FOREWORD
The letters of our beloved brother that have been collected with other pertinent papers will be of special interest now that the Lord has taken His devoted servant to Himself. The account of his last days amongst us and a brief history appear at the end of these volumes.
We think it well to call attention to Mr. Taylor's letter of December 3rd, 1938, an extract of which we give here as follows: --
'In J.N.D.'s writings there are modifications in the later ones of what earlier works contain. This is inevitable in all ministry save what is inspired of God. No one would insist on it more than Mr. Darby himself, as is well known'.
Names in general have been included, 2 Timothy 4 and other scriptures providing justification for this, but where they have been left out, they have either not been known, or it was thought wise to omit them. The Index, which appears at the end of Volume 2, is not an exhaustive one, but reference is given to important subjects.
1955
December 1890
Dear Brethren, -- With mingled feelings of thankfulness and sorrow, we write you as to the result of the recent troubles through which this assembly has passed.
With the sense of the Lord's presence, support and comfort, we are still seeking to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). We believe the Lord has permitted the sifting to take place that His assembly in this city might be a brighter witness to Himself than ever before, and whilst many with whom we long walked in happy fellowship, have been overthrown by the wile of the enemy, we are deeply thankful there yet remain two or three who can count on the Lord's presence in the midst according to His faithful word (Matthew 18:20).
This assembly had been troubled of late by certain brothers who from the first were favourable to the schismatic action of Messrs. Lowe and McCarthy which has brought such wide-spread dishonour upon the Lord's name and testimony.
Opportunity was given them on several occasions to substantiate the charges they had adopted against our brother, Mr. F. E. Raven, and the Greenwich assembly, but this they utterly failed to do. At the close of the last assembly meeting called for this purpose, a brother arose and stated (in substance) that, as the charges against our brother had not been proven, and as Bexhill had departed from the ground of gathering, this meeting would break bread as usual in fellowship with Greenwich, on the following Lord's day.
On the Lord's day morning, a number of these brothers came into the room where the assembly was gathered, and soon retired again for consultation. They re-entered the room and removed the bread which had been placed there by the brother who habitually supplied it. They then produced another loaf that they might break bread on neutral ground. This, however, they did not then do, but left the place after putting away the bread and cup to prevent the assembly breaking bread in their absence. On the following Lord's day the seceders were in possession of the room and made known their intention of breaking bread in fellowship with Bexhill. Some who were
present protested and left the room, and on the succeeding Lord's day the assembly met in another place to remember the Lord's death.
We desire to state briefly the grounds on which we reject the action of Bexhill.
When that meeting refused a letter of commendation from Greenwich, they gave as one reason for so doing that there was division amongst them. This was untrue, and besides was based upon the testimony of one witness who had left the meeting in a disorderly manner and was subsequently put away as a wicked person. There could not be a plainer violation of the word of God than this (see 2 Corinthians 13:1) "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established".
Their second reason was that the Greenwich assembly sheltered a teacher of evil doctrine.
When asked to furnish proof for this charge, they refused to give any particulars, as is proved by the following extract from a letter from Greenwich: 'We have to say that no charge against our brother, Mr. R. has been preferred before the assembly here by any person whatever within or without the meeting'.
If there were charges against Mr. Raven why were they not brought before the assembly whose responsibility it was to clear itself from evil if such existed, according to 1 Corinthians 5:13 "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person"? So far from any charge being preferred before the Greenwich assembly, its righteous demand for particulars was termed evasion, and then was consummated the ecclesiastical assumption of Bexhill by cutting off Greenwich Assembly and all in fellowship with it. We therefore reject the action of Bexhill which has placed them outside the ground of God's assembly, and we refuse to follow them there, as many of our beloved brethren have done, preferring to follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart (2 Timothy 2:22).
The seceders are not unanimous as to their reasons for going out from us -- some basing their action upon the Bexhill judgment, others upon what Mr. Raven teaches, and we desire to add a few words as to the latter. We have carefully examined the printed statements issued by Mr. Raven, and can discern nothing contrary to sound doctrine. We see that his accusers have themselves overstepped the bounds of Scripture in their
zeal to prove him a heretic and are bitterly opposing blessed truth of the last importance for the saints to hold fast. We enumerate a few of the errors into which they have fallen:
1st. Confounding Eternal Life with Deity.
2nd. Affirming that Eternal Life was manifested to the world.
3rd. Affirming that responsibility attaches to our position as in Christ before God.
As to the first error, 1 John 5:20, is explicit: "This is the true God, and eternal life".
As to the second, it is never said in Scripture that eternal life was manifested to the world; so that in maintaining this they go beyond the limits of revelation. We find in 1 John 1:2, a clear statement of the scope of its manifestation: "That eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us".
The word of God abounds with precious distinctions between our path of pilgrimage on earth, and our being seated in heavenly places in Christ, but always connects the thought of responsibility with the path of pilgrimage and not with our position in the heavenly places (see Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 4:11).
Strengthening our own judgment of Mr. Raven's writings, we have the united testimony of forty brothers from various parts who visited him with reference to the doctrines in question, and who state that he holds nothing contrary to the word of God.
We have thus, dear brethren, stated briefly our judgment of the sorrowful action of our brethren who have gone into division so dishonouring to the Lord, and our earnest prayer to God is that many of them may be brought back again to the Lord's Table with a deeper sense than ever of His love and faithfulness.
C. R. Longstreet. Henry R. Forrest.
Ernest Pfingst. Eug. Zellweger.
Wm. Magowan. C.H. Kramer (Brooklyn).
Communications may be addressed to:
Andrew Wood, 17 Warren Street, West Hoboken, New Jersey,
or to James Taylor, 1393 5th Avenue, New York City.
September 14th, 1903
Dear Brother, -- Your letter of August 31st was duly received, and nothing but sheer want of time has prevented an earlier reply.
Being so far from Minneapolis and not knowing the brethren I am somewhat at a disadvantage in having to say to the difficulty amongst you. My belief is that when matters of local difficulty arise the wisest course is to confine them as much as possible. It is impossible for people at long distances, who are not acquainted with the people nor the conditions, to judge fairly in such matters. I believe those most locally connected are the most likely to have the Lord's mind; and it usually happens that there are those more or less qualified to judge righteous judgment. In this case it seems to me Chicago is the meeting best fitted, and the matter has really been brought to them. This is how I take it and I constantly look to the Lord that He may guide them to a just decision. The conduct of the brethren at Minneapolis (I refer to your own confession; although I do not think brethren regard what you admit as all) has brought them, so to say, to the bar: hence they are not the judges.
As regards the difficulty itself: where there has been a breakdown such as your letter indicates it is evident there must be a fresh start. I do not think there is such a thing as collective confession and restoration. Where there is departure I think the true way of recovery is for each individual to seek the Lord for himself (see Exodus 33:7). It is only under these conditions there can be a fresh start according to God. Of course I do not know why Johanson and Cowles refuse to meet you -- I should like very much to hear what they have to say. It is likely that their judgment is that you have not yet left the "camp". If this be so I am not at all surprised; for as far as I can see you have not moved at all. You have said a good deal, and have more or less complied with the expressed wishes of the brethren, but of what avail is this when there is no moral movement? Your point (and also that of the printed paper of the 3rd inst. just received) is that you have come up to the letter of the law -- what was required: 'We have done all we can;' but your brethren at Minneapolis may not be thinking of what you have done, but of what you are; and it may be on this account they hesitate to meet with you on 'common
ground'. There is no common ground for the Christian except the ground of righteousness: and if this does not exist how can there be a meeting together? I am not saying it does not exist, but at the same time I am far from censuring those at Minneapolis, who may think it does not, for thinking so. Indeed, I may say, I think they have good reason for thinking it does not exist. Your own letter and the printed paper alluded to give no encouragement that it does.
Not knowing the brethren at Minneapolis I cannot say much as to their attitude towards the truth. I am only acquainted with yourself and Mr. Barnaby. From the first time I met you I felt you dissented from the truth, and I think you know I felt thus. I assure you your attitude has pained me much, and it has pained many others of your brethren as well. You challenge your brethren to prove from Scripture wherein you have opposed the truth. What I say to this is, that my difficulty would be to find wherein you have not opposed it. I have been at many meetings with you and I may say frankly that I do not remember that you were ever at one with your brethren, i.e. speaking in a general way. I could easily furnish details, but this is hardly necessary. I do not think you can candidly deny what I say. Of course you will understand I am not charging this on any other person in Minneapolis. I only speak from personal knowledge of yourself and I think there are hundreds of brethren in this country who would (if asked) substantiate what I have affirmed.
I have written freely to you, dear brother, and I trust you will take it in the spirit in which it is penned -- that of love only.
Affectionately in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- As to Toronto: It is true that some meetings have taken sides with those whom Rochester refused. Some of them however had done this long before Rochester acted. Those who have done so since have acted, I think, largely on the strength of their knowledge that some brethren of weight take their view of the matter.
I must say I am somewhat discouraged to find that you are one of these. I hardly thought you would see any good in calling the Rochester action in question at this late date. As
far as I know the brethren on this side generally accept the Rochester decision; and of course views now expressed to the contrary can but increase the spirit of division and unrest. But it seems doubtful that you have the facts of the case before you; otherwise I cannot see how you can say you fancy you could break bread with either side. Certainly I could not. A thoroughly lawless spirit has characterised those meeting at Ossington Hall. They had been entreated by their brethren all over this country to cease breaking bread; Mr. Raven, even, and those who came over with him, joining in this. But they steadily refused and after some eight months issued a circular to the effect that they had decided to continue breaking bread as always, etc., etc. The consciences of their brethren in other meetings were entirely disregarded: they were right: they were those gathered to the Lord's name in Toronto, and ought to be so recognised by all. This was the ground they took and one or two meetings nearby acknowledged them. Now whatever one might feel about the others there can be but one judgment about such a course as the above. They had put themselves out of court entirely. What was there to encourage further waiting on them? Instead of a tendency to brokenness and subjection they proved themselves unbroken and independent. For several of them I, personally, had the highest regard, such as Hearn and Brodie, but when I met them at Rochester last year I could see they were entirely under a party influence. I think Blakely and Minto are the strongest factors.
As to Cleghorn and the others, of course, there is nothing very special about them. But it was simply a question as to whether they should be prevented from breaking bread indefinitely, seeing he and others had disqualified themselves for any further consideration. I do not see how fellowship could be rightly withheld. Hence when Rochester acted I was thankful, although I was not aware they were going to act. The matter was purely local and when a meeting like Rochester acted on that ground the simplest and wisest course for all was to accept it. I doubt whether any good could have accrued from leaving both parties alone indefinitely. The possible end would be that they would agree to differ and thus patch up an external reconciliation. I feel sure that the most potent elements in the Ossington Hall party are hostile to the truth, and have been for many years. And I think it cruel to pursue a
course which would tend to force those who wish to go on with the truth into a nominal fellowship with such people. I think it better by far to have a few in Toronto going on more or less happily than a larger company biting and devouring one another; as has been the case for many years, as everyone knows. If Hearn, Brodie and the others more or less commendable humble themselves and submit to the judgment of their brethren generally it is an easy matter for them to find a place with the few now recognised.
I thought it well to send you the circular sent out by those with Dr. Hearn, to which I have referred. I also enclose Dr. Hearn's letter embodying the views of those at Ossington Hall with reference to the Rochester decision. I think you should have the facts before you if you are to judge in the case. When there I think you told me you did not read any of the papers sent you.
Of course such brethren as yourself and Mr. J. S. Allen are, to a certain extent, qualified to judge of American matters, knowing the brethren so well. Still it is very awkward when your view of a local matter runs counter to that of the brethren here. This may not have occurred to you, but I think if you consider it you will not fail to see how trying it must be to those who have done the best they could believing they had His support to have adverse views coming from long distances. Before the action was taken counsel would have been opportune but now that action has been taken it is but crying over spilt milk (to use a homely phrase) to deplore it.
Some have it in their minds that the Rochester brethren should withdraw their decision. But this is out of the question. It would not only be making nothing of the Lord's guidance and support among those who seek to act for Him (and I think this very serious) but besides it would but add to the confusion. It is altogether unlikely that those now recognised in Toronto would accept the reversal, and it is also unlikely that those around Toronto who have happily received them would now abandon them.
There are five or six meetings in Ontario, numbering probably forty brethren in all, who refuse the Rochester decision; and I have no doubt if most of these knew that they were not supported by more prominent brethren they would see their way to accept that decision. The only brother of any weight on this side that I know of, who rejects the Rochester decision,
is Mr. Magowan, and he has been 2,500 miles away from the scene for ten months. I doubt whether he has followed the developments. If he has he certainly ignores them. It seems to me if there was confidence in the Lord and the brethren the matter would be treated as local and the decision of those most locally connected would be accepted. The brethren in Rochester could have no selfish motive in what they did, and there is no reason in the world why they should not have the Lord's mind -- if they sought it. I do not doubt they sought it.
I am sure if you understood matters rightly you would seek to strengthen the hands of the brethren in Rochester and in that way you would strengthen things generally on this side But if brethren in England continue to advance opposite views in regard to Toronto and Minneapolis there is no telling how things may end. There can be but one result -- disintegration.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- Your letter of the 9th inst. reached me in due course. I was very pleased to hear from you. I should have replied sooner, but I was about to visit Chicago and I knew I would be in a better position to comply with your request after returning, so I waited.
The history of the Minneapolis affair is but the recurrence of what has happened before, not only on this, but on your own side of the Atlantic. It is the case of a company of Christians not being able to hold together as the outcome of a low carnal state among them. The crisis was forced through the introduction of a man named McL------. Mr. McL------ had been a long time with those called independents in this country and had acquired a reputation for his ability to break up meetings even among them. He was received into fellowship in Chicago some 2 and a half years ago, and after some time went to Minneapolis. During May of last year a meeting was arranged there to consider the advisability of moving into a new room. As the meeting proceeded McL------ attacked a brother named
Gotberg, charging him (without previous notice) with being under the influence of Satan, and that he was a liar, party-maker, railer, etc., etc., and further that he could not break bread with him. Mr. A------ and one or two others endorsed Mr. McL------. As might be expected, an uproar ensued. Gotberg assumed that McL------ and his party were seceding and so announced that he would be at the room on the coming Lord's day to go on as usual. About 12 (out of a meeting of about 30) met with Gotberg; when they arrived at the room however they found the furniture gone, McL------ and those with him had taken it to another place. The division was thus complete. Gotberg and those with him however did not break bread and have not done so to this day. They issued an appeal to their brethren in this country and also in Great Britain, they sent copies, however, only to a few leading brethren. McL------ and those with him went on with the routine of meetings in the new quarters laying claim, of course, to recognition by their brethren outside. They summoned Gotberg to an investigation meeting, stating that there were grave charges against him, and that if he could prove they were untrue the matter would be dropped. Gotberg, refusing to own them in any sense, disobeyed the summons and never afterwards attended their meetings. The trial, however, proceeded and Gotberg was found guilty. I saw one of the brothers present at this meeting two days ago at Chicago and he solemnly declares that not one of the charges was established. I may insert here as corroborative of this brother's testimony that McL------ and those with him revoked all the doings of this meeting later in the year, in November. But to proceed with the course of events: Gotberg was formally declared a wicked person and excommunicated. He was accordingly notified that he was now outside the assembly of God on earth; printed notices of this action were sent to the different meetings in the country. Gotberg disregarded all this and remained apart with the others awaiting the verdict of the saints outside. This was how matters stood for several months. The saints generally knew little or nothing of the facts, and as Mr. A------ was well known all were disposed to regard the matter settled by acknowledging those with him. Mr. Mace was then passing through Chicago and some of those with Mr. A------ came to see him, and from what he heard he judged A------'s (and those with him) position could be maintained.
This is what he told me in N.Y. when he arrived and I accepted it. I went to Chicago, however, the next month and during a conversation with Mr. Sinclair and Mr. O'B------ about the matter, the situation became much clearer to me, and I then became convinced that the consciences of Gotberg and those with him could not be ignored. This conviction became pretty general amongst those who were exercised about the Lord's things, as the facts became more widely known. Brethren however, did not know what to do, and Mr. McL------ and Mr. A------, etc., were in the meantime regarded as in fellowship. When Mr. Raven was here last year Mr. A------ and Mr. McL------ were present at the Conference at Indianapolis. At their request a special meeting was held to look into matters with the view to having them elucidated and to give counsel accordingly to A------ and McL------. Some of the other party were also at the Conference, but were excluded from the meeting. It was then shown that Minneapolis was in a state of division, and further that there was no evidence that Gotberg was a wicked person. A------ and McL ------ and Co. acted on these findings and withdrew their action against Gotberg. This, however, did not satisfy Gotberg and those with him; they felt that the others had departed from the truth of the assembly, and they could not recognise these in any collective sense. This is how matters stood up until April last. At that date A------ and those with him wrote to Chicago meeting, asking for counsel, as to what they should do. Simultaneously with this letter McL------ came to reside in Chicago. Thus the matter was brought squarely to them. The brethren in Chicago allowed McL------ to break bread but under conditions that this in no way committed them to those breaking bread at Minneapolis. At the same time they replied to the latter's letter, saying that in their judgment they should cease to break bread and further that they were not free to commend to nor receive from them. The Minneapolis people on receipt of this letter wrote to different ones throughout the country and finding all agreed with Chicago, they acted on the advice of the latter. In this way they accepted common ground (as they put it themselves) with the other party. Overtures were then made to the others, and these latter, believing that the others were not broken at all and that they gave up breaking bread simply as the result of pressure, found themselves still unable to meet with them or go on with them. From this, bitterness
arose and Mr. A------ and others with him sent out a circular to discredit the others as much as possible, especially charging that one of their number was dishonest, and had been so for 10 years. All this tended to confirm the conviction that Mr. A------ and those with him were not truly broken and humbled, and hence brethren shrank from pressing the others to join with them. It was felt that if they did, it could be but an agreement-to-differ-arrangement; an arrangement without any moral basis. This was the view taken at Chicago, and hence fellowship was still held back from both parties. At first the brethren in Chicago were unanimous. During the summer, however, letters began to arrive from some well-known brethren in England charging that the brethren in Chicago had cut off a meeting presumptuously, and that in doing this they were governed by a party spirit. These letters, of course, suited Mr. A------ and Mr. McL------ entirely, and as the latter was in Chicago, he was not slow to take advantage of them. There had been a disgruntled party in Chicago and these now began to stir themselves. They claimed that Mr. A------ and those with him should be recognised, while the bulk of the brethren could not see this. Several protracted meetings ensued, during which, some unseemly things occurred. A------ again wrote to Chicago, and an answer was again drafted and sent by the brethren that they were still unable to recognise them. Before this letter reached them, however, A------ and those with him issued a circular to the effect that they had decided to take the matter into their own hands and resume breaking bread. They began to break bread without the fellowship of a meeting: several brethren on the North side meeting in Chicago resolved to acknowledge those, which they did. This led to a rupture then, as the other brethren could not go with them in this, regarding it as independency. Thus the matter stands. The three largest meetings in the vicinity of Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis and Vesta, have written within the last two months, to A------ and those with him, that they cannot recognise them, and the meetings generally throughout the continent are in accord with these. This is not saying, however, that there are not individuals who are in sympathy with Mr. A------. There are such, and possibly there are meetings too, who would take sides with him, and those with him, if tested; but it is folly to make this matter a test of fellowship. If the brethren in England cease to interfere it is possible that further division
may be averted. If you are at all in touch with Mr. Reynolds, I shall be thankful if you will let him see this letter. I should like Mr. Henderson to see it also.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- I thank you for sending Mr. Boyd's criticism of my paper on Canaan. It is such as I might have looked for from him; at least in this sense, that if he undertook to say anything he would endeavour to support his remarks by Scripture, and not lean on the importance of his personal judgment, as was the case with Mr. Allen and Mr. Henderson.
Mr. Boyd is, of course, better acquainted with the scripture than I, and can write at length on the subject of heaven; and there is much of interest, and with which I quite agree, in what he says. I have endeavoured in my own measure (although, I am very sorry to say, I have not much time for study) to seize the idea of heaven as presented in Scripture, and according to my understanding of it I recognise the importance of it, I think, as much as anyone. In all that I have said publicly in regard to it I have had in my mind God's purpose as seen in the epistle to the Ephesians; I have not been occupied with details. I do not, of course, despise these, but I have not felt it needful to go into them, nor had I the time. In Ephesians the church's place in the divine scheme is clearly set forth, and there it is taught that its place is in the heavenlies. This is, in brief, my belief on the subject, and I am certain that no one can make out from what I have said that I hold anything else. I simply follow scriptures and say that the assembly goes into heaven; but to come out. It does come out, and is seen eternally in connection with the earth (Revelation 21), and no number of pages on the heavens (their number, location, etc.) can set this aside.
But although there is much in what Mr. Boyd says about heaven that I do not object to, yet there are some things which do not appear right to me. On page 2 he makes the paradise to which the thief went our distinctive place, and that had been there from the creation. That is, our place was always there hence the force of John 14:2 "I go to prepare a place for you"
is lost. In keeping with this he identifies the place to which the Lord and the thief went with "heaven itself". That is to say (Scripture says "paradise") he makes the Lord go into heaven before resurrection. Is all this right? I think it is confusion. It is true that the thief went to paradise with Christ, and that Paul was caught up into paradise, which he identifies with the third heaven, but are we justified in assuming that the same place is referred to in both cases? In Revelation 2:7 the "paradise of God" is spoken of; the tree of life was there. In Revelation 22 the tree of life is seen in the holy city. Will Mr. Boyd say that the city is not paradise, or that the tree of life is in some other sphere as in the city?
Then on page 3, he makes our eternal abode to be above even the new heavens! Revelation 21:2, 3 reads: "I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven ... Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men". Is "the tabernacle of God" not the church? Surely it is. Where then, is our eternal abode? Is it above or below the new heaven? I think it is below. Mr. Boyd says 'This new heaven, cannot I judge include more than the lower or created where God is, and which is His abode'. Scripture says: "new heavens", why should any of them be omitted? It is true Mr. Boyd says 'created heavens', but where does Scripture speak of uncreated heavens? It is not scriptural to speak of God's abode in this way. In His essential Being, God dwells in "light unapproachable; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see", "the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him". He inhabits eternity, surely then, it is not right to restrict Him in heaven. Further the Lord is said to have gone "above all the heavens" (Ephesians 4), how can we exempt from these 'the heaven where God is, and which is His abode?' It is a heaven; it may be the third, or highest, but it is nevertheless a heaven. To my mind all this is the outcome of the activity of Mr. Boyd's mind! He is endeavouring to fix the abode of God in His infinite Being, as if it were a locality, and to make out that this locality is our abode also. This is not how Scripture presents things. The abode of God in His infinite Being is beyond our ken, and Scripture does not disclose it; but God reveals Himself in Christ -- in Man -- and consequent on redemption He dwells with man. From Exodus 15 onward this, I may say, is the leading feature of the Old Testament, and it is taken up in the reality of it in the New. Here it is the great end reached;
Scripture closes with it. In Revelation the dwelling place, or tabernacle of God, is not said to be the third or highest heaven (although this is there), it is the holy city -- the church. This Scripture gives an account, and it does not, that I can discover define any abode of God.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am in receipt of your letter of July 18th and I now send a reply.
Your comments on the 'Chicago Notes' [See Volume 1, New Series J.T. -- Editor] did not reach me through any one on this side: they were inserted in a letter from Mr. J. Henderson of Clapham. Mr. Henderson, however, did not say they were yours, and up until the time I replied to his letter I did not know whose they were. Subsequently I learned you had written them.
In saying two of your statements were untrue I did not, of course, mean to say you were untruthful; I was simply dealing with the statements. I felt the writer of the criticism had either read the Notes very cursorily, or else his memory had failed him. As to your letter just received: Although the expressions are strong, I cheerfully accept the admonitory element in it. I accept fully that you mean nothing but good, and I feel a warning of this kind has its own voice and cannot injure me; on the contrary, it can but be of help. But your letter is not only admonitory: it is also condemnatory. In the following statement you adjudge me as very decidedly reprehensible in regard of the truth: 'These Notes indicate ... a systematised teaching, and it is my distinct conviction that some of it is not only unbalanced but dangerous in its tendencies'. Nor am I alone involved in this: the brethren who were present at the Chicago meetings, all of whom, I may say, professed to enjoy what came out; and also those in different parts of this country, and Canada, who have read and received the Notes without adverse criticism are also responsible. This may not have occurred to you, but it is nevertheless a very glaring fact. It is true indeed that most of the saints on this side are much
younger than yourself, and have not had the advantages you have had of acquiring a knowledge of the truth, but they have had this advantage in this case, that many of them know me and have heard what I have had to say, and can thus judge as to what I intended to convey and its object. Of course, you will understand that I am not endeavouring to shelter myself behind my brethren on this side, for I am not; but as your letter is almost wholly on the ground of personal judgment, I have to make it clear to you that I feel bound to respect them equally with you. Some points have been questioned by certain ones on this side, but no one that I am aware, has condemned the Notes. And even on your own side, while I accept that there are those who share your view, yet yours is the only condemnatory criticism I have heard of. I mention all this only to call your attention to the fact that, while I respect your judgment, yet it manifestly does not comport with the judgment of my brethren as a whole. And you will allow that the pre-ponderating verdict of the saints (all the "judges") is bound to command the respect of my conscience.
But I am not attempting to settle the matter in this way: the Scriptures alone are to be the test, and I am prepared to reject everything that is not in accord with them. What I said to Mr. Henderson I say to you now: that if any brother will go over the Notes and point out the errors, I shall gladly remove them. This I consider would be a service not only to me but also to the saints and to the truth itself. I am utterly unconscious of any 'systematised teaching;' indeed, this involves such natural (for it could not be of the Spirit) ability as I am not possessed of. There are those who have mental ability and education sufficient to formulate a system of teaching, which I have not. As opportunity offers, I give expression to my thoughts as to any side of the truth that may be under consideration, according to the circumstances existing at the moment. When any question arises I always look to the Lord, and my mind turns to the Scriptures I may call to mind that bear on it, and answer accordingly. That I have given expression to thoughts on certain points somewhat different to what is held currently, I am aware, but I have felt that these were not only scriptural, but that the Lord encouraged me to present them. Still I am open to correction, and if you will show from the Notes and from Scripture where the error lies I shall be glad, as I said, to remove it. But where error cannot be
proven you cannot blame me for holding to what I believe Scripture teaches.
You say, 'By the grace of God I am not going to give up what I was greatly helped in by dear Mr. Raven, and what I believe Scripture teaches'. If Mr. Raven stood for anything, he stood for the authority of Scripture and the right of every brother to appeal to it in regard to what he may have said. As this is the point I am makings, I trust you will bear with me in what I have said. Mr. Raven was a man of sterling fairness and would not write and brand a brother as a teacher of error without first pointing out from Scripture to the brother himself where the error lay. Now I hope you will bear with me in this: I do not intend it as vindicatory of myself, nor as striking, back at you, but I have in mind how serious the effect might have been of the course you have pursued. You have written different persons in this country, and if these had acquiesced in your view, a most serious state of things might have ensued. I do not mean to say that you meant to cause discord for I do not think you did, but I am dealing with the facts.
