Letters Volume 2: Nos. 101-120.

J. N. Darby.

<52101E>p168 [F J Rowan] MY DEAR BROTHER, - The principle that responsibility depends on the power of the responsible person is false, save so far as the alleged responsible person is in his nature such as to negative the claim. A stone cannot be responsible nor even a beast, for moral conduct, because they are not in the relationship to which responsibility can attach. But obligation flows from relationship, and where the relationship exists which constitutes it, the obligation subsists: the power to fulfil it has nothing to do with it. The obligation gives a claim to the person to whom the obliged is responsible. I had put the case: A man owes me a thousand pounds; you are a spendthrift, and have not a penny you have not power to pay really - therefore I have no claim nor you responsibility. That will not do. Romans cut off their thumbs, and could not hold a spear, to avoid military service: were they held irresponsible?

Man takes another ground of reasoning against God I know, that God put him into this place, or he was born in it, and therefore he is not responsible. This raises another point, that moral responsibility attaches to will, not to power. We do what our own consciences condemn because we like it. My child refuses to come when I call him to go with me; I am going to punish him because he would not: he pleads that he was tied or could not open the door. But I punish him because he refused as to his will to yield to the obligation: I had a knife ready to cut what bound him, a key to open the door: he by his will refused the claim. In a word, responsibility flows from the claim on us arising from the relationship in which we stand There is not a man in Glasgow that would hold that he had no claim on a man who owed him a thousand pounds because he had no ability to pay it. It has nothing to do with responsibility. We may lightly treat God so, alas! and say, "The woman that thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat;" but he pleads his sin as his excuse. God says, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree," etc., therefore.

Yours affectionately in the Lord.

[Date uncertain.]

<52102E>p169 [R Holden] MY DEAR BROTHER, - On my arrival here from abroad I found a note from -, communicating your questions. I have not myself any great difficulty on the subject. I know not whether I shall be as clear for you; but I will try, hoping in the Lord's help. As to bringing into Godhead, I leave it aside; I never heard of such a thing before. I do not even accept a common expression from Romanists downwards - union with God. I believe a nature is properly what makes any being what it is, as 'angel,' 'man,' 'cow,' or anything else. I do not think 2 Peter 1: 4 the simplest and clearest passage to explain the point, because it is properly moral, or specially what characterises the Christian as such. The reason I think so is, that it speaks of "great and precious promises," by which it is more to me what John 3 calls "born of water," and, "ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Still it is not separable from the other point - life-giving. But it speaks of promises, and escaping corruptions which are in the world.

This side of being born again even Romanists, and also Wesleyans, and most evangelicals admit and confine themselves to; that is, an action of the Holy Ghost by the word, by which man is morally purified. Nay, Wesleyans would say - lose it, regain it; and even those who do not go so far, still hold it as only a purifying of what is. The Wesleyans say, man had body, soul and spirit before the fall; and after the fall, body, soul and spirit corrupted, and then being born again, the corruption is removed; and hence a man may be quite perfect as man, if the corruption be wholly removed. Now I believe (not touching on perfection now) that this is, to say the least, a most defective view of the matter. I believe the Lord is a life-giving Spirit; and, operating by the Holy Ghost, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" - not the Spirit, who is God; but one is by His divine power quickened, just as that which is born of the flesh is flesh. I receive spiritually life from Christ, as I receive naturally life from Adam. In this sense Christ is my life. He is eternal life (1 John 1), and "he that hath the Son of God hath life." It is not I, as of the flesh, but Christ lives in me. Hence, viewed abstractedly, as thus born of God - for so John views things - it is said, "he cannot sin, because he is born of God." And this life we have in the power of Christ's resurrection; and it is acted in by the Holy Ghost given to us because of Christ's blood. So after His resurrection, as God breathed into Adam, Christ breathed into His disciples. Through this, it is said, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." A great accessory truth that comes in connected with this is, that Christ having died, I am counted of God (Col. 3) dead as to the flesh, and to count myself so (Rom. 6), and to realise it (2 Cor. 4), so that only the life of Christ should be manifested.

This is the point which my soul clings to on this subject, the real communication in receiving Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, so as to have what I had not before - Christ become spiritually my life through the Holy Ghost acting in it in power; created again in Christ Jesus, though the flesh still be there. But I am not in it, but in Christ, and am bound and privileged to hold it dead. Of course, this does practically cleanse by and according to the word. I may not be able to explain it physiologically, but it is to me plain in scripture, and in it the saint will live eternally with God. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" - partakes of the nature of that of which it is born. It is holy, loves, and, as in Christ as a man, obeys. In a word, it is the reproduction, as to its nature, of Christ's life. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; the Spirit is life because of righteousness." It is new a thing as a graft in a wild tree.

As regards using Old Testament words as types, I quite agree that our imagination is to be held in check; nor can we ever insist on such as a doctrine. But there is a passage which may assist your mind on this point (1 Cor. 10: 11), where the word "ensamples" is "types" or "figures," which gives the principle. Then we must only look to the Holy Ghost and divine guidance to use them soberly and aright. .

The shade of different meaning in κοινωνός and μέτοχος is I believe, just; but it is a question of adequate observation of its New Testament use in Greek, and any adequate proof would make me abandon it. At present, though only a shade of meaning, I believe it just. Luke v. does not to my mind destroy this connection; κοινωνοί is really "partners" for me there, μέτοχοι the fact of taking part: but I have no anxiety to insist on this; as I have said, adequate proof would make me give it up at once.

Φύσις is moral in 2 Peter, from the force of what is said in the passage. In divine things this is everything, as holiness love, etc.; but the point I should insist on is, that there is more than mere moral effect, though there be that - that Christ is for us a life-giving Spirit; as born of the flesh involves a like nature.

I do not know whether I have met the question as you wish; I write rapidly, having left Paris this morning, and found a mass of things on my table; but I think, if you take the passages, the life-giving and Christ being our life will be very plain, and that is what to my mind is important, though we never know what it really means till we know it as deliverance in power, the flesh being held as dead according to Romans 8: 2, 3 - having passed out of chapter vii. according to the doctrine of chapter 6 and the beginning of chapter 7. I shall be glad, if of any value to you, to make myself clearer if I can. "Nature" I see I take just as you do. Only God cannot communicate Godhead to us as supreme being, but the moral elements of what He is He can in giving life.

Your affectionate brother in Christ.

London, April, 1872.

<52103E>p171 [H M Hooke] DEAREST BROTHER, - I had heard something of your wanderings and work, and rejoiced with all my heart in souls brought to God and saved. It is a wonderful word to say, and God has shewn you great grace in making you the instrument of it. . . .

I have been myself knocked up, overstretched by excessive labour, and when I stopped, a kind. of collapse but very well, thank God, as to health. The Lord willing, I sail May 30th for Boston. This was my object, but naturally if nothing hinders I shall go to Canada. The accounts I have received are generally good, with nothing very special. The Liverpool meeting is 28th and 29th, so that goes together very well.

