Who was it that first expected the Saviour of the world to come? It has been suggested that to answer that question we must turn back practically to the beginning of things to that other story which is, I suppose, just as well known as the Christmas story itself. I am, of course, referring to the story of Adam and Eve. They had committed the great sin of disobeying God. They had done their own will instead of God's will, and when they did that, they brought misery upon themselves and upon all who were to come after them. Adam and Eve had listened to the voice of Satan instead of to the voice of God, and they thought that they would be in Satan's power for ever. It was then that God made them His wonderful promise that gave them hope. They would not always be in the power of Satan. The Son of God would come into the world to set everyone free who wanted to be free.

Well, so much for just one idea of where the promise of a Messiah originated. But we do know that for some two thousand or more years before that very first Christmas, the work of preparation for the coming of the Messiah had been going on, and as we look back now we can see how the actions of the Israelites had a part in that preparation even although at the time, perhaps, it might not have been quite so obvious. Some of them were chosen by God to play an important part in the work of preparation and, having been chosen, they played their part without hesitation. 

What a wrench it must have been for Abraham, the "father" of the Chosen Race, to leave his own home and country-folk at Ur of the Chaldees in Southern Babylonia, in the centre of what was at that time quite an advanced civilisation, and journey first northwards to Haran and then southwards to the land that was "to be shown to him", a country about which he must have known but very little. What faith he must have had to even attempt the journey, but no doubt his faith was strengthened by those great promises God made to him: "I will make of thee a great nation and make thy name great. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." And so the "father" of the family into which ultimately the Saviour was to be born made his way to the country which was to be our Lord's home during His short stay on earth. A great deal of preparation, however, was still needed before the land or the people were to be ready to receive their Messiah. About another two thousand years were to pass before all was ready, and during this time the people were to suffer set-backs which doubtless sorely tried their patience. How far off the coming exile in Babylon, yet Isaiah was there adding his part to the preparation by his words of comfort: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain ... Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand ... He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young."

Even Cyrus, King of Persia, had his part in the preparation,  for by his capture of Babylon in the year 538 B.C. he opened the way for the return of the Jews from exile and gave permission for the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, a task which took considerably longer that it need have done, but which was completed eventually about eighteen years later. Another seventy-five years passed before the city of Jerusalem had its walls rebuilt by the people under the guidance of Nehemiah. 

The people whose names I have mentioned are but a few of those who prepared the way for the coming of the Messiah. Each one, so to speak, had his own particular task to do, a task for which he had been chosen by God. Some of those chosen may perhaps have seemed a little unsuited for their job, yet however unsuitable they may have been, God had work for them to do. To quote just one example, there is the story of the two brothers, Esau and Jacob. On the one hand, Esau, the hunter, a frank, open, impulsive, generous man with the much more attractive character of the two, and on the other hand, Jacob, who was crafty, deceptive, selfishly scheming and ever ready to gain a personal advantage. Yet it was Jacob, whose name was changed by God to "Israel", who was chosen by God to be one of the corner stones of the Hebrew family, to lead that family one step nearer to the time when all would be ready for the coming of the Messiah.

So the work of preparation went on. Some of it was done by those who led the nation with whom Christ eventually was to come and live; some of it was done by those who organised the building or rebuilding of the places which were to become so familiar to Him during his journeying and teaching, and some of it was done by people like John the Baptist, who made the final preparation, by speaking words of encouragement when needed, or by preaching and exhortation: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight."

Dear Jack and Betty,

Originally I had intended to finish this series of letters last month, but I feel an urge to write one more. It is going to be the hardest of all and it is not a history lesson this time. My urge is to write to you on the subject of your responsibilities and privileges as members of South Street Congregational Church, and of the part you must play if membership is going to be real and dedicated service. 

These letters of mine will have failed in their purpose if you have not, by now, realised that our forefathers, the original Separatists, had a deep spiritual conception of the Church, a more serious sense of responsibility and a deeper realisation of the privileges attaching to membership than had existed for many generations.

First of all a Congregational Church is implicitly a Covenanted Church. That is, we have covenanted together and with God, believing as we do that God has redeemed His people and that we have accepted our redemption from and through His Son Jesus Christ. Our covenant not only concerns our own individual lives - i.e. we promise to live individually with God - but also that as a Church we live under the guidance of His Spirit.

