not received a line. Abbas Meerza ordered large pits to be dug for
those who died of the plague, and when they were full to have them
covered in. The Ambassador, and the English, Russian, and other public
functionaries, had fled, and from a packet that came from Capt.
Campbell, who has now the charge of the mission since the death of Sir
John Macdonald, we know that he was safe up to a late date.
_Oct. 26._--I was much struck with an account which Mr. Swoboda, an
Austrian merchant, gave me to-day, of a conversation he had with the
brother-in-law of Ali Pasha. He said that now, in Stamboul, the
Christians went to the mosque, and the Mohammedans to the Church;
there was no difference. How strikingly this shows the rapid progress
of that infidel spirit in these countries, which is spreading in
Europe; surely these then are such signs as should keep us on the
watch for our Lord.
Accounts have just come that the struggle has commenced at Damascus,
that supreme seat of bigotry, between the new and the old regime, and
it remains to be seen how it will terminate. I already hear of one or
two Roman Catholic boys, who will now come to the school, who before,
during the life of the bishop, were afraid. My health I also feel
daily establishing; and that I shall soon be able to enter on real
labour again, with the Lord's blessing, I sincerely trust.
_Oct. 27._--The affairs of the city appear daily more and more
settling again; provisions are coming in in abundance, and the price
gradually lowering. The roads also are becoming more open and safe:
for all these signs of tranquility we bless the Lord and take courage,
and trust we may yet serve him in this land of our pilgrimage. Also
across the desert we hear the road is tranquil.
_Oct. 28._--To-day the Jew called whom I mentioned in my journal of
last year, as having come to Mr. Pfander: he is a Jewish Rabbi, who
disbelieving Judaism, and possibly preferring Christianity, seems to
be in both without heart or principle. He brought with him a Polish
Jew, who is the tailor of Ali Pasha. He saw Mr. Wolff at Jerusalem,
and speaks of him with high admiration. The Rabbi told me he was
reading with him the German New Testament. May the Lord send his holy
fire on the altar of their hearts, that they may really, heartily, and
zealously enter into his truth. If there is any gift my soul longs
for, it is to be able to speak to every one in his own tongue wherein
he was born, the wonderful works of God; for want of this, in
countries like this, where you are surrounded by many different
languages, the heart gets overwhelmed with the difficulties that seem
to spread on every side; as, for instance, with these Jews, they know
little Arabic, and I do not know German, and thus we stand incapable
of any such conversation as is likely to search the heart.
_Nov. 1._--I have been reading with considerable attention the
remarks, or rather reflections, of Jonathan Edwards, on the Life of
Brainerd, wherein he endeavours to recommend to the Church of God, the
_disinterested_ and _unmercenary_ love of God, by which he means the
love of him for his abstract perfections apart from the consideration
of any personal interest or happiness arising out of his especial love
to his chosen. This is all very fine and very philosophical, but in
my humble apprehension, most unscriptural. Does God any where in
Scripture, when appealing to his chosen, or expostulating with them,
argue on the ground of his abstract perfections, or of his especial
love and distinguishing grace towards them? Throughout the Old
Testament this is the controversy, not that they slighted his abstract
perfections, but disregarded his especial favour. All the invitations
to return, appeal to what Edwards would call the selfish and mercenary
feelings. What! had not Moses respect unto the recompense of reward;
and in all the 11th of the Hebrews, where is this abstraction held
up? When our dear and blessed Lord exhorts to faithfulness,
watchfulness, devotion, does he represent an abstraction as a motive,
or without our own everlasting participation with him with whom there
is fulness of joy for evermore. Paul thought it not mercenary to think
on his crown, or to encourage his converts by the consideration, that
present sorrow for the Lord, works for them a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory. Again, eye hath not seen nor ear heard the
things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Our blessed
Lord makes promises to whoever leaves father or mother for his
sake,[42] and John encourages his disciples, by telling them that they
were made sons of God, and that they were to be made like their Lord;
he saw nothing debasing in this contemplation, but instantly adds, "he
that hath this hope purifieth himself even as he is pure." This is the
promise he hath promised even eternal life. In fact, the doctrine of
rewards, as an incentive to the saints, prevails from one end to the
other of the sacred volume. The notion that a love which springs from
a sense of being beloved, must be selfish and mercenary, is the
greatest delusion imaginable. It may be, and in proportion as its
power is really known and felt, is the most holy, self-denying, pure,
and devoted of all affections, an affection that seeketh not her own,
but the glory of the object beloved. If Edwards would set up dear D.