I felt the Lord graciously with me on the continent in some districts there is blessing and conversion. In others there were gone to sleep, but God I think has used the visit to rouse them somewhat, and more are at work. Switzerland has through mercy clearly got a start. There is much to thank God for there now, and in France too there has been arousing and blessing, but a lack of labourers. In the Gard, where there are I suppose a thousand brethren or more, they had, except in one or two places, sadly gone to sleep, without (save a single case) any special case of sorrow. But they are, I trust, roused up, and blessing come in: I never had such large and attentive meetings of infidels, ministers, and all sorts besides brethren. The door too is open among the Roman Catholics, they receive tracts readily, and come in numbers to funerals, and take interest, feeling the gospel as good, and what they had not had. The instrument of so disposing them is partly dislike to the priests who want to bring in Henri V., and partly the blow fallen on France. But they distinguish at once a plain gospel from sermons and prefer it. Among Protestants the upper orders prefer orthodoxy, and even have built in some places chapels to learn it, the people rather infidelity. If in the common Synod Rationalism has a decided superiority as to results, the orthodox purpose going to the Free church, which with Methodists adapt themselves to the national body, save union with the state. But all is movement.

Ever affectionately yours in the Lord.

London, May, 1872.

<52104I>p172 [G Biava] [From the Italian.] DEAR BROTHER, - With respect to the passage Genesis 3: 15, the seed of the serpent is, I believe, the wicked, but manifested as under his influence; "Ye are of your father the devil." I do not think that all who are born of man are called the seed of the serpent - a baby for instance although the same nature is manifested if he lives long in this world. Christ is in a special way the seed of the woman, but all who are born of God are so. But all this history is fulfilled on earth; it is not a question of heaven, or of the judgement of the great white throne. The passages which you have quoted apply to the seed of the serpent. But if He had said, Thou shalt bruise the heads of thine enemies, this would indeed be a promise made to you. The importance of this distinction is that no promise is made to the first man; there is an object for faith where faith was found, but there exists no promise for the first Adam. The second Adam is heir of all the promises. In Christ we share in these promises. When the second Adam shall bruise the serpent's head, He will also judge the world of which the serpent is the prince. On the cross He did morally all that is needed in order to bruise his head, but there His own heel was wounded.

In Galatians 3: 16 the apostle is speaking of Genesis 12 and 22, only it is of one special seed. The promise was made to Abraham alone, and confirmed to his seed in chapter 22. The promises of a very numerous seed are distinct; also Abraham is not joined to his seed in this promise. It should be read, "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed." In chapter 15. we find the promises to his seed according to the flesh, added to the promises of the one seed. The reasoning in Galatians is that Christ alone is the seed meant in chapter 22. when the nations of the world are spoken of; and, if we are in Christ, we are then the seed of Abraham.

As to body, soul and spirit: soul and spirit are often used for the same thing, the soul in contrast to the body, the one expression or the other. But when both words are used, then the spirit is the higher part, soul being used for that which is joined to the body, and causes this to live; spirit, for the part in which man is in relation with God, inasmuch as God had breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. If there was nothing but soul, he would be no better than the beasts; but inasmuch as God, when the body was already formed, breathed into his nostrils in order that he should become alive, he is in relation with God Himself, and is eternally miserable if he is separated from God. Soul is often used for life, and for the soul properly so-called, in the same sentence, because in the Greek language there is only one word for the two, ψυχή . If a man shall lose his ψυχή for the love of Jesus, he shall gain it. (Matt. 16: 25, 26). The first time it is only life; the second it is much more. Also, "He that will save his ψυχή shall lose it," where the thing is still clearer.

I do not think that (Rev. 12. 16) "swallowed up" ought to be taken literally, but that the providence of God will cause that the efforts of the dragon to destroy the woman (the Jewish remnant) should fail, through the action of the nations of the earth; in a manner somewhat miraculous, but providential. Those sent by the dragon and employed by him to destroy the woman are lost, as it were, in the midst of the population of the earth, and they do nothing. . .

Your affectionate brother

London, May 7th, 1872

<52105E>p174 [F G Patterson] MY DEAR, BROTHER, - I reject entirely its ["fellowship with one another"] being with God in 1 John 1: 7 - not merely think the other right: ἀλλήλων is mere mutuality, and God would have as, much communion with us as a companion, as we have with Him, which is to be utterly rejected as irreverent and wrong. Scripture never speak so of God - God's having communion with us as between two equals; and ἀλλήλων is thorough mutuality. it is a kind of a fochair a ceile,* which cannot be entertained for a moment.

{*[Irish idiom, for companionship on equal terms.]}

As regard δικαίωσις ( Rom. 4: 25) - διά is translated "for" as giving the sense best in English, The point is, not there, but in δικαίωσις. Διά with an accusative is just "on account of"; but δικαίωσις is not the thing done but the doing of it; and it is this, on which it turns. If it had been "on account of our having been justified," it would have been διὰ τὸ δικαιωθῆναι ἡμᾶς. And this is not the case till faith comes in; hence (chap. 5: 1) δικαιωθέυτες ἐκ πίστεως. The Greek rule is that words derived from the perfect passive are the thing done, doing it, and the doer - κρίμα the judgment, κρίσις the judging, κριτές the judge - though all three are not always there. We have δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις; I am not aware of δικαίωτης.

As to Job 19: 25 I believe in Job's mind it was a confident trust that God would then deliver him. But I cannot help thinking that, the Spirit of God so ordered it as to imply a brighter and better hope, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did, in the Lord's hands, beyond the mind of the Jews. You may see by the italics that the passage is very obscure. I find I have translated in German as the Italian Diodati does - And I know my Redeemer lives, and he will stand at the end upon the earth and if after my skin this shall be destroyed (Italian, 'consumed'), yet I shall out of (or 'with') my flesh look upon God," etc. The difference is not very material, "worms" and "body" being both in italics. In Hebrew it is simply "they have destroyed." Verse 24 desires that his confidence in God was engraven on a rock, and the result would prove that it was right. The Redeemer is the common word for next of kin, on whom the right of redemption and avenging injuries devolved. God would be his goel (Hebrew). People have thought Job's faith could not have reached this: perhaps not, habitually. But here his soul rises up to God, and he puts life in God in contrast with the present consumption of skin and flesh, and that the power of deliverance (and will) from its perishing condition was there. He lives, he stands up above all that is dust, and while possibly looking to deliverance I doubt not the Spirit looks to a better resurrection.

As to "likeness,"* the reference is to baptism; but ὁμοιώματι is not merely likeness as comparison. Christ "was made in the likeness of men," according to this pattern. It is not the thing itself, but in the case of Christ's humanity, clearly not the denial of it. If I have taken my place with Christ, I have taken it with Him dead, and consequently if it be His death it involves according to the same pattern resurrection. He takes the reality of the thing, but takes it as expressed and patterned in baptism. In Romans we are not risen with Him in baptism.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

[1872

{*[What is meant by "the likeness of His death"?]}

<52106E>p175 [F Rowan] MY DEAR BROTHER, - *

{*"With reference to 2 Peter 1: 4 ( γένησθε θείας κοινωνοί φύσεως) 'partakers of the divine nature': -

1. What is the force of κοινωνός - is it more than 'partaking' in the sense of μετέχω?

2. If so, how are we made κοινωνοί of the divine nature?

3. Is it that we 'partake of the divine nature in a different manner from God,' and so 'enjoy the benefit of all the excellency of the divine nature without becoming uncreated or unchangeable,' or sharing any of the attributes which God claims as essential to Himself?

