"To individual Brethren, more especially to those who labor, guide, or care for the Saints, meeting at the Chapels of Bethesda and Salem, and at the room in Newfoundland Street.
"[For Private Circulation.]
"Dear Brother,
"I write this note to you individually to state, in the fear of God, the grounds on which I feel compelled, for conscience' sake, to withdraw from fellowship with believers meeting at the places above mentioned.
" Certain doctrines have been taught, and disseminated, at Plymouth, which have been judged to be evil and heretical by most of the gatherings of saints who meet on the scriptural principles on which we profess to meet. More, as has been stated, than one hundred believers, at Plymouth, have testified of the evil of this doctrine; spoken of it as the work and delusion of Satan; have renounced it openly, and separated themselves on account of it. We have all, therefore, been fully aware, that a peculiarly solemn testimony has been given against it. The solemn question, as to the character of this doctrine, has been brought to our door here by some coming to the table of the Lord, who have had fellowship, and who desire (as I was given to understand) to continue such fellowship, with those (at least with one) who held and taught such doctrine.
" After waiting some time, in the hope that this subject would be thoroughly investigated and judged of, I find amongst the brethren who guide and labor here, a refusal to do so, and an objection to do so expressed by many. Many of the brethren are of opinion that the entering upon such a matter at all would be sectarian. My conscientious conviction is precisely the reverse. Further, that there being no judgment here concerning this truly momentous subject, three things follow, which, in my apprehension, are positively evil:—1. Many, I believe very many, of the Lord's people will be, or may be, excluded from fellowship. Should they come here, they will not be able to have fellowship, for conscience' sake, as having judged this doctrine to be evil, which is unjudged in these meetings;-by the exclusion of these, the saints here lose the benefit that would be derived from the communion of such:—2. There being no judgment, persons may come in and go from this to Plymouth holding, as far as is known here, these very doctrines, and I see no effectual hindrance to their dissemination under these circumstances, should any desire to disseminate them. This may always happen, simply because there is no judgment in the matter. 3. The believers here (I mean such as refuse to judge) lie under, at present, the suspicion and appearance of supporting and countenancing a doctrine, which I firmly believe to touch and dishonor the Person, Glory, and Majesty of Jesus Christ our Lord.
" I feel persuaded (according to my judgment, on which I must act,) that certain statements which have been published are, in their obvious interpretation and legitimate inference, subversive of the Atonement, notwithstanding the pointed statements of the writer in other parts to the contrary. And, if our Lord Jesus, the Center of Unity, be touched and dishonored, where is, I would ask you, unity or fellowship? It is a nonentity. Under the imputation or suspicion of harboring and countenancing these evil doctrines I cannot remain. My conscience before God would not allow of it; and, therefore, dear brother, while such a matter remains unjudged and uninvestigated, I feel that there is positive, manifested evil, according to my sincere conviction, and from such I am compelled to separate, under the word Cease to do evil; "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin;” Rom. 14:22, 2322Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:22‑23).
Observe.
1. At one of the Friday meetings of laboring brethren Which took place after the Orphan House meetings were ended, Mr. Alexander said, that he must separate from evil, and as they had determined not to judge the doctrine, he must leave the gathering. At a previous meeting he had intimated that he thought of clearing his conscience in this matter before the whole gathering, to which Mr. Craik replied, "You would he quite at liberty to do so."
2. Mr. A. printing and circulating the letter amongst the brethren, without giving them notice that he wits about to do so, is what Mr. Craik spoke of; when he said that "in his zeal for the orthodoxy of the Gospel, he had forgotten its morality."
3. Mrs. Brown was "not received" at this time, though she was breaking bread. That is, Bethesda has a technical term "not received," like the domestic denial of politeness, "not at home." She was breaking bread, but something or other had not been done; or it did not suit them to admit she "was received." I beg it may be noticed that I do ' NOT say "she had been received," for fault has once been found with mo for so saying. I only say she was breaking bread.
