Dear Brother G—:
Your letter of the 13th I found here on my return home in the end of the week, and your card of later date came yesterday....
A point in your card I would like to refer to, so as not to be misunderstood. The sentence is this: “I am not aware that I ever held that visitors must judge their position ere being received.” What I had understood was that the person should be spoken to as to the position before being allowed to break bread, and then the matter left to his own conscience, after the wrong position was pointed out. And I felt that if he were at all sensitive this would virtually prevent him from breaking bread until he was clear as to the position. I speak of this only to hinder the thought that I have said you held the person must first judge the position. This I never heard you say, and I may not have understood as to the other.
As to the case of Mrs.—, if she is staying away as judging the meeting, or because the world has such a hold upon her that she does not care to come, I think it is only right that she should be asked to declare her position, and if these are the obvious reasons for her habitual absence, the assembly, after patient waiting, and effort to restore, can only accord her the place she of her own will takes. If opposition from her husband is the cause of her continued absence, she would need the sympathies and prayers of the saints. All depends upon the facts in the case, and the state of soul exhibited.
No one instructed in the principles of the Word would hold that anyone is free to absent himself indefinitely from the Lord’s table, without being called on for the reason. There is a “within” and a “without,” and the assembly has a right to know who is within. And if there is one who has been within, but is no longer so in reality, the assembly ought to know, and may be called on to declare an incorrigible outside, even though not known as a “wicked person.” We have had such cases here — persons who left the meeting without giving any notice, and when questioned, took the ground of being done with the, meeting. Their decision was announced in the meeting, and the place outside voluntarily taken, accorded to them. One young brother who was said to have left in the same way was written to and interrogated. After some evasion he took the ground of being still with us, and his case still waits, although some of us are far from satisfied as to his state. We have to seek the Lord’s glory, and be guided by the principles of His Word in all these cases. Of course restoration is always to be desired and sought, where it is not a case of proven wickedness, or a deliberate choice of the outside position.
Kindly excuse a hurried line. Our united and much love to you all,
Your affectionate brother in Christ,
Memorandum of A. G.
With regard to the reception of visiting brethren from system, it is clear that they should not be allowed to come and go without a godly effort to enlighten them as to radical differences betwixt what they are upholding and what they have now come in contact with. It is not a light matter whether a saint of God habitually meets in religious fellowship with the world — which is obviously far worse than the secular world-fellowship involved in trades’ unionism — in disobedience; or, on the other hand, in obedience and separation, according to the commandments of the Lord Jesus. The easy-going indifferentism that would allow such visitors to depart uninformed; or with only such a vague and superficial remark as would indicate a matter of small importance, will be contemned by every godly, intelligent brother in the Lord. Loyalty to the Lord Jesus and to the truth of the gospel, and true love (that is, love in the Spirit) to the brother, alike forbid such negligence. Each visitor should be clearly informed, with becoming lowliness, gravity and earnestness, that he is linked with what signally dishonors the Lord who bought him; and this with direct reference to the Word of God. The Lord will doubtless call for an account of our conduct in this important matter, at His judgment seat.
In general it would seem preferable that the instruction referred to should be imparted before the visiting brother takes his place at the table. In this way he would be made intelligent as to what he was doing in circumstances altogether new to him; would be kept from unwittingly rendering himself amenable to scriptural discipline; and prevented from afterward demanding, “Why did you not tell me this before? Had I known it I would have sat back.” There is an undoubted danger of misunderstanding; but with godly care this may be guarded against. If a godly setting forth of the facts deters, it would seem well that one should be deterred. If, in the sphere of divine things, one can only act in the dark, should he act at all? The subject should obviously be left at this point: “We felt it due to the Lord and to yourself, dear brother, to render this explanation; which must not be viewed as the raising of a barrier on our part. It is the Lord’s table, at which there is a place for every saint walking godly and therefore for you. The way is freely open.” It might be that a godly, conscientious soul would respond that he would prefer to further consider the matter in the light of Scripture; and, meanwhile, to take a back seat; and would do so, in appreciation of the faithfulness and candor of the brethren. So doing he would be clearly self-excluded. This guarded effort to impart scriptural knowledge, (which may be refused and still leave the way open) cannot truthfully be termed the conditioning of fellowship upon the knowledge of Church truth; still less would it be the requiring a judgment of the visitor’s link with system. Nothing is required; and the door is left statedly open. When such a course was taken the visitor would probably be much the gainer by sitting back; whereas, by breaking bread in ignorance, there would be a tendency to slur the matter over without serious thought. If, on the other hand, notwithstanding the godly care with which the explanation was given the visitor should be prompt to take offense, he would thereby evidence his being in an unjudged state of soul which disqualifies from participating in this holy remembrance. He, too, would be self-excluded. While principles may be stated, rules must not be formulated. The Holy Spirit is in the assembly and each case, as it arises, should obviously be dealt with in the exercise of faith and dependence, as the Lord may direct. In some cases it would obviously be desirable to leave the explanation until after the visiting brother had broken bread; though it is questionable whether an equally deep and lasting impression would thus be made.
What one fears is a weakening upon points of divine principle by the responsible guardians of the truth; especially where natural relationship or personal friendship have place. But for the intelligence and firmness of some it is to be feared that everything would soon run into the looseness which suits man but is offensive to the Lord. How easy to so act as to signify “I am as thou art”; and thus be commended for “grace,” forgetful that nothing is grace that does not give the Lord His place; but merely human weakness and lack of conscience.
It seems clear that membership of system, backed by known moral ways, cannot be accepted as ground of admittance. In Mr. Darby’s day it might; but there has since been a fearful downward progress. Infidelity is widely and openly taught from the pulpit; the Bible is shorn of its divine inspiration and authority, and regarded as being merely a book of legendary lore and moral precepts; and creeds of once orthodox bodies are swept aside to make way for the admission into the sect of Unitarians and the like. Coming from such a quarter the visitor may well be interrogated as to his faith and baptism; and received rather in spite of than in any wise because of his membership in system. There are furthermore the facts that many ministers are deep in the oath-covered fellowship of secret societies; and that moral delinquency of a serious character is in some cases largely tolerated in order to retain the financial support of the guilty ones. If a visiting brother be a freemason why should he be received; when, if coming from the world he would be refused? My sympathies are with those saints who, with tender conscience, have scruples regarding laxity in receiving from system, though I quite recognize the danger of narrowness with a hard pharisaic spirit. Apart from grace we shall surely fail on the one side or on the other.