4. Is there nothing between that position and the thought which has been advanced, that because 'the divine nature is sui generis, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, and therefore essentially different from the nature of all created beings, it must in some way be modified by a union with humanity, as the nature of a horse is modified in the mule, by union with that of the ass?'

7. Does 2 Peter 1: 4 mean that we are made partakers of the divine nature as such? Or does 'nature' here mean rather the moral characteristics which, when made His children, we share in common with God?"}

. . . Dr. - 's remarks on μετέχω and κοινωνός - where there is a shade of difference in two words - are merely shewing he does not seize it, which is no very great matter. Either may be used in many cases, but they are not the same. 'Common,' and 'partake,' represent them, I may say, perfectly. 'It is common to us both,' I partake of what you have,' are not the same, though often they may be used indifferently. But with excessive vagueness and obscurity he seems to deny the real communication of divine life. "Christ is my life": "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Even as to the first man he is all wrong. God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." It is the very ground of our relationship and responsibility, and everlasting misery if not saved. The body was formed of dust, and man became a living soul by God's breathing into his nostrils, not by a mere fiat of creation as in the case of the beasts. Was man 'a mule' by it? This is too bad.

But any denial of divine life communicated in Christ is for christian people equally mischievous. "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," as "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." There is no combining of natures or lives, though they are in the same person, as soul and body are. A mule is a mixture of natures, whereas the intelligent Christian holds his flesh as always antagonist to the Spirit, "contrary the one to the other." One comes from sinful Adam, lawless naturally, law-breaker when under it, hater of God present in love, resister of the Spirit when He dwells in us, puffing up if possible if a man goes to the third heaven - which death only cures, or rather ends, first for faith, then in fact. The Second Adam is a quickening Spirit, but the flesh is not quickened morally at all, but only in being changed or resurrection.

Of course, we partake of the divine nature in a different manner from God. And this is the import of the difference of κοινωνοί and μετοχοι. One is what we have together as a right, or fact, common to both; the other we get a part in - though we may become κοινωνοί by it - or, in virtue of being κοινωνοί, μετέχειν in anything, share in it. If I am a partaker with you it is common to us, both the position and μετέχω in the profits: if I having been a stranger come to have a share, μετέχειν, I, become κοινωνός. And this is sometimes important, as when the apostle declares that if people were μετοχοι they become κοινωνός - identified with the altar or an idol. (1 Cor. 10: 18-21.)

The important point is to see that divine life is really communicated, that I receive what I had not before. I should not exactly quote 2 Peter for it, because he is speaking of promises by which we get it, and nature is, as you say, more character thus used than life; but it involves the other, and the two cannot be separated. We are "born of water and of the Spirit." We are cleansed by the word, but that is inseparably connected with being born of the Spirit. You could not say, 'That which is born of water is water.' There is a washing of water by the word. But "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." . . .

How any one could think of partaking of the divine nature in the same manner as God is beyond my ken. Nobody ever heard of such a thing. Pantheism is Atheism as to any true personal God - at any rate, the moment I have anything else but Himself alone, as in Brahminism. . . .

No doubt God was not changed when the Word became flesh, but there was real union and He ἐκένωσε σεαυτόν ; and Christ could speak of being abandoned of God, and could pray to God. God was manifest withal in the flesh. This is different from us of course, but to deny that divine life is communicated is a most fatal error. 2 Peter 1: 4 is more morally; but as God breathed into man's nostrils, so "the Spirit is life because of righteousness," and "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free." Christ is my life: we are begotten of God, born of God. It is not a mere change produced, though there be such change, but the communication of life, and because He lives we shall live also. He is eternal life, and "God has given to us eternal life, and that life is in his Son": "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

Nature is used more as characteristic of a being: the nature of a horse, of a man, and so even of God, as we say. It is his nature, meaning inbred character, only it is inherent in the being as such, not acquired; hence the proverb, "use is second nature." No nature as such is changeable - hence the lines:

"Was never man in this wild chase,

That changed his nature with his place,

And left himself behind."

I only refer to these as shewing the force of the words. God is in a far higher sense unchangeable. But I may practically have a new nature, because I can, through grace, receive a new life, and so have the nature of that life.

You could not say in 2 Peter 1: 4 μέτοχοι. It would be becoming partakers in sense, whereas they have been placed in the position of κοινωνοί, and μέτοχοι would really give ground for what - charges us with, that we were to share the divine nature as such. We are κοινωνοί, have in common with God what morally belongs to His nature, as holiness, love, etc., we are light in the Lord. It is as μέτοχοι that we are de facto κοινωνοί.

Κοινωνοί has the force that we have it in common, and so refers here to the moral character of it. It is a holy character, a loving one, righteous, and so on. If I said μέτοχος, it would be that the divine nature as such being there I came to have a share in it ( ἔχω μετά). But when I say common to me with God, it naturally refers to what it is. Through these promises we have it in common, but that is moral: if I said become μέτοχος I get a share of the divine nature itself.

As to John 17* I think it is what characterises and belongs to true knowledge of these names. Almighty, Jehovah, Father (sending the Son), Most High, are the names God takes in relationship with us. The first involves care and power; the second, faithfulness to promises, going on with what He had said - patriarchs and Jews - but neither eternal life: the Father sending the Son does. He is eternal life manifested to us, and received, is it. Hence the true knowledge of the Father as sending the Son is really the possession of eternal life. Hence He says, "Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," because as so sent, He is "that eternal life which was with the Father," and the grace that brings it, is in His being sent. So at least I understand it.

London, May, 1872.

{*"In John 17. 3, is it right to say, on the ground Of the use of ἵνα, 'this is eternal life in order that they might know thee,' etc.

Is ἵνα used in order to lay stress upon the purpose, instead of using ὅτι to point merely to the fact?

In John 3: 19, ὅτι is used. Why is it ἵνα in chapter 17: 3, if the form is similar?

Is Alford's note on the use of ἵνα in John 4: 34 right?" [ Ἵνα is not equal to ὅτι. The latter would imply what was true (but not here expressed), that the absolute doing, etc., was His food: as it now stands it implies that it was His food to carry onward to completion that work.}

<52107E>p179 [F Rowan] [To the same] MY DEAR BROTHER, - . . . I forgot perhaps go say in my former letter that ἵνα in John must not be taken as ἵνα in other books. I will not say it is never telic, as they call it - "in order that" - but it is constantly used for ὅτι, and has no force of purpose. There is thus no consequence in it, ἵνα in John not having the force of "in order that."

The αὐτὴ in your interpretation - "this[ is life eternal]" - would refer to nothing at all. The knowledge of the Father and the Son is identical with, and the form of eternal life in our minds (spiritual apprehension in the soul). The Father sent the Son that we might live through Him. The Son of God was manifested in this, and when hearing Christ's word we believe on Him that sent Him, we have everlasting life. (John 5) 1 John 1 shews that Christ is eternal life; but as God begets us by the word, it is in believing on Him as thus sent and the Son, that we have eternal life, having received Him. We are "all children [sons] of God by faith in Christ Jesus." It is thus I do receive Christ who is eternal life, and having the Son I have the Father also.