I will now refer to certain objections which you advance in detail. You say, 'Christ's present position and action either in reference to the individual or the assembly, seems lacking'. In answer to this I quote from the Notes on 1 Timothy 2, page 8: of course Christ is the subject of the gospel, but Christ according to what He can do. What has He done? The gospel explains what He has done. Peter tells what has been brought to pass through Christ in the 2nd of Acts. He tells them that God has made both Lord and Christ, that same Jesus whom they had crucified; and He, having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which ye behold and hear. And so in the 4th chapter Peter tells them salvation is in none other than Christ. Every Christian can tell how salvation came to him -- Christ has effected it for him, but through what He has established down here. Now, I think the above speaks very decidedly about Christ's present position and action. If Scripture teaches something different, I shall be glad to know it.
Then you say, 'The believer's heavenly blessings and hopes are almost ignored'. I do not know what you may define as 'the believer's heavenly blessings and hopes', but suppose you would turn to Ephesians for an account of them. If so,
I appeal to you, or any candid person who reads the 'Notes' on chapter 2 to say whether the place of the church in the divine counsels, as seen in that epistle is ignored. I believe the church's place in the world to come is distinctively heavenly; but then we must not overlook that she "comes down from God out of heaven:" and that finally she is seen as the tabernacle of God with men.
I hardly know what to say as to your remark: 'Scripture never gives it (the assembly) the place of Christ, even for us'. I cannot but think that you believe that the church takes the place of Christ down here in many respects. Take for instance, the "temple of God". Christ was this when here; now the church is it. When the Lord was here it could be said, "God had visited His people". Now God is here in the church; (I need not quote the Scriptures supporting this). When Christ was here the kingdom was here: "The kingdom of God is among you;" now it is here in the church. Christ had "authority" to forgive sins: He committed this authority to the church. Finally, according to Acts 9 and 1 Corinthians 12, the church is Himself. To my mind the statement I am referring to tends to weaken the whole truth of Christianity. I regard it as fundamental that there was a revival in the church of the power that came out in Christ personally when here in the flesh; and in an excessive way. "Greater works shall ye do, because I go to the Father". I cannot understand how anyone can read the early chapters of the Acts without seeing this. The power of God was here for good as it had been seen in Christ, only in a more extensive manner, as I said. Of course, it was still exercised by Christ, but He accredits them with it. "Greater works shall ye do". You say, 'Even for us', the 'even' of course means that if not for us, certainly for no one else. The weakness of this strikes me greatly. I feel how that which the Lord intended to represent Him, and which was to be the expression of Himself down here (that which He calls "MY assembly;" this body: that which had walls great and high, and bulwarks and towers of strength, etc.) is slighted. Did not the man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3) find those who took the place of Christ down here? If the Lord had been there He would have healed him; but Peter says "Look on us ... such as I have give I thee". And so later, the shadow of Peter. The power was in the name of Jesus but it was identified with the saints. Of course, this
refers to the apostles; but they are included in the church. But the power by which they were in this way a blessing to man is the same by which greater things (the oracles of God, salvation, eternal life, etc.) were available in the church.
I note your remarks as to a spirit existing here of looking down on those (especially English brethren) who have not been able to endorse what has been done. I am not aware of any such spirit, but many do very decidedly resent the almost dictatorial attitude on the part of several in England in regard to matters in this country and Canada during the last three years. It has been fruitful of much sorrow and scattering the Lord's people, and those responsible should feel this before the Lord.
With love in Christ, I am
Affectionately yours in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- Your letter of the 16th inst. reached me two days ago. The letter from Mr. Reynolds to the saints in America had come a few days before. Mr. Reynolds' letter is a painful affair: it is not only that it indicates unfairness in that it attacks certain notes of meetings which were not revised for publication and were of a private character, without first seeking to find out from the persons responsible whether their thoughts were accurately represented; but also that it shows grave departure from the truth on the part of the writer. Had the 'Notes' been intended for the press several of the things Mr. Reynolds objects to would not appear at all, and others would be greatly modified and guarded by the insertion of other truths which might seem weakened or denied. I had to go over them under very severe pressure, as the time was during the 'busy season' at my place of business, and I revised them only very superficially. Mr. Pellatt was in California and went over only one of them. It was believed they would be read with interest and profit by many (especially in this country, for whom, indeed, they were intended), and there was no anticipation that they would become the subject
of public criticism. To make them (or what is contained in them) responsible for the Minneapolis trouble, is ridiculous. That trouble, as everybody knows, occurred before Mr. Raven's last visit to America, and the facts of it were minutely enquired into during his stay here. When he (Mr. Raven) heard afterwards of the stand the brethren at Chicago had taken, his remark was: 'It is a mercy Chicago has been so firm'. Both A------ and O'B------ knew me, and I never heard of either of them charging me with bad doctrine. So that Mr. Reynolds' letter in this respect is valueless and proves him unqualified (because of ignorance of the facts) to pronounce on this matter at all.
As to your own letter, dear brother, I cannot say that it encourages me any more than does that of T.H.R. You know I am charged with error, and yet although you have had the means of proving whether the charge is just or the contrary within your reach (indeed you had the Notes some weeks) you have not availed yourself of them. You say: 'I do not know of any one who justifies them' (the 'Notes' ). I should have thought you would at least have desired (Job 33:32) to do so; for you profess interest in me. I do not see any evidence of this desire in your letter; you do not look up the Notes, nor do you even ask me if these things are so. You enumerate some blessings that are said to be in Christ, and that man has to do with Him to have them, and then say, 'I doubt very much if you object to all this; but it almost seems from what is quoted from you that you do'. 'Almost seems:' this is poor ground, dear Mr. Boyd, on which to base such a letter as you have written me. But I fear that 'Almost seems' means certainty for you; for you say lower down, 'I am almost taking for granted that what has been said of them is what is in them'. Indeed, so far as your letter goes it is difficult to decide definitely what your mind is: First: 'I doubt very much if you object to all this;' secondly, 'It seems ... you do;' thirdly, 'I am taking for granted that what is said of them' (and 'what is said of them' means that I do deny it) 'is true'. Then you say: 'You must modify your thoughts'. What thoughts? I will gladly change my thoughts if you will show where they are contrary to Scripture; but, from your letter, you do not seem to be sure that my thoughts are wrong. You say, 'I doubt ... that you object'. Now, I do not object: I accept fully that these blessings are in Christ and
that men have to do with Him to get them. These things (forgiveness, salvation, life) have all been brought to pass by Christ, and are in Him; and they are available to man on the principle of faith. I do not weaken this at all; but if we stop here we have not found anything -- I mean in a practical way. So that although salvation and life are presented as in Christ, yet the realisation of them depends on certain conditions established down here. This refers also to forgiveness; for this, too, is known by the Spirit. The conditions I allude to (I mean what was found in the assembly) were there before the gospel went out, and indeed without them we should not have the gospel. Now I shall be deeply grieved if it is shown that I have made defective statements, and that these are an occasion of sorrow, to my brethren. I shall withdraw them and own my wrong; but I cannot weaken nor modify what I have said above as to the gospel.
When I said the gospel did not arrest the attention of men I was commenting on Acts 2, and what I said was a simple statement of the facts presented in the chapter. I added, that the house of God arrested people's attention. This is undeniable: it was the presence of the Holy Spirit (and the manner in which He, as dwelling in the house, is slighted in the different communications from your side strikes me greatly) in the saints that attracted the attention of the multitude. It is true that it was by "tongues", but the point is not the effect, but the power that produced the effect. Peter says "This is that", and "Hath poured out this which ye see and hear". What produced the tongues on that occasion produces other things which are greater and which were to continue, such as righteousness, peace, joy, love, etc. By "the gospel" I meant, of course, Peter's address: this was one thing: it was what Peter said by the Spirit, but the tongues represented the effect of the Spirit in the company. The speaking with tongues is not connected in the passage with the apostles: "sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues". You say 'Fitted by Himself to work ... apart from the church'. This is not true. The gifts were in the church (1 Corinthians 12). In all I have had to say about the church in this connection I have had before me what was at the beginning -- as divinely formed and set up in the power of the Spirit. I cannot understand how speaking of it in this light as the receptacle of the different testimonies of God is
belittling Christ, or placing these outside of Christ. The church is in Christ. To place the responsibility of the care of a man's house in his wife when he is away from home is not belittling him, or in a sense placing the responsibility in another than himself; for if he has his proper place in her heart she is himself. It is remarkable that the Lord does not say, 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against Me', but, 'against it'.
In conclusion, I would express the earnest hope that you will go into this matter fully and contend for the truth which the Lord has recovered for us. I do not pretend to have said anything on this point different from what others who have gone before have said; and I should have expected that you had been saying it all along. A letter of yours to ------ commenting on my paper on Canaan was a sorrow to me; not only because it rejects what I believe to be true, but because it contains unscriptural statements in regard to the abode of God and our eternal abode. I do not, however, go into this now.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am in receipt of your letter of the 21st ult. I am glad you have expressed yourself so fully and freely, and I feel it is due to the truth, to you, and to me that I should answer as well as I can as to the different points in question.
As you consider the points of difficulty in the address on Matthew 11 of minor importance I shall refer to them only briefly. In alluding to the Lord's standing in relation to Judaism and the empire I wished only to emphasise the necessity of an entirely new system being introduced. Although what I said was quite scriptural I was making no special point of it: the Lord owned what was there (the temple, Moses' seat, etc.) and He also recognised the empire. The power the Romans had was from God (John 18:11). I did not say that He intended to use them: I said, 'The Lord took up what He found in Israel, and if possible would have used it'. The
whole thought in the passage is negative. In saying He could not take command of an army, etc., I did not have ability (you say 'able', which word I did not use), in my mind at all. 'Could not' is moral; morally, He could not be connected with that system. You say, 'You bring in the invitation, "Come unto me" as having reference to the kingdom'. I do not. I was speaking on Matthew 11, and it was natural that I should refer to this. I did not connect it with the kingdom. I connected it with Christ (see pages 6, 7). Again, you say, 'Jonah and Solomon had no reference to the kingdom'. I did not say they had. I said chapter 12 spoke of great men, Jonah and Solomon, but there was a Greater. I did not say any more about them. I spoke about the Greater. You assume that the kingdom was my subject, which was not the case. What was on my mind was Christ as seen in chapter 11. The title of the address is 'Christ as Turning-Point and Model'. You remark, 'You seem to have gone crazy on the kingdom'. I do not mind being regarded as crazy, but the thought should not be connected with the kingdom of God: we should respect it. You quote, 'The Lord Jesus has His forces here to enforce His rights'. This is not correct. I used an illustration as to the king of England, and 'enforce his rights' is used only in connection with him. What I said as to the Lord was that His forces (transferring the figure to the Holy Spirit) were here. You object to this and say, 'He speaks of coming with them the angels of His might'. I do not accept that angels are designated as His forces in a specific way. They are mighty agents of the divine will, but the power of subjugation in the future is the Spirit (compare Philippians 3:21 and Romans 8:11). Divine force, or power, if spoken of in any distinctive way, is the Holy Spirit.
As to the Reading on Romans 4, the subject proposed was the kingdom. I think the opening paragraphs might have indicated this to you. Had you so understood it you would have felt that to advance the specific teaching of Romans as an objection would be irrelevant. But you say, 'You would never learn from Romans that God had a dwelling-place upon earth'. This is extraordinary. Is the Holy Spirit not spoken of in Romans as dwelling here? "If indeed God's Spirit dwell in you;" "But if the Spirit ... dwell in you;" "His Spirit which dwells in you" (Romans 8:9 - 11). The Spirit of God dwelling here means that God is here; the 'dwelling-place'
is also indicated -- 'you'. I quite agree that the dwelling place of God is not the subject of the epistle, but to say that you could never learn from Romans that God had a dwelling place upon earth is the opposite of the truth.
Your next objection is to the kingdom having a collective sense. You say, 'The kingdom is much more individual than the body or the house' and, 'I am not so closely linked with others'. What do 'much more' and 'so closely' mean? As I understand their meaning it is that they admit the collective sense, only in a reduced degree; so that you practically affirm what you object to. Your contention that isolated ones are at no disadvantage is very weak and would become injurious if souls were to act upon it; besides, it is not in keeping with the admission which I have pointed out you make. The spirit of Scripture tends to unity, and the further away from the saints you are the greater the disadvantage.
You quote, 'Our hope is that the Lord will soon remove the tares', and proceed to cite the different scriptures that treat of the Christian's hope. I should have thought anyone could have seen from the context that I used the word 'hope' in regard of the state of the kingdom. I was not speaking of the Christian's distinctive hope at all.
We come next to something 'dreadful'. 'The gospel refers more to what is down here than to what is in heaven'. If this stood unguarded there would be cause for complaint, but it is followed by, 'It is true that Christ is the theme, but it is Christ according to what He can do for man; and this involves what He has established down here, etc'. You say 'It does not refer to what is down here at all, and you know it does not'. If I knew it did not I should not have made the above statement. You further say, 'It is the report of a glorified Christ and of all that is established in Him which shall not be down here till He appears'. I have read the above two statements several times over to make sure that my eyes did not deceive me. Sure enough they did not: there are the statements in plain English: 'It does not refer to what is down here at all;' 'All that is established in Him which shall not be down here till He appears'. I cannot believe that you really mean what the words express, but, as they stand, they are to my mind a subversion of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is referred to in the gospel: He is down here (Acts 2). The kingdom is referred to in the gospel (Acts 20:25), and it is down here (compare Romans 14:17;
Matthew 13, and Colossians 1:13). God's house is alluded to in the gospel (Luke 14, 15) it is down here (Ephesians 2). I could mention other things referred to in the gospel which are available down here, but I need not; the above suffice to show the error of the statements in question. I hope you will withdraw these statements, dear Mr. Boyd; you certainly should do so; for whatever you may have had in your mind (I do not charge you with an evil thought), the statements as they stand are not only erroneous, but, as I said, subversive of Christianity. As to my own statement, I am willing to make it read, 'The things referred to in the gospel are here rather than in heaven'. This, or any other form of expression that would convey the thought of their being practically available to men, rather than abstractly in heaven. This latter is the notion of the gospel that pervades your letter and it does not comport with the teaching of Scripture, nor with the fact as to its introduction into this world presented there.
You object to 'It is Christ according to what He can do for men'. You tear this away from 'Christ is the theme' and then say, 'No, it is what God has wrought on man's behalf in and by Christ'. This is what Romans presents, but why object to Christ's doing something for man? Scripture speaks of His doing something. He died; He annulled death, and brought life and incorruptibility to light by the gospel: He gave the Spirit. Your objection is to Scripture and not to my words.
You quote, 'In virtue of the establishment of these (the kingdom and the house), salvation and the blessing of Abraham are brought close to men' and say, 'Not at all. Salvation and the blessing of Abraham are brought close to men in a risen Christ ... and the Holy Spirit has come down with a report'. 'A report:' Is this all that can be said of the Holy Spirit in reference to salvation and the blessing of Abraham? Look at the passage in Galatians 3. 14; "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ: that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith". The Spirit Himself was promised (see also Acts 2:39); and indeed He is subjectively the blessing. "The Spirit is life". You may say the blessing of Abraham is not said in the passage to be in the Spirit: that it is said to have arrived at the nations in Christ. But this would be putting one side of the truth against the other. I admit fully (as, also, do the Notes), that
Christ is the Vessel of the blessing of Abraham, and that everything that God has for man comes through Him; but my object was to show how it arrives in a practical way at the Gentiles. It was through the church. It is puerile to ask me for a text (I intend to furnish scriptures): what I say is simply the statement of a fact presented in the Acts. What was ministered to the Gentiles (Galatians 3:5) was in the church before its being ministered to them. Now, I do not mean that the church ministered it: all I mean to convey is that what was ministered was in the church prior to its reaching the Gentiles. As to a scripture, Acts 2 is what I should quote: the Spirit was there in the church, and the announcement was that those who repented, etc., would receive forgiveness and the Spirit. The Samaritans also received the Spirit; not directly from the Lord, but through the administration of the apostles. The same holds good as to Saul (Acts 9). Although the Lord spoke to him outside Damascus, He did not preach the gospel to him there, nor give him the Spirit. Ananias laid his hands on him, and in this way he received the Holy Spirit (from Christ, of course). Cornelius also is further evidence as to how particular God was that the testimony of the gospel and what was consequent on it were to stand connected with the church. It is true it was Peter and his "words" that were in question (the church does not teach or preach); but the apostles must always stand connected with the church (1 Corinthians 12: 28; Ephesians 4:11, 12). There is doubtless some significance in the fact that Peter did not lay his hands on Cornelius and his company, but at any rate the Holy Spirit who fell upon them had been before in the church. In every case, of course, it was Christ, or God, who gave the Spirit: I do not call this in question at all; the point is, where the Spirit was who was given and the mode God used in giving Him. I am not discontented with the way Scripture puts the truth. "Acts" is scripture. It presents the facts connected with the establishment of the church and the promulgation of the gospel, and if we are to be intelligent as to these we must pay attention to that book.
I do not say that the Spirit is exactly the blessing of Abraham, but the gift of the Holy Spirit involves the blessing of Abraham. I was helped through the ministry of Mr. Raven to see that the blessing of Abraham is eternal life. 'Life for evermore' is the characteristic term for 'blessing' according to Psalm 133.
I have had this in view in speaking of the blessing of Abraham. The psalm begins with unity: then both the ointment and the dew are seen descending -- all pointing to the gift of the Spirit from Christ on high. The dew descends on Zion, and there the blessing is commanded. Now all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, and, whatever question may be under consideration, the Scriptures which treat of it should be considered. What then may we understand from Psalm 133? It is clear to me that while it speaks, strictly, of what is future, it has also application to the church. The conditions (Scripture supposes that we should compare things), were all there on the day of Pentecost, and the coming of the Holy Spirit involved the blessing being "commanded" -- at least in the sense in which we have eternal life in the present time. Zion was God's "desired" dwelling-place. The church is this now, and where God dwells the blessing is. Psalm 134:3 says, "The Lord ... bless thee out of Zion". What follows chapter 2 in Acts corresponds with this. We should also own the force of all Scripture as to salvation. The New Testament says it is in Christ, but Isaiah 46:13 says, "I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory". You may say that Zion is a risen Christ: it does not always mean just this (see Psalm 48).
I cannot understand how you expect me to speak in the language of Scripture. You do not yourself. My exercise is that my thoughts and words may be according to Scripture.
You quote, 'Living water is still here' (in the house), and then proceed to quote the Scripture "Thou wouldst have asked of him", etc. This is not to the point. The quotation you give does not speak (nor do the Notes anywhere) of the believer giving the living water -- it was there; that was the point. Of course Christ gives the living water, but, what He gives is now here. Revelation 22:17 says, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely".
You speak of those who have the truth being in hot conflict with Satan. I shall be deeply pained if it be shown that erroneous statements of mine are the occasion of this conflict, but I would say this: If any are contending (I do not believe anyone is), 'that all that is established in Christ ... shall not be down here till He appears' they will not encounter any opposition from Satan.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
My Dear Mr. Reynolds, -- Your letter dated November 1st was duly received. Its kindly tone was much appreciated, and now I take pleasure in sending a line in reply.
I do not think you rightly understood what I intended Miss Elwood to do in helping to revise the 'Notes:' it was never my thought that she should be responsible for anything that might appear in them. I had heard that she had considerable experience in this kind of work and was very efficient; and, knowing that she had been in close touch with both Mr. Stoney and Mr. Raven, I judged she would have a good idea of the form in which the truth has been currently expressed in England. Hence my freedom in soliciting her aid. All she has done is simply to make suggestions on a separate sheet as to where she believes changes should be made. This is great service to me, and I do not at all see that what she has done is outside the latitude of what is proper to sisters. It is my belief that to your knowledge both she and others have done as much, or more, heretofore without being challenged. It seems to me that while we should recognise 1 Timothy 2:12 we should not overlook that at the beginning women partook of the gifts of the Spirit and helped in the truth (compare Acts 21; 1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 18:26).
I regret that you did not see your way to withdraw your two printed letters. I did not wish you to unsay all you had said, but the letters themselves were admittedly not based on fair grounds (the information you had was of a private nature and did not profess to be authentic: you admit the latter on page 1 of your first letter) and on this account should be withdrawn as they stand.
In them you criminate others and myself with whom you are nominally in fellowship as being guilty of doing 'dishonour to Christ', and of 'giving up the testimony recovered to the saints;' and this without making the least effort to discover whether you rightly understood the views of those responsible! To my mind it is but common fairness that a public expression of judgment on a matter of this kind should be withheld until the persons in question have opportunity to explain themselves. Your justification is that 'the letter has, I judge, done that for which I wrote and printed it. The Lord has, I am sure, used it in recalling our souls to the truth confided to us'. If
this was the end you had in view, you certainly took a most extraordinary way to reach it -- a way that involves charges against some of your brethren which if true constitute these brethren unfit for Christian fellowship. I hope you will bear with me, dear Mr. Reynolds, if I ask you to consider this matter. I do ask you to do so. As I say, I do not ask you to unsay all you have said, for I am sure a warning against the obscuring of the heavenly side of the truth can but do good; but the preferring of charges against those with whom we are breaking the same loaf contrary to the principles laid down in Scripture cannot have the Lord's approval;, besides, being unfair, an injustice is done to the persons in question. As for myself, I feel certain I could satisfy almost any of my brethren that I do not hold any thing contrary to Scripture, hence you can understand my feelings in being branded as a party to doing dishonour to Christ, and giving up the testimony recovered to the saints.
Of course it is natural for you to counsel me to withdraw what you regard as so erroneous. My belief is, however, that in view of all that has been said the 'Notes' should appear as properly revised.
As to the Notes of the New York meetings, I do not know how you make out that I make the church an 'earth-dweller'. Certainly it is foreign to my mind. I do not believe the church will ever be on earth again after the rapture, and I am sure I have said nothing to the contrary. What I have intended to convey is that she will be connected with the earth -- she will be in relation to the earth in the millennium, but her place is distinctively in heaven. From Revelation 21 it would appear that she will ultimately be more immediately connected with the earth ("with men"), but even from that passage I would not say that she will be on earth.
I would call your attention to a remark you make in your letter condemnatory of me. 'You connect Christ also with the earth through the church'. I believe Christ is to be connected with the earth in the world to come, and if anyone denied this I would consider that he denied the leading point in prophecy. "His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives". This is not only connection, but contact. I am sure you will admit what I am saying -- that Christ is coming to reign; if He reigns over the earth He must be connected with it. I only call your attention to the error
involved in your statement -- I do not think you meant anything wrong: you are alluding, I suppose, to my making the church an earth-dweller, and that consequently Christ is made such also. I assure you I have no such notion.
With love in the Lord, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- When writing last I did not have time to refer to the agitation which the Notes (Chicago) of the meetings for which I am mainly responsible have occasioned. While from the outset I had the assurance that the Notes did not contain error, I was aware of inaccurate and unguarded expressions, which were well understood when given out orally, but which might easily be misconstrued by a reader who did not attend the meetings, especially if such an one was not acquainted with the speaker. _ All this (although quite unforeseen) is what has actually happened and as my brethren have been caused anxiety and sorrow I feel I am blameworthy. I hope it will be understood that I am deeply pained that any of the Lord's people should have had conflict which forethought and caution on my part might have averted. But it should be borne in mind that the Notes were primarily intended for brethren on this Continent, and as most of them are acquainted with Mr. Pellatt and myself and do not suspect either of us of bad doctrine, it was never anticipated that there would be serious criticism, indeed as a matter of fact there had been none that I am aware of until the objections from your side began to appear and even since, with one or two exceptions, there has not been anything serious. I mention this specially because my belief is that the difficulty has arisen largely from the form of expression employed and want of apprehension on the part of those objecting as to the point of view taken. The fact that those who are acquainted with the manner of giving out the truth of the speakers represented in the Notes, have little or no difficulty is, I think, a proof of this. I would mention further (as I did in a previous letter) that the Notes came to me to look over at a time when I was under the greatest pressure from stress of business, and hence I was
hindered in giving them proper attention. I went over them very superficially and I see now that I should have held them back until I had more time, but as I said, I had no anticipation of criticisms; I regarded the Notes as semi-private, and quite believed that they would be read in a charitable spirit by those into whose hands they might come -- that they would be taken as intended for edification, and as calling attention in a pointed way to what the Lord had revived through the ministry of others. There is nothing further from my mind than that anything in the Notes should be dogmatic, but at the same time I believe that what they contain is substantially the truth which the Lord has been calling our attention to for some years, and I am convinced that where it is refused an irreparable loss will be sustained. I am very far from expecting that my elder brethren should pay especial attention to anything one so young as I might have to say, but I think that to which the ministry of those now at rest called attention should be considered and contended for. The church's heavenly calling as united to Christ was pressed, also the great fact of its existence down here at the present time in the power of the Holy Spirit. The former is now being pushed forward, but the latter as a practical sphere of protection and blessing for souls is being largely ignored. This explains the point of view in the Chicago Notes. There was not the intention to belittle the heavenly side, but the need of insisting on it did not exist. Now I see that much should have been added in the way of guarding and explanation, and would have been, had criticism been anticipated. Many things have been alleged as taught in the Notes which are entirely foreign to my mind and I am certain I never gave expression to them. The more important of these are:
1st. That the church is an 'earth-dweller' and that through her Christ is also made such. His session at the right hand of God being ignored, beclouded and hidden.
2nd. That the church is presented as an object of faith in the gospel, and that instead of Christ, she is the giver of living water.
3rd. That living water is located in the saints, instead of in Christ.
I refuse all this as contrary to Scripture. It never had a place in my mind. As to the first, I believe the church's distinctive place is in heaven, or the heavenlies, and that she
will never be seen actually on earth again after the rapture; that even now she is the body of Christ and united to Him in heaven.
But she is actually here on earth in testimony and, as Christ's body she is Himself morally (Acts 9:14). But although here the earth is not her place; heaven is her place although in the future she is ever seen in relation to the earth, at the present time the church forms the sphere in which Christ is known and enjoyed, but the associations are all heavenly having Him at the right hand of God as the centre.
As to the second, I believe Christ alone is presented as the Object of faith in the gospel and that He is the giver of living water.
The third allegation may have an apparent support in the Notes, but this can only be by inference that because living water is located in the saints it is denied that it is in Christ. It is in Christ, and to say that it is in the saints down here does not weaken this in the least degree while it presents the living water as practically available for man at the present time. The living water is in the assembly, but it is not in the assembly instead of in Christ. It seems to be forgotten that the assembly itself is in Christ. In what appears in the Notes on this point my thought was not that the locating of the living water in the saints was by the preaching, but rather that the preachers should do this (I did not say how) for souls. In preaching, Christ should be presented as the One through whom every blessing comes. The locating of things in detail comes in afterward.