Observe the general outside-facts of the case. There were three persons, one of them an aged lady, who had left the Bath Gathering, because Mr. Newton would not be received, and was standing in the position toward Bath of a person excommunicate. Hear her character from Mr. " She would heartily prosper the principles, and views, and purposes of Compton Street, and make it her delight and her business to advance them all, in their full measure and stature, unconfessed and unretracted." There were also the two Mr. Woodfalls: one of them intimately known, from his connection with Devonport, and some of the worst parts of the evil; the other charged by a brother abroad with being an active emissary of the evil. Both charged, upon the testimony of many witnesses, with being accomplices in the evil of Plymouth.
Now, firstly, without entering into details of the letter of the Ten, what is it but a vindication, whether good or bad, called for or uncalled for is not the question now-it is a vindication of the laborers for their receiving such suspected persons. Robert Chapman, John Code, John Bellett, O'Brien, the Bath Brethren, some of their own congregation; brethren the distance, as Wilkie, Dorman, Brenton, Darby,. Macadam, and I know not who, warned and entreated, by letter or—in person: " No; we shall not attend to you." The doctrine makes out that the Lord needed a Savior for himself! There is a system of lying like that of the Jesuits goes along with it! The evil has broken up Ebrington Street; and you can ask Harris, Campbell, Hake, Hall, Deck, Jarrat, etc., etc. etc., or read what they have said. "No, no, no!
Secondly, let us turn to the paper. The substance of it is nine reasons-" The grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complying with the request of our brother Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth." And yet, as you will see, these reasons, and all the in and out argument they contain, are not the kernel,-that is hidden beyond; and only when the mind has been wearied, and fretted, and lost its calmness with what is found in these reasons, the important matter is quietly slipped in-slipped in as a well-known truth, which no one would question. Sec p. 35.
But there are these reasons. And who are the people who signed them? The Ten, whose signatures and conduct in having received certain suspected persons were clearly testimonials that they had all thus far judged that they were sure there was no practical danger in receiving the persons charged. Again, though none of them, I suppose, (lid really apprehend, or do apprehend, the Jesuitical system of Compton Street, yet they had, some of them at least, formed a judgment about the doctrine; and, in some of them, the judgment belied their act in signing. H. Craik, for example, could combat, and I heard did combat, Mr. Code's counter-statements, was not clear as to the doctrine, and had taken special care never to set himself against it. George Muller, again, at one of the meetings at which the paper was read, was asked by J. Code, whether he objected to state in public what he had stated in private? At first he objected, but afterward said, that, as an individual, he considered there were some very had errors in the tracts, and that he did not know to what evil they might lead. Then, again, John Meredith had read and condemned the doctrine; and Robert Aitcheson had investigated it, and favored Mr. N. Moreover, they all have committed themselves to those that know the doctrine, to an utter rejection of it, as we shall see when we come to 6-11.
Now, what would be thought of such a proceeding I will not say on the Stock Exchange, or at the bar, but in any commission office in the city, or in business. Change the subject-matter, and imagine any men in London so acting as to insurances, or the sale of shares, cattle, coals, estates, etc. Here it is a gathering committing the purity of the church, in a question touching the person and work of the Lord Jesus.
The prima facie thought on reading the paper is-These ten men had nine reasons common to them, why they could not meet what they call Mr. Alexander's request, and form a judgment about the doctrine. But, lo! four of them had formed private judgments for themselves about it, as well as the whole ten laid, both accredited the doctrine by the reception of the emissaries of it, and yet discredited it by declaring they held it not. See 6-10.
