after statement without a shadow of support from Scripture. I don’t know what his object is, but whatever it may be, he has no Scripture to warrant his statements or reasonings.

As I understand the Scripture, the weekly Sabbath was invariably the seventh day of the week, coming after six days on which, in general, it was lawful to work. The weeks never vary, and the Sabbath never varies. It is our Saturday.

But there were various other days that had a Sabbath character — certain feast days, as the Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, etc. These were Sabbaths, but not the Sabbath. And the weekly Sabbath never counted from one of these Sabbaths, unless the two coincided, as for example, the day when our Lord was in the sepulcher, which was the Sabbath, and also one of the feast Sabbaths, on account of which, it seems to me, it was called in John 19 “an high day.” The 15th of Abib, I suppose, was always a Sabbath, but not always the Sabbath. When it was both it was “a high day.”

The feast day Sabbaths, as I understand it, might fall on different days of the week, because the months varied, and shifted a little, but the Sabbath was always the seventh day of the week, without variation.

The idea that the day of Pentecost fixed the weekly Sabbath for a year, or until the next 15th of Abib, is a pure assumption, without a word of proof, and with Scripture in the face of it. Where do “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John call the Sunday of the resurrection ‘Sabbath’ in the Gospel”? The statement is worse than silly....

Your affectionate brother in the Lord,

The Heathen and Millennial Dawn

Des Moines, Iowa, March 7, 1899.

Dear brother N

... Now as to the heathen question. What you ask as to the Millennial Dawn people is true. They hold that all the heathen and the great mass of Christendom will be raised up in the first Adam state and given a new chance. But this is without Scripture. Romans 1 and 2 are the chapters which deal with the question of the heathen. Chapter 1 shows their state, and lack of excuse. Romans 1:19-20 shows they are condemned by the light of nature; the creation is a witness of God, and they have not heeded it. Verses 21 to 32 show their terrible state, under judicial blinding because of their wickedness. Verse 28 shows that when they knew God (as the descendants of Noah), they did not like to retain Him in their knowledge. The language of man’s natural heart is “no God.” They do not want Him. So God gave them up to a reprobate mind. The same thing will happen to Christendom at the close. Indeed it is fast approaching that state now. Compare 2 Timothy 3 with 2 Thessalonians 2. Romans 2:12 shows that the heathen who die in their sins, perish. “As many as have sinned without the law shall perish without the law.” They have not the law of the Ten Commandments, but God has constituted man in such a way that he knows that it is wrong to steal, murder, etc. His conscience witnesses against such things, and the thoughts accuse or excuse. God has created man as a consciously responsible being, whether he has ever seen the law or not. And this is why they are said to be “a law unto themselves.” It is a principle of his being as a responsible creature of God.

It is true that such as have never had an opportunity to hear the gospel cannot be held responsible for that, but God never leaves man without a witness, and the heathen have it in creation.

I believe if a heathen with the light of nature, broke down and confessed himself a sinner, and cried to God, God would send him light. But the doctrine of a second probation after death is a bad one.

If I have not met the difficulty let me know....

Affectionately in the Lord,

The Term "Gods" in Psalm 82; Greater Works Than These

(Extracts)

April 8, 1899.

J.N.D.’s translation of Psalm 82:1,6 is: “God standeth in the assembly of God, He judgeth among the gods” — “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.” A note is given in connection with “gods” in verse 1, where it is explained to be “the judges.” Compare Exodus 21:6 where “judges” is the same word, that is, literally “gods.”

I don’t know why it is the shadow of Peter in Acts 5:15, except just to show the wonderful power there was to heal in the name of Jesus given to His disciples, the Lord thus honoring His despised apostles. Compare Chapter 19:11,12. See also John 14:12. I suppose, however, the “greater works” are not limited to miracles, but the results of the gospel, thousands being converted in a day. Redemption having been accomplished, greater power flows from Jesus glorified — gone to the Father — than from Jesus in humiliation....

God's Purpose in Trials; Final Blessing

January 18, 1900.

I am glad you are able to go on with the weekly remembrance of the Lord’s death, and with the Sunday school too. It is a great privilege, and if there is faithfulness and devotedness to the Lord, His blessing will attend and follow.

... The Lord allows us to be tried in one way and another in our path here, for good and wise purposes, for He always keeps in view His purpose of final blessing. So our trials will end, and the blessings, full and eternal, will abide. Nothing can hinder His purposed blessing. The knowledge of this is a present comfort to our hearts amid the trials, and whatever the path may be we can always rejoice in the Lord.

We have been finding our stay here a mercy to us in the way of health, while the brethren are very happy to have us with them for a while.

Working in a New Place

Glen Buell, Ontario, October 13, 1903.

Dear brother N—:

... I have been away from home about eight weeks, and have been very busy — meetings every night, and much visiting to do generally. But here, I am in a new place, where there is not much visiting, and am taking advantage of this to bring up some of my correspondence.

I was sorry you could not be with us at the meeting in Des Moines, but appreciated the reason....

We had a large meeting — the largest we have ever had in the West, and I trust it was for general profit. There was much confession and prayer in connection with our low state, and a ministry suited to the condition; and many seemed to go away revived and refreshed.

In September I was also at a small local conference at Columbus, Ky. There were but few there, but it was a profitable time for those who were there.

Tomorrow I purpose, D.V., going to Montreal to attend a conference beginning tomorrow evening, and holding over next Lord’s day. This will likely be a very large meeting,...

I have been working for some weeks in Eastern Ontario, mostly in the parts I worked four years ago. There has been blessing in these parts. At Rideau Ferry about 40 have been added in the meeting during these four years, and some at Perth and Smiths Falls. Here in Glen Buell it is an entirely new place. A young brother lives here with his wife, who got peace when I was at the Ferry, and they wanted meetings, so I am preaching in a schoolhouse. I believe God is working. There are some deeply interested souls, while there is also a crowd of “toughs” about as bad as I have ever seen. But some of these are getting sobered and the rest are under restraint. I trust we shall yet see fruits. I have preached five times and expect to preach again tonight — probably to a full house, as the day is fine. May God work in saving power.

After the Montreal meeting I expect to turn my face homeward....

Barbados

Des Moines, Iowa, January 11, 1905.

Dear brother N—:

... Yes, I have had a long illness. I was taken ill in the middle of November, but kept more or less on my feet until a month ago, when I was laid up completely. I have not been out of the house since, although now I am up and am steadily gaining strength though I have but little yet. I trust I will through the mercy of God, soon be much stronger. It is good to realize our own weakness and our entire dependence upon God. He knows our frame — remembers we are dust — and is full of mercy, and all His ways are ways of blessing, and only such for those who love Him. How good to know that He loves us and can only do us good!

You refer to the work in the West Indies. I am thankful to be able to say that it still goes on with much encouragement. I probably mentioned to you that when we reached Barbados there was no meeting. Two sisters still held to divine principles. But God wrought in grace and filled our hearts with thankfulness and cheer. A number were delivered from Ravenism and several have been delivered from the Kelly position. And there were a good many conversions both of adults and children, and now there are 24 or 25 at the Lord’s table though two or three of these are transients.

The preaching of the Word goes on regularly, and the Lord has made provision for the erection of a suitable meeting room.

In St. Vincent also the work goes on, and the numbers have so increased that they are much in need of two new meeting rooms, and I trust this need will also be met through the Lord’s working the grace of giving in the hearts of His dear people. The people on these islands are so poor that they cannot possibly erect rooms for themselves. But there are others who can, if they have the heart for it, respond to these needs; and our hearts have been cheered in seeing this work of grace go on.

An Unconverted Father Refuses to Hear the Truth From His Son

August, 1905.

My dear Brother:

... I have read your father’s letter with interest. It seems to me the only thing you can do is to leave him with the Lord. I rather think it is not best to write him on what he refuses to hear from you. But you have a resource in God just the same. Your father cannot hinder your carrying him to God in prayer, and if God in sovereign grace takes him in hand, he will not be able to resist His almighty power and grace. Nor need he know of a puny mortal besieging the throne of grace in the simple faith of a child. God is above all our weakness and helplessness, and He is better than all our thoughts of Him, so that we cannot ask Him for too much.

Witness Rahab, and the four who brought the palsied man to Jesus, and the Syrophenician woman who counted that God was too good to refuse a crumb to a dog. In these cases it was simple, child-like faith that counted on the goodness of God, who is above all our evil and unbelief and hardness of heart. And He is the same God still, full of mercy and compassion.

It will be no surprise to me to hear of your father being brought to God through the workings of His almighty power and grace. But I think I would simply cry to God for Him to bring him in His own way. He can use what instrumentality He pleases. And I think I would write to him as a son to a father, kindly and affectionately, but without referring to these matters, save to say to him something like this: Since you do not wish to be written to on the subject of the soul’s future welfare, nor to be “bombarded” with leaflets, I will leave this matter entirely between you and God. It was only affectionate desire for your blessing that led me to speak of it at all.

With some such word as this, I think it would be well to drop the matter, unless he himself brought it up.

I am glad, dear brother, that you and your wife enjoyed the little visit at P. C. We were glad to meet you there, and to have some intercourse in connection with divine things.

Happy are we if these things are ever uppermost in our minds. The Apostle said: “One thing I do.” He had one object — one purpose, and never swerved from it. The heavenly things filled his spiritual vision, and formed his life and course here below. His treasure was above, and his heart was there too.

We had a very happy visit at St. Paul, with some opportunity for ministry of the Word. The four sisters there continue faithful, and God is owning their testimony. Another sister seems about ready to separate from the Presbyterian body. Her husband, too, is exercised by the worldliness in the church, but not as to the church position. He came to the preaching Sunday afternoon, and seemed to enjoy it. The sisters meet on Lord’s day and Thursday afternoons for prayer and reading the Word, and several other sisters meet with them on Thursdays. We hope that some of the men may also be reached, and the table spread regularly.

.. I hope you may be guided of the Lord in your movements.

... We do not forget your kindness to us, and think of it with thankfulness to God.

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

Trial Serving as Discipline for the Development of the Divine Life

(Extract)

October 17, 1905.

Dear Brother:

... We are in a shifting, changing scene, where sin has come in and marred everything. But God uses all for our blessing. We know blessing of a character we never could have known had evil never come into the world. And all that we pass through in trial here serves as a discipline for the development of the divine life. The Lord is coming and then we shall be at the end of it all, and enter on what is abiding and eternal and according to the purpose of God.

Our united and much love to you both and to the children,

Some Wholesome Words on Assembly Discipline

May, 1905.

My dear Brother:

Yours of the 8th inst.... to hand. I am most thankful that the strain that has been on for a good while in the meeting has come to an end. I am sure this is the goodness of God. And I pray that the same goodness may yet lead to hearts being yet further “knit together in love” (Col. 2:2). This is of deepest importance, if there is to be growth and blessing.

I grieve for S. and A. I do not for a moment question that they are wrong in the course and position they have taken; but it is a terrible thing for saints to be cut off — far more so, I think, than we generally realize. And while faithfulness may sometimes require it, it needs to break our hearts.

On this line of things we get some most wholesome instruction in the closing chapters of Judges, in connection with the horrible wickedness of Gibeah, and the Benjamites allying themselves with it. Israel arose as one man against it. And this was righteousness, and faithfulness too. But God would have something more than righteousness, or even faithfulness in judging evil.

Israel united as one man, and 400,000 strong, arrayed themselves against Benjamin and Gibeah, who together numbered but 26,700, and although they had asked counsel of God, they were beaten before Benjamin, and 22,000 perished the first day. The next day they not only asked counsel but wept before the Lord, and still they were again beaten, and lost 18,000 men. All this is most solemn, especially after the Lord, in answer to their inquiry, had told them to go up. What was the secret? I believe it was this: they were acting in simple righteousness against Benjamin, WITHOUT THEMSELVES BEING HUMBLED AND BROKEN BEFORE THE LORD BY BENJAMIN’S SIN.

After being smitten twice by Benjamin, “Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the LORD, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD” (Judg. 20:26). Hitherto their course had been a right one, but it was only now that they had reached a state in connection with which the Lord could give them victory. They had at last humbled themselves before the Lord, and taken the place of entire dependence, and rendered to the Lord His due — the offerings.

And now Benjamin is smitten — practically annihilated. But oh, the sorrow of heart that followed, now that they were in a state such that they could sorrow! They “came to the house of God, and abode there till even before God, and lifted up their voices, and wept SORE; and said, OLORD God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be today one tribe lacking in Israel?” (Judg. 21:2-3).

Their course had been right, but they had to be humbled, and had to learn how to weep, and to fast, and to offer to the Lord. The judgment executed against Benjamin was just, but they had to feel the sorrow of having executed it against “my brother.” So, dear brethren, I do not believe we are in an acceptable state to draw the sword to cut off our brother until we too know what it is to weep, and to fast, and to do it as what is due to the Lord, and be brokenhearted because we must, and because it is “my brother.”

Of course this is not exactly a case of cutting off a brother from the assembly, but it is in principle the same. And I must say I feel grieved that it had to be so. It seems to me, too, that I see distinctly the hand of the Lord in the matter being kept in abeyance so long. Had action been taken at once without patiently waiting, and in love laboring to recover the errings ones, it might have been more serious.

Faithfulness in not yielding to evil is most deeply important. But this alone will not do. We are not called to wield a Jehu sword, though it was perfectly righteous. With us there must be self-humbling — I am no better than my brother — and the working of that love that delights in mercy, and hates putting away (Mal. 2:16).

Now that the action has been taken, I simply throw out these suggestions for the dear brethren who have had directly to do with this painful case. You will find it profitable to review the whole course, and to consider the question, Why did not the Lord permit more speedy action? And I think you will find there was something for all to learn.

Often our thoughts and state of heart have to be corrected, where we are not aware that there is anything wrong. God is full of patience with us, but He is faithful, and He gently leads us on, correcting and disciplining us as we need it. Oh, how good He is, for into what blunders we would often fall did not He check us up, that He might minister suited instruction!

I do trust that matters may now move on in the gathering in peace and harmony, all giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. We have to keep the Lord before us, and learn of Him who is meek and lowly in heart. The meekness, gentleness, patience, grace and love that are pleasing to God are found alone in Christ. And it is in communion with Him that they are reproduced in us in the power of the Spirit.

Now with much love to you all, I remain

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

P. S. Brother — has had thoughts which needed to be corrected, and still has, I think; and I doubt not that the Lord in His faithfulness will lead to this. On the other hand I believe there is much for which he needs to be commended. If ever S. is restored, he will recall — ‘s earnest, faithful, patient, and gracious efforts in love to win him back from the step he has taken, and it may have more weight with him than all else.

No doubt the rest of you have been tried by his resistance of a certain course, and he may have been blamed for obstructive ways, but I am satisfied God has been in this. And looking at things from his point of view, he has been no less tried than the rest. I can see he has suffered deeply in his spirit, and his resistance has been from conscientious convictions. I have no doubt that he and all have gained by the exercises, and perhaps by some correcting of thoughts. All the members are needed (1 Cor. 12:21-26). Even those that are crooked and intractable are useful in teaching us lessons of patience. And we cannot set such aside, unless the wickedness of a perverse will makes it a necessity — as for example, a case of deliberate railing.

The meekness, lowliness, longsuffering, and forbearance in love (Eph. 4:2), which are precious traits of the divine life in Christ, are all developed in a scene where we meet the opposites which call for their exercise. God will not allow us to get on in a “cut and dried” sort of way which has the character of legal righteousness. He works in us, in the midst of exercise of soul, the traits of Christ, which unite with righteousness, grace and love, so producing patience, gentleness, longsuffering, and forbearance.

Discipline: The Spirit in Which It Is Done

November 30, 1898.

My dear Brother:

... I am not so much troubled about the measure of the discipline, as the spirit in which it is done. If it is done in a hard spirit, an injury is done the one dealt with. And this is important. A person might be suspended, or put away, and soon restored again. But if a hard spirit is shown, he is apt to be driven away and overwhelmed. May the Lord graciously preserve from this....

I suppose much would depend on the character of the particular case... Some cases might require extreme dealing with.... The great thing is to have the Lord’s name cleared, and the erring one brought back into the right state. Not only is the guilty one dealt with, but the assembly needs to judge itself, as in 2 Corinthians 7. If this is not done, the assembly is not even in a state to judge one in its midst. Here is where I fear they are coming short in. They can put one away and go on without being troubled about it as if nothing had happened. I say I fear this. I would be glad to know my fears were groundless...

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

December 8, 1898.

Extract from another letter on the above disciplinary matter. Quotation from Mr. Potter: “Let there be no haste or heat, but calm waiting on the Lord, who has allowed things to reach the present stage. Let there be the working out of our salvation with fear and trembling.”

This, too, is good.... We must avoid strife, and seek to act as in the fear of God. If needs any checking, the Lord is able to do it in His own way without our setting about to do it. A human effort in this line might do great mischief. I trust the Lord will give much wisdom to the dear brethren at 0. for whatever part they may have to take in this matter.

I do not think we must be too much afraid of severe dealing in connection with such sins as have come to light. Only it should be in faithful love, and not judicial or legal character....

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

Strained Relationship Between Gatherings

July 29, 1899.

Dear Brother:

... The question of going to the Coast was before us in the Spring, but it seemed the Lord ordered otherwise; and I trust I have had His mind in coming here instead. I may consider the Coast in the winter, but I cannot speak with any certainty yet. I trust the Lord will guide. Mrs. Rule hardly thinks she can go, though she and I both would much like it were we free. We will have to wait and see what the Lord orders!

Here there has been a very critical state — a condition of strained relationships between gatherings, growing out of the conduct of a brother living about half way between. Fellowship has been badly broken up, and four gatherings — all near together — are more or less involved. Satan has succeeded in getting saints to pull apart instead of together and it has threatened serious results. I trust, however, God is at work to remove the tension, and clear away the cause, too. It will be a very great mercy if He does, and I think I can say I have confidence that He is going to do so; and others too are getting this confidence, and seeking His face. I believe it will be followed with very real blessing. Indeed the removal of the trouble will be very great grace from Him to begin with. There are real signs of blessing, and even now, in spite of the tension, there are two or three persons applying to be received at the Lord’s table.

I don’t know that I will be able to visit other places in Canada, save, perhaps, to make a call or two on my return journey. It seems as if all my spare time would be taken up here. Possibly I may be able to run down as far as Ottawa and Montreal for a few days, but I do not know yet.

I was glad to hear you had Mr. P— with you a few days. I understand he is a very helpful brother, and that his ministry is much appreciated.

Well, I should greatly enjoy seeing you all again, dear brother. Mrs. Rule and I have very affectionate remembrance of you all. If the Lord tarry that long, and so direct, I may have the pleasure of seeing the dear saints at O— and other places on the Coast sometime next winter.

What a meeting it will be when we are all gathered above! What greetings! What joys! No friction then, no flesh, no sin, no bitterness — naught to mar our perfect fellowship in His presence! The Father and His glorified children! Christ and His beloved bride, arrayed in fine linen, white and clean! All the fruit of grace!

With hope and courage we may press on.

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

God's Protecting Care and the Lessons He Would Teach Us in Circumstances of Danger

September 14, 1896.

My dear—:

... I have no doubt, dear—, that the Lord has something to say in these things, and that exercise is needed to learn what His mind is. If you will read in Hebrews 12 you will see that there are three things spoken of in connection with chastening. These are despising, fainting, and being exercised thereby. The first two are in verse 5, and the third in verse 11. We are not to despise when chastened, nor to faint under His rebuke, but we are to be exercised; and there is yielded the peaceable fruit of righteousness in those who are exercised. I hope you may be able to learn something from these things, and seek to profit in the way the Lord would have you. It is a serious thing to go through life as Christians, and we need to be daily and hourly cast upon the Lord’s care, for we never know what unseen dangers we may be exposed to. I had mishaps when I was your age and a little older, and little realized what it meant at the time, but I did not know the truth as you do. And in thinking over them since I have seen how God’s care was over me in the midst of terrible dangers, and the thought of these things has often served to make me more careful since. In Philippians 2:12-13 we get “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, to will and to do of His good pleasure.” This is not the salvation of the soul, but getting the difficulties of the way, etc. God works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure, and when we yield ourselves up entirely to Him and His will in simple obedience, we get on. Otherwise we may get into serious trouble; and fear and trembling are not meaningless words. A holy fear is ever needed, and seeking of God’s help and care. And we need to be careful and to guard against recklessness, going on with God, in the sense of dependence on Him. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee.” Isaiah 26. And again, “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress; my God, in Him will I trust. Surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with His feathers and under His wings shalt thou trust. His truth shall be thy shield and buckler,” etc. Psalm 91. It is good to realize the truth and reality of such scriptures. There is a divine care that we can count on. If you will read 2 Kings 6:15-17, you will see how the man of God is protected from danger whether there are eyes to see it or not. Horses and chariots of fire were round about Elisha. Thus God’s care is seen in his case. Nothing can befall us that He does not permit, and if He permits something, He has a purpose in it. And thus we need to seek His face and learn what He means.

I have been having good meetings in these parts and have met with encouragement. I wish you could have been with me....

A Letter of Sympathy

Oakland, California, February 4, 1902.

My dear Brother:

Mrs. Rule has already written you to let you know of my being away from home and so unable to respond to your invitation. I have just heard from her, and have received your letter, and now send this line to assure you and your sister and Mr. of my sincere sympathy with you in the loss of your mother. The word comes to me as a kind of shock, not having heard of anything out of the ordinary with your mother. I knew she had not been well for a long time, but I was not looking for this.

Well, it is a comfort to think of her as with the Lord — all her sufferings and trials past forever. You will miss her. It is always so. But everything here breaks up. It is a shifting, changing scene. Nothing is abiding here. The creation groans, and we groan. Yet out of this ruin God is gathering the trophies of His grace and of His love, for another sphere, where no sorrow ever enters. And for us who believe, infinite love and infinite power and infinite wisdom all unite to secure our blessing. All that infinite love could dictate of blessing has been planned for us. Infinite wisdom is arranging all, and infinite power is carrying out the dictates of infinite love. And this is the resting place for faith in the midst of all that tries the heart in this scene of suffering and sorrow. How good our God is! “If God be for us who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?”

May the thought of His love, and the hope of soon being in His blessed presence, along with our loved ones gone before, comfort all your hearts....

Now with much love and sympathy in the Lord to you all, your wife included, I remain yours affectionately in Him,

Walking With God: Points in the Arrangement of Revelation

Oakland, California, February 4, 1902.

Dear

... I am longing to see you all. It has been a real sorrow to me to think of all they have been passing through. But God has ordered all, and will manifest how wise and good He has been. My health has improved. I think the climate here agrees with me.

I am very glad to hear good word of the meeting in. Glad to hear of J. and N.. I hope they may be able to go on with the Lord. This is of all importance — not merely being at the Lord’s table, but going on daily with the Lord, and apart from the world. Enoch walked with God 300 years. It was not a little bit now and a little bit then, but a steady continuous walk. And he had the secret of the Lord, as we see from Jude. He had the truth that the Lord was coming to judge the ungodly, and his walk was apart from such.

Give J. and N. my Christian love, and tell them I am glad they have taken an open stand for the Lord, and hope they will continue faithful to Him.

I am glad Revelation is opening up to you so well. And I hope you may all reap blessing from the study of it. The general import of the book is very plain, though there are many details which will be fully understood when the time comes. One important thing is to understand that the body of the book ends with the last verse but one of the 11th chapter. All that follows is a series of appendices to open up things not developed in the main part. Chapters 12-14 form the first appendix; 15, 16, the second, etc. The seven trumpets also are evolved out of the 7th seal. The seven-sealed book covers the whole revelation of the things “after these.” Being clear as to these points gives a kind of key to the arrangement of the book....

Discerning the Lord's Mind

My dear

... As to going to—, or—, I have nothing to advise and only desire that you may have the Lord’s mind. And I do not doubt you will get that, if the eye is single; that is, if His glory is the motive.

As to discerning the Lord’s mind, it is largely a question of the state of soul. “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him.” Is the eye single? Do I desire only His will? Am I not blinded through sell-interest or sell-will in some way? Do I refer all to the Lord, and wait on Him, to know His will? If so, He will guide. We do not expect any revelation, or anything extraordinary, but He, by laying on the mind what is pleasing to Him, or by some providential way, will indicate His will. This may be so distinct that it virtually amounts to a certainty in the mind, though we may not be able to prove it to another. The great thing is nearness to the Lord, and a subject mind, with the desire, “Show me Thy way.” He sets before us an open door, with something to indicate that we may enter. We see His hand in it, recognize it, and act accordingly.

This is something we have to learn experimentally. It is not easy to teach it to another, because it is not a mere mental or intellectual operation. Some 27 or 28 years ago I passed through a great exercise of soul as to how I could know the Lord’s will to go here or go there. I spoke of it to J.N.D. once when I met him at Alton, Illinois. The answer I got was, “The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him.” I never forgot it. And I have found since that when I could get no light, there was some cause — something in my state or something that hindered full communion. Often there has been more or less misgiving as to whether I had His mind; but generally I have found that when any step was taken in His fear, sooner or later it became manifest that He had guided. Sometimes it is “bit and bridle” — some restraint — some hindrance — but this is where mere nature is working, or will, and the eye is not clear. And it is a mercy to be restrained rather than to have our own way.

The simple, normal thing is, “I will guide thee with Mine eye.” Psalm 32. God’s Word gives us the great principles. God’s Spirit forms our hearts in these principles; and the little details fall into line with them. We exercise our judgment; but it is the judgment of a “sound mind”; that is, a mind formed in its workings by the Word of God. Then “I have set the LORD always before Me.” This Object forms and governs the motives. It is akin to “the fear of the LORD.” He gets His rightful place in the soul, and He forms our thoughts and desires, and we act for Him....

Principles to Be Exercised in Seeking to Restore an Erring Brother

Des Moines, Iowa, October 8, 1902.

My Dear

... The matter of which you write as to—— calls for serious exercise before God. Harsh criticism is all out of place, and only shows that those who do so have not the mind of Christ. I wonder how many of those who are treating him ungraciously have been praying for him, and, like the priests, eating the sin-offering in the holy place—making his sin their own, and bearing him up in intercession before God!

Love, instead of throwing stones at the erring, seeks their restoration, and those who do not seek this are themselves in a wrong state.

I hope the brethren may lay this to heart before God instead of simply condemning those they think have done wrong.

If anything is done by the brethren, the greatest possible care is needed. What is desired is restoration of soul, and great care is needed not to drive away an offending brother.

The mere fact of marriage itself I think ought not to be touched. Both were in the meeting; and both were free. There was no legal barrier, and so this must be left to them and to the Lord.

Where—has failed, I think, has been manifested in three points. He may, or may not have failed in making his choice — may or may not have had the Lord’s mind in this, and this must be left between him and the Lord. But he has failed, first, in resenting the remonstrances of his brethren. They, it seems, believed he was making a mistake, and tried to set this before him. Instead of getting angry, he should have received this kindly, and thanked them, while laying the matter before the Lord. To say it was “nobody’s business” was to adopt the evil principle of Cain who asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Either must adopt the sentiment of Cain, or else admit that we have a brotherly interest in, and care over, each other. And why should he get angry at those who showed this care?

In the second place he failed grievously toward his children in not considering their feelings in the matter, and in not letting them know of the intended marriage until the last moment. This, I think, was very sad. He may say it was nobody’s business, but it was in a secondary way, at least, the business of all who will be affected by the new relationship. The responsibility was his, but the interests theirs as well as his. And it was not right for him not to allow this consideration.

In the third place he failed very sadly in taking the Lord’s day for the marriage. I have no doubt it has amounted to a public scandal, and it deserves rebuke. And until he owns his failure in this respect it will close his mouth forever against dealing with others as to any breach of that day.

In these respects he has failed, I think, clearly. I should think the thing would be to seek to exercise his conscience on these points, so that he might be led to own his faults to the Lord and to his brethren.

It is no question of putting away from the Lord’s table, but rather “Ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness” (Gal. 6:1). The assembly might enter its protest against the abuse of the Lord’s day.

— has made an utterly false step in deciding to stay away from the meeting. In doing so he judges the whole assembly, and that when the assembly has done nothing. Individuals may have acted ungraciously, but that is not the assembly. And his step in this respect virtually amounts to self-excommunication. How could he have reached such a point without having got away from the Lord in his soul?

I hope much grace, wisdom and patience may be given to the brethren in their handling of this matter. It is too serious a matter to be treated lightly or carelessly. And no one is fit to act in the matter without first humbling himself before God. Let it be remembered that the great end to be kept in view is the restoration of a failing brother, according to the truth of God. And for this the brethren need to be cast upon God who alone is able. I do not think I can say more at present.

Another Letter on Seeking to Restore

October 23, 1902.

Your letter of the 13th was duly received, and I am sorry not to have answered sooner;... I am very sorry takes the position he does. He has evidently something to learn from the Lord; and it may take a good while for him to learn it. I hope the brethren will not treat the matter as if he had done nothing wrong. Those who have acted in a bad spirit, and shown hard feelings ought to humble themselves for this, and own their wrong. But however badly some may have acted, it does not relieve him of his responsibility in having acted wrongly. His staying away from the meetings is not the scriptural course. If everybody stayed away when someone feels offended at him, how long would there be a meeting? There is a scriptural way of proceeding when something is wrong.

The challenge to “show scripture in black and white” has not a good savor. Could he show a scripture in “black and white” for putting away a witch from the Lord’s table? Yet who would question the putting away of such a one? Scripture gives us great principles for our action. Many minor details have to be determined by spiritual judgment. Does he deny having deeply grieved his children in a matter that did concern them? Did it tend to salve their wounded hearts to consummate the marriage in such hot haste? The very haste shown all through indicates to my mind fleshly activity.

And as to the Lord’s day, it seems to me he must be very much under some influence that is not of the Spirit of God not to see that his action was a breach of that day. I am sure every right-minded Christian will allow that the Lord’s day should be specially devoted to the Lord and His service. There are matters of necessity and mercy that have to be attended to, but this was neither. It was one of the first things that struck me in connection with the matter, and was a shock to my spiritual sensibilities. If the Lord’s day can be taken for marriages, why not for feasting and pleasure or even for any legitimate work, such as running a store, or working on a farm? What I fear is, that he has in soul got away from the Lord.

But much care will be needed in handling the case; and there ought to be no haste, but waiting on God, that He may guide and give restoration of soul.

... I trust the Lord will give exercise and guidance in the matter.... Our love also to the saints.

A Case of Restoration

September 28, 1905.

Dear Brother:

I am truly thankful to God for His grace in leading brother to make confession as far as he has done, and to withdraw the charge he made against the assembly at L. One would have been glad to have seen it done in a more hearty tone but I cannot but think it would be a serious mistake if the brethren at L. did not accept this, such as it is, and let the matter rest, leaving it to the Lord to complete His own work.

I believe that and his wife have suffered much in their own spirits, during these seven years past, and that God has been working in them. And we must remember that where there is a naturally proud spirit, it is not an easy thing to make a frank confession. Some can confess without difficulty and then go wrong again just as easily. And we have to make allowance for these differences in the natural disposition.

In this case also we have to remember that Mr.— has felt that he was contending for divine principles, though he admits it was in a wrong way. And they have the conviction that they were not treated rightly. For all this I think we have to make allowance, even though the thought of wrong treatment may have been only imaginary. For myself, I do not understand in what way he was wrongly treated, but I can make allowance for existing feelings caused by his thinking so. I hardly think our dear brother C. makes full allowance for some of these things.

D. made a mistake, and in one of his letters to me, has, in a way owned it. I have had considerable correspondence with him, and I think I know pretty well how he has felt in the matter. The mistakes he has made were well intentioned. He really thought matters were settled, and took Mr. and Mrs. in. He ought to have referred them to L. Then afterward he sought to act the part of a peacemaker, when he ought to have insisted on getting into direct correspondence with L. Now it has come to this, and I think ‘s letter ought to be accepted. D. will not quickly fall into the same snare again. I doubt not God has overruled all for blessing.

Affectionately,

The Truth Revealed - Holding Fast - We Are Not Better Than Our Fathers

Hamilton, Ontario, November 20, 1903.

Dear brother Sergeant: ...

I am glad to hear from you again, and of affairs in New Zealand. I thank you also for the reading of brother Child’s letter, which I return herewith. In a letter sometime ago he mentioned to me the sad ending of Mr. E ‘s path here. Surely it is not difficult to see the hand of God in government in such a case. I dare say there are often cases where His hand is specially manifest if we had eyes to see, but this case is so striking that it would be difficult for any spiritual person not to see it. “Our God is a consuming fire.” God deals with His people according to His own holiness and we may well walk before Him in fear.

All these divisions that have come in are exceedingly sorrowful, and should deeply exercise our hearts. God has something to say to us in them — nay, He has much to say. They prove how utterly unable we are, apart from His grace and our dependence on Him, to hold fast what has been committed to us. We are not better than our fathers. Very early in the history of the Church the great scope of the truth was lost. They did not hold it fast.

And now in the last century, God has wrought afresh. He has given forth a most remarkable testimony to the truth, raising up special vessels, and fitting them for the work. It is a testimony that has been given to the whole Church. It has not been mere fragments of the truth, but the truth as a whole. In Luther’s day it was specially the truth of justification by faith. In Wesley’s day it was more especially the necessity of the new birth, and a life corresponding to the nature and character of God. But in none of these cases do we get the truth in its entirety and unity. In the last century, however, we get not only new birth, eternal life, and justification by faith, but we get the Church — the body of Christ — one body — one Spirit — the presence of the Holy Ghost on earth in and with the saints, the responsibility to keep the unity of the Spirit, the truth as to prophecy and the coming again of the Lord — in fact the whole range of the truth of Christianity has been opened up in a most wonderful way. This has already been done. It does not yet have to be done. God has wrought through special vessels. The truth was already in the inspired Word, but Christendom had become blind to it, and men’s minds being formed by the various creeds that have been framed, a vast mass of truth lay buried amid the rubbish of centuries. In the goodness of God all this has been uncovered, and God has wrought in such a way as to call the attention of the whole Church to what has been brought out. All this has been done. The testimony has been given, and in this sense it is over. It is not that we do not now have the truth. We have it, and are responsible to hold it fast. “Behold I come quickly, hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.” But the special testimony bringing it before Christendom is over. In the last century there was a blessed testimony to the one body. But where is it now? “Brethren?” They are broken up into fragments, and are a testimony in the most painful way to the irreparable ruin of the Church in its responsible character. We have not held fast. All the movements that have gone on under the leadership of men like F.W.G., C.E.S., F.E.R. and the like, have had a retrograde character. The truth had been already given and men were not content. The truth alone did not suffice. Christ alone was not enough. As the Apostle says, “All seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ.” And this was said of those who labored with him. Timothy was the only one he had who was “like-minded.” When this is the state, Christ is not made the alone center. Men make centers of themselves, and then they speak “perverse things to draw away disciples after them” — not Christ. So it has been among us. And we are reaping the bitter fruits. I do not mean to say there are none who are still holding fast the truth. I believe there are, and that there will be to the end; but alas! how many have departed! And how feeble those who in some degree have held fast!

But more. The testimony God has given has been rejected by the professing Church as a whole. And what is the result? God is giving Christendom over to apostasy. They would not have the truth: He will let them have a lie. Along many lines Satan is leading on to this: Spiritism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, Millennial Dawn, Christadeiphianism, Christian Science, Higher Criticism, etc., etc. All lead on to the final apostasy which will carry away the whole of Christendom, when the Lord has taken away the true saints. All this is very solemn, and may well lead us to walk softly and in the fear of God.

I trust the Lord may keep you and encourage you, dear brother, in your position of isolation. We have God’s Word and Spirit. And this is everything in such a day. How blessed to have in that Word the whole counsel of God! And if we so walk that the Spirit is ungrieved, He will not fail to minister to all our need, and to conduct us on in the faith that leads to Christ above.

I have been away from home since August — part of the time in the States and part in Canada. There has been considerable to encourage in different places. I am expecting my wife to meet me at Detroit next week. And we are thinking to go to Rochester, N. Y., to spend most of the winter, seeking to help the scattered sheep there. The time is short. Soon the time of service will be over. And it is good to be diligent during the little while allotted to us. May the Lord keep us true in heart to Himself, and faithful in service — loins girt, lights burning — till He come.

With much love in the Lord,

Revivals

Des Moines, Iowa, March 14, 1905.

Dear brother

I thank you for your letter of the 9th inst. and am glad you feel encouraged to go on. Courage is what we need in a day like this; and, I may say always, for we have a terrible foe to contend against, and he will discourage us if he can.

We can be thankful to God that the needs of His people are being met by such men as Dr. G. We may not be able to go with them in their position, but we can be thankful that the Lord does not forget His people. He loves the members of His body, and provides for them in His own way, when all seems outwardly a ruin.

It would seem that Torrey is being greatly used in England in the conversion of souls, and stirring up the people of God, although all comes short of the divine pattern given in the Word. And in Wales there seems a remarkable work of the Spirit of God, in which the ministers are being practically set aside, and when they undertake to control, or direct the movement, the work of the Spirit ceases, and the Spirit refuses to go on until they humble themselves before God. One feels that there is a good deal of confusion, and a lack of being guided by the Word of God, but the working and power of the Spirit seems unquestionable. Perhaps it is the last gathering into the gospel net before the Lord comes. I am sure we would rejoice to see it spread everywhere, however little part we ourselves may have in it....

I have much before me and must be brief.... Good word continues to come from the West Indies. They were to be in their new meeting room at Bridgetown, Barbados, last Lord’s day, though they have not had sufficient means to make their new seats, for which I am sorry. Some other expenses too, put them quite a bit behind, with nothing in sight to meet the need. I trust the Lord will make a way. With our warm love to you all,...

On Receiving Into Fellowship From Sects and From Divisive Parties

Dear brother G

Your letter reached me just as I was leaving yesterday afternoon. I am glad to hear of the interest you mention, and hope souls may be led on.

I have often had more or less difficulty on the point you mention as to receiving one who is on open ground, or a Grant brother, — one clear as to doctrine and personally godly, and ignorant of the evil in those positions. And I cannot say I can give a satisfactory answer to your questions. What I dread is the deceitfulness of the enemy, working through such cases. “Open Brethren” would like to amalgamate with us, ignoring the past. And if the door were open to any on that ground, it would be difficult to draw the line where we should stop. If one should be received, the other might press, Why not us? and serious trouble would result. This difficulty does not exist as to the sects in the same way. They have no thought of amalgamation.

Then none of the sects claim that they are on the ground of the one body, or that they are meeting on that principle. All those who are avowedly gathered to the Lord’s name claim this ground. The sects own one another as churches, and that all have a right to organize according to their own conscience. Their separate organizations are conveniences to suit their consciences, and they see no harm in organization. And they generally intercommune, though a few do not. Our habit has been to receive a godly Baptist or Presbyterian and the like. But where the avowed creed of a sect involves wickedness — bad fundamental doctrine, or unmoral conduct — a person still connected with such would not be received. He must sever his connection with a position in which he supports such a creed, before being received.

If, in the Briggs controversy, the body had, as such, adopted the wicked doctrines he held in connection with “Higher Criticism,” we could no longer receive a Presbyterian at the table, however godly, because, by his position he is linked with the wickedness. The same principle has seemed to me to apply to “Open Brethren,” because they adopted an evil principle as at Bethesda which opened the door to wickedness, and whatever may be the state of “Open Brethren” now, it is well known, that acting on the principles they adopted, they received persons who held the Newton heresy. Trotter’s paper shows this clearly. But even if they had not received such persons, they received those still linked with the wickedness, though they believed them to be personally clear of the doctrine. This principle they have never withdrawn. It was reiterated only a few years ago. And I have heard it maintained over and over again in the last few years by those on that ground, that we should receive all who are personally clear of the doctrine. A person among them being ignorant does not alter the fact that they are identified with the evil. This is where my difficulty lies. Many a one among them one would most gladly receive if only they broke the link with the evil. For the principle, compare Haggai 2:12,13. The clean does not make the unclean clean; but the unclean makes the clean unclean.