Then we make no tests of creeds. That does not mean we do not believe in the great Christian Creeds, because we do. We do not, however, make them a test of membership. More important than creeds is the individual quality of one's life. As Church members we accept from Christ Himself the principle that only life and its quality can be an adequate test for Church membership. You may think from this that Congregationalism, as compared to other communions, has a faith somewhat nebulous not to say anarchic. We have sometimes been described by the ignorant as a communion in which "nobody believes anything in particular." As a matter of fact nothing could be more erroneous. It is just not true that we have been led astray in matters of faith. On the contrary history shows we have always kept in the mid-stream of Christian belief. The error of our critics arises, of course, from our unwillingness to adopt creeds and standards of faith. Yet we have always been willing to draw up statements of faith for both individuals and Churches. What we distrust and resist is any attempt to elevate common doctrinal statements into a confession which it is essential to subscribe to as a condition of membership. From the 16th century onwards, all kinds of confessions and declarations of Congregationalism have been drawn up, but always there has been a tendency to let them fall into disuse. The truth is that we cannot enforce any doctrine or creed on our individual Churches and each Church feels a strong repugnance to coerce individual members.

I think that Congregationalists are among the most passionate lovers of freedom - political or religious. Is not this understandable when you look back on our history? May I quote the following from a little publication of Independent Press:-

"Covenants are only made by free men and from what has gone before the Congregational understanding of freedom should be clear. Freedom for Congregationalists is an obligation. We must be free to worship in ways acceptable to the Holy Spirit; we must be free to listen to and obey the Spirit and we must be free to give God full obedience. Freedom is the necessary condition of our full and happy obedience to God; the means of making the sovereignty of God actual in the world."

If we are distrustful of creeds and passionate in our love of freedom, there is one matter on which we hold strong views, that is the Church Meeting. In no other communion, with the exception of our friends the Baptists, will you find anything like it. It is at once our pride and glory, the very raison d'etre of our existence, and it is most important that you young people should know and understand what a Church Meeting really is. It has so often been likened to a democracy that I must hasten to say that a Congregational Church should not be governed by its members (as in a democratic state) but by the Holy Spirit whose will is made known through her members. We should come to a Church Meeting not to air out own views, nor with the express purpose of voting to prevent Mr. X from getting his way, but to wait patiently on the Lord so that we speak as men and women possessed of God's will. There is a solemn trust laid upon us of devoting and sanctifying every power of mind and heart in fellowship of thought and prayer, seeking after God's will, praying that God will give us the grace to see it and follow it when it is known. Often we are so chained to earthly things and so lack His grace that we are wilfully blind to His clear and unmistakable call.

Now, my dear children, let me warn you that when you go to your first Church Meeting you will probably be bitterly disappointed and disillusioned. Here I have set forth an ideal; in practice you will find things fall very short of this ideal. That, of course, is the measure of our failure, but is it not also a challenge and an opportunity for the future? You may find in South Street Church that varying people have entirely different conceptions of what Church membership really means. Here is a little extract from a recent article in the Christian World, which to me sums up the position.

"In no Church is any man a member save as he confesses in word, honest intention and life his will to make Christ his Lord. But in a Congregational Church something more is required. We covenant with God and with one another to do the will of God, and that involves us in the DUTY of attending the Church Meeting. No, I have  used the word 'duty'. I must take it back and use the word 'delight'. It is imperative that attendance at Church meeting should come before any other consideration of any other kind at all. But the imperative is an inward necessity, for our delight is in the company of God's people."

Well, my dear children, this is the end of my series. You are on the threshold of a most wonderful experience. It will give you great and abiding happiness as well as moments of despair and doubt. There will be times when on the heights you will see the Kingdom of God, but there will be valleys to go through which will test your faith to the uttermost. That our Heavenly Father will ever by your strength and stay is the earnest prayer of

Your ever loving
Uncle

N.B. - As this is the last in this series of articles, it is right that you should know the name of the author: Mr. P. L. Brown [Church Secretary].