And now to go a little in detail into the paper. There is much of it which is true according to the letter, but not true according to the drift and meaning. As to Mr. Alexander:-read over the document again, and see what impression it leaves on your mind. The feelings it awakened in mine, on a first perusal, might be expressed in one sentence, thus: "What a dangerous person that is; piqued by the most reasonable refusal of the laboring brethren of Bethesda in Bristol to form and record their judgment about a controversy with which they had nothing to do down in Plymouth, he has revenged himself by awakening suspicions among the congregation." And the first sentence would rather lead a stranger to think,* " How unreasonable of Mr. Alexander, to be piqued because Bristol people would not go and examine the errors at Plymouth!" than to say, "When the representatives of a doctrine charged by numbers as being subversive of the Gospel and of a lying system of Jesuitry stood at the door, it was right for any one to insist upon the evils said to be connected with those who were entering to be investigated and judged, and too bad of Bethesda to refuse this." The case is really stronger, for instead of being at the door merely, Mr. A.'s letter says they were at the table, and there desired to continue their fellowship with the place whence they came. If so, instead of being hasty or premature, Mr. A. was really too tardy in acting, for meeting them at the table identified him with their evil, since he knew it. Mr. A.'s statement, expressive of his reasons for withdrawing, is not at all fairly stated here. He went out, and said he went out because certain persons, charged with being accomplices in certain evil things, were received without the evil being investigated, and not because of the ten workmen refusing to judge an abstract question.
To leave Bethesda because it would not examine some abstract question which has troubled saints in Demerary is one thing. No one could demand such a thing in reason, faith, or the Spirit. But to leave Bethesda because when persons credibly accused of being accomplices in certain sins committed in Demerary were coming, or had come, into Bethesda, is quite another thing. The latter was the case, and so A.'s letter proves. They misstate the case in 1. Though this misstatement is nigh enough to the truth, and presented in a way to challenge displeasure against Mr. A. for misconduct in unreasonable demands and foolish pique as to beloved pastors, etc., sufficient at once to pass current, and yet have a decided influence on the simpleminded. I speak of what the document is, not of what the writer or adopters of it intended.
Again, sentence 2. This is partly true in the letter, and partly false. Looking at it in the facts referred to, they are not the least objectionable. It was open to Mr. A. to choose his own line, and measure of warning too. It was open, too, to God to guide him in what way lie pleased. One could suppose that, instead of the servants of the saints here speaking, it was the schoolmaster. All godly deference I entreat my brethren to show to those who labor among them and are over them in the Lord; but this is another thing, and a thing which most of all prevents that subjection in the Lord; viz., men's claiming it for themselves, and claiming deference as lords over God's heritage, which is due to the ensamples of the flock.
" We had no intimation whatever of our brother's intention to act as he has done, nor of his intention to circulate any letter."
Here, notwithstanding al Mat some have said about "nor" not being always " disjunctive" in grammar, etc., a common simple mind would understand two things, and not one: viz. that, first, he gave no intimation lie would leave, which is not true, as may be seen by his Mr. A.'s letters; nor, secondly, of his circular. Mr. Craik drew up the document,-he is a scholar, and a good English scholar; and he has spoken about this being a very carefully worded document. If it is so, I defy any simple person to understand “the acting as he has done" as the same thing with "circulating the letter." To grammar and logic I have no objection: I like both. But I will not acknowledge the place, as the church of God, which, in a document presented to five hundred poor people, has to vindicate its statements by logic and grammatical quibbling. He did not state that he should publish a circular. He did warn again and again that he should leave.
3 and 4. See Mr. A's letters. I may just here remark, that I think in M r. A.'s letters we get several striking instances of how incompetent any one is to cope and deal with this system of things who is not awake to its character. A good man takes the prima facie aspect of a letter from brethren, or even honorable men in the world. Mr. A. did so with the letter of the Ton; and so did others when it was read; and they erred, and were some of them snared. Suspicion and shrewd watchfulness are necessary when one is dealing with that in which Satan is working; but the place which accredits him, or needs such power to guard the intercourse of its members, cannot be the church of God.
5. Is a painful sentence. A cry was heard, "You have driven me out, because the door is open and the wolf has entered?! The shepherds answer, "We are all as sound now as for the last sixteen years." It is painful too, because by thus suggesting that A. had said otherwise, it called off the minds of those who were troubled for the Lord and themselves, by a call for sympathy towards the pastors. See also, 7.
