With Remarks on the Manifestation of Eternal Life and on Divine Principles
One charge which is made in Mr. Raven’s writings, and constantly reiterated by his followers, against those who differ from him, is founded on a total misconception. In the paper on John’s writings (A Voice to the Faithful for January, 1891 p. 11) we read
Those who say the Son of God, or the eternal Son – the Christ, and the Eternal Life, are identical or interchangeable terms (and there are such), have evidently lost the all-important distinction between the blessed Lord as a divine Person and as man.
Here the Eternal Life is again limited to what Christ is as Man, and distinguished from what He is as a divine Person for on this the accusation is founded of “limiting Him to that in which we can be united to Him.” So Mr. Raven
I strongly object to the talk about the personality of Eternal Life, because it makes Eternal Life commensurate with the person of the Eternal Son; and this I believe to be very wrong (Letter to Mr. Edwards).
But the fact is, that no one divine title or name of Christ is equivalent to or commensurate with another: while He could not bear any one of them unless He was essentially God, He is “Jehovah”; He is “The Son of God”; “The Word”; “The Eternal Life” that was with the Father. But none of these “cover the same ground”; for they express the distinct and divers glories of His Person. As “Jehovah” in the Old Testament, He was in covenant, and in a special relationship with an earthly people, in a way which did not include other nations; nor did He then make known the Father as He did when He came and was manifested as the Son, to all, and for all. As “The Word,” He is the expression of the mind of God to all creatures; the one through whom alone the invisible God makes Himself known. Most of these are relative titles or names, but each has its distinct range, and that in which it differs from others, though forming a constituent part of His divine glory. So, all the beautiful colors in the rainbow, or in a pencil of light refracted by the prism, combine to form the ray of white light which everywhere illumines our earth, and from it, all the varied tints in nature which surround us, are derived. Thus His title, “the Eternal Life,” does involve, as has been said, “what He is essentially,” “being a part of His divine glory,” and this has been insisted on, in order to resist the attempt to deprive Him of this glory. It is an essential part of the divine glory of the Father to be the Father, as it is of the Son to be the Son – to be Jehovah, or the Eternal Life.
The assertion that this statement divides the person of Christ, is too obviously false, to affect any saint instructed in divine truth.
Whilst on this point we may notice the use that has so unhappily been made of the Scripture statement that Christ is “the true God and the Eternal Life.” Now, as God, He is in the divine place of absolute supremacy, right, and authority over all, which belongs alike to all the blessed persons of the Godhead; whilst the titles or names to which we have alluded as “the Son” or “the Word” are relative titles, and belong either specially or exclusively to Himself. Such is the case when He is spoken of personally as “the Life,” or “the Eternal Life.” He bears this title in relation to others because the manifestation of what is divine, is specially through His blessed Person (cp. Prov. 8, where for the same reason He is called Wisdom); for all spiritual life is displayed in, or communicated from, and maintained by Him. For this reason the apostle tells us, not only that He is God, which is true of all the divine Persons, but that He is in addition, in a special way, the one blessed Fountain of life towards us, in whom all its power and fullness is displayed. It no more implies, when Christ is spoken of as “God and the Eternal Life,” that the latter is not divine, than that “the Word” is not a divine title because it is also added, “And the Word was God,” or than when we say, speaking of the Father, He is also “God,” that His name as Father is not divine likewise (Eph. 4: 6).
This explanation disposes of other painful and profane arguments, of which some of these objectors are not ashamed to make use. Such as the declaration that the life, or the Eternal Life, applied to Christ personally, makes a fourth person in the Godhead, or that we might consistently pray to or worship, Eternal Life. For the personal glory and manifestation of what is divine, under this title, no more involves another personality than when He is called “the Word,” or “Wisdom,” or when the titles of “Jehovah,” or “Most High” are in Scripture used to designate glories or names of God, in which He is pleased to reveal Himself, as characterizing His relations with men. We worship the Father and the Son by the Spirit, under those titles or names which are fitted to express either supremacy and authority, or special rights over us, as well as enlisting our confidence. “But to us,” says the apostle, “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:66But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)).
“The Eternal Life,” however blessedly expressive of His life-giving power towards us and in us, is not one of these for the apostle says, “Christ liveth in me,” and “the life of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.” For the same reason we do not pray to the Spirit, because He dwells in us, and produces the prayers that we utter, though we own His person and work as divine, and though we are energized by His divine power, and all the work wrought within us for our eternal blessing is His.