The divine nature* gives more the character of the divine life in us. I have no doubt the ancient saints were quickened by the Son; they were born of God, or could not have entered into the kingdom. But life and incorruptibility were brought to light by the gospel. Eternal life is twice mentioned in the Old Testament - Psalm 133. and Daniel 12. - but both refer to the millennium; and the heirs being under age differed nothing from servants, though lords of all. It never came out as revealed eternal life till He who was eternal life was there. But they were quickened that they might live to God.

Boston, June, 1872.

{*"Is eternal life distinguished or to be kept distinct from the divine nature? Could we say that the patriarchs, etc., had the divine nature but not eternal life?"}

<52108E>p179 [F Rowan] [To the same.] " Ἵνα ** is used thirty-six times in John, without any telic sense, though much oftener with its usual meaning. There is a difference. It is not used for a past or existing fact as ὅτι. There is something to be, in the thought. But a person must be very sagacious to make it telic, though they say it never entirely loses this force. Thus chapter 28: 39, what is telic here? So chapter 2: 25; 4: 34, and others. Perhaps in some cases we may see the transition from one to another, as in chapter 5: 7. But practically it is quite lost in many, as chapter 6: 39, 40. A concordance will shew you the texts - these suffice as examples. The telic use is quite common, and it is needless to quote examples - I mean in John.

{**"Is there any rule for distinguishing the occasions of its use for ὅτι?"}

I do not think the two words are used indiscriminately; ἵνα would not be used for 'he heard that he was'; for 'a custom that he should,' we have seen it is. The day or the state of things was a reason, a motive, that something should be. It is so that it should, not the fact that it was. You can examine the passages, but in the practical use of the word in these cases you cannot make it telic. Such changes in the degeneration of a language are common, and the Holy Ghost used the vessel as it was, though to His own purposes, and this is every way a great mercy.

Alford I have not here, but to all intents and purposes, John 4: 34 has the force of ὅτι or nothing at all. I mean it is equivalent to τὸ ποιεῖν, but your comparison of chapter 3: 19, and chapter 17: 3, is a proof that you may metaphysically or historically trace the passage from one to the other, but that the use of ἵνα in John is often equivalent to ὅτι. There is a similar use of quod in low Latin - I am not sure I have the right word, but I remember the fact - it may be some word for quod. Purpose in chapter 18: 39 seems to me somewhat forced: chapter 5: 7, may be taken as partly telic. Chapter 2: 25 may explain perhaps the passage from one to the other.

I have had good opportunities here, and the door open as it had not been. The truth has made progress in a good many; faith to act on it and take up the cross is another thing. We hope for it with some at any rate. They can hardly remain where they are, though the way people drag on, knowing all is wrong, from want of faith, is astonishing. However, the Lord will shew His own work, and there may be first last and last first. But I feel the Lord has led me here, and I am in pretty full intercourse with those exercised, among whom are more than one official minister. I wait on the Lord for the result. I found the door open in Boston, and east too.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

St. Louis.

<52109E>p181 [F Rowan] BELOVED BROTHER, - You must not be discouraged as to work or Canada. There are two things: a gathering out of the remnant in these last days, and the fact of the conversion of sinners as in any day, and specially in the last. But it is difficult to make them go pari passu. This was my object when I came to Canada for six or eight weeks the last time, and the Lord blessed it in a measure. More confidence in one another was produced in some. But it is one of the difficulties of the present work, and always has been in a measure; but the evangelistic action was more apart latterly. Our part is to work in through. - says he is alone, and has sent for brethren's books, but to say I am out of the camp, and can trust God for fields of work, is another thing.

Affectionately yours.

St. Louis, July 22nd, 1872.

<52110E>p181 [B Slim] DEAREST BROTHER, - Your note promised a letter, and for that I waited, but it appears it is not to come, so I write without waiting any longer. I know not that I can hope now to visit the West Indies again as I gladly should. I had thought it not impossible from this on my way, but it is far, and I am old. I do not know but that England would be the best road even hence, but my interest in the work in the West Indies is undiminished, and I cannot but hope some may be stirred up to help. Oh for more devotedness and devoted ones to serve Him who has so loved us! This I earnestly desire. I was in France for two months to read with young workmen, as we old ones are moving off. The Lord is ever there, and watches over His own: still one yearns over every care being taken of them. . . . I am most anxious brethren should be simple, as numbers increase it is increasingly difficult. If the brethren get worldly they would be of no further use. God has brought in much truth by them, but if they were worldly it would be only saying this truth too, and the world could go together, whereas they are just the things that separate, ought to do it, from the world.

Here in Canada, after a revival accompanied by a certain degree of excitement, we are in the reaction, still the work is going on, only this gives a work of care in some places, but one counts on the Lord for this as for every toil. In the States there is some progress. They are going on happily enough in the east, some added, but no great progress in numbers; in the west a good many Presbyterians, several ministers among them, teach the Lord's coming, the presence of the Holy Ghost, that all sects are wrong, but as yet few move from their place. A few have - not of clergy yet, though one or two have been preached out. In one place there is a move, but I cannot but think when some move that the conscience of others will be stirred up. But many who now favour the truth I suppose would become opponents: to give up ease for the cross is not pleasant to the flesh.

May we ourselves, dear brother, remember that soon there is but one thing that will be a comfort to us, to have followed Christ wholly. Blessed privilege! the fashion of this world passeth away; but that is for ever, and infinite blessing. Soon we shall see Him as He is, and in the glory of which He is worthy - joy infinite it will be to our spirits. May He be with you in all your labour. But besides that, He is our portion, and I believe the Christian should walk in the constant sense of divine favour, that favour that is better than life, so that the soul is satisfied as with marrow and fatness though in the dry and thirsty land where no water is.

You escape in a measure what we have to deal with here and in England - all sorts of opinions, heretical and infidel, claiming to have part in the Christian name. It is everywhere among the Protestant bodies the fashion now, at least among the clergy, to seek union at all cost. Evangelicals, Puseyites, broad church or rationalists, meet and say we must hold together. Truth is fallen in the streets, and Christ little accounted of in this respect; still the Spirit of God is working, and the word of God is spread more widely and, where the Spirit of God acts, has authority; for Christ, the blessed Lord, cannot fail His church. He does and will nourish and cherish it as a man his own flesh, so that we have nothing to fear even if we are in perilous times, but if so, thank God, in the last The work is spreading and enlarging in all quarters, and the need of mature labourers shews itself everywhere. We must look to the Lord of the harvest; oh, I repeat, that there were devoted and earnest men the harvest is plenty, and all that is in confusion and ruin. You are comparatively happy in a clear path, but in America, Australia, all manner of views, heresies, sects, notions, beset one's path, and how far to be refuted, what mischief they may do, is to be thought of. I know, I believe, the Lord is sufficient, but it calls for all watchfulness and a heart that looks ever to Him.

Ever, dear brother, affectionately yours.