But I have wandered from a point I was starting out to speak of, namely, the difference between a sect and those who once were on divine ground but have departed from it and still claim that they are on it. Now if they claim that they are on divine ground, to be consistent, they must maintain that we are not. Why then should they wish to break bread with us if they think we are at a schismatic table? We can deal with them as to this point in a way that we cannot with the sects, for the sects think the Lord’s table in one as well as another. With them it is only a question of greater soundness of creed in one than in another — not a question of schismatic table.

Then there is another point I have often thought of. The various sects of Protestantism show a struggle to get away from the awful corruption of the middle ages — the object not fully gained — but still a struggle toward the light.

Those who have learned the truth of the Church and have abandoned human system to be gathered simply to the name of the Lord Jesus on the ground of the one body, have come out into fuller light. And generally one from the sects desiring to break bread with us is feeling his way toward the fuller light and where this is the case he needs to be encouraged and helped on. But the position of “Open Brethren” or any who have abandoned the true ground, is the result of a retrograde movement — a distinct work of the enemy leading back to darkness. Many godly ones among them may in a measure recover themselves and even the body as such throw off much of the evil involved in the first assault of the enemy. But still the body remains as a witness to the departure from the truth. Do you not think this bears on the question of receiving?

Take the Raven movement: after the first attack of the enemy, there was a denial and refusal of much that was taught at first. There was an effort on the part of the body as such to throw off a measure of the evil. It was partially successful. But in this case as time has gone on the disease has shown fresh virulence, and the leader is leading on rapidly toward the apostasy. This is more striking in this case than in the other movements, though in the Bethesda movement there was a terrible and blinding power of Satan, from which many through grace were recovered, and many were in a measure freed, though they never abandoned the wrong ground. The general character of these things would make us very careful about receiving those continuing in such a fellowship. I confess I feel it to be different from receiving from a sect whose creed involves no fundamental error. I do not look upon the sects as a work of the enemy, although the enemy has sought to corrupt them. The National bodies resulted from the first effort to get away from Rome. God wrought but the wisdom of man got mixed up with His work, so that it stopped short. The movement of the last century was again a work of God. But now through human failure the enemy got in and all these retrograde movements are the result of his work, though God may have set a limit to the enemy’s power and for the sake of His people in these false positions, preserved much of His truth for their benefit. But the general tendency of the day is toward apostasy. I see a tremendous power of Satan leading along many lines toward that goal the Raven movement one of the worst, and leading surely to that end — Higher Criticism one of the worst among the sects. And there are many others.

As to proof of evil having got in among “Open Brethren,” because the door is left open, I do not think there is much difficulty. We know how it was fifty years ago. And I do not think there is any doubt that some 30 years ago they received Annihilationists. Those holding Annihilation became so bad that afterward, they, at least generally, closed their doors against them. But they were received. I am not sufficiently acquainted with them and their writings to speak of their present state. But I think you are aware that in general each local assembly among them is independent of the others. The principle of independency prevails a good deal as among Baptists.

At the same time I believe there are many local meetings of “Open Brethren” which keep themselves free from the presence of evil doctrine. But the serious thing is, they adopted a false principle in 1848, which they have never recalled.

Manner of Receiving from System and the Question of One Absenting Himself from The Lord’s Table, With an Appended “Memorandum of A. G.”

Manner of Receiving From System and the Question of One Absenting Himself From the Lord's Table

Dear Brother G—:

Your letter of the 13th I found here on my return home in the end of the week, and your card of later date came yesterday....

A point in your card I would like to refer to, so as not to be misunderstood. The sentence is this: “I am not aware that I ever held that visitors must judge their position ere being received.” What I had understood was that the person should be spoken to as to the position before being allowed to break bread, and then the matter left to his own conscience, after the wrong position was pointed out. And I felt that if he were at all sensitive this would virtually prevent him from breaking bread until he was clear as to the position. I speak of this only to hinder the thought that I have said you held the person must first judge the position. This I never heard you say, and I may not have understood as to the other.

As to the case of Mrs.—, if she is staying away as judging the meeting, or because the world has such a hold upon her that she does not care to come, I think it is only right that she should be asked to declare her position, and if these are the obvious reasons for her habitual absence, the assembly, after patient waiting, and effort to restore, can only accord her the place she of her own will takes. If opposition from her husband is the cause of her continued absence, she would need the sympathies and prayers of the saints. All depends upon the facts in the case, and the state of soul exhibited.

No one instructed in the principles of the Word would hold that anyone is free to absent himself indefinitely from the Lord’s table, without being called on for the reason. There is a “within” and a “without,” and the assembly has a right to know who is within. And if there is one who has been within, but is no longer so in reality, the assembly ought to know, and may be called on to declare an incorrigible outside, even though not known as a “wicked person.” We have had such cases here — persons who left the meeting without giving any notice, and when questioned, took the ground of being done with the, meeting. Their decision was announced in the meeting, and the place outside voluntarily taken, accorded to them. One young brother who was said to have left in the same way was written to and interrogated. After some evasion he took the ground of being still with us, and his case still waits, although some of us are far from satisfied as to his state. We have to seek the Lord’s glory, and be guided by the principles of His Word in all these cases. Of course restoration is always to be desired and sought, where it is not a case of proven wickedness, or a deliberate choice of the outside position.

Kindly excuse a hurried line. Our united and much love to you all,

Your affectionate brother in Christ,

Memorandum of A. G.

With regard to the reception of visiting brethren from system, it is clear that they should not be allowed to come and go without a godly effort to enlighten them as to radical differences betwixt what they are upholding and what they have now come in contact with. It is not a light matter whether a saint of God habitually meets in religious fellowship with the world — which is obviously far worse than the secular world-fellowship involved in trades’ unionism — in disobedience; or, on the other hand, in obedience and separation, according to the commandments of the Lord Jesus. The easy-going indifferentism that would allow such visitors to depart uninformed; or with only such a vague and superficial remark as would indicate a matter of small importance, will be contemned by every godly, intelligent brother in the Lord. Loyalty to the Lord Jesus and to the truth of the gospel, and true love (that is, love in the Spirit) to the brother, alike forbid such negligence. Each visitor should be clearly informed, with becoming lowliness, gravity and earnestness, that he is linked with what signally dishonors the Lord who bought him; and this with direct reference to the Word of God. The Lord will doubtless call for an account of our conduct in this important matter, at His judgment seat.

In general it would seem preferable that the instruction referred to should be imparted before the visiting brother takes his place at the table. In this way he would be made intelligent as to what he was doing in circumstances altogether new to him; would be kept from unwittingly rendering himself amenable to scriptural discipline; and prevented from afterward demanding, “Why did you not tell me this before? Had I known it I would have sat back.” There is an undoubted danger of misunderstanding; but with godly care this may be guarded against. If a godly setting forth of the facts deters, it would seem well that one should be deterred. If, in the sphere of divine things, one can only act in the dark, should he act at all? The subject should obviously be left at this point: “We felt it due to the Lord and to yourself, dear brother, to render this explanation; which must not be viewed as the raising of a barrier on our part. It is the Lord’s table, at which there is a place for every saint walking godly and therefore for you. The way is freely open.” It might be that a godly, conscientious soul would respond that he would prefer to further consider the matter in the light of Scripture; and, meanwhile, to take a back seat; and would do so, in appreciation of the faithfulness and candor of the brethren. So doing he would be clearly self-excluded. This guarded effort to impart scriptural knowledge, (which may be refused and still leave the way open) cannot truthfully be termed the conditioning of fellowship upon the knowledge of Church truth; still less would it be the requiring a judgment of the visitor’s link with system. Nothing is required; and the door is left statedly open. When such a course was taken the visitor would probably be much the gainer by sitting back; whereas, by breaking bread in ignorance, there would be a tendency to slur the matter over without serious thought. If, on the other hand, notwithstanding the godly care with which the explanation was given the visitor should be prompt to take offense, he would thereby evidence his being in an unjudged state of soul which disqualifies from participating in this holy remembrance. He, too, would be self-excluded. While principles may be stated, rules must not be formulated. The Holy Spirit is in the assembly and each case, as it arises, should obviously be dealt with in the exercise of faith and dependence, as the Lord may direct. In some cases it would obviously be desirable to leave the explanation until after the visiting brother had broken bread; though it is questionable whether an equally deep and lasting impression would thus be made.

What one fears is a weakening upon points of divine principle by the responsible guardians of the truth; especially where natural relationship or personal friendship have place. But for the intelligence and firmness of some it is to be feared that everything would soon run into the looseness which suits man but is offensive to the Lord. How easy to so act as to signify “I am as thou art”; and thus be commended for “grace,” forgetful that nothing is grace that does not give the Lord His place; but merely human weakness and lack of conscience.

It seems clear that membership of system, backed by known moral ways, cannot be accepted as ground of admittance. In Mr. Darby’s day it might; but there has since been a fearful downward progress. Infidelity is widely and openly taught from the pulpit; the Bible is shorn of its divine inspiration and authority, and regarded as being merely a book of legendary lore and moral precepts; and creeds of once orthodox bodies are swept aside to make way for the admission into the sect of Unitarians and the like. Coming from such a quarter the visitor may well be interrogated as to his faith and baptism; and received rather in spite of than in any wise because of his membership in system. There are furthermore the facts that many ministers are deep in the oath-covered fellowship of secret societies; and that moral delinquency of a serious character is in some cases largely tolerated in order to retain the financial support of the guilty ones. If a visiting brother be a freemason why should he be received; when, if coming from the world he would be refused? My sympathies are with those saints who, with tender conscience, have scruples regarding laxity in receiving from system, though I quite recognize the danger of narrowness with a hard pharisaic spirit. Apart from grace we shall surely fail on the one side or on the other.

Membership in Secret Societies and Trades' Unions

TRADES’ UNIONS

Toronto, Ontario, Sept. 5, 1899.

Dear brother Armet:

... As to the cases you ask about I would say, that I quite agree with the judgment arrived at in your brothers’ meeting respecting the first; namely that a brother belonging to one of these oath bound secret societies having religious forms connected with them should clear himself of his connection with this before being received. Such connection is not only a link with a worldly order, and so an unequal yoke, but it is also identification with a form of religious mummery carried on by confessedly unconverted men in many instances, if not all, and which, if it is anything at all, is connected with the power of Satan. How can a true Christian remain in connection with such, and at the same time go on with God?

As to the other case, I am just as fully convinced that a Christian ought not to belong to a labor union, as that he should not belong to an oath bound secret society. But I am not clear that such a one should be refused, or put away, because of such connection, under certain circumstances. If he took an active part in their movements, strikes, etc., I would not think it could be tolerated. But where a man cannot get work in his trade without such membership, paying his dues, etc., I do not see that he could be put away, if he refrained from active participation in their lawlessness, etc. If such a one were simple in his faith, he would “come out from among them,” counting on God to care for him, as He surely would; but even Christians are often weak, and lack simplicity in their faith, and it is a question how far they can be borne with in such cases. 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 is a blessed word for all who in such cases can act in simple faith. “Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean” is as clear as a sunbeam, and if acted on would not leave a single Christian in any of these societies. And look at the blessed pledge given by “the Lord Almighty.” “I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters.” It is not here the question of our divine birth relationship; but to those who separate themselves morally from worldly association, the Lord Almighty pledges Himself to be a father to them, that is, to act the part of a father, in caring for them. And if He does that what has any soul to fear. He has no lack of resources, and can meet the need of every one who trusts Him for himself and his family. This ought to satisfy every Christian. If we can trust the Lord for our salvation why cannot we trust Him for the path and all its difficulties, without tying ourselves up in these unclean worldly societies? Scripture is clear, and it is only faith that is lacking; and perhaps we may say, the willingness to take up our cross in a path where we are called to self-denial. I trust you may all have the Lord’s mind in handling these cases, so that He may be glorified.

I have been at work most of the time 200 miles east of here, where there has been a critical state of things growing out of local difficulties, which resulted in destroying confidence and fellowship as between gatherings. Through the Lord’s mercy, the difficulties have been removed, and fellowship restored, all winding up with a conference which was attended by almost all of four assemblies which are near each other, with a few also from Ottawa. The heavy clouds have broken in blessing and several have been added to the meetings, and I think quite a number of others will come in. Two-hundred-fifty or 300 were present for the gospel Lord’s day afternoon, and a large number at night also, and blessing at both meetings. Dunlop is there and expects to remain for a while.

Affectionately in Christ,

On the Grant Division

February 1, 1901.

Dear —:

... The followers of Mr. Grant have made a great deal of the action of Montreal in putting him away, as if that were all. They fail to see that even if the meeting at Montreal had put him away without cause, the whole course of Grant and his partisans was schismatic. Must every one who thinks himself unjustly dealt with feel free to begin an independent meeting? The very thought is subversive of all government and authority. Granting that a man may be put away unjustly, his place would be to wait quietly on God to clear up his case, instead of forcing division to the ends of the earth. So the real question is not whether the Montreal action was just the right thing, or not, but whether Mr. Grant and others formed a party, by his new teaching and the pursuing of a partisan course.

While I do not see what else the meeting at Montreal could have done than set Mr. G. aside, I have never doubted that there was failure in some respects as to the way it was brought about, but this does not alter its validity in the least. Nor is there any scripture to prove that an assembly action, in order to be valid, must be unanimous. In 2 Corinthians 2:6, it is simply the “punishment which was inflicted of [the] many.” The Greek has the article with “many,” showing it was the mass, not necessarily all. Mr. Grant was not the only guilty one. In fact, I believe John James was more guilty than he, and was the leader in consummating the division, Grant himself having fallen under his influence. And John James is now with the Open Brethren. Even the principles of Mr. Grant were too narrow for him. But there were a number of other men active in propagating the principles of independency. Was it to be supposed that these would consent to the putting away of the one whose teaching they admired? If a man in a meeting were guilty of highway robbery, and some friends of his were guilty of helping him to keep possession of his booty, is it to be supposed that they would support the assembly in taking action against this guilty man? And if not, must the hands of the assembly be tied by their opposition, and hindered from clearing itself from the wickedness? I put it in this way simply for the sake of the principle involved. The assembly is not infallible, and may make mistakes, but it has authority, and this is to be respected, not rebelled against. And if a wrongdoer has sympathizers, their judgment may be overruled.

It is said that those who went with Grant were “godly” men. I am not disposed to deny it. But their support of him, and their going out and beginning an independent table was not godliness. It was high-handed rebellion, like that of Jeroboam in leading the revolt of the ten tribes. We have to admit that even men who are called “godly” may get into a very wrong state, and do wrong things.

Mr. Grant went from Plainfield to Montreal avowedly to prevent division. I do not doubt he may have been honest in this. But immediately when he got there, I believe he fell into the trap laid for him by James and others. And he and his partisans held a meeting the first night, while another meeting was going on in the assembly room. Did this look like an effort to prevent division? On the contrary, it was already division consummated, all except the public declaration of it. I have a letter of Mr. Grant himself, written, I think, to Mr. Manger in which he convicts himself of holding meetings with his abettors at least twice in Montreal, and twice, I think, at Ottawa, and that while other meetings were going on. These were the distinct marks of a party maker.

When Mr. Grant went to M. he asked meetings of the assembly to look into and discuss his teaching. He might have meant well enough. But was this the path of the peacemaker? The teaching was looked into and condemned by the mass. And he was admonished to cease the teaching of the doctrine. A first and second admonition were both despised.

Now, while the teaching was wrong, it would have been borne with, had Mr. G. not made a special effort to spread it, thereby forming a party. But he made a party by it, and thereby, in the scripture sense of the term, became a “heretic,” that is, the leader of a school of opinion. In this course he persisted against all remonstrance, actively propagating the spirit of division at Montreal, Ottawa and elsewhere, at the very time his case was pending. It was for this the action was taken at Montreal — not the mere fact of his differing from the generally received teaching on certain questions.

But at the time of the action there was a crowning proof of the existence of a party formed by Mr. G. and his teaching. Before the action of putting him away was consummated by reading it at the Lord’s table — when it had only been determined on a Wednesday night, or Thursday night meeting to put him away — Mr. Grant and his party walked out of the meeting, after announcing a meeting at a certain house on Craig Street to be held a night or two after. They did not wait for the consummation of the action to put Mr. Grant away (which actually occurred some two weeks later), but went out as a party, and at their meeting consulted, and under the advice of Mr. Grant, set up an independent table the next Lord’s day. A clearer case of a schismatic action, and a schismatic table, could not well exist. I cannot doubt that the action taken against him was just, even allowing that mistakes may have been made. If Mr. Grant had been right he would have said to those who sympathized with him: Brethren, I do not want, and will not have, a party. I put myself into the hands of God, and will abide His will. And I advise you to remain quiet, and not agitate the matter. We must not on such slender grounds bring about a division among the people of God. We will wait and let God work, and manifest His will.

If he had done this, the saints at large would very soon have seen that Mr. G. was no party maker, and an attempt would soon have been made to show that Montreal had made a mistake in judgment, and calling for a reconsideration of their action, and withdrawal of it. But no, Mr. Grant and his adherents acted in bold defiance of the assembly, consummating the division at Montreal, and forcing it upon all assemblies everywhere. Instead of leaving the case in the hand of God, or in the hands of their brethren generally, they took it out of court. They decided their own case, and deliberately chose division. Submission to the judgment of others was no part of their creed.

I might mention many other details, but it would do no good. The thing is to grasp the general principle, and to see that it is no mere case of discipline, just or unjust, but that a party was formed in the effort to annul the force of much that Mr. Darby taught. My own belief is that the party had its moral root in personal feeling against Mr. Darby. I feel morally sure of this but do not enter into it....

Yours affectionately in the Lord,

On Unanimity in Assembly Decisions and Addressing the Lord Jesus Personally in Worship and Prayer

February 19, 1901.

Dear—:

... If Mr.—, wife and daughter are with you, please remember us to them in much Christian love.... I am sorry, too, that Mr.— is so poorly, though we know that God overrules all these trials for our blessing. The blessing comes through the exercise the trial gives, and if exercised, we are made partakers of God’s holiness. Hebrews 12. It is very sad about the runaway boy, but God can turn this to blessing too, perhaps in the breaking down of the boy through trial.

As to B—, I believe you are better without him, though it is sad to think so of any child of God. I have no doubt, however, that unless humbled and completely delivered from the state he is in, he would give you endless trouble, if among you. I believe he has found his own kind. Headiness, in an independent and unbroken spirit, is what has marked the party from the first. And it was just this spirit that made them take the course they did.

They are where they are, not because Mr. Grant was put away, but because they receded in a spirit of thorough self-confidence and independence. Th moral basis of the schism I believe to have been personal feeling against J.N.D. on the part of F.W.G., P.J.L., and others. This made them willing to oppose his teachings, and to act in defiance of those who held with him. Their state made them fall into the snare the enemy spread for them.

As to the point about which you did not feel very clear, in answering B, I don’t think it is really a question of majorities or minorities. The majority, as well as a minority, may go far wrong. As it seems to me, it is a question of having the mind of the Lord, and of spiritual power to carry it out.

A small minority might have this (that is, the mind of the Lord), and yet be unable to carry the consciences of the rest. And such — after due patience, and having exhausted all means within their power to carry out His mind — might be compelled to separate from a leavened meeting. In any case much patience is needed, and those who have the mind of the Lord about a case should seek to exercise the consciences of the others. A crisis, however, may come, and then it becomes a question whether they have the spiritual power to carry the meeting, in spite of a number who oppose. I do not mean this by a majority vote — though a vote may test the meeting and show where each one stands.

I suppose that in some cases even a minority might have sufficient spiritual power to maintain the truth against the majority, and to hold the meeting as such, while the majority might become demoralized. You cannot very well lay down any hard and fast rules for these things. We have to meet each case as it comes, and there are hardly any two alike.

But while unanimity is very desirable, it cannot be held to, absolutely and universally. In the first place, a man who is on trial is one of the meeting until he is put away. Would B. expect him to agree to a judgment against himself? That would be absolute unanimity. But this is absurd, on the face of it. But if the assembly has power to deal with one man who is under the power of evil, it has power to deal with two or three, or as many as may be under that power. If the evil has so completely got the upper hand that it cannot be purged out, then separation may become a necessity. But it is not a question of a majority, either on the side of good or evil, but of power from God to carry out His will. A reasoning mind might have difficulty to understand this, but if we are with God, when difficulties arise He makes a way which faith discerns, and in which we may walk according to His Word.

Even granting that Montreal was wrong in its action, through error of judgment, the thing for the aggrieved ones was to wait upon God, and let Him clear up the difficulty, unless the wrong action was a case of wickedness, in which case separation might have been justifiable, though even then it would be separation from evil to wait upon God in humiliation and sorrow, instead of rushing off to begin a new meeting the next Sunday.

Your other question about addressing the Lord Jesus personally in worship or prayer is no new one. And yet it seems to me Scripture is clear enough about it. The passage that has stumbled some as to praying to the Lord is John 16:23-27, but it is from missing the force of it.

The disciples had been accustomed to go to Jesus for what they wanted from the Father, thinking that Jesus would have influence with Him, which they did not. They were not in that liberty which enabled them to go directly to the Father. But this would not continue after Jesus was gone to the Father, and the Holy Ghost was come. Then they would be able to go directly to the Father, in the full liberty of redemption and sonship. They would no longer need to ask Jesus in order to get something from the Father. “In that day ye shall ask Me nothing.” You can go straight to the Father Himself, and ask in My name. He loves you because you have loved Me.

But this does not preclude our addressing the Lord Jesus. We own Him as Lord, and in all service we have to do with Him as such. In the consciousness of child relationship I address the Father; as a creature I address God; as a servant I address the Lord Jesus, my Master. In 2 Corinthians 12:8, Paul says “I besought the Lord thrice.” It was a question of service and he thought the thorn was a hindrance, and thrice he besought, not the Father, but the Lord, about it. Stephen commended his spirit to the Lord Jesus, in whose service he was suffering martyrdom.

As to worship also, the passage you refer to in Revelation 5 is in point. We shall worship Him there: why not here? Indeed Revelation 1:5, is present worship. The wise men from the East also worshiped Him when a babe. And as you say, if we were in His manifested presence how could we help but worship? When the heart is perfectly simple there is no difficulty. But when the mind gets entangled with questions we get in a fog. For myself I habitually address the Lord Jesus at His table, as well as the Father. It seems to me most suitable, and I know of no scripture against it. In Hebrews 1:6, we have, “When He bringeth in the first begotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.” Well, if the angels — all the angels — worship Him, how much more fitting that we, whom He has redeemed at such infinite cost in suffering and sorrow should worship Him.

We need to guard against getting into a narrow way of thinking, through want of thoroughly weighing Scripture.... Yours affectionately in the Lord, Letter of Assembly Action at Des Moines Sustaining the Bexhill Action Regarding Ravenism. 1890.

To the Saints Gathered to the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Des Moines, Iowa, December, 1890.

Beloved Brethren:

At a full meeting of the saints gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus in this place on the evening of the 21st inst., after two and a half hours’ waiting on the Lord, and quiet looking into the teaching of F. E. Raven, and the Bexhill-Greenwich correspondence, the following results were reached: A united and unanimous owning of the authority of the Lord in the action of the assembly of God at Bexhill in refusing fellowship to the assembly at Greenwich. We believe the assembly was not only competent, but, under the circumstances, bound, in faithfulness to the Lord, to judge as to the status of the assembly at Greenwich, having received therefrom a letter of commendation at a time when it was allowing in its midst teaching derogatory to the Person and glory of the Lord Jesus. The presence and power of the Lord Jesus give competency, and the character of His name, to which we are gathered, the obligation. (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4; 2 Tim. 2:19.)

While acknowledging our general low state, on account of which we had incurred the Lord’s displeasure, and on account of which we feel deeply humbled before Him, it was recognized that the teaching of F. E. Raven was the immediate cause leading to the sorrowful division which has taken place, and which we deeply deplore. This teaching was the voice of the stranger which scattered the sheep. It is not necessary that the sheep should know the meaning of this strange voice in order to flee from it; it is only necessary they should know it is not the voice of the Good Shepherd. The sheep know the Shepherd’s voice, not the voice of a stranger. Even the babes in Christ “have an unction from the Holy One,” which “is truth and is no lie,” by which they “know all things,” and they are thus protected against every “lie.” They know the truth, “and that no lie is of the truth” (John 10:4,5; 1 John 2:20-27). The Holy Ghost never said that eternal life “was ever an integral part of the Person of the Eternal Son”; nor does He define it as “a sphere,” or “order of blessing,” or “a condition,” or “the purpose of God,” or “a new man,” and such like things. Even though there may be a measure of truth in some of these things, it is not the truth. Nor does the Holy Ghost ever present to us an analysis of the Person of our blessed Lord, in order to show us that some “part” of His Person is eternal life. And so the believer who heeds “the anointing” he has received turns away from all such teaching as being “a lie” and not “the truth.” The Holy Ghost sets before us Christ as “the life,” “our life,” “the eternal life which was with the Father,” the One in whom we have life, “the true God and eternal life” (John 14:6; Col. 3:4; 1 John 1:2;5:20), and ever takes the attitude of glorifying Christ, filling the saints with holy reverence for His name, and rebuking the unholy curiosity that would intrude into the mystery of His Person, or the profane hand that would touch it (John 16:14; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Sam. 6:6,7).

We are, beloved brethren, yours affectionately in the Lord, on behalf of the assembly.

Wm. G. Paterson,

Walter Boyt,

Wm. T. Johnston,

J. C. Quiner,

A. H. Rule,

John Boyt,

E. D. Hall.

Note on an Extract of a Letter from Mr. Raven to W. White

“In resurrection (1 Cor. 15) He is revealed as last Adam and second Man, though ever such in His own Person, for the second Man is ‘out of heaven.’”

This is human reason led by the evil one. Surely the Person who became the last Adam and second Man was from all eternity, and so Scripture does say the “second Man, out of heaven.” The second Man had thus a heavenly origin, not an earthly one. But where does Scripture say, and how dare Mr. Raven say, that He was ever in His own Person the last Adam and second Man? Surely Scripture shows plainly how He became man in His birth into this world (Luke 1:35), and surely it is bold and daring presumption to say that He was in His own Person the second Man and last Adam before He became man at all.

This is the true explanation of the strange connection he has made between eternal life “in essence,” and “the second Man out of heaven,” and shows distinctly the purpose of the evil one to introduce among us a false Christ, for this extract does not give us the Christ of God. Let the reader judge according to Scripture, and let him say whether he can be found identified with such an attack upon the blessed Person of the Son of God.

“But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17). “Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not; for he who greets him partakes in his wicked works” (2 John 9-10).

“Let everyone who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity” (2 Tim. 2:19).

A Letter on Ravenism

June 10, 1902.

... We will be very glad to see something of you and to enjoy with you the communion of which you speak. Of this the enemy has tried hard to rob us, not merely in a practical way, but even denying its possibility. Do you not think F.E.R.’s statement that we have not fellowship with Christ is a piece of heartless, cold-blooded wickedness?

Dear brother, his system as it came out in his readings in America is, in plain words, apostasy from the truth of Christianity. It is in keeping with very much that is going on in the present day leading on to the final apostasy, which will carry Christendom away after the rapture of the Church. We can easily see a tremendous power of Satan leading along many lines, such as Higher Criticism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Adventism, etc., etc., toward the apostasy seen in the “vine of the earth,” in Rev. 14. And these things are not merely local, but general, especially throughout Protestant countries.

One of these lines is Ravenism. Something of a very subtle nature was necessary to catch those in possession of so much truth as the “Brethren” possessed. But now that they are in the meshes of the enemy, how very rapidly all is being given up. “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”

Has it ever struck you that “the fear of God” has very largely lost its place among those who have held the truth as to grace? Where is “the fear of God” in many of the heartless statements that are being put forth by which multitudes are being robbed of the truth? “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.” If we do not give God His rightful place, how can we learn His mind, or retain it, when once we have it? “No fear of God before their eyes” is an awful state.

An Assembly in Disorder

Des Moines, Iowa, June 7, 1897.

Dear Brother

Your letter of the 30th ult. reached me today, and I will try to send you a reply at once. I am exceedingly sorry that such a state should exist in the assembly as things have gone pretty far, when the breaking of bread has to be suspended, and this of itself ought to put every face in the dust. How it ought to humble us all to think that brethren who are members of the same body, children of the same Father, subjects of the same grace, and partakers of the same hope, yea, all indwelt by the Holy Ghost, should be so antagonistic to each other that they cannot carry out the blessed Lord’s dying request, “This do in remembrance of Me.”

I have already had two other letters in relation to this trouble, but I have obtained a fuller and clearer understanding of the case from reading yours than I had before. And perhaps you will not be surprised, if I tell you I believe there is failure on both sides. It seems to me there are both wrong thoughts and wrong actions. I will take up the different points as you give them.

1. “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit.” This is a simple exhortation — a thing to be carried out in connection with a state of “all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.” To keep the unity of the Spirit is not an impossibility. It is possible by the grace of God. We have it exemplified in the 2nd and 4th of Acts. They were of one heart and one soul, and great grace was upon them all. So then, to say we cannot keep the unity of the Spirit is simply to excuse our own sinful state. It is true we have not kept it, and it is true the Lord knew we would fail in it, and because of this danger we are exhorted to keep it. But we must not say we cannot, for it has been done, and by the grace of God may still be done. If we find ourselves failing in it, this ought to humble us, and make us cry to the Lord for more grace. Now whenever you find failure to keep this unity, you will find there is failure as to the graces in the verse before. For instance, you speak of meeting after meeting in which there is contention, “one brother after another shows his weakness in allowing the flesh to act and becoming incensed at cutting language addressed to him, and replying in sharp language, showing his anger,” etc.

Now, dear brother, is there any “meekness” or “lowliness” in addressing “cutting language” to other brothers? And is there “longsuffering” and “forbearing in love” in getting angry and replying in “sharp language”? You see it is failure on both sides. The state is wrong. The heart is not governed by the affections of Christ. Instead of the Spirit having His own way, it is the flesh, either accusing others or defending self and retaliating. Thus the Spirit is grieved, and there is no power. Now if the flesh were judged in all, Christ would have His place, and unity would be kept in the bond of peace — the unity of the Spirit.

As I have remarked above, let it not be said that this unity cannot be kept, for it can. It is a mistake to lay all the stress on the word “endeavoring,” as if we could not keep the unity, but were to try to do so. The word “endeavoring” hardly gives the right thought. It should read “giving diligence to keep,” etc. It can be kept but diligence is needed to do so, and the state already referred to.

On the other hand it is a fatal mistake to suppose that this unity can be kept in a legal way. It must be grace. It must be the fruit of communion with Christ, and living of His life. I cannot take my own yardstick and measure everybody else by that. I cannot lay down my interpretations of Scripture, and say every man must walk by this rule. That is to make a law of Scripture, and put everybody on legal ground. And this is the worst kind of legalism. It is good indeed to have the Word of God for all we do, and to have our minds and hearts formed by it, but we must allow that while the Word of God is infallible, we are very fallible in our understanding of it, and in our interpretations and applications. Hence the need of lowliness and meekness, longsuffering and forbearance. We must allow that other Christians as well as ourselves have the Spirit of God, and are taught of Him as well as we, and they may be right when we are wrong. None of us are perfect either in our spiritual state or our intelligence, and we are all liable to have, or to get, wrong thoughts. Because of this, forbearance is necessary in our present state. If Christ be the object which governs the heart, and we feel our ignorance and dependence, we will get help and guidance by the Spirit. But we must leave others to judge of whether we are spiritual or not. For me to say I am spiritual does not savor of humility. If any man will be wise let him become a fool that he may be wise.

If our minds are formed by the Word and Spirit of God, others will feel the power. If I am giving out the truth in the power of the Spirit, the Spirit in them will enable them to feel this, and they will be edified and helped. If I am handling the Word of God in a legal way, I will only provoke the flesh, and no good will result. There is such a thing as using the Word of God to lash the saints with. This is not grace, and the power of the Spirit does not accompany such ministry. I speak of all this, because I cannot but feel that grace has been wanting. It is well if I can say I have the Word of God for this or that, but if another says he too has the Word of God, and does not agree with me, it shows there is fallibility somewhere — perhaps in both — and the need of forbearance in love, and perhaps the need of our both humbling ourselves before the Lord. We must not say we have reached the point where we do not need these exhortations to forbearance, etc.

Now in saying all this, I do not question for a moment that Scripture is definite, and to be understood, and bowed to. If I am humble and broken and dependent I shall get help in the understanding of it, and may be able to help others. But it is well to know that the most intelligent among us are not one in their thoughts on certain questions. Take for example the question of baptism — not an unimportant one surely. Those whom God has used the most among us during the past 60 years did not see alike on this subject, but they bore with each other in love. Mr. Darby and Mr. Wigram did not have the same understanding of the subject, and Satan would have used this as a wedge to divide them, if he could. But in this he was foiled. How? Because love was active, and they bore with each other. It is said that on one occasion a brother asked Mr. Wigram what Mr. Darby held on that subject, and Mr. W. seeing in the question an effort of the enemy to put himself and Mr. Darby in opposition to each other, replied, “I love my brother John Darby very much.” Thus the enemy was thwarted in his purpose. Mr. Darby was asked the same question on the subject by a sister after he had patiently answered all her difficulties. But she remaining still unconvinced, as a last shot, asked, “Well, Mr. Darby, but what does Mr. Wigram hold on the subject?” The reply was, “Wigram holds his tongue.” It was true, too, for I have been told he never opened his mouth on the subject, unless someone asked something. I mention this as showing the happy effect of forbearance. We ought to be of one mind, but to our shame we often are not. What then? Love suffers long and is kind. I may know that I am right and that you are wrong; but you think you are right. Here patience is needed. I cannot teach you the Word of God with a sledge hammer. The teaching must be through the operation of the Spirit. And grace characterizes this operation. So I must be patient, gracious, loving.

Of course, there are great and fundamental questions where there must be a limit to forbearance. Faithfulness to Christ demands that we be firm when His Person or work are in question; that is, if anyone sets aside the truth as to these. But where souls are sound as to the foundations much can be borne with if Christ is the object of the heart. And if anyone insists on pressing his view on another, even if he knows that he is right, let him first faithfully apply to himself these words: “With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.” I have said a good deal on this point because it is far reaching in a practical way.

2. The power of the assembly to bind and loose; is it infallible? The assembly is not infallible. Its history ought to be abundant proof to all. Every intelligent Christian knows that it is very fallible, just as every Christian is. But while that is true, and must be admitted by all, the assembly has competent authority to bind and loose within its own jurisdiction. As a father, a certain authority is committed to me, and competency cannot be questioned, but I am very fallible in carrying out that authority, and may make serious mistakes. Competency is one thing and infallibility is another. The assembly must act within its own jurisdiction, and in obedience to the Lord. A person goes wrong; he is to be put away; and when this is done he is bound, and the action is sanctioned in heaven. But the assembly is not infallible, may make a mistake; I may be satisfied it has made a mistake, and remonstrate, but still it acts; that is, the body as such. What am I to do? I cannot approve the action; I have protested against it; but am I to take a position of independence? Assuredly not. I need patience and must wait on God to open their eyes, and undo the mistake made. I do not separate from the assembly, unless it has committed itself to deliberate wickedness, in which case, it loses its title to be owned as an assembly of God. But if it is only a mistake in judgment, I do not set my own judgment above it, and act as a rebel, but wait on God, at the same time not approving the act, nor allowing myself to act against my own conscience. There is such a thing as submitting without approving.

What are assembly meetings? My answer is, All meetings that are meetings of the assembly as such. The readings and prayer meetings are surely assembly meetings, as well as the meeting for the breaking of bread. I do not say they have the same character, but surely the Lord’s presence in the midst may be counted on, and the Spirit’s guidance. But the realization of the Lord’s presence, and the Spirit’s guidance, will depend on the assembly’s state.

Has the assembly power to put away an evil person at any other meeting than the meeting for the breaking of bread? I do not like to make this distinction in meetings. You might call a special meeting to take up a special case, as has often been done, and decide that a person proved wicked was to be put away; but it has been customary, and I think rightly, for the person to be read out at the Lord’s table, because it is there that we have the great central and corporate expression of our fellowship. The announcement of the putting away of the wicked person is really all that should take place at that meeting. It is no time or place for going over all the details leading up to it. A called meeting would be more suitable for that. But it is a mistake to force questions of this kind, and shows that questions have a larger place in the heart than Christ and His glory. However, I think every spiritual mind would recognize the fittingness of reading out at the Lord’s table, the name of one put away.

Now, dear brother, I do not want to write too long a letter, and I must close. Allow me to beg of all in the name of the Lord to let brotherly love abound, all bitterness being put away. Be patient one toward another, and let none seek to rule the others with a rod of iron. This I am sure of, if all humble themselves before God and seek His mercy and grace, hearts will be drawn together, and there will be peace. There is no vital question at issue. Let there be forbearance, then, and seeking the Lord’s face together, and go on with “This do in remembrance of Me,” and edifying one another in love.

I have it much on my heart to visit you all; but oh, I would like to see a happier state first, so that I might be free simply to minister Christ. I am not in good health, and my wife, too, is run-down, and we have been talking the matter over as to whether we could go and spend some time on the coast,... early in July. I would much like if we could do this, but do not know that we will be able. May the Lord guide in the matter. If I go, I should in every way desire to keep free from everything of a partisan nature, while I would be glad to help the dear brethren in every way I could. They ought to be of one mind — of one heart and one soul. And if they are full of Christ it will be so. Oh! that it might be so. Try prayer and fasting, as many as feel free to do so. Take a day for it, with special seeking of the Lord’s face, and pleading with Him to draw all hearts together in the truth. I do not suggest this as a legal thing imposed on all or any. But if any whose hearts are burdened will try this as expressing their weakness and dependence on God, they will find it not in vain. “This kind cometh not forth, but by prayer and fasting.” Try it, dear brother, if you feel free to do so, and perhaps others will do the same.

Oh! it is wonderful how God comes in to bless, when we come down to feel our littleness and seek to have in us “this mind which was also in Christ Jesus.”

But I must close. Give my love to the dear brethren, Yours affectionately in Him,

A Letter of Counsel on Certain Matters of Difficulty in an Assembly

Dear brother

... I regret more than I can tell this trouble that has arisen at M between the brethren there and the two brothers at N and I can only pray that the Lord may come in in restoring grace and heal the breach that has been made.

Not being on the ground I find it difficult to form a clear and definite judgment in my own mind as to the existing state. It would seem that not only is there a breach between those in M and those in N, but there is a division of sentiment between brother A and brothers B and C. And this increases the difficulty. The same mail that brought your letter brought a long letter from A, in which he gives his version of the matter. I had already heard from C and had written to him though I found it difficult to write as freely as I would have done if I had had the statement of others as well. Now that I have your letter and A’s I will try to answer both at once and you can pass the letter on to him and the others who are interested in the matter.

In his letter, A mentions some things antecedent to the D matter, which he thinks have a bearing on it. These relate to the question of dealing with the case of Mrs. E who had long absented herself from the meetings; and also the question of allowing one to break bread who still retained membership in some sect.

It would seem that “something over a year and a half ago,” Mrs. F had the thought of bringing her mother to the meeting (with the thought, I suppose, of breaking bread), and that she was told that they would have to tell her mother beforehand that “in breaking bread with us she would be condemning the system she was in.” And it would seem that Mrs. F and Mrs. E felt hurt, and did not come much to the meeting after this. It would also seem that it was proposed

later to write a letter to Mrs. E, which if she did not heed, she would then (or after due time for consideration), be considered as outside. I do not understand that this letter was sent to her. But a letter, not from the gathering, but from a brother, on his own responsibility, was written her, as, I suppose, seeking to exercise her conscience as to the matter of protracted absence. This letter had the effect of leading Mr. E to write this brother, forbidding the brethren to visit his wife any more, “as she was in a very upset nervous condition.” It is not for me to say whether or not this letter should have been sent to Mrs. E. It may have lacked the power of gracious love which wins the heart and restores the soul, or it may have only served to bring out a state which was not pleasing to the Lord. At any rate it was an act of individual service of one toward another, and not an action of the assembly, and should not have been taken as such by Mrs. K.

