Note.-A correspondent of ours questioned us concerning strange teaching in an English magazine which he received. We answered this in last December No. of our magazine. This brought on a correspondence between the two editors which we had no thought of publishing, but as the English editor insists on his communication being published we do so here, with the answer to it.

To the Editor of " Help and Food."

15, North Parade, Whitley Bay. Dear Brother:Dec. 31, 1912.

In the current No. of "Help and Food" yon pass an exceedingly severe stricture upon a paper entitled " New Birth and Eternal Life," which appeared in the October issue of "Scripture Truth," a magazine of which I am Editor.

As controversy in the precious truths of God should at all times be avoided, I should not have replied to your criticism, but several of your readers have communicated with me on the subject, and I feel, in consequence, that something ought to be said, and especially so, because, however unintentional on your part, your critique is certain to give a false impression as to the paper in question. I shall write as briefly as possible, and merely to clear away misunderstandings, for you will neither have space nor inclination to publish a lengthy defense of a paper which you consider to be "far from the truth."

First, our contributor points out that natural life is spoken of in two ways, namely, animate existence, and "the life lived and led continuously," and he uses these to illustrate the way that eternal life is presented very often in Scripture. This, in your judgment, is grave error. The distinction is, at all events, plain enough in natural life. We speak of a man's "domestic life," and we say " his whole life is in his family." We do not mean animate existence, the vitality within him, when we so speak, but the home circle and the relationships connected therewith, these go to make up his life. In virtue of the life within him, he finds his life objectively in this sphere and in these relationships.

We believe that this does illustrate the way in which one phase of eternal life is presented in Scripture. John 6 clearly speaks, not only of eternal life as what is vital within us, but also presents the "life lived and led continuously" (see verses 56, 57). John 17 speaks of the relationships and intimacies that belong to it, as also does 1 John 3 :14 ; 5 :11; while Col. 3 presents the home or sphere of it.

Second, you charge our contributor with representing eternal life as the condition and character of the spiritual life by which we live, and you say, "eternal life is not a condition or character," but neither does he say it is. You here misquote and misrepresent him. He does speak of the "character and new conditions of that life as revealed in the Son of God become man." Had not that life that was lived before the eyes of the disciples a character that was entirely its own, and such as had never been seen on earth before ? It was a heavenly life, finding no sustenance or joy in the things of the world. It was as much with the Father when it was being manifested to the disciples as it had been throughout eternity, and He was always the object of it. His disciples saw, heard and handled of the Word of life, and what they had seen and heard they declared. They had seen a life " lived and led continuously " by the Lord here below. They had listened to the words of it, which told of its blessed character, its relationships, joys and conditions, and this they tell to us that our joy may be full; and that life which He lived and which is in Him is given to us that it may be "lived and led by us continuously," for, through the infinite grace of God, what is true in Him in the Gospel is true "in Him and in you" in the Epistle. There is no word in this paper, as your remarks would lead your readers to suppose, that can be construed into the setting aside of the blessed fact that our Lord Jesus Christ is Eternal Life. The truth as to life is evidently many-sided, though it has been fully and completely set forth in Christ, it is in Him for us, and He is it.

You lead your readers to believe that the contributors to "Scripture Truth" teach that not all in God's family have eternal life. You say, "This cloudy, pretentious theory of eternal life means, of course, special intelligence of the mind of God. If you have not reached the measure of spiritual intelligence required, you have not eternal life yet." Such a thought is abhorrent to those against whom you charge it, simply because to say this would be to make God a liar. The babes have eternal life, as have also the young men and the fathers, all have it who have the Son, and it is in Him, the gift of God to them. But those to whom John wrote, and we also, were to become intelligent as to its character, conditions, and relationships that their joy might be full.

In closing may I offer a word of. I trust, brotherly criticism upon one of your statements? You ask, "What becomes of the fact that eternal life is given to keep us from perishing ? (John 3:15)." But John 3:15 does not say that eternal life is given to keep us from perishing, nor does any other scripture that I know of. It says:"The Son of Man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish." We shall not perish because He was lifted up and our faith rests in Him. This is the strong basis of our safety from perishing. Then comes the superabounding of God's love towards ns, nay, the great end He had in view in saving ns from perishing-" but have everlasting life." This statement of yours conveys to me the impression that you are viewing eternal life as preservation from perishing, instead of that glorious and blessed life into which we are now brought, that was manifested by the only begotten Son upon earth.