Sentences 6, 8, 9,10, and 11, are most strange, passing strange! in a paper in which a Decemvirate state nine reasons why they decline to "formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught at Plymouth." Why, here all the leading points of the controversy are touched upon! And where were these, the leading points of the controversy, so far as doctrine is concerned,-where were they picked up? And how can your expression of a judgment here harmonize with the well-known contrary thoughts of some of you, as Mr. Aitcheson? or how with your reception of the persons charged with being the underhand circulators of the doctrines you condemn? Did you draw a bow at a venture in these sentences? or do you condemn what report has wafted to your ears? If so, report about whom but about Ebrington-street people, whom you are receiving? But it is utterly impossible to call this fair dealing. Utterly impossible to say it is worthy of the church of God, or of the rulers that belong to M. Utterly irreconcilable with the drift, in good faith, though not with the very letter of, the and, 4th, and 5th reasons (see 19-25), or grounds afterward assigned; and, I cheerfully thank God to add, utterly irreconcileable with the characters of George Muller and Henry Craik. They have their faults like us all, bat disingenuous shuttling is not, I think, the natural fault of either.
And now in 12, we come to the grounds or reasons against a judgment. Alexander's words are, " After waiting some time in the hope that this subject would be thoroughly investigated and judged of," etc., and then finding "there being no judgment here concerning this truly momentous subject," and "unjudged in these meetings,"- " there being no judgment,"-" there is no judgment in the matter," -" while such a matter remains unjudged and uninvestigated,"- that is, he complained of the absence of judgment which could be acted upon. Why is this twisted round here into something else?
The 1st, that is sentences 13 and 14, is mere evasion. The question was this, "Will you, as overseers, though warned, mix, in the day when the plague is in the country, some suspected strangers with the healthful people?" The answer is, "The citizens, as a body, could not have been profited by having been exercised With the contests about the cause and indices of the plague in Smyrna." And let me ask here, first; as to 13, whether is it more evil, to have to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and for moral integrity, or to be corrupted by that which makes the needs-be of controversy; Cain's, Balsam's and Lore's sins. Would to God Bethesda saints had had the sorrow of watching and praying, rather than that of falling into temptation. As to 14, the pastor is no pastor who does not study the current dangers of the day; and the talking about "at Plymouth," and "the body," investigating is mere quibbling.
2nd reason, sentence 13. Whence got they this? But why not rather think of the glory of God,-the honor of Christ,-the presence of the Spirit,-the welfare of the church,-its manic before the world, as the keeper of the truth,-victory over the adversary,-the putting out of the world and the flesh,-the soul of a zealous (if not by them esteemed wise) brother! No, none of these things are thought of; -but a minimum of an answer is given.
The practical reason alleged- perhaps what is meant above, is ‘the reason practically alleged,' i.e., the practical substance of what is alleged.
16 and 17, are, of course, true in some sense; but " in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established," must not be forgotten; and in this case there were witnesses at hand most unimpeachable. Not those who had been " bitter " and hard in controversy against Satan and the evil, but gentle and tender spirited men also; some of whom, like Deck, who had stood by and watched and thought himself rather deceived with what he heard and saw, than that those he loved could be so wrong, and some too, who had been plucked as brands, out of the fire, after having lost more than man's heart knows how to estimate, for the one who led them into the evil; who treated them dogmatically while they owned his Tirshathaship, and cast diem off when their conscience could not consent to continue to hold a false Christ, or to abide in the devious, tortuous, course he had marked out for them. Alas! it was easy for Bethesda to speak of the mercy which had saved such, as "servile fear of having no leader."-But, so far as 16 and 17 are true, why are they put in the form of objections, as though Mr. A, had not gone to the fountain-head! He did, and he said he did.