Brainerd and his Indians in favour of the abstract system, we may set
up the Moravians and their Esquimaux in favour of the other. But why
set up one set of worms and their conduct against another set of worms
and theirs, when we have the record of God in our hands? Let us see
how our Heavenly Father proposes himself to our love, confidence, and
affections, and what incentives he proposes as inducements to the
sinner to return, and the saint to persevere to the end, and not
attempt to be wise above that which is written. That God is infinitely
adorable in his abstract perfections I am sure, though I cannot fathom
these abstract perfections, nor conceive of him but as revealed in his
blessed word in connection with his chosen, and as personally
exhibited by him who was the brightness of his Father's glory, and the
express image of his person, and this is not in abstractions or apart
from our happiness.
[42] Matt. xix. 28, 29; Luke xviii. 29, 30.
Again, when Edwards endeavours to prove it is enthusiasm in an
individual to imagine that Christ, in an especial manner died for him,
I think he destroys the peculiar stimulus to devotedness, which the
doctrines of election in their widest latitude, contain above the
doctrines of Armenianism, and he throws a coldness over all the
doctrines of grace. In Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David, Daniel, and
others, with the Apostles of our Lord and Paul, it was both personal
and open, but because not equally open to the rest of God's children,
I do not believe the holy and blessed Spirit allows it to be less
individual and personal.
If, however, his opponents were practically such men as he describes,
we cannot too deeply deplore it; but he writes so much more like the
advocate of a sect, than an impartial enquirer after truth, that,
without a particular knowledge of the case, one cannot help suspecting
his picture of those he is writing against, to be very highly
coloured. In fact, on the truth of God, it seems philosophical
declamation, without scriptural proof: on the subject of his opponent,
it is assertion in the lump, concerning masses of individuals, without
proof or discrimination.
_Nov. 4._--We have here now at the head of affairs, under the Pasha,
one of those extraordinary men who are capable of any thing good or
bad. Under Daoud Pasha he, for a long time, cruelly oppressed the
people, but more especially the Jews, till at last a conspiracy was
formed against him, and by the influence of the father of the Serof
Bashee of the Pasha, who is one of the serofs, or bankers,[43] of the
Sultan at Constantinople, an order was procured for his being put to
death. Daoud Pasha did not execute this order, but imprisoned him, and
as he had been the instrument of extorting money for him, he concluded
he had not failed at the same time to enrich himself. In their
endeavours to extort his money from him they drew the bow-string so
tight that they nearly strangled him: however he recovered: he told
them he had a certain sum of money, and where it was, which Daoud
Pasha had previously agreed he should collect for himself. This his
rapacious miserable master had the meanness to take from him. He had
some friends who exerted themselves to save his life; which was
spared. However, only a few days before the entrance of Ali Pasha,
orders were again issued to put him to death, as he was detected
holding communication with those without the city; but again
intercession was made for him, and he was again spared. He was
instantly taken into favour by Ali Pasha, on his entrance into the
town, who has made him his treasurer and accountant-general (Musruff
and Deftardar); and in fact, the whole business of the Pashalic is in
his hands. He is at work night and day: till after midnight he is
engaged in business, and long before dawn he is to be seen on
horseback. He never sleeps at home, but each night at a different
friend's house, though the Pasha gave him the best house (taken with
all its accompaniments) in Bagdad. When the Pasha heard that Major
Taylor's house, which is on the river, had suffered by the flood, he
instantly gave it to him, and he now intends occupying it. This man is
not only acquainted with all the internal affairs of the city, but he
is connected with all the tribes of Arabs from Bussorah to Merdin;
knows all their relations, enmities, friendships, and divisions,
external as well as internal, and has ability and tact to take
advantage of them. He is also acquainted with the agriculture of the
country between the two rivers, and greatly desires to advance and
improve it. What two such men as Ali Pasha and he may effect, should
the Lord allow them to remain, it is impossible to conceive; but
certainly great changes. He has now his old enemy, the Serof Bashee,
in prison, and is bastinadoing him to get money out of him. But his
general carriage to the inhabitants is much changed, though he has now
twice the authority, which clearly, I think, manifests the altered
temper of the government. To the English, he is a most devoted friend,
and especially to the Resident, to whom he feels he owes his life, for
he is at once a firm friend, and, I fear, an implacable enemy: one of
those men from whom if you can once extort the assurance that you are
safe, you may be at ease; whereas, in general, from the Pasha
downwards, the more they assured you of your safety, the more reason
you felt you had to fear.
