1895
It is not the writer’s intention to speak of the older and larger divisions existing in Christendom, but more particularly of those which have taken place within the last half century among those Christians professedly gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is a sad and humbling fact that these have been divided into a half dozen, or more, different companies. This ought to bow all in the dust, in humiliation and sorrow of heart before God. And indeed, such as have had the glory of the Lord Jesus at heart have been thus bowed before Him. Many have groaned and wept before Him because of the desolations that have been wrought. And I am sure many have felt like David, when he lamented the death of Saul and Jonathan, exclaiming: “How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in... Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” But alas! it has been published, and the enemy has made the most of it. So really is this the case, that when souls get exercised as to their church position, and find these different companies all professing to be on the same ground and gathered to the same Name, they are greatly perplexed. Every one who labors with souls knows the difficulty, and if his heart is right, he mourns the evil.
Nor is this all. The controversies that have arisen have so engrossed the minds of those who addict themselves to the ministry of the Word, that the simple ministry of Christ has been greatly hindered and weakened. The state is truly sad. Mighty ones have fallen; the ranks have been broken; hearts have been discouraged; and alas! fratricidal strife has in no small measure taken the place of united warfare against a common foe. All this is truly sorrowful.
But these divisions exist, and we can escape neither the responsibilities of them nor the consequences. And when we weigh these, we have to bow our heads in grief and shame, and humble ourselves before God. Moreover, we have to fall upon His mercy, for we cannot make a way for ourselves. He alone can do this in the scene where we have so miserably failed. And this He will do for all who truly seek His face. But we must be in His presence, broken and humbled and self-judged. In that presence there is no place for pride, or vainglory, or self-seeking in any form. But if these are judged, we will find ourselves in the presence of restoring grace, and in the presence of love that is greater than all the evil — a love that embraces the whole Church. “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-2725Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:25‑27)). Such is the character of Christ’s love to the Church; and if we are in communion with Him, we will be partakers of it. But let it be distinctly noted that this is not a love that slips over evil, or in any way glosses over sin. It is a love that occupies itself in sanctifying and cleansing, so that its object may be spotless, holy, and without blemish. This is no mere sentimentalism, but a love that seeks abiding and eternal good in divine purity and holiness.
Now, no one will deny that there have been causes which brought about the existing divisions. Are these causes, then, to be ignored or passed over, as if they had never been? I do not ask just now what these causes are; but I ask if they are good, or if they are bad. Surely every one will admit that what has caused such disastrous results must be bad. Again, then, I ask, are these to be passed over and forgotten, as if they were nothing?
Every one that truly loves the Lord and His people would surely rejoice to see those who have been scattered by these divisions happily reunited in brotherly love and true fellowship. But could this be, unless the causes leading to the divisions were first judged before God according to truth and holiness? Supposing at this moment all who have been scattered were to agree to drop their differences, or to bear with one another about them and come together, extending to one another the right hand of fellowship, would they thereby be in a better state in the sight of God? They might for the moment be jubilant and happy, and boast of what had been done, but would not God, who reads the heart, have to say: “From the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jer. 8:10-1110Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. 11For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. (Jeremiah 8:10‑11)). And would not the state be much worse than before?
These questions are asked, because at the present moment a very zealous movement is on foot, if not to bring about directly an amalgamation of all the different companies of [so-called] “Brethren,” at least to bring about free inter-communion between them, which, doubtless, would soon result in amalgamation, if the daubing with untempered mortar did not result in greater scattering than ever.
It is well known that in 1892 a large meeting of brethren who are with F. W. Grant, was held at Plainfield, N. J., for the purpose of considering their position toward those known as “Open Brethren.” The result of the deliberations was a decision that they could receive from “Open Brethren” as from the various sects, and some Open Brethren being present broke bread with them at that time. It has transpired, however, that in reaching this decision, these brethren at Plainfield were in some way deceived by certain explanations given of a certain letter, which has been known as “the letter of the ten,” because it was a document prepared and signed by ten leaders at Bethesda, during the controversy of 1848. In this letter the statement is made: “Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing the author of the tracts [referring to Mr. Newton] were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation truth.”
A similar statement is made in a letter of Mr. James Wright, one of the Bethesda leaders, written in 1883, in answer to an inquiry on the subject of receiving. It says: “The ground on which we receive to the Lord’s table is, soundness in the faith, and consistency of the life of the individual believer. We should not refuse to receive one whom we had reason to believe was personally sound in the faith and consistent in life merely because he, or she, was in fellowship with a body of Christians who would allow Mr. Newton to minister among them.”