The following books have been used by him, and are recommended to those who require further information:-

A Brief History of English Congregationalism - by Albert Peel

History of English Congregationalism - by R. W. Dale

A Manual of Congregational Church Principles - by R. W. Dale

A Popular History of the Free Churches - by C. Silvester Horne

Three Hundred Years - by Albert Peel

Dear Jack and Betty,

As you know I came to South Street Church last Sunday to hear you make your promise and to see you receive the right hand of fellowship, and during that short ceremony I saw something else. I glanced at your mother and father and saw them thrilled with joy as they watched their children joining the same family Church where they themselves had worshipped for so long. I saw the light of thankfulness in their eyes that the great decisions had been made and heard in the prayer in their hearts that our Heavenly Father would give those children help and strength to fight the good fight in the years ahead. You will need those prayers, for the Christian way of life is not easy. Never forget that Christ needs you young people, too. He needs the passion and enthusiasm of youth for it is to you we shall have to look now for the Great Revival of the 20th century. 

Now I am almost to the last of my letters and I must hurry on for my self imposed task is nearly finished.

We now come to the history of the last 100 years or so. Some of it is within the memory of those older members of the Churches still with us today. To cover adequately the activities of the Congregational Union of England and Wales would take a long time and I can only give you the barest outline. To start with it covers a period of over 100 years. During these years the tendency of Congregational Churches has been towards the centre. I do not think it could be challenged if I say that in recent years the tide has been running stronger than ever in this direction.

Here is a list of some of the outstanding achievements of the Union:-

1. It published the first Congregational Hymn Book and has kept it in the forefront of modern hymn books by publishing revised editions at intervals. The Congregational Hymnary was published in 1916 and has been our standard hymn book for 34 years. It is now, however, superseded by Congregational Praise. 
2. It has raised vast sums of money for various purposes, among them being a fund in 1862 to celebrate the Bicentenary of the Ejectment - another raised in 1881 to commemorate the Union's jubilee as a third in 1899 to inaugurate the new century. These funds were mainly used to build chapels, etc.
   
   Subsequent funds have all been centrally controlled by the Union and include:-
   1. a fund raised between 1909-1912 of £250,000 called the central fund aimed at raising Ministerial stipends to a minimum of £120 per annum;
   2. £500,000 raised in 1921 called the Forward Movement Fund. One-fifth of this was given to Missionary Societies and the remainder used to establish a Ministers' Superannuation Fund and the maintenance of the Moderators;
   3. £500,000 raised during the war years (1940-45) called the Reconstruction Fund for the purpose of helping to rebuild churches whose premises had been demolished by bombing; and
   4. the present Home Churches Fund designed to bring all Ministers' stipends to a minimum of £300.
3. The appointment of nine Moderators in the Country whose duty it is to help and advise churches where desired, to assist in the removal and settlement of Ministers and generally act as an inspirational force.

It may interest you to read what Dr. Peel said regarding the growth of large central funds controlled by the Union. Here it is:-

"The growth of these funds and the increased activities of the National and County Unions provide one of the supreme tests for Congregationalism. It is not easy for a Union to allow a Church to be independent when it is being furnished with financial aid and when perhaps it persists in doing things which appear foolish to the Union's officers. With every increase in the central funds and in the power of organised Congregationalism there must be a corresponding increase in the vigour of the independent churches, a renewed sense of the presence of Christ in the midst of His people, if true Congregationalism is to survive. With more provision made for the support and superannuation of ministers there must be a parallel increase in the spirit of adventure in the Ministry if the work of the Church of Christ is to be adequately performed. If the churches come to rely on Unions for support rather than on their own efforts allies to the leading of the Divine Spirit, the time of decay is at hand. If Congregationalism ever becomes a safe and static things it is doomed. With every improvement in organisation for increase of efficiency in denominational machinery, there must be in the churches a more alert understanding of the Will of God, a speedier grasping of opportunities of service and a more ready adaptation to changing circumstances."

And here are two further extracts from the same source:-

"In forms of worship, too, there have been developments, though here perhaps the greatest conservatism of all is manifest. There is, however, an increasing willingness to make use of both silence and of some liturgical elements in the worship of the churches, and the old uniformity with its two lessons and a 'long prayer' is breaking down. It is recognised that here again Congregationalism must be willing to experiment. Forms of worship are not sacrosanct, whether they have come down unchanged for a couple of centuries or whether they arrive steaming hot from a Country Secretary's office or a Moderators' meeting. Once again the churches have to be prepared to be led by the Spirit into new ways."