But other subtle arguments are suggested by the enemy of souls, to deprive them of the joy and blessing to be derived from the truth, that “the Life,” or “the Eternal Life,” is used to express the divine personality of Christ. Anything tending to weaken or impair the glory of Christ, passes current at the present moment. Christ however says of Himself, that He is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:66Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)); and again that He is “the resurrection, and the life.” (John 11:2525Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: (John 11:25)). The objection founded on these passages is, that – inasmuch as the appellation “the Life,” is used of the Lord, along with other designations, which are not supposed to be expressive of His divine glory – this one has not this force either. This objection comes indeed but ill from those who have just quoted “He is the true God and the Eternal Life,” to show that the latter is something inferior, and not equivalent to the former. Does not the Lord then speak of Himself as the resurrection, as a special expression of His divine power and glory (John 5:21, 28, 2921For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. (John 5:21)
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:28‑29)), as well as being “the Life”? Could any one but a divine Person express “the truth” in all its infinite variety and fullness? He became man in order to do so. “For grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:1717For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)).
Could the way to God as the Father have been known, or approach to Him given to us, save in and through the Son of God? Again it is said, that “in Him was life” does not imply that personally He was Himself the Life. But His body was the temple in which the divine glory dwelt; as He says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:1919Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (John 2:19)). Does that imply that He was not God? Does not this system degrade all the divine truth that it touches?
We must however add that the expression, the “personality of Eternal Life,” is not strictly accurate, for personality is an abstraction, and Eternal Life is in many instances in scripture used as a general term, and is applicable to spiritual life in earthly saints and their portion (Matt. 25:4646And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:46); Isa. 4:33And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: (Isaiah 4:3)), as well as in its fuller and higher sense, to heavenly saints. But to make use of this to deny its application to Christ personally, is the enemy’s artifice to cloud the glory of His Person and to deceive souls. It is when Christ is spoken of distinctively as “the Life,” or “that Eternal Life,” or in other similar ways, that the term is specially applied to Him, or used to express what He is personally.
The subject of the manifestation of Eternal Life to the world is important, for though any Christian, from extreme Calvinistic notions, might easily fall into the idea, that there was nothing really in the Son of God for the world, but only for the elect exclusively, the thought certainly robs the Lord of the divine beauty of His character as displaying the Father and is dangerous because it naturally leads to the idea of life being some mystic thing in the Son of God, instead of what He was Himself, and thus paves the way for a further acceptance of this system.
It should be noted, that in the Gospel of John, in contrast with these views, the intimacy and blessedness of the relations between the Father and the Son, are unequivocally expressed by the Son Himself, as well as by the Father before all. This was in order that souls might be attracted, by the evidence of such nearness of relationship and oneness with the Father, or left without excuse, if they will not receive Him to whom all this blessedness evidently and of right belongs. And so perfectly is all this blended in its expression, and so is He addressed in the unity of His Person, both as Man and Son of the Father, that it is as impossible, as it would be irreverent to attempt to define or limit to one nature, the way in which He is kept before us in these passages.
The visible sign, by which John the Baptist was to recognize His Person, not previously known to him, was the Spirit descending from heaven publicly, and abiding on Him.
“Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, that same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-3431And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. (John 1:31‑34)). The Father Himself too announces openly before all that He was His Son, the object of His love and the One in whom He found His fullest satisfaction and delight. The heavens opened over Him, and His own voice declared, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” To this testimony so borne the Lord refers the Jews, as among the varied and unmistakable witnesses which had been rendered to the character and dignity of His Person.
And even the tenderest moments in which these feelings and sentiments found their expression are not, as we might have thought likely, withheld from those surrounding the Lord at the time. “He that sent Me is with Me. The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him” (John 8:28, 2928Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:28‑29)). Again, at the grave of Lazarus we read, “And Jesus lifted up His eyes, and said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me” (John 11:41 42). “Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again” (John 10:1717Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. (John 10:17)). “I and My Father are One.” “That the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence” (John 14:3131But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. (John 14:31)). John 5:17, 19, 2017But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:17)
19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (John 5:19‑20) is also a very striking instance of this.
But this wondrous unfolding of His intercourse with the Father extends not only to His own Person and service, but even to the view of the cross that rises before Him in John 12.