[43] The bankers in Turkey are generally Jews, and possessed
of great wealth.
_Nov. 7._--I have been to-day calling on several of the most
respectable Roman Catholic merchants of this place, who have, some of
them, repeatedly called on me; but, partly from want of health, and
partly from want of spirits, I have not hitherto returned their
visits. They received me with the greatest kindness, and the
opportunities these visits afforded of bringing in God's word as the
only standard of truth, I feel to be very valuable. It seems perfectly
new to them to have the sentiments or conduct of themselves or others
measured by this holy and blessed book; such a use they never in their
lives saw made of it, so that it strikes them exceedingly; and the
Lord's spirit may make something here or there rest on their hearts. I
feel that the door for my particular line of usefulness is opening,
and as I advance in the practical use of the language, I have
confidence the Lord will yet shew me greater things than these.
There is a new Roman Catholic priest here, formerly an Armenian. He
has been trying to see if he can get my school boys to come to him if
he opens a school: they have all refused; and this strengthens me in
my purpose of not delaying the re-opening of mine longer than I am
obliged. Should I not be able to get a master from Bussorah, for whom
I have written, there has been an Armenian with me, who offers to
come, a most respectable man; him, therefore, I may consider, as
ready, should the other fail. Thus, the Lord provides. With my English
class, I purpose, the Lord willing, to begin after another fortnight.
My greatest difficulty will be I fear, to obtain an Arabic teacher;
the mortality among the Mollahs has been enormous. Here then I shall
end for the present, I fear this too long, and, in many respects,
tedious, journal of the last five months, as the messenger goes
to-morrow or the day after.
* * * * *
NOTES.
Mr. Groves having so strongly expressed his condemnation of Mr.
Erskine's view of Divine Truth, in pages 102, 103, and 104 of his
Journal, the Editor, who believes Mr. Groves to be in error regarding
the extent of the Atonement, has felt it to be a duty not to allow his
statements to pass unaccompanied with a plain declaration of the
truth. The following Notes on some of the principal points touched
upon by Mr. Groves, have been contributed by a brother who bears him
much love, the Rev. A. J. Scott, of Woolwich, not so much with any
view of detailed discussions of Mr. Groves's positions, as simply to
exhibit truth, as the best antidote to error.
NOTE A, page 102.
Mr. Groves has referred to the effects of system. One of the most
important of these is, that opposite systems lead men to take such
opposite views of the evidence itself by which the truth of the
conflicting opinions must be tried. Of this he here furnishes an
instance, in saying so strongly that the "sovereignty of God's
government, and the individuality of God's election," are "represented
by the Apostles as the most overwhelming reasons for unlimited
devotion to his service, who has thus chosen us." Many of the very
passages, doubtless, to which he would turn for the establishment of
this assertion, would be enjoyed by others, as proofs how available
is the general "kindness of God our Saviour towards _man_," as an
argument for loving and serving him. When Paul persuades the Ephesians
to "walk in love as Christ also hath loved _us_, and hath given
himself for _us_;"[44] when Peter recommends to his brethren patient
meekness in suffering, by the consideration that "Christ also suffered
for _us_, the just for the unjust,"[45] the power of this over the
mind of one man depends on his understanding by "_us_" the fallen
world; and of another, on its reminding him only of distinguishing
personal obligations to sovereign election. Now, suasives to holiness,
or what are felt as such, as they continually recur in Scripture,
produce on a devout mind a much deeper conviction of the truth of the
doctrines from which they are derived, than a formal assertion can.