These statements both show that a man might come from a meeting which was a hotbed of heresy and blasphemy and he would be received, provided he himself was considered sound in the faith. But these brethren at Plainfield, it seems, were led to think that these statements had been misinterpreted. In the Plainfield circular they represent “the leaders in Bethesda” as saying: “We do not mean that any would be allowed to return to a heretical teacher. He would become subject to discipline by so doing. Our practice proves this. We had no thought of intercommunion with persons coming from a heretical teacher when that sentence was written.” “In the same way Mr. Wright’s letter, at a much more recent date, affirming on the face of it the same principle with the ‘letter of the ten,’ has been explained not to mean intercommunion.”
It seems difficult indeed to see how these Bethesda leaders can honestly make these representations, when it is well known that it was a question of those in communion with a heretic going in and out of Bethesda. Everyone knows there is no difficulty about receiving any true soul who breaks with the evil, and refuses to return to it. This has never been a question. Besides, Mr. Wright’s letter shows plainly that it was not a question of receiving one who had broken his connection with the heretic, but of receiving one who “was in fellowship with a body of Christians” allowing a heretic to teach among them.
These brethren at Plainfield must already have been sadly under the blinding influence of this unfaithful system, to be deceived as they were by these false explanations. But it seems that afterward some of them, at least, got their eyes opened to see how they had been duped; and in 1894 they issued another circular reversing the action of 1892.
The Plainfield circular shows painful indecision of heart as to what touches the Person and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and the true welfare of the saints. But we can be thankful to God, if in any measure they have been recovered from the snare. The results, however, of the false step at Plainfield remain, for not a few refuse to return to the old lines, and persist in still maintaining the principle of inter-communion with “Open Brethren,” or any others who would allow them.
It would seem that J. H. Burridge, of England, is one of the principal leaders among the advocates of intercommunion, with a view of uniting all the different companies of brethren professedly gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. As I understand him, he holds that all these different companies are simply parties, and that it is these things that keep them apart. And yet he holds that all these are divinely gathered according to the Word of God. In his book on “Christian Unity,” after speaking of the different divisions and companies, he says: “Of all the parties of Brethren I have referred to as gathered to the Lord’s name, I do not know one that I could not remember the Lord’s death with, and I would do so with all, if they would allow me, for I do not know of any fundamental error amongst them. It would matter not to me what they call themselves, or what others call them — Plymouth, Bethesda, Close or Open, etc., etc. — so long as they were saints of God, and gathered simply to Christ Himself.”
“We have seen that the chief barriers between the different companies of those gathered to Christ, in the main on scriptural principles, are composed of prejudice and party feeling. Take these barriers away, and let each company take its place as simply gathered to Christ, as a feeble remnant in the midst of general ruin, to receive in their midst all who are the Lord’s — all who are sound in the faith and of godly conduct — and we shall find that the different companies are in fellowship with each other directly.” Pages 36, 37, 38.
These extracts show very plainly what Mr. Burridge’s position is, his judgment as to the different companies of brethren, and the remedy he proposes for the existing evils. He would break bread with any of them, and openly advocates intercommunication among all these companies. There are no principles or doctrines that divide them, it is only “prejudice and party feeling.” There may be minor differences of little or no importance, but if “prejudice and party feeling” were removed, they would find that they were in fellowship with one another.
Assuredly it would be matter for thanksgiving to God if all “prejudice and party feeling” were, through His grace, completely judged in every heart before God and removed out of the way. But oh! how superficial must be the view of this brother if he thinks this is all that is needed. Yet he seems to think so. And with this judgment he is zealously laboring to break down the barriers he speaks of, and to bring these different companies together.
Only last August a conference was called to meet in the city of New York to consider these questions. About 250 responded to the call. Mr. Burridge, in his report of this conference, after stating the principles they avow, adds: “We are glad to be able to say also, that in accordance with these conclusions, and, as we believe, as a result of the exercises before the Lord referred to above, between seventy and eighty brethren from different sections or companies remembered the Lord together in happy fellowship on Lord’s day morning, not as opposed to or distinct from other companies and meetings of brethren, but (as far as we ourselves at least were concerned) in full fellowship with them; for we believe it is of the Lord not to make another party, but to draw the different parties of brethren that exist closer to His Word and to each other.”
This surely is a remarkable utterance, and yet it is in keeping with the object they have in view. Here is a company of brethren meeting together, and breaking bread apart from all other companies, yet claiming they do it, “not as opposed to or distinct from,” but “in full fellowship with them.” Why then apart? While professing to be in “full fellowship” with all, is it not, on the face of it, an exhibition of complete independence of all? And in this way it is practically a new party, professing to belong to no party, yet professing fellowship with all parties.