As to the assembly sending such a letter as had been proposed, I think it would have been a serious mistake. Is Mrs. E a “wicked person” such as is not to be tolerated? Or has she avowedly given up the assembly? Why then drive her out by writing such a letter? For this would in all probability be the result. How much of prayer and supplication has there been for such, like that of Moses who interceded for a guilty people forty days and forty nights? How much heart yearning for poor weak sheep who may be lagging, or stumbling and falling in a path that is none too smooth?

Oh! that the love of Christ for the whole Church might be developed in all our hearts. Of course the glory of God in the maintenance of truth and righteousness must not be overlooked — nay, it requires the first place — but God’s order is, first to exhaust grace in seeking and restoring, in all such cases; and then to let judgment take its course, when wickedness makes it a necessity. Judgment is God’s strange work. If He judges, it is because of necessity — because His holiness demands it. He loves mercy and His grace, so to speak, exhausts itself in seeking to produce a state such that in connection with it He can consistently show mercy.

The question of allowing one who is still in a sectarian position to break bread with us, was, I suppose, raised in connection with Mrs. F’s proposal to bring her mother to the meeting. Now, I don’t know whether or not Mrs. G was a proper subject to be received at the table. I have supposed that she was a Christian, and do not know anything in her life or ways to disqualify. But all might not be of the same judgment. This is simply an individual case, and would decide nothing as to principle; and the principle is the important thing. It does not seem from A’s statement that objection to her breaking bread was made on the ground of spiritual unfitness, but her being a member of some system was raised as a barrier — not an absolute one, but she must be told “beforehand” that, “in breaking bread with us, she would be condemning the system she was in,” and this would be equivalent to telling her that her participation in the ordinance was not desired by the meeting; and, of course, anyone of a sensitive disposition would, under the circumstances, refrain. Perhaps one in a hundred, or one in a thousand, might be found who would nevertheless avail themselves of what they might consider their right, and so participate, regardless of the feelings of those in the meeting. But such a course of handling would, it seems to me, quite unfit any such one to participate in that joyous and holy feast to the edification of his soul. Instead of having the blessed Lord before his soul, and the memory of His death and measureless love filling his heart, he would have his mind full of thoughts as to the way in which he was being treated, and his breaking bread would be little more than a form.

It has been the custom of those gathered to the Lord’s name, from the first, to receive at the Lord’s table known godly souls, who were sound in doctrine and upright in walk, even though still connected with some system, and this without raising the question of their breaking bread with such system. Such souls may have but little intelligence as to ecclesiastical principles — possibly none at all — but they love the Lord, are sound in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, are godly in their walk — perhaps more so than many who have correct views of ecclesiastical truths and they recognize that the table at which we break bread is the Lord’s table, though they may think the same of other tables which are sectarian — the Lord has received them and He appreciates (if we do not), their desire to remember Him — why should we raise a barrier to such? Why exclude them, or at least make the conditions so hard they cannot participate, — without being rude and forcing their own wills?

Of course, a loose habit of going back and forth after the truth is in a measure known would call for godly care and admonition and might call for assembly discipline if a perverse will became manifest. But I do not think that much trouble of this kind has been found in our experience.

Nor is this the ground taken by the so-called Open Brethren. Some of their assemblies throw the door open to all Christians, especially to all professedly separate from system, and some are absolutely exclusive, and refuse to receive any one who does not first break with system. They — at least many of them would break bread with us if we would receive them, showing they are ignorant of the principles of the one body and the unity of the Spirit.

Nor is it the same thing to receive a godly soul who has been brought up in system and to receive one who has broken the unity of the Spirit, and gone off into a position of schism. In the one case you have a soul approaching the light — or at least fuller light — and in the way of being brought intelligently upon divine ground, if love and grace are wisely shown him, while in the other case you have one who has turned his back on divine ground and professedly known light, and placed himself in a position hostile to the truth, but who, because of a lax conscience might be willing to break bread with those on divine ground, while repudiating this very ground. The difference morally between the two is very great.

I have said much more on this line of things than I would — indeed I would not have touched it otherwise — because A seems to think there is a link between it and the present trouble with Mr. D. I fear there is at M too hard a front on this line of things, raising barriers which place the meeting almost on sectarian ground; and I can see how this had disturbed the equilibrium of the meeting before D came. And his coming has brought it more fully to the surface.

I hardly know what to call this, unless I would say it is a spirit of legal righteousness not properly mingled with grace.

This spirit, I suspect, D felt from the first, or almost from the first. But there is another thing I may mention in this connection which seems to me to have increased the difficulty. A says he was cautioned as to D (by B) when he came, as “an erratic and unreliable brother.” Of course this would put A in a suspicious, or at least watchful mood. And all who had similar thoughts would be affected in the same way. This I consider unfortunate. No doubt D has his idiosyncracies, and has made failures, as may be said of us all; but it was rather unfortunate that he should come among those who were looking for these things. If the brethren had been in the atmosphere of Philippians 4:8,9 – “whatsoever things are true,” etc., the effect might have been very different. As it was, D felt, it seems, he was in a hostile atmosphere, which, I suppose, put him in a suspicious mood also, and when such elements exist it does not take long for an occasion of misunderstanding to arise. I do not for a moment wish to condone D’s failures, but I should like to put them in a fair light, and if the others failed also, not to pass them over more than his.

After weighing the statements I have received, I am pretty well satisfied that there has been not a little misunderstanding on both sides, and it would be well if this could be eliminated.

It seems the first Lord’s day D was at the M meeting, he made a somewhat lengthy address before the breaking of bread; and I suppose, at least, in the minds of the others, exception to this was taken, and perhaps it may have been spoken about also. As a rule, I think, it is happy if there is spiritual power to break the bread early in the meeting, because it is what we come together for. On the other hand we must not lay down a rule, and trench on the liberty of the Spirit, only we may expect the Spirit to lead according to God’s Word. And I believe if the meeting is intelligent and in spiritual power the act of the breaking of bread will not be left till the end of the meeting, or near it. In keeping with this, one would regret anything like a habitual making of addresses before the bread is broken. How far Mr. D had been given to this I am not prepared to say. But since it has already been spoken of at M, I may say I have understood he was given frequently to doing this in P to the extent that some were grieved by it, and one at least, spoke to him about it, and was not very graciously answered. One grieves over a thing like this — both the fact of sermonizing before the bread is broken, and the lack of grace shown in not respecting the conscience of one who was troubled. I believe there are occasions when a fitting word spoken before the breaking of bread brings all hearts into touch with the Lord, and thus adds to the joy of remembering Him; but this is different from a lengthy address habitually given at that time. And if a brother habitually gave such addresses before the bread was broken, especially after his attention had been called to the matter I would be inclined to think he either did not apprehend clearly the character of the meeting, or else was disposed to make more of his ministry than of “This do in remembrance of Me.”

The second Lord’s day D was at the meeting, a brother arose and gave thanks at the table at the close of the singing of the first hymn. This seemed abrupt to some, and D took it that it was meant to shut him off from ministry. Well, it might have the appearance of being “abrupt” but I do not see that it necessarily was so, unless there was haste to do so as soon as the hymn was sung. And why should D judge it was to shut him off from ministry? Would not this indicate that he had the thought of ministry in his mind — instead of remembering the Lord? Besides, was not the way open for ministry after the bread was broken?

It would seem, however, that others shared in D’s thought that the early giving of thanks was to shut him off from ministry before the breaking of bread. A seems to have had the same thought and it would seem B said he supposed that was the intention.

Now the brother who gave thanks that morning disclaimed all such intention in a letter to D and the least that grace could do would be to accept the disclaimer. I remember an instance here where the same brother gave thanks at the table just after the first hymn was sung, and here at least, there was no question of shutting off any one from ministry before the breaking of bread. Nor did it for a moment occur to me to criticize him or think there was anything out of place. And I am quite willing to believe that it was not otherwise in M than here. However, if others had the feeling that it was to shut off D, we need not be surprised if D himself took it in this way, only the brother’s disclaimer ought to have been sufficient.

This brings us to D’s prolonged absence from the meetings — eight Lord’s days I understand. I do not see on what ground this can be justified. If D felt that a personal offense had been committed against him, there was a scriptural way to act in the matter, and that was not to stay away, but go to the brother and tell him his fault according to Matt. 18, with the thought of gaining him. But D did not so act. He felt his presence not desired and so stayed away. On the other hand it was certainly the responsibility of the others to look after him and the more so after they learned that he had been wounded. “If a brother be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore him” (Gal. 6:1). It seems A thought D ought to be looked after, and sought to do so himself, but was blamed for so doing by the others. There seems to be the thought that if A had not gone to D, he would simply have remained away and the fellowship of brethren at M would never have been asked, and so there would have been no trouble. If such was the thought, it strikes me as very unhappy indeed, and betrays a lack of heart for an erring child of God. He has gone off hurt; let him go. Is this the spirit of Christ? But if there is no such thought, why blame A for going to see him and trying to disabuse his mind of the thought that the early breaking of bread that Lord’s day morning was meant to shut him off from ministry? It seems to me that A’s course was quite commendable — quite scriptural. And I do not see why he should be blamed unless the others wished D to stay away. Well, after A’s visit to D he came back to the meeting and A asked him and H to take dinner with them, and for this also he has been blamed. Why? One seems to put D’s course on the same ground as 2 Thessalonians 3:11. With the light I have, I am not able to do so. His course in staying away was blameworthy, I fully believe, but so I believe was theirs in not seeking him. And we must remember it was a wounded soul staying away because he felt his presence was not wanted. The day of grace for D had not closed, and A, considering his age and the distance he had to go home, and desiring as far as he could to undo the feeling in D’s mind as to not being desired, asked him to take dinner with him. I do not blame him but commend him. The grace manifested in A may not have been sufficiently seasoned with salt — I am not able to judge as to this — but I believe it was still the time for grace.

The next Lord’s day D was absent again and H present. D’s absence I do not think was a happy sign, unless there was some good reason for it. It was on this Lord’s day, I believe, that H stated it was the desire of D and himself to spread the table in N, and that they desired the fellowship of those in M. Here also, there seems to have been some misunderstanding. The spreading of the table in N did not strike the brethren in M favorably, and it was proposed to wait and look to the Lord during the week, and perhaps decide the next Lord’s day. H does not seem to have understood this, and he and D called on A at the store the next Thursday and told A that they purposed breaking bread in N the next Lord’s day. This was after saying that they wished all to be done in the unity of the Spirit, etc. The distance between N and M was given as the reason for having the table in N. A did not think the distance sufficient reason, but after the question was talked over, he said he could raise no serious objection but spoke only for himself, and said they should see the others also; but he did not understand (on account of another man speaking at the same time) D’s statement that they intended to break bread in N the next Lord’s day. He reported to the other brethren, this interview, but not understanding, did not speak of the purpose to break bread the next Lord’s day. Here again there was misunderstanding, and again A was blamed as to his attitude at that interview, it being characterized as “wishy-washy.” Now I think A might have been more pronounced in urging the need of patience till all were satisfied, but to speak of his position as “wishy-washy” was to use language that could only tend to alienate a brother’s affections, and rouse the flesh to opposition, instead of helping them to reach oneness of mind. Such expressions do not savor of the meekness and gentleness of Christ, and have not their spring in the Spirit. I deeply regret the existence of a spirit indicated by such expressions.

But this, on the other hand, does not excuse the course taken by D and H. The hasty spreading of the table at N seems to me distinctly to savor of the spirit of independency, notwithstanding that independency is disclaimed. When it was known that the brethren in M had objections or difficulties, why not wait for these to be cleared away. D’s statement later that they “did not have to have” the fellowship of M though they had asked it, savors distinctly of independency, or a determination to go on with the matter whether their brethren approved or not. To have their expressed fellowship he felt to be desirable, but the purpose to spread the table was already there, and this seems to be independency. I am not saying whether M was justified or not in withholding fellowship, but asking it and then going against it, was to break the unity of the Spirit, if indeed it had not already been broken before. If D had patiently waited and sought to clear away his brethren’s objections it would have been a very different thing.

Then it needs to be considered that those in N hitherto broke bread habitually in M. They were a part of that meeting. Had it been the case of some Christians living further away, and never having been considered as belonging to the meeting in M, it would have been different. But in this case, those in N formed a part of the meeting in M and could not consistently begin a new meeting without the expressed fellowship of the others. Or were they considered only visitors in M? If the latter, it would put the case on a little different ground. But I do not think they considered themselves, or were considered by others, as only visitors. And if, being a part of the gathering there, they could separate and begin a new meeting at will, why could not any two or three in a gathering, if they thought it more convenient for them, separate and begin a new meeting?

D’s contention that the N meeting is older than the M meeting, because it is a meeting moved out from P seems to me sad. Which P meeting would it be? D was from Oand and H from R and each had a meeting in his house in P. Surely D knows better than to hold out for any such untenable ground. When he left Othe meeting there became dissolved. Individuals move to distant places but not assemblies. When D and H attended the M meeting, was this a P meeting paying M a visit? But surely such things are not soberly contended for.

Now if these difficulties had not arisen at M, and D and wife, on account of age, and the distance between the two places, and H with them, desired to have the table spread at N, I do not see why any serious objection should be raised. I can quite appreciate the feelings of Mr. and Mrs. Din this matter, perhaps in a way that some who are younger could not. And I do not think that I for one would feel disposed to put any barrier in the way, and think it would be a mistake to do so. But I think D and H should wait on the consciences of their brethren.

The way the meeting has been begun in N, I do not see how its standing can be supported. If not begun in positive self-will, it was, to say the least, begun in great haste, and as making a breach between two parts of the meeting at M. I do not speak of what was intentional, but simply the fact — the meeting at M is divided, part of it now meeting at N, without the fellowship of the others.

When visited by the three brothers, D’s losing his temper, and speaking “unadvisably with his lips” like Moses at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, would all seem to indicate an unhappy and unbroken state. I see in it nothing of the meekness and lowliness and longsuffering and forbearance in love in which we are enjoined to walk, giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There may have been something to irritate and there may have been misunderstanding, but these cannot excuse such an outburst of temper with its accompanying utterances. It is right to respect gray hairs according to Scripture, but I see no humility in one who has them using them as a plea for young men to give him honor. It thus becomes self and not Christ. Nor do I see that there is any difference in principle, where it is a question of young men, or older, beginning to break bread in a new place. It should be done in the unity of the Spirit, and old men as well as young are liable to go wrong. I admit, however, that more care might be needed where all were young. But the principle is the same.

D “claims they have no ground for withholding their fellowship and that it was sufficient that they were notified of the fact that a meeting at N was contemplated.” Under ordinary circumstances this would be true, but those in N being a part of the M meeting puts the matter on a different footing, and the fact of existing friction and misunderstanding makes it needful that there should have been patient waiting, and a clearing up of misunderstandings.

After saying so much, little need be said in direct reply to your questions.

I do not see how they can receive N in the present condition of things, without slipping over questions that affect the Lord’s honor.

I could hardly say the brethren at N have placed themselves outside in independency in acting as they have done. There is irregularity in their course and the spirit of independency seems manifest; but the intention to act independently is disclaimed. Any thought of taking ground independent of those divinely gathered is refused by them. It is not an ordinary case of independency. They have not avowedly separated from M but have begun to break bread in N avowedly in fellowship with the ground of the M meeting. But the way they have done this is irregular and apparently willful, or else in ignorance of what is becoming.

The third question seems more complicated. To receive them without owning their wrong would not, it seems to me, be maintaining truth and righteousness and would be smoothing over a breach of the unity of the Spirit, while perhaps both sides might contend doctrinally for the truth of the one body. It is the practical side of this truth that is in question, and it seems to me D and H are not the only ones that have failed in it. Before D came there was already a lack of spiritual unity in the meeting and his coming has been the occasion of bringing this unhappy state more to the surface. Yes, I think to receive them without further question would be to yield D’s contention that he did not need the fellowship of the nearest gathering before setting up a table. It seems to me in this case he should have the expressed fellowship of M in his purpose to spread the table, and without it, his ground is not tenable.

Well, it may be asked, What is to be done? It would be going outside my province to say such or such must be done. The assembly must act as before the Lord. But perhaps I may be permitted to say what I think is needful. What I feel persuaded of is that there has been somewhat of general failure, and that not D and H merely, but others as well, have acknowledgments to make before the Lord. I believe that D and H ought for the present to cease breaking bread in N, and that all ought to get together for prayer, confession and humiliation before God. When all get their right place before Him in brokenness and lowliness, and confession is made where there has been failure, the difficulties will melt away. Love one to another will then have full play and hearts will then be drawn together instead of alienated.

If such a course is pursued I see no reason why then full fellowship might not be accorded D and H in their desire to break bread in N.

I might have written more in connection with some details, but I have already written a long letter and I have but little strength for such work just now. I feel how imperfectly I have written also, but it is far from easy to judge rightly of a case when not on the ground. I have simply accepted the statements of the different ones as true, and formed my judgment accordingly.

Hoping and praying that all may be adjusted according to truth and righteousness and that the dear brethren may be drawn together in the power of God’s grace and by His Spirit, instead of being further alienated, I am, dear brother, Yours affectionately in the Lord,

Review of "Was Moses Wrong?"

October 11, 1898.

Dear brother Potter:

I have read with interest the book you sent me — “Was Moses Wrong?” — and am glad to have had the reading of it, and I thank you for the book....

His remarks on inspiration are very good, and his expose of evolution is really excellent. There are a good many minor points one might criticize, but most of them are not material, until it comes to the question of death, and here I do not feel that I can follow him in his reasonings and conclusions. There is much that is true, no doubt, but I think he has a theory that will scarcely stand comparison with the Word. He makes some very good remarks as to annihilation but his theory in meeting it I do not think is sound. He makes, if I understand him, both death and destruction to be a process. Now I believe each of these terms expresses a state rather than a process. Everlasting destruction he makes to be a process in which the wicked are everlastingly being destroyed, or undergoing a process of destruction. See pages 141 and 158. I do not think this is the meaning of Scripture. He tries to prove, or rather assumes that destruction is a process, and then reasons, that if this process came to an end, the word “everlasting” could not be applied to it. Quite so, but I take destruction to be the state of utter ruin in which the creature will be placed by the judgment of the Lord because of sin, when He takes vengeance. And this state of utter and irretrievable ruin (not annihilation), will be eternal — a state of hopeless and eternal misery — ruin from which there is no recovery.

While he makes some good points as to annihilation, 1 don’t know if he does not weaken his cause somewhat by making too light of the word. If the doctrine were true, I think the word could be used with good enough sense. An annihilationist does not mean that the material elements of which a human being is composed cease to exist. But the man as a man, when destroyed, has no more existence as a man — the man is annihilated — has no more existence as such. Of course we know the doctrine is utterly false, but I do not think you can annihilate the doctrine by annihilating the word annihilation!

Now as to death (and this is the most important), as I understand him he makes it a process, and that when the process has come to an end, as in the death of the body, death is no longer there. In connection with spiritual and eternal death, he uses the word state in a way, but his main point is that it is a process, and eternal death is simply a process in which spiritual death is continued — “people remaining forever depraved and developing naturally toward deeper depravity.” Now I cannot but think this is simply a human theory not in accord with Scripture, a theory too, which does not comprehend the awfulness of what death is under the judgment of God. In Scripture I believe we have, (1) the death of the body, (2) spiritual death, and (3) eternal death, or “the second death.” The two former are immediately connected with the fall, and the last is connected with God’s judgment on the unrepentant in a future day. Spiritual death will no doubt continue in eternity, but the second death is more than that — not men pursuing “their favorite vices” with “unbridled swing” — a very evil thought as it seems to me — but men in the most awfully helpless condition shut up in outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth — shut up in endless despair in a region outside the display of the glory of God’s power, this world passed away from them forever, and the lust of it which they once enjoyed, passed away too, and Satan shut up with them, and as helpless as the most helpless, his career ended, and their career ended, too, in the hopeless misery of “everlasting fire.” This, I believe is weakened by Mr. Denovan’s theory.

If you examine Scripture, I think you will see that the death of the body is generally viewed as that which comes in at the end of the present life — a state resulting from the extinction of the animal life. See Job 3:21; Psa. 89:48; Eccl. 8:8; 9:5; Rev. 9:6; 20:13. I take it to be the state in which the soul and the body are separated, when the body is dissolved — goes to dust. A process goes on which leads to this, but is not the process the working of sin which ends in death? See Romans 8:13; 6:23. The only difficulty I think of is connected with Gen. 2:17, “in the day.” But does this mean more than this: the moment he ate of the fruit, death became a certain result — he was, as we say, a dead man, or as Mr. Denovan puts it — forensically dead, or as we would say of a man who had swallowed a large dose of poison, he is a dead man, although all the struggles to resist the consequences are yet to be gone through with. I think Gen. 3:19 would indicate that the simple external thing was the dissolution of the body. Of course there was a deeper question — spiritual death — but that was not on the surface. Is not the death of the body, its ceasing to exist in living relationship with the soul? Is not spiritual death the soul ceasing to exist in conscious and living relationship with God? And is not eternal, or the second death, man, soul and body, excluded from God and shut up in outer darkness, in hopeless despair, where the hope of returning to a state in which he can be in relationship with God is lost forever? The thought of separation is prominent — separation of soul and body — separation of the soul from relationship with God — eternal separation from God — and all this under His judgment because of sin.

I have but touched on these points. They might be gone into much more fully.... I do not think Mr. D. is sufficiently clear or guarded on the subject of temptation either. God does not tempt men. He proves or tries them, and causes them to pass through needed trials, but He does not tempt — does not seek to induce men to do what is wrong. He permits Satan to do this, where there is a need, or where it will result in good, but that is a very different thing, and all is under His own eye, so that it can only turn for blessing, and for His own glory. I do not think Mr. D. allows for sufficient distinction between the words “tempt” and “try,” though I am aware that there is only one word in the Greek for both.

But there is much in the book that one can be very thankful for. Only it is unfortunate that he is not clearer on the points referred to. I have not called attention to all the points I noticed, but I think these are the principal ones.

Affectionately in Christ,

P. S. I was just thinking of the expression, “the second death,” as a kind of intimation that only one other precedes it, which evidently refers principally to the death of the body, though this cannot be separated from the spiritual condition brought in by the first transgression. But the spiritual state of death spoken of in Ephesians 2:1, and elsewhere, is evidently not the primary use of the term death, though involved in it. The spiritual state is a state brought to light in the history of God’s ways and dealings with man, although what is thus brought to light existed the moment man fell — “in the day” he ate of the forbidden tree. And it may be because this spiritual state is in question, that it is said “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”...

A Brief Reply to a Letter of P.J.L.

Beloved Brethren:

It is painful indeed to be occupied with the sad division that has taken place, filling so many hearts with sorrow, as meeting after meeting is being rent in twain, to the deep dishonor of that blessed Name to which we have been gathered in happy communion with one another. I for one must say I had well-nigh fainted at the Lord’s rebuke, though I trust I have not despised His chastening. That there is a rebuke from the Lord in all this, surely no right-minded person will deny. Well for us then if we take heed, and are exercised thereby, that we may be made partakers of His holiness. The sorrow is bitter and heart-crushing; nor could it be otherwise to any one who has a heart for the glory of Christ, or values the links formed among the saints through the truth — links now suddenly and hopelessly broken. It has been, and is, a terrible trial; and yet I can say, through mercy, my soul has reaped blessing in the exercises passed through, in being broken from man, and realizing in a greater measure that we have to do with God, the living God. God is allowing everything to be broken up, so to speak, so that we may be thrown upon Himself alone. And if He gets His true place in our souls, the exercise and sorrow will not have been in vain.

But while these links with our brethren are being thus broken, I am sure we need to watch against narrowness of heart, the stream of divine love being dried up within. If God gets His rightful place in our souls this will not be so, for, while “God is light,” “God is love” also; and if Christ is in us, it is the Christ in whose face shines forth all the glory of God’s grace. May we indeed be filled with that Christ, and allow the radiance of that glory to shine forth from Him in us.

And now, beloved brethren, bear with me, if I call your attention to two or three points in the letter of our brother, written in reply to mine. But for the principles involved, I would not notice it. But it seems to me there is a giving up of principles in order to maintain a false position.

He charges me with “perverting judgment in simple souls who allow leaders to think for them,” and so forth. This is a serious charge. I leave it to the Lord and my brethren to judge if it be true. When I see that I have been “perverting judgment,” I trust I shall have grace given me to confess it both to Him and them. I know I am a poor fallible creature, and I would not dare to say my letter was free from error in judgment. I can only say it was my conviction of what was the truth in the case; and I cannot say that my judgment has materially changed since.

I think more has been made of my judgment of the N.H.H. (Natural History Hall) action than is just. I thought then their action was a mistake. I cannot now say it was a mistake, though there may have been mistakes made in connection with it. And if it was a mistake — if they had not the Lord’s mind, then they pressed their own wills. I did not, and do not, charge them with doing this knowingly. I have given them credit for being honest in their convictions and have no reason to doubt it now. Had they persistently forced a judgment which they knew was wrong, I could only say it would have been iniquity, and separation from it would have been the only right course, unless there was repentance.

Our brother says it is “iniquity of the worst kind, because it is the will of man in the things of God.” Well, it is surely very sad if man’s will gets to working in the things of God. But does the dear brother not know that it is a very easy, and a very common, thing for man’s will to get to working in the things of God? Will he say his will never works in these things? I fear very few of us would dare to say we have never been guilty in this respect. Is not his statement rather strong then? And may it not tend to “pervert judgment in simple souls”?

And now as to the repentance of an assembly. Our brother agrees that this should be granted, and asks: “What has hindered the repentance of N.H.H. since last December? What hinders it now?” Does he, then, after all admit that if N.H.H. would repent, those who separated would return again? They charged N.H.H. with willfully setting up a table on new ground; and then it is said they “continued” the Lord’s table in Craig Street. Did this party have charge of the Lord’s table? And did they remove it from N.H.H. to Craig Street? Or how could they leave that table to return to N.H.H., on the repentance of that meeting? Or would they bring it back, and “continue” it in N.H.H.? But is not all this absurd on the face of it? What then? Either the Lord’s table had ceased to exist at N.H.H., and had to be set up again instead of “continued”; or else those who separated left the Lord’s table, and set up another. I believe the latter is true, but even if it were otherwise, where was there any door left open for the repentance of the meeting they separated from? To set up the table at Craig Street was to say, it is gone from N.H.H., and the meeting disowned of the Lord — too late for repentance. Was this course merely haste? I believe it was independency. They judged their own cause, took all into their own hands, and set up the table immediately. Can they wonder that many believe there was a strong party formed in defense of Mr. and his teachings? How different it would have been if they had refused all thought of a confederacy, and individually waited for God to plead their cause! How universal would have been the conviction of the saints that no party was there, and that the accusations were false!

But does not our brother “pervert judgment in simple souls” when he makes a parallel between leaving a merely human sect, and leaving a meeting that has been owned of God as on the ground of His Church? The cases are not equal, and “it would seem some species of blindness” (to use his own words), must have hindered seeing it. I could not speak of a sect as “abandoned” etc., simply because Christ never had His place in it as a system. I left the U. P. Church because I saw the Lord never had owned it, nor the Spirit acted in it as such. Far be it from me to say there were not many godly people in it, owned of the Lord, and wrought in by the Spirit, too. But the system as such has no place in God’s Word, and therefore no claim on my conscience no matter how pure in doctrine or morality. Could our brother say this of an assembly that has been gathered according to the truth? Could he leave such an assembly just as he would leave a sect? The cases surely are not parallel.

Where then is the “perverting of judgment in simple souls”?

But surely it may become necessary to leave an assembly that has been divinely gathered. This I do not doubt for a moment; and Scripture will surely furnish us guidance in the matter. Now I think no one will deny that we are to imitate the Lord’s patience and long-suffering toward a declining assembly. Let us then see what light Scripture furnishes as to the extent of His patience, and when it may be said to cease. A few examples will suffice, and we may begin with Corinth. In that assembly there were parties. “Every one of you saith, I am of Paul,” etc. They were “carnal” and walked “as men.” They had an incestuous man in their midst, and instead of mourning were “puffed up.” When they came together at the Lord’s table, it was not to eat the Lord’s supper but their own, and one was “hungry, and another, drunken.” Chapter 14 would also indicate that they were using gifts to display themselves, instead of to edify one another, and that their women were speaking in the assemblies. Chapter 15 shows that some denied the resurrection. And the second epistle shows that there were “false apostles” among them, ministers of Satan, transforming themselves “as the ministers of righteousness.” All this shows how sad their state was. The Lord was judging and rebuking, bringing in among them weakness, sickness, and death, to wake them up from such a state. But this only showed that He had not given them up as an assembly. The Apostle also was in accord with his Master, writing to them, and seeking to lead them to the judgment of evil, and of themselves as its root.

In 3 John we have a little insight into another case. Diotrephes loved the pre-eminence, swayed the assembly, received not the Apostle who wrote to the assembly, prated against him with malicious words, received not the brethren and strangers who for the Lord’s sake went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles, forbade the brethren to receive them, and cast out of the Church such as would. It is possible the “well-beloved Gaius” had been cast out, and the apostle encouraged him in his good work of receiving and helping forward these brethren. But the assembly was not given up. The apostle expected to go there, and would remember Diotrephes. And if Gaius or others had been cast out unjustly, there was no thought of setting up an independent table, but they would wait for God to plead their cause.

Again, if we look at Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, we can easily see how terrible was the decline, and how far evil and corruption had gone before the Lord gave them up. Of course, I speak of these as local assemblies whose state is described in the Word. I do not speak of the prophetical application to the various stages of Church history. We get “the doctrine of Balaam” and “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” in Pergamos; and in Thyatira, Jezebel is suffered to teach, and to seduce the Lord’s servants, etc. The Lord indeed threatens with unsparing and terrible judgment, unless there was repentance, but He had not yet given them up. Sardis had a name to live while dead — sunk down into the world, though yet having a few names that had not defiled their garments. Laodicea was really worse than all, full of pretension, self-satisfied, while really indifferent to the truth, and heartless as to Christ, lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, a nauseous thing to Christ, who was ready to judge it. But He had not done so yet. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” What wondrous patience! How His heart lingered with the yearning of divine love, over an assembly about to fall under His judgment.

It is not a question of a sect which never had a claim upon the consciences of the saints. It is an assembly which we must admit the Lord has owned as His, at least in times past; and these scriptures show clearly the greatness of the Lord’s patience in such a case — a patience which assuredly we are to imitate. It is easy to ask, “Could you call the table in such a place the Lord’s table?” and add, “If so, you and I have parted company.” One might do that and then go and sit down at a table the Lord never owned at all. Brethren, let us not carry our heads too high, lest the Lord cast us into the ditch to humble us yet more. It is right to abhor evil; the Lord help us to abhor it as He does. But the evil of self-righteous independency is as much to be abhorred as any other. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall; and let us not in fleshly zeal forget the patience of our blessed Master, in the presence of whose holiness we can only say: “I am vile.”

But it is written, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” “If a man purge himself,” etc. Most blessedly true; and with my whole soul I desire these words to have power over me. But there is no conflict between these scriptures and those we have been examining. The Lord’s long-suffering patience is unquestionable, and this we are to imitate in the fear of God. Are we then to approve the evil we find in an assembly? Surely not. On the contrary, we are individually to set our faces against it — to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.” If we suffer in consequence we can look to the Lord for grace to suffer. If we are cast out, we can humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and He will exalt us in due time. Let us not forget that He is on the scene, and that He “is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”

But suppose the assembly as a body has sold itself to iniquity, so that the Lord’s patience is exhausted, and it has “ceased to be owned of Him, abandoned as a lifeless corpse in which the Spirit of God no longer acts,” then there remains no other way but to separate from it, to depart from iniquity.” There is both the purging ourselves from individual vessels to dishonor, and departing from iniquity which has leavened the whole meeting. We are to depart from iniquity whether it be as characterizing the individual, or the assembly. With my whole soul I receive this as God’s truth to be acted on.

But I dare not pass such a judgment as this on N.H.H. If their judgment was faulty, or premature, it is to be regretted, and happy it would be to see some acknowledgment of it, for the sake of the truth, and for the sake of many who have been unable to express their approval of it. But I dare not say the Lord gave up His assembly there, and therefore I cannot own the position of those who went out, judging their own cause, and immediately setting up a table in deliberate rejection of the one at which they had sat the previous Lord’s day. I can see in this action only the spirit of independency — a spirit of evil which, when fully ripened, will bring God’s judgment on both Christendom and the world. Alas! that even now true Christians should be affected by its “blighting influences.” The Lord keep us humble and dependent amid the dangers and sorrows of this trying hour, waiting also for Himself to come and take us out of the scene of conflict, to present us to Himself amid all that wealth of blessing and glory purposed in Him before the world began.

I only add a word for those troubled about going on with the old meeting at Montreal because unable to approve their action. As another has said, “It may yet be found that the brethren there were standing more firmly for the truth than we supposed”; and I am sure it will be well for any who are in doubt, still to wait on God, who can make all clear. “He that believeth shall not make haste.” Have not many erred in hastening assembly action? Is it not better to wait and see what God is doing? Is it needful to press upon assemblies the endorsement of the Montreal action? Is it not better to leave this simply with the Lord, until necessity arises for action? I do not mean by this that we are to hold any neutral position. The Craig Street meeting was clearly the result of separation from the Montreal assembly, and not from that only, but from all gathered on the same ground; and all who have identified themselves with this new meeting have joined in this separation, while all that have taken no action still stand connected with the old ground just as truly as those who have expressed their approval of the Montreal judgment. If something is wrong in the action of an assembly, reconsideration may be sought, and God looked to, to work and to correct, by what instrumentalities He pleases; but this is a different thing from assemblies all over the world sitting in judgment on the action of some assembly, and owning or disowning the assembly, according as they approve or disapprove the action. An assembly, though competent, is not infallible, and may err in judgment, but it does not follow that it is to be rejected in consequence, though one could not express one’s approval of what might be an error. And I beg my brethren not to allow mistakes that may have been made at Montreal to be thrown as dust in their eyes, to pervert their judgment and draw them into independency. This, I believe, the enemy has assiduously sought to do, and alas! has succeeded only too well in many cases. May the Lord enable us to withstand his wiles, having on the whole armor of God.

Your affectionate brother in Christ,

Des Moines, Iowa, June, 1885.

A Few Simple Notes on "Life in Christ, and Sealing With the Spirit"

INTRODUCTION

The letter of our brother Pinkerton given in the following pages of this paper, it is hoped will prove very helpful to many at the present moment, when not a few are wavering and in doubt as to what is the truth in regard to certain questions that have been raised of late. It is hoped also that the few remarks appended will at least be helpful to some as a corroborative testimony. The paper is intended to call attention to a few points only, connected especially with the foundation of the system, and is in no way a review of the whole book. The book has been somewhat elaborately answered by others. But it is thought a short paper, such as the simplest reader may understand, might reach some who would not be reached by larger papers.

Many have passed through much exercise of soul as to the ecclesiastical phase of the trouble; but this in many instances has been without any clear understanding of the doctrines in question. The book is thoroughly misleading in its character, owing to a systematic perversion of Scripture in the effort to establish the doctrine. When the real character of the book is seen it greatly simplifies the ecclesiastical question by showing that the Montreal judgment was just. I speak not of details connected with the action, but of the judgment itself. There may often be failure in the manner of carrying out discipline when the discipline itself is needed and just, a humbling thing in itself, yet true. We must remember also that at Montreal the difficulties were great. Had it been some obscure and uninfluential brother that had been called to account and dealt with for the same offense, it is doubtful if a single question would have been raised by any. But this was not the character of person they had to deal with at Montreal. He was one well known and esteemed far and wide as able and gifted, and was supported by a powerful and determined party. This made it no easy matter, and this we ought not to overlook. It is not that I would make light of failure, if such there were. If we have failed, we need to clear ourselves, so as to be fully approved of the Lord. But I make no accusations.

How deep the exercise of heart I have passed through, the Lord Himself knows, and how nearly all courage was gone. But He who casts down, raises up again, blessed be His name! The sorrow has been great to many, but even now the clouds are breaking in blessing, and the Lord will bless. But this will be as we humble ourselves before Him. Humbling is surely called for, and exercise of heart before the Lord. He has allowed a breach, and it is not without a purpose. May all hear His voice and learn His mind.

I must add yet a word as to two former papers I had written in connection with these troubles. I feel it is due to the Lord, and to my brethren, to say I now believe they were faulty in their bearing on the N.H.H. judgment. I would remark in explanation, not excuse, that the first was written in reply to a private letter from one of Mr. Grant’s supporters, with whom I was in correspondence, and whom I greatly esteemed; and what was said as to “intolerance,” “human will,” etc., was said rather in the way of admitting charges than of making them. This I think any one would discern by carefully reading the letter. Yet I believed then that what I wrote was true. Time however has wrought a change, chiefly through seeing more clearly what the doctrine is, and the fixed purpose and determination to hold, defend and teach it. But I make no excuse for the past, and now withdraw all that might be construed as a charge against those who sought to stand for the truth. In doing this, I do not thereby affirm that there was no failure in the manner of the action. I believe now the judgment was righteous, yet I may perhaps be pardoned if I suggest that if there had been more patient waiting and laboring in grace, the heretical doctrine and course would have become more palpable to the saints, and there would have been more unanimity and power to throw off the incubus. But I do not accuse my brethren, and count on the Lord’s grace both for myself and them.

A Letter by B. F. Pinkerton

Dear Brother: The copy of Mr. Grant’s new book you sent has reached me, and I have looked over it to ascertain its main points. I have made a few simple notes on it which I now copy for you.

The first chapter is entitled “Life in Christ.” It is not a question of our being in Christ, or of our having all our blessings in Him; but of how we are in Him. Mr. Grant’s first proposition is that “we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” Let this statement be weighed, and kept well in mind; for it is the keystone of the arch on which his system rests, and if it fails the system built on it fails also. He has definitely formulated a proposition to express a subject in controversy. Others have taught that life, immense blessing that it is, does not, considered in itself, give us position in Christ. Hence the author’s proposition might be stated in stronger language without doing him any injustice. He really affirms that we are only in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him. It is admitted that we are in Christ; he affirms that we are in Him by virtue of life, as against those who would say that we are in Him by some other of the divine acts.

I have gathered most of the passages in the epistles in which persons are said to be in Christ. They are Rom. 8:1,16:7; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:17,12:2; Gal. 1:22; Eph. 1:1,2:13; Phil. 1:1,14 [in the Lord], 4:21; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1,2:14 [assemblies]; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Peter 5:14. There may be some others, but these suffice my present purpose.

My first remark on these passages is, that there is not a syllable to indicate that persons are said to be in Christ by virtue of the life they have in Him. I need not quote them, for you can easily examine them for yourself. I only take one or two as an illustration. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). I understand the phrase, “them which are in Christ Jesus,” to mean simply Christians in the ordinary sense in which God’s Word describes a Christian. I see them described very sweetly in Romans 1:6-7. The author, as we know, is very fond of talking about life, and quickening; would he, or any other, venture to put “quickened ones” instead of “them which are in Christ Jesus”? I venture to say he would not do so. No one with the Word of God before him would venture to say a quickened one and a Christian are synonymous. Take also 1 Corinthians 1:30, “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus.” It is simply Christians. So also “a man in Christ” (2 Cor. 12:2), is Paul’s description of himself as a Christian. So much for the passages which speak of persons being in Christ.

I am aware that the author takes his stand on Romans 6, and finds in it the stronghold of his system. He says of his first proposition: “It is plainly stated, ‘Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God, in Christ Jesus’ “ (Rom. 6:11, Greek); and again, “ ‘The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Rom. 6:23).” I ask, is it not plainly stated here? “Reckon yourselves... alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” or “in,” as it may be rendered from the Greek. “In,” or “through,” is perfectly immaterial to me for my present purpose. Is reckoning ourselves alive unto God in Christ Jesus the new birth, and our being in Him? I answer most assuredly it is not. First, as to life through new birth, it is not a matter of reckoning at all. We are born of God, and know it; and humbly and thankfully confess it. We have only to compare many passages which speak of this subject, to see that reckoning does not come in at all. To introduce it would pervert their meaning. The Holy Ghost has put the language of certainty and divine assurance into the mouths of believers. Second, as to our being in Christ, reckoning is again out of place. “No condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” “But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus.” It is not a matter of reckoning at all. I am a man in Christ, and so describe myself, just as Paul describes himself.