18 is, alas, alas! the confession at once of disbelief of the charge of delusion and treacherous dealing, and the avowal of entire ignorance as to Satan's mode of warfare. An argument to silence an opponent it may be, but reason for not investigating, it is none; if it spews the difficulty of investigation, does it not the more show the need that those who are responsible as pastors, and who know most the help God gives, should investigate! And who is George Muller, to talk of difficulty? Besides, the question is, not what the writer acknowledges as his, but for what is he responsible. A Roman Catholic Priest is held responsible, and justly so, for more than he will own to.
19, the 3rd reason is monstrous. For the very things, which, before God, constitute the responsibility to do the thing, are pleaded as the reason why it should not be done. And, I must again say, not honest. A man and his party are accused of blasphemy, and delusion, and jesuitry; and George Muller, who never was afraid of any responsibility, God being his helper, says,-the difficulty must justify our not doing that, without which we could not act for God in this matter. And is it not a mere diversion to talk about the brethren hitherto of unblemished reputation for soundness in the faith, who have come to different conclusions as to the amount of error contained in them? Shades of difference, of course, there are in those who are of one judgment, but light and darkness, Christ and Belial, are the antipodes the one to the other; and the question raised, was never how much of evil, but are they fundamentally evil or not? And I do say that Romanism or Swedenborgianism could sail in under this most shameless statement. And pray where, if true, is the church of God at all,- where the Holy Ghost? Satan is abroad everywhere, and most true, human wit cannot meet him; but has God made no provision for our need in the Spirit and the word? Surely he has, and for worse days too. But it is a regular fog and mist here, as ever, when human opinions are looked to instead of God, and the word of his grace. But the fact is, sound godly men in every denomination only condemn the doctrine; but these will not do that, but only talk of measuring the amount. But
I pray brethren to observe two things here; first, that the talking about shrinking, "from the responsibility of giving any formal judgment in the matter" has no weight in it at all. They were not asked, -that was not the request,-to form and record a formal judgment before others. They had no responsibility to do so. No one asked it or wished them to do so; but they had a responsibility laid upon them by God TO ACT in certain cases; and they did, because they were obliged to it, act. The question was, " Will you act prayerfully and deliberately according to a sound judgment, and a sober mind, or will you act blindfold, and darkly, though warned of danger?" In some cases, not to act is to act. That is, when things are simply in progress onward, not to act is to let them go forward. But in this case it was not merely so, for it was quite clear to all around, and to themselves as warned by many, that not to reject the Mr. Woodfalls, etc., would be to reject a great many others.
Mark too here, under 20, that the knowledge of "some of us" could at times effect "that we [all] greatly shrunk," etc.
21, 22, 23, i.e. Reason 4, is mere trifling. The request is, Examine an evil which is at your door, and see whether it does not betray the foundations of the faith? The answer is, If we attempt to record in a formal creed our exact estimate of the amount of the evil, the saints around us will not be satisfied whether or not, to the grain and half grain, we are correct: how should they, when approved brethren elsewhere have not agreed as to the precise and exact amount of the evil. Saints will want to measure the writings for themselves: the result will be that in their incompetency, they will come to difference of judgment about the amount of the measure, and fall out about it.
Brethren inside Bethesda may answer how far they think that G. Muller is really one among those who share the responsibility of being the conscience-keepers of the body of the saints there. Is he one with a single vote in the assembly? Do they look at him as such? or rather as a bell-bearer in the flock? I pray that the way in which, when there is a body of conscience-keepers of an assembly, their incompetency to meet evil must appear, may be observed. And how the old saying, that a committee has no conscience must lend, when the saints have thus a committee, both to the choking of conscience and the dishonor of the Lord. And if in men like G. Muller, how much more in those of less power.
It sounds very well, and if the attention is absorbed by it, and the real question forgotten, may seem very wise. But the real question is not, What to an infinitesimal is the measure of the evil, and how will you put this exactly before each one? but, Does it not destroy the foundations? And do the Ten mean to say, either that in Arianism or Socinianism, they have measured to a minim the evil, or that they are able to satisfy the saints, or make the saints see and hold exactly the same thoughts of any evil.