When, by the same expressions, one man is habitually carried to this,
another to that, view of the Divine character, and each experiences,
that in what he sees, there is a practical tendency towards the state
of the heart and form of life at which he aims as good: this becomes
to each, as instances accumulate, a far stronger reason than bare
propositions, could be for growing in confidence, that the belief
which thus impresses him is indeed the truth of God.
[44] Eph. v. 2.
[45] 1 Pet. ii. 21.
And one accustomed to observe the effects of system will not wonder
that expressions like those above cited, still less that those in
which Christ is spoken of as having "loved _the church_ and given
himself for _it_," should thus come to be regarded as containing an
argument for a selective atonement. It is by such a doctrine being
perceived in them, that they practically impress the feelings of many.
And yet, in truth, how are they inconsistent with the universal love
of God and propitiation of Christ? Of course, where a common benefit
is received, its efficacy, as a motive to grateful returns, is
limited to those who recognize and value it. A patriot has delivered
millions of ignorant, suspicious, ungrateful countrymen. His services
are to be used as an argument for joining in some effort for his
honour; and those who acknowledge and bless his exertions are
especially addressed, and reminded that "he loved _you_, laboured for
_you_, achieved happiness for _you_." Would this contain even an
insinuation, that they were the exclusive objects of his disinterested
ardour? In such an address not only would the common benefit be
mentioned peculiarly as a good bestowed on themselves; but their
acknowledgment of it, and their distinguishing susceptibility to the
feeling of its worth, would be referred and appealed to, as reasons
why that was looked for and demanded of them, which from others might
be as justly asked, but not so naturally expected. Such appeals are
the apostolic epistles to the churches, as contrasted with their
proclamation of Christ to the world.
NOTE B, page 103.
The moral condition of man, his seeing no desirableness in the object
presented to him by the Gospel, Mr. Erskine shews, at great length, to
be the grand obstacle to his enjoying it. The capacity to know and
believe, he indeed conceives to bring with it the capacity to enjoy.
But if a change in the moral state is necessary in receiving the
truth, this surely obviates the objection that such truth would be
unpalatable and uninfluential to those whose moral state is
_unchanged_.
Our business, however, is not with Mr. E. but with the truth of the
matter. Mr. Groves' remarks refer to the _nature_ of regeneration, and
to the _necessity_ of a change in the affections, in order to man's
appreciating the object presented to him in the Gospel: these he
considers as objections to the doctrine that the simple knowledge
and belief of that object are "the cause of spiritual life in the
unregenerate;" and he uses the analogy of food, which he says, is not
the cause of life, although it be the support of it. Certainly the
contemplation of Jesus is not the cause, but it is the commencement
and exercise of spiritual life, which needs no commencement of a
distinct kind from its subsequent functions. As to the analogy of
food, it will be seen whether the language of Scripture bears us out
in making the same distinction between the source and the sustenance
of spiritual, as of natural life.
What, indeed, is meant to be asserted? Is it, that men have life in
them _first_, to capacitate them to eat the flesh and drink the blood
of the Son of Man? This seems to be said: but Himself hath said,
"Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, ye
have _no_ life in you." Not life then without the food, or before the
food, but _by_ the food. This banquet _is_ to be spread before the
dead. Thus only shall any live. Is spirit and life in men first from
another source, and then do they take and profit by his words? But
"the entrance of his words _giveth_ light," and that light is life.
"The words that I speak unto you," says the Lord, "_they_ are spirit,
and they are life": and that spirit, the spirit of his words, he tells
us it is that "quickeneth" or produceth life. Is there, then, no need
for regeneration? Surely there is: but it does not follow that the
principle of regeneration is one, and that of faith another to be
superadded to it. "We are born," says Peter, "not of corruptible seed,
but of the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever;" adding, in
very remarkable language, "This is the word which by the Gospel is
preached unto you." An explanation which removes all doubt as to the
meaning of James, when he says, "Of his own will begat he us with the
word of truth," that is, according to Peter, with the Gospel preached.