There (in verses 27, 28) He opens His soul-trouble to the Father at the prospect. “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” This is before all, as well as the reply of the Father to His appeal, when He gives Himself up to accomplish in death, the Father’s glory. Whilst then the Son alone could undertake to sustain what was due to the divine glory, the question, “What shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour,” and the answer from the Father that He would glorify His name (by raising Him as man from the dead), shows how what He was both as Son of God, and as Man, had its place at one and the same moment. So in Luke 2 He is seen as man, praying, as well as (in Matthew) fulfilling all righteousness. So in the passage cited from John 8 He speaks as the Son who has the Father always with Him and who alone makes free; yet He is the Son of Man who is going to be lifted up, and who (though being the eternal Son)has taken the place of recipient, and does nothing from Himself, but speaks what the Father teaches Him. In John 11 whilst as the Son, His voice calls Lazarus out of the grave, He is seen weeping and groaning to the Father who hears Him always. And lastly, He manifests His love and obedience as Son to the Father in going on to death when the prince of this world comes and finds nothing in Him. In all this blessedness in which as Man He was with the Father is unmistakably displayed before all. The Spirit of God evidently delights to honor Christ in the very way which Mr. R. declares “not only erroneous but repulsive” to his mind.
As an attempt has been made to limit the meaning of the word “manifestation” (N"John 14:2121He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21), where the word employed is ¦:N"<\.T, we will turn to Scripture to see the word that is usually employed to convey this thought. It will then be seen that where such an effect is intended a different word is used; namely, .B@6"8bBJT. “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,” the Lord says to Peter: “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 16:1717And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 16:17)); whilst the word “manifest” (N"<,D`T) is the absolute display of what He is before all apart from the effect produced. This is not necessarily vital in its character, though of course this display may so affect the soul (through divine grace acting on it). It is once so used in John 17:66I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (John 17:6); but in that instance only of the Father’s name.
The following passages are conclusive on this point: John the Baptist, speaking of Christ as the Lamb of God and the Son of God, says, “I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:3131And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (John 1:31)). This is to the nation as such, and not any question of their conversion. Again, in turning the water into wine, the apostle says, “He manifested forth His glory. (John 2:1111This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. (John 2:11)). “God was manifest in flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim. 3:1616And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)).
Again, the reason why the heathen are without excuse is that they have the public testimony of the power and glory of God in creation. “That which may be known of God is manifest to them; for God hath showed it unto them” (Rom.1:19).
“For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” “He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin.” “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, in that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:99In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9)). But still more striking is the fact that the same word is used for the manifestation of Christ and His saints in glory. “When He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:22Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)).
The following extracts from Mr. Darby’s writings will show how he identifies Eternal Life and Divine Life, treating them as one and the same thing, and fully presenting the Son as Eternal Life to man and as by it meeting the need of man which is all denied by this system.
Divine Life and Its Effects
(1 John 1; 2: 1, 2).
The subject of this epistle (1 John) is the communication of divine life. In the gospel we have the exhibition of it in the Person and character of Jesus Christ; but in the epistles we have the communication of it, as also tests of divine life.
The first four verses exhibit . . . the beauty of eternal life outside of us, first as manifested in the man Christ Jesus, and afterwards as communicated through Him from God (p. 1).
The last Adam is the Son of God. He became man, and as man manifested the divine life here on earth in a way that it never could have been manifested but for sin. It could not have been displayed in heaven in this way. The light shone in darkness (p. 2).
Divine life was adapted to our needs by being in the man Christ Jesus. He went through all that we have to go through – “was tempted in all points like as we are” – without sin . . . But in Him the heart to which life has been communicated can see the perfection of divine life. It could not have been thus seen in heaven, although it was there with the Father long before. No angel wanted such grace no angel demanded such patience; it was for man as a sinner that divine life was manifested.
Thus we see love adapting itself to us in the person of the man Christ Jesus. Perfection has come to meet us (I speak of those who know Christ, though all may come to Him as sinners). The apostle says we have seen Him and heard Him. They learn Him every day; and what was it they saw? – Eternal life. You may ask many a Christian what is eternal life, and he cannot tell you, though he has it within him. Christ is eternal life. John says the life was manifested, and we saw and heard. They saw and heard Christ, and He was eternal life – first manifested, then communicated (p. 3).
For God being holy, and I not holy, Christ becomes my life, and His blood cleanses from all sin. If I received His word, I received Christ, and He is eternal life. Henceforth I hate sin, and the Son of God is my life.