Reckoning has its divinely appointed place and meaning, and is the right word in Romans 6:11; yet, as we have seen, it does not apply either to the new birth, or to our being in Christ. If God is speaking to us as saints, as believers, and the question is, shall we continue in sin, or get the victory over it, He tells us that we died with Christ as to sin, and are alive unto God in Him, and here the reckoning of faith comes in. It is a truth we receive on His testimony. It is not experience, or knowing that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren. In spite of my experiences that may go to contradict it, I make this reckoning, and by it get power over sin.

Romans 6:23 does not touch our author’s proposition at all. We must recall it for the sake of clearness. It is, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” The apostle says: “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through [or in] Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now this affirms nothing about our being in Christ at all. Eternal life and all God’s good gifts are certainly in Christ, even to the supply of our creature needs. Philippians 4:19, “But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by [in] Christ Jesus.” With a concordance one can find an immense number of passages which speak of our blessings in Christ. I once saw it stated that there are nine hundred such. Hence it is not in dispute that eternal life is God’s gift through or in Christ; for surely it is. But how are persons in Him? Of this Romans 6:11,23 say nothing.

Again eternal life in this epistle is looked at, not as a present possession, but as something we are going on to at the end. See Romans 2:7; 5:17-21; 6:22.

But the author’s system requires that it be introduced into chapter 6 as a present possession; and if what he says be not well founded, his system falls to the ground. Again when Scripture speaks of our being in Christ, either plainly or by implication, it seems to me that it mentions our being in Him where He now is, not risen only, but ascended also. And if this be so, Romans 6 would not apply to our being in Him thus, for He is only spoken of here as risen. See verse 4. He is only spoken of as ascended, in Romans 8:34.

What then is to be our judgment of a system of doctrine founded on a misapplication of the very passages which are alleged to plainly state it? It fails at the very outset, for it will not bear the light of a very simple analysis and examination. Romans 6 neither states plainly nor by implication “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” It might be said that it is elsewhere found in the Word. But even if we should admit the possibility of finding it elsewhere, that would not relieve the author’s system of the charge I am making against it. He affirms that it is plainly stated here, and makes two quotations as being the main proof of his first proposition; but neither of them contains anything of the kind. I have no thought of following him in his after reasonings on this subject. He has based his doctrine on Romans 6, and affirmed it to be plainly stated there. And if this be not correct, he has in my judgment forfeited our confidence in him as a teacher, at least on this subject; and, if wise men, we should follow him with caution in the development of a system which so manifestly fails to support its first and main proposition.

I am aware that he does not pause to comment on Romans 6, but hastens on to find in 1 John 5:11,20 a parallel doctrine as to our having life in the Son. But if one is going to find or draw a second line parallel to another, must he not find or establish the bearings of the first? Now here is an alleged line of doctrine as to our being in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him, said to be characteristic of Paul’s teaching, and affirmed to be plainly stated in Romans 6. We have looked at it, and found nothing of the kind. How then can we affirm that John’s is parallel to it, while different? We have as yet no basis for making a comparison, for the first line does not exist, save in imagination. James and Paul both teach justification by faith; and I can open Romans 3, and James 2, and find it plainly stated. Spiritual discernment is needed for me to see wherein they differ, without any contradiction; but the subject is there. The author says: “The parallelism of these passages it is hardly possible to doubt.” It seems to me he never loses anything by want of boldness when uttering most questionable propositions. But whatever 1 John 5 may mean, I doubt its parallelism with Romans 6. In fact the two subjects are as different as can be.

Again he says: “In the same sense in which Paul affirms that we have life in Christ, John affirms that it is in the Son.” Nov will you pause with me for a moment, and observe how completely the author has shifted his ground, and introduced another proposition altogether? It is done so quickly the reader would scarcely mark it, unless he paused to weigh the force of words and analyze the proposition.

“Paul affirms that we have life in Christ; John, that we have it in the Son.” I do not inquire where Paul affirms that we have life in Christ; for he doubtless does so: but I ask did anybody ever doubt this? This is not in controversy at all. We have life in Christ, and we have it in the Son too. But this is not the author’s proposition at all. He started out to prove to us from Paul’s writings “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” I have stated repeatedly that we have life and every other blessing in Christ, and should not value anything we could have out of Him. But the real question is, how, or by virtue of what, are we in Him? Some one might say that we are in Him by faith; another, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and still another, that we are in Him as Christians; that is, that all the divine acts and operations that constituted us Christians or saints placed us in Christ where He is before God. But the author’s proposition in opposition to all this is, “that we are in Him by virtue of the life we have in Him.” His whole system rests on this, and yet he fails to bring forward one proof of it. In fact he shifts his ground, as we have seen, and brings in another proposition, and argues on that as though it were the one in question. This is not handling the Word of God faithfully. I am willing to believe he was not aware of the sophism. I judge he fell into it from having a theory as to life which required a perversion of Scripture to gain for it even a semblance of support. In fact, the title of his tract, “Life and the Spirit, and what is associated with each in the Scripture,” is itself a fallacy. For Scripture does not give us one class of blessings associated with life, and another associated with the Spirit. It is not even decent theology. For, to be that, it ought at least to be capable of a logical division.

But our author has said, that “In the same sense in which Paul affirms that we have life in Christ, John affirms that it is in the Son.” I repeat, it is not in question at all that we have life in Christ, and that we have it in the Son, but when he says “in the same sense,” I do not accept his statement at all. He quibbles on the expression “in the same sense,” but he would not dare to say plainly that the passages in Paul’s writings have the same sense those in John’s have. And yet this is the meaning of his statement. The misleading character of this is plain enough.

I remark here also, that I use the term “life” as we are accustomed to use it; but our author, while he says “life” means by it, “life,” “eternal life,” “life in the Son,” “life in Christ,” life such as the old saints could have, and our Christian life, in fact a regular fox — like statement, that you can take as you please, or rather that he can use as he pleases. There may be logic in this, but it is not logic such as the Spirit of God could use in the unfolding of truth, though it be such as his system requires. There is method in his system, but it is the method of deceit as Ephesians 4:14 (JND Trans.). I know that his subject is “Life in Christ,” or “life in general,” or life in all its different states and characteristics and spheres of action and affection and objects, all reduced in his crucible to a conglomerate mass. But notwithstanding it was not by chance that he boldly starts out with what he calls “my first proposition”; for this is absolutely necessary to his system. Upset this, and the base of the system is gone. For with him “life” must do duty on every occasion, instead of faith which gives us an object, instead of the Holy Spirit also; and this “life” may be something dormant, only to be conceived of and reasoned about, without knowledge, and without affections; or, when the exigencies of his system require it, it is the very reverse of all this. And the effect of this mode of handling Scripture is to plunge souls into confusion, and toss them about on the uncertain waves of mere human reasoning. Divine certainty is gone; and the soul is either puffed up by some supposed new and wonderful development of truth, or made to feel its leanness while feeding upon the vapid speculations of a mind that has wandered from the certain and divine landmarks of God’s Word.

II.

We come now to the chapter on Sealing. My first general remark is, that I have looked over the chapter with some care, and failed to find a clear, definite answer to his question, “What is sealing?” If anyone who has the book has found the answer, and will be kind enough to point it out to me, I will gladly stand corrected. The reader thinks he is going to get the answer at once in plain, definite statements; but after a few remarks, and a quotation from Kitto as to the original use of a seal, the author proceeds to what I must call a very miscellaneous discussion, without telling us what he understands by sealing as taught in the Word of God; so that we could consider his discussion in connection with the proposition laid down. It is not for me as a reviewer to supply so great an omission. But in order to have the subject before us with some definiteness, I will say that our being sealed by the Holy Ghost is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13 and 4:30. I will further say that I have always understood that we use the expression, sealing by the Holy Ghost, conventionally; that is, we refer to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers by using an expression which refers to only one aspect of it. It would be just as correct to say the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the gift, or the earnest, or the anointing. The great foundation truth is that God has given to us, as believers, the Holy Ghost as a definite and specific gift which characterizes us as Christians. It is not the foundation, for it is given to us as already in relationship with God. It has to do with our state, to form and characterize it as Christians. Men may not be able to understand the force of the figure in the word sealing; or they may make a mistake, as I judge both Grant and Kitto do in their remarks about the original use of the seal and its import abstractly; but no Christian can afford to make a mistake as to the great fact that the Holy Ghost has come, and that He has been given to us to dwell in us. No doubt His work in us is manifold, for He is the agent of all the divine operation in us; but the first great fact is that we have the Holy Ghost. Sealing, as I have generally understood, expresses the fact of His having been given to us, to dwell in our bodies. Or if one does not wish to be so specific, He is God’s mark set upon us; we are persons characterized by having His Holy Spirit. There may be the collateral idea of security, as the author suggests when speaking of the use of a seal abstractly. But I do not know that we are entitled to take that out of the figure of the seal.

The use of the seal is quite common here. I go to the market and buy some goods. I first make them my own by purchase; and then as a mark of public appropriation I put my seal on them. Anybody who sees them can see whose they are. Whether I am able to preserve them inviolate is another question, and depends on other means I may have at my disposal. Still I do not question that all sealed will be kept till the day of redemption. In fact all God’s acts of grace for us and in us involve security, from the fact that He is the actor. But the Holy Ghost is also the earnest. 2 Corinthians 1:22;5:5; Ephesians 1:14. We have not the inheritance yet, but we have the pledge or earnest of it. It is said (2 Cor. 1:22) that God has given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. It seems to me “the earnest of the Spirit” is the Spirit Himself, but considered in this one aspect of His indwelling and work. He assures our hearts with reference to the inheritance, and molds our affections accordingly. He is also the “anointing” (1 John 2:27). And this, it seems to me, is explained in the context. It is the Holy Spirit given to us, to abide and teach us all things. He is elsewhere called the “Spirit of truth.” Here He is said to be “truth and no lie.” For it is He who communicates truth effectually and gives us divine certainty: so that we can say, “We know,” in the presence of all that would seduce us. This is one means of security against false teaching, according to John.

I have said that the author has omitted to answer categorically his own question, “What is sealing?” as he should have done in a word like this. And I look also in vain through the following pages of this chapter for any plain statements as to the great truth and fact of the presence of the Holy Ghost and His indwelling in us individually. Let the reader here, if he will, refer to the well-known tract of Mr. Darby on Sealing by the Holy Ghost, which Mr. Grant aims to disprove, and he will see a perfect contrast as to the method of treatment. Although he entitles his tract “Sealing,” etc., it is at once apparent that he only adopts this title conventionally, for he proceeds at once to discuss and establish the great fact of the Spirit’s presence and indwelling.

But our author does not do so. He refers to Romans 8 and Galatians 4:6 for the Spirit’s witness of Sonship — important texts, but far from covering the ground in question. Godly men of all ages, ignorant of the Spirit’s presence and indwelling, have dwelt much on these texts, and have seen truly a part of His work in God’s children, but not the distinctness of His presence in the Church, and indwelling in the saints. I may be pardoned for asking if the author sees any further than they saw. And if I were to answer from what is before me, I should say that he does not. This, however, is a case for spiritual discernment, and I admit that I may be mistaken. I must make another remark in passing. Godly men, as John Owen, who wrote much on the Spirit of God and His operations, were confessing what light they had, and the Lord used much of what they wrote for edification. We, however, have been favored with more light; and hence, if we refuse it, or obscure it, can the Lord bless our ministry? I judge He cannot.

The author plunges, I must say, into a mere side issue, or collateral question that really does not seriously affect the great question at issue. He discusses the question of how sealing is effected. Is it by special faith in Christ’s work? or is it by faith in His Person? He, of course, rejects that it is by faith in Christ’s work. I do not wish to enter into this question, but only remark that the means by which God is pleased to impart His Spirit, is to be kept separate from the great fact of His being imparted. I should certainly object to discussion of the means with anyone, until I knew certainly just where he stood as to the great and fundamental fact of the actual presence and indwelling of the Holy Ghost. And, indeed, if I saw that he held to the distinctness and order of that, I for one would not wish to enter into controversy about the means of it, although I certainly hold this to be important in its place. And a deliberate denial that the Spirit is imparted in connection with an apprehension of Christ’s work is to reject what characterizes Christianity on its subjective side. I said its distinctness, that is, that it is not to be confounded with the impartation of life, or with anything else not itself: and its order, that is, that it is a gift bestowed on us subsequent to our believing, and given to us as believers. The time, long or short, that may elapse, is not of vital importance to any who hold to the distinctness and order of it.

But the admission of any time is fatal to Mr. Grant’s system; and he feels this and passes it by, by saying that the well-known cases recorded in the Acts have no representative value for us in our day. In his tract he left no room for time, but in his book, I believe, he admits that there may be a brief interval of no practical importance. He repeats that it is the sinner that is quickened, and the saint who is sealed. But a man may say this, and still have a theory which confounds the communication of life with the gift of the Spirit; or in fact may have a system in which there is no room for the gift of the Spirit, save in words only. And this is my judgment of Mr. Grant’s system. It is a system in which sealing, as it is called, forms no part. I am quite aware that he uses the term, but I have failed to find that he attaches a clear and definite meaning to it. I believe he fell into a mistake about life, making that the basis of everything, and that led him in spite of himself into a system in which there is no room for what is distinctly Christian relationships, and Christian state. In fact the very life he speaks about so much, and drags into the discussion of almost every point, is to me a very low life indeed, without knowledge, without affections, without proper relationships, and in fact, shorn of all that characterizes Christian life, as I have understood it. And I judge it will sink lower still, if he attempts to vindicate his system against the objections now being urged against it by many.

I think I can say that I have not been prejudiced, save what we all have against a new system. Mr. Grant has a new system and avows it. They are views, he says, that have long been maturing into conviction in his own soul. And certainly he himself has taught differently at one time on some of the points now raised. He ought to have fairly stated this, and the reasons that led him to change. But it seems to me that he has not fully, as it is said, “the courage of his own opinions”: for when challenged at Montreal he attempted to alternate by quotations from others, to show that what he had was not new. His use of the writings of others has been exposed. I only allude to it in connection with my above remark. He has issued a system which must stand or fall by its own merits.

It has been intimated that his writings have been misunderstood and misjudged. We know that this may take place, especially when some truth heretofore unknown to the Church of God is first brought to its attention. But in this case it seems to me that the very allegation of having been misunderstood is not to Mr. Grant’s credit as a teacher. For his system covers ground perfectly familiar to us all: it contains not one new truth, but undertakes a new grouping of known truths; and, I believe, erroneously. This is why I call it a system; it professes to group and arrange certain truths.

I believe in the definiteness of truth. I have no creed-book, nor do I use Scripture as one. We are supposed to know the truth, and be able to say “we know.” It is not a question of being able to teach. I may know the truth, and reject what obscures it, or denies it, without pretending to teach others. I may give my reasons, but that is not teaching. Mr. Grant ought to have been able to express himself so as to leave no room for being misunderstood. But I believe he has been understood, and I have seen some answers to what he has taught, which I believe are intelligent. No one writer has professed to take up all its points (for the author has been maturing it for years); but I see great unanimity in the different answers, although they have not been prepared in concert.

I believe that Mr. Grant’s doctrine is heresy, and that the Church of God has only done its duty in rejecting both him and his doctrine. It traverses truth we have been holding with God. I understand that doctrinal heresy, as to its nature, may be new opinions of any kind. In Scripture it is set down among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), and we are expected to judge it, just as any other of the flesh’s works when they appear in the saints. I have no more uncertainty in rejecting as error a system founded on a wrong use of Romans 6, than I have in rejecting one that perverts Romans 3.

As to the plea that Mr. Grant did not press his doctrine on anyone until he was violently attacked, and then published it in self-defense, I think this, too, has arisen from the fact that he got a little frightened when he found himself challenged by those who were determined to deal with him. What struck me was that his book was published by our brethren, Loizeaux Brothers, and came out with their imprimatur. This has never been done by brethren. Even printing establishments, not helped by contributions, have felt the importance of not knowingly issuing matter that would cause controversy. I am sorry for our two brethren. I do not believe they knew what they were about. I believe they were deceived in Mr. Grant whom they thought to be a great and wonderful teacher. They are themselves most useful men in their own line. But alas! they are sadly astray. May the Lord in His great grace do for them what He has had to do so often for us, restore them.

I consider that Mr. Grant’s system has been exposed, and his book answered. As a system it is not likely to take deep hold on men’s minds. It is too negative and metaphysical. A system to get a hold on men must be simple and positive, and meet, to some extent, practical wants and cravings of minds and hearts. Many, I judge have been carried away by the ecclesiastical part of the movement, and really as yet knew but little of the doctrine. Now that the breach has taken place, there will be a reaction. Some, “after vows, will begin to make inquiry.” A painful process, no doubt, but it will take place. Many at least will see and hear enough to get their confidence in Mr. Grant as a teacher, shaken. Even if pride and other motives keep them with the party, it will check his active influence over them. Satan has long been weaving his spell over a good many, and even those who have rejected Mr. Grant’s system and party have been intimidated. For intimidation is one of Satan’s most powerful weapons. But by degrees you will see this fear removed. Many yet yield far too much to Mr. Grant, rather admitting that he was wrongly put out. I am not blaming them, for they have been passing through a terrible ordeal. But when Satan is attacking we never gain by temporizing and desiring half and half measures. For my part I am thankful that any have stood fast. Satan’s spell is broken, and the error in doctrine he has been seeking to patch on by degrees to the truth, has been cast out; and many will be delivered and restored.

The question has been asked, “If the tract contains the heresy charged, why not leave saints to judge the doctrine on its own merits, instead of judging the person first, etc.?” And more than one has pressed this point. That is, spread challenged doctrines far and near under our imprimatur, and ask for a kind of plebiscite of the saints! This is not even good independency, for even Independents have their convocations, etc. But the answer seems to me to be simple. Heresies are set down among the works of the flesh which any assembly of God is supposed to be able to judge; nay, is solemnly bound to judge. All these fleshly fruits differ, no doubt, in character and the degree of aggravation of guilt. We have no need to make an extraordinary case of alleged heresy at all. I put myself deliberately in print, and give cause for questioning. I put myself in correspondence with saints in, and when the assembly is in anxiety present myself there. The assembly is perfectly competent to deal with me. I mean not the question of jurisdiction technically; but their ability spiritually. If I act as a man of God, I recognize that I am in the position of an accused person. I do nothing but simply state clearly what I teach, and whether I am open to conviction or not, I leave it to them to fully investigate the case. I want no party, and would not have one. They act on their responsibility, and condemn me. I now take my place in silence and under suspension. If I do so, that will of itself assure them, and saints elsewhere, that I am not wishing a party; and if they have been hasty or prejudiced, the door is now open for them and all to consider the condemned doctrines. And the Lord is over all too. And if there be such a thing as truth, and the certain knowledge of it, it will be arrived at. But submission is not in the program of many in our day. I repeat, every assembly, in principle, is supposed to know the truth. If the assembly at, for instance, after twenty or thirty years of being taught is not able to judge doctrine, it speaks badly for its teachers. If we teachers, with all the facilities afforded us, have brought assemblies into such an unchristian state of ignorance, small loss if they silence us all. But to allege that any one assembly, in principle, is not able to discern sound doctrine, and maintain it, is really to deny it to all. Hence you must have a Synod, or a Pan Assembly, or what in itself is ridiculous, a plebiscite, or sort of people’s judgment. An assembly will bind all who own its authority, but a plebiscite would bind none. But I add not. B. F. Pinkerton.

Further Remarks on the Subject of the Foregoing Letter Scarcely anything could be added to the foregoing letter, to show more clearly how untenable is the position of Mr. Grant in what he calls “My first proposition.” Yet I feel so much the importance of seeing clearly the fallacy that underlies this “proposition” that I venture a further word.

The author says this proposition is plainly stated in Romans 6:11,23. I have sought in vain to discover any such statement, or even any such thought in the verses, either directly or indirectly. I will give the two verses as he translates them, and will ask the reader to note them well, and see if any such proposition is in them as the author states; that is, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” The words are these: “Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” “The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” These are the scriptures that he gives as the foundation for his first proposition, which is the basis of his system. If the reader can gather from these that we are in Christ by life, he will do more than I have been able to do. I have tried to look at them every way, both separately and together, and have utterly failed to discover in them the author’s proposition, “that we are in Christ by virtue of the life we have in Him.” Surely the author must have been strangely prepossessed — infatuated, may we not say? — with his system, to find a foundation for it in these scriptures! To have plainly stated his proposition, the scriptures ought to have read, “Reckon yourselves alive unto God, in virtue of which life you are in Christ Jesus,” and “The gift of God is eternal life, in virtue of which life you are in Christ Jesus our Lord.” But the author with all his ingenuity cannot make them so read. He would have been just as near the truth, and as logical, had he said these scriptures plainly state, that we have life by being in Christ, instead of that we are in Him by virtue of life. But they affirm neither the one nor the other, and to bring into them any such thought is to bring into them what does not belong to them at all. The strange thing is that any person of ordinary mind and intelligence should have imagined he had made such a discovery.

We may now look at several scriptures which will illustrate the fallacy of Mr. Grant’s mode of interpreting Romans 6:11,23. Let the reader mark the following passages: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” “For in Him were all things created.” “And in Him all things consist.” Acts 17:28; Colossians 1:16,17. In these passages and many others which might be quoted, we have the same mode of expression as in Romans 6:11,23. I have translated the preposition uniformly “in,” because in the Greek it is the same in all these cases. Now according to Mr. Grant’s mode of interpretation, Acts 17:28 would prove that as God’s creatures we are in Him by life, by motion, and by existence, because it is said we live, move, and have our being in Him. And Colossians 1:16,17 would prove that “all things” are in Christ, or rather in the Son, by creation, and in Him by their subsisting together. The folly of all this is plain. It may seem unkind to speak or write in this way about the teaching and interpretation of one who has been so highly esteemed as a teacher. It is no pleasure to do so, but only pain, and my only excuse is the desire to preserve others from falling into this pernicious system which we are invited to receive as a new development of “truth for the Church of God.”

What then, may be asked, is the force of the expression “in Him,” in these passages? I answer, whatever may be its force, it is worse than folly to apply to it any such thought as position or standing, such as we have where it is said, “them which are in Christ Jesus.” I may say, however, “in Him” in Acts 17:28, seems to me to characterize our living, moving, etc. Our life and existence are dependent on His power, and it is “in Him,” or “by Him,” as the One on whose intrinsic power all hangs. It is substantially the same in Colossians 1:16-17. It is in the power of the Son that the whole creation took its existence, and in the same intrinsic power in Him it subsists together. And as to Romans 6:11, I would suggest, without dogmatizing, that a similar thought underlies the expression “in Christ Jesus.” In verse 10 we read, “For in that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.” He no longer lives in the sphere in which He had to say to sin. All this is left behind, and He now lives in resurrection life, outside of, and forever beyond, the region of death. Resurrection has introduced Him into a new sphere, where there is no sin to have to say to, no death to meet, where God is everything, and where He lives unto God.

But all this displays God’s working for us, to deliver us from the position and condition in which sin had dominion over us. Christ died unto sin; it was for us, and we account ourselves to have died with Him — to have died to sin — to the whole condition in which we were sin’s slaves. But Christ who died for us, to deliver us, lives again — lives unto God in resurrection life beyond death and having to do with sin. It is all for us, and we account ourselves alive unto God in Him. We live to God in this new character of life. It is not only that we live; the life which we live is characterized in that way, that it is “in Christ Jesus,” that character of life in which He lives unto God in resurrection. No doubt we are in Christ as living this life. This I fully admit; but it is not the question here. Here it is the character and power of the life in which we account ourselves alive unto God, and by which we gain liberty as those who were slaves to sin. And blessed it is to the soul to enter into this divine reckoning, and by it to refuse sin’s reign in our mortal bodies and to yield ourselves up to God as alive from the dead.

I do not enter into the shades of difference between what we have presented here in Romans 6, and what is presented in Ephesians and Colossians in connection with our being quickened together with Christ, etc. But I would press the point that new birth is not the subject, important as it is in its place. This matter of being “dead to sin and alive unto God in Christ” is made a matter of reckoning, because it is something that may contradict our experience, while the new birth is never made a matter of reckoning at all. New birth is a subjective work wrought in us by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word; and no doubt new birth is involved in our being quickened together with Christ, but the latter is much more than new birth, because it is our association with Christ in resurrection life. This life is presented objectively in Christ raised up from the dead, and seated in the heavenly places, and the quickening and raising up are seen as effected in Him. It is all presented to faith, and made good to us-realized in the soul — by the power of the Holy Ghost through faith. The power of life and resurrection is realized now in us, though we are not yet seated, save as Christ is seated, and, to faith, we in Him.

I repeat, this life, which is distinctively the Christian life, is much more than new birth, though we must be born again to enter into it. It is presented to us objectively in Christ who died and is risen again, and now lives to God, all question of sin and death left behind forever. Faith lays hold of it in Christ risen, and its characteristic power and blessing are realized in the soul through faith, by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, and acting in us according to the object in which faith rests, the blessed Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. When faith enters into this, it sets us, not only as to our position in Christ, but as to our state of soul also, entirely and forever beyond the dominion of sin and death, in the cloudless region of divine love and favor, in the liberty also, and joy of the Holy Ghost. This, new birth never could do. The necessity of the new birth, and its importance, I have no desire to undervalue. But there is no necessity for confounding things which in Scripture are distinct, and have their own characteristic force and meaning. Rightly dividing the Word of truth is needful to the understanding of it, either in whole or in part.

As we have already seen, the dogma that we are in Christ by life is a pure assumption on the part of the author, without any proof whatever. But this is not all. It is made the basis of a system which teaches that O. T. (Old Testament) saints were in the Son, and had eternal life in the Son; and that the only difference between life as possessed of old, and life as possessed now, is, that as possessed of old it was “life in the Son” simply, while now it is “life in Christ” also, who endows its possessors “with the value of His accomplished work.” This we must now look at a little.

I would remark that it seems a little strange that the author should connect “have it abundantly” with “life in Christ” instead of “in the Son.” According to his own statement “life in the Son” is John’s doctrine, while “life in Christ” is Paul’s. Yet Paul says nothing of this, while the Lord Himself, the Son of God, says, not in Paul, but in John, that He had “come that they might have life, and... have it more abundantly.” But this is just what might be expected of a system that requires the warping and disjointing of Scripture to give it even a semblance of support. The simple fact is we do not need to go outside of John’s Gospel to find this life more abundant. It is simply that life which was manifested in Jesus, the Son of God, here below — that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto the apostles, and which was given to His sheep in the power of resurrection. “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” This He did in the power of a life the devil could not touch, even though He passed through death, the stronghold of Satan’s power. His death laid the basis for our receiving the life, and “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood” all bear witness. “And this is the witness, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life (R. V.); he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life” (1 John 5:11-12). The Son has been manifested — manifested in flesh, and accomplishing redemption — and is presented to faith according to this manifestation. Faith receives Him, and “he that hath the Son hath the life.” This is life as revealed in Christianity, life in the Son, and life possessed by everyone who has the Son, and only by such.

But this brings us to the question, “Had the O.T. saints life in the Son?” Now it is surely plain from the passage we have been looking at, that having life in the Son is connected with having the Son in whom the life is. “This life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life.” I ask, then, had the O.T. saints the Son? Neither the Son, nor the life, had been manifested. God had not yet even given His Son, nor had He yet been presented as the Son to faith. How then could they have either the Son, or life in the Son, when the Son had neither been given nor presented to faith? Let the reader note well the simple fact, that in 1 John 5:11,12, having life in the Son is connected with having the Son Himself — the Son given as the gift of God — the Son manifested in flesh, and accomplishing redemption, and he will easily see how groundless is the assumption that the O.T. saints had life in the Son, and that it is a misleading dogma, forming an integral part of an utterly false and unscriptural system.

And if we cannot say scripturally that the saints of old had life in the Son, much less can we say they were in the Son, as the teaching of the author assumes. “ ‘In the Son’ means life ‘in the Son,’ “ he says, thus linking the two things together; in fact, making them the same thing. But he gives us not a word of proof for this. He assumes and asserts it, and if positiveness of assertion were proof not to be questioned, his book would surely be proven, for of this there is no lack. But we have already seen that there is absolutely no proof that the saints of old had life in the Son, and if it were true as the author asserts, that this is the same as being in the Son, it follows that both these propositions fall to the ground together.

But we must look a little at the author’s reasoning on this point; for it seems to me that he seeks by a deceitful and pernicious handling of Scripture to prove his point. He quotes John 17:20,21 as a “direct and conclusive statement” which “necessitates our saying that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so are we in the Father and in the Son.” There is no lack of confidence here in his own statement, and the reader naturally looks for a very direct and plain proof of what is asserted, but, as usual, is doomed to disappointment. The Lord’s words are as follows: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.” I would beg the reader to notice that the Lord is here speaking of unity, and a unity that was to be manifested, so that the world might believe. There was a unity between the Father and the Son; and the Lord says “that they also may be one in Us.” Mark the word also. The Father and the Son were one; and He desires that they also should be one. But it is a special character of oneness, not merely oneness among themselves, but “one in Us,” the Lord says. This oneness had been revealed; it shone out in the revelation of the Father in the Son. In the Son down here in flesh the characteristics of the divine nature shone out revealing perfect oneness between the Father and the Son; and the Lord desired that this oneness should characterize the saints; so He says “that they may be one in Us.” No doubt divine life possessed by the saints underlies this oneness, for that which gives it its character is a revelation, the knowledge of which is eternal life, a life possessed in the Son, and in the power of the Holy Ghost, giving common thoughts, desires, affections and joys with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. But we must not overlook the fact that it was a oneness to be manifested by the saints in communion with the Father and the Son. This the Lord prays for, that the world might believe. But our author would have us believe that the Lord is saying that we are in the Father and in the Son, as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. This I do not accept at all. He leaves out the question of oneness, and plays on the expression “in us.” And then he tells us that we find “this very expression” in 1 John 2:24: “If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” Then he passes on to John 15, to find another similar expression, “abide in Me and I in you,” to make this chain of false reasoning complete. It is no matter about the context or about the real meaning of these scriptures, if only he can get expressions to fit together to weave a specious argument that will drag souls into the net the enemy has spread through him.

These scriptures are all dragged out of their proper connections and fitted together, to prove that we are in the Father and in the Son as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, and that this was true of the disciples while Christ was on earth before the cross, since John 15 had its application to the disciples then. If we can use John 15, associated with these other texts, to prove that the disciples were then in the Son, it will make an easy task for him to convince people that “At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you,” John 14:20, was “a future knowledge of a present thing”; and this done, he can then assert in the most positive way, “Life they had then, and in the Son,” as applying alike to the disciples and all the saints of old, and this too in the face of the Lord’s express declaration which absolutely contradicts his whole doctrine, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.” John 12:24. But even this scripture must pass through his theological mold, and appear distorted and disfigured, in order to fall into rank and do duty for this perverse system which must be maintained at all hazard. It is explained to mean that, “Life must spring out of death, always out of death at least foreseen, as now it does out of death accomplished.” Now no one doubts that the death of Christ is the meritorious ground on which God bestows, or ever could bestow, blessing on guilty man. But is this what the Lord here asserts? Assuredly not. He tells us the corn of wheat must abide alone until it dies. Only in resurrection can fruit be associated in life with it. But according to our author’s system the saints of old were in the Son, had life in the Son, and thus the corn of wheat was laden with fruit before it fell into the ground. Is not this handling the Word of God deceitfully? The Lord’s statement is plain enough as showing that Jesus must abide alone until redemption was accomplished in His death, and then, on the ground of this, He could take the saints into living association and relationship with Himself as risen from the dead; but the statement stands in the way of this new system, and so must be distorted, and shorn of its meaning, to make the system easy for souls who want Scripture for what they believe.

We must not, however, pass over the author’s use of John 15 without a further notice. He quotes “Abide in Me, and I in you” as if it meant the same thing as being “in the Son.” Yet I doubt if he would dare say they are the same. In this chapter Christ replaces Israel as a vine. Israel had not borne fruit for Jehovah, and Christ takes this place, and says, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.” Then in verse 5 He says to the disciples, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” But in His very first statement it is plain that there might be a non-fruit-bearing branch in the vine, to be taken away and burned. “Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away,” and in verse 6, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” This language is used of one who might be in Him as a branch in the vine. Would the author dare to say this of one “in the Son”? And if not, why bring forward such a passage to prove that the disciples were then “in the Son”? The fact is, this passage does not treat the question of “life in the Son” at all. It is Christ as the true vine replacing Israel, and men attached to Him, instead of Israel, by profession as branches in the vine. It is in this sense that they are in Him. It is something for earth and time, and not our eternal relationship to God and Christ, although the life which underlies fruit bearing is, no doubt, eternal. Fruit bearing would be the proof of life and communion, but the possession of life is not what is meant by “in me,” which is said of one who had no life at all.

The author concludes that “they were in the Son, although not yet had the Spirit of God come,” etc. But I ask where is it said in Scripture, that they were in the Son? We look in vain for a single hint of it anywhere. The author’s conclusion is based wholly upon false reasoning in which we find a wretched garbling of Scripture in order to carry the point. He labors hard to establish that John 14:20 was “a future knowledge of a present thing.” He will not have it that “ye in Me, and I in you” was a future thing to be realized and known as the fruit of accomplished redemption, and by the Holy Ghost sent down to be with and in them. He tells us that it might as well be contended that Christ being “in the Father” was a future thing. But I reply that Jesus had expressly stated that He was in the Father, but had neither said nor implied that they were then in the Son. He had said to Philip, “Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” This was a positive statement of what was true then.

As to the day of the Holy Ghost’s presence, when the Son should have gone to the Father, He says: “At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.” It is an additional thing, though connected with His being in the Father, and connected also with His going to the Father, and the coming of the Holy Ghost. At that future day they would not only know that He was in the Father, but they would also know the wondrous place and blessing He had acquired for them by redemption, and by His going to the Father. Redemption accomplished, He could say to them, “My Father and your Father, My God and your God,” and impart to them that life in which was displayed His victory over death — His resurrection life — and the Holy Ghost as the power of this life, thus setting them in the power of life beyond death, and giving them a new position in Himself in the power of the Holy Ghost, and in eternal relationship with the Father. It would no longer be the position and relationships of man in the flesh and under the law, but a new position altogether, with new relationships, outside this world, and characterized by the position and relationships of Jesus, the risen and ascended Son of God. But this could not be short of redemption, and the glorification of the Son on high. It is the fruit of redemption, not redemption “foreseen,” but redemption accomplished. Until this basis was laid for man’s blessing, Jesus, the Son of God, as the corn of wheat must abide alone. But this is what our author leaves out of his system. He will have it that the saints were in the Son, and, I suppose, in the Father too, before the work of the cross was done.

What this leads to is not difficult to see. According to this dogma, the O.T. saints were “in the Son” when He was only and absolute Deity, before the Word was made flesh, before He had taken His proper mediatorial character, or entered on His mediatorial work as the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In short the O.T. saints were in abstract Deity. I know that Mr. Grant’s supporters deny that he teaches this. Well, I do not wish to affirm that he teaches this if he and his friends deny that he does; yet it seems to me clearly involved in his teaching, and in the plainest way. I quote from the “Statement” put out in defense of him and his followers. On page 8 Mr. Grant says: “We are in the Son of God, and in the Father; but we have not oneness with Deity.” Again, “The Gospel of John is the gospel of His Deity — the only begotten, not the first begotten. The former is exclusive, and that is the force of the Son of God all through John’s Gospel. Where He says ‘in Us,’ that is Deity.” Now in his book he makes “in Us” to mean that we are “in the Father and in the Son,” and here he says it is “Deity.” How can anyone resist the conclusion that this teaching involves the consequence that the O.T. saints were in abstract Deity? I know he tries to escape this dreadful conclusion, and denounces the teaching of such a thing as “blasphemy,” but in doing so he condemns himself out of his own mouth, and condemns his system as that which opens the door to this “blasphemy.”

And here again to maintain consistency in his system, he would have us believe that “Son of God” in John is only Deity. “The Gospel of John is the gospel of His Deity — the only begotten,” and this is “exclusive” and “the force of ‘the Son of God’ all through John’s Gospel.” I would ask then, when it is said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” was it “exclusive” of incarnation that God gave Him? Is it “exclusive” of His incarnation that men are called on to believe in Him unto life eternal? John tells us in his epistle, that the “Son of God was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil.” Is it only Deity here too? “The Son of God was manifested.” But how was He manifested? Was it not in flesh? In John the Son of God is constantly presented to us as manifested in the flesh, the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, indeed, yet manifested in flesh, and through this medium revealing the Father — true Deity, very God, but “God manifest in the flesh.” It is “in flesh” that we know Him, and have received Him as the gift of God. It is thus, and thus only that we are said to be in Him, only that for this, redemption was necessary. And it is only as in Him that in any sense we can be said to be in God. In Him, the Mediator, we are brought to God, and know God, and God dwells in us, and we in Him, and the Holy Ghost is the power of this, but all this is only as in Christ, or in the Son. “We are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.” We are in the Son, and the Son is God, but we are “in His Son” characterized as “Jesus Christ.” It is only as become man that He is called by this name, and it is only thus that we can be in Him; yet “This is the true God and eternal life.”

I beg the reader to mark well, that Mr. Grant’s system, as far as it treats of “life in the Son,” leaves out altogether the mediatorial character and work of Christ (save that he says “life must spring out of death, always out of death at least foreseen, as now it does out of death accomplished”). He tells us “that as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, so are we in the Father and in the Son,” page 10. Now according to his own teaching it is here the Son in His essential “Deity.” His humanity has no place in this statement. It is the Son in essential Deity in the Father; and then, mark, “so are we in the Father and in the Son.” If this is not mysticism, it involves the same blasphemous conclusions we have already noticed above, that is, the deification of the saints. I am sure the author would repudiate such a thought, and in writing had no such thought in his mind; but it is the consequence of his interpretation of Scripture, and of his system, as it respects life in the Son.

But I have no desire to follow out the details of this system. My only desire was to call attention to a few facts connected with its foundation, to show how far it is from the truth of God. I trust enough has been said to make plain to the simplest reader the dangerous tendencies of the system, as well as the utterly false foundation on which it rests. As a system I repudiate it with my whole soul in all its distinctive features, and regard it as a crafty attempt of the enemy to despoil the people of God, and rob them in a large degree of their rich heritage of blessing in Christ, especially in its distinctness from that of other ages. It reasons about divine life in a merely theological and abstract way, apart from its character and display in Christ. The unfolding and display of this life in the Person of the eternal Son in the flesh down here before the eyes of men, revealing the Father in all the outflow of divine affections, and bringing the fullness of grace and truth to men; and life as now seen in Christ, clothed in resurrection power and glory, and exalted in eternal victory over death and sin and Satan’s power, and now lived in men down here by faith of the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself for us, Christ as life formed in us by the power of the Holy Ghost who dwells in us not only as the “seal” and “earnest” and “anointing,” but also as “the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” characterizing and energizing this life in us, producing divine affections and joys in the soul in fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ — all this in great measure is left out of this system we are asked to receive as a fresh unfolding of divine life and truth. Its reception could only prove damaging to the soul in no small degree, to say nothing of the disastrous consequences in doctrine to which the system opens the door. Yet it seems there are those who are infatuated with this new teaching, and regard it as a wonderful discovery. I believe this only shows the darkening power the enemy has already gained over their souls through it. A present exhilaration is produced in the mind, and a puffing up of the flesh, but this is not Christ, nor the operation of the Holy Ghost, and will not endure. It may serve for the time to give heat in the conflict, but the real effect will be impoverishing of soul, the truth gradually slipping away, and leaving the soul barren and despoiled of its joy and comfort in the Holy Ghost.