In conclusion I would say that with the aid of some on this side and in England, I have made a revision of the Notes, and I hope they will soon appear in print. Had they been properly revised at the outset I should have thought it best to print them in the form in which they had been criticised, with needed marginal explanations, but as they stood they were, from a literary point of view, entirely unfit for publication. Besides as they are being printed chiefly with the hope that they may be found helpful to the saints, it is but proper they should be as accurate as possible, and that all extraneous matter should be removed.
Affectionately in the Lord,
P.S. -- You may be quite free to make whatever use you may think proper of this letter. -- J.T.
MEETING, January 19th, 1906 -- PLAINFIELD.
Present: James Boyd, James Taylor, B. T. Fawcett, A. R. Steven, W. L. Perrin, Frank Lock. Notes made subsequently within the next few days by B.T.F., A.R.S., W.L.P., F.L., and initialled by them.
J.B. was asked if his mind had changed since the matters were inquired into in the house of J.T. in Brooklyn. He replied that certain explanations had been given there regarding the meaning of statements which had been made and that it was then claimed the meaning was not that which the words had been taken to convey but that he found on going over the country that the meaning charged had been accepted by saints in some parts and that the acceptance of them amounted to a system of heresy. He was asked had he any proof to furnish that what he had just stated was correct? He admitted that he had no proof and in the absence of proof J.T. claimed that the charge should be set aside and not considered. J.T. then enquired if J.B. still admitted that the gospel referred not only to Christ but to things down here? After considerable discussion and questioning it was eventually made clear that there was a distinction made between the term 'gospel' as ordinarily used for the proclamation to the heathen or the unconverted and the gospel as embracing all that was in the mind of God as blessing for man. J.T claimed that this was in his mind from the outset as evidenced in his first letter to J.B. when he had made the point of the kingdom, the church, the house and the Holy Spirit being down here and this in itself was proof that the full scope of the gospel was in J.T.'s mind from the outset.
The Notes themselves were referred to, to substantiate that this was so. As to the actual question itself, Does the gospel not only refer to Christ as the Subject but also to things down here; this was again discussed, J.B. affirming that the kingdom referred to what was established in heaven. J.T. pointed out that the kingdom of heaven signified authority in heaven that the kingdom of God was potency or power, that the power was on earth in the Person of the Holy Spirit. As to the Holy Spirit mentioned in connection with the gospel, J.B. claimed that the Holy Spirit was only mentioned once, in Acts 2. J.T replied that Scripture did not require to repeat itself, that one allusion was perfectly sufficient, that it was again mentioned
in verse 38 "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost". The Lord Himself furthermore spoke of the Spirit to the woman of Samaria who was not a Christian and in Revelation 22:17 it is said "And whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely". It was conceded by J.B. that the gospel in its full scope did allude to things down here.
J.B. had objected to J.T.'s statement that the gospel referred to things down here and insisted that it referred to Christ. J.T. did not deny it referred to Christ, but held it to be a vital point in Christianity that it referred to things down here, such as the presence of the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, etc. After much discussion it became apparent as before said that J.B. divided the gospel into two parts, viz. the proclamation and the teaching while J.T. in using the term gospel included both. J.T. said if he were putting the gospel before a sinner he would point them to Christ, but if to a converted man he would refer to the presence of the Holy Spirit, the kingdom of God, etc.
Objection was made to the Woodstock Notes that the Lord had His forces down here, but the point was explained as having reference to the divine power of the Holy Spirit.
The statement that salvation is found in the church was next alluded to. J.B. objected to this because no actual text of Scripture could be cited in support. J.T. claimed that he did not place his faith on an isolated text of Scripture but rather on the whole testimony of God -- that the house was dependent on the presence of the Holy Spirit here -- doctrine should not be limited to the New Testament. All Scripture was given for doctrine, etc. Zion did not strictly refer to the church, yet the elements found in Zion were found in the church. In the Old Testament, salvation was found in Zion -- her walls were salvation. The main features of the church as dwelling-place of God are in Zion. In Acts 2 are the features of the assembly "and the Lord added to the church those that should be saved". J.B. would not go with this, because no actual texts of Scripture were produced and insisted on the contrary quoting, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved".
J.B. objected to the statement of J.T. that salvation was in
the church. J.T. fully agreed that salvation is in Christ. J.B. asked for one scripture that would support that salvation was in the church and discussion must cease if he could not support his statement with direct Scripture. J.T. supported his view from the standpoint of the city of refuge, salvation being in Zion and the Lord added to the church such as should be saved.
The subject of building was considered. J.B. affirmed that J.T. had stated in Brooklyn that there was nothing to preach about until the Holy Spirit came. J.T. on the other hand claimed the form of expression used by him was in the shape of a question, viz. 'What was there to preach about before the Holy Spirit came?' He contended that there was nothing of practical help for man until the building was formed. It was here conceded by both J.B. and J.T. that the preaching alluded to was not the preaching of the Lord Himself while He was on earth, but apostolic preaching. J.B.'s thought regarding the building was that it was formed before the Holy Spirit came; to this J.T. objected because there was no 'cement', the material was there, the stones were there but it required the Holy Spirit to cement them together. In the Old Testament David had to do with the preparation of the material but Solomon as the type of a risen and glorified Christ constructed the edifice.
J.T. laid special stress on the presence of the Holy Spirit and cited Peter in Acts 2 to prove his point where Peter referred to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. J.B. held he only alluded to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in answer to the accusation of the onlookers "these men are full of new wine" and that the exaltation of Christ was the point. J.T. fully went with the exaltation of Christ and pointed out that it was the exalted Christ who had sent down the Holy Spirit and that the house was formed by His coming down. J.B. held the house was there before He came. They both agreed that after the house was formed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit that in Him the power was given which enabled the servants to go out from Jerusalem. Between the ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit no one could be saved.
A considerable time was taken to unfold the main features of Acts 1 and 2 for the clearing of other questioners than J.B. One noticeable fact was pressed by J.T. that the Lord, a divine Person, had left the earth and there was no preaching until
another divine Person the Holy Spirit took up His abode here.
J.B. referred to brethren at different places refusing him and taking the ground that they would receive no teacher who was not in line with J.T. Such a thing he could not go on with and he characterised it as evil and this was the fault of J.T.'s teaching. J.T. objected to this and said it was individuals who were at fault and that he, J.B., should try and get them right. J.T. asked him if he thought assemblies throughout the country would take this ground and J.B. replied that he did not think so. Thus it was a question of getting the individuals right.
F.L. after a considerable pause said, 'Where shall we next meet again? as likely as not in the Lord's presence'. J.T. then said to J.B. that he was willing to walk with him, that when statements of his were made that had caused difficulties he was willing to modify them as far as in his power. Seeing that J.B. admitted that the full scope of the gospel referred not only to Christ but to things down here, he could go on with J.B. and although their residence was too far apart to bring them in actual contact he would have sympathy with him in the ministry. He then asked J.B., 'Can you go on with me?' to which J.B. replied, 'Yes I can'. He, J.B., wound up by saying that it was not a question of disfellowshipping brethren here when he said he could not go on with them, but that the whole would have to be left to await development.
The letter written from Woodstock to J.B. was taken up. J.T. pointed out that the brethren there having seen J.B.'s reply to the Woodstock Notes in which it was said 'the gospel did not refer to things down here', felt that unless the criticism were modified it would be happier that J.B. would not be present at the conference.
As to what had occurred at Chicago and Minneapolis the circumstances were gone into in detail. The request that J.B. should not visit these places was simply a precautionary one to avoid trouble -- teaching and doctrine was not the point. It was simply feared that the effect of J.B.'s presence might cause difficulty among the saints.
It was evident from the statements made by both J.B. and J.T. that there had been much misunderstanding of facts on both sides as to the attitude of each in advising others, etc., and that had the facts been known to them much which caused difficulty would have been avoided. All parted in a kindly spirit individually.
My Dear Mr. Reynolds -- Your letter of the 25th ult. was duly received.
I see that you quite misunderstand the trend of thought in the Notes of the New York meetings regarding the church's relation to the earth. It was entirely a question of testimony. The Son of God was said to have come into the sphere of testimony, and that having come He did not leave it morally; the earth was said to be the scene of the testimony at the present time and the church is here in this connection. But (although it was not expressed at that reading) my thought as to the entire sphere of testimony is that it includes the heavens as well, hence when I spoke of the church being removed for a time, but that morally it was not removed at all I meant simply that it would come into view again: it would appear in the scene of testimony again, but in the heavenly part of it. In a subsequent reading (on Ephesians 2) you might have seen that this was what was held. The statement you give from the Notes is misquoted in the essential part of it. You underline the words 'from earth' as proving your point, and these words do not appear in the passage at all in this connection. It is true you say you had not the Notes by you to refer to, but this misquotation of an essential passage only proves your misapprehension of what they contain.
I can scarcely understand your remarks that your objection to Christ being connected with the earth through the church, did not refer to the world to come, but to the present time. I could never have divined that you referred to the present time, for it did not occur to me that any Christian would deny that the church is not only connected with the earth now, but actually on it -- which latter will not be true in the coming age. The church is on the earth; it was formed primarily at Jerusalem, and is spoken of at Corinth, Ephesus, etc. These cities were on earth. The assembly at Corinth was said to be Christ's body. It was not Christ's body in heaven; it was His body in that city; and if His body He was in it, and in it to be expressed morally there. "Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you". Further, Saul was not persecuting Christ in heaven, but here on earth. Christ was here on earth morally in the saints, and was expressed in testimony before the world. In the Revelation He is seen in the midst of the
candlesticks, which were the seven assemblies in Asia. As all this is unquestionable (indeed you admit it in your letter), and as it involves connection with the earth, your statement is quite unintelligible.
But your charge that I make the church an earth-dweller I utterly refuse, and you have not proved it from any statement I have made. I have said many times (and you must know this, seeing you have read the Notes of the different meetings) that the church's distinctive place is in heaven; I said this in my last letter to you indeed, and also that I did not believe she would ever be actually on earth again after the rapture. At the present time she is on earth, as I have been showing, although ever essentially heavenly; and her position morally is in heaven (Ephesians 2) -- in the world to come she will be actually there.
As to what you have printed on the Chicago Notes, I do not think I misunderstood you, as you say, and your not accounting me alone responsible does not bear on the point. In my letter I said you had criminated others and myself with 'doing dishonour to Christ, and giving up the testimony' without endeavouring to find out whether the testimony you had was authentic. You did not need to write to every brother in America for this information, even if each was responsible: the persons whose names appeared could easily be communicated with. Indeed in the note you sent me with the copy of your letter you said I was mainly responsible. This was the truth, hence your failure in not communicating with me. I have not heretofore dealt with the contents of your 'Letter to Brethren in America', having confined myself to pointing out the unfair and unscriptural basis on which it rests. I would now refer briefly to one or two points in order that you may see more clearly my ground for asking you to withdraw it.
To my mind the most objectionable part is the insinuation on page 4 that the spirit of antichrist could be traced in the 'Notes'. How you can allow this to remain in circulation among your brethren, and still assume to be in fellowship with those responsible, even offering to be 'a fellow-helper in the truth' (your last letter) with the one 'mainly' so, is beyond me entirely. In order to make this insinuation you were compelled to force the passage you allude to in 1 John 4. You say 'The Spirit of God confesses Jesus to be Lord, that is, exalted'. The confession in that passage is not the Lordship
of Christ at all, as any one reading it can see: it is "Jesus Christ come in flesh". The title "Lord" does not once occur in 1 John. Your insinuation would apply to it, if the confession of Christ being Lord is the test, more justly than to the 'Notes'. In the latter the word "Lord" is constantly used, and the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God formally affirmed. The confession of the Lordship of Christ is found in 1 Corinthians 12, but it is not the point in John's epistle. But it is utterly unfair to assume that because any given truth is omitted in an address or reading, it is thereby denied, and this I may say is the leading feature of your letter. As I have pointed out above as to John's epistle, such an assumption places us in a very serious position in regard of Scripture itself. See, for instance, the book of Esther: the word "God" does not occur. How dreadful it would be to assume that His existence was denied! On page 2 of your letter you say, 'Much is made in these Notes of the house of God, and little of the body of Christ'. The same thing a plies here. The first two readings were on 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, in neither of which epistles is the body of Christ mentioned. Why not? Because it is not the subject. This applies exactly to our Readings at Chicago. The body was not the subject at any of them. It is true that it appears in some of the scriptures read, and indeed it is alluded to in the Notes, but as it was not the subject on our minds at the time it was not made prominent. I may say the house was the leading thought all through. This accounts for a great deal that has occasioned difficulty. The house being viewed as here on earth the consideration of it did not demand the bringing into prominence of the exaltation of Christ (this, although stated, being assumed to be a universally accepted fact among Christians) and the heavenly calling of the church.
On page 8 you say the attention of the multitude in Acts 2 was arrested by 'the apostles speaking with other tongues'. The passage does not say this. It says "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2:4). What arrested the attention of the multitude was the effect of the Holy Spirit in the 120 -- the house. The apostles as such are not mentioned till verse 14. All you say on this and the following page as to the sovereign right of Christ to send out His servants is entirely irrelevant, for it is not at all denied in the 'Notes'. The church was viewed in the very broadest sense, as it was primarily formed and as it
appeared in the presence of men. In this sense it include the apostles (indeed it always did) and their testimony was connected with it. It was the centre practically from which the light of God went out. It was in this sense I said 'The whole of Asia heard the word through Ephesus'. The preaching and teaching were by the apostle, but he stood connected with the assembly.
When I said (page 10) 'If you have not the building you have nothing to preach about ... I mean you have nothing to present that is of practical help to men', I obviously referred to what is connected with the Holy Spirit down here. You quote, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord", as if I were denying it. I was simply emphasising that the preaching depended not only on Christ being exalted, but on the effect of it, the kingdom and the house as formed by the Holy Spirit down here. There was no preaching in Acts 1, although Christ had gone into heaven, but in Acts 2 there was preaching. If Paul preached Christ Jesus Lord he preached the kingdom. I do not go into further details in your letter, but I hope what I have said may be received in a kindly spirit -- that in which you evidently received my previous letters -- and that you may be thereby led to reconsider the whole matter and withdraw your letters.
I may add that I have little or no difficulty with what you say toward the end of your letter as to Christ's position in heavenly glory and the church's peculiar place in Him there: I have anticipated this earlier in my letter. You say, 'If you only saw this place of Christ and its consequences, your hand would be the first to burn those Notes'. I have always seen it in my measure since I have known the truth, and do see it now, and yet I have not burnt the 'Notes', and do not intend to. The 'Notes' affirm this truth themselves, they affirm that the distinctive place of Christ and the church is in heaven, and your imputation to the contrary is simply not true. In revising the 'Notes' I am only availing myself of a right that belongs to every one going into print, viz: to present his thoughts at the time of publication as accurately and clearly as possible. Many things are clearer in my mind now than they were a year ago, and it is natural that this should appear in the revision I have made. No right-minded person would wish it otherwise. It is an easy matter for you to ask me to withdraw the Notes, and for Mr. Allen to say (as you report) that it is
undesirable that they should be in circulation, but your judgment does not cover my responsibility to the Lord, nor does it counter-balance the fact that many unbiased people both in this country and on your side have read them with interest and profit.
With love in the Lord, I am
Yours in Him,
My Dear Mr. Boyt, -- I am in receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant.
I note what you say as to a party existing in Chicago, but you do not make clear (even if this be true) that I am responsible for it, although you seem to imply that I am. I feel responsible for what I have said, and I am prepared to answer for this at any time, but I disclaim being responsible for the use made by others of what I have said. Neither do I admit responsibility for the esteem in which I may be held by any of my brethren, whether this be favourable or adverse. Christendom is divided into sects, and many of these are formed by special adherence to some chosen doctrine of scripture, but this does not prove the doctrine wrong nor involve in any responsibility those through whom the doctrines in question may have come. I say this so that you may understand my point of view even if I admit the presence of a party, but at the same time you must not conclude that I am without the very greatest exercise as to the state of matters at Chicago. But although I hear a good deal of what has transpired in Chicago during the past few months I cannot say that anything has come under my notice which would lead me to treat as a party those whom you so stigmatise. I had been in contact with the saints there for some time and had found help from the Lord in seeking to minister the truth to them, they bearing witness of help received; but on arriving there last December I found a change had taken place with many of them: I found distrust and coldness where there had been hearty confidence and appreciation. Now, in saying this I hope you will understand that I was not occupied with myself or what I had sought to minister; I say it only to show that the divergence (if there was
any) was rather with those who objected to the so-called party than with the party themselves, for I found the latter hearty and sympathetic with the truth. Of course if what they all (more or less) had enjoyed during the past year or two was not the truth it would be a different matter: if it was false and someone came along and exposed it, and then some adhering to it: this would constitute them offenders and unfit for fellowship. But the facts of the cases before us are very different: on going to Chicago Mr. Boyd was known to have said that the gospel did not refer to what is down here, and further that he had vehemently attacked what many in Chicago had enjoyed as the truth. It is true that the meeting here had (as was thought) adjusted all this but some at Chicago were doubtful of this, and the sequel proved that they were right. It is not wonderful therefore that they were fearful of Mr. Boyd. There is abundant evidence that the line he pursued in Chicago (as elsewhere) tended to discredit that which is connected with the Holy Spirit down here, and it should not be a matter of surprise that ardent young saints (such as those in question are) should resent it. At a meeting with Mr. Boyd since, in the presence of some brothers, he threatened to break with me for having said at Chicago that salvation was to be found primarily in the house, and only with great reluctance would he admit that the gospel made any reference to the Spirit, saying there was only one scripture to support it. You can understand therefore how difficult it is for me to condemn saints for refusing the teaching of such an one. The fact that I may have handled the truth does not make it my truth or doctrine. The question is: Is it the truth? If it is, then saints should not be condemned for clinging to it and refusing to countenance what discredits it. You will remember that the matter was gone over while we were together, and it did not seem to strike you then that those brothers were contending for what was wrong. Of course I can understand that tendency to a party under such circumstances; it is very difficult to avoid the appearance of it, especially when there is great pressure, but I think great allowance should be made for saints when it cannot be shown that they are contending for what is in itself wrong. As to my being a prophet, etc., I regard it as absurd: it pains me dreadfully to hear these things. I am sure that if the saints only knew what I think of myself they would be ashamed to entertain such thoughts. I am no prophet, nor
successor to Mr. Darby (I feel ashamed to have to mention it). My joy is that my privilege is to share his place with Christ before the Father.
I may add in closing that I regard this difficulty at Chicago as local, and I believe it would be much happier if it were left in local hands. For a good while there have been two elements in that meeting; the one in the main supporting what is of God, and the other to some extent refusing it. The bulk of the meeting I fear has drifted with the latter. But I feel sure the Lord will come in, and I feel fully prepared to recognise local responsibility in the matter. I can only judge according to what I have seen and heard, but I have not seen all, I am sure.
Affectionately in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- You need not have any fear of wearying me with any questions that you may feel necessary to ask. I have some idea of the exercises many of you must be going through at the present time; and as I fear I am far from considering myself as exempt from responsibility in the matter, I feel bound to do all I can to relieve the situation. As to my thought of the Christian circle (I hardly ever use the expression; I usually use 'church' or 'assembly' ) being the meeting at Brooklyn, I would say that this is not so, and if Mr. Boyd asserts that I hold such a miserable thought, he should produce evidence of it; but the necessity of substantiating reports by adequate proofs does not appear to be felt by Mr. Boyd ... [J.T. here quotes proof from the 'Notes' Ans. J.T. 'Yes, I think it is our privilege to be in the light of it but you can never be it'. -- Ed] ... . In the Woodstock Readings there is an expression like this, 'You hear the expression' assembly 'here and there, but God never intended to restore any church position', so that the charge that I reduce the church to a visible company now is unfounded and absolutely false. What I see is that the incoming of the Holy Spirit formed an entirely new order of things, a sphere was formed in which the blessed activities of the Spirit were known. This was the assembly which for a time appeared intact in the world, but the ruin has intervened and now the church cannot be seen in any concrete
form. Its existence, however, continues, but it must always include every person who has the Holy Spirit; hence it would be ignorance and presumption for any company of believers (as manifestly not including all) to assume to be the church. But notwithstanding the prevailing condition of things saints may more or less enjoy the privilege of the assembly even now: but this will depend on their being separate from evil and following righteousness, etc. If any given company of believers are walking in the light of the assembly, the Spirit being thus ungrieved, they realise in some measure the blessings peculiar to it, and the effect of this in them will be apparent, and such persons will be a means of blessing to those around them. This is undeniable. Whatever I may have said of visible companies, this is what I had in my mind. But I never said nor meant to say that any visible company now could be regarded as the assembly. Indeed, as I have said before, the opposite is what I have said and insisted upon. Mr. Boyd is pursuing an extraordinary course, a course which will not bear the light of day. The reports and insinuations as to Mr. Pellatt are cruel. I should think those responsible for them will reap the bitter but certain results. No man walking in the fear of God would circulate such things unless he had absolute certainty that they were true, neither would any man walking in the fear of God believe them unless sure of their truthfulness.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- Since writing my last I have had time to weigh the question of the withdrawal of the unrevised notes of meetings held in New York last year. I had partly decided to do this three months ago, but hesitated then because I did not wish that those who appreciated the line of thought contained in them (and I had abundant evidence that there were many such), should be deprived of what they valued as the truth. I cherished the hope that I should be enabled to furnish satisfactory explanations of the points objected to; and indeed I may say, that as far as difficulties have been presented to me directly, I have succeeded in this.
Notwithstanding, however, I feel that as the Notes were not
properly revised, and as they do not accurately represent the thought of some of the speakers, and of myself in particular, and as they contain expressions which, being unguarded, are capable of misconstruction, and more especially as they have become in this form the subject of public controversy, fairness to all concerned, demands that they should be withdrawn, as they stand. It is not that they contain anything wrong, but some of the expressions alluded to above, have been torn away from their context and grouped together in such fashion as to lead some to conclude that a system of error is being taught; hence godly care for souls would lead to the removal of what in this way is being used to harass and distress the Lord's people. Had it not been that much they contain as truth, and which I believe the Lord would call special attention to at the present time, is now in print and before the saints, I should have felt it needful to revise carefully the Notes in question and publish them, so that all might be in a position to judge as to what is really held, but this is not necessary on account of the publication of the Notes of the Chicago meetings.
I would ask you, dear brother, kindly to make known to those with whom you may be in communication that these Notes are withdrawn for the reasons stated above, and in doing so, I feel it is but seemly for me to say that while I am acting with a view to peace and the restoration of confidence among the saints, yet the admissions made above involve a measure of failure on my part, for had proper care been exercised at the beginning, this act might not now be necessary. Hence, as on a former occasion, I would again express my very great regret for any sorrow occasioned my brethren which more care on my part might have averted.
I can understand it being said that such an acknowledgment as I now make is not enough; that I should confess that error exists, but I am utterly unconscious that it does, and, until its existence is proved, it is impossible for me to admit it. It is not that I claim unconsciousness of error vindicates me, I do not; but while I am unconscious of it, it is, as I said, impossible for me to admit its existence; and until the presence of evil in the Notes is attested, I can say no more than I have said above. It is true that we are to be justified or condemned by our words, but if statements are made which although said to be one-sided or unbalanced, are at the same time supported by Scripture, they cannot be called error. This is especially
the case if the balancing truths are found elsewhere from the same speaker, and the different Notes which have been criticised abound with this very thing. For instance, the Son of God is said to have come, and come to stay, and 'The church is here to stay'. What was the thought behind those expressions? By reference to other statements in the Notes it can be seen that it is held that Christ is literally in heaven, and that the church's place is there also; hence, 'here' cannot be intended to mean the earth alone, but the heavens as well, as included in the sphere of testimony.
I will not say more, only to add that in withdrawing the Notes as they stand, it is as reserving the right to use them in part or as a whole, if this be deemed necessary in the future, as properly revised Notes of two of the meetings have been already revised and published under the titles respectively of 'Christ in Authority', and 'Christ crowned by the Father and by the saints'. These, of course, are not withdrawn.
Mr. Pellatt quite agrees to the withdrawal of the unrevised Notes.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Mr. Allen, -- I am in receipt of your letter of the 20th ult. I thank you for it.
I regret to hear of dear Mr. Broomhead's illness, but I am thankful to know that he is recovering. I met Mr. Broomhead once and feel very much interested in him; and all the more so because of his past close relations with dear Mr. Raven.
As to the Chicago matter, I would say that if the action you mention was taken (and I hope for the sake of those who would be responsible for it that it was not), we have not been notified of it. After the special meetings we heard accidentally that a letter had been sent, but afterwards that it was cancelled. What the contents of this letter were, I do not know. The state of things at Chicago at present is most deplorable, for the leaders are acting like so many children -- applying Romans 16:17, 18 to a good proportion of the godliest souls in the meeting, without any proof that the conditions referred to in that scripture exist. Although the situation in Chicago is the
direct outcome of Mr. Boyd's visit, yet there is no issue raised which calls for interference from outside, as the matter is purely local. I feel that a great deal of working material would be kept from the enemy if local matters were left in local hands. Of course, where a manifestly wrong course is being pursued, it is of God to seek in a sober, humble way to check it, but on general principles it is safest to leave things with the Lord, who is Son over the house of God.
As to the body of your letter, I am somewhat at a loss to know what to say, for I do not see that I can add anything, as to the points you raise, to what I have said in the revised Notes, especially in the preface -- a copy of which I had sent you.
You say: 'If ... the Spirit is never dissociated from Christ who gives it, then it must be to Christ you turn, and to Him where He actually is in Person, and not to the saints or the assembly'. This is exactly what I say substantially, as the following extracts show: 'In order to drink, each one must come to Christ, the Source and Giver'. 'It would be wrong to imply that the church is the giver of living water. Christ is the Giver of living water'. Your remarks, therefore, are a sorrow to me, for you do not seem to accredit what I say. You may reply that other statements of mine are different. I certainly do not know of any such.