In the fourth verse we had, “And these things we write unto you that your joy may be full.” “These things,” as expressed in the opening verses of this epistle are the manifestations of divine life in the Person of Christ, and the communication of divine life through Him to such as believe . . . Divine life has been manifested, divine life has been communicated . . . Christ is my life and joy now, and heaven has no other life or joy. Now I have done with self, because I have got another self who is more my real self than I. My connection with the Person of Christ is new life in me (pp. 4, 5 ).
I can go to the vilest sinner in the country and offer him life . . . Grace puts down man, to give new life which is altogether of God; but we are responsible. Eternal life has been manifested, and now the message to us is that God is light, and there is no darkness in Him (pp. 5, 6).
The children of Israel said, “Let not God speak to us.”
Moses said, “I exceedingly fear and quake.” But in the infinite grace of God, the law was the schoolmaster up to that eternal life who was with the Father, and who in the fullness of time was manifested in the world (from Manchester Series of Tracts, No. 57).
As to manifestation, we give the following answers to questions addressed to Mr. R. at a reading at Dr. H.’s January 15, 1889
A. How do you mean, “our need”? It is very evident that the lifting up of the Son of God is not in connection with the putting aw ay of our sins, that is the important point.
Q. Take as an instance when He was on the cross and spoke of His mother?
A. I should not say He was manifesting the Eternal life then, but what He did was perfectly consistent with it. You may walk perfectly consistent with the characteristics of Eternal life, but you cannot display it in this sphere.
Eternal life belongs entirely to another sphere altogether.
The system as a system is now complete, and can be viewed in all its parts, in contrast with what we all once held to be of God. The enemy first suggests a doubt as to the Person of Christ – whether He is divinely and personally and in eternity the “Eternal Life.” Then follow speculations as to what Eternal Life is, or what it was in His Person, before the world was, or as manifested in the world, leading to the division of life in His Person; and ultimately these speculations are carried into the Godhead and all that once thus distinguished His glory is displaced in the soul, under the specious but delusive pretext of more advanced truth. But this effect is only produced gradually as the truth of God is undermined; so that the loss is unperceived until the system is fully embraced.
But we must add a word as to the important principles of action raised by this question.
Hitherto the principle of association, received amongst us, has always been – “Separation from evil God’s principle of unity.” Has it now been accepted that toleration of evil is the principle of unity? Does not the Word of God warn us, that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? And, “Whose word doth eat as doth a canker”? Do saints think to escape the evil, by evading the solemn responsibility, which Scripture presses upon them as the only remedy, for the prevalence of evil in these last days? “Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” And it is of doctrinal evil the apostle is speaking in this passage. The motto of many at the present moment is, “Stay in association with acknowledged evil.” The Lord’s command is, “Depart from it,” and that to every one; for the name of the Lord has its claim upon the soul, and it is due to Him to dissociate it from evil. Has all the past been it mistake?
and are brethren prepared to condemn the line of conduct they have pursued the last five-and-forty years? We have had to separate once because of ecclesiastical failure, a breach being made on the unity of the body of Christ.
Since that we have been compelled to sever ourselves from those who upheld doctrines which deprived us of our true blessings and standing in Christ. Now we have a system which not only commenced with something of the same kind, but which robs the Lord Himself of His proper personal glory, dividing His blessed person, and undermining His true Godhead.
Nothing shows more the deplorably low moral state of saints, or the spiritual incapacity to discern the true bearings of that by which God is testing us, than the arguments which are used, and listened to, to justify continuing in association with evil. Greenwich, it is said is not to be separated from, because every ecclesiastical form has not been gone through with reference to it. What are ecclesiastical forms when Christ is in question, or the saints of God themselves in danger, from the enemy’s power? “Have ye never read,” says the Lord, “what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him?”
When the heir, the object of God’s counsels, was rejected, or his title and need was in question, did God hold to the forms or order of His house being maintained?
No, the Lord puts His sanction on David’s act, when he took of the showbread, which “was not lawful” for him to eat, and gave it to them that were with him. And He adds “In this place is One greater than the temple.” Are these forms to be weighed in the same scale with the Son of God, the Lord of all? Is the superstructure of more consequence than the foundation itself – the One on whom the Church of God is built, and on whom all its safety stability, and integrity depends? Under ordinary circumstances it is right enough to enter a man’s house with all the deference and respect due to him. But if the house is on fire, and it is a question of rescuing the inmates, nobody thinks of knocking at the door and asking permission to enter. To force a way in and drag them out anyhow, is, at such a time the only right thing. “Others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 2323And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 23)).