May the Lord help us all to heed the closing admonition of Jude: “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”

Appendix

Since this paper went to the printer, there has been sent me a new tract written by Mr. Grant in reply to some of his reviewers, in which, as in his former tracts, he depends on John 15 for proof that saints before the cross were in the Son. And in defending his interpretation of this scripture, he shelters himself behind what seems to me a most pitiable subterfuge which exists only in his own imagination. Mr. Lowe had objected to his use of this scripture, and he replies to the objection thus: “Now, if John 15 really speaks of an eternal link at all, it would seem as if it would not be out of place to introduce it into the subject of this link of life! Mr. Lowe gives no just reason; for that these are branches not thus vitally connected is none. He forgets that here there are no ‘natural branches,’ that all are necessarily, according to the apostle’s figure, ‘grafted in,’ that grafts do not, as all know, invariably abide, that ‘abiding’ is a mark that the graft has struck — that is, has formed vital connection. All this surely takes nothing from the significance of the figure here” (page 26).

Here Mr. Grant confounds the figure of the “vine” with that of the “olive tree” in Romans 11, as if the subjects were the same. In Romans 11 the natural branches of the olive tree are broken off, and others grafted in. But here there is not a word about cutting off branches from one vine to replace them by grafts taken from another. It is not a replacing of branches but of vines. Israel as a vine is replaced by Christ as a vine. It is a new vine with its own branches without a word as to grafting, which is foreign to the subject, and a wrong figure as well, according to which, the branches which men gather and burn, are the little scions that have been grafted in, but have not “struck,” or “formed vital connection”! The absurdity of this everyone must see who knows anything about either grafting or vineyards. It stultifies the whole passage, and shows to what a desperate shift the author is driven in seeking to maintain what is utterly untenable.

In connection with this subject the author repeats a question of his former tract, “If life before Christ’s being on earth were not in the Son, how then?” He also tells us that, “The life is not in us independently, even when we have it; it is in Him, as the life of the branch is in the vine.” Now it seems to me he reasons on this whole subject as if those who do not receive his system deny that life was in the Son of old, and that in the saints it was dependent life. With me, at least, these have not been questions at all. “In Him was life,” and He was “that eternal life which was with the Father.” This is blessedly true; but who denies it? Nor is it in question, as far as I know, that the old saints had divine life. They surely had, and a life, too, which in its essence is eternal, though surely much more than this is involved in “eternal life” as we get it developed in the New Testament. But when the author tells us that the old saints had life in the Son, and that in virtue of this life they were in the Son, I believe he goes beyond Scripture, and has not a word of proof. It is not what characterized their faith at all. In all this he raises questions not raised in Scripture; and I believe they ought not to have been raised by him, but left as God’s Word leaves them. What is the profit in all this wretched reasoning which only serves to lay a false foundation for a false system? He asks if they had “independent life,” as if somebody believed they did! Is this a sober question? Surely life in all its forms, and in all God’s creatures down to the tiniest insect, or tiniest flower that grows is dependent life. All hangs upon the intrinsic power of Him who spoke it into existence. And surely divine life in the creature is dependent too. But it in no wise follows that the saints of old quickened by it, were, in virtue of this, in the Son. The whole thing, I believe, is a pure sophism, and can only mislead such as are willing to be led beyond the simple statements of God’s Word.

Divisions Among the People of God and Their Causes and Is There a Path for Faith

1895

It is not the writer’s intention to speak of the older and larger divisions existing in Christendom, but more particularly of those which have taken place within the last half century among those Christians professedly gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is a sad and humbling fact that these have been divided into a half dozen, or more, different companies. This ought to bow all in the dust, in humiliation and sorrow of heart before God. And indeed, such as have had the glory of the Lord Jesus at heart have been thus bowed before Him. Many have groaned and wept before Him because of the desolations that have been wrought. And I am sure many have felt like David, when he lamented the death of Saul and Jonathan, exclaiming: “How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in... Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” But alas! it has been published, and the enemy has made the most of it. So really is this the case, that when souls get exercised as to their church position, and find these different companies all professing to be on the same ground and gathered to the same Name, they are greatly perplexed. Every one who labors with souls knows the difficulty, and if his heart is right, he mourns the evil.

Nor is this all. The controversies that have arisen have so engrossed the minds of those who addict themselves to the ministry of the Word, that the simple ministry of Christ has been greatly hindered and weakened. The state is truly sad. Mighty ones have fallen; the ranks have been broken; hearts have been discouraged; and alas! fratricidal strife has in no small measure taken the place of united warfare against a common foe. All this is truly sorrowful.

But these divisions exist, and we can escape neither the responsibilities of them nor the consequences. And when we weigh these, we have to bow our heads in grief and shame, and humble ourselves before God. Moreover, we have to fall upon His mercy, for we cannot make a way for ourselves. He alone can do this in the scene where we have so miserably failed. And this He will do for all who truly seek His face. But we must be in His presence, broken and humbled and self-judged. In that presence there is no place for pride, or vainglory, or self-seeking in any form. But if these are judged, we will find ourselves in the presence of restoring grace, and in the presence of love that is greater than all the evil — a love that embraces the whole Church. “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). Such is the character of Christ’s love to the Church; and if we are in communion with Him, we will be partakers of it. But let it be distinctly noted that this is not a love that slips over evil, or in any way glosses over sin. It is a love that occupies itself in sanctifying and cleansing, so that its object may be spotless, holy, and without blemish. This is no mere sentimentalism, but a love that seeks abiding and eternal good in divine purity and holiness.

Now, no one will deny that there have been causes which brought about the existing divisions. Are these causes, then, to be ignored or passed over, as if they had never been? I do not ask just now what these causes are; but I ask if they are good, or if they are bad. Surely every one will admit that what has caused such disastrous results must be bad. Again, then, I ask, are these to be passed over and forgotten, as if they were nothing?

Every one that truly loves the Lord and His people would surely rejoice to see those who have been scattered by these divisions happily reunited in brotherly love and true fellowship. But could this be, unless the causes leading to the divisions were first judged before God according to truth and holiness? Supposing at this moment all who have been scattered were to agree to drop their differences, or to bear with one another about them and come together, extending to one another the right hand of fellowship, would they thereby be in a better state in the sight of God? They might for the moment be jubilant and happy, and boast of what had been done, but would not God, who reads the heart, have to say: “From the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jer. 8:10-11). And would not the state be much worse than before?

These questions are asked, because at the present moment a very zealous movement is on foot, if not to bring about directly an amalgamation of all the different companies of [so-called] “Brethren,” at least to bring about free inter-communion between them, which, doubtless, would soon result in amalgamation, if the daubing with untempered mortar did not result in greater scattering than ever.

It is well known that in 1892 a large meeting of brethren who are with F. W. Grant, was held at Plainfield, N. J., for the purpose of considering their position toward those known as “Open Brethren.” The result of the deliberations was a decision that they could receive from “Open Brethren” as from the various sects, and some Open Brethren being present broke bread with them at that time. It has transpired, however, that in reaching this decision, these brethren at Plainfield were in some way deceived by certain explanations given of a certain letter, which has been known as “the letter of the ten,” because it was a document prepared and signed by ten leaders at Bethesda, during the controversy of 1848. In this letter the statement is made: “Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts [referring to Mr. Newton] were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth.”

A similar statement is made in a letter of Mr. James Wright, one of the Bethesda leaders, written in 1883, in answer to an inquiry on the subject of receiving. It says: “The ground on which we receive to the Lord’s table is, soundness in the faith, and consistency of the life of the individual believer. We should not refuse to receive one whom we had reason to believe was personally sound in the faith and consistent in life merely because he, or she, was in fellowship with a body of Christians who would allow Mr. Newton to minister among them.”

These statements both show that a man might come from a meeting which was a hotbed of heresy and blasphemy and he would be received, provided he himself was considered sound in the faith. But these brethren at Plainfield, it seems, were led to think that these statements had been misinterpreted. In the Plainfield circular they represent “the leaders in Bethesda” as saying: “We do not mean that any would be allowed to return to a heretical teacher. He would become subject to discipline by so doing. Our practice proves this. We had no thought of intercommunion with persons coming from a heretical teacher when that sentence was written.” “In the same way Mr. Wright’s letter, at a much more recent date, affirming on the face of it the same principle with the ‘letter of the ten,’ has been explained not to mean intercommunion.”

It seems difficult indeed to see how these Bethesda leaders can honestly make these representations, when it is well known that it was a question of those in communion with a heretic going in and out of Bethesda. Everyone knows there is no difficulty about receiving any true soul who breaks with the evil, and refuses to return to it. This has never been a question. Besides, Mr. Wright’s letter shows plainly that it was not a question of receiving one who had broken his connection with the heretic, but of receiving one who “was in fellowship with a body of Christians” allowing a heretic to teach among them.

These brethren at Plainfield must already have been sadly under the blinding influence of this unfaithful system, to be deceived as they were by these false explanations. But it seems that afterward some of them, at least, got their eyes opened to see how they had been duped; and in 1894 they issued another circular reversing the action of 1892.

The Plainfield circular shows painful indecision of heart as to what touches the Person and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and the true welfare of the saints. But we can be thankful to God, if in any measure they have been recovered from the snare. The results, however, of the false step at Plainfield remain, for not a few refuse to return to the old lines, and persist in still maintaining the principle of inter-communion with “Open Brethren,” or any others who would allow them.

It would seem that J. H. Burridge, of England, is one of the principal leaders among the advocates of intercommunion, with a view of uniting all the different companies of brethren professedly gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. As I understand him, he holds that all these different companies are simply parties, and that it is these things that keep them apart. And yet he holds that all these are divinely gathered according to the Word of God. In his book on “Christian Unity,” after speaking of the different divisions and companies, he says: “Of all the parties of Brethren I have referred to as gathered to the Lord’s name, I do not know one that I could not remember the Lord’s death with, and I would do so with all, if they would allow me, for I do not know of any fundamental error amongst them. It would matter not to me what they call themselves, or what others call them — Plymouth, Bethesda, Close or Open, etc., etc. — so long as they were saints of God, and gathered simply to Christ Himself.”

“We have seen that the chief barriers between the different companies of those gathered to Christ, in the main on scriptural principles, are composed of prejudice and party feeling. Take these barriers away, and let each company take its place as simply gathered to Christ, as a feeble remnant in the midst of general ruin, to receive in their midst all who are the Lord’s — all who are sound in the faith and of godly conduct — and we shall find that the different companies are in fellowship with each other directly.” Pages 36, 37, 38.

These extracts show very plainly what Mr. Burridge’s position is, his judgment as to the different companies of brethren, and the remedy he proposes for the existing evils. He would break bread with any of them, and openly advocates intercommunication among all these companies. There are no principles or doctrines that divide them, it is only “prejudice and party feeling.” There may be minor differences of little or no importance, but if “prejudice and party feeling” were removed, they would find that they were in fellowship with one another.

Assuredly it would be matter for thanksgiving to God if all “prejudice and party feeling” were, through His grace, completely judged in every heart before God and removed out of the way. But oh! how superficial must be the view of this brother if he thinks this is all that is needed. Yet he seems to think so. And with this judgment he is zealously laboring to break down the barriers he speaks of, and to bring these different companies together.

Only last August a conference was called to meet in the city of New York to consider these questions. About 250 responded to the call. Mr. Burridge, in his report of this conference, after stating the principles they avow, adds: “We are glad to be able to say also, that in accordance with these conclusions, and, as we believe, as a result of the exercises before the Lord referred to above, between seventy and eighty brethren from different sections or companies remembered the Lord together in happy fellowship on Lord’s day morning, not as opposed to or distinct from other companies and meetings of brethren, but (as far as we ourselves at least were concerned) in full fellowship with them; for we believe it is of the Lord not to make another party, but to draw the different parties of brethren that exist closer to His Word and to each other.”

This surely is a remarkable utterance, and yet it is in keeping with the object they have in view. Here is a company of brethren meeting together, and breaking bread apart from all other companies, yet claiming they do it, “not as opposed to or distinct from,” but “in full fellowship with them.” Why then apart? While professing to be in “full fellowship” with all, is it not, on the face of it, an exhibition of complete independence of all? And in this way it is practically a new party, professing to belong to no party, yet professing fellowship with all parties.

This is nothing else but confusion, having for its basis the ignoring of the solemn causes which have produced division. Nothing could be happier than to see beloved brethren who are now divided brought together again according to truth and holiness; but to attempt to bring this about by glossing over the evil that has produced the divisions, would be sorrowful indeed. One would rejoice to see any earnest, holy desire to have the causes of division removed and the breaches healed; and I am far from saying that Mr. Bur-ridge’s desires, and the desires of those with him, are not good and commendable. But there is one fatal defect, and that is, the determination to ignore the evil principles that characterize Bethesda as a body, as well as what has caused still later divisions. Brethren might let all these pass and unite together, and be on good terms with one another, but this would not put them right with God. If they are to get right with Him there must be self-judgment as to the past, and a complete renunciation of principles dishonoring to the name of the Lord Jesus.

I know Mr. Burridge thinks there is really nothing in the way except prejudice and party feeling. But is this so? Reference has been already made to the “letter of the ten,” and to Mr. Wright’s letter of 1883, both of these affirming a principle of reception which admits of association with a meeting characterized by heresy. Mr. Burridge may say this is false, but his saying so does not make it so. He seeks to shame brethren because they keep bringing up this “letter of the ten.” Mr. Burridge is with Bethesda. Why then does he not seek to have the evil principle contained in this letter expunged? Nay, but he defends the offensive words by giving an explanation of them which is contrary to the whole spirit of the controversy. The question never was whether a godly person, sound in doctrine, who had broken with a wicked meeting, could be received. The question was, and is, whether one who is in fellowship with a meeting where blasphemy is tolerated, can be received.

A man comes from a meeting which deliberately allows blasphemy against the person of Christ, and says he is in fellowship with such a meeting, but does not hold the blasphemy taught there. They examine him and think he is sound in the faith, and receive him, without any question of his having renounced his connection with that wicked meeting. Now I affirm that this is a wicked principle of action, and Bethesda proclaims it as her principle of receiving communicants. Suppose there were a meeting that avowedly tolerated fornication, and a man came from this meeting, declaring himself in fellowship there, but denying that he practiced this evil. Would they receive him without first requiring him to purge himself from such a hotbed of corruption and iniquity? “Oh!” it will be said, “but it would be terrible to receive from such a meeting.” Truly it would, but is this to be made a worse evil than blasphemy against the Son of God? Would it be more terrible to have fellowship with fornicators than to have fellowship with blasphemers of Christ? And besides, how could a man be trusted who came from such a meeting, if he refused to break his connection with such horrible wickedness?

I repeat this is a wicked principle, and it is the principle of the Bethesda meeting, declared in the “letter of the ten,” and reaffirmed in Mr. Wright’s letter of 1883. And the late explanations by those who would escape the guilt of this wicked principle will not stand for a single moment in the light of the controversy of 1848. Note the following from “Vindication of Separation,” by L. Pilson, 1875, page 75, quoted here from a paper addressed to those who signed the Plainfield circular: “They were requested to withdraw it in order to prevent the division that ensued, but they would not. They were asked, did they mean by the sentence that they would receive from the heretical teacher, but not allow any to return to him; and so on backwards and forwards, establishing interchange of communion. They would not say that such was their meaning. It is evident it was not.”

So these later explanations are found to be entirely gratuitous, and they serve only to mislead, as they did at Plainfield in 1892. The “letter of the ten” states a principle fundamentally false and wrong, because it refuses jealously to guard the truth as to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to it you are bound to receive a man coming from a heretic until you are “satisfied” that he has “understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of fundamental truth.” There is not even a “shutting up for seven days,” as in the case of suspected leprosy.

But it is now strenuously denied that this wrong principle has ever wrought in Bethesda. Mr. Burridge, in “Reply to ‘A Statement,’ etc.,” says: “Bethesda has never tolerated Newton’s heresy, and never received one in their fellowship who held it. It is positively wicked, then, to charge that assembly with toleration of, or sympathy with, such heresy.” Page 12.

It is to be regretted that Mr. B. has made this confident and emphatic statement, so contrary to the facts in the case. Allow me to introduce here two witnesses who were through the whole struggle and knew a vast deal more about it than Mr. Burridge.

“First I must tell you that I believe that if one meeting received the members of another, and the members of the former go there in turn, there is a bond between the two, although I own that in the present case other motives have power over me. This is how it is, then, at B [ethesda]. Doctrine is not in question, but faithfulness to Christ with respect to doctrine or holiness. I would not receive a person who knowingly formed part of a meeting which admits heretics, or persons whose conduct is bad, because the principle of indifference to good and evil, to error and truth, is as bad as the wrong action, and even worse. Let me be clearly understood. I believe that the Church is bound to be jealous with respect to the glory of the Person of Christ. If Christ is despised, I have no principle of union. I believe that B. has acted with profound contempt for the Lord, to say nothing of brethren. Here there is nothing equivocal. Mr. N. was maintaining a doctrine of which Mr. Muller himself said that if it were true, Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we did. This doctrine placed Christ under the effect of Adam’s sin by His birth, in saying that He had to gain life by keeping the law. We had driven away this doctrine and those who upheld it, and the struggle was ended. The persons who had supported Mr. N. had published confessions with respect to the doctrine, and had made confessions before the brethren publicly of the falsehoods and wickedness by which they had tried to make good their views and to justify themselves; it was a truly extraordinary work of Satan.

“Well, a lady wished to introduce Mr. N. to teach in a meeting near Bethesda; this meeting refused; she left the meeting accordingly. She was introduced at B [ethesda], Mr. M. knowing that she was maintaining and propagating this doctrine. Mr. Craik, the other pastor, having had to do with her also, she went there because they admitted such persons into that meeting. At the same time, two gentlemen who made part of the meeting which Mr. N. had formed when he was obliged to leave on account of this doctrine (those who had supported him having left him and made confession), these two communicants of Mr. N.’s, I say, were admitted to B. It is proved true that these three disseminated Mr. N.’s tracts in the B. assembly. The lady induced a young lady to go who was the most active and intelligent agent that Mr. N. had in order to spread his doctrines. In consequence of these circumstances, several godly brothers of B. asked that all this should be examined; they said that they did not ask even that the judgment of the brethren should be taken thereupon, but that they should examine the matter and the doctrine themselves. This was decidedly refused. I received a letter from Mr. C. blaming me as sectarian for making these difficulties, even when he was not prepared to receive everything that Mr. N. was teaching. They had many meetings of the flock, and the ten laboring brothers (of whom two were really disciples of Mr. N.), Messrs. M. and C. at their head, presented a written paper to the assembly at B., declaring that this was a new test of communion, which they would not admit; that many excellent brethren did not give so decided an opinion upon Mr. N.’s doctrine; that they were not bound to read fifty pages to know what Mr. N. taught, the members of his flock being — mark this! — already admitted at B. A brother asked permission to communicate some information about Mr. N.’s doctrine, in order that the assembly might understand why they held to it that the doctrine should be judged, and this was peremptorily refused; and the paper which said that many had not a bad opinion of the doctrine, rejecting as a new condition of fellowship the examination into the doctrine, was laid down as the absolute condition of the pastorate of Messrs. M. and C., without which they would withdraw from their ministry in the midst of the assembly. Those who justified them on the ground of this paper were to rise, which was done by the assembly, thirty or forty forthwith leaving B. So that, with knowledge of the matter, they laid down as the basis of the B. assembly, indifference to the truth as to the Person of Christ; and they preferred to see about forty godly brethren leave rather than to examine the question, having in fact in their midst the members of the N. meeting. This was so much the more important in my eyes, because Satan was seeking at that moment, and still seeks, to forbid the assembly of the children of God to examine into and judge any heresy whatsoever; that once a person has been acknowledged as being a Christian, one has no right to know what he holds. This has been plainly laid down as a principle by many persons who blame us, and they desired to take advantage of it to force us to receive a young man who distinctly denied that there was such a Person as the Holy Ghost. I do not say that all lay down this principle, but the enemy has sought to bring it in, and amongst the brethren who opposed me on this question some of the most violent maintain it.

“Now, the principle of indifference as to the Person of Christ being laid down at Bethesda and the assembly having publicly accepted it, I refuse to admit the principle. They have admitted persons put outside amongst us on account of blasphemy. Messrs. M. and C. are the pastors of the assembly in virtue of this principle. This letter has never been withdrawn; they claim to have done right. Many things will doubtless be told you in excuse, and to make it appear that they have done things which nullify this: I know bow it is with them. For me their condition before God has become much worse. I should be ready to say why. I believe that they are themselves more or less infected with false doctrine, but I cannot enter into the story in detail. Mr. M. said to me (after having acknowledged that Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we if this doctrine was admitted) that they maintained the ‘letter of the ten’ to the full, and that they had done well in all that they had done. Well, indifference to Christ is a grave sin: an assembly which bases itself publicly on this principle I cannot accept as a Christian assembly. Assemblies which are connected with B., which go there and receive from thence, are one with B. — save the case of persons who are ignorant of the matter, an exceptional case of which it is not necessary to speak. For my part, this is what I do: having distinctly taken my position, I judge each case individually according to its merits, but I will not receive a person who keeps up his connection with B. with knowledge of the matter. Faithfulness to Christ before everything; I know not why I labor and suffer if this is not the principle of my conduct.” (Letters of J.N.D., Vol. 1, pp. 246-249 [First Edition], dated October 6th, 1851.)

In Mr. Trotter’s “Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda,” we are informed that: “In the month of May, 1848, a meeting was held at Bath, attended by about 100 brethren from all parts, the leading features of which were: (1) That in it the brethren who had been rescued from the doctrinal errors of Mr. Newton, and whose confessions have been noticed, made further confessions, full and ample, as to their implications in the charges made against the untruthful, immoral system of Ebrington Street, as brought to light in the `Narrative of Facts’ and ‘Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne Street.’ They acknowledged that these charges were just.... (2) The other remarkable feature of the Bath meeting was this, that the ‘Narrative of Facts,’ and other publications of Mr. Darby on these mournful occurrences, were subjected at that meeting to the strictest scrutiny, Lord Congleton endeavoring for five hours to prove them false, and Mr. Nelson, of Edinburgh, aiding him in his efforts. The result was that the statements contained in these pamphlets were so fully established that some, who had always mistrusted them till then, exclaimed that they never knew anything so demonstrated” (Pages 26-27).

In the next paragraph Mr. Trotter adds: “It was immediately after this that the rulers at Bethesda admitted to communion there several of Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partisans, and this in spite of all remonstrances of godly brethren among themselves, and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views of the persons in question. The brethren on the spot who had protested against this step were now obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to be soul-defiling and Christ-dishonoring doctrines and ways, to withdraw from fellowship with Bethesda. This they did, one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading brethren there, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons at Bethesda then drew up and signed a paper vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. N.’s followers, and rejecting all the warnings and remonstrances which had been addressed to them.” Pages 27, 28.

In the face of the unimpeachable testimony of these two witnesses, how can Mr. Burridge so confidently affirm that Bethesda has “never received” any who held Mr. Newton’s doctrine, and “never tolerated” the heresy?

It is pleaded that Bethesda did judge Mr. N.’s heresy. Very likely; but it remains true that they forced out of the meeting about forty godly brethren by their indifference and refusal to examine the question that had burdened so many. This, instead of judging the doctrine, was tolerating it, notwithstanding Mr. Burridge’s plea for Bethesda’s innocence.

It is indeed claimed that the whole body at Bethesda judged the matter in December, 1848. This was six or seven months after they had received, against every remonstrance, the friends and disciples of Mr. Newton; and these persons continued with Bethesda till the 12th of February, 1849; that is, two months after this judgment is said to have been declared! “By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton’s friends at Bethesda had sent in resignations — Captain Wood — fall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers and two Miss Percivals.” See “Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda,” pages 36-43.

Nor is this all. Mr. Trotter quotes from a paper by the Woodfalls to show that this step had been finally determined on from a conversation with one of the pastors, who seemed to think this would relieve them from some of their difficulties, and to show that in taking this step they did not at all waive their claim, as brethren in Christ, to a seat at the Lord’s table there. So after all it was to relieve the pastors of trouble, that these people left, and not because any judgment of the assembly was enforced. Could there be a clearer case of insensibility to evil, and of moral imbecility in dealing with it, as well as heartlessness as to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ?

But it is said these things took place nearly fifty years ago, and we have nothing to do with them now; that it is not a question of Bethesda’s state in 1848, but of her state in 1895. This may sound plausible, but is it a true principle? If the sin of 1848 has never been judged by that assembly, does it not still remain? Has a mere lapse of time effaced it? Does God forget? Does not He require the past? Did He forget the sin of Solomon, who built high places for Chemosh and Molech and other false gods, in order to please his strange wives? Did He forget the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, or of Ahab, who sold himself to work wickedness beyond all others? Did He forget the sin of the people of Judah in turning aside to serve other gods?

Hear the message of the Lord to Josiah through Huldah, the prophetess, when that good king was troubled by the reading of the book of the law which had just been found in repairing the house of the Lord. “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read: because they have forsaken Me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore My wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.” 2 Kings 22:16,17. Even though, time and again, there had been in Judah good kings and prosperous reigns, this solemn prophecy was fulfilled in the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, as already Israel had been carried into Assyria, and this, not merely for the sins of the last king, or of the last generation, but for the sins of the nation from the days of Solomon, each generation inheriting the sins of the generation going before. Had they heeded the voice of the prophets and taken warning by the sins of their fathers, they might have been spared. But anything there was of this was only limited and temporary, and connected with the influence of some godly king, and the threatened judgment, while it might be delayed by temporary and partial repentance, came none the less certainly.

In a later day, when God visited His people in the Person of His Son, He came to a nation laden with iniquity, notwithstanding that the house was “swept and garnished.” Boasted orthodoxy was there, and an abundance of sanctimonious religiousness and self-righteousness; but in all this no place was found for God’s beloved Son. They built the tombs of the prophets and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous, and said: “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets,” and yet even now they were ready to murder the Son of God, who said to them, “Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:29-35). Thus were they to be tested and be found the guilty inheritors of all the sin of slaying the righteous during the previous 4,000 years of the world’s history. Even now their solemn imprecation, “His blood be on us and on our children,” is having its answer in the sorrows of that scattered and homeless people, as it is very soon to have a far more terrible answer in “the day of Jacob’s trouble” — a day of sorrow without a parallel before or after it. Thus the sins of the fathers came upon the children after many generations, and justly, too, because the children are the willing inheritors of these sins.

So also, in the mystic Babylon of Revelation is “found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (Rev. 18:24). In this respect she, too, as the lover of persecution, filling herself drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,” inherits the sin of the guilty, persecuting Israel. This is very solemn and shows that God makes requisition for the past, even though the unjudged sin may have been committed thousands of years before.

Thank God there is a way of escaping the judgment, and that is by judging ourselves and separating from the evil. A Jew who confesses Jesus as Lord severs himself from that guilty people, and will have no part in the nation’s coming day of sorrow. And speaking of Babylon, God says: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities” (Rev. 18:4-5). Nothing could be plainer than these scriptures, as showing that God does not forget evil; and that if we would not be partakers of it, we must separate ourselves from it. Some of these cases given in illustration, may be extreme cases, but they show all the more clearly the principle involved.

And this principle imperatively forbids the thought that the past history of Bethesda is not to be considered, when the question of fellowship with her is raised. No amount of present decency and respectability can be accepted in lieu of self-judgment and repudiation of the evil. If the evil be not judged it remains, whatever the appearances may be. This principle cannot be controverted. Extensive blessing in the gospel, increase of numbers and such like things, may be held up as proof of God’s approval. Such may be a proof of His owning individual faithfulness in preaching the Word — a thing for which we can thank God wherever we see it — but it proves nothing as to owning Bethesda, or any other system, in its corporate character. A multitude of instances are to be found of widespread blessing through the preaching of the gospel in the various sects. Does this prove that God owns the sects in their corporate character as being the expression of the truth as to the Church of God? We know it is not so. No more does the argument prove anything as to Bethesda as a body. It is not meant to put Bethesda on a level with guilty Israel or Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots; but these latter are brought forward to illustrate a principle in the government and ways of God, which has its application to Bethesda, notwithstanding that in her fellow-ship there may be many devoted and pious souls.

The question is: Did Bethesda preserve her title to be owned as an assembly of God, or as on the true ground of the Church of God, by cleaving to the truth and keeping herself pure by refusing toleration of or association with that which dishonors that holy Name to which they were professedly gathered. This is just what she has not done. At a time when the saints were harassed by a fearful attack of Satan, she proved herself remiss and recreant to her trust; and from that day to this Bethesda has never judged her past sin of indifference to blasphemy against Christ, and has never recalled the letter which affirms this indifference as a principle on which she took her stand as an assembly. On the contrary, the letter of Mr. Wright, already quoted, maintains the principle thirty-five years later. While this remains the declared principle of Bethesda, it is in vain to plead that the state is changed. If there is a change, why not give proof of it and of repentance, by renouncing this false principle altogether, and repudiating the letter containing it, instead of advocating intercommunion between her and other companies of brethren?

We need not review the causes of all the divisions which have taken place, but it is well to understand the causes of this one sufficiently well to see where it left the respective companies in relation to Christ, that we may see, in the light of that struggle between truth and error, light and darkness, whether this new movement commends itself to the upright conscience.

Mr. Burridge himself admits that Mr. Newton taught “an awful, hideous heresy as to the Lord Himself,” “a fundamental heresy of the worst kind.” “Reply to ‘A Statement,” etc., page 11. But on the same page he also affirms that it “was thus judged by those with Mr. Darby and by Bethesda alike.” We may ask, did these two companies judge this heresy at the same time? As far as Mr. Burridge’s statement goes, the reader might think so. But it is well known, as we have already seen, that such is not the case. For a length of time the agents of Mr. Newton, holding the doctrine, were received at Bethesda without challenge by the leaders; and when it was desired to investigate the evil it was refused. Was this judging it “alike”? Why did they delay when besought to investigate? And when they did judge, was it for the sake of the Lord’s glory? Was there repentance? Could it be said of them, as of saints at Corinth, who had been indifferent to moral evil in their midst? “For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:11). Could this be said of Bethesda? We look in vain for proof of this. Where, then, did this horrible neutrality, unrepented — of, leave them in relation to Christ? They had received blasphemers; the assembly had voted, and the leaders had signed a letter which admitted the principle of association with blasphemy. Are these the marks of an assembly owned of God? In such a state does not the scripture apply, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”? Let him who trembles at God’s Word answer. The house may be “swept and garnished,” there may be a human effort to improve the condition and make it more respectable, but the door is open to association with evil. It may sound well to say that the persons received are themselves sound in the faith. But what are they associated with? Blasphemy. Bethesda, according to her own written declaration, receives persons who may be ecclesiastically associated with blasphemy, and in so doing she associates herself in principle with blasphemy. Is this the moral basis on which the assembly which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” stands?

Mr. Burridge asks it to be proved to him, “that the principle of receiving a child of God sound in the faith himself, but coming from a meeting, church or chapel which tolerated an erroneous teacher, was wrong — that is, not that such would be allowed to play fast and loose by going to and fro, but for the instruction and recovery of such, which is the point of the letter in question.” “Reply to ‘An Allegory.’ “ page 11. Now in this very challenge there is a plain admission that it is no question of one who has broken with the evil, because the object of receiving is “for the instruction and recovery of such.” If they need to be recovered, it shows that they are still connected with the evil, else what would they need to be recovered from?

But he goes still further, and adds on the same page, “Yes, and even betimes allowing such individuals to go to and fro between the system, in which erroneous teachers might be in numbers, and ourselves.” So then we may allow persons to pass back and forth between ourselves and a meeting which has the plague of leprosy after all! It is not merely receiving them and not allowing them to return. No, “betimes” they may be allowed “to go to and fro”; that is, you may receive those who are on good terms with blasphemers of our blessed Lord, and allow them to continue on good terms, keeping up communication with them ecclesiastically. This is all right, and we are asked for scripture to show it is wrong! Mr. Burridge may try to get around this by saying that “erroneous teachers” are not necessarily blasphemers. But he must not try to lead us away from the main question by such a shift. The question is one of ecclesiastical association with one who teaches heresy as to the Person of Christ. Ought Scripture to be asked to prove this is wrong? The whole tenor of Scripture is against it and our spiritual instincts as well. “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” “Let him that name th the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” Are not these enough? You have received into your meeting one whom you suppose to be sound in the faith, but he is in fellowship with a meeting where blasphemy is deliberately allowed. You are one with him, and he is one with the blasphemers, and he may be allowed “betimes” to “go to and fro.” Your state is really worse than his, for he may be ignorant of the enormity of the evil and you are not. Your knowledge makes you more guilty.

We have already seen that Mr. Burridge regards all the different companies of brethren as in the main gathered on scriptural principles, all gathered to the name of Christ, and therefore all having a title to be recognized as on the common ground of the Church of God, though all be separate from each other. If this were really true, it would indeed be difficult to refute his plea in favor of intercommunion. But let us look at the way the matter is presented in Scripture.

In Matt. 16:18 Christ builds His Church. In John 11:52 He gathers together in one the children of God. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 all believers are baptized by one Spirit into one body. In Ephesians 4:4, “There is one body and one Spirit.” All this speaks of unity. The Church which Christ builds is one, the children of God which He gathers are one, the body is one. This is what God, in the power of the Spirit, has wrought through Christ.

We find, too, in Scripture, that the local assembly in a city or country place, was a local representation of this one body, the Church. It was the assembly of God in the place, and gathered together on the principle that the assembly of God is one. The name of the Lord Jesus was that to which the saints were gathered; they were gathered to this Name in the power of the Spirit, and in obedience to the Word, and when gathered, Christ was in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph. 4:3-4). Such was the local assembly, as set up of God at the beginning. The marks are plain, and show that in no sense was it a mere voluntary assembly formed by man’s will. Let this be well noted. Man’s will has no place in it, save as it may be introduced by the working of the flesh and contrary to the Spirit of God. An assembly formed by man’s will would not be an assembly of God at all, even though a perfect imitation as to outward form and action. Alas! we know well the flesh may display itself in a shocking way, even in God’s assembly; but, I repeat, a voluntary association is not God’s assembly, no matter how perfect the imitation may be.

Now we know that God allowed the assembly to be tested, and it was not long till sad failure came in, the flesh displaying itself in various ways and schisms growing out of the carnal state which was allowed to go unjudged. And these schisms were connected with heresies, that is, schools of opinion, which God allowed to arise among them, in order to manifest their state. “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). But these heresies are distinctly declared to be “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). They are in no way “fruits of the Spirit.”

Let us, then, suppose a heresy springing up at Corinth, connected with the teaching of some leader. This teaching may not be what Peter calls “damnable” heresy, it may not be “fundamental error,” but it results in gathering adherents to its author. A schism is formed, division in its incipiency exists in the assembly. This is distinctly a work of the flesh, and to be condemned as such. Those who have the glory of Christ at heart, and the good of the assembly, resist it. They expostulate, warn, admonish, and this repeatedly, but without avail. The heresy is persisted in and goes on still gathering adherents. At last the conscience of the assembly acts in rejecting the heretic. He goes out, and is followed by his adherents and sympathizers. These meet together and form a new meeting; and now there are two distinct and separate meetings, one consisting of those who have refused the heresy, and the other consisting of those who are united together by this heresy. They both profess to be gathered to the name of Christ, both hold, in general, the same doctrines. There is no fundamental error, their assembly exercises are very much the same, but this new school of opinion has made a breach, and those who adhere to it have left the assembly at Corinth and formed a meeting of their own, in self-will and in disobedience to the Word of God. It is a voluntary assembly formed by man’s will. Now, I ask any sober-minded Christian who is taught of God, if both these companies are alike gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, alike gathered by the Holy Spirit, and Christ in the midst of both alike when they are gathered together? I do not ask what the pretensions are of the schismatic party, but whether they are in truth gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. Is it that Name — is it the power of the Spirit — that acts on their hearts to bring them together in separation from their brethren? And does the Lord sanction their meeting by His presence in their midst?

I am not raising the question which of the different companies of brethren are “approved,” and divinely gathered, or whether any one of them is; but I am only seeking to show, from the principles of God’s Word, that they cannot all be approved, or gathered on divine principles. I can scarcely conceive how any intelligent Christian can think so.

Is it “on Christian principles” to meet together in schism, and claim that the Spirit of God gathers there to the name of the Lord Jesus, when, in fact, it is some other name, or some other thing, that has separated them from their brethren? Is it not trifling with the truth of God to attach the name of the Lord Jesus to all these schismatic companies? And have not the advocates of this theory completely lost their ecclesiastical bearings, unable to discern the things that differ, or to see who are approved and who are not? They do not see where God is in all this matter, see nothing very bad in any company, and so accept all alike as gathered to the Lord’s name and owned of Him. The sense of the evils which have caused the mischief has been lost in their souls, “prejudice and party feeling” is all that is seen in the way, and these, though deplored, can be borne with. This is the broad and easy path commended to us all by this new movement. Most heartily would we sympathize with every godly desire and effort, according to God, to remove the barriers which hinder keeping the unity of the Spirit. But if the real causes which have led to division are to be ignored, and if it is to become only a question of prejudice and party feeling, it would not be a work of God. Union might be secured, but it would not be the unity of the Spirit. It might seem to be a great work, and there might be for the moment, at least, great rejoicing over the union of all these companies, but in the sight of God it would be a leavened mass, thinking more of their own importance in this world than of separation from evil, and thinking more of brethren than of the honor and glory of the Lord’s holy name.

But it may be well to inquire a little further as to causes. We must remember that God has permitted these evils to come upon us, and we may well ask why. His judgment has fallen upon us all, and not merely on a few leaders whom we were disposed to blame almost exclusively. Why is this? If we compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1, we will get the key to this question. In the latter passage we read that “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” The former passage tells us why this was permitted. “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” It was not merely David’s state and wrong act that brought “three days’ pestilence” on Israel, so that “there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.” Israel’s state was such that the Lord’s anger was kindled against them, and this was the real secret of the plague. Is it not so still? If we were in a right state, would the Lord allow a heresy to arise among us? Assuredly not. And while the leaders in these things are especially guilty, we never can get right with God unless we judge the whole state that has displeased Him. This, I believe, was done in an unusual degree by those who resisted the evil in the struggle of 1848. But it may well be questioned if there has been any such thorough work in connection with the later divisions. Had we sufficiently humbled ourselves before God, would we have been so repeatedly smitten of Him? This question may well exercise us all.

It is an undeniable fact that during the present [now the past] century God has wrought a very remarkable work in recovering to His people much truth that had been practically lost, recovering not only the blessed gospel of His grace in its riches and fullness, but also the truth as to the Church which is Christ’s body, and reviving the blessed hope of the Church, the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was God’s work, and many were affected by it, and brought under its power.

But such movements are always followed by a time of testing. God works, and then leaves the results in man’s hand as responsible to hold fast, and witness to the truth entrusted to him. And here failure comes in. It has always been so. It was so after the great work which was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was so after the remarkable work of the reformation under Luther, Zwinglius and others. And it has been so since the work which began in the first half of the present [now past] century. I think no one can look over the history of this movement without recognizing that there has been very serious declension. And when there is declension there has been failure — lack of self-denial and of devotedness to the Lord; the truth losing its power over the soul, and with this the decline of spiritual energy and power. Where there is a divine movement going on which is marked by much power and blessing, it is easy to go on while the current is steady and strong. You are borne along, as it were, on the current and if you meet with external opposition it seems as nothing. But when the wave of power has passed over, and the reality of what has been done is being tested, it is quite another matter. Those who are not going on with God are then manifested. They are no longer attracted by show of power, nor by manifestations of wonderful blessing. The wave has passed over, having done its work, and these find their proper level. When there is only a show of power, which is not the result of truth realized in the soul, but merely the effect of association with others, it will not continue. It is evanescent and soon passes away, and when it is gone, the true state appears. Such persons may still continue in the position externally, but sooner or later they are likely to give trouble.