September, 1872.

<52111E>p183 BELOVED BROTHER, - I hear that your - is in a very precarious state, and I seize a moment to write to you, to express what I trust you are assured of, dear brother, my unfeigned sympathy with you, and I would add, dear Mrs. -, though I have not seen her. If the soul walks with God, it is not hard, but it is submissive; and there is no softer spirit, nor one which is more susceptible of every feeling than submission; but then it takes the will out of the affections without destroying them, and that is very precious. So was it with Christ. He felt everything; His tenderness was perfect, and yet how perfect His submissiveness. How God exercises the heart by these things! It is not simply that the heart is tried by the sorrow itself (in which we can reckon on the most tender sympathy of Christ), but when the heart is thus brought into the presence of a God who is thus dealing with us, all our ways, all the interior of our heart, all His ways with and His appeals to us often in such cases rise up within. If the will is unbroken, and no clearness as to grace be known, a perplexed and anxious judgment ensues; if not this, often a humble and lowly judgment of self; for the knowledge of grace makes us lowly when it is real.

It is astonishing how much often remains as a sediment at the bottom of the heart in a man, gracious in the main of his life, which the rod of God stirs up when He thrusts it in - often underlying all the contents of the heart, yet always to be carried off by the living stream of the waters of His grace - not merely faults, but a mass of unjudged materials of every-day life, a living under the influence of what is seen, or unjudged affections of every kind. All that is not up to the measure of our spiritual height is then judged in its true character, as connected with flesh before God.

But it is not always so, nor wholly so: but it is always if there is a need be. God may visit us to bring out the sweet odour of His grace; not indeed even so without need, as the soul itself will own, for in such case it will feel the need of realising all the communion, which in its closer character was hindered by that for which God is dealing with us. But grace being fully known, and submission being there, the practical result is only in fact, and before others, a sweet odour of willing bowing before God, and even thankfulness, in the midst of sorrow: when this is real it is very sweet. He too is very present in it., and it is thus we make real progress in such exercises. It is astonishing what progress a soul sometimes makes in a time of sorrow. It has been much more with God; for indeed that alone makes us make progress. There is much more confidence, quietness, absence of the moving of the will; much more walking with, and dependence on Him, more intimacy with Him, and independence of circumstances - a great deal less between us and Him - and then all the blessedness that is in Him comes to act upon the soul and reflect in it; and oh, how sweet that is! What a difference it does make in the Christian, who, perhaps, was blameless in his walk in general previously!

I trust the Lord may spare you your -, dear brother. A first trial of this kind is always very painful: the heart has not been in it before. God comes and claims His right on our tenderest affections. This is strange work, when they have just been drawn out; but it is well - it is good. I am sure you are in His hands; and that I am sure is all a way of love, and the best that the wisdom of His love can send. If the needed work can be done without the sorrow, He will not send the sorrow. We might even dread if it be needed. His love is far better than our will. Trust Him; He may well be trusted; He has given His son for us, and proved His love. Present your requests to Him: I do fully for you. He would have us do it, and then lean fully on His love and wisdom. If He strikes, be assured He will give more than He takes away.

Peace be with you, dear brother.

1872.

<52112E>p184 [Mrs Marson] MY DEAR SISTER, - I thank you and dear M. much for having thought of sending me the account of the accident to your dear babe. It is indeed a sore trial to see one who is a part of ourselves thus taken off at one blow, and unexpectedly. Still, what a difference, to have the Lord's love to look to, and to believe one's babe - as I surely do - the object of it. It is a consolation which changes everything because everything is changed. The knowledge of the love of God, which is come into this place of death, has brightened with the most blessed rays all its darkness; and the darkness even only serves to shew what a comfort it is to have such light. There is nothing in the heart but light - nothing can make darkness when we have it. It is a world of sorrow, and the longer we know it, and the nearer even we walk to the Lord, the better we shall know it to be such. I do not mean that none of our sorrows are chastenings: we know that they often are such to His most beloved ones, as we see in Job. By all, save Christ, there is all grace to be learned by them; and even He entered into the sorrows of others, as arising from their faults and foolishness- for His sympathies were perfect, and blessed be God, are. He suffered for righteousness, and He suffered for sin; but besides this, He entered, as taking by grace a place among the godly remnant in Israel into all which that remnant would feel as seeing the state of Israel (of which they were actually part) under the chastening hand of God for sin. All this He felt as none else could feel. His sympathy is as perfect now, though no longer passing through the sorrows by which He gained the experience of it.

Besides, it is only in the part which has to be broken and corrected that we suffer: a touched affection, when Christ is with us in the grief, is of infinite sweetness, though the sweetness of sorrow. It is only when the will mixes itself up with the sorrow that there is any bitterness in it, or a pain in which Christ is not. But then this is all useful and what we need. The Lord takes your dear babe to heaven (certainly he has no loss); what is the rest of God's dealings in it with us - with one's heart? He who has made a mother's feelings knows what they are - knows what He has wounded, and knows why - has a purpose of love in it. There is a mass of things in the sincerest of us, of which we are not aware, which are not brought into subjection to God, which work and shew themselves unsuspected. God breaks in upon us: how many things He shews - how many cords He cuts at one blow! A whole system of affections is touched: we feel that death has its place and part in them. I never saw a family the same thing after the first death that it was before. There was a breach in the circle. What belonged to the whole body of affections and life of this world was touched, was found to be - mortal: it was struck in its very nature. The course of life went on; the wave had closed over that which had been cast into it; but death, and the affections which belong to this world, had been found to meet. But all this is well; for death is come in. Besides, we live in these things; our will lives in them; and when the will is broken, so far as it is so, it is broken for everything. We learn more to lean on what never breaks - not to lose our affections, but to have them more in connection with Christ, less with this will of our own nature; for nature must now die as well as sin. But then Christ never makes a breach, except to come in and connect the soul and heart more with Himself; and it is worth all the sorrow that ever was, and more, to learn the least atom more of His love and of Himself; and there is nothing like that, like Him; and it lasts.

But besides, there is a useful work by it in our own hearts; and so more capacity to know, and enjoy, and learn communion with Him; more capacity to delight in and understand God; to know, and to know the value of, what He delights in - more moral capacity to delight in what is excellent. We little know what high and blessed things we are called to. Oh that the saints knew it better! To be with and have common joy and communion with God! Some have much of it down here. It is opened out to them. But all that is of nature and will can have no part in this; and often the saints, though not directly dishonouring the Lord, are living in nature. Then the Lord deals with them, "turns man from his purpose, and hides pride from man." Oh what a profitable thing it is to have that hidden from us! And how completely it is when God deals with us and brings us into His presence, whatever means He may employ, for He knows the springs of our hearts and how to touch them. But oh, what grace is this daily, constant care! "He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous." What a God to have to do with and all in love! And when the storm is all passed, the brightness for which He is preparing us will shine out unclouded, and it will be HIMSELF - Him we have known in all this tender care. Yet in the brightness of His glory, the glory of God will lighten it, and the Lamb will be its light; we shall be with the Son, with Jesus, enjoying as and with Him the brightness and divine favour which shine out on Him. And oh! how blessed the love, Jesus' love, that has brought us there for ever with Him, in virtue of it, and now in the full blessed enjoyment of it with Himself.