This is nothing else but confusion, having for its basis the ignoring of the solemn causes which have produced division. Nothing could be happier than to see beloved brethren who are now divided brought together again according to truth and holiness; but to attempt to bring this about by glossing over the evil that has produced the divisions, would be sorrowful indeed. One would rejoice to see any earnest, holy desire to have the causes of division removed and the breaches healed; and I am far from saying that Mr. Bur-ridge’s desires, and the desires of those with him, are not good and commendable. But there is one fatal defect, and that is, the determination to ignore the evil principles that characterize Bethesda as a body, as well as what has caused still later divisions. Brethren might let all these pass and unite together, and be on good terms with one another, but this would not put them right with God. If they are to get right with Him there must be self-judgment as to the past, and a complete renunciation of principles dishonoring to the name of the Lord Jesus.
I know Mr. Burridge thinks there is really nothing in the way except prejudice and party feeling. But is this so? Reference has been already made to the “letter of the ten,” and to Mr. Wright’s letter of 1883, both of these affirming a principle of reception which admits of association with a meeting characterized by heresy. Mr. Burridge may say this is false, but his saying so does not make it so. He seeks to shame brethren because they keep bringing up this “letter of the ten.” Mr. Burridge is with Bethesda. Why then does he not seek to have the evil principle contained in this letter expunged? Nay, but he defends the offensive words by giving an explanation of them which is contrary to the whole spirit of the controversy. The question never was whether a godly person, sound in doctrine, who had broken with a wicked meeting, could be received. The question was, and is, whether one who is in fellowship with a meeting where blasphemy is tolerated, can be received.
A man comes from a meeting which deliberately allows blasphemy against the person of Christ, and says he is in fellowship with such a meeting, but does not hold the blasphemy taught there. They examine him and think he is sound in the faith, and receive him, without any question of his having renounced his connection with that wicked meeting. Now I affirm that this is a wicked principle of action, and Bethesda proclaims it as her principle of receiving communicants. Suppose there were a meeting that avowedly tolerated fornication, and a man came from this meeting, declaring himself in fellowship there, but denying that he practiced this evil. Would they receive him without first requiring him to purge himself from such a hotbed of corruption and iniquity? “Oh!” it will be said, “but it would be terrible to receive from such a meeting.” Truly it would, but is this to be made a worse evil than blasphemy against the Son of God? Would it be more terrible to have fellowship with fornicators than to have fellowship with blasphemers of Christ? And besides, how could a man be trusted who came from such a meeting, if he refused to break his connection with such horrible wickedness?
I repeat this is a wicked principle, and it is the principle of the Bethesda meeting, declared in the “letter of the ten,” and reaffirmed in Mr. Wright’s letter of 1883. And the late explanations by those who would escape the guilt of this wicked principle will not stand for a single moment in the light of the controversy of 1848. Note the following from “Vindication of Separation,” by L. Pilson, 1875, page 75, quoted here from a paper addressed to those who signed the Plainfield circular: “They were requested to withdraw it in order to prevent the division that ensued, but they would not. They were asked, did they mean by the sentence that they would receive from the heretical teacher, but not allow any to return to him; and so on backwards and forwards, establishing interchange of communion. They would not say that such was their meaning. It is evident it was not.”
So these later explanations are found to be entirely gratuitous, and they serve only to mislead, as they did at Plainfield in 1892. The “letter of the ten” states a principle fundamentally false and wrong, because it refuses jealously to guard the truth as to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to it you are bound to receive a man coming from a heretic until you are “satisfied” that he has “understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of fundamental truth.” There is not even a “shutting up for seven days,” as in the case of suspected leprosy.
But it is now strenuously denied that this wrong principle has ever wrought in Bethesda. Mr. Burridge, in “Reply to ‘A Statement,’ etc.,” says: “Bethesda has never tolerated Newton’s heresy, and never received one in their fellowship who held it. It is positively wicked, then, to charge that assembly with toleration of, or sympathy with, such heresy.” Page 12.
It is to be regretted that Mr. B. has made this confident and emphatic statement, so contrary to the facts in the case. Allow me to introduce here two witnesses who were through the whole struggle and knew a vast deal more about it than Mr. Burridge.
