Q. 6.-Do we have eternal life immediately " through His blood," or "redemption" only?

Ans. – Life is the fundamental blessing for every one, and all spiritual life is eternal life. . Justification is attached to this :it is "justification of life." So with redemption. It is the possession of life that puts us among the people for whom atonement has been offered and accepted. The work done in us and the work done for us are thus inseparably connected.

Q. 7.-Did the Lord "take again" the life-" in the blood"- that was poured out on the cross?

Ans.-When He says, "I lay down My life that I may take it again," it does not follow that it was life in the same condition as before, and indeed it was not. "The life of all flesh is in the blood " (Lev. 17:) applies, of course, only to the natural life of man which he shares with the beast. But " flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption " (1 Cor. 15:50). Blood is the supply of the waste of the body, the means of change and repair-necessary only in this way. The Lord, in resurrection, speaks of Himself as having "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39), not "flesh and blood." In a body no longer subject to waste and renewal, the presence of blood would seem to have no meaning.

Q. 8.-Did He bear His own blood into the holiest, or only enter Himself?

Ans.-He entered by, not with it (Heb. 9:12). I suppose no one contends for the latter literally.

Q. 9.-Did He "give" (as "the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep ") eternal life? or is eternal life through quickening?

Ans.-Eternal life could not be given up, or laid down, at all. It is not the life in the flesh, but the divine nature,-a thing totally distinct from what was laid down or taken again. I have dwelt on this in a separate place under the head of "Resurrection-life."

Q. 10.-Is the "corn of wheat" (Jno. 12:24) the "incorruptible seed"-"the Word" of 1 Pet. 1:23? and is it by this, through the Spirit, that "you hath He quickened"?

Ans.-The "Word" in 1 Pet. 1:is stated (5:25) to be that which is preached in the gospel. It is not Christ Himself, but the word of the gospel, and which God makes, by His Spirit, effectual to souls (1 Thess. 1:5). This is incorruptible seed in the soul that receives it. (Comp. 1 Jno. 1:9:"his seed remaineth in him.")

Q. 11.-Is eternal life communicated otherwise than in being "born of the Word"? and is "in Him was life" true for us, except as the "Word made flesh," and as "His own Son in the likeness of-flesh"?

Ans.-The first question has been already answered in the negative; but the capital letter to "Word" suggests that perhaps Christ is meant here. It is never said that we are born of Christ, or of the Word in that sense, though He is indeed the "last Adam"-head of the new race of men. A paper on "New Creation," in the fourth volume of Help and Food, may help as to this.

The last question has been often discussed, and very seriously. Only through incarnation and atonement could life be ours, of course; but it was possessed by the saints of the Old Testament before the Lord had actually come. Otherwise they would not have been children of God at all. The paper on "Resurrection-life " may help also here; also "Life Abundantly," in vol. 3:, printed as a separate tract.

Q. 12.-Does 1 Cor. 5:teach that the whole assembly at Corinth was leavened? If so, with what sin was it leavened? Could those in fellowship there be leavened with a sin they had not committed, or with a doctrine they had not received? Would it be correct to say that the assembly was leavened and defiled with the sin of disobedience to the commands of the Lord, springing out of the original sin of the wicked person or false teacher?

Ans.-The assembly was certainly leavened :the apostle says so, in fact, when he bids them purge out the old leaven, that they might be a new lump. The lump, the whole mass, then, was leavened. It was not "new," since the "old" had corrupted it. "Ordinary leaven consisted of a lump of old dough in a high state of fermentation, which was inserted into a mass of dough prepared for baking." This is the key to the terms "old leaven" and "new lump."

Objection has been made from the words which the apostle concludes:"that ye maybe a new lump as ye are unleavened.'' But it is simple enough that he does not say, " as ye are an unleavened lump," nor could he say it:for how would it be consistent to say, "purge out the old leaven that ye may be an unleavened lump, as ye are"? Yet a "new lump" means a lump not characterized by what is old, and the old is the leaven. It is plain, then, that he never means to say they were an unleavened lump. Corporately, they were leavened; but in their individual status in the life which they had in Christ, they were as the loaves of the showbread which represented Israel before God-unleavened. He would have their corporate condition correspond to this.

No one beside, that we know, had committed the sin which the one among them had, but their going on with the offender was guilty disregard for the glory of God, as if He could go on with that with which they went on. And this was worse, if possible, than the heady passion which leads into sin, cool passionless indifference to it. An individual and an assembly are here on similar ground, and it may help to compare them. In the individual case, it is true that "in many things we offend all;" and so self-deceived may we be, that even an apostle could say, "I know nothing by"-that is, "against"-"myself; yet am I not hereby justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord." There was with him a conscience exercised, that he might be alway void of offense toward God and toward man; and yet there might be undetected evil:he could pray still, " Cleanse Thou me from secret faults."

Here, however, there was no leaven. Communication with God could be maintained, as is evident. Now, if the conscience were not exercised, even though there were no known sin, would it be the same in this respect? Surely not. Indifference to sin, is it not already sin? and can a conscience be void of offense without the exercise which the apostle believed necessary to maintain it? It was here that Israel sinned in the case of Achan. They did not know of what was in their midst, but they were held responsible nevertheless. Had they been with God, they would have known.
How much more, then, when there is known sin to be judged, and it is not judged? The assembly and the individual are on the same footing here, just because sin is the same abominable thing With God, and His attitude toward it, wherever it may be, the same. People inquire for the warrant for judging assemblies:do they need, or will they ask for, warrant for judging sin? If a man has identified himself with evil, so that he cannot be separated from it, we must at all costs separate from the sin, therefore from him who persists in it. Just so with an assembly, or any number of assemblies:we must separate from sin. But they say, We will not separate from the evil, and you must not separate from us who shelter it!

Power to judge assemblies! let them speak rather of responsibility to "judge them that are within." Is sin less sin when an assembly shelters it? Of course, we must show patience, and separation is only the last resort; but the principles are not different with regard to the individual or the assembly. "The knowledge of the Holy is understanding."