John, in like manner, tells us, that "whatsoever is born of God
overcometh the world," and if we ask, what is born of God? Is it a
principle antecedent and necessary to faith? He answers, It is faith
itself. "This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith."
NOTE C, page 104.
The question is not whether the scheme of salvation is merely
reconcilable with divine love and justice, but how it constitutes the
grand proof and manifestation of these attributes, and in general, of
the perfections of God. In it he undertakes to shew himself worthy of
love, and thus to win our love to himself. Any other means to that end
than such as should prove his own worthiness, He could not use. One
may confer a benefit on an individual from a thousand various motives,
of which one only may be morally right. In event of any of the others
having prompted the action, the benefactor may be regarded with
gratitude, but then it is either because the motive is mistaken for
the nobler one, or the gratitude is a mere reflected selfishness. As
an example of the latter sort, the Jews, in the days of the Son of Man
upon earth, had a love to God, a zeal for God, founded on their
conviction of his partiality for their people. They regarded him as
the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles. Its fruits
were, their carrying the Lord to the brow of the hill to destroy him,
because he reminded them of Naaman and the widow of Sarepta, as
preferred to objects of bounty among their own people; and their
endeavouring to tear Paul in pieces when he spake of a commission
given him by Jesus to the Gentiles. They were indeed zealous, the
apostle bears them witness in the Holy Ghost, and fully believed in
God's sovereign election of their nation. There is yet a zeal like
their's--let us beware of it.
It will not do to represent the Gospel scheme of salvation as not only
_leaving_, but involving, the moral character of God in difficulty;
and then to say we can still believe him holy, just, and good
notwithstanding. The atonement was designed to prove and establish
these attributes: to be the ground of our confidence in them, and of
our love to God because of them. We are not to believe in them in
spite of the plan of redemption; but, because of the plan of
redemption. The words of John, "we love him because he first loved
us," and "herein is the love of God manifested towards us, because he
sent his Son into the world that we might live through him," imply
that the believer's delight in the essential excellence of God (which
delight alone is divine love) springs out of the display of that
excellence in the cross of Christ. An atonement for all, arising out
of love to all, proves that it is indeed justice that inflicts
vengeance on the impenitent; not partial, personal hatred, not
indifference, not cruelty. A limited atonement, just because it gives
no proof that they are beloved--gives no proof that nothing else than
justice could have punished them. It gives, on the other hand, no
proof that forgiving love has been that which saved the elect, as it
is to an arbitrary distinction it teaches them to look as the ultimate
cause of their hope. I care not to be told that they acknowledge love
in their salvation notwithstanding. I repeat, the redemption is to
_prove_ the divine character, not merely to leave us the possibility
of believing it.
Finally, This scheme obliges to believe that Jesus has broken the law,
and transgression of the law is sin. This he assuredly did, if he
loved not all mankind as himself. It is an ignorant answer to say,
that for him to break the law was not sin. To break the moral law, and
to be a sinner, are not things arbitrarily put together; they are two
names for the same thing. It is worse to say he need not keep the law
because he was God. The law is the transcript of the character of God:
opposition to it is opposition to that character. Made of woman,
besides, he was made under the law. All praises of his goodness and
moral perfection are so many varied expressions for the completeness
with which he kept the law. And oh! indeed, what part of it so
peculiarly his own, as to love his neighbour as himself?
I say, therefore, again, to limit the divine love, to limit the
atonement, the grand expression of that love, is to limit the love of
Christ, and thus to make Christ a sinner. He that hath seen him hath
seen the Father. No moral difference surely is so great as that
between a breaker and a keeper of the law of love. What a moral
difference, then, between the character of a God manifested in the
one form and in the other.
APPENDIX.
The following letters are added, because they contain some interesting
details of the Lord's dealings with this our dear brother, which are
not contained in the Journal. And the reader will observe, that the
last letter is of a later date than the conclusion of the Journal.
BAGDAD, _Oct. 15th, 1831._