“First I must tell you that I believe that if one meeting received the members of another, and the members of the former go there in turn, there is a bond between the two, although I own that in the present case other motives have power over me. This is how it is, then, at B [ethesda]. Doctrine is not in question, but faithfulness to Christ with respect to doctrine or holiness. I would not receive a person who knowingly formed part of a meeting which admits heretics, or persons whose conduct is bad, because the principle of indifference to good and evil, to error and truth, is as bad as the wrong action, and even worse. Let me be clearly understood. I believe that the Church is bound to be jealous with respect to the glory of the Person of Christ. If Christ is despised, I have no principle of union. I believe that B. has acted with profound contempt for the Lord, to say nothing of brethren. Here there is nothing equivocal. Mr. N. was maintaining a doctrine of which Mr. Muller himself said that if it were true, Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we did. This doctrine placed Christ under the effect of Adam’s sin by His birth, in saying that He had to gain life by keeping the law. We had driven away this doctrine and those who upheld it, and the struggle was ended. The persons who had supported Mr. N. had published confessions with respect to the doctrine, and had made confessions before the brethren publicly of the falsehoods and wickedness by which they had tried to make good their views and to justify themselves; it was a truly extraordinary work of Satan.
“Well, a lady wished to introduce Mr. N. to teach in a meeting near Bethesda; this meeting refused; she left the meeting accordingly. She was introduced at B [ethesda], Mr. M. knowing that she was maintaining and propagating this doctrine. Mr. Craik, the other pastor, having had to do with her also, she went there because they admitted such persons into that meeting. At the same time, two gentlemen who made part of the meeting which Mr. N. had formed when he was obliged to leave on account of this doctrine (those who had supported him having left him and made confession), these two communicants of Mr. N.’s, I say, were admitted to B. It is proved true that these three disseminated Mr. N.’s tracts in the B. assembly. The lady induced a young lady to go who was the most active and intelligent agent that Mr. N. had in order to spread his doctrines. In consequence of these circumstances, several godly brothers of B. asked that all this should be examined; they said that they did not ask even that the judgment of the brethren should be taken thereupon, but that they should examine the matter and the doctrine themselves. This was decidedly refused. I received a letter from Mr. C. blaming me as sectarian for making these difficulties, even when he was not prepared to receive everything that Mr. N. was teaching. They had many meetings of the flock, and the ten laboring brothers (of whom two were really disciples of Mr. N.), Messrs. M. and C. at their head, presented a written paper to the assembly at B., declaring that this was a new test of communion, which they would not admit; that many excellent brethren did not give so decided an opinion upon Mr. N.’s doctrine; that they were not bound to read fifty pages to know what Mr. N. taught, the members of his flock being — mark this! — already admitted at B. A brother asked permission to communicate some information about Mr. N.’s doctrine, in order that the assembly might understand why they held to it that the doctrine should be judged, and this was peremptorily refused; and the paper which said that many had not a bad opinion of the doctrine, rejecting as a new condition of fellowship the examination into the doctrine, was laid down as the absolute condition of the pastorate of Messrs. M. and C., without which they would withdraw from their ministry in the midst of the assembly. Those who justified them on the ground of this paper were to rise, which was done by the assembly, thirty or forty forthwith leaving B. So that, with knowledge of the matter, they laid down as the basis of the B. assembly, indifference to the truth as to the Person of Christ; and they preferred to see about forty godly brethren leave rather than to examine the question, having in fact in their midst the members of the N. meeting. This was so much the more important in my eyes, because Satan was seeking at that moment, and still seeks, to forbid the assembly of the children of God to examine into and judge any heresy whatsoever; that once a person has been acknowledged as being a Christian, one has no right to know what he holds. This has been plainly laid down as a principle by many persons who blame us, and they desired to take advantage of it to force us to receive a young man who distinctly denied that there was such a Person as the Holy Ghost. I do not say that all lay down this principle, but the enemy has sought to bring it in, and amongst the brethren who opposed me on this question some of the most violent maintain it.
“Now, the principle of indifference as to the Person of Christ being laid down at Bethesda and the assembly having publicly accepted it, I refuse to admit the principle. They have admitted persons put outside amongst us on account of blasphemy. Messrs. M. and C. are the pastors of the assembly in virtue of this principle. This letter has never been withdrawn; they claim to have done right. Many things will doubtless be told you in excuse, and to make it appear that they have done things which nullify this: I know bow it is with them. For me their condition before God has become much worse. I should be ready to say why. I believe that they are themselves more or less infected with false doctrine, but I cannot enter into the story in detail. Mr. M. said to me (after having acknowledged that Christ would have needed to be saved as much as we if this doctrine was admitted) that they maintained the ‘letter of the ten’ to the full, and that they had done well in all that they had done. Well, indifference to Christ is a grave sin: an assembly which bases itself publicly on this principle I cannot accept as a Christian assembly. Assemblies which are connected with B., which go there and receive from thence, are one with B. — save the case of persons who are ignorant of the matter, an exceptional case of which it is not necessary to speak. For my part, this is what I do: having distinctly taken my position, I judge each case individually according to its merits, but I will not receive a person who keeps up his connection with B. with knowledge of the matter. Faithfulness to Christ before everything; I know not why I labor and suffer if this is not the principle of my conduct.” (Letters of J.N.D., Vol. 1, pp. 246-249 [First Edition], dated October 6th, 1851.)