And how will this bear the scrutiny of being compared with the conduct of these responsibility-bearers of the gathering on other occasions? Here they could not give a formal judgment, because of difference of judgment of approved brethren about the exact amount of the evil, etc. etc, Here the question is about the person of the Lord Jesus. How was it when the conduct of Muller was impeached needlessly (as I, unacquainted with the case, trust) about the Orphan-houses? Was there no difference of judgment about the amount of evil? Was there the same excessive fear of leading brethren to inquire, and of the incompetency and quarrelsome tendency of their company?
To my mind the most precious sympathies between those who are ' maniples to the flock, and the flock are here all denied. And if I had been in Bethesda when the letter was read, I should have felt that it was a rebuke to the whole body-a sort of vote of want of confidence in it-which its most true love for and deference to G. M. made not meet.
24, i. e. Reason 5, goes a step further.-
[Reason 1 says, "There could be no comfort to us in Bristol intermeddling with a matter at Plymouth."
2. To the remark, How then will you know how to act towards persons coming from thence? we reply, as to the controversy, Who can tell what the writer would acknowledge as his views?
3. Good men elsewhere could not come to one mind as to the exact measure of evil.
4. We will not get our flock upon this difficulty of the exact measure; but] Here in-
5. Some who now condemn did not do so on a first perusal.
Therefore, 25, there is little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching the nature of the doctrines therein embodied! And this upon foundation-truth: upon error which destroys the foundations. If this is not filthiness of the spirit, 2 Cor. 7:11Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 7:1), what is? But I cannot bring my mind to admit that any spiritual Christian, not under a delusion (much less George Muller), could pen this. What has become of God-of Christ-of the Holy Ghost-in the mind of these signers and of the congregation identified with the paper What an apple of discord did the signers own to be among them. What a confession to the flock of the character of the union without faith of the congregation! What a presentation of the value of outward union above the sound faith. "Let heaven and hell be confounded together," was the impassioned word of Protestant Luther, "ere one jot of truth be sacrificed." Here is something of which R. Chapman says, that it presents a Christ who could not save-who himself would need a Savior. Flock, we ten, are afraid to examine it, for " there is little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching [not now the exact measure of the evil, but] the nature of the doctrine."' That is (see 24), whether we shall condemn as "essentially unsound, or not so Understand them." What can these ten have been about to sign their names thus, the one against the other, and to present the document to the flock. What a ... ... But, no; I am sure they meant it not. The mind of the writer was absorbed in making out a case: the minds of the signers only looked to see that it met the case; but delusion is the best thought one can have about it. And what was to be the end gained of all this pleading, but to stupefy their own minds as to the horrid sin of letting bearers of leprosy in among the people.
Reason 6, 26, 27. Under 24 and 25, we were told they had little probability (strange word where salvation through grace is concerned, or the church built thereon) of coming to unity of judgment touching the nature of the doctrine; i.e. whether upon a second perusal they would condemn, or on it find perusal not so understand them. Now, 26, the amount is brought forward again, and then its nature; neither of which would suffice to condemn the avowed followers of Mr. N. upon, seeing they have repudiated the errors charged. Here we get to a new point: let its review, ere proceeding.- 1st. The doctrine cannot have a formal judgment pronounced upon it; then, 5-11, we utterly repudiate it; we will tell you why we will form no formal judgment upon it.
Reason 1. What comfort to us in Bristol to intermeddle with a controversy so far off as Plymouth.
2. Besides, it is unapprehensible; for who can tell what views the writer would own as his.
3. Good men have failed of unity as to the measure of the evil.
4. Let not our flock be similarly troubled as these good men about the measure of the evil. And-
5. As some who now condemn did not so at first, we fear our unity is at stake if we try to judge the nature of the doctrine. And-
6. If the exact amount of positive error was apprehended, this would not have rejected Plymouthians; for, even if the head of the party was fundamentally heretical, his followers' could not be rejected unless individually proved to be holders of views essentially subversive of foundation-truth, etc.