Then you say: 'This, as I see it, is the root error, which vitiates what might otherwise be good'. That is, you charge me with something as root error which is the exact opposite of what I affirm in the plainest English! But I have never thought or said that the saints give living water (although I have made full allowance for certain instances in the Acts, of the Spirit being communicated through the administration of men); my point all through being to emphasise that the living water was here, and this in order that saints should become exercised as to it. I have always (of course) held that Christ is the Giver of living water, as of every blessing; but what I have felt is that the administrative position of the assembly, as set up by the Lord at the beginning, is not understood; hence if anyone were to say in a limited way that the Holy Spirit was given through men at the beginning I could not deny it. But I only say this as guarding the side of the truth which I have mentioned, and as making full allowance for the authority of all Scripture; and I would always feel it needful in making such a remark to emphasise that Christ is the real Source and Giver. I have in
mind such a scripture as: "Give ye" (the "ye" is emphatic) "them to eat". The Lord supplied what they gave, but in detail the disciples gave the food to the multitude. The phase of the truth indicated in this should be upheld, otherwise we are bound to suffer loss. It can easily be maintained without trenching on the Lord's personal glory and prerogatives. It may be said that this line of things occupies the saints with themselves, but of what value is this remark when, as I have shown, the Scriptures present it as part of the truth? How can we have the ministry of the church without referring to the church? And the church always means the saints, no matter what be the view taken.
As to the living water, I am surprised that you should think that it is limited to the 'effects' of the Spirit, but I am glad that you are not dogmatic about it, for in the light of John 4 and 7 I cannot see that the thought is scriptural; indeed I am sure it is not scriptural. John 7 does not say, 'This spake He of the effects of the Spirit', but "This spake He of the Spirit". Then in John 4 the Lord said that the water that He would give would become in the recipient a fountain of water springing up. How are we to understand that the Lord would give to the woman the 'effects' of the Spirit? or that the spring in the believer is the effects of the Spirit? The Lord alluded to the Spirit Himself, and to say the contrary would, to my mind, weaken the whole passage, and indeed tend to rob us of Christianity in the real power of it. I fully own that the effects of the Spirit are included in the living water, especially as flowing out of the believer, but the living water as given to the disciples by Christ, was the Holy Spirit personally, and this should be insisted on.
Your remark as to the Holy Spirit not entirely leaving heaven is, I must say, very peculiar, and I beg you to excuse me if I say that it will jar on any mind conversant with the teaching of Scripture; and that any views based on it will only tend to confusion, if not to error. For myself, I may say that I have always believed that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, equal with the Father and the Son, and ever in the Godhead; so I would not restrict Him, as thus viewed, to any sphere, but I want to be governed by Scripture, and there I find that Christ being glorified the Spirit is here -- "sent down from heaven". Till Jesus was glorified the Spirit "was not yet", but now He is here Personally as that other Comforter who abides with
us forever, and it is as here in the church that He is spoken of in the New Testament, and not as in heaven. Of course, the Spirit is in Christ as Man in heaven, but until it is shown from Scripture that souls have received Him from heaven since Pentecost I shall hold that all persons who have received the Spirit since He came to the 120 as seen in Acts 2, have received Him as thus already here. In Acts 10, indeed He was "poured out" on the Gentiles, but it does not say that He was poured out from heaven. In Acts 2 the sound of "a rushing, mighty wind" is out of heaven. But He is never disassociated from Christ. He is in Christ in heaven, but at the same time He is acting as a distinct Divine Person here on earth (we cannot undertake to explain this), and it is in the latter position, as I have said, that He is spoken of in connection with Christianity.
I do not know why you refer to the writings of brethren, as if I had been basing my views on these. I have learnt much through the ministry of others, but I make a point to rest everything that I believe or say, on Scripture. I am not in the habit of appealing to the writings of others.
As to the withdrawal of certain things, you may by this time be aware that I have withdrawn the unrevised notes of the New York meetings of last year. I send under separate cover copies of my letter of withdrawal.
I have written at some length to you, dear Mr. Allen, because I am desirous of making my meaning as clear to you as possible, and if any statements I have made appear too strong or in any way unbecoming, I beg you to pardon them, for I desire to respect fully your age and experience.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I duly received your letter of the 25th ult. and was interested in its contents. I can quite understand the exercise you and others who are concerned as to the Lord's things must have on account of current events, and I am very desirous of helping in whatever I may be able in the relief of the minds and consciences of the saints. There can be no doubt that the Lord is acting in the assertion of His rights as Son over the house of God, and for the maintenance of the
truth among His people, and if each one turns with purpose of heart to Him, the path in which He wishes us to walk will be made plain and simple to all -- "the Lord will give thee understanding in all things" (2 Timothy 2:7).
Being near Him our souls are sustained, so that we do not need to lean on man as such on the one hand, and on the other we are able to form a true judgment as to what is passing around us, being under His influence. Hence as knowing the Lord for ourselves we are not dependent on any servants however gifted or divinely fitted to help the saints. As to myself, I may say that I have never been free to regard myself even as a servant in any special way, although, of course, accepting the obligation to serve, and seeking to fulfil it. Hence you can understand that I would feel very awkward in attempting to prove to my brethren that I have a special ministry from the Lord.
As opportunity offers I do what I can to help the Lord's people in the way of giving out the truth, and if those who hear say that what I say bears a distinctive character, I would be slow to object, for they -- the saints -- are the 'judges'.
But I do not take this ground. I prefer to pursue a simple path, and if there are those who regard me as a servant of the Lord, they shall have to be guided by my "doctrine and manner of life".
What I gave out at the different meetings of which reports were made was the outcome of lengthened exercise as to the popular mode of presenting the gospel. I had observed that to a very large extent the necessity for a witness to it was entirely ignored, and it was because of this that the line of thought turned so much on what was down here. There was not the faintest notion of disregarding or beclouding the heavenly side of the truth, but it was not felt that the need for pressing it existed at that time, nor was there the least intention to detract from the glory of Christ as the blessed One through whom alone every blessing comes, the general thought being to set forth (if possible) the conditions under which the gospel was announced at the beginning. And I had much exercise as to the current view of heaven, feeling that human imagination had a good deal to do in the formation of it. I have never had the least doubt that the church's calling is heavenly, that its place is in heaven, but my exercise has been to make it clear that it is ever seen in relation to the earth in the future, though not on it. It is not spoken of in Scripture as being in some
other sphere different from that designated as "the heavens and the earth". As to a personal link with Christ, this is the initial step in the believer's history, and I never questioned, either in thought or word, the necessity of it. The gospel enlightens a man as to Christ in heaven, and man believes on Him; this is the link of faith which is ever to be maintained while we are down here. I would say in conclusion that I am convinced that it is of the Lord that the side of the truth that has been brought into prominence should be before the saints, and I believe if we turn to Him as to it, surrendering selfish interests, and recognising the truth of the church in a practical way, great blessing will result to us.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
P.S. -- You may use this as you deem needful.
My Dear Brother, -- Your letter dated August 17th was duly received, and I should have replied to it sooner were it not that I have been greatly pressed for time.
Judging by certain statements and quotations which you make, I am disposed to think that, in the main, you hold pretty much what I do on the subjects you are dealing with; save that I lay stress on certain features which you would tend to minimise or ignore entirely. Speaking of the kingdom, you say: 'It means direction and guidance from the hand of the Lord as well as the support of the Spirit of God for the believer'. Then you quote from some one: 'The kingdom involves two things: the preaching of a sphere of power and blessing ... . The power and blessing were brought in by Jesus when here; power delivers from evil, Satan and death'. These statements convey substantially what I understand as to the kingdom, and what they contain forms the basis of all I have said in the Notes to which you so strongly object. But you add to the first remark: 'The truth of it (the kingdom) is essentially individual'. Here I cannot say that I concur, for the statement is scarcely intelligible. In the quotation you give the kingdom is said to be 'a sphere of power and blessing'.
A sphere is not an individual. The realisation of it, as of every truth, is individual, but the 'sphere of power and blessing' must be there before it can be realised or entered into. This sphere existed when the Lord was here by the fact of His presence, and now that He has gone to heaven it is maintained here by the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable that the Lord explains (Matthew 12) that the proof that the kingdom had come was that He cast out devils by the Spirit of God. This passage helps greatly to a true understanding of the import of the kingdom of God: it stands connected with a divine Person here on earth, while the kingdom of heaven involves more authority vested in Christ in heaven. It was the former that was in view mainly in the Notes, and this is the reason why the church is referred to so much, as being the vessel in which the Spirit has been active, since the Lord went on high. During the Woodstock meetings, Matthew 13 was a good deal on my mind, and the kingdom there is presented as a sphere here on earth, out of which, at the end, the "tares" are taken. It did not occur to me that anyone would suspect that the heavenly side was doubted, otherwise it would have been made more prominent, although it is maintained throughout.
But I must refer to some of your remarks in detail.
You say (page 1), 'What struck me, in going through this reading of yours on the kingdom, was the entire absence of any reference to its having been established in the Lord Jesus Christ at God's right hand in heaven'. You could not have read very carefully or you would have seen that the kingdom is said to be established in Christ, and that Christ is said to have ascended above all heavens. If you look at page 8 you will find this statement: 'It is a question of what is established in Jesus our Lord as risen from the dead;' and on page 11 the kingdom is said to involve 'His ascension far above all heavens'. Hence you were struck with the absence of something that was really present! I have wondered whether you have been struck with the fact that the apostle in writing to the Romans about the kingdom (chapter 5, which was the chapter under consideration at the reading in question), does not say that it was established in Christ in heaven. The word 'heaven' occurs but twice in the whole epistle, and in neither instance is it connected with the kingdom. But in saying this I only wish to call attention to the manner in which things are presented in Scripture; I do not mean to weaken the truth that
the kingdom is established in Christ in heaven -- which is taught in the 'Notes', as I have pointed out.
On page 2 of your letter you labour energetically to make out that I put the saints in the place of Christ in the proclamation of the gospel, quoting: 'The gospel refers much more to what is down here than to what is in heaven'. Now, in saying this I did not have the proclamation in my mind at all; I was referring simply to the things alluded to in the gospel, such as the kingdom, house, salvation, etc., all of which I hold to be here in connection with the presence of the Holy Spirit. If the thought of the proclamation did enter my mind it was expressed in the remark which immediately follows the one mentioned above so as to guard it: 'It is true that Christ is the Theme'. Did you attach its proper value to this remark, and to another which appears on the same page ( 'The great theme of the apostles was that these wonderful things had come to pass through the humble Nazarene, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised up and exalted to His right hand' ), you could never have asked me such a question as 'Have the saints died for me?' Neither could you treat as you do my remark: 'God's intervention is in the saints'. You deal with this statement as if it were the only one I had made: you attach a meaning to it which is utterly at variance with its context. How could I mean by 'intervention' anything absolute or primary, when I say in 'the same breath' that Christ is the Theme of the gospel and that all these wonderful things for men had been brought to pass by Him? I was simply stating the historical fact presented in the Acts: the Lord Jesus Christ had gone to the right hand of God, having accomplished the work of redemption; but humanity (save the few in the upper room at Jerusalem) was still in darkness, and captive to Satan. How did God meet this condition of things? By the light and power consequent on the incoming of the Holy Spirit to the 120. Who dares to deny this? He who does speaks injuriously against the Holy Spirit. But all this light and power in the Spirit down here is consequent on the precious atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His exaltation to the right hand of God; and in the proclamation of the gospel I should present Him, and Him alone, as the One in whom God has intervened for the deliverance and blessing of men. But although I said I did not have the proclamation in my mind in speaking of the things referred
to in the gospel, yet I do not admit that any restrictions can be placed on the preacher as to what he may present in testimony. In writing to the Romans Paul presents the gospel: he presents the righteousness and power of God, which are seen respectively in the death and resurrection of Christ; and consequent on these, things are seen as administered through our Lord Jesus Christ, which involves the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is given to us, ending in eternal life -- the field covered is large. Then in writing to the Ephesians the apostle says, "To me ... has this grace been given, to announce among the nations the glad tidings of the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to enlighten all (with the knowledge of) what is the administration of the mystery" (Ephesians 3:8, 9). Here the glad tidings "announced" are of "riches" of Christ, of which the church surely forms a part, indeed it is what is immediately before the apostle here. He had said to the Corinthians that Christ was the wisdom of God, but here the all-various wisdom is to be seen by beings in the heavenlies in the assembly. Hence we see that although Christ was ever the theme of Paul's preaching, yet he 'referred' to things which are actually down here in what he announced.
But the relation of the church to salvation is what more particularly demands attention. What I would say at the outset is, that we must be prepared to admit the force of all Scripture in regard to any subject under consideration if we are to get the mind of God as to it. Every scripture is "profitable for doctrine". Hence the instruction in the Old Testament relative to Jerusalem, or Zion, has to be taken into account in connection with the question of salvation. It is not that they typify the assembly exactly, but we have to 'compare' things, and every one instructed by the Spirit would recognise that nothing in the way of power or blessing is predicted of Jerusalem or Zion that is not applicable also to the assembly. Glorious things were spoken of Jerusalem, and the Songs of Degrees show that it was the great objective of the exercised remnant of Israel. Psalm 133 is the climax -- there the blessing is commanded; and in Psalm 134 we get "The Lord ... bless thee out of Zion". Then, as to salvation we read in Isaiah 46:13, "I will place salvation in Zion;" and Isaiah 60:18, "Thou shalt call thy walls Salvation" (see also Psalm 48). Now, if we compare all this with Acts 2 we readily see that what marked Jerusalem in an external way was realised in a
spiritual sense in the assembly. God was dwelling in it, hence security against evil and blessing were to be found there. Instead of finding salvation in Jerusalem, as they will be in a future day, the remnant of Israel found it in the assembly: "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). But, of course, before being added each one had to have faith in the Lord as presented to him in the gospel; as Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). I would add that in speaking of salvation from this point of view, I do not, of course, include deliverance from coming wrath, or the lake of fire. I am speaking of it as it is to be realised at the present time, and the believer always has the knowledge that on account of his faith in Christ he will not come into judgment.
The contradiction which you think you have discovered in my statements as to living water, disappears when the statements are carefully examined. The first, 'the believer was to be the source of supply', is simply the Lord's own remark, as recorded in John 7:38, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water", only in other words, for no thoughtful person would deny for a moment that rivers may be a source of supply to those who need water. But although rivers may be a source of supply to those who need water, they are not their own source: a city may get its supply of water from a river, but the source of the river may be hundreds of miles away in some lake or mountain-spring. This latter is what I had in my mind when I said that Christ is the Source and Giver of living water. The water comes from Christ in glory to the believer, and from him it flows out as rivers. But it must be remembered that John 7 contemplates the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost ("the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified"), and that consequently all who have received Him since have received Him as thus here. In Acts 10, indeed, it says that He was poured out on the Gentiles, but it does not say that He was poured out from heaven. Whatever may be said as to the effects of the Spirit in the believer being living water (which I admit fully), John 7 is conclusive that it is the Holy Spirit Himself. "This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive". It is, however, the Spirit in a certain character, i.e. as in man, and so adaptable to the need of the human heart. But the living
water as given by Christ to the believer according to John 4 and 7 is the Holy Spirit.
Your comments on my expression, 'Sinners come in afterwards', have no force at all, as the context shows that I only used the word 'sinners' as covering a class of persons who had stood in need of the gospel, and, being affected by it, come into the house of God. The apostle Paul referred to himself as a sinner long after he had been converted -- "sinners; of whom I am chief" (1 Timothy 1:15).
I do not proceed further, save to say that in seeking to make my meaning clear I am not assuming that my expressions are faultless, which I am not, as you may know, from acknowledgments which I have elsewhere made.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
P.S. -- As to my remark that a man after being enlightened by the presentation of Christ glorified to him has an aching heart, what I had in mind was a certain state of soul that is apparent in every part of 'evangelical' Christendom -- souls enlightened by a certain kind of preaching and then allowed to go adrift. As you must be aware of this state of things as having to do with souls, I am surprised that you object so strongly to what I said. Besides, Scripture supposes that a man may have light as to Christ and yet not have the Holy Spirit. I need not cite the passages. -- J.T.
Beloved Brother, -- Mr. Lock sent you earlier in the week a statement signed by four brothers present at the meeting with Mr. Boyd denying his report as to Mr. Pellatt, and also a synopsis of what passed at the meeting. I think the information therein contained should satisfy brethren that Mr. Boyd's statements and doctrine are not to be accepted without question. From the facts which have come from your side it is clear that he has made false statements, and the notes sent you by Mr. Lock prove Mr. Boyd unsound both as to the gospel and the kingdom. I need not say that I am most deeply concerned as to all that is transpiring, and feel most keenly the extreme
gravity of being in this way made the occasion of so much contention. I am much encouraged to hear of your prayer on my behalf, and I think I can say that I feel the effect of this in my soul. I am seeking to go on in a quiet and obscure way, being compelled to devote most of my time to secular business. I find constant encouragement from the Lord, I am thankful to say, in seeking to go on with the few here who are seeking to go on with the truth. We have had a good deal of sorrow here owing to a few brothers carrying certain views to such a length as to be at plain issue with the Scripture, having also formed themselves into a distinct party. We have had to deal with them, and since doing so there has been much relief and edification in the truth. These brethren had been primarily very favourable to me, and some held me responsible for their extreme views (responsibility which I entirely repudiated) which as I have said were utterly unscriptural. They, on the other hand, had become quite opposed to me. But the remarkable thing was that Mr. Boyd, knowing all this and what sorrow these brothers were causing the saints, identified himself with them and stayed with them, and reported to others that they were all right; notwithstanding that he knows that they had said worse things than he imputed to me. In other words Mr. Boyd commended the only ones on this side that could be called heretical. Their heresy arose too, I believe, from their pushing to the extreme, things that they heard me say. The difficulties as to this are now past, I am thankful to say. But matters at Chicago are very unsettled, this being the direct outcome of Mr. Boyd's visit there. Outside Chicago things are comparatively quiet on this side. There are, of course, those who agree with Mr. Boyd and Mr. T. H. Reynolds, but this is not the case generally, the leading ones being quite clear that there is no error being taught, and they have an understanding as to where the Lord is in the matter. Of course, the saints here have the advantage of knowing the persons in question, and many have heard what has been said from time to time, which is not the case with brethren in England. This constitutes the matter rather serious on your side, but clearly the Lord is acting, and there can be no doubt as to the issue, the truth is in question and He will support it. I can scarcely understand how Mr. Bookless can use such strong language to prove from his quotations from my letter anything derogatory to Christ or that another Christ is presented therein different
to the one for whom millions of souls had 'lived and suffered'. He wants to know what I mean; I should like to know what he means. His letter is extraordinary, and leads one to very serious reflections as to what may be the effect on saints on your side of the present agitation -- for from what I have heard of Mr. Bookless I should have thought of him as a sober and intelligent brother. I submit to you or any candid brother as to whether the simple meaning of the two passages Mr. Bookless quotes, is not that Christ is to be presented in the gospel as the One through whom alone every blessing comes -- in whom every blessing is -- and that the blessings are made available practically in virtue of the presence of the Holy Spirit down here; and that the preacher should not only instruct souls as to the former but also as to the latter. Reduced to a smaller compass, it is Christ in glory and the Holy Spirit down here; and these wondrous and blessed facts being announced to men. I cannot understand where some are in complaining so much in regard to what has been said about living water. No one objects that the living water refers to the Spirit, nor that the Spirit is actually here. Why should it be wrong to speak of locating Him? He has His own sphere ('the region of the Spirit', as you might rightly call it) and why should it be regarded as wrong to seek to make this known to men? How can you preach from Luke 14 or 15 without alluding to it? In chapter 14 the Supper was in the house and in chapter 15 the music and dancing were there. The house refers to what is 'down here', for the music and dancing were within the hearing of the "elder brother". The present ruin does not affect the matter at all. I have been speaking of the gospel as normally presented, i.e. as at the beginning. Further, you cannot preach the kingdom without referring to what is actually down here -- for it is down here -- "the kingdom of God is ... righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Romans 14:17). Mr. Boyd evaded this by saying that the kingdom referred to what is established in heaven -- in the face of Romans 14 (as I have just quoted) which connects it with the Holy Spirit who is now down here. As to what J.B. says that I have in my mind the little company in Brooklyn, etc., when I speak of the Christian circle, that is not true: when I speak of the Christian circle I speak of the church normally. This has been my point all along. I have been exercised because of the great pretension to gospel preaching without any concern as to the absence of a
witness to it; and hence I have sought to call attention to the conditions under which the apostles primarily announced the glad tidings. I have but little difficulty with what you say as to teaching and preaching; this is of minor importance. If the saints are willing to maintain what is fundamental -- Christ in glory and the Holy Spirit here, and that present salvation and blessings depend not only on the former but on the latter, I am content and shall only be too glad to confer with my brethren and receive what help I may from them. I am constantly looking to the Lord for you and the saints with you, and those in Great Britain generally, for I see that the present is a time of great anxiety and sorrow. Mr. Boyd's doings and Heath's conduct in sending out his paper (which I think is 'tempting the Lord' ) must be the occasion of great exercise to you all. I am well aware that many place most of the blame on me; as I said in my letter of January 15th I accept that I have exposed myself and the saints to attack, but I do not admit that error is taught in the 'Notes'. I have weighed the matter many times, and I cannot find I have had a wrong thought. There are expressions which admit of a construction that would be error, but this would not be my meaning. And I feel certain that I could satisfy any number of unbiased brethren that error was not intended in anything I said in the 'Notes'. I am a young brother and I feel I need help, and I shall be glad to accept it from anyone on your side who feels free to offer it. If any brother or brethren will put down formally the points that seem to cause difficulty I shall be glad to explain my meaning as to them as well as I can. If it be pointed out from Scripture that I am in any way in error I shall gladly acknowledge it. I wholly repudiate that I am in any way connected with a party. I have no special (i.e. as distinct from the truth of the church) connection with any brother.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
February 6th, 1907
My Dear Brother, -- I was very pleased to receive yours of January 21st, which came in due time.
The questions you put to me with a view to helping others
only indicate how far the spirit of misrepresentation has gone on your side of the water.
As to the first, 'Would you point a poor lost sinner to the church for salvation of the soul, or to the Lord Jesus Christ' -- I would say in the most absolute way that I would not direct a sinner to the church for salvation, I would point him to Christ and to Christ alone, according to Acts 16:31.
As to the second, 'Would you tell him to go to the assembly for living water, or to Christ'. I would say most positively that I would tell him to go to Christ for it. It is one side of the ministry of the truth to present Christ as the One from whom certain things are to be obtained and another to instruct souls as to what the things are that are to be obtained and how and where enjoyed. The Lord was in heaven some days before the Holy Spirit came; as there He was an Object for faith, but the living water could not be received until the Spirit came; although Christ, from His own words, could be said to be the Giver of it. He was the Giver then as much as He is now, only that the person who believes now receives that living water because it is here to be received. The same holds good as to salvation. Salvation from the power of Satan through the world, is not possible apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit here at the present time. The presence of the Holy Spirit here of necessity involves the church for He is not here apart from a vessel. But all this is instruction for the believer.
I trust the foregoing may be satisfactory to you, otherwise I shall be glad to hear from you again.
With love in the Lord, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
Beloved Brother, -- I could not make any alteration in the text after I heard from Mr. Henderson as the address was already printed. But on reading it over, I did not see anything needing to be changed, only I think the note added makes the point clearer. I think there is often a want of simplicity in reading Scripture; for myself, in dwelling upon the Lord's utterances I always endeavour to listen to Him, as it were, so
as to find out what He intended to convey always remembering that "the commandment" is exceedingly broad. I find that it is preventive from the tendency to rest in fixed interpretations. Reading Luke 11 and John 4 in this way it is utterly impossible for me to limit the bearing of the teaching in these passages to the period which preceded the coming of the Spirit. Even if one did ask for the Spirit at that time, the Gift would not be received then, as He was not yet given. No individual could receive the Spirit until after Pentecost, and it is individual prayer that is in view in the passages mentioned. The fact is that when the light of God enters into a man's heart it begets confidence in God and hence the spirit of prayer is there. This constitutes a man morally qualified to receive the divine Gift. You feel that it would not be suited that the Spirit should come into a person unless His presence were appreciated. But this in no way conflicts with God's sovereignty, that He gives the Spirit sovereignly. Whatever He may do for us we may say that He does it sovereignly, yet He does many things in answer to prayer. "How shall He not with Him give us all things?"
It is remarkable that although God had promised the Spirit the Lord speaks of begging the Father for Him for the disciples. Then in Acts 8 the Spirit came on the Samaritans, of course sovereignly, yet not until the apostles had prayed that they might receive Him. The believer (characteristically) has the Spirit, but no one can prove from Scripture that he receives Him instantly on believing in Christ. The contrary can easily be shown. The Samaritans had believed for some time before they got the Spirit; then on the other hand He fell on Cornelius and his company before they made any profession of faith.
I am not favourably impressed with ------'s remarks, for he does not seem to attach sufficient importance to Scripture. He speaks of Luke 11 as the only ground for my statement. One scripture should be enough for us. But Luke 11 is not the only ground as I have shown. He says, 'I find from Scripture that the Spirit is the gift of the Father and Son to the believer, and not dependent on His being asked for'. I would not make anything that God has for man dependent on being asked for, for that would give prayer rather a meritorious character; divine blessings are available through Christ, and they are presented in the gospel as free to all. This is God's side. But God looks for a subjective response in man, and this is expressed in prayer. Hence if the Scripture (or more strictly
the Lord's own words) teach that the Spirit is given in answer to prayer, why should He not be prayed for? There should be no difficulty on the point of uniformity as the Scriptures do not present uniformity in the way the Spirit was received. See Acts 8 and 10, as I have mentioned.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- I quite go with your remarks as to Luke's gospel. Luke presents Christ as here on the part of God, and in all that He does and says, He makes it evident that God had intervened for man's good. At the end of chapter 10 and in chapter 11 He is seen as Teacher -- the disciples taking the place as learners. In His instruction as to prayer He shows that the greatest possible gift, the Holy Spirit, is obtained through it. But it is the Father who is of, or in, heaven, who gives this gift. The gospel brings the light of God to man's soul, and the effect of this is that man has confidence in God which is expressed in prayer. It is the attitude the soul takes before God, and God's answer is the gift of the Spirit. What I have observed is, that there is a tendency to restrict God -- that He gives the Spirit only in a prescribed way. But there is no prescribed way. The scripture shows that He gives the Spirit in answer to prayer, and also that He gives Him sovereignly to believers to seal them as His property. I feel that it is of great advantage that saints should be exercised in regard to prayer. Divine things are too lightly valued and hence they are not possessed. When we value a divine gift we ask for it, and Luke 11 would encourage us to keep on asking till we get it. Jacob represents those who appreciate the divine blessing: "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me" (Genesis 32:26). Christ recovered everything in principle through death and resurrection, but it is evident that there could be no subjective recovery unless the Lord can give the Spirit to man. God obtains the response which He seeks from man in virtue of man having received the Spirit from Christ. Our Head is a life-giving Spirit.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Extract from "The Course of the Testimony", New York, 1908
To return to the responsibility resting upon us now. God in recent times raised up men who recovered, as it were, the ark of the testimony. This was at the cost of much exercise and conflict. What they recovered they handed down to those following. These in their turn have had sorrow and conflict in seeking to preserve it, and so it has come from faithful hands to us. What are we going to do with it? Are we going to dance before it with joy, like David, and enshrine it in our affections? Shall we defend it, like Stephen, at the cost of our lives? These are weighty questions for the saints of God at the present time. The maintenance of the truth calls for constant self-judgment and self-surrender. Thus only can we hope to pass on what we have received to a generation following, if it please God that there should be one. In the absence of these we shall either sell the truth for worldly advantage, or corrupt it in the effort to gain positions of prominence in the church, as some were doing at Corinth. The recent attack+ of the enemy was to corrupt the saints by the introduction of human principles in the ordering of the house of God. The Lord has graciously given deliverance, but we may be assured that Satan will set another snare for us. The occasion calls for men of God. Let it be remembered that to be a man of God is a question of faithfulness, and not gift, and so it is within the reach of all.