In Mr. Trotter’s “Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda,” we are informed that: “In the month of May, 1848, a meeting was held at Bath, attended by about 100 brethren from all parts, the leading features of which were: (1) That in it the brethren who had been rescued from the doctrinal errors of Mr. Newton, and whose confessions have been noticed, made further confessions, full and ample, as to their implications in the charges made against the untruthful, immoral system of Ebrington Street, as brought to light in the `Narrative of Facts’ and ‘Account of Proceedings in Rawstorne Street.’ They acknowledged that these charges were just.... (2) The other remarkable feature of the Bath meeting was this, that the ‘Narrative of Facts,’ and other publications of Mr. Darby on these mournful occurrences, were subjected at that meeting to the strictest scrutiny, Lord Congleton endeavoring for five hours to prove them false, and Mr. Nelson, of Edinburgh, aiding him in his efforts. The result was that the statements contained in these pamphlets were so fully established that some, who had always mistrusted them till then, exclaimed that they never knew anything so demonstrated” (Pages 26-27).
In the next paragraph Mr. Trotter adds: “It was immediately after this that the rulers at Bethesda admitted to communion there several of Mr. Newton’s devoted friends and partisans, and this in spite of all remonstrances of godly brethren among themselves, and of others at a distance, who warned them of the character and views of the persons in question. The brethren on the spot who had protested against this step were now obliged, in order to avoid fellowship with what they knew to be soul-defiling and Christ-dishonoring doctrines and ways, to withdraw from fellowship with Bethesda. This they did, one of them printing, for private circulation, a letter to the leading brethren there, explanatory of his reasons for seceding. Ten chief persons at Bethesda then drew up and signed a paper vindicating their conduct in receiving Mr. N.’s followers, and rejecting all the warnings and remonstrances which had been addressed to them.” Pages 27, 28.
In the face of the unimpeachable testimony of these two witnesses, how can Mr. Burridge so confidently affirm that Bethesda has “never received” any who held Mr. Newton’s doctrine, and “never tolerated” the heresy?
It is pleaded that Bethesda did judge Mr. N.’s heresy. Very likely; but it remains true that they forced out of the meeting about forty godly brethren by their indifference and refusal to examine the question that had burdened so many. This, instead of judging the doctrine, was tolerating it, notwithstanding Mr. Burridge’s plea for Bethesda’s innocence.
It is indeed claimed that the whole body at Bethesda judged the matter in December, 1848. This was six or seven months after they had received, against every remonstrance, the friends and disciples of Mr. Newton; and these persons continued with Bethesda till the 12th of February, 1849; that is, two months after this judgment is said to have been declared! “By the 12th of February, 1849, all Mr. Newton’s friends at Bethesda had sent in resignations — Captain Wood — fall, Mr. Woodfall, Mrs. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Aitchison, two Miss Farmers and two Miss Percivals.” See “Whole Case of Plymouth and Bethesda,” pages 36-43.
Nor is this all. Mr. Trotter quotes from a paper by the Woodfalls to show that this step had been finally determined on from a conversation with one of the pastors, who seemed to think this would relieve them from some of their difficulties, and to show that in taking this step they did not at all waive their claim, as brethren in Christ, to a seat at the Lord’s table there. So after all it was to relieve the pastors of trouble, that these people left, and not because any judgment of the assembly was enforced. Could there be a clearer case of insensibility to evil, and of moral imbecility in dealing with it, as well as heartlessness as to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ?
But it is said these things took place nearly fifty years ago, and we have nothing to do with them now; that it is not a question of Bethesda’s state in 1848, but of her state in 1895. This may sound plausible, but is it a true principle? If the sin of 1848 has never been judged by that assembly, does it not still remain? Has a mere lapse of time effaced it? Does God forget? Does not He require the past? Did He forget the sin of Solomon, who built high places for Chemosh and Molech and other false gods, in order to please his strange wives? Did He forget the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, or of Ahab, who sold himself to work wickedness beyond all others? Did He forget the sin of the people of Judah in turning aside to serve other gods?