Indeed! A heresy and a heretical party are not to be condemned, unless the individuals are deniers of individual salvation doctrine. This is what is meant. An Arian or Socinian denies the foundation doctrine of individual salvation, and makes a heresy and schism upon it. Condemn the man; but receive the followers, because they repudiate the notion that they hold what some see in their leader's doctrine. Why then are they followers of him? The theory here involved is that there is no such thing in the world as the church of God; no such thing as heresy or schism; no Holy Ghost in the church; no difference between the church and Babylon, or between the preserved in Christ and the misled. But if they disclaim, why do they circulate, that which poisons? Or is there no faith once delivered to the saints? And how comes it, too, that the ten thus speak about the disclaimer? Did they see it? Did they weigh it? Did they hear what others had to say about it? The disclaimer can be read when the controversy cannot. Plymouth is not now so far off as it was. There is no such tog and mist over the disclaimer, or over their minds, as there was a few lines back. Cut off from all other brethren they were just now; but now they are in company with some. And what have they done with the charge of untruthfulness and of jesuitism? Are they able at once to receive everything the jesuit-priest says-take his word for everything, though no one else can be listened to?
7. 28 and 29, is mere child's play and quibbling, and is most untrue. It was never demanded. All that was demanded was, if you have the faith and are the church of God, act upon that godly discipline which becomes that house which is the temple of God, through the Spirit. A man, most active and energetic, is accused of being untruthful, a subverter of the faith, the former of a party reckless of all truth to maintain his views; sonic of his disciples come to you, and you stand quibbling about being called upon to judge his doctrine, lest you should be setting up a new term of communion. 30 gives up, not only the church, but the individual's portion; " we have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things." And sure I am, that many a simple poor woman in Bethesda, every one there that is godly, is, with the living God and the word of His grace, competent to judge such things, and also the conduct of the ten in Out; systematically setting themselves against God, and thus despising the church of God.
8. 30 is a garbled use of Scripture. "Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" is not inconsistent with freedom from strife about the things of this world.
31. It has been well said, if the two parties are God and Satan, it is not hard to say on whose side the professedly neutrals will really be found. 32. A while back, the controversy was down ever so far at Plymouth. Then the question was about Mr. N.'s errors. But the distance was not, when the question was of the self-pronounced soundness of his followers; still, the distance is little, and we can see great error in the mode [? whose] of the controversy. 33 contains the denial of the church. We will have persons merely as individuals., if believers, though the partizans of a heretic, they are welcome-if believers, though members of a Jesuit college or Unitarian chapel, let them come-we will not doubt the goodness of human nature; they profess to be all right, and that all the hard things said against them are false. Who are we, to question them? Who so good a witness as a man for himself? We meet simply in the name of the Lord Jesus: let who will come in, they are welcome. God forbid that I should speak lightly. Is not God, indeed, among us? Is not the church His house, the residence of the Spirit, the place of the Lord's holy discipline? And does not George Muller know the power and truth of the living God? But what is all this but sheer Romanism over again? The leading truths of the church, as its unity, catholicity, holiness, power, all betrayed, because acted out in the flesh and not in the Spirit: and George Muller the leader in all this! May God awaken him as one beloved to Him and to us, and snatch him from the dangers of this sin.
9. 34 and 35. This surely is merely an excuse. If the glory of the Lord Jesus and the safety of the flock which he tends, needed the study of 600,000 volumes,-surely George Muller is not the man to say him nay. Delusion blinded his eyes ere he set his name to a paper having such a sentence in it.