January 23rd, 1909
My Dear Brother, -- Yours of the 7th inst. with paper by W. M------ enclosed came in due time and I proceed at once to answer your enquiry as to the latter.
What I would say at the outset is, I am unable to find a single one of the eight quotations or statements given by M------ in any paper for which I am responsible, and indeed, I am certain that I have not given utterance to them as they stand in that paper.
But before dealing with it in detail, I will mention a fact
+Glanton
as to M------ which will enable you to judge as to the moral value of this paper, or indeed as to anything which the author may say as to the so-called American doctrines. He and J.B. met me here in the presence of several brethren and we went over the different points which were questioned and after two protracted meetings, M------ expressed himself as thoroughly satisfied with my explanations, etc., and asked my forgiveness for hard thoughts which he said he had harboured against me. The good relations thus established, were strengthened by his co-operation in the revision of the notes of the Chicago meetings (which at that time were the subject of much discussion). Mr. M------ parted with me under these conditions, and I have not seen him since, nor have I had any communication from him. Now he says, he used the compilation in America as his reason for refusing the doctrine; he never brought it before me, although at the time he was living within two blocks of my home. In other words he expressed himself as satisfied that I held nothing wrong and subsequently made the compilation which involved me (and indeed others also) in sin against Christ and yet never approached me as to it.
Had he retracted his former expressions of confidence, there would, at least, be some consistency in his course.
Now as to the statements in this paper, even if they were accurate quotations, it would be utterly unfair to present them in this way. Everyone knows that almost any writer can be made to say the very opposite of what he intended to express, by subjecting his writings to this kind of treatment. Even the Scriptures afford an example of this, e.g., the epistle to the Romans compared with the epistle of James. But, as I said, the statements are not to be found in any American production that I know of.
As to No. 1: 'The gospel is an explanation of what is down here'.
I find in notes of meetings at Woodstock (page 18), 'It is remarkable that the first gospel address took the form of an explanation of what was down here. I refer to Acts 2 ... and the great theme of the apostles was that these wonderful things had come to pass through the humble Nazarene, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised up and exalted to His right hand'. A similar statement from Mr. Pellatt appears in the first reading of the Chicago notes (page 1). This statement was actually revised by Mr. M------ and was
published as he left it. It was no question of giving a definition of the gospel in either case, but of calling attention to an undeniable fact which Acts 2 presents.
No. 2. 'Until the house of God was here in the Spirit there was nothing to preach about'.
I have remarked that there was no preaching after the Lord ascended until the Holy Spirit came and the church was formed. In connection with Christ's presence here there was preaching, but after He left there was no power for man's deliverance until the Holy Spirit came. This is undeniable. At meetings in Chicago three years ago it was remarked in this connection that Christ, His redemption work, His exaltation, etc., could be preached, but until the Holy Spirit came there was no power on earth to act in man's behalf and hence no preaching until He came.
No. 3. 'For all who have accepted the Spirit since the day of Pentecost, the believer is the source of supply'. This is not true. What has been said is, that those who have received the Holy Spirit since Pentecost have received Him as already here in the church. There has been no fresh pouring out of the Spirit.
No 4. 'To say that spiritual blessings are in Christ to the exclusion of the church is mischievous'. This is also false as it stands. In some notes withdrawn three years ago, improperly revised, there was a remark, that to press salvation as in Christ to the exclusion of the church was mischievous.
No. 5. 'Salvation is found in the church and nowhere else'. If you will kindly refer to 'Notes on Hebrews' you will see what I have said as to this point. It was a question of where salvation was found practically by the believer. It is in Christ, but realised practically in the sphere of the Spirit.
No. 6. 'God's intervention is in the church'. This is almost an accurate quotation, but it is only part of the sentence, the remaining part is: 'the Spirit is here in the saints'. In the passage immediately preceding, I had been saying that divine blessings had been brought to pass by Christ and this was announced by the apostles. Then I sought to show, that the things preached were brought palpably near to man by the power of the Spirit in the church (Woodstock Notes, pages 18 and 19).
No. 7. 'Christ is beyond the reach of anyone except in the church'. This is absolutely false as it stands. In Notes withdrawn
drawn three years ago (referred to above) I said something as to Christ being beyond our reach literally or corporeally (contrasting His position when on earth with His present one) but that association with Him in a spiritual way could be known in the assembly. I had no thought of denying that the Lord could be reached by faith in an individual way.
No. 8. 'The promises of God are established in the church'. This is utterly false as presented in this absolute way. The promises of God are established in Christ -- they are Yea and Amen in Him. But there is a testimony to them all practically in the church. The apostle says "Unto the glory of God by us".
It is sorrowful work to be compelled to show that one whom I have had cause to value in the past is guilty of untruthfulness, and what must we think of the cause which requires such miserable misrepresentation of others to support it.
I am thankful to say that outside a very few in this district, almost all the brethren in this country and Canada are standing firm, also the West Indies,
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Mr. Sinclair, -- I have been wishing for an opportunity all the week to acknowledge yours of the 23rd inst., which I duly received.
Some time ago the remarks made at the London reading regarding 1 Corinthians 3 had been mentioned to me by Mr. Bradbury. I am not satisfied that the interpretation of verse 12 is correct, although I do not like to be a critic of what is otherwise so helpful. Had I lived at Corinth when the letter of the apostle arrived, I think I should have had great difficulty in apprehending that he alluded to what was worthless by using the figures (for such they are) of gold, silver, precious stones; and in this I am not considering the sense in which they are employed throughout Scripture. But, taking the scriptural use of them into account, my difficulty would be all the greater. A series of figures are used in the chapter among them "building;" and it is hard to admit that gold could not be used in a building, or that, if used, it would not stand fire. It is true
that Babylon is decked with gold and precious stones; but the question is as to whether even in this case, these things do not represent in themselves what is of God. I believe they do -- also the purple and scarlet. They were seen in the tabernacle. There are things which in themselves are of God, such as royalty government, etc., which, for the moment, are outwardly in the hands of wicked persons. They belong rightly to Christ. Babylon was simply 'gilded' with gold and precious stones; whereas the heavenly city was gold, and the building or structure of its wall jasper. It seems to me, this would correspond with 1 Corinthians 3, "The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is". "Sort" directs the mind to verse 12, where the material or work is sorted, or classified; and then comes verse 14, which corresponds with the first three kinds or sorts; and verse 15 would agree with the last three.
As to the elders praying, the remarks made are, in measure, supported in Revelation 5, but then the "saints" whose prayers are referred to would not be those in the church; therefore it is hard to make the principle apply at the present time, seeing there are no saints on earth now save those who form the church. Still it is true, I am sure, that those who are in the position of elders carry in their hearts (this would more answer to the bowls) before God the needs and prayers of the saints. But it has to be noted that the living creatures also have bowls, so that the thought is not confined to the saints viewed as elders. Moreover, what is said is that they have the golden bowls -- nothing is mentioned as to the use made of them. Besides, they are vials or bowls, not censers; and the golden altar is not in view as in chapter 8:2 - 5. Here we have what is more official -- Christ is seen as Priest giving effect to the prayers of saints on the golden altar.
As to the sanctuary, I do not apprehend any difference for us between it and the holiest; but in the Old Testament the former includes the holy place and the holiest of all. The word is generally used of the Temple as a place set apart as God's dwelling. The Father's sphere of things, it seems to me, refers rather to Canaan than to the sanctuary. Of course, the Father's dwelling is a sanctified place, but I would connect the sanctuary with God; and it is in contrast to a scene of defilement outside. It is a place where we get light rather than a place where affection involved in relationship is enjoyed.
I have just returned from the meeting at Duane Street. We had a profitable time on Genesis 28. The interest this season is greater than heretofore. Indeed, the interest lately in all our meetings has been very decided.
Affectionately in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Thanks for yours of the 10th inst.
Since your letter arrived Mutual Comfort for September has come, and I have looked at your article 'In the Midst' as you requested. Probably you will anticipate that I have difficulty in going with some of the things said. I am unable to see that there is any scripture for saying that the Lord's presence in the midst of His own refers to them in any way but as convened. Certainly you do not cite any. As far as I know, each passage that contains the thought contemplates the saints as gathered together. According to my understanding, the words "in the midst" do not admit of anything else. Besides, to say that the Lord is in the midst of the saints generally in a continuous way destroys the moral force of Matthew 18:20, and John 14:23.
You speak rightly of John 20 being pattern; but what part of the 'pattern' contemplates the Lord in the midst of His people not convened? On the first day mentioned they were together, and Jesus came and stood in the midst; then eight days afterwards they were together and Jesus came again and stood in the midst (verse 27). If there is pattern here it is pattern of Jesus in the midst only when the saints were gathered together. Had the Lord been "in the midst" during the six days that intervened how could it be said that He came in on the second first day of the week mentioned? No doubt Thomas may be regarded as representing the Jewish remnant, but the fact remains that the Lord came twice to the same company; and on each time it was when they were gathered together. I fail, therefore, to see how you can say that 'on His side it is not occasional nor recurrent, but continuous'. As to John 14, the Spirit was to come and abide "forever", but the Lord did not indicate this of Himself. I take "I am coming to you" to be characteristic rather than as referring
exclusively to the now historic fact recorded in chapter 20. We may always speak of the British Parliament, but the members do not really form a parliament unless as convened according to the law of the land. Certain legal requirements must be conformed to before members of parliament can be regarded as a body qualified to enact laws. I refer to this because it seems to me that to make the Lord "in the midst" general and continuous obscures the great truth of the assembly in function. It can only be viewed thus when convened, having the Lord in the midst. But for this there are certain requirements, for it is evident that a given company do not have the Lord in the midst simply because they are believers any more than any number of members of parliament met together (perhaps in rebellion) could secure the King's favour, or be regarded as parliament, just because they were elected members.
This leads to the question of state, and I am altogether unable to follow you when you separate, as you do on page 226, between 'divinely formed state in the Spirit and practical state', making out (as I understand you) that the former by itself secures the Lord in the midst. I quite see that we have to distinguish between the work of God in us and our keeping ourselves from defilement -- cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit -- but I would not intimate that the Lord could be in the midst where the latter was not maintained (compare 2 Corinthians 6:14 - 18).
I have written thus freely, as you asked for my opinion as to the article; and I know that you are not averse to frank criticism.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Yours of the 8th inst. was read with very great interest, and I thank you for it. I am writing Mrs. M. so I shall confine myself to your remarks as to the difficulties I expressed regarding your article 'In the Midst'.
I have thought of the matter a good deal since I wrote, and I am quite unable to see that you have Scripture for saying that the Lord is in the midst continuously; indeed I feel assured
that in saying this, you are going beyond Scripture. Of course, the Lord is always with His people (that is, those who are walking in the truth and set for His interests), but this is another matter. He is with us as in service, individually or otherwise, or as seeking to help each other in readings and the like; and then He is in the assembly viewed as His body; and besides, as a divine Person, He dwells, by the Spirit, in the habitation of God here on earth -- but in all this we have not the thought of "in the midst", as presented in John 20. In this chapter it is a question of the out-of-the-world, heavenly position of the assembly, as risen with Christ, dignified by the presence of the Lord in the midst. To my mind, this is what is obscured by the article in question; and your further remarks, and those of D.L.H., which you quote, only confirm me that this is the tendency of the line of thought presented.
John's line should be kept distinct, if we are to maintain the privilege side; Matthew has the maintenance of the testimony in view, and the structure, as that in which it is maintained, is set before us. In Matthew 16:18 the Lord is not said to be in the midst, as you say, but "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The invulnerability of the structure as built by Him is before us, rather than a company with Him in the midst. In chapter 18 the smallest number, when gathered together, have Him in the midst. As I said before, if we say He is in the midst all the time, the force of the latter scripture is lost entirely. But here, as I apprehend, it is not privilege exactly, but we are assured of the Lord's presence in the way of support as engaged with His interests. And the Lord's word at the close of the gospel is on the same line -- He is with us always. This, of course, has a general application. In John 20 we have Christ's brethren, and into the midst of these, as convened, He comes. This is unique, and shows the great end in view in John.
The fact is that I am altogether at a loss to see how the Lord could be said to be in the midst, as presented in this chapter, when the saints are separated, and following their individual vocations. To say that He is, to my mind, is confusing, and indeed, meaningless. But to look for the Lord to come into the midst of His people as gathered together, is a very proper and holy expectation.
As to state, I quite see, as I said in my last letter, that we have to distinguish between the work of the Spirit in the
believer and his practical ways, or walk. My difficulty is that you connect "in the midst;" with the former by itself. According to John's first epistle the two things are correlative. But then, Scripture also contemplates that a Christian, although a subject of God's work may turn aside; the work of the Spirit would remain (for what God does is done forever), but the man's practical ways would not correspond. Now according to your article "in the midst" would be true for this man although the practical state was wrong. It may be that I misunderstand you, but this is all I can make out of your remarks in this connection. And I feel therefore, that there is confusion; and besides, Open Brethren and independents generally would consider their position confirmed by the article. I think the distinction made in 1889 - 90 was between the believer's state viewed as in Christ and his 'mixed condition', as in the body, here on earth; e.g. 2 Corinthians 12. Practical holiness was not so much in question. The most spiritual cannot avoid the mixed condition while in the body.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Yours of the 9th with enclosure -- "In the Midst, No. 2" -- has just come. I cannot say that it (No. 2) helps me at all, or removes the fears I expressed as to the ultimate result of the article. Indeed I shall be sorry to see it in Mutual Comfort, for it only forces home more fully a thought that I am assured is not founded in Scripture.
Many details commend themselves to me, but the bottom idea in the paper, that the Lord is in the midst of the saints whether convened or not, is not scriptural, I believe. Nor can I see anything in John 20 but what is strictly concrete. And I do not understand how the Lord could be in the midst of His people and they (I mean, at least some in the company) not know it; I say this because the Lord is known in us now in a spiritual way, and not outside of us, so to speak, as in John 20 and Luke 24. It is because of this that good spiritual state is so essential. In Revelation 2 He is in the midst of the churches, but as judging them; in the address to Laodicea He speaks of Himself as outside. Your remarks as to the eighth day in
John 20 I agree with in the main; it is not clear, however, that the company into the midst of which the Lord came represents the Jewish remnant. Thomas clearly does. His attention alone is called to the Lord's hands and side. It was historically 'church gathering'.
Your remarks on Hebrews I cannot follow quite. Chapter 2:12 is a quotation, and it is not introduced to show church privilege, but as showing the humanity of our Lord. Then chapter 8 does not support your thought for it sets forth the Lord on the right hand of the throne in heaven, and not in the midst of His own here on earth. The former is a wider thought. The bearing of Hebrews goes beyond the assembly. The teaching of the epistle in no way proves that the word "assembly" in chapter 2 does not necessarily mean a company of people gathered together.
To make the Lord in the midst answer to the Shekinah will not do either. The Shekinah answers rather to the presence of God in the church. This refers to Pentecost, and, of course, is continuous. The Lord is a divine Person, but in the midst of the assembly, as in Hebrews 2 for instance, He is viewed as Man, on our side.
In conclusion I would say that I think it would be well for you to consider as to how the Lord appears in the midst now. Although John 20 is pattern, yet the mode of the Lord's appearance now is not as it was then. Then He appeared miraculously, and as I said, outside of, or separate from the disciples; their state could not hinder Him. Now His presence is entirely spiritual; He is known to our affections and not to our natural eyes. Hence the need for a state formed by the Spirit. How He can be said to be in our midst, leading our praises, etc., when we are separate from each other -- perhaps engaged in toil or conflict -- is entirely beyond me.
Affectionately yours in the Lord,
Beloved Brother, -- Yours of October 6th was duly received, and I was glad to get it. It has remained unanswered longer than I anticipated, but this is for want of time. I quite go
with your remarks as to John 14, etc. That section necessarily contemplates the Lord's death, resurrection and ascension. It is of great importance to note that ascension is involved. As ascended to the Father He sends the Spirit, and He speaks of coming to the disciples Himself after speaking of the coming of the Spirit (verses 16, 17). It is clear from this that chapter 20 is not the fulfilment of verse 18. Chapters 13 and 14 contemplate the assembly here in the absence of Christ and the latter sets forth resources which should be available; of course, the existence of the assembly as inaugurated at Pentecost (of which John 20 is pattern) is supposed. I do not think the presence of the Spirit changes the orphan state. After speaking of the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Lord says, "I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you". You would not like to detract from the blessedness of the presence of the Comforter, but still we have to pay attention to the wording of Scripture. The Spirit is truly a Comforter, but He produces affection for Christ in our hearts, so that we look for the Lord to come, feeling His absence. "I am coming to you" sets forth the great privilege vouchsafed to us pending His appearing.
As to the "Shekinah", I would say that it refers to the presence of God here by the Spirit.
As to John 14:21 - 23, I believe the Lord there has the breakdown in view, and therefore His words have special reference to our own times. Faithfulness secures for the individual the privilege enjoyed by the whole company at the outset. Where this favour is enjoyed is a question. "To him" and "with him" (verse 23) refer, I daresay, to his location ecclesiastically, so to speak. I think a careful comparison of 2 Timothy helps as to the bearing of the passage, "Open the door" (Revelation 3:20) helps. This involves that the individual accords to the Lord His place. "He with me" involves the church. On the whole, I feel that John 14:23 contemplates, in principle at least, the assembly.
Referring to John 13, I think the point in it is the example set by the Lord. He would be away, and saints should serve each other in His absence as He had served them when present. The chapter shows what the disciples should be to each other in His absence -- hence the new commandment. Chapter 14 is what He would be for them on high. I am unable to see that the Lord's supper is intended for feet washing, for the latter,
as I say, is, I believe, our service now; although the Lord does it.
John 6, as you say, refers to the individual -- what he must eat so as to live; in chapter 14 the company lives because Christ lives. This involves association with Him in resurrection.
In speaking of the regulation for the tabernacle not extending beyond the brazen serpent, I had in mind the law given at Sinai. This had man in the flesh in view, and he was terminated, typically, in the brazen serpent. Then we get another generation (typically, the people of purpose), and to them another law is given; Deuteronomy 1.
In saying that the world to come will be testimony (Toronto notes) I think I was right. It will not be moral, as it is now, of course, but actual display; but in it God will "show" (this means testimony -- in that day the faithful and true Witness shall be seen) every thought of His established in Christ.
Remembrance is of One who is absent, not of One who is present. The word is "call to mind;" this would have no force if the Lord were present.
It will not do to distinguish the Supper from the breaking of bread. They are identical. A person who participates in the breaking of bread participates in the Supper. The Supper does not refer to heavenly privilege (Canaan) but to the wilderness position. It is truly a supper in a spiritual sense, but outwardly it is a testimony now. "As often as ye eat ... ye do show the Lord's death till He come". The spiritual thought cannot be separated from the symbols.
To say that the Lord is at the head of the table is confusion. If He was there He would break the bread, as He did when He instituted the Supper; but having broken it He said to the disciples, "This is for a remembrance of me". Hence the apostle says, "The cup which we bless ... the bread which we break".
To say that the assembly is neither in heaven nor earth is simply untrue and leads to mysticism. "The assembly of God which is in Corinth". Corinth was somewhere on the earth. It is true that by the Spirit we may be enabled to abstract ourselves from our terrestrial condition, and thus enjoy partnership with Christ as risen with Him. This is our great privilege. The fact remains that the assembly is regarded in Scripture as on earth till the Lord comes. It is well to press
the spiritual and heavenly side of the assembly, but we must remember that it is composed of persons (it is not abstract) who are actually here on earth. Besides, we should not make statements which contradict Scripture.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Mr. Henderson, -- Copies of J.S.A.'s letters have just come and, as you requested, I send a line as to them. F.L. wishes them back, so no doubt he will return them to you.
I like the tone of the letters, and I am thankful to see a desire to keep the things of God in their scriptural setting. In saying, 'I do not agree with the old thought ... that at a given moment on the Lord's day morning, the hour varying immensely at different places, the Lord comes in a spiritual way into the different companies and remains there', etc. I wish Mr. A. had made it clear that he believes the Lord does come to His people as gathered. From the tenor of his letter, I believe he holds this. If he does not he must think with P.R.M. that the Lord is in the midst continuously. If the Lord is in the midst whether the saints are convened or not, of course there can be no coming in and leaving. My attention has been called to an alleged remark of J.N.D. that we ought to know when the Lord comes into our midst and when He goes out -- Readings in Crieff, 1889. This was reassuring to my own soul as confirming my understanding of John 14 and 20.
It cannot be denied that He promised to come to the disciples (John 14:18); and there is nothing in the passage that indicates that He meant to come once for all. The Spirit should abide with them for ever. Then we have His manifestation to one who kept His commandments, and finally, the Father and He coming, and abiding with one who kept His word. It is all one instruction, and by comparing it with other scriptures, we may trace the history of the church in it. That is, His coming (verse 18) to the disciples was normal -- things were in every way according to His mind, as we see in the Acts; subsequently the manifesting and coming are made conditional
-- there would be defection and unfaithfulness, but to the faithful ones would be vouchsafed the privileges enjoyed when things were in order at the beginning.
John 20 cannot be the fulfilment of all this. It is clear to me that in John 14 the Lord is setting forth the resources which the saints should have during His absence, and not simply the inauguration of the assembly on earth as in chapter 20. In the former the Lord is thinking of His people as left here in His absence: He prays the Father for another Comforter (this loses its force if He contemplated being in the midst permanently Himself); then He would come Himself to them, etc.
In the latter (chapter 20) the dignity of His Person is in view; also the dignity of the assembly as formed of His brethren. His coming into the midst here is not after the coming of the Spirit as in chapter 14. And He does not ask the Father for the Spirit -- He gives it.
Here a question arises as to where the Lord comes from when He comes to us (John 14). It is clear that He comes from the Father, or heaven. The situation is, that He should be away from the saints; but He would not leave them orphans, He would be coming to them. It is characteristic rather than specific. I believe it is of great importance to see that John 14:15 is subsequent to Pentecost. Verse 18 I would connect with chapter 20 to show what His coming involves; but then the latter chapter is entirely unique as setting forth the inauguration of the assembly.
As to Colossians, I do not apprehend that "Christ in you" is the same as Christ being in the midst of the assembly. Mr. A. evidently does not either. I think it is that He is in our affections, as we are in His (see John 14:20). In this sense the Ark has a place here. In the types the Ark is distinct from the Shekinah. In both the Tabernacle and the Temple the Ark is seen in its place before the glory enters.
As to Hebrews 2, I am unable to see that there is any ground for saying that the Lord's position in the midst of the assembly is continuous; indeed I am confident that it is not. We must leave room for the divine side. As singing He is on our side; but He is known also in the assembly as on God's side. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren". One would like to get nearer to Him in the assembly so as to know these things practically. The assembly is composed of persons (it is
not abstract), and the Lord is known in it as a living Person. I do not see that we are warranted to speak of things in an abstract way which in Scripture are presented concretely.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- For a good while I felt that the custom with some to speak of the assembly in an abstract way was not right. It is utterly meaningless to me to hear of the Lord being in the midst of something abstract. It seems as if there was in the mind the idea of an abstract existence of the assembly -- as if it did not refer to actual living persons moving here on earth. It is true that in the power of the Spirit we have to abstract ourselves so as to realise fully companionship with Christ in this assembly, but this is another matter; we still remain living persons although withdrawn in our spirits from the world and nature. I do not see any warrant for speaking of things as abstract which in Scripture are presented only as concrete. It would be much more seemly to humbly own the absence of the conditions which render the concrete possible. But the concrete is possible in measure, if we return to the conditions in which it was seen originally. Hence I believe John 20 presents a pattern of what may be enjoyed now in some measure, even by a very small company. As to the second meeting in John 20 I quite see the allusion to the Jewish remnant, but it would be a mistake to limit the passage to this. "Thy commandment is exceeding broad", that is, other thoughts (besides a given one) appear in such a passage as this. As an actual fact the Lord came twice to the same company inside of eight days.
As to Hebrews 2:12 I do not know of anything to indicate that it does not refer only to the Lord's people as convened.
Affectionately yours in Christ.
Beloved Brother, -- I have no difficulty with the thought (I should hold it firmly) that the assembly is characterised by the Lord's presence in the midst, understanding it to mean that
the Lord is known in the midst of His own when (under the normal conditions) they are gathered together. I hold also, I need not say, that He is with us always, according to Matthew. I am unable to go further than this for the reason that Scripture does not, as far as I understand it. I feel that to speak of His abiding presence in the midst of the church whether convened or not, is a thought added (unintentionally, of course) to the passages which treat of the subject.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- I fully admit that we have to view the assembly in an abstract way in certain respects, but I do not think it is right to view as abstract what Scripture views only in a concrete way. Such a practice is not only going beyond Scripture but is damaging to souls, as it leads to an unreal state ... . As to the Lord's coming to the saints, He is, as it were, the Hind of the morning (Psalm 22) and in this sovereign agility He visits when He pleases. His visits are the necessities of affection, so to say, but at the same time they are always of a sovereign character. Psalm 22 contemplates the wide field of His activity, and John 20 and 21 undoubtedly correspond. It is important, however, to remember that Scripture is ever wide in its meaning, so that while the second coming to the company mentioned in John 20 has reference to the Jewish remnant, it cannot be restricted to this. Historically it was another visit of the Lord to His people.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- Yours of January 4th came this week. I am very glad to have the opportunity of seeing D.L.H.'s remarks on my letter of December 6th to you, and also your letter to Mr. H. as to them.
I am sorry that Mr. H. felt it necessary to write so strongly, and, of course, I am concerned lest I am responsible for this
in any way. My earnest desire has been that anything said or written on the important and interesting subject that has been brought up should not go beyond brotherly interchange of thought. Kept within this limit nothing but good can come out of it; for I am sure we all desire light and help on the blessed truth of Christ's relation to the assembly. The Scriptures are in our hands, and we may count on the Holy Spirit throwing light on what must be of such infinite import to each of us.