Hear the message of the Lord to Josiah through Huldah, the prophetess, when that good king was troubled by the reading of the book of the law which had just been found in repairing the house of the Lord. “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read: because they have forsaken Me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore My wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.” 2 Kings 22:16,1716Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: 17Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched. (2 Kings 22:16‑17). Even though, time and again, there had been in Judah good kings and prosperous reigns, this solemn prophecy was fulfilled in the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, as already Israel had been carried into Assyria, and this, not merely for the sins of the last king, or of the last generation, but for the sins of the nation from the days of Solomon, each generation inheriting the sins of the generation going before. Had they heeded the voice of the prophets and taken warning by the sins of their fathers, they might have been spared. But anything there was of this was only limited and temporary, and connected with the influence of some godly king, and the threatened judgment, while it might be delayed by temporary and partial repentance, came none the less certainly.
In a later day, when God visited His people in the Person of His Son, He came to a nation laden with iniquity, notwithstanding that the house was “swept and garnished.” Boasted orthodoxy was there, and an abundance of sanctimonious religiousness and self-righteousness; but in all this no place was found for God’s beloved Son. They built the tombs of the prophets and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous, and said: “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets,” and yet even now they were ready to murder the Son of God, who said to them, “Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers! how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:29-3529Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:29‑35)). Thus were they to be tested and be found the guilty inheritors of all the sin of slaying the righteous during the previous 4,000 years of the world’s history. Even now their solemn imprecation, “His blood be on us and on our children,” is having its answer in the sorrows of that scattered and homeless people, as it is very soon to have a far more terrible answer in “the day of Jacob’s trouble” — a day of sorrow without a parallel before or after it. Thus the sins of the fathers came upon the children after many generations, and justly, too, because the children are the willing inheritors of these sins.
So also, in the mystic Babylon of Revelation is “found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth” (Rev. 18:2424And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. (Revelation 18:24)). In this respect she, too, as the lover of persecution, filling herself drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,” inherits the sin of the guilty, persecuting Israel. This is very solemn and shows that God makes requisition for the past, even though the unjudged sin may have been committed thousands of years before.
Thank God there is a way of escaping the judgment, and that is by judging ourselves and separating from the evil. A Jew who confesses Jesus as Lord severs himself from that guilty people, and will have no part in the nation’s coming day of sorrow. And speaking of Babylon, God says: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities” (Rev. 18:4-54And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. (Revelation 18:4‑5)). Nothing could be plainer than these scriptures, as showing that God does not forget evil; and that if we would not be partakers of it, we must separate ourselves from it. Some of these cases given in illustration, may be extreme cases, but they show all the more clearly the principle involved.
And this principle imperatively forbids the thought that the past history of Bethesda is not to be considered, when the question of fellowship with her is raised. No amount of present decency and respectability can be accepted in lieu of self-judgment and repudiation of the evil. If the evil be not judged it remains, whatever the appearances may be. This principle cannot be controverted. Extensive blessing in the gospel, increase of numbers and such like things, may be held up as proof of God’s approval. Such may be a proof of His owning individual faithfulness in preaching the Word — a thing for which we can thank God wherever we see it — but it proves nothing as to owning Bethesda, or any other system, in its corporate character. A multitude of instances are to be found of widespread blessing through the preaching of the gospel in the various sects. Does this prove that God owns the sects in their corporate character as being the expression of the truth as to the Church of God? We know it is not so. No more does the argument prove anything as to Bethesda as a body. It is not meant to put Bethesda on a level with guilty Israel or Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots; but these latter are brought forward to illustrate a principle in the government and ways of God, which has its application to Bethesda, notwithstanding that in her fellow-ship there may be many devoted and pious souls.
The question is: Did Bethesda preserve her title to be owned as an assembly of God, or as on the true ground of the Church of God, by cleaving to the truth and keeping herself pure by refusing toleration of or association with that which dishonors that holy Name to which they were professedly gathered. This is just what she has not done. At a time when the saints were harassed by a fearful attack of Satan, she proved herself remiss and recreant to her trust; and from that day to this Bethesda has never judged her past sin of indifference to blasphemy against Christ, and has never recalled the letter which affirms this indifference as a principle on which she took her stand as an assembly. On the contrary, the letter of Mr. Wright, already quoted, maintains the principle thirty-five years later. While this remains the declared principle of Bethesda, it is in vain to plead that the state is changed. If there is a change, why not give proof of it and of repentance, by renouncing this false principle altogether, and repudiating the letter containing it, instead of advocating intercommunion between her and other companies of brethren?
We need not review the causes of all the divisions which have taken place, but it is well to understand the causes of this one sufficiently well to see where it left the respective companies in relation to Christ, that we may see, in the light of that struggle between truth and error, light and darkness, whether this new movement commends itself to the upright conscience.