But I must forbear. The question will be dealt with more fully in the February No. of "Scripture Truth," if God will.

Believe me to be Yours faithfully in Christ, J. T. Mawson

ANSWER.

To Mr. J. T. Mawson, New York, Jan. 20, 1918. My dear brother in our Lord :

It was not in my mind to leave yours of last month so long unanswered, but my brother is away and I am in attendance here during his absence, and the pressure of work has necessitated putting off all that was not of immediate necessity.

Your statements astonish me somewhat. You say I "misquote and misrepresent" your contributor. Yon give no proof of the first. To prove the second you say, "Our contributor points out that natural life is spoken of in two ways, namely, animate existence, and the life lived and led continuously, and he uses these to illustrate the way that eternal life is presented very often in Scripture."
If your contributor had done this, beloved brother, I would heartily agree with him. He has not done this, however, but used these to illustrate the difference between the life received at new birth and eternal life.

And the rest of your letter is much in the same strain-apparently ignoring the fact that the contention is in no wise as to "the various ways in which eternal life is viewed, but concerning the difference between the life gotten at new birth and eternal .life.

You say, "The babes have eternal life, as have also the young men and the fathers," etc. lam thankful for this. Let me only ask, When does one become a babe ?

Your remarks seeking to set aside that use of eternal life which is in contrast with perishing, so plainly shown in John 3:16 and many other scriptures, saddened me. This has not been learned in the school of God. Sophistry does not become the man of God.

You acknowledge that eternal life, like natural life, is used in the sense of forming our existence as well as in that of our daily practical life. Why then do you resist it in John 3:15? If that passage does not declare our spiritual existence will you tell us which one does ?

No, dear brother, I have no desire for controversy, and I shall not enter into it. But I am in part responsible for introducing your magazine among God’s people on this side, and when they are offended at your teaching and question me, I shall endeavor in the fear of God and in conscientious fairness to all concerned to answer in the light of the word of God.

We have exercised, in that fear of God, a very careful censorship over our English brethren's publications these last 25 years or more, and I believe God has been pleased with it and preserved us in many ways. The people of God all over the land, those not with us as well as those with us, have on that account great confidence in what we put out, and we therefore feel the more the weight of responsibility resting upon us.

With sincere love in our Lord, Yours in Him, Paul J. Loizeaux.

More has been published since on the same subject. It is deep grief, and sincere, to see such efforts put forth to press a system of teaching which, to one who is not deceived by it, is a mass of such self-contradiction as to be condemned of itself.

It denies that faith can exist in connection with the new birth, for that would set aside man's total ruin; yet when Scripture has to be faced it must own that the new birth "cannot be entirely apart from faith, for it is by the word of truth which must be believed to be operative."

It dare not deny that one application of eternal life is to the life communicated by the Eternal Life Himself-a life which abides in the believer; by virtue of which he shall never perish; which identifies him with Christ the last Adam as natural life identifies every man who is born into this world with the first Adam; which constitutes the radical difference between Cain and Abel (1 John 3:12-15).
To deny this would be to contradict the apostle John and much beside. But it must not acknowledge it; it must hide it; it must reason and reason around it till good sense itself is offended, for what would then become of that other "spiritual life" gotten at new birth ? He was more consistent who once astonished us with the "double-quickening" doctrine.

This system tells us that new birth is for the earth, but eternal life for heaven, and that eternal life can only be since our Lord came. Where then did Abraham go when he died, and all the Old Testament saints ?

It tells us that when a man is born of God he is not yet a babe, not yet in the family of God; he has something to do now to get into that family. It seeks to establish a difference between New Testament saints which Scripture shows to have been only between the Old and New Testaments. What is such teaching but a return to bondage, a making experience the means of reaching a place before God. It saps at the very root of grace. It has destroyed the work of the Gospel wherever it has taken root. What a pity that such a dead fly should have fallen into the precious ointment of the magnificent testimony of truth rendered before, contradicting it in part, proving itself in all who seek to defend it that "little folly" which spoils what was "in reputation for wisdom and honor." May it please God to free from it those who are ensnared and preserve those who are not.

Matter crowded out this month will, D. V., appear later.