I do earnestly pray that this sorrow may be blessed to you and to all your dear children, that they may see how near death is, but the Lord still nearer. Assure dear M. how truly I sympathise with him. A father's sorrow, though of another character, is not less deep than a mother's. You must expect that, as time passes on, the present feeling of loss will diminish, and in a certain sense pass away too. Not that the affectionate remembrance of your poor little babe will be at all gone; but its character will be changed, and your living children and daily occupations will make it less absorbing. This is natural, and in one sense right. Living duties have their place, which cannot be rightly yielded to absorbing affections. What I would earnestly recommend to you is, to profit of the moments when the impression and present effect of it is strong; to place yourself before God, and reap all the fruit of His dispensations and tender grace. It is a time when He searches and manifests His love to the heart at the same time. May you grow much by this - surely to a mother's heart - painful occurrence.

Ever faithfully yours in Christ.

[Date unknown.]

<52113E>p187 Dearest C McAdam, - As to the question you put: governmental wrath [on Christ] is all totally wrong. When I speak of governmental wrath, it is just in contrast with expiation; and any governmental wrath on the cross was on Israel, not on Christ at all, only He entered into it I believe. That is what they made so much fuss about. His sympathy will be with them at the end? but He suffered in going through it all in heart and spirit, that He might sympathise with them, as He suffered being tried to be able to sympathise with us. This is what H. denied expressly - the actual suffering - or I should have with drawn the tract for his sake and D.'s, if no more.

But no governmental wrath was on Him; whereas when He was made sin it was on Him though for us - then the cup He had to drink that we might never drink it - He, and He alone (as to us), drank the cup. In the other, He felt the sorrow for His people of their losing all according to the flesh, suffered from Gentiles, suffered from apostate Jews, as they will, and was cut off as Messiah, taking nothing. But the governmental wrath was on them, not on Him, though He entered into it, and had the sorrow and suffering of it on His heart and in His circumstances. But the cross is another thing as expiation. There it was Himself drank the cup instead of others. It was the hatred of God's nature to sin, and His judicial action as to it on Him, to save us; though the scripture, I suppose to avoid the idea of personal displeasure, does not use the word "wrath" as to it. Yet it was the cup of God's wrath against sin. But the absence of the word would suffice to set aside the idea of governmental wrath, which I judge all wrong. I have no difficulty as to it myself. I do not believe one drop of consolation was in Christ's heart when He made propitiation for sin, or it would have rendered the suffering and sacrifice for sin imperfect: He drank the cup - solemn thought - of bitterness without alloy, or any relief, because He was made sin, and had to be that before God as God in holiness for us, and it was just the perfectness of this in obedience and love to His Father, its absoluteness for God's glory, that made God and the Father find perfect complacency in it and in Him. If there had been some relief, some assuagement of the suffering, it would not have been sin before God; but because there was none, and He perfect in glorifying God in it, therefore God's complacency was perfect in it, and the Father's in Him as doing it. Hence, too, He says, "My Father," but on the cross, "My God, my God," when accomplishing the work (still "my" because He was perfect), and "my Father" and "my God" after (and ours then) and that for us too, entering into the full effect in righteousness and love, ever personally His - but now through redemption for us too. The divinity did not screen the manhood from the taste of the terrible cup, but enabled Him to drink it. He offered Himself through the eternal Spirit to God, as He cast out devils by the Spirit of God. And though God of course could not die - no more even could a human soul - yet there was no separation of the natures. Let nothing weaken our sense of the full propitiation for sin.

Of course, if I think of the Son as a divine Person, He could not die - no more, I repeat, could a human soul in fact. But if a man not having a soul was there, what is his death? Nonentity. If Christ was only as a man there, it was no more than another man there, only sinless - that is, it was nothing. The Son as a divine Person of course could not die, looked at apart; but He who was Son died and gave Himself, not as apart, but in all the infinite value of His Person and in His divine love to us. I do not say Mary was, the mother of God, if I may compare them, but she was the mother of Him personally who was God, and if He was not, His birth was nothing. A person may object to saying the Son died, because he is looking at Him apart as a divine Person; but if it be denied that He being Son died, I have lost the value of His death, which is infinite, both in love and value.

Governmental wrath is all wrong. I admit perfect complacency, but complacency in His perfectly drinking the cup (forsaken of God as to the feeling of His soul) and in Him that did it; but solace by it, there is not a trace of in scripture; it would destroy its perfectness.

Ever affectionately yours.

1872.

<52114E>p189 [C McAdam] [To the same.] DEAREST BROTHER, - I am working away here, so that I have nothing very new to tell you. There is inquiry, and a good deal of it among those interested in the things of God, consciences awakened as to the state of the church and learning truth, astonishment at what is found in scripture; for work, not truth, is the American line of things, and an activity which leaves the saints and the world all mixed up together. Still the truth is working in a good many souls. I have sometimes meetings three times a day. I do not at present look much to lecturing, though I have lectured. . . . There is, I think I have said, much inquiry, but endless opinions, and grace not bowed to, nor the word, though it is getting hold of serious minds it never had. There are many things to encourage, many things to try, but all is a beginning, everything has to be shewn - the most elementary truths of Christianity. Man is set up, and Christians so used to it, that all God's thoughts have to be brought in as new things. A hundred truths which would be quoted to prove other points among you, and recognised by all, have, when referred to, to be shewn from scripture, and the main point left till they were so shewn. Still truth is enjoyed by many, and many have largely gained in it. Kind love to the brethren. May much grace be on them all.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

Chicago, November 7th, 1872.

<52115E>p190 [Mr Robbins] MY DEAR. BROTHER, - I got your letter, and was glad to hear of the dear brethren at S. I heard since you had a happy meeting, for which I thank God. I trust also ours at Guelph was useful - a spirit of brotherly union reigned.

Truth has spread in the west, but what characterises this continent is looseness as to practice and as to doctrine. I find no spiritually-minded person who is not unhappy and feeling there is no communion where he is. Scarce any are simple in the truth; and Socinians and persons who deny that men have an immortal soul are received and accepted like all the rest. The word of God has little or no authority. Organisation and work they like - outward effects that they can shew - but a life with God and the truth they hardly think of. Still the patient and gracious Lord works, and souls are brought to Him. In the country it is generally utter indifference and money-seeking; I have not seen one yet, French or English, who has not said to me, he came out without God, or had he known what he knows now, he would not have come. They come to get on in the world, and get trouble and sorrow, and their business (till God has exercised them) is to get on, not to enjoy Christ. I know those who were in communion in England who save money to buy a small piece of ground, and would not give twopence-halfpenny a week to get to the Lord's day meeting for breaking of bread.