Mr. Burridge himself admits that Mr. Newton taught “an awful, hideous heresy as to the Lord Himself,” “a fundamental heresy of the worst kind.” “Reply to ‘A Statement,” etc., page 11. But on the same page he also affirms that it “was thus judged by those with Mr. Darby and by Bethesda alike.” We may ask, did these two companies judge this heresy at the same time? As far as Mr. Burridge’s statement goes, the reader might think so. But it is well known, as we have already seen, that such is not the case. For a length of time the agents of Mr. Newton, holding the doctrine, were received at Bethesda without challenge by the leaders; and when it was desired to investigate the evil it was refused. Was this judging it “alike”? Why did they delay when besought to investigate? And when they did judge, was it for the sake of the Lord’s glory? Was there repentance? Could it be said of them, as of saints at Corinth, who had been indifferent to moral evil in their midst? “For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Cor. 7:1111For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:11)). Could this be said of Bethesda? We look in vain for proof of this. Where, then, did this horrible neutrality, unrepented — of, leave them in relation to Christ? They had received blasphemers; the assembly had voted, and the leaders had signed a letter which admitted the principle of association with blasphemy. Are these the marks of an assembly owned of God? In such a state does not the scripture apply, “Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”? Let him who trembles at God’s Word answer. The house may be “swept and garnished,” there may be a human effort to improve the condition and make it more respectable, but the door is open to association with evil. It may sound well to say that the persons received are themselves sound in the faith. But what are they associated with? Blasphemy. Bethesda, according to her own written declaration, receives persons who may be ecclesiastically associated with blasphemy, and in so doing she associates herself in principle with blasphemy. Is this the moral basis on which the assembly which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” stands?
Mr. Burridge asks it to be proved to him, “that the principle of receiving a child of God sound in the faith himself, but coming from a meeting, church or chapel which tolerated an erroneous teacher, was wrong — that is, not that such would be allowed to play fast and loose by going to and fro, but for the instruction and recovery of such, which is the point of the letter in question.” “Reply to ‘An Allegory.’ “ page 11. Now in this very challenge there is a plain admission that it is no question of one who has broken with the evil, because the object of receiving is “for the instruction and recovery of such.” If they need to be recovered, it shows that they are still connected with the evil, else what would they need to be recovered from?
But he goes still further, and adds on the same page, “Yes, and even betimes allowing such individuals to go to and fro between the system, in which erroneous teachers might be in numbers, and ourselves.” So then we may allow persons to pass back and forth between ourselves and a meeting which has the plague of leprosy after all! It is not merely receiving them and not allowing them to return. No, “betimes” they may be allowed “to go to and fro”; that is, you may receive those who are on good terms with blasphemers of our blessed Lord, and allow them to continue on good terms, keeping up communication with them ecclesiastically. This is all right, and we are asked for scripture to show it is wrong! Mr. Burridge may try to get around this by saying that “erroneous teachers” are not necessarily blasphemers. But he must not try to lead us away from the main question by such a shift. The question is one of ecclesiastical association with one who teaches heresy as to the Person of Christ. Ought Scripture to be asked to prove this is wrong? The whole tenor of Scripture is against it and our spiritual instincts as well. “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” “Let him that name th the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” Are not these enough? You have received into your meeting one whom you suppose to be sound in the faith, but he is in fellowship with a meeting where blasphemy is deliberately allowed. You are one with him, and he is one with the blasphemers, and he may be allowed “betimes” to “go to and fro.” Your state is really worse than his, for he may be ignorant of the enormity of the evil and you are not. Your knowledge makes you more guilty.
We have already seen that Mr. Burridge regards all the different companies of brethren as in the main gathered on scriptural principles, all gathered to the name of Christ, and therefore all having a title to be recognized as on the common ground of the Church of God, though all be separate from each other. If this were really true, it would indeed be difficult to refute his plea in favor of intercommunion. But let us look at the way the matter is presented in Scripture.
In Matt. 16:1818And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) Christ builds His Church. In John 11:5252And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. (John 11:52) He gathers together in one the children of God. In 1 Corinthians 12:1313For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13) all believers are baptized by one Spirit into one body. In Ephesians 4:44There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Ephesians 4:4), “There is one body and one Spirit.” All this speaks of unity. The Church which Christ builds is one, the children of God which He gathers are one, the body is one. This is what God, in the power of the Spirit, has wrought through Christ.
