1. Our Fellowship; in itself-We meet simply in the name of the Lord Jesus.
2. In its connections.-We seek to maintain fellowship with all believers,
Even with those of that party, as to the doctrinal statements of whose leader we avow that some of them we know not (10); some we utterly disclaim (9); some " we utterly reject" (I 1); whose views are so variable (18), whose tracts are written in such an ambiguous style (20), that neither the amount of error (21), and positive error (26), approved saints can agree upon; so written, too, that a second perusal has led some to condemn that, as utterly unsound, who did not so understand them on a first perusal (24). The author of which may be fundamentally heretical (27). Or [? on the other hand] of that party whose mode of controversy has caused the truth to be evil spoken of, and the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord.
3. As to receiving persons.- We receive all [nominal Christians?] [even though coming from the temple of Heresy, from under the teaching of one whose writings are fundamentally heretical], until we are satisfied that they have understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth (27).
4. As to protection of the Lord's glory, and the flock committed to us.-Any individual suspected of any error, would be liable to be examined on the point.
We hold also, as to a person withdrawing from us, that-
Unless error is held and taught among us, or that individuals arc received into communion who ought not to be admitted, unless, that is, there be allowed evil in life or doctrine, he who withdraws from us [and so treats us as if we had renounced the faith of the gospel], violates the principles on which we meet (38), and has no scriptural warrant (37).
It has been suggested to me, that the Ten avow a sectarian position (33) in these words, " we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers;" and yet we " consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do:" i.e. special membership is owned.
These four propositions seem to me to contain the theory stated above. Of one thing they may be quite sure, and that is, that those who believe it is a question between God ' and Satan, will neither recognize them any longer, nor those who associate with them; so that they will not be neutral after all.
Now, if words have a meaning, I get here something lower than the church of Rome, England, or any denomination or sect whatsoever. Nay, it is contrasted with all these things, for they spread the veil over their naked points, and make fair avowals. This openly avows spiritual lawlessness: and this from the pen of godly men, and with the fair sanction which their past holiness and devotedness gives.
The members and supporters of Romanism, Swedenborgianism, Irvingism, Princism, and of all. those systems which have been the expression and hold of a lying spirit, have a highway thrown up for them here into Bethesda, as much as Newtonism. The question is not, " Did Bethesda mean to do so?" or, " Does she think she has done so?" but simply, " What is the meaning of the document?"
(Neither, again, is it the question, " Whose pen wrote the I document?" but rather, " Whose energy blinded the minds and eyes of saints, so as that some have produced, and others accepted such a document?” And here, as before, the more honesty is proved in man, the more delusion from Satan also is proved.
In the theory (and as is the theory, so has been, and is the practice), truth and grace are not only separated from the Spirit, and faith, and good conscience; but may be used as the screen and shelter of any lying spirit which comes, of bad faith, and the seared conscience. The theory omits the Holy Ghost altogether, whose presence in the body is the distinctive difference of the church from every other company whatsoever; and shuts out the idea of " a fellowship in Him, or of vital union in Christ"; and it opens the door to all false doctrine, if the holder of it has but effrontery and subtlety enough to deny and baffle his examiners; for, denying the unity of the church of Christ, it sets aside letters commendatory, and the question concerning the company from which he comes, and of which he is still a member; and takes him as a unit upon his own testimonial of himself. " The manifested judgment of the Spirit of God in one gathering of saints is valid for all—this is here trampled under foot."
To meet in the name of the Lord Jesus, is not enough. If He is the center of unity, the Holy Ghost is the alone energizer in the quickened nature given -its sustainer. If this is forgotten, of course the Holy Ghost, personally present in the body, must be so also, as it is in so many places; and then there is no safeguard whatever for holiness or grace; and the table becomes that which sinks the soul of the individual into principles and practices of evil, from which, as an individual, he had emerged.
The fellowship of all believers in the above extracts is not commensurate with that which follows. Professor would have been a better word than believer, as conventionally large enough to include known false brethren and heretics. But there is another error here, and it is more pointedly stated afterward " to treat us as if we had renounced the faith of the Gospel." The fellowship of all believers assumes that every believer may be in communion; the excommunicate being " as if we had renounced the faith of the Gospel" puts discipline upon altogether a wrong basis, as if no man could be excommunicated who was a believer: whereas Paul says, " delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." To set aside this is to set aside the clearest token, the most overt one, of God's moral government in the Church on earth. He, God, is with her in her extreme acts of zeal for His name in her courts, when she puts away any; and the God whom she vindicated cheers her hearty love of grace, and vindicates her holy act by restoring the excommunicate in soul. There is here also the neglect of the difference of the Church standing upon earth in its perfectness as a whole, in contrast with the world and what Jude speaks of—the faithful few in the midst of false profession; while the danger of the framers of it is but too evident. The enemy seeks not to hurl them 'back into worldliness and fleshiness merely, but into that moral and spiritual corruption described by Jude, out of which we all came: if he succeeds they will build again the things they destroyed, and their last state be worse than their first. I speak of them now as if still retaining their Christianity. Lot's last going to Sodom was his worst.
The distinction between actual and practical union with all saints, and also the difference of holding a position not only open to all, but having a claim upon all, and a position of actual communication with all, seem too much forgotten. I have, as an individual, 'actual union with all saints who are in the world, for one Spirit sustains and feeds the life given in common to us all; but I know not all even so as to be able to practice communion with them, beyond praying for the (to my mind) undetailed all. Again, scattered and buried in various systems, whose centers are points of difference, and not the one center (viz., the grand common points of agreement), if I take up any position of fellowship at all, it cannot be one of actual communication with all saints, because some are buried in systems which deny the Word and the Spirit, and will not come where they and spiritual holiness are owned; and besides, some, in coming, could not be received, because they would demand the sanction of what God's word and faith and the Spirit would prohibit the surrender of, or would bring evil which he forbids the reception of. Of course, the communion of the brethren, if around the person of the Lord Jesus, is in the Holy Ghost and in the hallowing presence of God, even the Father-ever separative of all evil, whether of the world, the flesh, or the devil, as that will be found. To attempt a position of actual fellowship with all that have life, now, can only lead either to disappointment, if we be indeed true to God, or to latitudinarianism, if the heart, forgetting God, prefers the notion of brotherhood. And here let me remark, that the fallacy which troubles many upon this subject, is the assumption, made by themselves, that Jude's epistle is not true, and that the Church on earth has not failed; they think the Church is still an unbroken body, standing in the world in contrast with it. The fact is, that amid all the confusion of worldly Christianity and Christian worldliness, saints may be found everywhere and in every system; but witnessing for God will be in those who, ceasing to do evil and learning to do well, cleave to the living God in His present vindication of His competency and wisdom to keep whom He will. That these will have an obedience of faith as to all that was given at the beginning, and no other standard save Scripture, is quite true. It is also true, that "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." But serving the living and true God-that is their clue through the maze which man's wickedness has reared around them. And must surely, if I would take a position in the world of serving the living and true God, and waiting for His Son from heaven, that is possible; and not only is accessible to all saints, but has a claim upon all to come and do likewise.
Instead of all this, the theory proposed presents a system utterly at variance with God's truth as to the Church, utterly incompatible with the present walk of faith.