And the second extract:-

"We have seen that Congregationalism has no formal creed. It does not believe that men said in the first, the fourth, or the sixteenth century the final word about the things of God. It holds that the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth and is still making His ways known to men."

Next month I shall conclude these letters with a brief summary of Congregationalism and what it stands for.

Your affectionate
​Uncle

The book of the Acts of the Apostles, as its name implies, is chiefly concerned with the work of the early Christian leaders - men called and chosen by God and endowed with special insight into the meaning of the Gospel. Without them there could have been no Christian Church. They are as essential to it as the prophets were to Israel. 

But Christianity did not spread rapidly across the world only through the preaching of the Apostles. There must have been thousands of laymen too, their names now lost, who carried the message everywhere. The success of the Gospel in its encounter with pagan society was as much due to this hidden and unrecorded work as to anything.

The message which the anonymous lay Christians took with them was probably a very simple one, lacking in theological subtlety. Perhaps it could be summed up in the three words, "Jesus is Lord". And yet it was this message which had the power to turn the world upside down. 

For the Jew, oppressed with a legalism he could not fulfil, hedged about with regulations and dominated by an ecclesiastical authority, the message brought a sense of joyous freedom. In the name of One who had declared Himself Lord even of the Sabbath the converted Jew dropped a religion which had become a burden for him to carry and in exchange found a faith which carried him.

Men who lived in terror of evil spirits found in the message One who was stronger than they. Millions who had been taught that the stars in their courses determined life, and who therefore felt themselves to be helpless victims of fate, learned that Jesus is Lord of the heavens no less than of the earth. The cold state of religion of the Roman Empire, which could satisfy no human heart, was undermined, because Jesus had claimed lordship over every earthly power, and taught that a man's conscience did not belong to Caesar. And the sad dignity of the Stoic was transformed into the courage of the martyr, willing to give his life not as a lonely illustration of virtue in the face of adversity, but as a triumphant vindication of the truth that Jesus is indeed the Lord. 

Our situation to-day is very different from that in which the early Church found itself. Behind us are centuries of Christianity, and this constitutes both an advantage and a disadvantage. Many feel that Christianity has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and this makes our task doubly hard. But there are points of similarity between our world and that ancient world into which Christianity came. Like the men of those times we are conscious of an increasing pessimism. Like them we are conscious, too, of a prevailing moral and spiritual decay. And like them we feel as though something massive and inhuman were weighing upon us - in their case the Roman Empire, in ours the growing power of modern industrial states which it seems no man can direct or control.

Our world knows no Imperial cult, but it knows nationalist self idolatry. It does not know physical slavery, at least in the West, but it knows desperate poverty and economic slavery. The Roman arena has gone, but much of modern life is equally vicious and unhappy. 

The need today is for the same message - "Jesus is Lord". And the method for releasing the transforming power which that message contains must be the same too. It is not enough to leave the propagation of the faith to parsons and professional religious teachers. For one thing there are not enough of them. For another their work only touches a tiny fringe of life. What is needed is for every Christian to shoulder part of the responsibility for evangelism which is laid upon the whole Church. Not all are called to preach sermons. But all may do something to influence others with the truth that Jesus is Lord.

This should be felt with special force by Congregationalists at the present time. For we have now been called to enter the next phase of the Forward Movement, and this means that every Congregational Church is invited to undertake an evangelistic Mission during the coming year. 

Such a task should not be entered upon lightly. It involves much more than a series of meetings conducted by special speakers. What is required is that the Church as a Church should earnestly seek to win others for the Christian faith, and every member should ask himself how best he can take a share in this.

If you are in sympathy with these aims, will you make a point of attending Church meetings during the next few months, especially if you are one who seldom comes? We need some sign that the Church has been touched in its heart by the need for evangelism. A sudden and substantial increase in attendance at Church meetings would be one way of giving a silent witness that this is so, and would be an encouragement to us all.

Nothing can be done now, however, without personal preparation and dedication, and each member is soon to be asked to subscribe to the following covenant, which will be published with our new Constitution. Let us use it as a starting point for a missionary enterprise.

"The members of Romford Congregational Church desire to live in absolute dependence upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ, and own in Him their only Lord, Saviour, and Mediator. Praying for strength to stand by the covenant into which Almighty God has graciously entered with the whole Church of Christ, they solemnly bind themselves to strive to love and serve Him with all their hearts, and to walk in unbroken Christian fellowship with one another."