There is another thing in this connection. Many have been attracted by the grace that has been preached, and the simplicity and brotherly love that have been manifested, and have taken their place amongst us without any clear understanding of the real ground of gathering. They are in their right place, but need instruction and building up through the gracious ministry of the Word. They are babes, and need nursing and conducting up to the full knowledge of Christ, learning their place as members of His body, and the functions that belong to them as such. These are often neglected and make little progress, and when trouble arises they are at sea.

Many also have come amongst us of late years, who have taken their place with very little exercise of soul. They have got the truth easily, because it has been made easy for them, and they have not got it well. Those who were first in the movement were like the armies of Joshua, who had to conquer in order to possess. Their children did not have to do this, and so did not value, as their fathers did the land of Jehovah, nor did they fear Him and keep His commandments. The result was that they were soon overcome by their enemies. So it is now. Those who received the truth under deep and prolonged exercise of soul, searching the Word of God with fastings and prayers and tears, in the face of opposition and reproach, valued it when they got it. They bought it dearly, and would not sell it. But now the truth has been developed and formulated, even popularized, and many have got it with little labor or exercise. They have got it only from man, and have not made it really their own from the Word of God. And when the test comes they cannot hold it against the attacks of the enemy. Truehearted, earnest souls may get it, after they have learned their weakness; but they have to go all over the ground again with God so as really to possess what they only thought they had. But many do not stand the test at all, and where there has been lack of reality the door is opened to many evils. Worldliness, slackness of soul, neglect of prayer and reading God’s Word, and such like things manifest themselves in a state like this.

All this paves the way for worse evils. As spiritual power declines, the energy of the flesh takes its place, and the development of a state that calls down upon us some expression of God’s displeasure. The evil may take form in the secret working of some moral evil, or the springing up of some heresy, or some attack upon the Person of Christ. God permits it. He is displeased, and allows the outbreak of something that will test, sift and humble. And it is a terrible thing when evil breaks out in the assembly of God, as is shown by the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, or, again, in the case of the two blasphemers, Hymeneus and Alexander, mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:20. In Revelation 1 we see that all is taken note of by One who, although He has long patience, executes unsparing judgment against evil. Holiness becomes His house forever, and His holiness is inflexible. We cannot lay this too deeply to heart.

It is important, then, to see that when God allows some heresy to break out among His people, He has a controversy not merely with some leader (who may be a tool of Satan, or simply deceived by his own importance and led by his own will), but with His people. And if we are to get right, with God, there must be the judgment before God, not only of the immediate outbreak of wickedness, but of the state that afforded opportunity for its development. We have a remarkable illustration of this in the case of Israel going up against Benjamin, as recorded in Judges 20. The children of Benjamin had allied themselves to a horrible evil in refusing to deliver up for judgment the guilty sons of Belial. All Israel, four hundred thousand strong, went up as one man against Benjamin. And was not this right? But they went up in self-confidence and pride of heart, and as the judges of their brethren, and this was not right, and the Lord would not allow them to gain a victory. They must themselves be humbled, as well as Benjamin, and twice they were allowed to suffer defeat, losing in two battles forty thousand men. This was indeed a bitter and humbling lesson, but it was full of blessing. Their self-confidence and their legal spirit were completely broken. “Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.” This was a state the Lord could own, and the next day Benjamin was delivered into their hand.

Oh, that we might learn the deep lesson taught in all this! Have we wept and fasted before the Lord, in self-judgment and contrition of heart, because of all that has displeased Him? Have we so learned our own sin that our hard and legal spirit has been broken, and so that now we seek the removal of evil, not in self-confidence and as being judges of our brethren, but because God’s holiness requires it? And have we so learned Christ that, in judging sin, our love and our affection for our brethren are in no wise weakened by our hatred and our refusal of the evil? Have we not greatly failed in all this? And is not this one reason why the Lord has allowed us to be chastened more and more? The very needs-be of judging evil amongst us proves we have failed, and this ought to humble us in the dust before our God, as the first step toward carrying out His will in putting the evil away.

We need, then, to confess our sins in humiliation and self-judgment before God. And we cannot be too real and thorough in this work. It is the way of getting right with God, so that we may, in the light of His presence and in communion with Him, have a clear judgment as to all that brings dishonor upon the name of His Son.

On the other hand, if this is to be done in a public way, it should be understood that where there has been a firm resistance of evil, this cannot be confessed as sin. We could not confess that we had sinned in resisting Mr. Newton’s horrible blasphemy against the Person of Christ, or the clerical system of tyranny over the consciences of the saints, which preceded the public outbreak of this heresy at Plymouth. Neither could we confess that we had sinned in resisting Bethesda’s wretched neutrality and her adopted principle of allowing ecclesiastical association with blasphemers. Neither could we confess that we had sinned in resisting the partisan course and wrong teaching of other leaders who have been instrumental in bringing in later divisions. These are things that we could not confess as sin. There may be very much in the way and spirit in which this resistance of evil has been carried forward, but this is a different matter. Human infirmity mixes itself up, more or less, with all that we do, and this must not be allowed to be thrown as dust in the eyes of saints in order to blind them to the real issue, or as to who is on the Lord’s side. Nevertheless it is right that failure in this respect also should be confessed before the Lord and to one another. Such confession might serve to remove stumbling blocks out of the way of some, and in every way it would be pleasing to the Lord.

But what I believe to be of deepest importance for confession on every side, both in public and in private, is the state into which we had fallen — the worldliness, the earthly-mindedness, the self-seeking, the indifference to the truth of God and the glory of Christ, the unwatchfulness which left the door open for the enemy to enter and sow tares — all this associated with departure from first love, and more or less pretension as to the possession of heavenly truth and being gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, simply as believers or as members of His body, the only true ground of gathering. Of course, to be so gathered and to be in possession of what God in His wondrous grace has revealed to us in Christ is right. But the pretension to this, while the walk and life show that the heart is elsewhere, is something that God must blow upon. As to all this we certainly would do well to confess in the fullest way our sin and failure, and this with true sorrow and humiliation before Him. If there were general true confession of sin and seeking of His face as to all that has brought His hand so heavily upon us, we might expect abundant mercy and blessing at His hand.

“Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil. Who knoweth if He will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?” (Joel 2:12-14).

And now a word as to the path of faith in the midst of the confusion and ruin. At a time when souls are perplexed and discouraged over the broken up and scattered condition of those who ought to be bearing a united testimony to the unity of God’s people as members of the body of Christ, many may be ready to ask: Is there such a path? Unhesitatingly we may answer, there is. God’s unerring Word, which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path, will not fail those who take heed thereto. That Word declares: “There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture’s eye hath not seen; the lion’s whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed by it.” This is a path which no natural intelligence can discover, though it be keen as the eye of the vulture; nature can neither find it nor walk in it, even though it have the strength of the young lion. It is a path in which faith alone can walk. “Wisdom” and “understanding” from God are necessary to it. And no man can buy these. “The price of wisdom is above rubies.” It is beyond the reach of “gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire.” But “God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.” “And unto man He said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:7-28). Here, then, we have the secret of wisdom’s path. The fear of the Lord and departure from evil are wisdom and understanding.

Where these are the path will be clear; and where these are not all will be doubt and uncertainty, because the eye is not single. “The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.”

I would press upon beloved brethren, that the many discordant voices in Christendom cannot produce uncertainty as to the path, if the one voice of wisdom be heeded. God’s Word supplies the only light for the path. To have the understanding of this, we must be near to Him, having broken and contrite spirits which give Him His place as God; and this makes departure from evil imperative. It is just the lack of this state that has made us incapable of discerning evil and closing the door against it. If worldly interest or natural friendship or kindred ties, or anything else, is allowed to come in the way of the soul’s obedience to God in departing from evil, the light is dimmed and the soul is filled with perplexity. But if God has His proper place in the soul, there is unhesitating obedience, the Spirit who dwells in us is ungrieved and free, and fills the soul with Christ as its Object, and He becomes the touchstone by which everything is tested. How will it affect His glory? Will He be honored? Will His name be magnified? are questions that would settle many a difficulty. What then is the conclusion? Simply this, that if we would find the path all light, we must abide in His presence, who is light, and maintain in His fear that holy separation from evil which is necessary to His nature, because He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Thus will we be self-judged and the heart will refuse to tolerate what the light condemns, our path will thus be one of light, as well as of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

I do not raise the question as to which one of the different companies is approved of God as having maintained the truth as to His Church, in separation from evil. Let all be judged by His Word, and He will guide the simple soul that fears Him and seeks only His will. I only press the point that God has xx path in which He will lead those who fear Him and depart from evil. His Word is plain as to this. We shall not find this path to be one of carnal ease. We shall meet the reproach of Christ in it, with much to exercise the heart, and we shall need the faith that brings God into all the difficulties. If we have not this, courage will fail, for we cannot walk this path in our own strength.

Let us then, beloved brethren, seek God’s face with purpose of heart to abide by His unchanging principles, which can be understood only in His presence. The obedient soul can say: “Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” Whatever there may be of ruin and confusion, God’s Word abides the same, and furnishes light for every step. We will have His Word and His Spirit. What need we, then, but to have hearts exercised in His presence to walk in the path of obedience, according to that Word, and under the guidance of His Spirit?

When the truth of Christianity was revealed, it was as clear as light itself that the family of God was one, and composed of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Has this truth changed? Certainly not. It was also just as clear that there was “one body,” composed of many members, indwell and united together by “one Spirit,” and that Christ was the Head of this body, all the members being united to Him, as well as to one another, by the Spirit. Has this truth changed? Certainly not. There may be a great mass of profession where there is no reality, and the people of God may be divided in every possible way; but it remains true that “there is one body and one Spirit,” and that every blood-washed, Spirit-sealed person on the face of the earth is a member of that body. As then, so now, this is the Church — -”the Church which is His body” (Eph. 1:22,23). It is also just as clear that, in every city or locality where the saints were gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, those so gathered were “the assembly of God” in the place — built together for a “habitation of God in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 2:22). These were gathered on the principle that the whole company of believers was one, and they locally represented the whole body. Even though there might be different meetings in a city, as a matter of convenience, on account of distance or numbers, the assembly was one, so that in Scripture we always read of “the assembly,” not “assemblies,” of such and such a city. There is no such thing as independence. The assembly was one everywhere. A man received at Corinth was received at Ephesus, because he had been received by the assembly of God.

On the same principle, a man put away for sin at Corinth was put away everywhere. An act of discipline carried out at Corinth “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” was valid in Ephesus and everywhere, for the simple reason that the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ at Corinth could not be set aside by the same authority at Ephesus or anywhere else. This is a simple principle connected with the truth that the assembly of God is one, however many local representations of it there may be in different places. There is one body, one Spirit, one Head and Lord, whose authority was the same in every local assembly. All this excludes independency, and shows that if there are a number of different companies of brethren in a place, meeting, walking and acting independently of each other, some of these at least, have departed in their position and walk from the simple truth that the assembly of God is one: they are not keeping the unity of the Spirit. These principles are simple enough, and we only need to be self-judged in the presence of the Lord to discern them.

I know that complications may arise, and every kind of difficulty. But we must hold fast the simple divine principles, which are plain enough in the Word of God, and not allow ourselves to be drawn away from these by any kind of complications or difficulties. If difficulties arise, they spring from our own state, and not from the Word of God. What we need, then, is to judge our own state, and wait upon God for light. God will never fail those who do this. But if this is refused, He may allow us to be overcome by the difficulties, and to bring upon us His chastisement because of our state.

Let us take the case of the division which occurred at Montreal ten years ago. It is an unquestionable fact that a new teaching had been introduced, which antagonized not a little of what we had received as of God, and resulted in gathering a number of adherents. This teaching and the partisan course connected with it were resisted with energy — an energy mixed up, perhaps, with more or less failure. There were charges and counter-charges of partisan spirit and wrong doing. Finally it was decided in the assembly to put away from amongst them the author of the new teaching. As to this final act, many believed it righteous, while those who had come under the influence of the teaching branded it as unrighteous. I do not raise the question here. But granting that all the charges on every side were true, what was the remedy? Would it not have been found in common humiliation and self-judgment before God, and while filled with sorrow because of this unhappy state, waiting upon Him for light? Would He have failed His people while they were thus looking to Him in self-abasement and contrition of heart? Impossible!

But if, instead of this, the adherents of the new teaching immediately separated themselves from the assembly, openly and publicly identifying themselves with the one who was put away, was not this being overcome of evil? When I say evil, I mean not the action of the assembly in putting away, but the whole state which issued in a party separating from the assembly. Not only were these brethren overcome by the evil, but their act placed them in a position of schism and independency by which they precipitated and forced division everywhere. It may be said that if they had remained in the assembly, they, at least the active ones among them, would have been dealt with too. Be it so; it in no wise alters the principle. They could have humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God, and, supposing they had been wrongly dealt with, this would not have been in vain. The effect would have been just the opposite of that produced by the course which they pursued. Had they, in sorrow and self-abasement, waited on God to act upon the conscience of the whole body, it might have prevented a division which went everywhere. As it was, their act only revealed that the glory of the Lord Jesus and the unity of the assembly were entirely eclipsed by party considerations.

Again, if we take the division of 1848, we have a very different case, but the violation of divine principles was even more flagrant. First there was the introduction of a persistent course of heretical teaching, and finally the introduction of la false Christ in the assembly, and thus the true Christ was displaced. Labor, entreaty, remonstrance, all failed. Separation from this wickedness became imperative, and through the active energy of the Spirit of God many withdrew from the defiled camp. Others again displayed shocking indifference as to preserving the saints from this foul heresy which was well known to be actively working. Horrible neutrality as to evil affecting the Person and glory of Christ was deliberately maintained at Bethesda, and the principle of allowing ecclesiastical association with blasphemers voted by the assembly and signed by the leaders. Was this conserving the glory of Christ? On the contrary, it was shutting Christ out, and forfeiting all title to be owned as an assembly of God. The principle of association with a false Christ became the moral basis of that assembly. Again separation became imperative. It may be said many godly people remained. Very likely, but they were overcome of evil, and lost their title to be owned as on divine ground, and by their refusal to act according to truth and for the glory of Christ, by maintaining separation from evil, they perpetuated a breach that God might have healed, had all humbled themselves before Him, confessing their unfaithfulness and sin, instead of laboring so zealously to save appearances and preserve their own reputation at the expense of Christ.

As in these cases, so in every case, God will make a way for those who fear Him, and depart from evil. But I repeat, God must have His place in the soul. Obedience to His Word and seeking the glory of Christ in a path of separation from evil are imperative. We may have to mourn the fact that so many refuse to humble themselves in repentance and contrition before God, and that they are allowed to follow a self-chosen path, which does not have simply Christ and His glory as its end; but we need not be discouraged. “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” It was when Paul had to say to Timothy: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me,” that he encouraged his son in the faith to stir up the gift that was in him, and not to be “ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,” but to be a “partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God,” exhorting him to be “strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.”

If there has been much breaking up and scattering, it shows that there has been much that God could not approve; and He has allowed all this evil to come upon us, that we might be chastened and humbled. But if with all this there has been real separation from evil, in the fear of God, it proves that there is still an energy of the Holy Spirit which refuses evil, and which proves that God is with us, maintaining in us, however feebly, a testimony to Christ till He comes.

Let us not then, beloved brethren, be discouraged. We may be few, we may be weak, we may be despised, we may be chastened in spirit because the hand of our God has been upon us, but if God be with us, we have nothing to fear. The hour calls for true-hearted faithfulness and devotedness to Christ, whatever of reproach and suffering for His name it may involve. The struggle will not be long. “A little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Heb. 10:37; Rev. 3:11).

Eternal Life and the Person of Christ

“Who is on the LORD’S side?” Ex. 32:26.

A soul formed by the Word of God, when thinking of eternal life, thinks of a life that has been revealed in the Person of God’s beloved Son. It is a life that subsists from eternity to eternity in Him, in relationship with the Father before all worlds, and forever; which had, and has, its home in the Father’s bosom, in all the intimacies and delights and affections of the Father’s heart, in bliss unclouded and beyond all measure. “In Him was life” (John 1:4); “He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20 JND); “the eternal life, which was with the Father” (1 John 1:2 JND).

In John 5:21 we learn that giving life is the prerogative alike of the Father and the Son; and in verse 26, that “as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself.” This last is the Son as man here on earth; for, as a divine person, the eternal Word, He had life in Himself as the Father has. “In Him was life” was true of Him before the incarnation. But now also as become man it is given Him of the Father to have life in Himself. In Him who is now in His own Person both God and man the life is, and in Him as man, the Mediator, the life has been revealed, and has assumed the form in which God purposed it for man, and promised it, before the world began. See 2 Timothy 1:1-10; Titus 1:2. This is “the eternal life, which was with the Father” before the world began, but which has been revealed in and for man according to God’s eternal purpose.

It is distinctly stated that “the life was manifested” without any question of who saw it, or knew what it was. “The life was the light of men,” and was shining for men — “the true Light... which, coming into the world, lightens every man.” But it was also seen by men on earth when Christ was here in flesh. The apostles were chosen witnesses, and could say “we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us.” They saw Him who was the life, and who had come in flesh to reveal it; and when the enemy was seeking to lead the saints beyond what was revealed in Him, entangling them by vain and wicked speculations, the apostles could recall them to Christ, in whose Person they had seen “the eternal life, which was with the Father,” the knowledge of which led into blessing and joy of which “vain philosophy” knows nothing. “That which we have seen and heard we report to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” It was not a new development, but “that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life.” It was not a phantom they saw, nor a “sphere,” nor a “condition” (though condition was there), but a real person, the Word made flesh, “the Word of Life,” “the eternal life, which was with the Father,” down here in a man, whom they handled as well as saw.

It is not a question of how far the apostles entered into the truth of what they saw and heard, before the blessed Lord had accomplished redemption, going up on high and sealing them with the Holy Ghost. But they had been witnesses, and when the Holy Ghost came they bore witness to what they had seen. Feeble indeed was their apprehension until the Spirit of truth came, but they had seen and contemplated “the Word of life” in flesh, and they had heard His words, and received them — the words which the Father had given Him, and which were life eternal. The life which was thus revealed, which the apostles (and others as well) saw, and have reported to us, is the life which God has given us in His Son, and in which, by the power of the Holy Ghost, we have communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. The life is now seen in Him as man glorified on high, in its own proper sphere, and in the condition in which we shall have it according to the fullness of God’s thoughts and purpose.

Through redemption, in the lifting up of the Son of man on the cross, the foundation has been laid in righteousness for the communication of eternal life to perishing men, and thus, too, the door has been opened into the “heavenly things” to which eternal life properly belongs, and the sinner, perishing in his sins, who through grace believes on that One who has been lifted up passes from death unto life. His eye rests on Him in whom God gives eternal life, and eternal life is his. “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:11-12.

The life is communicated to us through the Word and by the Spirit, the Spirit being the divine agent by whom the Word is made effective in the soul (John 3:5; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; John 5:24-25). Man is in a state of death, and if he is to have life, God must act sovereignly. God begins. Man himself is as powerless as was dead Lazarus, until the life-giving word is spoken. The power of God acts upon the dead soul by the Word, and God gives the faith that receives it. It is all above and beyond human reason. None can understand or explain. Humanly speaking a dead man cannot hear or believe; nor could man or angel make him hear or believe. But God moves in the scene of death, and all is changed. He who created when only Himself existed, and at whose word worlds sprang into existence, can make His word heard in the soul of a dead sinner. Dead Lazarus heard the voice of the Son of God, and came forth from the dead; and dead souls now hear His voice and live. The Word accompanied by the power of God produces its own effect in the soul; and this is so right on to the end. God acts in us by His Word, whether as dead sinners needing life, or as saints needing instruction and warning. We are vessels of mercy. But if He has wrought in us by His Word, that word has been received in the soul. It has been believed. If God gives, we receive, believe, though even this be by grace from Him, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). But man cannot explain the how of these things, any more than he can explain the mystery of natural life (John 3:18; Eccl. 11:5).

Notice, too, when the Lord is speaking of life, He says: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). These were the words of the Father, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting” (John 12:49-50). Compare John 8:25, where they ask Jesus, “Who art thou?” His answer is, “Altogether that which I also say to you.” (John 8:25 JND). Trans. He was who and what His words expressed. They were not only the “commandment” of the Father, but declared the Father and the Son. He and the Father were one and were expressed in the word of the Son. This was life eternal to every one who received it. Compare also, 1 John 2:7-8, where we have the “commandment,” first in Him and then in the believer — “which thing is true in Him and in you.” He is the eternal life, and the commandment is eternal life. He identifies Himself and His words, so that what He is in nature and life is communicated to the one who receives His words. It is not Deity communicated (that could not be), but life — Himself as life — “which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light now shines.”

Thus when we are born again, having heard the life-giving voice of the Son of God, we are quickened with His life. We live before God by the life which is in the Son. We have it when we have the Son; when there is faith in His Person it is there. But we enter consciously into the Christian character of it when we have the knowledge of redemption, and are sealed by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost leads into the knowledge of Christ in His relationship with the Father, and of our place and relationships in Him, and enables us as sons to cry, Abba, Father. “At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you” (John 14:20). “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

We possess this life now. It is indeed a life which belongs to another world, so that we are not of the world, but we possess it while here. It was “manifested” and “seen” in Christ, in His life of humiliation here — all its beautiful moral traits shining out in His Person in undimmed luster and divine beauty. John presents it to us thus, and Christ is thus our pattern in our path through this world. “He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked” (1 John 2:6).

We shall have it also in the glorified state where Christ is in the Father’s house, when He comes and takes us home. We have it not yet in that state, though we have it in the character in which it is revealed in connection with heavenly relationships in having the knowledge of the Father, the only true God and Jesus Christ, His sent One. We live in this relationship now, but have the hope of glory also. “It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). We shall then have the life in the condition in which it is seen in Him as man glorified. Thus Paul saw and presents it — “the end everlasting life.”

The particular condition in which the life is seen, as in humiliation, or in glory, does not affect what the life is in itself. Jesus said: “I am... the life”; “He is the true God and eternal life”; “the eternal life, which was with the Father.” It is what He is in His own eternal Person as life, not a condition He entered upon either in incarnation or resurrection, important as that condition may be in connection with its display and the form in which it is communicated to men. He, the eternal Son, ever was, is, and ever will be, in His own glorious Person and eternal Being, “THE ETERNAL LIFE.” His humiliation detracted not from, and His glory as man adds not to its essential and unchanging glory. His becoming man was necessary for its revelation, for the accomplishment of redemption, and for its communication to men, but the life in all that it is in itself apart from the form or conditions it has assumed in Him as man, subsists in His eternal Person. To give up this is to give up the truth as to His divine Person, and the truth itself, for He is “the truth” as well as “the life.” Apart from this, to talk of eternal life as “the condition which characterizes the second Man,” however glorious, is an illusive dream of a mind not subject to God’s Word. Blessed be God, the life has been revealed in Christ as a man, and to men, but “the light of life” in which as believers we walk, only shows the infinite capability which eternally existed in Him as the life, as the light of the sun in which we walk as natural men shows the capability of the sun as an orb of light. While cleaving to this as to His Person, it is ours to rejoice that the darkness is passing and the true light now shines.

The eternal orb of Light and Life has shone in this dark world to deliver from the darkness and death sin had brought in. For a moment, as it were, the eternal life in Him came down into this world to be seen by the eyes of dying, perishing men, that they might live. He who is the life accomplished redemption on the cross. The Son of man was lifted up that He might be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; and thus God was glorified as to sin according to the full requirement of His glorious majesty, and all that He is as Light and Love revealed in this mighty sacrifice which His own heart provided, that men might not only live, but be delivered from the whole condition of misery and ruin into which sin had plunged them, and be brought into Christ’s place and condition and relationship with the Father for eternity. This is the glorious scene to which eternal life properly belongs — where it is at home, so to speak — and this lost world, with Adam’s fallen and ruined race, comes in only by the way, and as the occasion for bringing out this marvelous display of light and life, and love and grace according to God’s eternal counsels. Only we must remember that we have eternal life now, before we enter upon that eternal and fixed state in glory for which we wait. And in the coming age, too, Israel and the nations will have it on earth, as Scripture clearly shows (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46.)

Now, whatever Mr. Raven may mean by many of his utterances, judging from his words, one would not think that he held in his soul that on which all this as to the revelation of “eternal life” depends. It depends on what the life is in its own intrinsic nature and glorious character in the eternal Person of the Son of God, “the eternal life, which was with the Father.” The eternal life was there to be revealed in God’s due time. Now while Mr. Raven admits vaguely in a sort of a parenthetical sentence, that “essentially” eternal life was ever with the Father, he does not admit that this was His life as a divine Person, as “in Him was life.” We must, therefore, examine his statements.

In a letter dated “17th Sept., ‘90, and copied by H. T., 33 Queen’s Road, Tunbridge Wells,” he says: “My point in the controversy has been to show that eternal life, though existing essentially in the Son with the Father, is the condition which characterizes the second Man, and consequently it is in the state into which resurrection leads that He is fully revealed as eternal life.”

Observe here that he uses “though existing essentially in the Son with the Father” parenthetically, so that his main statement is, “eternal life... is the condition which characterizes the second Man,” etc. If you receive this you have lost in your soul that which eternal life really is. It is true that the life has been revealed in Christ become man, and in Him as man glorified is seen the “condition” in which we shall have it when we see Him, but He was the life before He became man, and before this condition appeared, and if you lose this, you lose what He is in His own Person.

Next he says: “What He was in His own Person remains true, and even when here after the flesh He was manifested to the apostles to be eternal life, in spite of the part which He had taken in human life to accomplish God’s will.”

Now this agrees perfectly with his theory, that eternal life is a condition connected with manhood — “the condition which characterizes the second Man,” and which is “fully revealed” “in the state into which resurrection leads.” What it is could not be perfectly revealed till Christ was glorified. True, in Him glorified is seen the condition of the life for man according to God’s counsels; but if the “condition” is made the “life,” the life is lost, for a condition is not life. Nay, more, if that condition be “eternal life,” then Christ had to enter into eternal life, for He was not in the “condition” until He became man, nor fully till glorified. Appalling conclusion! What He was as the eternal life is lost, and is replaced by a mere “condition” of manhood.

And think of saying, “in spite of the part He had taken in human life down here,” as if His blessed, holy humanity in humiliation dimmed the luster of that wondrous life which shone out in Him in infinite moral loveliness and grace! Was it not true of Him when here, that “the life was the light of men”? Was He not “the true light... which., coming into the world, lightens every man”? Was it not when in humiliation He said, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life”? Was it not then He said, “Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide Himself from them”? Was this an invisible light? Was the blessed Lord inviting men to “light of life” which, after all, must only leave them in darkness and death! Or were a few only permitted to catch a few rays that shone out “in spite of” His lowly state on earth? What meant those wondrous communications from the Father which He uttered in this world, not to the apostles merely, but to the people and the rulers as well? What was it when “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me. And He that seeth Me seeth Him that sent Me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day”? What does He say about these words which He spoke to the people? He said, “I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting.” His words were spoken to the people, they were the commandment of the Father, and the commandment was life eternal. Was this a “condition” of the second Man? The words of Jesus were the expression of Himself (John 8:25). He was the eternal life, and the commandment was eternal life. He was in this world as such, and His words were not spoken in secret; there was thus a full, blessed shining out of the light of life, all the more wonderfully beautiful in its moral loveliness and grace because of the humiliation of the glorious Person in whom it was manifested. Oh! beloved child of God, whose eyes have beheld this light of life, what can you think of a system of teaching which denies the shining forth of this light in His lowly path of humiliation and sorrow here, and which robs Him of the essential glory which belongs to His Person as the eternal life with the Father?

In the same letter Mr. Raven further says: “I may add that when, as in John 1:1-13, the Lord is presented to us by the Spirit abstractly as a divine Person, expressions are used which do not apply to eternal life, such as ‘In Him was life’; that is, as self-existent.”

Now, when you remember that Mr. Raven regards eternal life as “the condition which characterizes the second Man,” you can better understand why he refuses to connect eternal life with John 1:4, “In Him was life.” This expression is used of Christ as a divine Person presented abstractly; but since eternal life is a condition of manhood, according to Mr. Raven, he cannot apply it to Christ until after He became man. Thus he refuses to apply the term “eternal life” to Christ until He became man; and even then, he elsewhere speaks of it as distinct from what He was irt His own Person, as in 1 John 1:1-2, where the “life” is presented as manifested, and declared to be “the eternal life, which was with the Father:” It may be asked, in passing, when “was” this eternal life “with the Father”? According to Mr. Raven it could only have been after Christ was come in flesh, because with Him eternal life “is the condition which characterizes the second Man”; or, if he admits it was so before the incarnation, then it must have been what he calls “in essence,” the meaning of which we may presently inquire into. But does not the passage mean that Christ was the eternal life with the Father before all worlds, as we have all been accustomed to understand it? Is it not the life that was in the Son, according to John 1:4, and which remained unrevealed in Him until He became man, when it was manifested and seen? In John 1:1, we have “the Word was with God,” and in verse 14, “the Word was made flesh.” Thus the Word which was with God was manifested in this world. In verse 4 it is said, “In Him (that is, in the Word) was life.” This was ever true, but it is at once added, “and the life was the light of men”; and it was on His coming into the world that this light shone for men, “the true light... which, coming into the world, lightens every man” (verse 9). Now, it was when He was in the world the apostles heard, saw, looked upon, and handled Him, and He is here called “the Word of life” — the One who was, and expressed, the life in His own Person. It is here as in John 1:1-2, the eternal Word. The manifestation was of the life in Him as become man, and so it is said from the beginning; but His Person, “the Word of life,” carries you back into eternity, and so “the life” (1 John 1:2) which “was manifested” and “seen” was not only what was “from the beginning,” but what existed before there was any beginning — “the eternal life, which was with the Father.” This life was manifested in the Person of the Son become man, the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” but it was there in the Son to be manifested. This is really the foundation of the whole truth connected with the subject of eternal life. But this foundation Mr. Raven would take away from us, by denying this essential glory which belongs to the Son of God as the eternal life before time began. No one questions that Christ was more than eternal life; He was the Son, the Word, the Creator, God, and now man, but He was also Life, Light, the eternal life which was with the Father, and all this in His adorable Person. May we hold it fast in our souls as a divine revelation which God has given us in His Word, without attempting to analyze or divide that glorious Being whom no man can know. When Scripture presents to our faith Himself as “the life,” and “our life,” why should anyone presume to analyze and say this in Him is eternal life, and that is not? We know from Scripture He is God, and He is man, yet one Person, and you cannot take the words, ways, and acts which made up the practical manifestation of His life on earth and divide them into two classes, ascribing one class to the divine, and the other to the human, in Him, because the human and divine united in such a way that you cannot separate them. He manifested the power of God in raising Lazarus, yet the words were uttered by human lips; and besides God and His Son being glorified in it, there was the outflow of divine affection and sympathy, as witnessed in the Lord’s tears wept through human eyes, as Jesus wept with the weeping sisters. Even when He laid down His life as man on the cross, while we say He died as man, we cannot separate from that act, and the laying down of that life, the infinite value of His whole Person. He died as man, but the Person whose human life was laid down was God as well as man, and this gives its infinite value to the atonement. The human and divine mingled in His acts, and we may contemplate human and divine aspects of His Person, but let none dare intrude into the mystery of their union in the Person of the God-man. That this has been done cannot be denied; and who can tell with what fearful damage to souls, whether to those who have had the boldness and hardihood to make and present before others their unholy analyzes, or to those who have listened to them? One feels impelled to enter a most emphatic and solemn protest against such liberty as has been taken with that Person whom none but the Father knows. Yet we need not wonder that such liberty has been taken when we find ourselves in the presence of a carefully developed system which depends on analyzing the Person of the Lord — a system which declares eternal life to have been ever an integral part of the Person of the Son, yet which denies that the “life” in Him which “was the light of men” was “eternal life.”

Here I may give several extracts of letters by Mr. Raven, written to explain his doctrine, and copied by his friends, and sent to others in order to enlighten (?) them on this new teaching.

“I could not make ‘so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself’ and ‘eternal life’ to be the same.

“I believe eternal life is what He is now as man, but then it takes its character from what He was eternally as divine. But I believe eternal life to be the life of man according to the purpose of God, and what has come out fully in resurrection, though manifested in Him even before. In a word I believe eternal life to mean a new man in a new scene (for man).

“Christ is seen in this epistle as with the Father (an advocate, etc.), and in the last chapter God’s Son is carefully identified with Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, and it is of Him that it is predicated, `He is the true God and eternal life’; that is, as I understand it in full revelation.

“But it is also taught in John that that eternal life which was with the Father had been manifested to the apostles. Now, though this un-questionably refers to the days of His flesh, it is distinct from what He was in His own Person, and had ever been, though this now gave its character to manhood. He was when here the last Adam, the second Man, though not yet clothed according to the counsels of God in a condition commensurate to what He was spiritually in life. What was morally life in Him was what He was with God in spiritual being and relationship (as well as Himself being God), but He was for the moment clothed in a condition pure and immaculate in itself, but not commensurate with the spiritual being.

“The first remark I would make on Mr. Rule’s letter is in regard to purpose as connected with eternal life. I fail to understand his difficulty. I suppose it was God’s purpose that eternal life should be revealed as the condition of the second Man, and that we should have it in Him. I am not surprised at his being unable to understand my statements as to eternal life, for we look at things from different points of view. As far as I can gather, he regards eternal life as the life of the Son as a divine Person, as in fact equivalent to ‘In Him was life,’ while I regard it as a condition which, although ever existing essentially in the Son, is presented in Scripture as characteristic of the second Man....

“I fail to find in any of the gospels the statement that Christ is eternal life; on the contrary eternal life there refers without exception to something given to man, or into which man is to enter. In 1 John the object appears to be to unfold the eternal life which has been revealed in Christ in order that saints might know that they had it. I do not believe that the idea of its being an essential personal title of the Son can be maintained, not but what God’s purpose of grace and eternal life were in Him.”

One of the first things to be noticed with these statements is, that in looking at eternal life in connection with the Person of Christ, Mr. Raven distinguishes it from the life that was in Him as a divine person. “In Him was life” is not “eternal life,” and the “life” the Father gave the Son to have in Himself is not “eternal life”; and he also says that in 1 John 1:2, “it is distinct from what He was in His own Person, and had ever been.” Now this necessitates, first, that in His own Person He was not the eternal life which was with the Father, and second, that either the eternal life was not the life that was in Him as a divine person, or that He had two lives, the life that He had as self-existent, and eternal life. Take hold of either horn of this dilemma, and you have lost the truth as to the Person of Christ.

Nor is this all. It also follows that after Christ became man, Mr. Raven connects three lives with His Person; first, His life as self-existent; second, human life, and third, eternal life, or “the condition of the second Man.”

One feels the necessity of apologizing for committing such things to paper. I have set forth in plain tea ins the result of Mr. Raven’s analyzing of the Person of God’s Son in connection with his doctrine of eternal life — an analysis on which his whole system depends — in hope that the exposure of such daring intrusion into that holy mystery may yet arouse some who are sensitive to the glory and honor of their blessed Redeemer. Thousands are being carried away under the fearful delusion that there is nothing but sound doctrine in the teaching of this man. Perhaps a view of the fatal result of all this reasoning of the human mind on what no man knows or can know, and of this bold intruding where seraphim only veil their faces and cry “Holy, holy, holy,” may awaken some to the realization of what is in question in the present assault of the enemy. One would ask in connection with what is passing before us, where are the unshod feet? Where the trembling at God’s Word? Where the holy reverence due to the Person and name of Him who, though once passing through deepest humiliation, is the One on whom the very existence of all worlds and all created beings hangs?

Another thing to be remarked in connection with these extracts from Mr. Raven is, that they are entirely confirmatory of what we have already noticed as to his definition of eternal life — that it is a condition which characterizes the second Man. His words are plain. “I believe eternal life is what He is now as man.” “I believe eternal life to be the life of man according to the purpose of God.” “I believe eternal life to mean a new man in a new scene (for man).” “I suppose it was God’s purpose that eternal life should be revealed as the condition of the second Man.” “I regard it as a condition which, although ever existing essentially in the Son, is presented in Scripture as characteristic of the second Man.” Such are his words. And I may here add that I have seen in his own handwriting a statement that in the connection in which things stand in Scripture he does not see that eternal life ever goes beyond man, whether Christ or us. All this shows that he connects eternal life only with man. This may be denied since he makes other statements apparently of an opposite character which we may examine.

I quote here a statement said to be printed with Mr. Raven’s approval.

“I gather that altogether apart from what was manifested to others, the ‘Word... made flesh’ was also the eternal life, whether in the babe in the manger, or in the hungry, thirsty, weary Man among men, that eternal life which was from eternity with the Father, was present here below in the Person of Him who ‘is in the bosom of the Father.’ The blessed, hungry, weary Man was never less than ‘the Mighty God,’ and though hunger, weariness, and sleep are not in themselves the expression of His Godhead (Isa. 40:28; Psa. 121:3-4), or of the eternal life which was with the Father, yet He who was hungry and weary was ever personally the true Goal and eternal life.”

As to this statement which has quieted so many consciences, I remark: 1. If it be taken absolutely as we are all accustomed to understand the force of words, it absolutely contradicts his other statements, or rather his later statements contradict it, and it belongs to him to disentangle his own statements. 2. It must be remembered that almost always when speaking of eternal life having been ever in the Son with the Father, he says “in essence” or “essentially.” Whatever he may mean by these terms they are intended to modify the statement so that we cannot take it absolutely; and it is entirely misleading for hint to make such a statement as the above without modification or explanation.

3. What he really means by the terms “in essence” and “essentially” is hard to say. In his paper on “Eternal Life” he says, page 6, “essentially (in relationship and moral being).” Elsewhere “essentially (in nature or moral being and relationship).” Elsewhere, “now if eternal life means a condition which (though existing eternally in the Son) characterizes the second Man.” Now since he denies that eternal life in the Son before all worlds was the life mentioned in John 1:4, and 5:26, one could only gather from his expressions that it was a kind of moral condition in which He was in relationship with the Father, and not real intrinsic life at all. And then this “essence” (whatever it is) found place in Christ as a man, giving character to the second Man, and the second Man thus characterized is eternal life! Thus the extract given above, and so triumphantly pointed to is a fair form of beautiful words which have served to obscure what he really means, and to hide the moral deformity of what he presents as the truth of God, but which really darken the glory of Christ, and rob the saints of “the light of life” which shone out in Him in the mysterious unity of His Person — the God-man, — as if you should take a beautiful, living rose, and analyze it in order to show what life is in a rose. You may think you have analyzed it, and made some wonderful discovery, but you have lost the rose. So you may think you have subjected the the Person of the Lord to this analyzing process, and that you have discovered what is “life” in Him, and “human life” and “eternal life,” but you have lost Christ in your soul practically, and the holy reverence due to His Name. I here give an extract from F.E.R. sent me by J.S.O.:

“The mistake which I believe is common, is in failing to see that the term, ‘eternal life,’ is always used in Scripture in reference to man, whether it be the Son, or those to whom it is given. Christ is never called eternal life in the Gospel of John. It is the divine glory of His Person as the Son, the giver of eternal life, which is there presented, and what is said as to Him is ‘in Him was life,’ that is, what is characteristic of a divine Person as such and never could be said of us. In the epistle the eternal life is declared as what had been manifested in a real man, the Son (which was from the beginning), and is what is true in Him and in the saints now that we are in the light. It is seen in characteristics suitable in a man and carrying, therefore, of necessity, the ideas of subjection and dependence, though He in whom it ever was in purpose and essentially, in whom it was manifested here below, and in whom it is now fully revealed in glory, is also the true God.”

J.S.O. Also Gives This From F.E.R.:

“He is it (as well as being the true God) and I have always maintained that it is not what He has taken in becoming man, but that what He ever was in relationship with the Father and in being, morally, now gives its character, as far as it can, to manhood (eternal life is in His Son, the second Man is out of heaven) though in what is suitable in man, and hence not necessarily involving attributes proper to Deity.”