Still one works on, and there is a growing desire among Christians to know more of the truth. But everything has to be brought to the word - all indulge so wholly their own thoughts. I have daily meetings here, and even twice a day, besides visiting. In -, a Presbyterian minister, by preaching what he had learned of the Lord's coming and truths connected with it, has broken up his congregation, and some thirty or forty are going to meet, waiting on the Lord to be guided - many of them, however, ignorant of sound principles of gathering, but some very nice brethren. So one works on, only one has to look to the Lord continually, and not faint, for in this country the path is beset with difficulties. But we know we shall reap if we faint not. I do not expect to war, and not find combat and difficulties. We shall reap if we do not faint in the war. Meanwhile, dear brother, the blessed Lord remains unchangingly precious, and through mercy my heart enjoys His favour, and it is better than life. And I find it of moment in incessantly distracting questions on every scripture subject and unscriptural ideas, to seek to be with Him in love to those who raise them: one is enfeebled in the questions themselves if one's feet are not shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

The Lord keep us very near Himself, sober-minded and subject to the word. Give my kindest love to the brethren. May the Lord's presence keep you all in peace and happy fellowship together, and much individual intercourse with Him and self-judgment. It is the secret of strength.

Your affectionate brother in Christ.

Chicago November, 1872.

<52116E>p191 [W G Heney] [MY DEAR BROTHER, - I write to reply to your question at the close of your letter, though most thankful to get your account of the work. The only difficulty with me is the question, whether the law of Canada does not require a formal divorce in these cases. If it does not, I should just leave the matter where it is. In the first place, what was done originally was before her conversion; but when the unbeliever leaves, the other party is free according to 1 Corinthians 7, and if a divorce be not required, she is free according to the law of man (if it be, there is irregularity which perhaps may be rectified). As the man had left her, she practically entered the church of God as a lone woman, and I do not occupy myself with what was before, unless sin to be repented of. When I meet her now, I meet her as one whom the law considers free; and the previous desertion left her free when deliberately done, if I take Christian ground. I may regret her doing it, and do as to the manner of it. But as unconverted, I recognise nothing before unless sin: say a heathen, he may as such have had and left twenty wives, I ignore it all when he is converted. Being abandoned she did not stand as a married woman, when she married, unless a formal divorce was required. In England the courts hold a woman free after seven years, the husband not being heard of, but there is no law to say so. I know not how it is in Canada. I question it a little unless it be known to be so. But I do not think a deserted woman would be held to perpetual celibacy where the law recognised her as free. Many questions would arise as to her conduct. Did she tell her present husband before she was married? What oath or equivalent assertion was made to get married? I suppose there is some as in civil marriage, and publishing banns. Did she say there was no impediment when, if a formal divorce was required, there was? A person in London was kept out on this ground; he had sworn or solemnly declared there was no obstacle as they went, and it was his wife's sister, not allowed in England. But if a formal divorce is not required by law, but the woman held free ipso facto after seven years, I should say she stood a free woman, though I may regret her path, and inquire, as I have said, as to the circumstances. If taken on profession as a Christian, she was free according to 1 Corinthians; if looked at as merely of the world, she had no husband. It was all before conversion. And legally (if divorce not required) she was free when she married, only I should look to where her conscience was in doing it. The passage in Romans [7: 2, 3] does not exactly apply. The word "married" is, not in the Greek at all. The woman is supposed to be in full connection with and under the authority of the husband, and then "is to another man," that is faithless to the existing bond. Here the question is whether the existing bond was not dissolved, and an actual marriage a lawful one. I should fear if her conscience had been clear she would have spoken to brethren. But that is another question.

Things are in too moving and uncertain a state to say much of Chicago. I have plenty to hear. The brethren are getting on very happily, and several have been added. Kindest love to the brethren.

Your affectionate brother in Christ.

Chicago.

<52117E>p193 Dearest C McAdam, . . . . We began yesterday to break bread at Springfield, Illinois, six; there may be one or two more from the country. Many more see the ruin, and that the state of things is unscriptural, but hope still to cling together, and think they are outside the camp. . . . In Chicago there was, in a certain circle, considerable inquiry after the truth, and many wished me to stay or return. I may do this. But one had to insist on the first principles of grace. No one will have it as a rule in the American churches. Old school Presbyterians, or some of them, have the most of it. It is otherwise resisted or unknown. The active man at Chicago, lately in England, is deep in the mud of this. In our readings, three I think know something of grace, though not clear on other things; a few found it, but it is preached nowhere, but the contrary. But not a few souls got interested in truth. At present, if they go to church they hear what upsets and bewilders them. Loose action suits itself to all this. . . . But work in the U.S. is pilgrimage for me, and so best. Simple following the Lord is unknown; activity, organisation, mending the world, mixing with it, is all that is known, hence also the word has little authority. Still, as I have said, there is inquiry, and godly people feel the state of things. Were I younger, I might look to more constant work. The loose brethren who may come, fall in with all this, and leave it where it is. New gatherings are formed, but chiefly 'by those from Europe, though here all is American. I do not think of staying here, and do not know my own movements. . . . Nature would like rest and England now, entered on my seventy-third year, but I must not return from Pamphylia for that.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

Springfield, Illinois, November 21st, 1872.

<52118E>p193 [T Roberts] DEAREST BROTHER, - The only thing I have to notice in your letter save to agree is, where you say we are sealed* 'on our believing in Christ, as the One who delivered us from the old man (the old Adam standing), . . . from sin within, and from the world; and this He does by having died for us when He put away our sins and our having died with Him,' etc. Now I judge from scripture that the sealing comes, or may come, consequent on our believing in Christ's death for the remission of sins, without including our having died with Him for deliverance. This too may be the case: it was mine. But sealing comes on forgiveness; for our being looked at then as clean, the Holy Ghost can come and dwell in us. Thus Peter, "Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." So when he preached to Cornelius, who was listening with faith, the moment he comes to "shall receive remission of sins" - as he spake these words the Holy Ghost came upon them: so Romans 5 - before the discussion of our not being in flesh is commenced. If we go through Romans 7 before Romans 3, as was my own case, then pardon and deliverance go together; but in these revival preaching days, many receive the remission of their sins before they have any self-knowledge, and have, though in a modified form (not substance), to go through Romans 7 afterwards. But this is always really law; namely, what is expected from us. But there is no deliverance without self-knowledge, and the work substantially of Romans 7.

{*"Having thus got life, we are afterwards sealed with the Spirit (Gal. 6); but according to Ephesians 1: 13, this cannot be until we have believed in the gospel of our salvation, which I suppose would be" etc., as above.}

Forgiveness needs no such process. Convinced of guilt, no doubt we must be; but this supposes no knowledge of self - that is state, not acts which constitute guilt. There is no forgiveness of a nature; but where it was condemned, death came in (the cross), and so I am delivered.

As regards Rom. 6: 11, and 2 Corinthians 4: 10;* one is faith as to the truth and position, the other realising it in practice: Colossians 3 gives God's judgment, "Ye are dead"; Romans 6: 11, man's faith as to having died with Christ as to the old man on the cross - I reckon myself dead; 2 Corinthians 4: 10 realises it in practice. I always bear about in my body the dying, never let the flesh from under the power of Christ's death and cross, treating it de facto as a crucified thing that has no title to stir, though it be really there. Then God passes through circumstances which test how far it is realised; if we are faithful to verse 10, in the form of suffering for Christ, as was Paul's case; if not, to make practically good what is wanting. And this is the gracious history of many sorrows: He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous." The Lord be with you. If all be not clear, you can write to me.