Dear Jack and Betty,

We come now to the last few years of the 18th century and the first 30 or so of the 19th. Up to now each Independent Church had been a little unit of its own, its horizon mainly limited to the particular locality in which it was situated. It had little or no contact with and not much knowledge of other Independent Churches.

The first step in doing something together was the formation of the London Missionary Society (affectionately known to us as the L.M.S.) in the year 1795. While Independent Churches formed the backbone of its support among its sponsors were many other Evangelical Churches. This was in itself a big step forward and it had the result of showing clearly that together Independent Churches could do things it was impossible to do alone.

In the early 19th century Independents began to realise that there was a real and desperate need for Home as well as Foreign missions. Local churches near enough to be able to work together formed small associations from which itinerant preachers and evangelists were sent out to spread the gospel. A first these associations were nothing more than a "getting together" of a few ministers but gradually over the years they became more ambitious until finally they blossomed out into full County Unions. In the first 20 years of the 19th century many large County Unions came into existence and did grand work for the extension of Congregationalism in their particular County. 

Naturally as the years went by there grew up a demand for a larger Union. One that would combine all the county unions into one for the Country. There were many reasons for the growth of this demand, among them being:-

(a) The growth of the Wesleyan Methodists, who, tightly controlled from a central office, were able to produce convincing statistics of their strength and membership - something which the Independent Churches were unable to do;

(b) the fact that many itinerant preachers sent out by local or County Unions were having a very difficult time. They experienced hostility and opposition, sometimes very bitter, from Anglican Churches, and this brought Independent Churches more and more together in sympathy and fellowship;

(c) the outstanding success of the L.M.S. which by now was well established and showing Independents what could be done by getting together.

But there were great objections to a full union from many of the Independents themselves. One of the strongest arguments against Union was that they were independent and that by joining together they would lose their independency and become merely another "sect". Many attempts were made, many schemes drawn up but all came to nothing. But the movement for Union was too strong to be resisted indefinitely; indeed in the long run it was inevitable. In the year 1832 it became an accomplished fact when the first Congregational Union of England and Wales was formed. Its constitution was very carefully drawn up. Under each Church retained its independency to govern its own affairs, appoint its own ministers and worship as it desired. The powers of the Union were very strictly limited to matters that concerned the Churches as a whole. One of the safeguards was that the Union was not to become a legislative authority or a court of appeal.

During the last 100 years various amendments to the Constitution have been made. In the main these have tended to give more power and authority to the Union, but through all the years independency of the local churches has been jealously safeguarded.

I will try and tell you a little of the work of the Union in my next letter.

You affectionate,
​Uncle

I want to discuss with you three ways in which people sometimes react to troubles. Let us call them the way of the Stoic, the way of the Jew, and the way of the Christian.

Although Jeremiah certainly had no spiritual affinity with Stoicism there is a text in the book bearing his name which expresses very well what I mean by the way of the Stoic. It reads like this. "Woe is me for my hurt! My wound is grievous: but I said, Truly this is a grief, and I must bear it." (Jeremiah 10:19)

Thousands of people with no religious faith show admirable courage in the face of suffering and loss by adopting this attitude. They bear their troubles manfully and in silence. Sometimes they even grin and bear them. They scorn to whine or complain or look for pity, feeling that the dignity of a human being forbids it, and in this matter many pagans put some Christians to shame. Theirs is part of the routine heroism of the world. It happens every day, is not confined to religious people and does not depend on a divine revelation. But nevertheless this is a threadbare cloak to draw about oneself when the wind is bitter.

What else has religion to offer?

The Jew strove to adjust himself to all kinds by accepting it as from the hands of a just and holy God. This point of view is well expressed in the book of Job, where Job says, "Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil?" In this attitude great strength and consolation is sometimes found. Submission to the will of an all wise Creator whose decrees must never be questioned gives to many the courage they need to get through life.

A glance at the hymn book, and conversation with many Christians, will show that this essentially Old Testament idea is sometimes not much enlarged by an experience of the Christian Gospel. In fact some Christians deal with misfortune as a Jew might. They know nothing better than to attempt submission to the will of a God who "knows best". Hymn Thy Way, not Mine is full of the atmosphere of a patient submission. Thus verse four reads,

Take Thou my cup, and it
With joy or sorrow fill,
As best to Thee may seem;
​Choose Thou my good and ill.