We add here some thoughts expressed by Mr. Darby on these points when passing through a similar crisis.
Never let the question of ecclesiastical subtleties swamp a broad principle of right and wrong. But I shall not be brought to such wickedness as to treat acceptance of blasphemers as an ecclesiastical question. If people like to walk with them or help and support the bearing with them at the Lord’s Table they will not have me . . . I do not accept the setting aside my spiritual liberty; we are a flock, not an enclosure (Ecclesiastical Independency, J.N. D.).
The reader will find another example of the unsettling the soul as to fundamental truths in the confusion between the life communicated to the saint and the divine nature in Christ . . . I call it a work of Satan, when, blessing and testimony having been brought in by the blessed Spirit of God, a systematic effort is made, producing a regular system; an effort which takes up the truth whose power has decayed as to faith really carrying the soul out of the influence of present things, or some neglected truth generally, and, while it seems to adopt it as it stands in its basis, as a fact, subverts and sets it aside. . . . Any pretension to the possession of spiritual power is based on Church position, and thus seems to honor the institution of the Church and Christ in it. God is alleged to have set there, in that institution, the seat of blessing, and this also is an acknowledged truth, and the unity of the body of Christ is thereon connected with the institution. But the sovereign operation of the Spirit of God is set aside, and that which acts outside the actually formed institution is condemned as denying the authority of God’s institution and schismatical sin. Thus the actual possessors of the power of the institution, in its then state, really take the place of God. His power is vested in them as far as it acts on earth (Narrative of Facts, pp. 5, 10, 12-13, J. N. D.).
Unpublished Letter of
J. N. D., Dated July, 1850
and Sent From France.
Dearest Harris, – I thank you very much for your letter; it has convinced me how much I have been led of God in not taking any part in the affairs of England. Had I been there I could not, of course have avoided a testimony. Perhaps I should have felt called on to put myself more forward than even I have done – as it is, I am outside a mass of movements which are but the writhings in false position, of those who cannot see the simplest thing possible.
What are protracted investigations to me as to Bethesda when I do not admit the avowed basis of their meeting as consistent with the first principles of faithfulness to God?
They have denied (to me) the only ground upon which the Church of God stands. Hence Bethesda has ceased to exist, to my mind, as an assembly – on the same grounds on which I am a Christian, they avow they are NOT bound to see whether Christ be denied or no – I exist because He is what He is, and nought else; and they maintain the righteousness of the principle, when they avow the doctrine to be such that if it were true, Christ would need to be saved as much as the Church. The further I go, the clearer I am that in not owning Bethesda at all as a saints’ meeting, I am going on the first principles of Christian life. All who have countenanced Bethesda have mis-measured their strength, because their path is not of faith. The Lord, I believe, is consolidating souls on the ground of truth. All the investigations possible would not make me own Bethesda. I am satisfied it is no want of charity (my charity might be greater), but that which produces it produces my decision in this matter. A person looking simply at Christ and His glory cannot say anything, but that it is a question of first principles, as to saints’ conduct in this day. I am satisfied a very decided sifting is going on through this means, and that persons who walk on ground incompatible with the unity of the Church, as based on the witness of Christ will not stand. Were it my duty to be in England at this time, I should feel perfect peace and liberty; but my work for Christ is here I doubt not. What investigation could change a judgment founded on that letter of the ten? That letter is the basis on which I go, though I know some of its statements to be unfounded, and mere subterfuges but I have investigated that letter, and cannot own what is based on the principles contained in it. The joy, the simple joy of the brethren, is my delight and life. I have no doubt blessing is preparing for those who walk faithfully, in more simplicity than ever. My heart is much with the brethren in England, but I am in peace. L ___ C ___ will bear a sad burden. It is a sorrowful thing to be the instrument for sifting and chastening God’s people but Christ’s love is perfect and unfailing – feeble as I am I feel it. I never directly enjoyed the consciousness of it so much, and the intelligence, the wonderful living depth of the Word of God. I suspect our associations were not enough in Christ. The Church has had a large place in my heart for the past twenty two years. I lived, and sorrowed, and joyed with it if I could. I believe there was a singular blessing for the brethren, but they took it too much for themselves. God would have the Church in more direct association with Himself. I feel myself excessively weak and feeble, and unworthy of anything but full of hope. In these dark days it is the time to show Christ’s infallible love to His Church – He Himself bears it according to the counsels of God.