On this last J.S.O. remarks: “I think this is borne out by the Epistle of John, ‘which thing is true in Him and in you.’ What we share and possess in Christ would deify us if we do not distinguish between what is communicable and what is incommunicable.” And then in general J.S.O. says: “If F.E.R. appeals to Scripture as to eternal life being God’s purpose of blessing for man throughout eternity, and all in Christ’s own Person becoming a man, dying and entering into glory that we might have it there in Him as man, why not refute what he says by Scripture, instead of assuming without Scripture proof that a root exists ‘which positively affects the Person and glory of Christ’? It would be a service to the saints to expose both the teaching and the root, but no one does it. On the contrary, those who have left confound eternal life with Deity on the one hand, and level it down to wilderness life and earthly things on the other.”

It is needless to remark on all I have here given, as in the main it is confirmatory of all we have already noticed, although it helps us, perhaps, better to see what Mr. Raven means by “in essence.” It was always in the Son “in essence,” but now the Son is the second Man, and “the second Man is out of heaven.” No one denies the heavenly origin of the second Man, because He who was the eternal Son became the second Man, but does Mr. Raven mean that the second Man was always in heaven “in essence”? He says this of “eternal life,” and he identifies eternal life and the second Man, leading us to infer that eternal life was always in heaven “in essence” because the “second Man is out of heaven”; and since he says “the term ‘eternal life’ is always used in Scripture in reference to man,” it would follow that in 1 John 1:2 “the eternal life, which was with the Father” is used “in reference to” the second Man “in essence,” if Mr. Raven allows that this sentence speaks of what was before the incarnation, and he does tell us that eternal life is not what Christ took in becoming man, “but that what He ever was in relationship with the Father and in being, morally, now gives character, as far as it can, to manhood.” So, then, with Mr. Raven, eternal life antecedent to the incarnation was not what Christ was in His own Person, nor was it the life of the Son, but something he was in relationship and in being, morally, that is, it was not really life at all — not intrinsic life — but only a moral condition flowing from what He was, and which gives its character to the second Man. I leave the reader to judge whether this is not derogatory to His Person and glory, and based upon analyzing His Person.

Then what is said about confounding Deity and eternal life is only human reasoning on what the mind cannot analyze. We are “born of God” and partake of the divine nature, are “born of the Spirit,” and what is born thus is “spirit,” yet no one thinks of raising a difficulty here, as if being born of God involved our becoming God. Why then as to life? Life was, and is, in the Son. It is communicated, but we do not in receiving life become deified. The life subsists eternally in Him as a divine person; we have it dependently. It does not subsist in us, but we live by it, and have it in Him. It is “the commandment,” which expresses the life, that is “true in Him and in us.” It was expressed in Him in obedience and dependence as a man, and so in us.

But J.S.O. says, “If F.E.R. appeals to Scripture as to eternal life being God’s purpose of blessing for man... why not refute what he says by Scripture...?” Now, Mr. Raven has referred to 2 Timothy 1, and Titus 1, but I have seen no attempt to prove his statement by these. Let him prove by Scripture his proposition and then we will believe it. In these scriptures the purpose and promise of God are spoken of, and eternal life is spoken of, but eternal life is not defined as “God’s purpose of blessing for man,” though it be promised according to that purpose. “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,” “God, who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:9-10). “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2). Thus these scriptures run, and what we see is, that God promised life, and brought it to light in the gospel. What is brought to light existed eternally in the Person of Christ, not in mere purpose, but as an eternal reality. It was God’s purpose to give eternal life to us — He promised it — but what God promised to do is not a definition of what eternal life is. But I do not pursue these things further.

If the reader has attempted to follow these new developments, I would now ask, has your soul been fed with the Christ of God? Have you been led into deeper reverence for His name? Or have you not rather been fed with vain speculations and unholy reasonings, until your soul is withered up? May we indeed return to what was from the beginning, that our “fellowship” may be “with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ,” and that “our joy may be full.”

These statements we have been looking at surely are sufficiently plain to open the eyes of those who think they have seen nothing in Mr. Raven’s utterances but “sound doctrine.” And they show, too, what a terrible attack of the enemy we are having to deal with. Almost every truth is affected — new birth, eternal life, God’s righteousness, the Person of Christ. You cannot receive his words without the character of these truths being changed. If you receive what he says, the truths you held in your soul are not what they were before. He leaves a blight on all he touches. It is a Christ-dishonoring, soul-withering system, from which those who fear God and would walk with Him, must turn away. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Oh! how we need to seek the Lord’s face in this trying hour (with humbling and sorrow, indeed!) and cleave to Him whose glory the folly of man’s wisdom would obscure. We are in a conflict that may well drive us into His presence to find a refuge from the storm. May we hear His voice, “I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast that no man take thy crown.” To be “lukewarm,” to be indifferent at such a moment, can only be an unspeakable grief to the heart of the blessed Lord.

“Who is on the LORD’S side?”

Seventh Day Adventism: Its Unscriptural Doctrines and Their Deluding Tendencies

A Word of Warning to the Children of God

It is because I see a subtle and dangerous attack made upon the truth of God, that I would seek to help my brethren in Christ, in the endeavor to uncover the evil connected with these doctrines. The very foundations of Christianity are assailed by doctrines which at once set aside the truth as to the Person and work of our blessed Savior, and seek to overthrow the faith of God’s people. This is my only apology for having to say to these doctrines in any way. I do so for the sake of the truth itself, and for the sake of my brethren and fellow members in the body of Christ, whose spiritual comfort and blessings are endangered by this attack of the enemy.

We cannot close our eyes to the fact that we are face to face with this evil. Seventh Day Adventism is not something in the far distance. It is in our midst. It has made an invasion upon the people of God in this city. The city is being canvassed by its missionaries. Its claims are being pressed in many households. And the Word of God is loudly appealed to in support of its doctrines. Surely, then, it is not a matter of indifference to the flock of Christ whether these new doctrines come as the voice of the Good Shepherd, or as the voice of a stranger. Let us, then, examine some features of this new system of teaching that we may be able to discern, if possible, its origin, whether it be of God or whether it be of the enemy.

It has been given out here that the main practical difference between the Seventh Day Adventists and Christians in general is that they keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath while others keep the first. I would beg my brethren not to be deceived by such statements, for it is simply not true. Their position as to the Sabbath involves the whole question of the Christian’s relationship to the law, to say nothing of many other things which they teach and which are utterly subversive of Christianity. The question is at once raised: What is the principle of the believer’s relationship to God in this dispensation? Is it law? or is it grace? Romans 6:14, alone ought to be sufficient to answer this question: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” But we will look at this further on. I refer to it now only to show that it is not merely a question of keeping the seventh day or the first.

Now I agree with them that the law has not been changed, and that there is no authority in Scripture for saying that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh day of the week to the first. I believe furthermore that in every instance where the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament it refers to the seventh day and never the first.

But they lay hold of these facts to prove that Christians in apostolic days observed the seventh day as the Sabbath. This conclusion I entirely deny. There is not a single instance given of a Christian assembly meeting on the seventh day to worship or break bread; nor is there one intimation of their observing the seventh day as a Christian institution. All their reasonings to prove that the seventh day was observed are based upon the boldest assumptions. I will quote from one of their tracts entitled, “The Sabbath in the New Testament.”

“But was the Sabbath Paul’s regular preaching day? Was this his manner? Let Acts 17:2 answer, ‘And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.’

“Chapter 18:1-11, contains important testimony on this subject. Paul at Corinth abode with Aquila and Priscilla, and worked with them at tentmaking. ‘And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.’ (vs. 4). How long did he remain at Corinth? ‘And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among them’ (vs. 11). Here is apostolic example for seventy-eight successive Sabbaths. And it will be seen by verses 5-8, that the Apostle occupied the synagogue a part of these Sabbaths, until the Jews opposed and blasphemed, and then he went into the house of Justus, where he preached to the Gentiles the remaining number of Sabbaths.”

Now, my reader, if you would see an example of handling the Word of God deceitfully, you need only to read attentively the quotation I have here given. These passages in Acts are brought forward to prove that “the Sabbath was Paul’s regular preaching day”; and that in one place he preached seventy-eight successive Sabbaths. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I say they prove neither one nor the other. We learn from Acts 17:2, that it was Paul’s manner to go into the synagogue, the Jews’ meeting place, to reason with them out of the Scriptures. This was on the Sabbath, the seventh day, because that was the day on which Paul could find the Jews assembled to read the Scriptures. And chapter 18 shows us that he did this at Corinth until the Jews opposed and blasphemed, and then he left them. On what day he preached to the Gentiles or taught the Christians after he left the synagogue, the passage says absolutely nothing. To say that Paul preached the remaining seventy-eight Sabbaths in the house of Justus is an unwarranted assumption. The fact is, there is not a thought about Christian Sabbath-keeping in any of these passages. Paul went into the synagogue in order to reach the Jews with the gospel; and he went there habitually on the Sabbath because they regularly assembled on that day. And this is the whole matter. It is just what will be found in every case in the Acts where preaching on the Sabbath is spoken of. Acts 16 is no exception. Here too, it is a Jewish meeting on the Sabbath day, and at the riverside because they had no synagogue. So then we have not a single instance in the Acts of a Christian assembly convened on the Sabbath day; and thus their whole reasoning from apostolic example is utterly false.

Another passage they lay much stress upon is Luke 23:56: “And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” On this passage the writer already quoted, remarks: “The Marys returned and prepared the spices. The Sabbath came on as the sun went down. They rested. How? `According to the commandment.’ The Sabbath and the commandment guarding it lived after the death of Christ; and Luke, writing, as is supposed, twenty-eight years after the crucifixion, records the observance of the Sabbath, according to the commandment, by Christians after the death of Christ as an important fact for the Christian Church.”

It is rather difficult to see what this can have to do with the Christian dispensation. We are told it was after the death of Christ. So it was; but it was also before His resurrection, and before the Christian dispensation began. It is true Luke recorded this perhaps twenty-eight years after, but was this to prove that the Sabbath was a Christian institution? Certainly not; but simply to show the godly character of these women who could turn aside from the dearest object that could occupy their hearts in order to obey the commandments of God. We are told they were Christians. This only shows that these people do not know what a Christian is. Christianity had not yet been inaugurated. All was still connected with the Jewish nation, and under the law, which regulated the Jewish economy. They were pious women of the Jews, who had become disciples of Jesus, but they had not yet been introduced into the position of Christians. For this it was necessary to await the resurrection of Christ and His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and the coming down of the Holy Ghost. Christianity is founded on the death and resurrection of Christ; but it is connected with an exalted and glorified Christ, not a Christ upon earth. And it takes its character, not from the law which formed the constitution of the Jewish nation, but from the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven by that glorified Christ to unite all believers with Himself as the Head of the Church which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Eph. 1:22,23.) No one who knows what Christianity is would ever think of citing Luke 23:56, as an example of Christian Sabbath-keeping.

I call attention to one other passage which may present a real difficulty to some. It is Matt. 24:20: “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day.”

Now if this passage be applied to the flight of the Christians when Jerusalem was destroyed by the armies of Titus, it would prove either that the seventh day was “the Christian Sabbath,” or else that the first day was to be called the Sabbath. But the mistake is in applying it to that event at all.

Many have confounded what the Lord says in Matthew 24. with what He says in Luke 21. But a close examination of the two passages will show that while there is much in common there are also striking differences of the greatest importance. Both chapters speak of a flight from Jerusalem, and a signal for the flight is also given in each; but the two flights are different and the two signals are different. In Luke it is the flight of the Christians when Jerusalem was destroyed in the year A.D. 70; in Matthew it is the flight of a godly remnant of Jews to escape the great tribulation just before the appearing of the Son of man in glory after the Church period is over. Luke gives the destruction of Jerusalem and its desolation till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. In Matthew 24 there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple is foretold in verse 2, and that is all. In chapter 23:38, the Lord leaves their house (the temple) desolate, and tells them in the next verse: “Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord”; then in chapter 24, He tells the disciples the temple should be utterly destroyed. The disciples then “came unto Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world [age]?” The Lord had already mentioned the destruction of the temple and does not refer to this again, but passes on to speak of the state of things that will exist just previous to His “coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (vs. 30). He mentions the signs that will mark the end of the age. False Christs and false prophets will arise, and there will be wars, famines, pestilences and earthquakes, the killing of the faithful, abounding iniquity, and the love of many waxing cold.

Let it be noted here that the Lord passes over the whole period of Church history from Pentecost to the rapture, when the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and speaks only of the things connected with Jerusalem and His coming in glory to set up the millennial kingdom. The Church comes in, in a parenthetical way, between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel’s prophecy during the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. During this period God is calling out a heavenly people to the name of His Son, from both Jews and Gentiles, forming them into one body by the Holy Ghost, a body of which Christ is the Head. This is in no way taken account of in Matthew 24.

Now it will be seen from Daniel 9:27 that one week (or seven years) of the seventy weeks determined upon Daniel’s people remains to be fulfilled after the desolation of Jerusalem. This will take place after the Church, the body of Christ, is removed from the scene, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:17. When the Church is gone (or possibly before) the Jews will return to their own land. Their body politic will be revived, and then the seventieth week will run its course in order to fulfill the prophecy and bring in the end of the Jewish age. During this short period of Jewish history the things mentioned in Matthew 24 will have their fulfillment. The Jews will be in the land and the antichrist will be there too. They will enter into a wicked covenant with a prince who is yet to come, who will re-establish the ancient Jewish worship, but who will break his covenant with them in the middle of the week, and cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. An idol will then be set up in the holy place and the people compelled to worship this instead of God. This idol is “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Rev. 13:14-15.

Now, while the mass of the Jews will return to the land in unbelief and accept the antichrist, there will be a remnant in whom God will work for blessing. These will refuse the antichrist and bear testimony against the wickedness of the apostate mass and proclaim the coming of the King of Israel to reign. This is what is called “this gospel of the kingdom,” in Matthew 24:14. It is a kind of John the Baptist testimony taken up again and proclaiming the kingdom at hand, and which will reach out to the whole world “for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”; that is, the end of the Jewish age of law, to be succeeded by the age of the Messiah’s glorious reign.

When the “abomination” is set up in the holy place God will bring a desolator against Jerusalem with its wicked mass of apostate idol-worshipers. This will bring in the “great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” Compare Jeremiah 30:5,7; Daniel 12:1.

When once it is seen that all this is connected with a brief period of Jewish history after the translation of the Church it will easily be seen that the mention of the Sabbath in Matthew 24 has a Jewish and not a Christian application.

The signal in Luke is “Jerusalem compassed with armies.” The Christians, when they saw this, were to flee so as to escape “the days of vengeance” that came upon Jerusalem in the year A.D. 70.

The signal in Matthew is, “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place.” This is the signal for the godly remnant to flee so as to escape the great tribulation that will come upon the apostate Jews at the close of the age. And the Lord tells them to pray that their flight be not in the winter nor on the Sabbath day. It is His tender care for those whose thoughts and feelings will be formed according to the law.

It is clear, then, that wherever the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament it is the seventh day of the week and always connected with what was distinctly Jewish. And it is just as clear that never once is it imposed upon Christians as the day of rest.

It remains now to be seen what light the New Testament throws upon the observance of the first day of the week.

I think no simple Christian will have any difficulty in seeing that the day is marked in a very special way. Only it will be seen that it has not the legal character attached to it that characterized the Sabbath. The observance of the day has the character of privilege rather than legal command, a feature which in general characterizes Christianity.

Let us now see how the day is marked in the New Testament.

1. It is the day on which the Lord Jesus arose from the dead as the Head and beginning of the new creation. The seventh day celebrated God’s rest from His work in the first creation. But sin had come in and spoiled all, and God’s rest was broken. Sin brought suffering and sorrow into the world, and infinite love could not rest in the midst of suffering. So Jesus said to the Jews (who sought to slay Him because He had healed a man on the Sabbath day), “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” John 5:17. The Father and the Son both wrought to relieve suffering where sin had come in. These were works of mercy, no doubt, but they would not have been needed had not sin come in and ruined all.

We come now to the death and resurrection of Christ and what do we see? In the cross the first man is set aside. The old creation is condemned. The end of all flesh comes up before God, and He condemns it all judicially in the sacrifice of His Son; and Christ risen from the dead becomes “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14.) The first creation was ruined through sin, and God ended it all judicially on the cross, so as to begin anew in Christ, the second Man and last Adam. Christ, “the firstborn from the dead” is “the beginning of the creation of God.” But it is Christ who died in atonement on the cross, and who, through His death, accomplished eternal redemption. This was necessary in order that men might be redeemed and brought into the new creation. Christ, though absolutely perfect as a man, remained alone until redemption was accomplished. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” John 12:24. Christ was that corn of wheat. He must die, or abide alone. Redemption must be accomplished through His atoning death on the cross, or none could be identified with Him in the new creation. The corn of wheat brings forth its fruit in resurrection. So it is a risen Christ that becomes the Head of a new creation. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

All this shows that the resurrection of Christ is the beginning of a new era. In the cross the “old things are passed away.” The old creation with which the Sabbath was connected was judicially ended there. A new era dawned in the resurrection of Christ, the Firstborn from the dead. In His resurrection a new creation sprang into being by the power of God. The first day of the week celebrated the completion of this wonderful work of God; and it is thus marked as a day never to be forgotten.

In keeping with this, we find also in John 20, that Christ presented Himself to the disciples on that day, conveying to them the “peace” He had made through the blood of His cross (vs. 19) and breathing on them the “life more abundant,” life in the Spirit, His own triumphant resurrection life (vs. 22). And then, eight days after, that is, on the next first day, He appeared again in the midst of the disciples. I refer to this Scripture just to show in how striking a manner the first day of the week is marked in connection with the bringing in of the new creation.

The first day of the week is marked most strikingly by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Leviticus 23:16-,17 shows clearly that this feast began on “the morrow after the Sabbath”; that is, on the first day of the week. This event was the bringing in of the full character and power of Christianity. The presence of the Holy Ghost in and with the saints is the great characteristic feature of this dispensation. By His indwelling the believer is anointed and sealed. He is also “the earnest of our inheritance,” “the Spirit of truth,” “the Spirit of life,” “the Spirit of adoption,” and the divine bond of union among all believers, uniting all in one body, of which Christ is the Head. His presence in and with the saints gives them their character as Christians, and He is their only power for testimony. The disciples could do nothing till He came; they must tarry at Jerusalem until endued with power from on high. All this shows the immense importance attached to His presence on earth. But His coming was on the first day of the week; and thus the first day witnessed the inauguration of Christianity in its fullness and power, when believers were baptized into one body by the Holy Ghost.

Again, the first day is distinguished by the assembling of the disciples to break bread. Acts 20:7, is clear proof of this, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.” It may be said they came together to hear Paul preach. But the passage does not say this. It says they “came together to break bread.” The mode of expression and the context alike show that this was their habitual custom. Verse 6 shows that Paul was with the disciples at Troas seven days. He had arrived on Monday, and tarried till the next Monday morning; and it would seem he tarried with them the seven days in order to be present with them on the Lord’s day at the breaking of bread. Their coming together was for this purpose; but being assembled, Paul embraced the opportunity of discoursing to them.

It is said, however, that at the beginning the disciples broke bread “daily.” (Acts 2:46). This is true; but it was only at the beginning when the whole time of the saints was apparently given up to these things, at the time of the feast of the Pentecost. It is easy to be seen this could not be continued as a permanent custom; and so we see afterward from Acts 20, that “the first day of the week” was set apart for this. Then again we see this day marked by this custom of the disciples.

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, the first day is again marked by an order from the Apostle to the assemblies in Galatia, and that at Corinth, concerning the collection for the saints. “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no collections when I come.” I do not dwell upon this, save only to remark the significance of the first day of the week being set apart as the day on which these offerings were to be made, as the Lord had prospered.

In Revelation 1:10, the first day of the week is called “the Lord’s day.” This we know is denied by the Seventh Day Adventists, who claim that this was the seventh day, or Sabbath. But if the Sabbath had been meant, who can doubt that the statement would have been, “I was in the Spirit on the Sabbath”? For everywhere else in the Scriptures the seventh day is called “the Sabbath”; and there is no reason why it should have been otherwise here, had that day been meant. But here it is the day so wonderfully marked by the Lord’s triumph over all the power of Satan, sin and death, and now called “the Lord’s day” — a day peculiarly belonging to Him. The word translated “Lord’s” is an adjective, and used in only one other place in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 11:20, “The Lord’s supper.” This was a supper distinguished from all others as belonging to the Lord; and we have seen it was observed on the first day of the week. So here in Revelation 1:10, we have a day distinguished in the same way as belonging to the Lord. And everything in the New Testament goes to show that the supper and the day, are not only characterized alike, but also associated together. “The Lord’s supper” was habitually observed on “the Lord’s day,” although it might also be observed on any other day. Both the supper and the day are marked as specially belonging to, and connected with the authority of the Lord Jesus, whose claims were established in His triumphant resurrection.

We conclude, then, that in Scripture the Sabbath is always the seventh day of the week, while “the Lord’s day,” is the first, and marked by the resurrection of Christ, the descent of the Holy Ghost, and by the saints assembling on that day to break bread in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. And a happy privilege it is for Christians on that day to rest from their secular employments and to be free to remember their once crucified, but now risen and exalted Lord and Savior, and to serve Him in spiritual things.

I add here my full conviction that in Scripture “the Sabbath” and “the Lord’s day” are never confounded. They are ever kept distinct; and if Christians had maintained this distinction, calling the first day of the week “the Lord’s day” and not “the Sabbath” it would have saved much confusion in the minds of the great mass of Christians.

As has already been said, however, much more is involved in this Sabbath question than the mere matter of keeping the first or seventh day. The whole question of the Christian’s relationship to the law is raised. The aim of the enemy is to bring Christians under the law as men in the flesh, and thus rob them of the holy liberty into which grace brings them. In fact, the aim is to destroy the whole fabric of Christianity and substitute for it a lifeless form of Judaism which can only plunge the soul into darkness, and rob it of all divine certainty as to either life or salvation.

Now the New Testament teaches, in the most distinct and unequivocal manner, that Christians are not under the law. “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). This statement is absolute. And here it is not a question of justification, but of power against the working of sin. Under the law sin had dominion. The law was “the strength of sin.” It “entered, that the offense might abound.” “Sin by the commandment” became “exceeding sinful.” The law was holy, just and good, and forbade sin, but it gave no power against it, and in forbidding it provoked it. And so the Apostle says: “The commandment, which was ordained unto life, I found to be unto death.” Under grace all is changed. The law required righteousness from one who was already a sinner, and gave no strength for it. But grace gives. It gives righteousness to a sinner who has none; and it gives life too, and power for holy living. Under grace the believer has Christ as righteousness, Christ as life, Christ as an object filling the heart, and the Holy Ghost as power to live the life of Christ; and consequently sin does not have dominion over him. And all this is the fruit of redemption. To go back under the law is to go back of this redemption, and practically to lose all the blessedness and power which grace gives. This is just where Seventh Day Adventism puts its victims. It puts them under the law which can only curse and condemn them, for they do not keep it, though vainly hoping to “be found worthy of eternal life”; only they can never know till the day of judgment whether they will be saved or damned. All is dark uncertainty; and the blessed gospel of the grace of God is robbed of its glory, and shorn of that sweet peace that it gives to all who receive it in simplicity of heart.

As we have seen, Romans 6:14, assures us that we “are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 7 will tell us how we reach this new position and relationship. The first verse tells us that “the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” The next two verses give us an illustration. Death dissolves the relationship existing between husband and wife, and frees the wife from the law of her husband. In verse four the Apostle applies this to show how the believer is delivered from the law. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” This puts the matter in the plainest way. The believer accounts himself to have died with Christ, and thus he is delivered from the law; but it is to be connected with a new husband, Christ risen from the dead. One who is thus set free belongs to Christ, is in Christ, and has the Holy Ghost, and walks not after the flesh but after the Spirit, and so fulfills the righteous requirements of the law while not under it. (Rom. 8:4.)

The Galatians got “bewitched” by Judaizing teachers, and were giving up the principle of grace to be perfected in the flesh under the law; and the Apostle rebukes them in the sharpest way. It was practically giving up Christianity. In the end of chapter 2, he states the truth in connection with himself: “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Paul had died under the law through the death of Christ, and now he lived, but it was Christ who lived in him. He lived, not as under the law, but by faith which had Christ as its daily object, so that the life of Christ was reproduced in him in a practical way in the power of the Spirit. The Galatians, too, had received the Spirit, not “by the works of the law,” but “by the hearing of faith.” They had “begun in the Spirit,” and now in their folly they were turning to the law to be made perfect in the flesh; and in so doing they were putting themselves under the curse: “for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse” (Gal. 3:10).

Thus the Apostle exposes their folly; then develops the reason why the law was given, the way of deliverance from its curse, and the new position in Christ where all fleshly distinctions are lost, and where all are sons by faith, and receive the Spirit of the Son in their hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Then, in chapter 5, he calls on them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, and not to be entangled again in the yoke of bondage. They had been called to liberty, only they were not to use this liberty for an occasion to the flesh but by love to serve one another. Doing this they would fulfill the law, though not under it, “for all the law is fulfilled in one word,... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Gal. 5:14). The power against evil was to walk in the Spirit. “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal. 5:16-18).

Nothing could be plainer than these simple statements of God’s Word. They show in the clearest way that the believer is not under the law. And yet the Christian fulfills the law’s righteous requirement — love — not by being under the law, but by walking in the Spirit.

Judaizers had come among the Galatians, seeking to bring them under the law. They were “troublers,” and Paul wished them “cut off.” They brought “another gospel” (chapter 1), and Paul says: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” This is strong language, but it shows how much was at stake, and how deeply the Apostle felt when he saw Christianity being corrupted by another gospel.

And let me say, brethren, we too, have Judaizers in our midst at the present moment. They bring “another gospel” which robs Christ of His glory and the saints of their portion in Him. I may be charged with want of charity in thus writing, but when the gospel of Christ is attacked as it was among the Galatians, and as it now is in this city, it is no time to talk of charity. Paul said: “Let him be accursed.” This will hardly be called charity; yet none knew what charity is better than Paul.

Let anyone carefully read Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14; and 2 Corinthians 3, and he will easily see that the whole legal system is set aside as the principle of relationship between God and His people in this dispensation. The law which was “written and engraven in stones” was “the ministration of death,” and “the ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:7,9). “The ministration of the Spirit” is put in direct contrast with this. The latter is a ministration of “life” and “righteousness” instead of “death” and “condemnation.” And verse 11 shows that the former ministration is “done away” while the latter remains. This is in full accord with what we have seen both in Romans and Galatians.

We can say with the Apostle, “We know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,” etc. (1 Tim. 1:5-11); but we also know from the same Scripture that those “desiring to be teachers of the law, understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”

We will now notice one point on which they lay great stress, and which, on account of its plausibility, may present a difficulty to some.

They say all the commandments hang together, and we have no right to take out the fourth and leave the other nine in force; nor have we any right to change the fourth by substituting the first day for the seventh.

All this is freely admitted. No one, surely, has any right to tamper with this part of God’s Word more than any other part.

But then they also reason thus: Must we not keep the law? Yes. Then we must keep the fourth commandment. Must we break the law? No. Then we must not break the fourth commandment. And the conclusion is, we must keep the seventh day.

Now the folly of all this is that it practically denies the truth of the cross by setting man up in the flesh as alive under the law. It denies the gospel that declares that the believer is dead to the law. It is simply nonsense to speak about one who is dead to the law either keeping it or breaking it. If I am dead to the law, it has nothing to say to me nor I to it. I am not under it, having died to it in the death of Christ who bore its curse for me and thus met all its claims. Thus all this reasoning about keeping or breaking the law is the sheerest folly, and shows utter ignorance of the gospel and of the extent of the redemption accomplished through the death and resurrection of Christ.

But if these people put themselves under the law as alive in the flesh they are under the curse. They are bound to keep the whole law or die. They must keep the law or be cursed by it. There is no middle ground. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Gal. 3:10. But blessed be God, there is a way of deliverance. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 3:13;4:4-6). This is deliverance indeed from bondage under the law; and instead of legal bondage it is the holy liberty of the Spirit in the relationship of sons with the Father. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [circumcision was the door of entrance to Judaism under the law, and if these Seventh Day Adventists were consistent they would also practice circumcision], Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 6:1-4).

Here, then, we have the dreadful consequences of adopting this legal system. It means giving up the whole ground of the gospel. It means giving up grace, the only principle on which a poor sinner can stand before God.

Brethren, are you ready to give up grace? Are you ready to turn aside to “another gospel,” which is only a system of bondage and of dark uncertainty to all who are in it? If not, I pray you beware of this system which would bring you into bondage and rob you of the holy liberty and power which grace gives, as well as of all present certainty of salvation or possession of eternal life, and which would leave you in darkness and uncertainty until your fate is determined in the day of judgment. May we rather cleave to the blessed gospel of the grace of God which brings present pardon, salvation, life, and peace to all who believe it, and which sets us in the light of God’s presence without a cloud and without a veil, made whiter than snow through the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, which cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7); and may we walk in the light of that Presence in the power of the Spirit by which we have been anointed and sealed, and by whom the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts in the consciousness of a present and eternal relationship with Him who is both Light and Love.

I have dwelt at length on this question of the Sabbath and the law, because with them it is a cardinal point, in connection with which is bound up the weal or woe of all who hear their testimony. They believe that their testimony is that of the third angel in Revelation 14. All who receive their testimony are sealed with “the seal of the living God” (Rev. 7), and are numbered among the 144,000 who are sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel. And those who refuse their testimony are doomed to the judgment announced by the angel in chapter 14:9-11. The keeping of the seventh day is the seal that marks the faithful. The rest are doomed as the worshipers of the beast. (See “Thoughts, etc., on the Revelation,” by U. Smith.)

Reader, do you not see that this is “another gospel”? a gospel that has no Christ, no Savior in it? a system that must leave the soul barren and cold as an iceberg, as well as destitute of all true knowledge of God?

I had thought to review somewhat in detail their views on the nature of man and kindred questions; but this paper has already grown long, and so I will little more than mention a few points. The mere mention of these will be sufficient to show how gross their doctrines are, and how they belong to the lowest order of materialism.

1. They deny the immortality of the soul. With them the soul is not capable of any distinct or conscious existence apart from the body.

2. They hold that death is “the cessation of existence.” When a man dies his soul dies. In other words, the soul, which is nothing more than the animal life, ceases to exist, and there remains nothing but the body which goes to dust in the grave.

3. It follows, also, that when believers die, there is no intermediate state for the soul between death and resurrection. Every Scripture bearing upon this subject is persistently wrested and tortured in order to set aside its force. When the Lord says: “Fear not them which kill the body, but cannot kill the soul” (Matt. 10:28), this has no meaning. When He draws aside the veil to reveal the condition of men in the unseen world, after death, where the rich man is seen in hades, in torment, and pleading for a drop of water to cool his tongue, they say it is only a parable! It means nothing! Or, if it mean anything, it is the burning up of the wicked after the resurrection! We may ask, Will the burning up of the wicked take place in hades? They know that the punishment of the wicked after the resurrection is in hell (gehenna, not hades). Besides, the rich man had “five brethren” who had not yet died, and who, he thought, would listen to one who should rise from the dead, showing most clearly that the passage describes a state of existence between death and resurrection. No doubt there are figures of speech in the passage. “Abraham’s bosom,” I suppose, is a figure, as well as the “eyes” and “tongue” and tormenting flame. But one thing is certain; these figures mean something, and they certainly do not mean a state of unconsciousness or non-existence, but the contrary. The parable distinctly teaches a state of blessedness for the righteous and of torment for the wicked, in the unseen world between death and resurrection. Lazarus was “comforted,” the rich man was “tormented.”

Luke 20:38, is also carefully explained away. The Lord had proclaimed Himself “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”; and Jesus, meeting the Sadducean form of unbelief says, “He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him.” The Sadducees, like these Adventists, believed that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had no present existence, and they reasoned consistently enough from this that there would be no resurrection. The Lord answered the root of their error. He tells them Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the dead were alive to God, though dead to us. “All live unto Him,” that is, the dead as well as the living. And this was proof of the intermediate state, and also of resurrection to complete the imperfect state existing when the soul is separate from the body. But the Lord’s words are made to mean “all shall live unto Him” as if the blessed Lord knew not how to use words correctly. Will the Adventist correction be accepted? I leave my reader to judge of such folly. But this is not the only instance in which they change the force of words. The Lord says in John 5:24: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” This is made to mean that the life is now only in the Son, and that we will get it by and by if found worthy of it. This is a positive denial of the gospel, but in keeping with their doctrine that we get eternal life by keeping the commandments. “There is no other way,” they say. For this they must answer to the Lord Jesus who Himself says “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47).

Again, when the Lord said to the repentant thief, “Verily, I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise,” they tell us this does not mean that the thief would be with Christ in paradise that day. It only means that the Lord said it that day! Thus they stultify the words of the blessed Lord and make Him use an expression which would falsify the hopes of millions of His people by leading them to suppose that they would not be with Him in paradise as soon as death set the soul free from the body. This may do for those who have a false system that the Word of God must be trimmed to fit: but an honest soul who feels the power of truth shrinks back with horror from such mockery.

In the same heartless way the earnest longings and hopes of the Apostle Paul are treated. They say that when he expressed the “desire to depart, and to be with Christ,” he only meant to depart like Elijah, body and all! Yet he had just spoken of living or dying, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Phil. 1:20-24. But this is no matter. It must be made to square with this evil system. The system must stand though the Word of God be torn to pieces.

Again when Paul says, “Absent from the body... present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8), “absent from the body,” is made to mean “absent from this terrestrial existence!” How “the body” can be made to mean “this terrestrial existence” is hard to see. But, perhaps, we only need to be initiated a little more fully into the dark mysteries of Adventism, in order to see it! Yet surely Paul could not have written for those not thus initiated, else he would have used plainer language.

In 2 Corinthians 12, also, where he says “whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth,” they say he only meant he did not know whether he was in his head, or not! This is utter wickedness, and the author of it might well blush for shame at such perversion of God’s Word. If Paul did not know whether he was “in his head, or not,” how could he have known that he had been “caught up to the third heaven,” “into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it was not possible for man to utter”? But why pursue this wretched wresting of the Scriptures and mockery of the hopes and experience of the people of God? Are we prepared for such interpretations? For myself I can only say, I have no language by which I can express my horror of such irreverent and deceitful handling of God’s Word.

4. It is hardly needful to say that they hold the annihilation of the wicked after the resurrection. They believe that the wicked will be raised up and consumed into nonexistence amid the dissolving elements when the earth is destroyed. On this point the Scriptures again are tortured in the same ruthless way that we have already seen.

5. After all this it would be strange if the atoning work of the Lord Jesus were not directly attacked. And this we find to be the case. In Lev. 16 we have in type the great atoning work of Christ. Among other things in that chapter, we find two goats were chosen-one whose blood was shed to make propitiation before Jehovah, and the other to bear away the sins of the people. The latter was called the “scapegoat.” Both were types of the Lord Jesus; one as making propitiation, according to Romans 3:25, “whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood”; the other as the sin-bearing Substitute, according to Romans 4:25, “Who was delivered for our offenses,” and 1 Peter 2:24, “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.”

Now these Adventists make Satan to be the scapegoat; and thus one most blessed aspect of the Lord’s atoning work is attributed to Satan, and the blessed Lord is robbed of one half of His glory.

Their theory is this: there is a sanctuary in heaven like the one that was on earth, to which all the sins of God’s people are being transferred, and where they have been accumulating for ages past. This sanctuary is to be cleansed. In fact, they believe the cleansing began in the year 1844, and must be nearly completed. These sins will all be removed from the sanctuary and laid upon Satan as the scapegoat at the coming of the Lord, when the wicked will be “given to the slaughter and their putrefying flesh and bleaching bones lie unburied, ungathered and unlamented, from one end of the earth to the other end thereof.” The earth will then be a scene of desolation where Satan will be confined a thousand years.

I will quote from “Thoughts, etc., on the Revelation,” page 779. “We behold in the type: 1. The sin of the transgressor imparted to the victim. 2. We see that sin borne by the ministration of the priest, and the blood of the offering into the sanctuary. 3. On the tenth day of the seventh month we see the priest with the blood of the sin offering for the people, remove all their sins from the sanctuary and lay them upon the head of the scapegoat. 4. The goat bears them away into a land not inhabited.

“Answering to these events in the type, we behold in the antitype: 1. The great offering for the world, made on Calvary. 2. The sins of all those who avail themselves of the merits of Christ’s shed blood, by faith in Him, borne, by the ministration of Christ while pleading His own blood, into the new covenant sanctuary. 3. After Christ, the minister of the true tabernacle (Heb. 8:2), has finished this ministration, He will remove the sins of His people from the sanctuary, and lay them upon the head of their author, the antitypical scapegoat, the devil. 4. The devil will be sent away with them into a land not inhabited.”

Such is their theory as to the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the bearing of sins by the scapegoat. According to this the work of atonement is not yet complete. It was only on the day of atonement that the high priest entered the holiest, and so according to their theory Christ could not have entered the holiest till 1844. The whole thing is a horrid absurdity, denying the finished work of the Lord Jesus. Hebrews 10 shows us that the way was opened into the holiest by the death of Jesus, and that for eighteen hundred years the saints have had access into the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus. But this is completely denied by the system we have been examining.

6. The reader will scarcely be surprised now when told that these Adventists deny the eternity of the Son of God. In the late discussion, Mr. M. was forced to say that the Son of God had a beginning. He said He was God, because God was His Father, but He was the Son-God, not the Father-God. And when He expired on the cross, the divine part died as well as the human. He ceased to exist save that flesh that was nailed to the cross. Thus they bring another Christ than the Christ of God, a Christ that will fit their system.

7. One point more I will mention. In the discussion already referred to, it was said, “The thing that was made in the image of God was dust”; and again, “the thing that was made in the image of God had blood.” Mr. M. was then charged with holding that God had a body which was dust, and which had blood, and was asked to correct it, if the charge was wrong. It was neither denied nor corrected. Thus they have another God, as well as another Christ and another gospel, and the whole fabric of truth is gone.

Need more be said to show the wickedness and blasphemy of such a system? I leave it to the reader to judge of its character. Surely, every right-minded Christian must turn away from it with horror, avoiding the snare that is spread to catch the unwary. I trust the snare has been uncovered and that none who see it shall be taken in its toils. Let the reader ponder the words of Paul in 2 Tim. 3:8,9, “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” The whole movement is distinctly of the enemy, and not of God. Such is the deeply rooted conviction of the writer of this paper.

Seventh Day Adventism in Its Relation to the Person and Work of Christ

The books and tracts of these people have been scattered broadcast through the land, and are being read by multitudes who know little or nothing of what lies at the foundation of their system.

In the former paper the writer has already noticed briefly their teaching on the Sabbath, the immortality of the soul, and some other points. The object of the present paper is to call attention to several things of a very fundamental nature, which reveal the real character and origin of the movement, and which ought to be weighed in the fear of God, and by His Word, by any who seriously think of committing themselves in any way to the tenets of Seventh Day Adventism.

The reader’s serious attention is called to the following points: 1. They deny that the Person of the Son of God existed from all eternity; or, in other words, they say that He had a beginning, and so was not eternal. In a book entitled “Christ and His Righteousness,” by E. J. Wagoner, we read: “It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten.... We know that Christ ‘proceeded forth and came from God’ (John 8:42), but it was so far back in the ages of eternity as to be far beyond the grasp of the mind of man.” (Page 9.)

“The angels are sons of God... by adoption (Rom. 8:14-15), but Christ is the Son of God by birth.” (Page 12.)

“He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire.... There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42;1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.” (Pages 21-22.)

“But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son, and not a created subject.... And since He is the only begotten Son of God, He is of the very substance and nature of God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God.... Life inheres in Him, so that it cannot be taken from Him, but, having voluntarily laid it down, He can take it again...

“If any one springs the old cavil, how Christ could be immortal and yet die, we have only to say we do not know.” (Page 22.)

“Christ ‘is in the bosom of the Father’; being by nature of the very substance of God and having life in Himself, He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One.” (Page 23.)

These extracts present unquestionable proof that they deny the Son’s co-eternity with the Father, and thus rob Him of His personal glory.