By this time you will have my last letter, and I hope you will show it to Mr. H. so that he may be assured that I fully recognise that the assembly may be viewed in an abstract way. Had he this assurance earlier he would not be under the necessity of writing most of his paper; but I am sorry my letter to you was not clearer on this point. Scripture views it sometimes in an abstract way; for instance, the "pearl" and "treasure", and in many other connections, as D.L.H. and P.R.M. say; with this I have no difficulty -- indeed it is impossible to set forth the truth of the assembly now except we have the liberty of speaking of it thus. But when I speak of it thus I think of it as it was at the beginning, or as it shall be in the future -- that is, the concrete thing is in my mind all the time. It may be that my mind is not formed to take in abstract ideas, but I cannot conceive of a thing that is concrete (and the church cannot be other than concrete, as formed of living persons) in itself being viewed abstractly in any other way. In saying that 'I do not see that we are warranted to speak of things in an abstract way which in Scripture are presented concretely', I had John 20 in my mind. But, taken by itself, the statement is clear enough, as you say, and I feel sure it expresses the truth. I was writing a brother, in answer to some inquiries, a few days after I wrote you and I used the same expression, only supplying the word 'only' before 'concretely' so as to guard against him thinking that I held that the church could not be viewed in an abstract way. As John 20 presents what was strictly concrete I am quite unable to see that it is a pattern of something abstract. If it had been said that we had to view the chapter in an abstract way now (because the concrete is not fully in evidence) so as to understand it fully, I could have accepted the thought; but this was not the way 'In the Midst' treated it.
In view of what I have, said you can understand how easily
I would concede that Hebrews 2:12 might be viewed in an abstract way, providing it be understood that the Lord had in His mind, in uttering these precious words, His being actually in the midst of the assembly of His brethren.
As to J.N.D. being 'pressed into service', I cited his alleged remark, considering that it was worthy of mention, being so direct in its bearing on the point, and more especially as evidently quoted by J.B.S. I am sure Mr. Higgins must have bowed at times to the judgment of such honoured servants. Of course, their statements are not Scripture, but they aid us greatly (and are intended of the Lord for this purpose) in the understanding of Scripture. I may say that I am continually exercised that I may get all the gain available from the ministry of those who have gone before. But at the same time, the Scriptures are the test of what is of God and the contrary.
I may as well quote from Readings in Crieff (1889) as the matter has been so referred to: Mr. Darby has said that we ought to know when the Lord comes into our midst and when He goes out. 'For my part, I often feel that I know when He comes in' (page 31). Mr. H. says, 'If J.N.D. did as J.B.S. reported I am convinced he never thought his remark would be resolved into a dogmatic pronouncement such as the one now made. I should understand him to refer to the apprehension of spiritual persons of the Lord's presence rather than of His actual coming and leaving'. Now there was no thought of resolving the statement into a 'dogmatic pronouncement'. My understanding of the subject has been for many years (indeed since I have apprehended anything of the truth) what it is now, and I do not recall having seen this remark of J.N.D.'s till last November. But Mr. H.'s understanding of the remark is very peculiar. J.N.D. says, in effect, that the Lord comes into our midst and goes out; Mr. H. says he understands him to refer to the apprehension of spiritual persons of the Lord's presence. In other words, J.N.D. speaks of the Lord doing something, and Mr. H. understands him to mean by this that spiritual persons do something -- i.e. they apprehend His presence! I am sorry Mr. H. has committed himself to such a mode of interpretation, for it is far below his ordinary level.
I feel that Mr. H. is fully justified in saying he would like to ask me for a scripture for the Lord 'leaving' the assembly. He notes, however, that I would give John 14 as one for His 'coming'. In using the word 'leaving' I was alluding to
Mr. Darby's remark cited. I said, 'If the Lord is in the midst whether the saints are convened or not, of course there can be no coming in or leaving' -- that is, J.N.D.'s remark is wrong. But if we consider the matter impartially I do not think we can deny that there is scripture for the Lord leaving, if we allow that there is scripture for His coming more often than once. What I firmly believe Scripture teaches is that the Lord, so to speak, holds Himself free, and comes to the assembly at His pleasure; but His coming shows His love for us, and thus His care. It is presented in John 14 as one of the great re-sources we should count on. Mr. H. will be satisfied, I am sure, if I make this (His leaving) 'clear from scripture'. I confess I do not feel very happy in being called upon to prove the negative side of which the positive is so blessed. If a loved one announces that he is coming to see you, you are anxious to make sure that he is indeed coming, and every proof that he is is cherished -- his leaving will be left to take care of itself We are sure to feel it when it occurs. I think the Lord occupied His own with His coming, not with His leaving in John 14:18 - 21. But if it can be shown that the Lord came more than once to the same company of His own after His resurrection and ascension (for John 20 contemplates the latter), I submit that it is 'made clear' from Scripture that He must have left them in some way in order to come a second time. John 20:18 and 36. I am not overlooking what Mr. H. says as to the dispensational teaching in this and the following chapter; I go with it fully, and enjoy it much. As I said in my last to you, the Lord is here "the hind of the morning" (Psalm 22), and He is free in His divine agility to go anywhere, to visit all families or circles, in the vast domain into which He introduces the blessing of God. This is all most true, but then there are other great thoughts as well in the chapters. The commandment is exceeding broad. The fact is there undeniably that the Lord came to the same company on two consecutive first days of the week. Why are we not warranted in regarding this second visit as church privilege -- seeing that it was, historically, a visit to the assembly -- as well as pointing to the Jewish remnant in Thomas? I believe we are. Here Mr. Darby helps me again: he says (referring to this visit), 'The Lord here, by His actions, consecrates the first day of the week for His meeting together with His own, in spirit here below' (Synopsis, Volume 3, pp. 525, 526). Mr. H. says Thomas is the characteristic
member of this company: I do not think this is fair to the others; nor do the facts show that it is so. They had seen the Lord the week before and had been made glad. But there can be no doubt that Thomas sets forth what shall mark the remnant of Israel before the Lord reveals Himself to them.
I may add that I feel very deeply concerned that a brother like Mr. Higgins should say that my 'line of argument is a dangerous one', especially as it involves what I have always held on the subject, and have spoken of it in many ways and places for years past. I do not think he could have given full consideration to my remarks on John 14, otherwise I do not see how he could say that 'J.T.'s thought is as plain as can be that the Lord Jesus comes and leaves the little meetings ... and that this is the present and only fulfilment of John 14 and 20'. In my letter to you I sought to show that chapter 14: 18 was normal -- 'things were in every way according to His mind, as we see in the Acts'. Then I said that subsequently the manifesting and coming were made conditional -- there would be defection and unfaithfulness, but to the faithful ones would be vouchsafed the privileges enjoyed when things were in order at the beginning. Surely there is plain discrimination here as to normal and abnormal conditions in the church, and this is in strict accord with the passage.
Then Mr. H. says he hopes I 'would hasten to repudiate that these specified meetings have the privilege of the Lord's blessed presence all to themselves'. I never understood that any company, even the whole church on earth, could have the Lord's presence all to themselves. The Father has a claim on His presence, and angels enjoy it in a measure, also other families. But although all share it, the Lord's presence is vouchsafed now to the very smallest companies of His own, who seek and are prepared for it in as real and blessed a manner as it was known in the church at the beginning. Note the Lord's words even as to an individual. "We (the Father and He) will come unto him and make our abode with him". I fully recognise with Mr. Higgins the danger of arrogating to ourselves what belongs only to the assembly as a whole, but we do ourselves great wrong if we allow this danger to deprive us of the privileges which the Lord has graciously promised to His own for a day such as ours. The more we enjoy them the less exposed we are to the threatened danger. In Laodicea the Lord was ready to go in to any one that would open to
Him. This shows that there is movement on His part in response to movement on our side. As far as I understand Mr. Higgins there is no movement on the Lord's side; He has taken up a position in the midst, and we move to Him; now, we do move to His side -- that shows our love; but then He moves to us, and this evidences His love. I am greatly interested in what you said as to the Song of Solomon. I love the thought of the Lord coming -- His is active love, not stationary love. I believe this is behind His word coming in every connection.
But I have made my letter very long.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
New York,
My Dear Brother, -- I am glad to have yours of October 8th. I think with you that Hebrews 2:10 - 12 is an advance on Hebrews 10:19 - 22. The tabernacle was really for the wilderness, it did not suggest a place of enjoyment. The holiest represents what we apprehend (by the Spirit, of course) with the mind rather than what we enjoy in the affections, which flow from relationship. Hebrews 2:10 - 12 involved the latter only. Christ's side is in view rather than ours. Hebrews 2 and John 20 are, of course, on resurrection ground, but they go beyond this. Resurrection refers to God's power, His victory. It is the ground (righteousness accomplished) upon which God establishes the whole system which He purposes. There are many degrees of privilege in this system; the church has the greatest. We must be on our guard that we do not limit our privilege simply by resurrection ground. Angels announced the resurrection in the gospels, but the Lord announced our privileges, John 20. These consist of relationship and position. We are sons of God, brethren of Christ, and our place is heaven.
As to the wilderness, I apprehend it (1) to set forth the progress of the believer from Egypt to Canaan. I connect Marah, Numbers 21, Jordan, etc., with this, rather than the assembly as such. Then (2) I look upon the wilderness as the sphere in which God's testimony is set forth, that is, the world where Christ died. Vitally the assembly is formed in Canaan, but those formed are also viewed as in flesh and blood, and they
form God's assembly in the world. With this position the Supper stands connected, as Scripture presents it. We know Christ is out of death, and by faith we are out of it; but we are actually in a state (flesh and blood) to which resurrection does not refer, and we are actually in a scene to which resurrection does not refer; the scene of Christ's death and His absence now. There we remember Him; we remember Him as absent, but by a symbol which speaks of His death. To make my meaning clear, I would say again that when I say the Supper is celebrated in the wilderness, I mean that it is celebrated in the world viewed as the scene out of which Christ has gone ... where He is absent and where His rejection and death occurred, and that we celebrate it in the condition in which the Lord left us here (flesh and blood) and that it refers to us only in this condition. It is "till He come", when this condition will cease.
Our assembly privileges lie outside this condition, and to touch them now we have to pass over to Christ's side; but this involves spiritual power.
As to John 6, the point is to apprehend the Lord coming down so as to be food for all; but He dies, and the flesh is truly food, and His blood truly drink. "He that eats ... has eternal life;" it is individual.
The Supper refers to Christ's love for us and ours for Him, but the more one is in John 6, the more will he respond to the Supper. I hope my meaning is clear to you.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Dear Me. Allen, -- I had hoped to have replied to your letter before sailing, but time failed me. I am glad to have your views on the Supper.
During my visit to your side of the water, nothing has impressed me more than the great need at the present time of keeping to the way Scripture presents the truth, and of allowing it to have its full force and authority in the way in which it may set forth any subject. Therefore, as the Supper is not introduced in an epistle which views the saints as risen with Christ, I hesitate to accept that it is on this ground; on the
other hand, I am thankful to know that I can at all times account of myself as risen with Christ -- for it is a matter of faith, not actual. But I find that risen with Christ is connected in Scripture (Colossians 2) with a spiritual state -- "quickened together" -- indeed it is only in the power of the latter that the former is of practical value. I think there is perfect wisdom in the way the truth is presented.
Your remark, 'There can, I think, be no doubt that it is on resurrection ground that one truly apprehends the Supper', I agree with, only I would connect the power of apprehension with a spiritual state rather than with a ground which faith takes. But then our apprehension is not the point, but rather, In what position does Scripture regard us when breaking bread? First, we are where Christ is not, for the Supper is, "till He comes;" it is during His absence, for it is a remembrance; the place of Christ's absence is not Canaan. Secondly, we are in a flesh and blood condition, and our eating the bread and drinking the cup is before the world and a testimony to it of our complete identification with the Christ it crucified -- ye do show the Lord's death till He come. Thirdly, the Supper is celebrated in the assembly viewed as recognised in this world, not as a new creation in Christ, in which latter view it is beyond the ken of the world. It is celebrated in the assembly as marked off from Jew and Gentile. There was the Jew, the Gentile, and the church of God. In other words, it is in the assembly as under man's eye, where divine order (involving the relative place of man and woman) is seen, and where all are publicly committed to the death of Christ. What may go on in our souls is another matter, and our spiritual states will vary, but Scripture contemplates all as partaking of the Supper.
I would not undervalue for a moment the spiritual state by which we are enabled to appreciate the Supper; this the Lord takes account of, and it will involve power to pass over to His side as He is brought to our minds by the breaking of bread. The latter (passing to His side) is entirely a spiritual action and is outside of the world and nature altogether. It belongs to Canaan. The Supper is the introduction to it.
As regards the breaking of bread, it is quite clear to me that this is distinct from the communion; that is, the former is what Christ did, and we are to do it also. "The Lord Jesus ... took bread, and having given thanks, broke it and said ... this do". Hence, "the bread which we break". Nothing can be plainer
than this, it seems to me. Our partaking or eating is another thought -- this is communion. In other words, breaking bread is one thing, and eating another, both necessary to the Supper. J.N.D.'s remarks I do not well understand, but I judge he is dwelling on the communion side, evidently showing that this is distinct from the breaking of the loaf. But he does say the latter is 'absolutely necessary as a figure'. But we have to go by the Lord's words -- Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24.
I am glad you wrote me, and I do not think we differ very much on this point.
I must thank you again for all your kindness to me while in Liverpool. It is an advantage to me to have met the brethren in that district.
With love in Christ,
Affectionately in Him,
Dear Mr. Allen, -- I have to thank you for the two letters, and also for your 'Remarks' on the Supper. I had heard with regret of the dear Morfords' accident, but I am glad to find it was not so serious as was at first feared. I deeply regret dear Mrs. Raven's sorrow in the loss of her son. She has had sorrow upon sorrow, but the Lord's way is perfect. I trust she finds consolation in Him. As regards your paper, I am sorry to find such divergence of mind between us, and I note that Messrs. S.H. and D.L.H. share your views. I have weighed what you write and I cannot say that it helps me any or that I can alter anything I have said on the subject. As far as I understand you, you admit that the celebration of the Supper is in the wilderness, but as in 'the resurrection state'. That is, you agree with Mr. Darby on this point, quoting him approvingly. As I agree with him also, we are not far apart in this respect. As I said in my letter to you (and also to S.H.) I make full allowance for the spiritual state we may possess. Surely I am entitled to regard myself while at the Supper in the full light of what I am in Christ as the result of the death and resurrection. But we partake of the Supper, as
a matter of fact, in a place to which all this does not refer. My spiritual state and the light in which God takes account of me have reference to another scene altogether; but I remember Christ, as J.N.D. says, here 'in the wilderness'. But the Supper is more than a remembrance; it is communion in Christ's death. In this we judge and are separated from the idolatrous world outside. But in the breaking of bread the Lord is recalled to our minds, and as we accord Him His place, we are led into the assembly in its true character as risen with Him. As I said, my exercise is to have things as they are presented in Scripture. The subject raises the whole question of the difference between the wilderness and Canaan. The former has to be viewed in two ways. First, it is what the world is to the believer as justified by faith in Christ. Here he is tested, but God is with him and he carries out God's will, feeding on the manna. With this aspect Romans corresponds. Secondly, the wilderness is a scene in which God's people, viewed collectively, are placed by God, as called out from the world, in relation to His testimony. They are marked off as saints and they recognise the authority of the Lord Jesus -- whom the world crucified. The mind of God is known among them -- they are His temple -- they are God's assembly in contrast to Jew and Gentile; they are in the fellowship of the death of Christ; they are practically united -- one body; and divine order and intelligence is witnessed among them. This is 1 Corinthians and a comparison of this epistle with the early part of Numbers will show that the Spirit has made a special connection between these two sections of Scripture. It is in this connection the Supper stands in Scripture. Compare also the Acts. As I understand it, Scripture contemplates the assembly, as well as the individual believer, in the wilderness, but it has to be noted that the assembly convened is not the wilderness -- far from it, for there we escape wilderness conditions. But outwardly and as to actual fact, we are there, we come together in the scene of Christ's absence to partake of the Supper. And it has to be remembered that wilderness provision goes even over Jordan. The manna did not cease until the people ate of the old corn of the land. Christ as known in the wilderness is only replaced by Him as the heavenly Man in His own sphere. Canaan has also a double bearing, that is, it typifies a sphere of privilege, and of conflict. John's writings (his gospel and epistles), Colossians and Ephesians,
specially afford us the antitypes. These do not present the Supper -- God's work in the saints, eternal life, and God's counsels concerning Christ and the church are in view. Divine relationships -- our connection with them -- vitality -- affection, etc., are enlarged upon here. In a word it is not testimony in the wilderness (although this is involved) but what God has for His own pleasure and our eternal blessing. The church has to be taken account of according to what it is inwardly and outwardly -- the former has reference to the land, the latter to the wilderness. But the true power and bearing of the church's testimony in the wilderness depends upon what it is in its outward relationships. I believe the Supper is the link properly between the outward and the inward. I would further remark in this connection that the ground of the church is not simply resurrection -- resurrection falls short of the full position accorded to the church. For the proper ground of the assembly we have to go to Ephesians. Here she is not only risen with Christ, but seated in the heavenlies in Christ. It is as heavenly, she is the habitation of God here upon earth, and not simply as risen. I would not minimise the resurrection (God forbid!) it is the great testimony to God's power, and the platform upon which He accomplishes His counsels -- for this He must have man out of death; but the church's place is beyond it. The truth of the house of God is properly connected with Ephesus. I refer to this as a weighty fact, which, if we overlook, our testimony will be lower in principle than the divine standard. S.H.'s remark as to an Israelite bringing an offering into the court of the tabernacle is a good one. The man entered into a system of things that had a heavenly character. Inside the enclosure the man would not be in the wilderness strictly, for there would be nothing adverse there (except the sand under his feet), but the tabernacle was in the wilderness. Taking the tabernacle as figurative of the assembly, this expresses my point of view exactly. As to the Corinthians, you will easily understand from what I have said, that I do not consider what you say -- to show that they are viewed on resurrection ground -- as conclusive. That they were gathered on the ground of Christ's death and resurrection, is, of course, true; but this is not saying they are regarded as risen. If the Spirit of God wished us to understand that He viewed them as risen, He would undoubtedly say so, as in Colossians and Ephesians. He does not touch resurrection in 1 Corinthians until chapter 15 (except
in chapter 6, where it is treated as in chapter 15) and there Christ only is said to be risen -- the saints' resurrection is future. The saints at Corinth were the assembly of God there -- they were a company of men and women in that city that had been separated from the world by the testimony of the gospel. They were marked off there as God's assembly. Whereas, as risen with Christ we are in an out-of-the-world order of things. As risen with Christ we are over Jordan clearly -- qualified to be His companions. As to the temple in Corinthians, I do not think it is alluded to as a fixed abode in contrast to the tabernacle but rather that it was "holy". This they were by the death of Christ and as possessing the Holy Spirit. The tabernacle was in principle what they were (compare 2 Corinthians 6:16 where the temple is connected with God walking, also Leviticus 26:12 and Exodus 29:45). The body of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is not viewed as raised. The same remarks apply equally, in measure, to the "body" as viewed in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian saints were Christ's body as having the Spirit. Corinthians treats the body as it is now -- not exactly in relation to divine purpose -- this latter is Ephesians. But it is clear that they are regarded in this respect as in their flesh and blood condition -- their bodies were members of Christ. God had raised up the Lord and will raise us up "from among the dead by His power", chapter 6. This does not show that they were viewed on resurrection ground (compare Acts 9:4, 5; Acts 12:1, 2). As to the Supper being out of the view of the world -- that the doors were shut according to the gospel history, and that you know of nothing in Corinthians to change this, I would say that chapter 14: 24 is a proof that there was a change. I think too, that Acts 2:42 - 47 shows that things were more or less public. You say the testimony seen in the 'sacraments is for God, and not for the world'. I am entirely at a loss to know how our eating the Supper is an announcement to God that Christ died, or that baptism is not a testimony to the world that Christ's claim over the believer is recognised by him. As to the act of breaking bread I have hardly anything to add to what I said in my previous letters. I have been unable to look up J.N.D.'s paper to which you refer. It is likely that he was dealing with materialism -- that the element is changed by the action of the priest. At any rate, he says that the breaking of the bread is 'absolutely necessary as a figure'. However, as I said in my last, we have
to do with Scripture -- in this case, with the Lord's direct utterance "the Lord Jesus the same night ... took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:23, 24). He does not say 'this take', or 'this eat', but "this do". I would utterly refuse the idea that the person who breaks the loaf is acting in any special capacity -- he acts as one of the members and for all, but the Supper scene on the night of Christ's betrayal is recalled. We know from Matthew 14 and other passages, that the Lord was accustomed to break the bread, and unquestionably if His disciples had to sit down to a meal in His absence, one of them would do the same. Paul broke the bread at Troas (Acts 20). There would be no thought of assuming the Lord's place. It would be an act of necessity which some one has to perform, but it recalls Christ. The breaking was to render the bread in a condition to be eaten, but although a simple necessity for convenience, it had to be done, and the Lord did it when here, and so the action reminded the disciples of Him. Luke 24 is of full legitimate importance as showing the import of the "breaking of the loaf". The words 'breaking of bread' or 'to break bread' are almost a formula for the Supper, and this shows how wide the thought was in the mind of the Spirit and of the early Christians. I note your remark -- 'It is a serious matter'. It is a serious matter in another sense to me, for the authority of the Lord's words is at stake. If the thing has to be done, and the Lord tells us to do what He did, surely no one assumes to take His place in breaking the loaf.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
A Statement of Facts relating to the recent Case of Discipline in New York
As we have heard that some brethren at a distance have been disturbed by the reports which are being circulated of the case of discipline which we have thought necessary to exercise in this city of late, it seems to us that a brief statement of the facts may be of service.
For nearly two years there has been a disturbed condition in
the meeting at Brooklyn, which began by a contentious spirit shown in the readings on the part of certain brothers. Early in last year it became so serious that the brethren felt something should be done to modify or stop it entirely. On certain occasions painful scenes occurred. Brethren came together and it was found that three brothers were almost entirely responsible for this, and they were admonished by all to avoid participating in the meetings in a contentious or controversial way. In a short time, however, they reverted to their old ways, and again sorrowful scenes ensued. The brethren again came together, and these brothers were admonished a second time to desist. At the second meeting a question arose as to what could be done further if these brothers persisted in a course which was throwing the saints into confusion, and it was pointed out that in the event of this a severer discipline would have to be inflicted. About this time one of the brothers left the city permanently, and he expressed great regret for the part he had taken in the meetings. One of the other brothers also expressed sorrow for his part, and did not subsequently participate in the meetings in any contentious spirit. The third brother, Mr. F. Murphy, was very refractory and remained away from the meetings for some six weeks; and when the brethren visited him he alleged that they were governed by clerical principles, and that it was wrong to admonish him: that those who did so were governed by a partisan spirit. The brethren however, hoped for the best, so allowed him to come back and break bread; but we feel now that fellowship should have been refused him then until he had judged his ways. The brethren, however, treated him as one under discipline, but this he resented throughout, and took every opportunity to disregard our consciences. He waxed so bold in this that a third meeting had to be called. This meeting resulted in a meagre admission by Mr. Murphy that he had been wrong, and he expressed some sorrow for offending the brethren. We were most grateful for this, as can be understood, as we had hoped that God had been working with him leading to repentance. It soon appeared, however, that this was not so, as he again began to assume a contentious attitude in the meetings, and the brethren generally in the three meetings were forced to the conclusion that if he continued we should have to refuse to walk with him so as to maintain the order and holiness due to God's house.
It may be said here that during all these sorrowful experiences Mr. Murphy was directly and indirectly supported by quite a few in the meeting (although there was general agreement to the admonitions); were it not for this, as can be understood he would not have continued such a course.
In the month of July two readings were greatly disturbed, and at the close of the second it was laid upon some of us that the brethren should be asked to meet again to face the difficulty. All agreed to the meeting, which was held at the close of that week. The three meetings were well represented on this occasion, and there was a full discussion of all the facts referring to the matter. It was clear that most present had judged Mr. Murphy's course to be lawless and so we thought well to ask all the saints (brothers and sisters) to come together and lay the matter before them in an orderly way. The ground of our judgment that Mr. Murphy was a lawless man was, that he had pursued a course in the meetings which caused disorder and threw the saints into confusion, and that he had refused to listen to the admonitions of the brethren to desist from this course. Besides, he had gathered a party around him.
When all the saints were gathered on the appointed evening, the history of the case was related to them, certain brethren stating their individual exercises and giving their reasons for refusing to longer walk with Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy gave a long address in his own defence, and one of his supporters read some papers objecting to what the brethren felt they were forced to resort to. Mr. Murphy also stated he would be present on the following Lord's day to break bread, those who judged his course to be evil could not go there as this would involve confusion, and God is not the author of confusion but of peace. Consequently we broke bread elsewhere, and Mr. Murphy and his supporters met in the room and continued to meet there for some weeks. The room has since been given up by them, and we meet there at present as usual. It was found that the other two meetings in the city with two-thirds of the meeting of Brooklyn were unanimous in their refusal to walk with Mr. Murphy in Christian fellowship. We might add that the meetings in the district are in sympathy with us in what we have done, and, as far as we know, all the meetings in the States and Canada, who know of the difficulty, accept our action as right.
We are deeply humbled that such a state of things should have existed among us, but we have had distinct help from the Lord in seeking to meet it.
Beloved Brother, -- As to sonship I think in Ephesians it is connected with God's purpose. We were predestinated to it ... but it has also reference to us here in this world where God's testimony and service are to be maintained. Matthew treats of it in this connection. Galatians is for liberty -- we are no longer servants but sons. F.E.R. had on his mind the proper sphere of sonship but I do not think he would object to a present application such as I have spoken of. At any rate there is no question as to its correctness.
Thinking of the assembly in an abstract way I contemplate it as in God's mind for future display, or according to what it was in the beginning. There is the past and future glory: I seek to walk in the light of both.
As to Ephesians I think the epistle contemplates a state in that assembly answering in measure at least to the light presented. We cannot predicate of people something that is not true of them actually; unless we speak abstractly, i.e., unless we view them in the light of God's purpose and power. We are then entitled to call things which be not as though they were. But manifestly it would be damaging to a soul to say to him 'You are quickened with Christ' if he is not, for quickening is subjective work.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
As regards the Lord's breathing ... no doubt it took place historically in Acts 2.