36, 37, and 38. Here we are upon new ground; but new ground described so similarly to the old ground, that the careless reader will confound the two together, and now accredit the ionizer (on which perhaps he had a question when he read it) for the sake of this. Observe, " individuals.... who ought not to be admitted " are all of them to be shut out; and then collies a strong appeal about the evil of pressing more than this. But let not the reader be deceived-the early part is the definition of who ought not to be shut out-and that includes the partisan of the heretic, and every man, however accused, who gives himself a good character.
39. The word "maintained" should have had "in our own minds" put after it, to snake it accurate; or else have been exchanged for allowed. Observe, the guard as to Plymouth is what? Why, we are towards it as to every well accredited gathering. "Persons coining thence, if. suspected of any error, would be liable to be examined on the point." The mass would be received without a question; if a particular person had it particular error charged against him, on that point he would be LIABLE to be examined. Liable does not necessarily mean surely and actually subjected to. I am liable to sudden death and various accidents which never yet have come near me. We should not say of the crew of it ship from Smyrna, when plague was known to be there, as it neared our shore, that crew is liable to be put on quarantine ground. The explanation of the "private intercourse" may be seen in Mr. A.'s letter. The laboring brethren felt no responsibility; some who have been driven out since did, and went to the Mr. W's. Two or three individuals I can name who did, who were the inspectors, voluntary visitors, and unsatisfied by the visit; but the tint of whose visit is now dragged in in vindication of the Ten by themselves. Every word is true, for there (was) private intercourse with him (the suspected of error) as to his views. The rest of 39 is quite true, but net all the truth. For the reason why he left the meeting was, that the meeting judged that that was not the time for it, and he was requested to leave on that ground. But there was a very particular something in the mind of the meeting as to the person also, besides the fact of there being a question for that meeting different from that which he brought to it, as we shall see in 40. Some one, I hear, said, as he was going, "that such an opportunity might be desirable on another occasion."
40 and 41. People had better look back at 39 and forward to Mr. A.'s letter to Mr. Withy, in which lie says that the objection by all to Mr. W's presence was, that having been at Plymouth, and a partizan, he could not possibly be a fair party in the discussion-the stress was laid on this, and not on his coming to answer questions,—and that Butler and Naish made it; on which ground only, Mr. A. declined his presence. He adds, Feltham and others objected to Mr. W. breaking bread at all till that had been investigated. I consider this 40 and 41 to be very, very dark.
42. See before.
43. Heartily can I say, Amen and Amen; but I would add, with sorrow, that the word "speculative" conies in unhappily in connection with 44, as to H. Craik and G. Milner, who circulated his book as a specimen of orthodoxy. It contains expressions which to those who know the controversy, are painful, as in a measure criminating Mr. Craik, though not so much as his words have since, or his letter to T. M., which I published. It is painful to notice, too, the accuracy, verbally, of 44-46. The book, as thus described, may have no error in it. The error is in the pieces, not then in the book, i.e. in the first edition, but written and added afterward, i.e. in the second edition.)
" This step is a very painful thing to me, but faithfulness and allegiance to Christ admit of no compromise. I could further state one or two grave objections in my mind, one of which, as far as I can see, would prevent me from continuing in fellowship; but, I confine myself to the statement of such reasons, as, according to my apprehension, justify the solemn step of separating from the fellowship of any believers. I act according to the light I have, and the judgment which I have very deliberately formed. You may not agree with me. I would pray, dear brother, that we may both be led to weigh all these matters in the balances of the sanctuary. It is there, in the presence of the Lord only, we can have any right apprehension, anything according to His mind.
" In conclusion, I desire to state, that I have met none here whom I do not love individually, and desire to serve, and cannot be separated from, as individuals; and some whom I must ever ‘esteem very highly in love for their work's sake.' But, I cannot, with my judgment and a good conscience, hold with them collectively in what I believe to be evil in God's sight; and if I must stand alone until the day of the Lord's appearing, I ant content to do so in this cause. I do heartily commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up.'
"I am your affectionate brother and faithful servant in Christ,
" G. Alexander."