Some Christian buttress this thought by reflecting that our true joys are in heaven, not in this vale of sorrows, and that it is wrong to expect much happiness on earth. Hymn I'm But a Stranger Here begins in this not very inspiring strain: -

I'm but a stranger here,
Heaven is my home;
Earth is a desert drear,
Heaven is my home.

The question is whether Jesus thought the earth was a desert drear, and whether the highest Christian ideal in face of sorrow is truly expressed in the prayer for a "heart resigned, submissive, meek."

I do not wish to imply that there is no truth or health in this sentiment. A Christian no less than a Jew desires to accept the will of God and knows that "now we fight the battle, but then shall wear the crown." Nevertheless an emphasis upon acceptance of sorrow is not, as I hope to show, a fully Christian one, and may imply a sub-Christian conception of God.

Now let us turn our thought to the words of Jesus, uttered, according to the Fourth Evangelist, on the occasion of His arrest. "The cup which my Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" This was said to Peter, who wished to resist with violence, and it seems at first sight to imply the Cross ought to be accepted as from God.

But God did not nail Jesus to the Cross. His enemies did that. We cannot identify the will of God with the will of Caiaphas. That His Heavenly Father required of Jesus an obedience which would involve the Cross, and that the Cross was made to serve the highest Divine purpose, is true. But that is very different from supposing that in the hour of His Passion our Lord accepted suffering as an act of God.

​No sorrow is like unto His sorrow, but here at the Cross we may reverently learn something of the Christian approach to all suffering.

In the first place many things are permitted by God which are not willed by Him. In our darkest hour let us at least remember that. We are to trust Him as a Heavenly Father in all circumstances. But we are not to suppose that all circumstances come from His hand, although all circumstances are in His hand.

Most of our troubles can be traced back to human ignorance, or sin or foolishness (our own or another's, or that which belongs corporately to the race); or else to laws of nature which operate, I incline to believe, in a certain measure independently of God. We are often dishonest with ourselves when we forger this. Sometimes what people finally resign themselves to as the will of God is something they have been doing everything in their power to avoid. In fact we often attribute to the will of God those things which we cannot control, and for no better reason. At the present time thousands of human beings die every year of cancer, and Christian people contribute money to cancer research in the hope that a cure may be found. And yet in how many homes is a loved one who died of this disease spoken of as "taken" by God? People who say they cannot understand why such as good man should have suffered so much imply that their sorrow is due to a Divine decree. In that case every penny contributed towards cancer research is an attempt to frustrate the will of God. And if we shrink from such a blasphemous absurdity let us also shrink from the belief that God "sends" all our troubles to us. 

The struggle of a protesting, suffering heart to accept some tragic happening as in some hidden way "good" for it can be very distressing and is quite unnecessary. Christian piety is not blind obedience to an inscrutable authority, but trust is a heavenly Father. And when it is desperately hard to maintain such a faith try to remember these three simple things. (1) Whatever happens to us God has permitted to happen, though He may not have willed it. (2) God can use what has happened, even when it is not His will, so that in the end it will be seen to have served His purposes. (3) Ultimately God's will must prevail, and even now, since evil and suffering only exist by permission and not in their own strength, God is in complete control. 

This, however, is only one side of the Christian response to suffering, and it is the negative side. Jesus accepted the Cross, indeed He took it up, as the inevitable result of obedience to God. But He did more than receive it. He also offered it, as at the Last Supper when He gave the cup to His disciples and bade them share it amongst themselves, telling them that His death was to be something accomplished on their behalf.

Of course it is futile to compare the sufferings of Christ with ordinary human experience. But in the fact that His cup was both received and offered we may learn something which has a practical application to ourselves. The most Christian response to suffering is surely to ask oneself, not "How can I put up with this?", but "How can I offer this to God? In what way can it be found that a trouble can be turned into an offering, and in so doing we transform it into a creative source of life for other people instead of a drag upon ourselves. I think, for instance, of a woman lying in a hospital ward for many months, her twisted body offering vert little hope of future happiness for herself. And yet it was quite from her cheerful and trusting spirit that she was determined to do something with her situation which would be of service to other people. I think she was a source of courage and reassurance for everyone else in that place. I believe her life was a daily offering to God.