Beloved Brother, -- Miss Elwood mentioned that you had made enquiry as to my view of Hebrews 2:12, and I think it well to send a line. It seems to me that to arrive at the truth we ought to seek to determine what the Lord had in His mind when He uttered these words. Did He take account of the assembly only in the light of God's purpose or did He also include in His mind her wilderness circumstances? My conviction is that the latter was not in the Lord's thought: that He contemplated the saints as gathered around Him, consequent on His death and resurrection, and so viewed outside of wilderness conditions. To apprehend the thing in a concrete way I think we have to go back to original conditions -- we have to do this indeed to rightly understand any church truth. And I would say that when the saints came together in assembly, the Lord came to them and this was realised. The Spirit does not record or give examples of the inward working of the assembly, viewed in this exalted position, after Pentecost. I think it is left to intelligent affection to find out. The scene after the Supper, when they sang a hymn, is the closest analogy, as to singing, but this was before death and resurrection. They were then on Jewish ground, afterwards the disciples would be regarded as His brethren before the Father -- now made known. But as to Hebrews 2, it is well to remember that it is not the unfolding of church truth, but to show the humanity of our Lord; therefore it is not a question of when He sings, but that He sings in the midst of the church. It is a characteristic function, as also the declaring of the Father's name to His brethren. It seems clear that the primary thought of the church is that those who form it should be together and its distinctive privileges are thus enjoyed. This shall be true eternally -- "caught up together". Much may be said of the wilderness, as involving God's ways, but it is incidental. But our wilderness position cannot be ignored, and I am sure it is not right to apply to us in it what Scripture connects with us only as viewed in the land.
I trust, dear brother, your health is much improved and that you find much cheer in serving Christ and His people.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Dear Brother, -- -I am in receipt of your letter of October 19th, and I am glad to send a line in reply. As to the wilderness, there are two ways as I understand, in which it has to be taken account of. First, it is the sphere in which the believer carries out the will of God and where he learns what is in his own heart, etc., and it sets forth the progress he makes from Egypt to Canaan. Secondly, the wilderness is the scene in which God's testimony (as the tabernacle represents it) is set forth. This is seen in the book of Numbers; in the antitype this involves the saints collectively and 1 Corinthians corresponds.
In this epistle the saints are viewed as God's assembly in Corinth -- not in heavenly places, or as risen with Christ but as called out of the world morally but actually still in it. It is God's assembly as distinct from Jew and Gentile. The Supper stands in this relation and hence I understand it is celebrated in the wilderness. The Supper is a remembrance and hence has no force where Christ is -- it refers to His absence. Normally the saints came together to break bread because they loved Christ. They felt His absence and the Supper reminded them of Him. If He is present we do not need a symbol to remind us of Him. He is made known in the breaking of bread.
The land I understand to represent what is entirely spiritual and is entered into only in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is an out-of-the-world or heavenly order of things. It is where Christ is known in His Own sphere. It will but lead to an unreal state in the saints to lead them to believe they are in a spiritual state when in truth they are not. Besides the breaking of bread contemplates us in flesh and blood, a condition which Jordan terminates. How then can it be Canaan?
I think John 20 and Ephesians correspond. The latter presents the conflict side, which the former does not.
I hope you will consider the above an answer to your letter in some sort.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Dear Brother, -- Colossians being corrective, the full church position is not stated -- deliverance from man's mind in its activity philosophically and religiously is in view. It is Christ
and what He is personally and our relationships with Him, and not His and our position in the counsels of God.
It is not a heavenly people on earth, but those who refuse the flesh (accepting Christ's circumcision as the end of it) and the world in which the flesh lives (baptism answering to this) but still exposed to the influence of man's mind. The doctrine and exhortations suppose a work of God in the saints but not to the extent that enables us to take complete church position.
I used to think that Colossians and John 20 were equivalent but now I see that the latter corresponds more to Ephesians. I think therefore, that while Colossians supposes the Christian circle it is not such as Ephesians would contemplate. Quickened together with Christ involves association with Christ in life but it does not go to the length of association with the ascended Man. Colossians contemplates a company on earth in the life of Christ, but not in the place designed for them in God's counsels. Christ is the hope of glory.
They are not there as in Ephesians. I would object, therefore, to Colossians being regarded as proper Christian ground.
There is great need of maintaining the balance between the objective and subjective. Wherever the desire for leadership exists the former is sure to be made much of and no doubt this is because the latter is necessarily wanting; if it is present we are content in obscurity.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- I am very glad to find that we are not far apart as to the subject in question -- Hebrews 2:12. I do not object to anything you say, only with yourself I think your view may be a bit too general. I doubt, however, that I can say anything to make the matter any clearer. But it is well to enquire fully, and we may be sure that when Christ only and the truth are before us, we shall get help. My conviction is that the Lord in using these precious words did not contemplate the saints as in their wilderness, or incidental, circumstances, but rather as a company -- the glorious result of His death. Were we to take the assembly as viewed only in the light of this passage we would think of it in no other circumstances than as
surrounding Christ -- going no more out. That is, we should not think of the wilderness. I am afraid therefore that if we make the "praise" here to include what may ascend from individuals as such we lower its character. I believe it refers to the assembly as outside all here, and that it extends beyond the present period. Indeed it does not specially refer to any period. From another point of view, I believe the words "in the midst" mean, in their ordinary force, that the saints are together.
I am thankful to hear of your cheer in the visit north, and that our health is much improved. I suppose the winter months will be severe on you. But I am sure you find the Lord's help in your weakness.
I wish we could see you in America!
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am very glad to have another letter from you, and especially for your remarks on the Supper, etc. In my last letter, my effort was to show that the passage of the Jordan, as a type, is connected with the experimental side; as to the people, it follows the brazen serpent and springing well; it involves, therefore, a spiritual state. It is true that 'in the mind of God' (for He can call things that be not, as though they were), all are over; but then the Scripture views us also in the wilderness; we have to be careful to note how Scripture presents the truth.
Now, where the antitype to the passage of the Jordan, and Canaan appears in the New Testament (as Colossians and Ephesians), it will be found that a spiritual state, or formation, in the saints is also introduced. On the other hand, epistles (such as Romans and 1 Corinthians), which view the saints in the wilderness, do not speak of their being quickened as a present fact. The truth is that baptism, rightly accepted, places one in the wilderness, but it does not place him in Canaan, it is by the power of the Spirit that he enters Canaan, although on the ground (objectively) of Christ having gone through Jordan before him. What I see, therefore, is that all who have accepted baptism, having the Spirit, are qualified for the Supper,
and may enjoy it in measure, although each may not have spiritual power to pass over to the Canaan side. Some may have this power and so enter into the truth and reality of the assembly viewed as a new creation. As to what we may be in the mind of God, this applies at all times as a matter of light, as well as when we are gathered together: that is, we can always revert to what we are in God's counsels.
But then the Scriptures contemplate us also, as we are actually down here, and it is in this connection the Lord's supper is found. But viewed in God's counsels, we are outside this state, hence, "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). If there is power for it, I believe that after the breaking of bread is the opportune time for entering into this; hence, I spoke of the assembly as a new creation, as properly connected with the latter part of the meeting for the breaking of bread. I note your remark 'I should have said that there is the distinction between male and female throughout, both before and after the breaking of bread'. But this would mean that we never rise to new creation collectively. In Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female.
When I say that "over Jordan" is on the experimental side, I do not mean that there is not a corresponding objective side, for there is; this is in the fact that Christ is over. Title to Canaan is for all, but entrance into it is by the Spirit; hence, as I said, it is found in Scripture side by side with a spiritual state in the saints. But to treat as Canaan what Scripture regards as the wilderness is confusion, and but reduces the character of the blessing involved in the former. And this is an end the enemy would like to reach. Canaan represents, typically, our highest privileges; there we feed on Christ, as the old corn, the ascended, heavenly Man. It is not the manna, or John 6; these refer to Christ coming down; the old corn is Christ having gone up. We do not enjoy this, as brothers or sisters; but as risen with Christ, and heavenly.
It is true that we may not rise from the level of male and female after the breaking of bread, but we are entitled to; but to do so before would be confusion, because the ordinance contemplates us in a flesh and blood condition.
As to the holiest, the reference to it in the New Testament alludes to the wilderness position, the tabernacle. But it is a thought beyond the Supper; the latter suggests the way into it.
It is true that as the sons of Aaron, our place is within, with Christ but this is not the ground we are on at the Supper. The Supper is the death of Christ, and this took place (typically) in the court of the tabernacle, actually outside the gate. It was public, and we are identified with it. But our place is inside with the Father, and we go in, as it were, through the Supper. The way is paved with the love of Christ.
As to your remark: 'All who have the Spirit are in Christ, etc.', I would say that this is true from the divine side, as you say, but I think we do well to bear in mind that "in Christ" in Scripture, is made to involve new creation. The truth of the body is involved in the Supper, but clearly, it is practical unity, as seen on earth, that is in view, and not the body viewed in God's counsels, as in Ephesians. In Corinthians, we are viewed as here in the flesh; hence "if one member suffer". I refer to this, as an important distinction; the truth of the body applies to us as we are in the world, as well as applying to us, viewed as in Christ, in God's world.
I am thankful that you and Mr. Gipps could go with what I said in a general way. I can say that I only desire what is according to the Word, and I shall be glad if you will point out anything that you may think contrary to it. I am sorry that so many whom I esteem differ from me on these points, but as far as I can judge, the oppositions offered to what I have said are not founded on Scripture.
I am much interested in what you mention as to St. Petersburg. I earnestly trust the dear saints there may be supported of the Lord. The special meetings with Mr. W. Johnson are now on at Winnipeg, and we are looking forward to Indianapolis at the end of this week. I trust there may be encouragement on your side, during the holiday meetings.
With warm love, I am,
Yours affectionately in Christ,
Dear Mrs. M------, -- As to your question about the Supper, Christ's body and blood being presented separately is the strongest possible way of presenting His death. The blood is separated from the body. Communion in both therefore is spoken of in contrast to "all that is contrary to God" (see
1 Corinthians 10:21, 22). Our eating and drinking is communion in Christ's death. But Christ's part in the Supper is not this, but in the bread broken (referring to His body given) and in the cup (referring to His blood poured out). There is what is presented to us in the Supper and then our communion in that which is presented.
But the body and blood of Christ have severally a distinct meaning. The blood clearly represents the precious life of Christ given up for us, and hence it speaks of divine love: the body of Christ was that in which He carried out God's will: but His going into death sets our will aside. We have no right to a will therefore so we cannot be independent. Besides in partaking of the loaf we are committing ourselves to the truth of the "one body", and so we must regard our brethren in everything we may do as walking through an idolatrous world.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- Resurrection is not peculiar to the church: the whole twelve tribes were represented in the death and resurrection of Christ -- the twelve stones in Jordan and at Gilgal -- but the tribe of Levi had something special. They had the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire -- the Lord Himself and the Priesthood as their inheritance; then they had cities to live in. In the antitype, this latter means that our living associations are heavenly for our city is heavenly Jerusalem. Our associations are marked by life of course -- the city of the living God, but alongside this we have heavenly Jerusalem and the assembly of the firstborn who are enregistered in heaven. And it will not do to make John's gospel and Colossians equivalent. The former is the heavenly on earth. This is true not only as to Christ, but also as to the saints forming the church (chapter 20). They are the brethren of the heavenly or ascending Man, and they are formed inwardly by the truth of the ascended Man. John 20 involves Genesis 24.
I see nothing to hinder us from walking with our brethren, seeking to take the best view of what they present; at the same time holding fast in our own souls what has come down to us through God's great favour, and ministering it frankly and fully as the Lord gives opportunity. We may be sure that God
will be with His truth, and that in time all who love it will discern it. Nothing is more to be dreaded than the spirit of party.
Unless our great and unique place as the companions of the risen ascended Man is maintained and enjoyed (and the latter is in the assembly convened) the heavenly colour will disappear and we shall drop to the level of man on earth.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- As to Colossians and Ephesians there is clearly a correspondence between the former and 1 John. The subject of 1
In truth I believe the truth is making headway, and there is an adjustment going on. The Lord's good hand is over His people preserving them and the truth with them.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I think all this exercise as to Colossians and Ephesians will work out for good. Romans and Ephesians are not corrective epistles; the former lays the ground for the latter -- compare Romans 8:29, 30; and 16: 25, 26. God brought Israel out of Egypt that He might being them into Canaan. Colossians is not Canaan, but the way into it. It is on the experimental side; it is necessary on account of the
flesh in us. But viewed from the divine side, Ephesians follows Romans. Ephesians shows how God takes us from a state of death and as under Satan's power, and sets us down in heaven in Christ. This is full Christian position, and it is the ground we should take in the faith of our souls. Colossians shows how the believer enters into this in a practical way now; hence we have circumcision, burial, resurrection with Christ by faith, and quickening with Christ. These things are most blessed, especially that we are risen and quickened with Christ; they involve wonderful spiritual experience -- but they are a means to an end and not the end. The end is heaven, hence we have, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above" (Colossians 3:1). God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ, and He has made us to sit down in the heavenlies in Christ, and we are thus entitled to take this ground in the faith of our souls, both as involving privilege and testimony. "In Christ" in Ephesians has reference to His full official place as Head. Some speak of it as abstract, meaning that we are not there literally, and that thus in is used instead of with. We are not there literally, but the statement has in view our being there literally, and when we are there literally, the statement will have the same force that it has now -- it will not be dropped. All shall be headed up in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth. We shall truly sit with Christ on His throne, but Ephesians is God's purpose and hence Christ's full place as Head is in view, and so in is right -- with does not go beyond quickening. It fits in on the road to purpose and is most precious; but as we love Christ, we are glad to recognise His full official place.
I agree that sonship in Galatians is the light in which God regards all Christians, and affections are formed according to the relationship.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
Dear Miss Elwood, -- As to 'ground', the ground I take is that I am heavenly, and heaven is my place; this is my calling, and I wish to walk worthy of it. Who can deny, in the light of Ephesians, that this is normal christian ground? As to being raised with Christ and not ascended; the former is no more true than the latter. We are not actually raised, and
we are not actually ascended; but both are true in faith. It is a question of God's counsel and power; and in the light of Ephesians, all is regarded as accomplished. Faith takes account of things as God does and He calls things that be not as though they were. "Whom he has justified, these also he has glorified" (Romans 8:30, N.T.). In truth the possession of the Spirit involves that we are glorified; F.E.R. said this. We are as much seated in the heavenlies in Christ as we are risen with Him. "In Christ" is characteristic of Ephesians and makes for His full official place in God's counsels. Others, as well as we, are in Him, for, it is God's thought to head up all things in Him; but we are in Him in a special way, for we are seated in the heavenlies in Him, "blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ". It is true that "risen with Christ" is wonderful ground to be on, and I believe "risen with" is peculiar to Christians; but it is on the road to heaven and not heaven, or full Christian ground. As a matter of fact Romans lays the ground for Ephesians from the divine side (compare Romans 8:29; and 16: 25, 26). Colossians is the experimental side. It shows how we enter in. Privilege refers to what we are called to, not the way we reach what we are called to. Gilgal is most important for us, on account of the flesh, but it is not referred to when the land is spoken of as the sphere of purpose. Joshua and Caleb presented the tidings of the land, and although they had to go through Jordan and Gilgal, they would always think of the whole land as that to which they were called. This is the ground they would take. The people were brought out that they might be brought in. Colossians is the way in experimentally, because of the flesh, but Ephesians shows us how God takes us out of death, and the power of the enemy, and places us in heaven. Here (Ephesians 2) there is neither baptism nor circumcision: but it gives the full church position, and as we take the ground there is conflict. We are entitled to take it, both as involving privilege and blessings and testimony.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I regret I have been so long in answering your letter of May 11th. I like what you say as to F.E.R.'s ministry. A ministry of the Spirit will always have reference
to the then state of the saints, and hence, as you say, full justice will be done to the side of the truth that may be considered necessary to press. Thus, while statements contained in such ministry have their own weight, they cannot be considered as final. As to Colossians, that resurrection ground viewed by itself, is not heavenly ground is as certain as anything can be. I remember hearing of F.E.R. whistling in ridicule when told that a brother said at a reading on Colossians that resurrection took us to heaven. We all know how he used to speak of eternal life not going beyond the earth, and how he connected it with the Christian circle. He distinguished the heavenly position from this, but we have to rely on Scripture and Colossians does not treat of a company viewed in heavenly places, nor of a heavenly people on earth; but a risen people, who are exhorted to set their minds on things above where Christ is ... heaven is set before them, not yet accepted as to position. I believe the Lord is helping as to these things, especially on your side. I believe brethren generally are recognising the importance of insisting on the heavenly position, while clinging to resurrection as the victory of God over Satan and death. Too much can scarcely be made of resurrection and I am thankful it is so prominent. As to John 20, I have never taken the Lord's act of breathing into His disciples as anything more than signifying that they should partake of His life, that this took place actually at Pentecost. But breathing into them is a much more endearing transaction, and more intimate, than sending the Holy Spirit from heaven. John 20 is pattern, as we have often heard, the Lord's ascension is assumed, otherwise He would not take the ground of giving the Holy Spirit (John 7), but then really He had not ascended, and so the Holy Spirit was not given. All is pattern and was made good historically at Pentecost. But when the Holy Spirit did come the disciples would know that as well as having a personal Comforter, they had the very Spirit and life of Christ. This they would understand from the Lord's action in John 20.
We had a good time during our special meetings. We looked at Proverbs connecting wisdom with the gospel and the mystery.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Yours of September 13th reached me in London last week, also the papers you sent. As I am much pressed for time I am unable to write at length, but I wish to say at once I have no sympathy with what I have seen in extracts and quotations from C. W------. As to our Lord's Person he says somewhere that God has no equal. This and all it represents in Mr. W------'s mind is shocking, both as derogatory to the Lord's Person and the opposite to what Scripture states (Philippians 2 and John 1). It may be said that Philippians 2:6 is before incarnation, which is true, but the fact remains that a Person is there said to be equal with God, and this Person remains unchanged in incarnation, the same yesterday, today and forever. Besides in John 5, the Lord formally insists on His equality with the Father as Son in this world, the Jews said "making himself equal with God;" they understood well what the Lord meant. If Mr. W------ had been there, he would have had to correct them, but the Lord did not, although the Jews would have stoned Him for what He said. Much may be said, if we are spiritual enough for it, as to the wonderful downstooping of the Lord to carry out God's will, but "the Son" is a term which covers His Person and to say that the Son is inferior to God or the Father is blasphemy outright, and should be refused at every point. Mr. W------ has allowed his mind to work in the matter and has been misled. I am truly sorry for him.
He incidentally holds the Lord's Deity, and there is hope for him, but we have to deal with his words, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:37).
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I have to thank you for your letter and papers. I am glad to have these notes as a testimony to what J.N.D. and J.B.S. thought as to the subject of the Lord in the midst of His own. I do not know whether you have seen some readings in Crieff many years ago with J.B.S., in which the latter quotes J.N.D. as holding that the Lord comes into the
midst of the meeting; and emphasising this fact by some remarks of his own to the effect that the Lord went out of the meeting. I have not the book by me. As you are aware I have had a good deal of exercise as to this new idea, of the Lord having come in to abide in the assembly, and have had a good deal of correspondence with those who are responsible for it. It may be said that there is nothing vital, and, in a sense, this is true -- indeed I have taken this ground and have no difficulty in going on with those dear brethren. But if the idea is unscriptural, it is like a screw loose in a machine, which is sure to work more damage if unremedied. There is the question of the authority of Scripture, and if I am allowed to teach from John 20 that the Lord has come in to abide, I may teach anything I please, if allowed the same liberty with other passages -- for John 20 teaches the opposite of what is stated, if facts and language are allowed their own testimony. If Christ is admitted to be in the midst unqualifiedly (moreover, and mark that it is the church, as a whole apart from conditions) the minds of the saints become accustomed to this idea, and the state needed for the Lord's presence will be overlooked and the claims of Open Brethren and other independent bodies cannot be denied, for we cannot deny that they form part of the church. Of course, it is very nice to say the Lord is always in the midst, and this will be accepted without a question unless we are accustomed to prove all things by Scripture, and one hates to say anything that would deprive the saints of the comfort of knowing that the Lord is always with them, especially as it is preciously true in another sense, where there is uprightness of walk, and indeed, He never withdraws His eye from the most wayward of His own. All this belongs to another line of truth. What we are dealing with is a chapter that involves assembly privilege; witness the way Scripture is handled (as evidencing what I have said above) by an article called 'The two companies' in this month's 'Mutual Comfort'. The Scriptures under consideration are John 12 and 17. It is said from these chapters, that what marks the Christian company is that Christ is in the midst (underlined) and that everything flows from this. The most superficial perusal of the chapters will show that the Lord contemplates going out of the world to the Father, for He would send the Spirit who would be another Comforter. He would take the place of Christ until Christ should come back for His own. In addition to the coming of
the Comforter, He would come Himself, but He does not say to abide; clearly this is special. He was to be with the Father, and they in the world, but they to pray to Him (according to this paper referred to, He prays in the assembly, page 296). Scripture speaks of Him as our Advocate with the Father. I might say much more as to what is put forward in this paper, how that, while there is much one can heartily endorse yet the true situation is beclouded, that is Christ in heaven as an Object of faith, and the promise of divine Persons coming to us, all these things are deranged by the article. But I have confidence in the Lord that there will be exercise, so that the balance of the truth may be preserved amongst us, and that brotherly love may abide.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Mr. Sinclair, -- Thanks for yours of November 25th and enclosure. I am sure Miss Elwood will be sorry that you do not allow your address to be published. I doubt very much that the saints are overtaxed with written ministry. For myself, I read almost everything published amongst us, and I never feel that the writer of any book or paper has done me an injustice in giving me an opportunity of looking over the result of his exercises. Of course, if things put out are unscriptural it is another matter. I doubt that saints are hindered in reading their Bibles by reading current literature published amongst us; it is more likely that they are hindered in reading something that would minister more to the flock. Reading notes of an address is the next best thing to listening to it. If the publisher does not suffer, I doubt if anyone else does.
I enclose a letter from Miss Elwood which you both may be glad to see; also 'Recollections' as to Plymouth. Please return. I also enclose medical prescription you kindly sent Arthur some time ago. Pardon delay in returning it.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are with us and we get along well together. We had a good day at Plainfield, and his meetings here have been very helpful, and much appreciated by all. They hope to sail on December 13th. I am glad G. Harrison went to Council Bluffs. I hear they had a good time.
Notice of your proposed meetings duly came. I hope to be with you, please God. I do not think anyone else will go from here. The brethren at Cambridge are arranging meetings for Christmas, and wish me to go. I am hardly able to decide in view of going to Indianapolis. I would very much like to go.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- You must pardon my long delay in answering yours of May 11th. I would have written from the steamer, but I did not feel so much up to writing as usual, and I had a great deal of urgent matters to attend to, and you kindly intimated that your letter was not urgent. On arrival here there were special meetings on, and this took up a great deal of my time.
Now as to the Lord's presence at the breaking of bread, I think I fully understand your difficulty. Let me say at the outset that I quite accept that the Lord is with His people (assuming that they are seeking to follow righteousness) at all times when they are together, especially for support and protection. I always feel like nestling under the wing of His protection when gathered with His people. This involves the care which His love prompts, and which His power affords. Matthew 18 is on this line, especially as to support.
But however blessed all this is, it is not full assembly privilege. This involves that the Lord comes to us as Head, and leads us into the consciousness of our relation with Him before the Father.
I am sure a moment's reflection will enable any thoughtful person to see that this is altogether to be distinguished from the Lord's presence in the way of authority and protective and sustaining power in connection with our wilderness circumstances. I wish I knew more of the distinction myself, and my constant prayer is that the saints may be exercised as to the full privilege of the assembly that we may know what it is to be for Christ and so to be with Him outside of what we are in flesh and blood.
I cannot see why it is not seen to be quite inconsistent and indeed confusing to identify this with the actual breaking of bread, for the latter is a remembrance whereas the former is the presence of the One we love. I believe a good deal of the
difficulty lies in not distinguishing between the assembly (a company composed of men and women) as seen historically down here in connection with the ways of God, and the assembly viewed as a wholly spiritual formation, in connection with God's eternal purpose.
As to whether we remember the Lord as He is or as He was -- my understanding is that we remember Him -- the Person who is absent. The Lord did not ask the disciples to remember Him as He was. He said, "This do for remembrance of me". I always think of christendom as guilty of forgetfulness of Christ.
With much love, I am,
Yours affectionately in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- What you refer to as to the city and eternal life has been on my mind also. One thing I see is that a primary may become relative, and so serve God's purpose in time in meeting the result of sin. Eternal life comes in in that way. It appears in contrast to death, but at the same time it was the condition in which God purposed man to be before Him eternally. So it abides essentially. Then as to the city, while in Revelation 21 it is spoke in connection with the eternal state of things the tabernacle idea takes its place. "The tabernacle of God is with men" was what heaven understood.
Besides the description given shows that it is a question of what the church is to be for Christ eternally as well as being God's tabernacle. "Prepared as a bride adorned for her husband". "Holy city" and "New Jerusalem" are obviously relative terms, but "tabernacle" refers to an abiding place.
That in which light and rule were administered in the millennium becomes the eternal dwelling place of God -- "with men". Identity is maintained in the term "city;" as I write the matter is clearer to my own soul.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I must ask you to pardon my long delay in answering yours of November 2nd, I have been greatly pressed for time.
I judge you quite understand my thought as to Romans 7 and 8. It is that in the former we have the covenant, in principle, in the Lord's body given in death for us; the result is that we are married to Him as raised from the dead. Chapter 8 is His power -- by which we are supported. He supports us in the wilderness out of it. "Right hand" is expressive of power. The Lord holds the seven stars (to which you refer) in His right hand. I have no doubt this refers to how He upheld the early church, or those responsible in it. It was by the Spirit, of course.
As to the candlestick, the early church was this, and owned as such, but the expression is not used after Ephesus. I have no doubt, however, that the public body was recognised as such up till Thyatira. Here there is the formal acknowledgement of a remnant, and this implies that the "many" were given up. There had been, as it were, the trial of jealousy and the woman was found guilty. She is definitely judged (Revelation 2:22, 23) and a remnant formally owned. We can, I think, easily see that what is thus judged cannot be owned as the candlestick. Henceforth it is a remnant, and this means that that of which it was a remnant had failed, and so something else must now come in to maintain the testimony -- that is, the public kingdom (chapter 2: 27 - 29). In Sardis the Lord simply has the stars. It does say He holds them in His right hand. But He has the seven Spirits of God -- the seven lamps are not now seen. The seven Spirits are the perfection of power -- His "right hand", as we may say -- but this power is in view of another order of things now (compare chapter 4: 5). There is still light on earth, thank God (Philadelphia), but this is not the candlestick.
I have been hearing of Mrs. Stewart's affliction in the severe illness of her sister, Mrs. Thornton. I understand that Mrs. Thornton is having a victorious end, and I thank God for this. By this time she may be with the Lord and this will be a happy release for her. I trust the circumstances may be blessed to her husband.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
P.S. -- The understanding of Revelation is largely the forming of a spiritual judgment of the facts presented.
My Dear Mr. Henderson, -- I am in receipt of your two letters written from Hull.
The news of dear Mr. Pellatt's departure from our midst had already come, but as your letter contained most particulars it was read to the saints assembled at Plainfield. I need not speak of my deep sorrow in the loss of one known so intimately during almost the whole of my Christian life. I know of no one who loved the truth more than he did, and I never knew him to flinch when it was involved.
