MAY 25TH, 1901

^[p. 172] MAY 25TH, 1901

Mr. A.J.T.

I think that the action of Phinehas in Numbers 25 was hardly in itself a priestly act, for Moses commanded the judges of Israel to take the heads of those that sinned, and I do not suppose that these judges were priests. But if what Phinehas did was not a priestly act, it was one that could only be done with the same readiness by a priest, for none but a priest would have seized the gravity of the moment in the same way. It is the man that is in the enjoyment of access to God who is alive to the moment and what it calls for. It proved that Phinehas was a true priest, and therefore the priesthood is confirmed to him by an everlasting covenant. It was the same with the tribe of Levi. They acted for God in a critical moment, not in any way connected with their peculiar function, but in a way that proved their fidelity to God, and to the best interests of the people, and therefore their privilege is confirmed to them. What tended, at that time, to corrupt Israel was evil associations, through the counsel of Balaam, and this kind of thing has been repeated in the experience of the church. It was so with the Corinthians, and the apostle detected it. It was really because he was in the reality of priesthood that he had discernment of that which was working to corrupt, and he takes action accordingly. This was hardly priestly work only, it was because the apostle was a priest that he had perception of the effect that the evil would have on the people. I have thought that the two things that mark a priest are access, and consequent on that, discernment. The one naturally follows on the other, but any action one might have to take consequent on discernment might not have a distinctly priestly character, for it might be a question of common responsibility. The detection and exposure of the evil is the real point and this power ^[p. 173] is not possessed by every one. This was notably the case in the Bethesda separation, many godly people were not alive to the character of the evil, or how it would compromise the testimony; this required the priest, but when discerned it became a matter of common responsibility. The existence of evil or leaven calls into question the very existence of the assembly as such, and the purging of it out is the responsibility of all, if they would have the Lord go on with them. They must be a new lump as they were unleavened. I do not know how this will serve as an answer to your question, but it is the way in which the matter presents itself to me.

May 31st, 1901.

The^† position I have held has never been other than that of a help. I fully admit the importance of there being no uncertain sound about the teaching. But nothing I have said ought to produce any sense of uncertainty as to what is really the subject of the teaching. It refers only to the condition in which the good of the teaching is realised. And every one must prove this for themselves. Very much more has been made of this question of ‘the holiest’ than the matter called for. The sum total of what I have said is that it appears to me that the teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews refers to saints individually, and not to the idea of the saints come together in assembly, though it does say they were not to neglect this. I do not know that I have ever thought anything much different from this, though I may have mixed up the two things rather in my mind. The fact is that it has come home to me that we must take the assembly come together as we find it, and that the principle is that they come together right as to one another. One may have in one’s mind

^†This letter refers to its having been said that Mr. Raven had changed his views as to the Holiest.

^[p. 174] an idea of the church as typified in Aaron and his sons, but this is hardly likely to be realised in practice. And I think we have to take things as they are and to be content with that which comes from the heart. All this does not indicate any radical change of thought, only things getting more into their places, and we cannot desire other than this. I have no doubt that the pioneers in the truth were upheld in a remarkable manner; we that have followed have taken many things on trust, and we have to feel our own feet. But all this does not seem to me to touch the great principles of truth: it only affects the question of how we are going to hold those great principles, and anything that tends in this direction can do no harm to anyone. What I deplore is that there are those who go away from a large meeting and magnify the importance of any modification of what may have been previously said; and further there are those who are prepared to make bad use of it. However, one has to go on in patience, holding faith and a good conscience.