Ever affectionately yours, dear brother.

{*'How do you distinguish fully between Romans 6: 11, and 2 Corinthians 4: 10? the former what faith reckons us, and the latter practically carrying out death and resurrection. But suppose I give way to the flesh or sin . . . am I out of the former as well as the latter?'}

<52119E>p195 [To the same, later.] T Roberts,I do not attach especial importance to the immediate moment of the sealing;* merely if scripture ascertain it, it is always gain to know it, and I think it does this. I do not think the passages, already presented to me by others, offer any difficulty. Clearly it is because we are sons, that the Spirit is given us to cry Abba, Father, and we are sons by faith of Jesus Christ. But I do not think this passage says anything as to the moment at which, as its occasion, we receive it, but merely states the fact; nor does Ephesians 1. There it is on believing in the most general way in the direct statement, and when we come to "the gospel of your salvation," it rather confirms it; for what was brought to them was not the subsequent glories in which they were edified, but the fact of salvation, as previously in the same chapter - "redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins"; as "the redemption of the purchased possession" comes afterwards. The presenting of Christ's Person as the great object of faith is all important. It is just what is wanting in modern gospel preaching

{*'My difficulty arose from Ephesians 1, where the sealing follows the reference by the apostle to the gospel of their salvation. If he there makes the sealing consequent upon the reception of the gospel of their salvation, it is clear that it is upon the reception of more than the knowledge of forgiveness of sins, as salvation would, I suppose, include in result our complete deliverance. . . . The "whom" would refer to Christ; but the gospel of your salvation being referred to seemed to convey more than merely faith in His Person or in Himself. Now in Galatians 4 the gift of the Spirit to us seems to be in virtue of our sonship, into which position we are brought by faith in Christ personally.'}

Flesh* is used in the New Testament for our sinful nature, as it works habitually through its lusts. So "flesh," "sin in the flesh," and "sinful flesh," are substantially the same, though it may be in different aspects and application; "the mind of the flesh" is also used, its bent, and purpose or object. Sin has a much wider sense - "who taketh away the sin of the world," for instance, "to put away sin." But if we look at it in the sense of a nature and principle, it is the same as flesh. It is sin that dwelleth in me. "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing." Christ "was made sin": here evidently it is not sin in us. Sinfulness is the state of the flesh and fleshly mind.

{*'How would you distinguish the flesh in us from sin in us; are they one and the same thing? In Romans 8: 3, "sin in the flesh," "likeness of flesh of sin" - to what flesh is reference made?'

'In Romans 6: 11, can I be said to be only dead to sin while I am so reckoning myself?'}

Being dead to sin is the calling and standing of every Christian. We are baptised to Christ's death. In Colossians 3 it is said, "Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." In Romans 6, faith, or the exhortation of the apostle, takes this up - reckon yourselves dead: but this is founded on knowing that our old man was crucified with Him. It is in Christ we have died; 2 Corinthians 4: 10 is the proper realisation of it, verse 11, God's dealings to test and make it good; only Paul could say, "for Jesus' sake."

As to baptising,* Christ did not send me to baptise, and we are under Paul's dispensation. All are in the dark as to baptism, and by, I believe, God's ordering; but baptising according to Matthew is, I apprehend, in the name of the Lord Jesus. I always use the words, expressing however specially the name of the Lord Jesus in connection with it, that it may be understood to be in His name. They are unprofitable questions. The only direction you have to baptise is Matthew 28; but this was from resurrection, not from ascension, and only Gentiles. Still you have no other intimation now, no more than a command to do it. Still it must be, from the practice we have, really in Jesus' name, and if this be expressed, all will be right. The question was raised quite in the early ages of the church. The Lord give us all more hidden life.

{*[Query: 'as to formula to be used in baptising? Some use Matthew 28: 19; others baptise in the name of the Lord Jesus; another use both the Matthew formula, and adding the name of the Lord Jesus.}

I have not much to tell you of work. Three ministers have come out since I came over here, and two small gatherings, but very weak, have been formed, and there is some earnest inquiry. Were I younger I might lay myself out more for work here This is American work: some new gatherings round Boston, but I believe of emigrants. The native population is extremely difficult to reach; conscience has little power - activity, organisation, man. In most places grace is hardly known, and mostly opposed: a few old school Presbyterians hold it, otherwise I know none - the state of things deplorable. The teacher of the Sunday school teachers openly denies the resurrection: so one of the pastors here, everything as loose as it can be: only God is above it.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

St. Louis, November 30th, 1872.

<52120F>p197 [From the French.] VERY DEAR BROTHER, - A fall that demands excommunication is not the commencement of evil in a Christian: the soul must have become weak in its communion, not have kept near to God. It does not depend on sincerity in these cases. Carried on by the current of work that is before him, he does not place himself sufficiently before God, does not judge himself, is not naked before God, and is occupied with the work rather than with Him; the heart is not fathomed, and he does not know himself, does not know if he is in communion with the Lord or not. If the heart were placed before Him, he would soon discover that he was not, and would seek His face. A person makes the discovery of evil, either in its root before God, or in its fruits before Satan, and if the first alternative be neglected, the second takes place sooner or later; and it is agony for the soul to have dishonoured the Lord. I hope at least that others will fear and will be on their guard.

But there is one point which in a great measure makes me write. It seems from your letter that it is the meeting of labouring brothers which has pronounced the excommunication. Now I do not at all question the rightness of the act; but it is the assembly to which he belonged habitually, or the one where his failure had been committed which ought to have done it. That the labourers should have refused to labour in the work with him, is well, although the assembly had refused to put him out; but a meeting of labouring brothers is not the assembly, and the practical difference is this, that the conscience of the assembly is not purified. Paul compelled the assembly at Corinth to put out the incestuous man, in order that it should be truly a new lump, then afterwards he said to them, "Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter." If the assembly does not feel itself in a state to do it, that places the brothers on their own responsibility, and if they call in other experienced brothers to help, it is all right, for the body is one; but it is the assembly that cuts off in order to purify itself, and this is of all importance; it is the essential part of discipline, and it may be that the labourers were not the most suitable people for that.

I have seen this tendency a little in France, and it does not place the assemblies before God in the consciousness of their own responsibility, which is most important. I think the assembly at has, at least tacitly, ratified the sentence pronounced, and that our poor brother has submitted himself to it. So much the better, it is not to weaken that that I write. What he has to do is to humble himself deeply before God, and also before the brethren, that his soul may be restored. It would be the worst sign if he sought to escape the judgment pronounced on account of its form: that would take away from me any hope in his case of a speedy restoration. I write as a general caution with respect to what appears to me important. What the brethren have to do now is to seek his restoration, but I mean by that a true restoration of his soul. I believe him sincere, and that his conscience has not lost its sensibility. But there is more than that in true repentance - to be before God as to the subject of what one has done, and the dishonour done to the name of our precious Lord. Seek to lead back his soul by this way. He will understand grace better afterwards if he returns thus, and the quicker the better; the heart becomes accustomed to estrangement.

Chicago, December, 1872.