When we consider the great ability he had to present it, and his long and varied experience in dealing with souls, the loss occasioned by his removal from amongst us is much more than may be assumed by most. But clearly his work was done, and to the heart of anyone who seeks to serve Christ it is most encouraging to note His gracious ways with our dear brother before taking him to Himself. Had he been taken before going to England, a cloud would have remained in the minds of many as to his real character and worth, which (now that they have had opportunity to see and hear him) must have altogether disappeared. His best ministry was, I believe, on your side; and, in supporting him thus, the Lord honoured His servant, and showed that, whatever others may have thought, He knew that he loved Him.
Mr. Sinclair was greatly attached to Mr. Pellatt, and with many of us, feels keenly our great loss, but we are all greatly comforted by the consideration shown him by the Lord. As yet we have received no word of the funeral, but no doubt this will soon come to hand. I am wondering if you returned to London to attend it. I hope you did.
Mr. Sinclair and myself were wondering whatever notes may be available of our dear brother's late ministry should not be collected, and perhaps a selection could be made and revised and published, which would represent what the Lord was pleased to give through him at the close of his service. I am sure that any labour thus spent would be more than repaid.
The meetings at Plainfield were good on the whole. The attendance was larger than I have seen at any time in this country, and a remarkably good interest and spirit throughout. There may not have been the same definiteness in the line of things before us as on previous occasions, but through the
Lord's good hand upon us, all was for profit and edification.
We considered Hebrews (suggested by Mr. Jerrard) at the readings. I felt there was special help as we dwelt on chapters 7 and 10. There was considerable difference of judgment as to the priesthood, and a good deal of discussion at one meeting; but as the Lord's grace was upon all, I believe it was perhaps the best meeting of all.
There were two 'open meetings;' at the first Dr. Venkata, Gill and Lock spoke in the order given; at the second, W. Johnson, Steven and Truan spoke. On Lord's day afternoon, Mr. Jerrard spoke, and Gill preached in the evening.
Dr. Venkata is now staying with me, and will remain ten days or so. He preached in Brooklyn last night; we did not remain in Plainfield for the preaching.
Mr. Johnson's ministry here is very helpful to many. He has some thought of going to Toronto, and I hope he will, as I believe ministry is what they need most perhaps.
We had a good voyage across through mercy, and I found all well.
Mr. Jerrard and myself have been speaking freely together as to matters on your side, and I trust good may come out of it. I hope to write more later. Much love,
Affectionately in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am very sorry to have delayed so long in replying to yours of January 11th. I have been some-what poorly for some time with a bad cold; besides, my hands have been more than full with work.
As to the application of Old Testament types, I think we have to carefully compare New Testament light as to the subject that may be in question. The first epistle to the Corinthians is, so to speak, the law of the house. There 'the flesh had worked' and 'was working', and yet the apostle does not intimate that anyone going there would be defiled. Of course, if the evil were not judged, all would be defiled, but the epistle shows that there may be evil in a meeting, and yet all not be regarded as defiled. Many in the meeting may have judged it, but through weakness have not been able to deal with it
according to God. They are waiting on God in patience.
God owns this, and they are morally clean, or clear on the matter. The epistle says that there must needs be divisions (or sects) that the "approved may be made manifest among you". The approved are not unclean, surely. God would make them manifest through divisions, and it is for the saints to recognise this.
In the type you refer to (Leviticus 14) it is said that God would put leprosy in a house; but in 'shutting up a meeting', as we speak, we do not assume that leprosy is there; the Spirit of Christ would lead us to hope for the best, and it is not just to assume that evil exists until the proof of it is established. Grace would assume the contrary, and certainly, if there are those in the locality whom God approved, they are not leprous. Therefore I do not see that brethren elsewhere should ask saints in a locality to cease breaking bread unless known evil is there, except as a precautionary measure. It must be, to some extent, a matter of mutual agreement, resorted to in wisdom; for Scripture does not warrant the refusal of fellowship to saints, unless they are committed to evil.
Saints at Boston or Toronto are not to be regarded as unclean, their position is simply precautionary, as they are not committed to evil.
Much more could be said on this point, but I cannot proceed further, as I wish to catch the mail. I hope to be on your side in April, and I may have opportunity of having a word with you. My wife joins in love to you and all in your house.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Please pardon my delay in answering yours of January 30th. I have been greatly pressed for time and so put off writing until now.
I do not know what letter you quoted from, but the quotation itself I hardly recognise.
I hold to the principle contended for in the Glanton controversy that the Lord has rights in each locality where His people are gathered and these were interfered with by Glanton at Alnwick, and would be interfered with by any similar action.
But what I see is this, that unless we can prove that evil exists and is countenanced in a meeting, those elsewhere cannot demand that they cease to break bread. To suggest that they should do so is another matter as this would be placing things on another basis, namely that of wisdom, a resort to precaution to a good end.
But the persons who thus cease to break bread are not thereby out of fellowship, nor rendered unclean. Therefore if one of them went elsewhere and he was requested to refrain from breaking bread it would be on the same ground. It is all provisional, and based on wisdom and love, a love which admits of forbearance. We do not assume that the person is unclean and unfit for fellowship.
Whatever I may have said in my letter that you refer to above, this is what I meant.
You will see that I am on my way to your side, and I hope to land at Southampton on Friday.
Love to your wife and yourself.
Affectionately in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- Both my wife and I were very pleased to get your letter of February 7th and we read it with much interest. I took you at your word, and did not answer at once! I am always much pressed for time, like yourself.
I like all you say as to Luke. We looked at this gospel at special meetings at Indianapolis in connection with the Lord's humanity, and found much profit.
I am not so sure as to what you say about the "treasure" and "pearl" in Matthew 13. I think both refer exclusively to the church, as is usually understood. First, the teaching of the chapter in a general way confirms me in the thought. Second, the fact that the Lord alludes to them in the house as distinct phases of the kingdom also suggests that they refer to the church. Then, the emphasis laid on them as of the greatest comparative value would also direct the mind to the church. The merchant was looking for goodly pearls, but having found one of great value he sold all and bought it. The mind is so directed to one thing of great value, that it seems to me
that nothing but the church could answer to it. I will be glad if you will write further on the point -- or perhaps I may see you somewhere. I am on my way to your side, as you can see. I hope to arrive in Southampton on Friday, and will D.V., spend the weekend at Barnet. Then I go, D.V., to Belfast, and then to Scotland. I hope to be in London the weekend of April 18 - 19th.
My wife and I were very glad to hear your school was full. We can be thankful for the prosperity that God thus gives, as we are set for his interests. He withholds no good thing from those who walk uprightly.
Very glad to hear of Mr. Moody, but sorry to hear of his wife's illness. I trust God will be merciful to her. Give them my love, also give my love in Christ to Mrs. Brown.
Affectionately in Him,
P.S. -- Thanks for your invitation to Bexhill -- but I do not see how I can go. My time is very limited, and I have made promises to go to more needy places. -- J.T.
My Dear Brother, -- Please pardon my delay in answering yours of May 14th. My wife and I have been away for a visiting tour in the South and West. We had an enjoyable time -- two weeks of meetings. My sister-in-law was with us. Previous to that we had the special meetings here at the end of May -- so my hands have been more than full.
I am glad to have word of your time in Manchester which I am sure was helpful.
It does not seem that we have been mutually helpful in our correspondence over Matthew 13. I go with you as to the kingdom running on to the millennium; but I think you generalise too much, and overlook the ecclesiastical (or "church") feature of Matthew. It is the most ecclesiastical of all the gospels. Chapter 13 is a new beginning by the Lord, and it is by the sea-side -- it is outside the narrow limits of Judaism. It is the world-wide proclamation of the word of the kingdom, and the public results. In view of this -- that it is the kingdom,
as specially seen in the present dispensation -- it is inconceivable to me that the Lord could have anything else than the church in His mind when He spoke of the "treasure" and the "pearl". The idea of a remnant was not new -- although ever precious to God -- but the treasure and pearl suggest something unusual. The "merchant man" was seeking pearls, but he found "one pearl of great price". It seems to me that the tenor of Scripture as to the church makes it perfectly clear that it is alluded to in the pearl. "He ... went and sold all that he had" would indicate that the Lord gave up His Jewish rights (so to speak) for the church. I fear I am not saying much more than I said in my last letter, but I have weighed the matter, and I am assured that I am not misinterpreting the chapter.
My wife joins in Christian love.
Affectionately in Him,
Beloved Brother, -- It was a pity you were unable to come to Bristol to attend the special meetings. It would have been a comfort if you were even present in the city without attending the meetings! But the will of the Lord be done. I am sure we had your prayers.
I was so glad to have had the little time with you -- I remember it with pleasure. I trust you feel fairly well through God's great mercy. I am thankful to have heard further from yourself as to your bodily ailments -- one can pray more intelligently.
I found much cheer during my visit to your side. We had readings on Mark in Belfast -- chapters 1 to 9. These I have just revised for publication. In Glasgow there was a good season. There is a most distinct work of God there. Four or five who take the lead are especially set for Christ and His interests. Several have returned from Glanton lately.
The Bristol meetings were good, to say the least. I trust "much fruit" may result. The way the Lord is keeping His hand over His people and interests is most affecting, and gives every assurance that He will preserve a light to Himself "in Jerusalem" till the end. I was particularly thankful that the
necessity for keeping the feast of unleavened bread was prominent at Bristol. It is quite clear that if we do not keep that feast, we cannot hope to enjoy together the precious things of Pentecost -- the things of the Spirit.
I trust you will be helped in bringing round the notes on Leviticus. They are needed.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am glad to have D.L.H.'s paper, which seems right on the whole.
The remarks on the believer's body need guarding lest it might be assumed that the 'title of the State to them' is absolute.
Caesar's image and superscription is not (or should not be) on the believer's body, but rather God's image and superscription.
The State therefore cannot claim it rightly in an absolute way. It is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be allowed under other control, it must be ever held subject to the will of God. But, of course, Romans 13 is the will of God governing the body in relation to the powers that be.
The State may lay claim, and I submit to a point, but it ever remains true that we must obey God rather than man.
In giving money in the way of tribute there is a difference, for it comes under the absolute control of the State.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Brother, -- I am glad to have your letter and your little book. Both are interesting indeed. I like the little book, and I may say I quite go with what you say in it. I have felt a danger existed of laying down a rule, written or unwritten, for the young men which would tend to bring about bondage. What helps, I think, is to make principles that should guide clear, so that each one should be exercised before God, and so act in his own faith before Him. There is such general weakness
that burdens should not be imposed that some are not able to bear. The Lord's people are found in so many circumstances that are objectionable to the spiritual mind, and yet seemingly unavoidable, that one feels the safe course, and the course in which the Lord is best served, is to go on himself with what is right, and seek to enlighten all with the truth according to one's apprehension of it, and let God work. Otherwise there will be a tendency to set up a rule 'what brethren hold' calculated to govern the saints in a given connection which is sure to be narrower than the truth, and which will tend to sectarianism and bondage.
It is true that I made a remark at Bristol as to the difference between one's body and one's money, that the former does not belong to Caesar. This is clearly right, but at the same time I am not prepared to say that a brother should not obey the Government when it requires him to do something that in itself may not be wrong or harmful. There does not seem much difference between such service and that of a slave in the early days of Christianity. Volunteering is another matter. If a brother wishes to volunteer, the Word says, "ye have been bought with a price, do not be the bondmen of men".
As to the actual taking of life, I think the Christian should stop there. It seems to me that God's hand should be gratefully recognised in the provision made in the Parliament Act for the conscientious objector. In this, I believe, Satan was defeated. There can be no doubt that he is specially set against the young men. How important, therefore, that they should have right principles before them, and a right understanding with an exercised conscience.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
My Dear Mr. Deck, -- I am very pleased indeed to have a letter from you. I thank you for it and for the numbers of your little serial. I have read all with much interest. The manager of the tract depot here is thankful that you are free to give his address for helpful ministry.
Mr. Hornsby mentioned in a recent letter having spent a
little holiday with you, which was mutually enjoyable. My wife is his niece, as you may know.
As to the matter of closing the meeting formally, my objection to this is that it is not in keeping with the Lord's right there. It is true the meeting has to end, for the saints have to return to their ordinary duties, etc., but I believe that the principle and dignity of the assembly as convened, and the Lord's supremacy in it, should be before us on Lord's Day morning, and this precludes a brother formally closing the meeting. Two meetings are alluded to in John 20, O. but the termination of either is not referred to -- although we know the first must have come to an end, or there could not be a second on the following eighth day.
I am not quite sure that your remarks as to older brethren maintaining she meeting in the event of too long pauses, etc., would not be keeping up appearance and hiding the real state of those composing it. I am sure it is right and safer for each to be before the Lord in his soul and participate according to the intelligence and grace he may have. This makes room for the Lord's guidance and the action of the Spirit.
The Lord cheers us in these parts. We are having good readings in Samuel. We hope to have special meetings here at the end of May.
With love in Christ, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- I am glad to have your letter of May 30th, which came two days ago. In view of your explanations I believe further correspondence may be of mutual help.
As said in my previous letters, my objection has been to the published statement on page 316 of December Mutual Comfort, and I regret to have to say that my difficulty still remains, notwithstanding that you have altered it. The altered statement reads: 'If the church (having been set up in the position of a responsible witness on earth) had not failed it could not have been translated (for its translation would have been inconsistent with the ways of God, as seen in Adam, Noah, Israel, the priesthood, David's house, and Nebuchadnezzar)'.
In spite of the modifying parenthesis, I have to say that the statement is not the truth. 'Could not have been translated' cannot be supported by Scripture, I am confident: indeed it is contrary to the plain teaching of the Word, as I have said in former letters. The fact that it was made in other connections is no justification for a statement that is contrary to any given scripture or scriptures, as this is to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4.
But I know you hold to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4, hence I am free to speak plainly as to your words, which are contrary to these scriptures. Indeed you strongly disclaim any thought of connecting your statement with these scriptures. I quote from your letter: 'The sentence in question you say is contrary to John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4. I agree if it had been so used'. Here the question arises as to whether any scriptural subject can be dealt with unless the passages that deal with it are allowed to speak. If so, the establishment of error is an easy matter. Whatever the context of a scripture it is well to remember the Lord's words, "the scripture cannot be broken". On the other hand it is true that if contexts are ignored the Scriptures themselves at times seem contradictory, but where is the scripture that says, or even seems to say that the church, as set up in responsibility, could not be translated had it not failed?
In all I have said your contention that the church's position of responsibility on earth is not found in the scriptures mentioned has been assumed. But as far as I understand John 14, the assembly's responsibility on earth during the Lord's absence is very distinctly taught there. Indeed that whole section of the gospel (chapters 13 to 17) has in view the preparation of the saints for this very thing. Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial of the Lord undoubtedly point to certain church history -- history found in Revelation 2. Such would cause a troubled heart. The Lord would assure His own and establish them in confidence in Himself "Believe also on me" implies responsibility. This is confirmed in verse 12, for the Lord says further, "He that believes on me the works that I do shall he do", and so elsewhere in the chapter. It is in this connection we have, "I am coming again and shall receive you unto myself". Then as to 1 Thessalonians, it would be hard to show that the church's responsibility in some measure is not found there, and even in the very context in which the 'rapture' appears.
As to the church's tenure of witness-bearing on earth, this would necessarily end at the coming of the Lord. There is no thought of the church continuing indefinitely -- "till I come" was to be the limit. The Lord's coming was not contingent on the church's failure. Besides her position was essentially different from those who witnessed before her (Adam, Noah, Israel, etc.); they were indigenous to their environment; she is an exotic. She belongs to heaven and must go to heaven. It is true that the Lord's coming is a necessity now on account of the church's failure, but this does not set aside His primary announced thought of coming for her and she reigning with Him.
I have heard from Mr. Henderson that you were in Yorkshire. I am glad you had cheer. We had a good season at our meetings here. We read in Ephesians. I hope to go to Hamilton, Ontario, for meetings in July. R.S.S. and perhaps F.L. are going to Knoxville.
You may have heard of the trouble in the firm of M------ and G------. The president had taken a large sum of money as a loan and used same for private enterprise, and this crippled the firm. A reorganisation is likely.
My wife joins in love to Mrs. Giles and yourself.
Affectionately in Christ,
Beloved Brother, -- It was with much pleasure I had your letter this afternoon. I am glad to know of your good time in Edinburgh. I have seen and enjoyed some brief notes of what came before you.
Since seeing you I have had letters from J. S. Giles and Mr. Henderson. They both take the ground of James 2:10 as proving that the fulfilment of responsibility is an impossibility, for 'one flaw spoils all'.
I have written pointing out that the standard set up by them is pure law, and that all Christian responsibility is under grace -- that we are judged by "the law of liberty". Their standard is a yoke of bondage.
I think this controversy will do good. I have felt for a long time that saints have been so habituated to connect the thought of responsibility with law and with man in the flesh, that it is difficult for them to entertain the thought of a new character of responsibility as under grace and a man renewed in mind so that he answers to it.
J. S. Giles asks in reference to Romans 8:4, 'Where does Scripture express the thought, even characteristically, of saints doing it?'!! I have asked him, 'When does Scripture express the thought of saints in normal Christian condition not doing it?'
I just mention this to show what is working. I have written to J. Henderson very plainly as to the elementary features of Christian responsibility, and I am awaiting with confidence (not altogether unmixed with anxiety) his reply.
I think it will be well for you to see J. S. Giles alone if possible. I do not believe he really holds what is conveyed and involved in his statements. But in his anxiety to maintain the statement in December Mutual Comfort, he is saying things more grave, and apparently without being conscious of it.
Miss Brown and the others are out or I am sure they would send love.
With much love in the Lord,
Yours affectionately in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- I have been very unwell during the last two months or more, and so tried in my head that I have had to refrain from all writing that could be deferred. Otherwise you would have had a line of reply to your last welcome letter long before now.
I was most thankful to have your letter and to know of the satisfactory nature of your interview with Mr. Giles. I have been anxious about it, lest there might be something at work which would not be helpful to the saints, but your letter was a great comfort to me.
Very soon after I received it Mr. Giles came down to
Paignton on account of Mrs. G.'s health, and Dr. Wells and he came over to see me one day and we had about three hours' conversation. I think we were quite free together and in a happy spirit, and I do not think that as to substance there was much difference between us at the end. The point that I was anxious about was that the grace and work of God should be recognised as giving character to the responsible life and service of the saint, and in so far as it does there is not failure but the fruit of righteousness by Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. I would go fully with Mr. Giles that practically all have failed in responsibility save One, but I would not wish to insist upon this to the point of obscuring what the saint is as viewed in responsibility according to God -- i.e. as in Romans. So far as I could judge there was no desire to do the latter, so that one would leave the adjustment of expressions to the Lord.
Mr. Giles has written a paper entitled 'Responsibility, Obligation, and Faithfulness', which I have had opportunity of seeing in MSS. It did not appear to me that there was anything in this paper to which one would take exception, so that I hope the exercise will yield profit and instruction and not become any further cause of difference.
We have had Miss Elwood staying in the house with Mrs. Pilkington for three weeks. It has been good to see something of the dear old sister again. She is wonderfully vigorous in every way considering her age.
Mrs. Ramsden from Bath has also been staying here and left today. The loss of her son Amherst is a very heavy blow to her, but the Lord sustains her, and her one desire is to get spiritual gain through sorrow.
We have had an unusual influx of visitors all this summer, partly occasioned by the perils on the east coast which have inclined many to come westward for their holiday.
There has been much happy intercourse and fellowship, and I am thankful to have been able to get to all the local meetings even though often under pressure of bodily weakness. Timothy's "frequent illnesses" often comfort me.
With very much love in the Lord to Mrs. Taylor and yourself,
Yours very affectionately,
My Dear Brother, -- Your letter of August 17th remains unanswered. I am afraid I have counted on your indulgence! It is fortunate that one whose spare time is very limited can do so. I was glad to get your telephone message at Plymouth. We had a cheering time there, as at other points, during the last visit.
I am interested in all the remarks you make as to ministry. I fear some think that what is coming before us is lacking of the element of exhortation. There may be truth in this; but I believe that if Christ's rights (the rights of love) over His people are brought home to them, and if there is a response, there will be a corresponding walk. I know that my own exercises are on this line. I have been greatly interested lately in 1 Kings -- we have it in our weekly readings here. As the responsible element (David) was about to ebb out, the priestly and prophetic exercise brought about the overthrow of antichrist (typically) and the enthronement of Christ. This, I believe, is going on at the present time.
There was a thought of another visit to your side this month, but I doubt that I will go now till March, I am sure my way will be more clear. I hear the brethren are reading Ephesians in London, but I have not heard much more save that the first reading was good. I trust the Lord will help much. It is a critical time. We are reading Leviticus in our monthly meetings, and find help from the Lord.
With love in Christ, I am,
Affectionately yours in Him,
My Dear Brother, -- Your letter in answer to mine came this week. On reading it over I felt that we were as far apart as ever as to the matter in question, but as I proceeded I found that you state what I have been seeking to maintain. On page 5 You say, 'The measure in which responsibility is fulfilled God will recognise'. This sentence implies what almost the whole of your letter inveighs against -- viz. 'fulfilled
responsibility'. It is true that the words are in the reverse order but this does not alter the fact that their value is the same as they would be if transposed. You may reply that the word 'measure' makes a difference, but here difficulty (from the standpoint of your letter) would increase, for on page 6 you will not allow the idea of 'in measure' to be connected with 'fulfilled responsibility'. You say: 'If you add to' fulfilled responsibility '' not completely of course 'then you show your expression is wrong, for if it is fulfilled it is fulfilled'. The fact is, dear brother, that you know the truth so well that you cannot help stating it, but having allowed your mind to run in a line of thought that is not according to the truth you fall into inevitable inconsistencies. But the evident presence of the truth in your soul is what encourages me in spite of the many things in your letter (and other papers) with which I cannot agree; so I ask you to bear with me in the same brotherly spirit that you have shown heretofore as I restate my exercises as to these things.
First, as regards the word 'faithfulness', what I commented on as far as I remember (I have not a copy of my letter) was the respective meanings of the English words 'faithfulness' and 'responsibility' -- neither of which is found in the New Testament -- the former not in Scripture. You will therefore see, that your remarks as to the Greek word translated faithful are beside the mark. As to the English word 'faithful' the ordinary meaning is that one is trustworthy and true in the fulfilment of duty. In this I say again that faithfulness is seen in the carrying out of a given responsibility. The word has minor meanings, it is true, but the above is the general one. Hence in view of the ordinary meaning of the English words it is quite wrong to deny that faithfulness is the measure in which duty, or obligation, is fulfilled. I agree that the word translated 'faithful' is from the word translated 'faith', and that it sometimes means that one has faith, etc.; but I cannot agree that it is the general meaning of the word in the Scriptures. It is generally used according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'faithful' in English. It is so used of God, Christ and the saints.
On page 3 you say: 'You quote Moses being spoken of as faithful as though it could only be said of him and a few others'. I have no recollection of limiting faithfulness to Moses and a few others, and I have no such thought; for I know that whole
companies of saints are addressed as "faithful in Christ". I spoke of Moses' faithfulness as set down alongside that of the Lord Jesus -- "as also Moses". This is worthy of note. God honours His servant in this reference to Him, but your remarks cast a shadow on this; they also ignore that some are called faithful in the New Testament because they are specially marked by fidelity to Christ and the truth. "Faithful men" (2 Timothy 2) means something more than that all saints may be regarded as faithful.
On this same page you quote from a letter of mine: 'The church did fulfil its responsibility at the beginning', and then proceed to say, 'The first word that the Spirit has to say to the church set up in responsibility is: "Thou art fallen"'. The first word spoken of the church according to Scripture contains this commendatory tribute: "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42), also the remaining verse of the chapter. This is a very different word from "Thou art fallen". It is simply futile to say this was not the church in responsibility; it was the church in responsibility. The Spirit records these things of the saints. They were responsible to continue in the apostles' doctrine, for instance, and they did. They were so according to the mind of God in their ways that the Lord added such as should be saved to them -- the assembly. What you say as to God demonstrating His presence by the Spirit as He had done in the tabernacle is blessedly true: but there is more than this presented to us in Acts 2 -- the "greater and more perfect tabernacle" was there in principle in the saints. The subjective effect of the presence of the Spirit consequent on redemption is in evidence. All was in the power of the Holy Spirit (the only and all-sufficient power for the fulfilment of Christian responsibility) but what is presented is accredited to the saints. The church as set up in the power of the Spirit, as the responsible witness for Christ, is before us. The light, for the time at least, was undimmed. To say, as you do, that speaking of the church thus is exalting her instead of her Builder is as unfair as it can be. It glorifies Him, for she is His handiwork. The sin of Ananias was serious but it is not presented as the failure of the church in its responsibility. It was an attack of Satan on the Holy Spirit as in the church, but it was summarily dealt with -- the holiness of God's house was maintained. It is quite clear that latent evil shall
exist in the millennium; the outbreak at the end proves this, a sinner may be there (Isaiah 65:20); these things do not show that Christ's kingdom fails. Your remarks legitimately followed would imply the opposite, and would make Judas' failure reflect on the Lord Himself.
You refer to the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2 as the 'first word' of the Spirit to the church in responsibility. Surely you do not mean to assert that Paul's letter to the saints at Ephesus was later, or that this letter did not regard the church in responsibility. To say either would be utterly false. The epistles to the Corinthians regard the church in responsibility, as indeed do all the epistles. I will not give expression to my feelings but your remarks are inconsistent with the plain teaching and facts of Scripture. Even if it were admitted (which is impossible) that the letter to Ephesus in Revelation 2 is the first communication of the Spirit to the church in responsibility, the first word is not "Thou art fallen;" the first word as to herself is commendation, as is well known. Besides the sense of the passage is not exactly "Thou art fallen", but "from whence thou art fallen". The candlestick is still there, though it would be removed if there were not repentance.
On page 4 you speak of the saints' righteousnesses -- that these are produced in them through the service of Christ and their walking in the Spirit while they are here in responsibility; and that thus the Lord can, in grace, speak as though they had entirely done with themselves. Here again you show how the truth is really in your heart, for this is just what I understand to be the teaching of the word as to Christian responsibility. But you turn aside immediately to say that 'responsibility in Scripture stands in contrast to preservation by God in His sovereignty through a condition being maintained which is the result of a divinely given state'. You had been remarking about God triumphing on the 'responsible line', and that things done by the saints here in responsibility are credited to them. If the saints work righteousness by God's grace through the Spirit on the responsible line what is this but that they are preserved by Him in a 'divinely given state'. This is indeed the truth. We are created by Him in Christ Jesus for good works which were ordained that we should walk in them. We are preserved by Him and kept by His power, He working in us for His own will and pleasure. According to your remarks at the bottom of page 4, responsibility is in contrast to all this,
whereas responsibility is bound up with it according to what you say in the former part.
J.T.