A pagan can bear his troubles manfully. A Jew can submit to them obediently. But only a Christian can offer them lovingly.

"If I stoop
Into a dark, tremendous sea of cloud
It is but for a time; I press God's lamp
Close to my breast; its splendour, soon or late
Will pierce the gloom: I shall emerge one day."

Dear Jack and Betty,

During the reign of Charles II thousands of Nonconformists were imprisoned for failure to comply with the various Acts of Parliament aimed at their extinction - and imprisonment often meant death. There is an estimate that between five and eight thousand died in prison during Charles' reign. Yet, although driven underground they were never exterminated. One of the noted men of the time was John Bunyan who, during imprisonment, wrote that most famous and well loved book "Pilgrim's Progress". Bunyan was later called to be minister of the Congregational Church at Bedford, a church which bears his name to this day.

In 1665 occurred the Great Plague of London. Many clergymen fled from their Churches in panic and in the general breakdown of the city's normal life which the plague caused, many Nonconformists slipped into the vacant pulpits. Their courage in visitation and work during this period made a great impression and may have resulted in the Declaration of Indulgence of 1672 which gave them three years of liberty. During these three years many new Independent Churches were formed but in 1675 persecution broke out again and went on for another 10 years. Then in 1685 James II (a Roman Catholic) came to the throne and in trying his best to help the Roman Catholics he was obliged (probably unwillingly) to give Non-conformists some relief.

A few years after, James II lost his throne to William of Orange (a Protestant) and in 1689 the Toleration Act relieved them of persecution. There was, however, nothing generous about the Toleration Act. It did nothing more than make them safe from further persecution but there was still a lot of feeling against them and they had to suffer many indignities. Many times their meetings were broken up and socially they were almost outcasts among their fellows, but they were safe.

Now Nonconformity began to grow apace. The three main denominations, Presbyterian, Independents and Baptists, built about 1,000 churches (or meeting houses) in the 20 years following the Toleration Act. In the main the congregations were small and the churches poor; the services were simple to the point of austerity; the sermons and prayers were long.

Now, strangely enough a blight fell on Independent Churches. The great progress of the previous 20 years was halted - slowly but surely decay began to set in. Dr. Peel describes it thus:-

"Persecution had stiffened Nonconformist convictions; tolerance resulted in the weakening and slackening of moral fibre. The old religious earnestness disappeared, as did the sense of joy and privilege in belonging to a Church composed of Christian believers. It is as true as it is suggestive that 'An enquiry into the Cause of the Decay of the Dissenting Interest' (1730) gives as the first and primary cause 'Ignorance of their own principles'."

A further reason for the decay was a social one. The old Independent stalwarts had died and their children did not possess the convictions of their fathers. They found that as Independents they were looked upon as "cranks" - the social pull of the Anglican Church had its effects and many members and even some ministers went over to the Church of England. The whole of Christianity in this country was at a low ebb. The old burning zeal had been lost. The old insistence on purity of life had disappeared. Men were careless of religion, prayer and worship. They ceased to be scrupulous about their amusements and began to worship the gods of pleasure and money. Men had in fact, for a time, lost the sense of God's presence. 

And here, perhaps, I can break my narration for a short space. As I wrote this description of religious life in the early 18th century, I was struck with its similarity to our own times now. Are we going through a similar phase today? Are we today putting too much stress on material things, on getting on in life? Have we of this generation lost the sense of God's presence? Perhaps you young people will just put this down to the moralising of an older man. It may be so, but I feel this generation has lost something and we have to find it before the great revival can start. Come it will I am certain. There is more than personal faith in this statement. It is the lesson history teaches.

Certainly a great Evangelical revival came in the 18th century. Wesley and Whitefield went through the land proclaiming the gospel with passionate intensity. The Sunday School movement commenced and men's thoughts turned towards missionary work. Revival spread throughout the length and breadth of our land. Congregationalists played a great part in this revival and Independent Churches acquired a keen sense of their responsibility for the Evangelisation of the world. Suddenly Congregationalists saw the terrific magnitude of the task ahead and they saw that while a Church independent and alone could deal with the problems in its own immediate neighbourhood something larger was required if the task of evangelising the world was to be attempted.

How we faced up to that task and its results I will tell you in my next letter.

Ever your affectionate
Uncle