Now the plain, simple, yet blessed and profound teaching of Scripture is, that Christ, the Son not only existed co-eternally and in co-equality with the Father, but that He thus existed in relationship, Son with and of the Father.

If we compare Isaiah 6:1-5 with John 12:40-41, we see that He is the same person as the Jehovah (translated Lord) of Isaiah 6. Compare also John 8:58, where He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” These Scriptures show that He is identified with JEHOVAH, the I AM. And this Mr. Wagoner strangely enough admits, saying, “He is properly called Jehovah, the self-existent One.” (Page 23.) But it is very easy to see that if the Son had a beginning, as Adventists claim He had, He could not be “self-existent”; for if He had a beginning He must have derived His existence from Another, and so could neither be self-existent nor eternal.

Let us now look at John 1:1-2, where His eternal existence as a distinct Person in the Godhead is the very question. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” That is, go back to any point we can call “the beginning,” and the Word existed then. It does not say “from the beginning,” but “in the beginning.” He did not begin to be, but He was — He existed; consequently He was before time, before there was any beginning. He existed thus a divine Being. “God,” and “with God,” a distinct Person in the Godhead, not “from,” but “in the beginning,” and was Himself the Creator of every created thing — of everything that had a beginning. But if He Himself had a beginning, then He was not before the beginning — did not already exist “in the beginning,” and thus the doctrine of these people would give the lie to Scripture.

Mr. Wagoner says that Christ was the Son of God by birth. This is true of Him as born of the virgin Mary, but this is not what Mr. Wagoner means; he means that at some indefinite point of time before the creation of angels or men, the Son of God was born. This, Scripture never says, nor intimates, and is false doctrine. He also says that “Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father.” This also is false. He did come from God, but Scripture never says He came from the bosom of the Father. It says He “is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), and this when He was here on earth. And when Mr. Wagoner applies Christ’s proceeding forth from God to the mode of His becoming the only begotten Son, ages before He was born of the virgin Mary, he misses the whole point of the passage, which refers simply to His coming into this world as the sent One of the Father, as the context clearly shows. He was indeed the only begotten Son, before His birth into this world. He was this from eternity; but the expression “only begotten Son,” is used to express an eternally existing relationship, and not the mode of His coming into being, for He did not come into being, since He existed “in the beginning.”

In John 1:14 we are told that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” When the Word thus became flesh, He was manifested in the world, and visible to the eyes of men. But faith saw something the world could not see. It saw a glory that belonged to Him in that wondrous relationship in which He subsisted from eternity with the Father — “glory as of an only begotten with a Father,” J.N.D. Trans. — a personal eternally subsisting glory of this kind and not what began to be by the Word becoming flesh.

The Word “dwelt (or tabernacled) among us”; but, shining through that tabernacle, a glory was seen which existed before, a glory in which He subsisted as the Object of the Father’s love before time began, and in which we shall behold Him only to wonder and worship, when with Him in the Father’s house. And this is His desire for us according to the prayer of John 17:24: “Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me: for Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world.” This is His glory, as the only begotten in the bosom of the Father from and to eternity.

This we see also in John 1:18. At Sinai a glory was seen which demanded the obedience of the creature and the judgment of the transgressor — a glory before which sinful man could not stand. But now the Father opens His bosom, and a deeper glory shines forth. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” Faith looks into that open bosom and reads the Father’s heart revealed in Him who dwelt in that bosom. It was indeed necessary that He should become flesh, that He might thus declare the Father to men; but it was as “the only begotten Son,” holding this unique position of eternal relationship, “in the bosom of the Father,” as at home, and subsisting in all the love and delight of that heart, that He could declare Him. Wondrous revelation, and wondrous grace that such a Person in such a relationship should have become incarnate, in order to reveal the Father, and bring guilty men into relationship with Him through redemption! “The Son of man” the incarnate One “must be lifted up,” a Sacrifice; but God’s measureless love to a perishing world has been revealed in providing that Sacrifice in the gift of “His only begotten Son,” while in the death of that blessed One His glory and majesty have been made good in the judgment of sin, so that grace reigns through righteousness.

In Psalm 2:7, and Hebrews 1:5, the term “begotten” is applied to Christ in connection with His birth as Messiah. And Acts 13:33 shows that these passages refer to this birth, and not to a birth at some remote period before creation. God had made a promise to the fathers, and here we are told, “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus.” (R.V.) This is His relationship in time with God as Messiah. Mr. Wagoner tells us “It is not given to men to know when or how the Son was begotten,” while this passage expressly tells us it was when God “raised up Jesus” in fulfillment of His promise to the fathers. This is clearly in connection with His first advent over 1,900 years ago.

But it is to be remarked that neither in the second Psalm, nor in Hebrews is He called “the only begotten Son.” In those Scriptures it is a time relationship that is expressed, and which began as such with His birth. And here He is said to have been “begotten.” “This day have I begotten Thee.” This is not said in John 1:14,18, where the term “only begotten” is used to express His position and glory with the Father, and in the bosom of the Father as Son from eternity. In this connection it is never said He was “begotten” as if there were a specific act and time of begetting, which might also involve priority of existence in the begetter. The term “only begotten,” declares what He is, not what He became in time, and is used to express an eternally existing relationship which belongs to Himself alone.

2. Another dreadful heresy held by these people is that the divinity, as well as the humanity, of our blessed Lord became extinct, when He died on the cross; and that for three days the Son of God ceased to exist.

Mr. Wagoner does not pretend to know “how Christ could be immortal and yet die.” And remember when he says this, he means an immortal being, yea Jehovah Himself the self-existing One ceasing to exist, for this is their meaning of death! Mr. W. truly enough tells us that Christ “is of the very substance and nature of God”; but when we remember again that he means Christ derived His substance and nature as a divine Person from God by birth before the creation of the world, we are again confronted by blasphemy. But what folly, not to say monstrous wickedness, to speak as if the very “nature” and “substance” of God were destructible, or could cease to exist! If any one raised a difficulty as to this, he calls it an “old cavil.” He would have us believe it is a “mystery” (page 23), and well he might, if death means ceasing to be. Unfortunately for Mr. Wagoner, it does not mean this, and what he would have us believe to be a mystery is simply falsehood and blasphemy. To be immortal, and yet cease to be, is impossible. The one thing positively contradicts the other; and there is no “cavil” about it either. God only has immortality absolutely. (1 Tim. 6:16.) In Him it is inherent. Others have it as derived from, and dependent on Him, as angels and men. Men have it in the soul, not yet in the body. See Matthew 10:28, where we are told that men can “kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” It is the body that is mortal, not the soul, and 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 shows that at the resurrection, the mortal body will “put on immortality.” It is because man has a mortal part — the body — that he is called mortal. And it is because the Son of God became man, with a human body, as well as soul, that He could die. Adam and his race, because of sin, became subject to death. The Son of God was not subject to death, because in Him was no sin; but He could, and did, die for others, and this without laying aside immortality, a thing impossible. When He became man, and died on the cross, He did not cease to be God, nor could He, for God is from eternity to eternity (Psa. 90:2). God cannot give up His own existence but having become man, He who had become such could die. But this does not mean that He ceased to exist. He laid down His human life in atonement for sin, and all the value of what He is as God belonged to this wondrous act; but He still remained God, though the human life was laid down to be taken again in resurrection; and man, too, though in death the soul left the body, going into hades, while the body was laid in the sepulcher.

When the Jews wanted a sign from the blessed Lord, He said unto them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He referred to “the temple of His body” (John 2:19,21). If, in death, He ceased to be, how could He raise up that temple? How could a nonentity raise a dead body to life? Let no one say this is “caviling.” It is not. It is only exposing one of Satan’s horrible lies about the Person of the Lord Jesus.

John 10:17-18 is in keeping with the above Scripture. Jesus says: “I lay down My life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father.” Wondrous truth! But if He ceased to exist when He laid down His life, if His divinity and His humanity both alike became extinct, how could He have power to take His life again? You cannot connect power with what does not exist. If His divinity and humanity were both extinct those three days, the Savior had ceased to be; there was no Savior to take His life again. It is an absurdity on the face of it. But if, when He died, He still continued to be God, the living God, and man, too, with a living soul, though the body was dead, He could, according to the authority received from His Father, take His life again. This He did in resurrection and He who died for us, now lives for us, a Savior and High Priest, able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God by Him.

3. The Seventh Day Adventists declare that Christ, in becoming a man, took a sinful human nature, thus assailing the truth of His humanity, as well as His divinity. Again we read from Mr. Wagoner’s book: “Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon Himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of a sinful man, that is, that the flesh which He assumed had all the weakness and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the statement that ‘He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.’ David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’ Psalm 51:5.”

“There was in His whole life a struggle. The flesh moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin.” (Pages 26, 27, 29.)

Much more might be added to these extracts, but surely these are enough to stamp the brand of horrible blasphemy on the whole system, for every one whose heart is loyal to Christ. If these shocking words were true, we would all be left without a Savior. For if Christ had a sinful nature He had an unholy nature, and would have needed a Savior for Himself. He did take human nature, and He was made in the likeness of men, but Scripture never says He took sinful human nature; and, though sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” it never says His flesh was “sinful flesh.” Just think of the presumption and awful wickedness of Mr. Wagoner intimating that our blessed Lord Jesus was shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin! He does not say this directly, but David says it of himself, and Mr. Wagoner tells us this was the kind of flesh assumed by the Son of God — flesh which “had all the weakness and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject.” One shrinks from recording such unholy statements about the Person of the Lord Jesus; but there is need that the danger-signal be made plain, and souls warned against the fatal vortex into which this system draws its deluded victims.

The words of the angel to Mary were: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over-shadow thee; therefore also that HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35. 0! how different from the words of Mr. Wagoner. I am aware Mr. Wagoner says He did not commit sin, but he says He had sinful flesh, a sinful nature, while the angel says “that holy thing.” A sinful nature cannot be a holy nature, and sinful flesh cannot be holy flesh. The terms are opposite in meaning, and to apply the terms “sinful nature” or “sinful flesh” to the Person of the Lord Jesus is blasphemy of the worst kind. I know Scripture says He “was made sin for us,” but it does not say He was made sinful. That is a very different thing. In the original the word for “sin” and “sin offering” is the same; and when it says He “was made sin for us” it refers to His becoming a sin offering on the cross, made sin sacrificially: that is, He took our place and was dealt with as a sin offering under the judgment of God, in order that sin might be put away. If He had been sinful in His own nature, He could not have done this; He could not have been an acceptable sacrifice; His own sinful nature would have been something only fit for judgment itself, and could not have been accepted for others.

It is well to remark that, in Scripture, the term “the flesh” is used in two widely different senses. It may be used of the body simply, as “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak”; “the life which I now live in the flesh” (Matt. 26:41; Gal. 2:20), or it may be used of the fallen, sinful nature of the first Adam, in which we have our position morally before God by nature, as “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit”; “sin in the flesh”; “they that are in the flesh.” (Gal. 5:17; Rom. 8:3,8, and other passages.) Our blessed Lord had a body of flesh; but in the second sense the term is never applied to Him. To do so would be blasphemy.

May God in great mercy preserve His people from receiving these shocking statements about the Person of His beloved Son. It is Satan’s work, bringing in a false Christ altogether, a foundation that will not stand. The Christ of Scripture is a divine Person, who exists from eternity to eternity, the I AM, the Word and Son of God, in eternal relationship with the Father, co-equal and co-eternal. In God’s due time He became man, yet never ceasing to be God — not a sinful man, nor a man with a sinful nature, but one who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” sinless in His life, and without taint of sin or defilement in His nature, which He derived from God, and not from sinful, fallen Adam. He took humanity but not fallen humanity, and “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God” (Heb. 9:14), a sacrifice for us; and as Peter tells us, He was a Lamb “without blemish and without spot,” by whose precious blood we are redeemed and brought to God. The sacrifice was of infinite worth, and His blood avails for all those who put their trust in Him. May the reader know the blessedness of having a conscience purged forever, according to the unceasing eternal value of that blood.

4. Those at all familiar with Seventh Day Adventism are aware, that according to their theory of the atonement, Christ did not enter into “the holiest of all” until the year 1844. In an article in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald of January 30, 1894, the writer brands as “error” “the idea that the atonement was made upon the cross,” and declares it was “not made on the cross,” but is “in process now,” and that “the final work of atonement by our Lord Jesus Christ has been going forward since the end of the prophetic period (the 2,300 days of Dan. 8) that marked its beginning in 1844, for almost fifty years.” It is held that in 1844, at the close of Daniel’s 2,300 days, the Lord Jesus entered the “holiest of all” to cleanse the sanctuary, and that since that time He has been completing the work of atonement. It is an extraordinary doctrine, but it came into existence as an after-thought to maintain the consistency of their system when they had gotten into difficulty. They had previously set the year 1844 as the year in which the Lord was to come. This was a delusion, for Christians are warned against setting dates for His coming. From the beginning they have been exhorted to “watch,” just for the very reason that they “know neither the day nor the hour.” As might be expected, these people who sought to be wiser than Scripture were disappointed. The Lord did not come in 1844; and now they were in difficulty, and must either find some plausible solution of the difficulty, to save their credit as interpreters of prophecy, or else give up and admit they had been deceived. Had they honestly confessed that they had been deceived, and humbled themselves before God, they might have been delivered from the snare; but they did not. The enemy had led them to believe a lie; and now he will lead them to believe a still more horrible lie, in order that they may believe the first lie was true. They made a mistake in their interpretation of Daniel’s 2,300 days — a prophecy fulfilled in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, as I believe — and on this false foundation they have reared a gigantic structure of error, setting aside the truth as to the atonement, and denying the Lord’s entrance into “the holiest of all” until fifty years ago.

The 9th and 10th of Hebrews show that at the time that book was written, Christ had gone into the presence of God in the holy place with His own blood: that is, He had reached the mercyseat, the throne of God, where the blood had to be sprinkled by the high priest. He has gone into the presence of God for us, where His blood avails for all believers. And not only so, but the rending of the veil (type of His own flesh) shows that the way into the holiest of all was opened by the death of Jesus. And now even we — all Christians from the beginning — (not Christ alone) have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” as a company of priestly worshipers, and there we find Christ over us as High Priest to present our worship to God according to the value of His own work for us. (Heb. 10:19-22.) Nothing could be plainer in Scripture than that Christianity is founded on Christ’s death for us, and His going into God’s presence for us; and it is a piece of awful presumption for any man to attempt to prove, by a false interpretation of Daniel 8, that the Lord Jesus did not enter into the holiest till 1844.

Many other points equally erroneous, might be mentioned, were there need; but these are fundamental, seeking to overthrow the truth of Christianity, and clearly prove the anti-Christian character of Seventh Day Adventism, and that it has its origin with “the father of lies.” And this is enough to lead any heart loyal to Christ, to shun it, and turn away from it with abhorrence.

We would not deny the sincerity of the advocates of this wretched system. No doubt many of them are sincere, but their sincerity will not save them. I suppose the priests of Baal were sincere when leaping on the altar, crying to Baal, and cutting themselves with lancets till the blood gushed out; but they had allowed themselves to be deceived by Satan, instead of cleaving to the word of the Lord; and they perished by the sword of Elijah (1 Kings 18.) A more terrible sword awaits the calumniators of Christ, even the two-edged sword proceeding out of the mouth of Him who is coming, the many-crowned “King of kings and Lord of lords.” May reader and writer be found of Him in peace when He comes.

Some Remarks* on a Book Entitled Millennial Dawn

MILLENNIAL DAWN-VOLUME I

The Plan of the Ages

This book is full of deadly poison. It is written in such a way that the ordinary reader is led on without suspicion, until he has become interested in the plan developed; and when well on in the book, the fatal poison is introduced, at first little by little, and then in fuller potions, until, at the last, when the reader has been charmed, it is poured out into his cup in its deadliest form.

The volume that lies before me belongs to the “200th thousand.” This is sufficient warrant to fear that immense damage has already been done to souls by such circulation, and justifies at least a short notice of its teachings, and a word of warning to all into whose hands the book may fall. In giving this notice, we call attention first to

The Theory Advanced

The writer tells us that “the first great judgment” was “in Eden, when the whole human race, as represented in its head, Adam, stood on trial before God. The result of that trial was the verdict — guilty, disobedient, unworthy of life; and the penalty inflicted was death.” This “was the world’s first judgment day” (Page 140).

On the same page, he tells us that “mankind has been redeemed from the sentence of that first trial by the sacrifice for all, which the great Redeemer gave. All are redeemed from the grave and from the sentence of death — destruction — which in view of this redemption is no longer to be considered in the full, everlasting sense of the word, but rather a temporary sleep; because in the Millennial morning all will be awakened by the Life-giver who redeemed all.”

It is easy to see that this is a theory brought into Scripture, instead of truth drawn from it. It is not Scripture.

There is not a word of Scripture to support the theory that Christ by His death redeemed the whole Adamic race, or that He “canceled the sins of all,” as he tells us on page 142. It is simply unproven assertion. Christ did indeed die for all (2 Cor. 5:18), but that death avails efficaciously only for those that believe. “He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

According to this book, the millennium is the world’s second great judgment day, pp. 140-145; and “a period of about six thousand years intervenes between the world’s first and second judgment days,” during which God has been selecting “two special classes of men” who are to be “honored instruments during the period or day of the world’s judgment.” These two classes are the Old Testament saints, and those of “the Christian dispensation,” or those found “faithful” in these two periods. All the rest of mankind are to be put on trial for life during the world’s second judgment day, or the millennium; but there is “nothing to dread.” “The character of the Judge is a sufficient guarantee that the judgment will be just and merciful, and with due consideration for the infirmities of all, until they are brought back to the original perfection lost in Eden.” (Page 142).

At the beginning of the millennium the resurrection of all the dead is to take place. Of these there are different classes. 1. The faithful of Old Testament times, who “will at once receive the reward of their faithfulness an instantaneous resurrection to perfection as men.” (Page 290). 2. There “are four distinct classes which unitedly represent the nominal gospel church as a whole, claiming to be the body of Christ.” Two of these classes are said to be “spirit-begotten”; a third class, “justified but not sanctified”; and a fourth class, “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” (Pages 235-237).

The first two classes of these four are those who have “covenanted with God to become living sacrifices.” In one of these classes they are faithful to their covenant; in the second they “shrink back from the performance of their covenant.” The faithful class is called the “little flock,” and are to have the kingdom, and be “the bride of Christ,” etc. (Page 235).

The second class are not “overcomers,” and will never reach the position of the first class, but will be led through adversity to the perfection of spirit beings. (Pages 235, 236).

“The majority of the nominal church” are in the third class — “justified but not sanctified.” After the resurrection, “if they continue in faith and fully submit to the righteous laws of Christ’s kingdom, in the times of restitution, they will finally attain the likeness of the perfect earthly man, Adam.” (Page 236).

The “wolves in sheep’s clothing” class are to be destroyed. (Pages 141, 237).

At the beginning of the millennium all the dead are to be raised up, and these different classes (except the last, which is to be destroyed) will come into their respective places of blessing, or further testing, as the case may be. But besides these, there are the vast multitudes of men who have died in unbelief. These, we are told, have all been “ransomed” by the death of Christ, and their sins all “canceled,” and they will be given a fresh trial for life during the millennium. This is the world’s “second trial.” (Page 142).

Under this trial the great mass will be restored to perfection. “Some, however, will be destroyed from among the people; first, all who, under full light and opportunity, for one hundred years, refuse to make progress towards righteousness and perfection”; “and second, those who, having progressed to perfection, in a final testing at the close of the millennium prove unfaithful.” “Such die the second death, from which there is no resurrection or restitution promised.” (Page 242).

We may add in connection with this theory, that the writer speaks of “two phases of the kingdom of God,” “a spiritual or heavenly phase, and an earthly or human phase. The spiritual will always be invisible to men, as those composing it will be of the divine, spiritual nature, which no man hath seen nor can see... yet its presence and power will be mightily manifested, chiefly through its human representatives, who will constitute the earthly phase of the kingdom of God.” “The overcoming saints of the gospel age — the Christ, head and body — glorified,” “constitute the spiritual phase of the kingdom.” (Page 288). Those of this class cease to be human beings, and become purely spiritual beings, “exalted to the divine nature” and to “divine power,” in order to accomplish the work they will have to perform “in heaven and earth among spiritual as well as among human beings.” (Page 289).

The faithful of Old Testament times, raised to life, and restored to Adamic perfection, are to be the chief instruments in the work of the earthly phase of the kingdom, and “will be the most exalted and honored of God among men.” (Pages 289-290). Others besides these and those changed from human to spirit beings are to be “gradually raised to perfection during the millennial age.”

Such is a brief outline of some of the main features of this man’s theory. The very statement of it is sufficient, without comment, to show to any intelligent Christian its absurd and unscriptural character. Scripture is indeed referred to for support of un-scriptural statements; but it is used in a most dishonest way, altogether without reference to its context, in many instances, and also according to the wildest and most fanciful reveries of the human mind.

The thought that in Eden, and during the millennium, we get two great judgment days for the world, is without Scripture basis. It is true that in Eden man fell through sin, and brought upon himself death as the wages of sin (“by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin”) and it is true that in this way “death passed upon all men,” but when this is said, it is at once added, “for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). It is not only that Adam sinned, but each one of us has added his own sins, so that if judgment overtake us, it is not merely because Adam sinned, but because we have sinned ourselves.

It is also true that the millennium will be a day characterized by the judgment of evil, as well as the blessing of the righteous in the earth, in connection with the presence and glory of the Lord Jesus. But this is not what the writer means when he speaks of the millennium being the world’s second great judgment day. He means that the resurrected millions of the human race, who have died in sin and unbelief, are going to be put on trial again, as Adam was in Eden, and a chance given to them to inherit eternal life by obedience to the laws of Christ’s kingdom, their sins having all been canceled by the atonement. In every way it is a falsification of Scripture, falsifying alike the truth as to atonement, judgment and the kingdom.

He would have us believe also that these countless millions of resurrected wicked are to be restored to Adamic perfection, except a few incorrigible ones who will be annihilated. Now, in Scripture there is not only no word to intimate that any who die unsaved will ever be saved at all, but there is no word teaching that any one will ever be restored to Adamic perfection. It is all false, and contrary to Scripture, which teaches that Christ, not Adam, is the Head of the new race, and that those who believe are predestined of God to be “conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). In 1 Corinthians 15:49 we are also told that “as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Here we get the two heads, Adam and Christ. We bear the image of Adam now, but in the resurrection we shall bear the image of a heavenly, glorified Christ. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither cloth corruption inherit incorruption.” So “the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” and those who are alive when the Lord comes “shall be changed.” The bodies of the raised righteous dead, and of the changed living, will be “fashioned like unto His glorious body” (Phil. 3:21). “It Both not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He shall appear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). Being like Christ in glory is vastly different from being like Adam in Eden.

Then, the writer’s division of professing Christians into four classes is also without Scripture warrant, and is done simply to establish a theory. It nowhere speaks of a class who have “covenanted with God to become a living sacrifice,” or to sacrifice their humanity, in order to experience a change of nature; nor does it speak of a class justified, but not sanctified. In the epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle addresses the assembly of God at Corinth as “them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to, be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” And in 1 Corinthians 6:11, after speaking of the character of the unrighteous who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, he says, “And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Here washing, sanctification and justification are alike ascribed to all who believe.

I do not, however, dwell on these points, but pass on to notice, in the second place, what is far more serious, and what characterizes his whole system.

His Blasphemous Declarations as to the Person of Christ

On page 188 God’s right “to create Jesus higher than the angels, and then further to exalt Him to the divine nature” is spoken of. Thus, according to this book, Jesus is a created being, while Scripture assures us that He existed in the beginning with God, and that He is the Creator of all things. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). So in Colossians 1:16-17, it is said, “For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.” In Hebrews 1, also we are told that by Him God “made the worlds,” and that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power.” And in Philippians 2:6 it is said of Him, “being in the form of God.” These and many other Scriptures give overwhelming testimony to His being God, uncreated, equal with the Father, the Creator and upholder of all things. And yet this man blasphemously speaks of Him as a creature, first higher than the angels, then lower, then in resurrection exalted to the divine nature. Note the following: “When Jesus was in the flesh, He was a perfect human being; previous to that time He was a perfect spiritual being; and since His resurrection He is a perfect spiritual being of the highest order. It was not until His consecration even unto death, as typified in His baptism — at thirty years of age (manhood, according to the law, and therefore the right time to consecrate Himself as a man) — that He received the earnest of His inheritance of the divine nature (Matt. 3:16-17). The human nature had to be consecrated to death before He could receive even the pledge of the divine nature. And not until that consecration was actually carried out and He had actually sacrificed the human nature, even unto death, did our Lord Jesus become a full partaker of the divine nature. After becoming a man He became obedient unto death; wherefore, God hath highly exalted Him to the divine nature (Phil. 2:8-9). If this scripture be true, it follows that He was not exalted to the divine nature until the human nature was actually sacrificed-dead.” Page 179.

He says, “If this scripture be true,” but he deliberately misquotes it, and thus brands himself a liar and a false witness, in no way to be trusted. The passage says not one word about being “exalted to the divine nature.” It says, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name that is above every name,” etc. Nothing is said about “the divine nature” at all, nor of a transition from the human to the divine. The whole thing is a false and wicked perversion of Scripture, and of the truth as to the Person of our blessed Lord.

But this wretched doctrine is further and deliberately stated and developed. He says: “We are told that our Lord before He left His glory to become a man, was ‘in a form of God’ — a spiritual form, a spirit being; but since to be a ransom for mankind He had to be a man, of the same nature as the sinner whose substitute in death He was to become, it was necessary that His nature be changed, and Paul tells us that He took not the nature of angels, one step lower than His own, but He came down two steps and took the nature of men — He became a man; He was `made flesh.’ “

“Notice that this teaches not only that angelic nature is not the only order of spirit being, but that it is a lower nature than that of our Lord Jesus before He became a man; and He was not then so high as He is now, for ‘God hath highly exalted Him, because of His obedience in becoming man’s willing ransom’ (Phil. 2:8-9). He is now of the highest order of spirit being, a partaker of the divine (Jehovah’s) nature.”

“We have no record of any being, either spiritual or human, ever having been changed from one nature to another except the Son of God; and this was an exceptional case, for an exceptional purpose” (Pages 177, 178, 182).

Again speaking of Jesus being anointed with the Holy Ghost at His baptism, he says: “This filling with the Spirit was the begetting of a new nature — the divine — which should be fully developed or born when He had fully accomplished the offering — the sacrifice of the human nature. This begetting was a step up from human conditions.... On this plane Jesus spent three and one-half years of His life — until His human existence ended in the cross. Then, after being dead three days, He was raised to life — to the perfection of spirit being, born of the Spirit — ‘the firstborn from the dead.’ That which is born of the Spirit is spirit.’ Jesus, therefore, at and after His resurrection, was a spirit — a spirit being, and no longer a human being in any sense” (Pages 230-231).

These shocking statements about our blessed Lord and Savior may well make the true believer shudder. They show beyond all question that this man is a “false prophet” and an “antichrist,” and to be shunned as a “deceiver” (1 John 4:1; 2 John 7,11). The deity of Christ is denied; He is represented as a created spiritual being, higher than the angels; then He came “two steps” down, and became a man, and in doing so ceased to be a spiritual being; and when He died His humanity came to an end; and in resurrection He became a spiritual being of the highest order, and was no longer human in any sense. Query: What was He during the three days when His body was in the sepulcher? His humanity ended in the cross, and He became a spiritual being in resurrection. What was He in the interval between? Alas! this is left a blank. And, of course, according to this system, He had no existence at all during those three days. But every point is utterly false. Scripture speaks of Him as “God,” and “with God,” “God manifest in the flesh,” “the Word,” “the Life,” “the I AM,” “the Word made flesh,” “God over all,” “the man Christ Jesus,” God and man in one Person, addressed as “God” in Hebrews 1:8, spoken of as “the true God and eternal life” in 1 John 5:20, and as “the Man Christ Jesus,” who is the “one mediator between God and men” in 1 Tim. 2:5. And when He appeared to His disciples after His resurrection He said to them: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have” (Luke 24:39). And yet this man denies His deity prior to His resurrection and His humanity after it, and speaks of His being changed from one nature to another at two different times, and no divinity till resurrection. His sealing, too, by the Spirit, is spoken of as a begetting to the divine nature, and then He was fully born at resurrection, and thus the Holy Ghost in Christ is reduced to a mere nature, and the resurrection of Christ is new birth. Thus the whole truth is falsified, and every true thought of the believer about Christ, with every holy feeling and affection, is shocked and outraged by this wicked and Satanic system.

Why does this blasphemer speak of Christ having been “in a form of God” before He became man? Why does he introduce the little word “a” and leave out “the,” as if there were different forms of God? If he says the article “the” is not in the original, I reply, neither is the article “a” and then it would simply be “in form of God,” which is equivalent to “in God’s form.” The translators have given the right meaning, and this man gives a meaning which degrades the Person of the Son of God, and falsifies the testimony of this Scripture, which speaks of the equality of Jesus with God. Being equal with God He did not need to seek this equality by robbery, as Adam had done; but, on the contrary, He humbled Himself in taking a servant’s form and the likeness of men, and submitting to the shameful death of the cross, for God’s glory and the salvation of men. For this reason God exalted Him and gave Him a place as Man above all created intelligences. “At the name of Jesus” — His name as man — “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Heavenly, earthly and infernal beings must own the authority of that MAN. He is now man, though exalted to the highest glory; and in becoming man He never ceased to be God, though He “made Himself of no reputation,” and “humbled Himself” to accomplish God’s will. “God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). His incommunicable glory, no doubt, was veiled, but all that God is in light, and love, and infinite grace and goodness to man shone out in that blessed, lowly One who died on the cross. He who was God, equal with the Father, became man in grace, and having died on the cross to put away sin, and bearing the sins of His people, was raised again from the dead as man, and will be a man, though God withal, forever — a glorified man, exalted “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:21). Such is the Christ of God, our blessed adorable Savior, “who is over all, God blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5), who is also “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), as it is also written, “this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:12-14). Why should we give up this blessed Savior, the true Christ, for a Christ of the imagination, a myth, a something that has no reality? To do so is fatal. “‘Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). May God preserve souls from giving up the truth as to Christ through the “smooth words and fair speeches” of this deceiver.

We have seen how the Person of the Lord Jesus is degraded by this false and wicked system. We will now see, in the third place, how it and thus places before man the same bait as that by which our first parents were tempted in Eden, when the serpent said, “Ye shall be as gods.” Two or three extracts will suffice.

“Some may be a little startled by this expression, a divine body; but we are told that Jesus is now the express image of His Father’s Person, and that the overcomers will be like Him and see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2.) ‘There is a natural [human] body, and there is a spiritual body’ (1 Cor. 15:44). We could not imagine either our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies. Theirs are glorious spiritual bodies” (Page 200).

“In fact, immortality may be used as a synonym for divinity” (Page 208).

“From 1 Timothy 6:14-16 we learn that the immortal or divine nature was originally the possession of Jehovah only.”

“Further, we learn that Jehovah, who alone possessed immortality originally, has highly exalted His Son, our Lord Jesus, to the same divine, immortal nature; hence He is now the express image of the Father’s Person.... Since the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, then, two beings are immortal; and, amazing grace! the same offer is made to the bride of the Lamb, being selected during the gospel age. Yet not all of the great company who are nominally of the church will receive this great prize, but only that ‘little flock’ of overcomers who so run as to obtain it; who follow closely in the Master’s footsteps; who, like Him, run the narrow way of sacrifice, even unto death. These when born from the dead in resurrection will have the divine nature and form. This immortality, the independent, sell-existent, divine nature, is the life to which the narrow way leads.

“This class is not to be raised from the tomb human beings.”

“In the beginning of the millennial age, those who now walk the narrow way will have gained the great prize for which they ran, immortality; and being thus clothed with the divine nature and power they will be prepared for the great work of restoring and blessing the world in the age to come.” (Pages 208, 210, 211, 212).

There is much more to the same effect, but it is needless to multiply quotations. These are sufficient to show the Satanic character of the book and its teaching.

Notice the expression, “a divine body.” This is the kind of body we are to believe “our divine Father” has. And he tells us Jesus is “now” the express image of His Person; and so He now has a divine body, too. And since the overcomers are to be “like Him,” they will have divine bodies also! Who told him that the Father has a body? Certainly not Scripture, for it says no such thing. He says, “we cannot imagine,” etc. Well, imagination is rather a sandy foundation on which to build in such weighty matters, and it is sure to run wild when it enters a region outside of revelation. We may also ask, who told him that the body was in question when Scripture declares that the Son is the express image of God? And why does he say Christ is “now” the express image, etc.? The fact is, he denies that Christ was always this; for he holds that He is so only since His resurrection. There is no such expression in Scripture as a “divine body,” nor any hint of such a thing. Jesus took a human body, and His body is still a human body, though glorified; and our bodies will always be human, though they will be glorified, too, and fashioned like Christ’s body of glory (Phil. 3:20).

He tells us that “immortality may be used as a synonym for divinity.” Why so? He might as well tell us that holiness means the same as divinity, because God is holy. On this principle you could teach anything from Scripture. And, indeed, it would be difficult to teach anything worse than this man does. But he also tells us that “immortality, or the divine nature was originally the possession of Jehovah only,” but that Jesus got it in resurrection, and that now, “two beings are immortal.” What about the Holy Ghost? Is not He immortal? Alas! it is to be feared that in this system He has no personality at all. This system has no Trinity. And the truth as to every Person in the Godhead is attacked or nullified. It is true, God only has immortality. He only has it inherently (1 Tim. 6:16). But the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, so that all three have immortality. But the writer tells us the “little flock” of overcomers are to reach this prize. And since divinity is the same thing, they attain to divinity as well as “self-existence” and “divine power.” They cease to be human beings, and each one is to have “a spirit body like the risen Jesus — `the express image of the Father’s Person’” (Page 233). In short, it is simply the deification of the saints, or, at least, those he calls the “little flock,” for he tells us, “the great mass of mankind saved from the fall, as well as the angels of heaven, will always be mortal” (Page 186). All this is serious error, without foundation in truth, and with nothing to support it save the boldness with which it is uttered. We have nothing to assure us except this man’s dictum. He writes in a false and unscriptural way about human beings and spiritual beings, assuming that a human being cannot have a spiritual nature, and that the Son of God could not take human nature into union with His divinity; and on his bold and unscriptural assumptions he builds his wretched system. This system has not one redeeming feature. It is a fabric of falsehood and blasphemy from beginning to end, degrading Christ and making gods of men — a system from which every right-minded Christian must shrink with abhorrence and loathing.

We may add that this book is the first one of a series, all of which bear the same character. In one of these he teaches “that our Lord will never again appear as a man; that at His second coming He will be invisible to mankind”; “that we are now ‘in the days of the Son of man’; that ‘the day of the Lord has come, and Jesus, a spiritual body, is present, harvesting the gospel age.’ “ Could there be greater folly? Is this anything better than a caricature of the blessed truth as to the Lord’s coming? He is coming, blessed be His name! but when He comes it will not be like this — a secret presence that nobody will know anything about, except an imaginary few perhaps. It is plain the author of these books had not yet seen Him when he wrote, for he says: “We think we have good solid reasons, not imaginations, nor dreams, nor visions, but Bible evidences, that we are now `in the days of the Son of man’; that ‘the day of the Lord’ has come, and Jesus, a spiritual body, is present.” This extraordinary statement and testimony to the presence now of the Son of man, doing the harvest work of the gospel age, is all based on the “we think” of a blasphemer of God’s Son. Let every one who reads these lines say how much weight such testimony will have in their souls. When the blessed Lord comes His people shall see Him, and be like Him, too (Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The dead in Christ shall rise; the living saints shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye; and the raised dead and changed living shall be caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so to be forever with Him, in incorruption and immortality (1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:16-17). And is all this to take place, and we know nothing about it? And when the Lord comes “with all His saints” (1 Thess. 3:13), “and all the holy angels with Him” (Matt. 25:31), He will come “with clouds and every eye shall see Him,” and what is more “all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him” (Rev. 1:7). All this is wickedly set aside by a system which reduces the Son of God to a mere “spiritual body,” invisible to men. He says, “Jesus, a spiritual body.” Could language be more shocking, used of His blessed Person? But the wicked know no shame. Let us drop the curtain and turn away from these books with their horrid blasphemies. There can be no possible edification in reading them. The whole system is corrupt and corrupting, and it is an unspeakable relief to one who has looked into it a little, for the sake of others, to be done with the task.

May the Lord graciously keep His own in these perilous times, when the very air seems thick and stifling with the deadly poison of soul-destroying doctrines.

“But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference; and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen” (Jude 20-25).

Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.

Selected Ministry of A. H. Rule Volume 2

Selected Ministry of A.H. Rule [Paperback]

Table of Contents

Preface to Volume 2

Truth

The Power of Faith and Prayer in Connection With the Difficulties of God's People

Trades' Unions and Benefit Societies, and the Christian's Attitude Toward Them

A Word in Season: The Danger of Pride and the Need of Lowliness

On One Devoting Himself Exclusively to Service: Part 1

On One Devoting Himself Exclusively to Service: Part 2

The Lord's Sympathy With Us in Suffering

A Case Calling for Discipline

Labor Spent in Vain

Christ or the World

A Heart Turned in the Right Direction

The Eternal Sonship of Christ: No. 1

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel: Part 1

The Eternal Sonship of Christ: No. 2

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel

A Remarkable Public Experience With an Infidel: Part 3

God's Image Reflected in Those Who Come Through the Fire

Declension Preparing the Way for the Apostasy

What Leads Astray, and the Principles of Restoration

Standing in the Evil Day; Christ Our Example; Holding Fast

A Day of Ruin; the Coming of the Lord, the Church's Hope

The Truth Restored; the Testimony Given; Our Responsibility

Bermuda; an Interesting Account

A Further Word on Bermuda: The Blow of 1890; Ravenism

A Day of Weakness; the Open Door; the Final Apostasy

A Series of Letters to a Brother

Courage to Stand in Remnant Days

The Sabbath

The Heathen and Millennial Dawn

The Term "Gods" in Psalm 82; Greater Works Than These

God's Purpose in Trials; Final Blessing

Working in a New Place

Barbados

An Unconverted Father Refuses to Hear the Truth From His Son

Trial Serving as Discipline for the Development of the Divine Life

Some Wholesome Words on Assembly Discipline

Discipline: The Spirit in Which It Is Done

Strained Relationship Between Gatherings

God's Protecting Care and the Lessons He Would Teach Us in Circumstances of Danger

A Letter of Sympathy

Walking With God: Points in the Arrangement of Revelation

Discerning the Lord's Mind

Principles to Be Exercised in Seeking to Restore an Erring Brother

Another Letter on Seeking to Restore

A Case of Restoration

The Truth Revealed - Holding Fast - We Are Not Better Than Our Fathers

Revivals

On Receiving Into Fellowship From Sects and From Divisive Parties

Manner of Receiving From System and the Question of One Absenting Himself From the Lord's Table

Membership in Secret Societies and Trades' Unions

On the Grant Division

On Unanimity in Assembly Decisions and Addressing the Lord Jesus Personally in Worship and Prayer

To the Saints Gathered to the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ

A Letter on Ravenism

An Assembly in Disorder

A Letter of Counsel on Certain Matters of Difficulty in an Assembly

Review of "Was Moses Wrong?"

A Brief Reply to a Letter of P.J.L.

A Few Simple Notes on "Life in Christ, and Sealing With the Spirit"

A Letter by B. F. Pinkerton

Appendix

Divisions Among the People of God and Their Causes and Is There a Path for Faith

Eternal Life and the Person of Christ

J.S.O. Also Gives This From F.E.R.:

Seventh Day Adventism: Its Unscriptural Doctrines and Their Deluding Tendencies

Seventh Day Adventism in Its Relation to the Person and Work of Christ

Some Remarks* on a Book Entitled Millennial Dawn

The Theory Advanced

His Blasphemous Declarations as to the Person of Christ