We find, too, in Scripture, that the local assembly in a city or country place, was a local representation of this one body, the Church. It was the assembly of God in the place, and gathered together on the principle that the assembly of God is one. The name of the Lord Jesus was that to which the saints were gathered; they were gathered to this Name in the power of the Spirit, and in obedience to the Word, and when gathered, Christ was in the midst of them (Matt. 18:2020For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20); 1 Cor. 12:12-1312For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12‑13); Eph. 4:3-43Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Ephesians 4:3‑4)). Such was the local assembly, as set up of God at the beginning. The marks are plain, and show that in no sense was it a mere voluntary assembly formed by man’s will. Let this be well noted. Man’s will has no place in it, save as it may be introduced by the working of the flesh and contrary to the Spirit of God. An assembly formed by man’s will would not be an assembly of God at all, even though a perfect imitation as to outward form and action. Alas! we know well the flesh may display itself in a shocking way, even in God’s assembly; but, I repeat, a voluntary association is not God’s assembly, no matter how perfect the imitation may be.
Now we know that God allowed the assembly to be tested, and it was not long till sad failure came in, the flesh displaying itself in various ways and schisms growing out of the carnal state which was allowed to go unjudged. And these schisms were connected with heresies, that is, schools of opinion, which God allowed to arise among them, in order to manifest their state. “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:1919For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:19)). But these heresies are distinctly declared to be “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-2119Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19‑21)). They are in no way “fruits of the Spirit.”
Let us, then, suppose a heresy springing up at Corinth, connected with the teaching of some leader. This teaching may not be what Peter calls “damnable” heresy, it may not be “fundamental error,” but it results in gathering adherents to its author. A schism is formed, division in its incipiency exists in the assembly. This is distinctly a work of the flesh, and to be condemned as such. Those who have the glory of Christ at heart, and the good of the assembly, resist it. They expostulate, warn, admonish, and this repeatedly, but without avail. The heresy is persisted in and goes on still gathering adherents. At last the conscience of the assembly acts in rejecting the heretic. He goes out, and is followed by his adherents and sympathizers. These meet together and form a new meeting; and now there are two distinct and separate meetings, one consisting of those who have refused the heresy, and the other consisting of those who are united together by this heresy. They both profess to be gathered to the name of Christ, both hold, in general, the same doctrines. There is no fundamental error, their assembly exercises are very much the same, but this new school of opinion has made a breach, and those who adhere to it have left the assembly at Corinth and formed a meeting of their own, in self-will and in disobedience to the Word of God. It is a voluntary assembly formed by man’s will. Now, I ask any sober-minded Christian who is taught of God, if both these companies are alike gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, alike gathered by the Holy Spirit, and Christ in the midst of both alike when they are gathered together? I do not ask what the pretensions are of the schismatic party, but whether they are in truth gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. Is it that Name — is it the power of the Spirit — that acts on their hearts to bring them together in separation from their brethren? And does the Lord sanction their meeting by His presence in their midst?
I am not raising the question which of the different companies of brethren are “approved,” and divinely gathered, or whether any one of them is; but I am only seeking to show, from the principles of God’s Word, that they cannot all be approved, or gathered on divine principles. I can scarcely conceive how any intelligent Christian can think so.
Is it “on Christian principles” to meet together in schism, and claim that the Spirit of God gathers there to the name of the Lord Jesus, when, in fact, it is some other name, or some other thing, that has separated them from their brethren? Is it not trifling with the truth of God to attach the name of the Lord Jesus to all these schismatic companies? And have not the advocates of this theory completely lost their ecclesiastical bearings, unable to discern the things that differ, or to see who are approved and who are not? They do not see where God is in all this matter, see nothing very bad in any company, and so accept all alike as gathered to the Lord’s name and owned of Him. The sense of the evils which have caused the mischief has been lost in their souls, “prejudice and party feeling” is all that is seen in the way, and these, though deplored, can be borne with. This is the broad and easy path commended to us all by this new movement. Most heartily would we sympathize with every godly desire and effort, according to God, to remove the barriers which hinder keeping the unity of the Spirit. But if the real causes which have led to division are to be ignored, and if it is to become only a question of prejudice and party feeling, it would not be a work of God. Union might be secured, but it would not be the unity of the Spirit. It might seem to be a great work, and there might be for the moment, at least, great rejoicing over the union of all these companies, but in the sight of God it would be a leavened mass, thinking more of their own importance in this world than of separation from evil, and thinking more of brethren than of the honor and glory of the Lord’s holy name.
But it may be well to inquire a little further as to causes. We must remember that God has permitted these evils to come upon us, and we may well ask why. His judgment has fallen upon us all, and not merely on a few leaders whom we were disposed to blame almost exclusively. Why is this? If we compare 2 Samuel 24:11And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1) with 1 Chronicles 21:11And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1), we will get the key to this question. In the latter passage we read that “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.” The former passage tells us why this was permitted. “The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.” It was not merely David’s state and wrong act that brought “three days’ pestilence” on Israel, so that “there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.” Israel’s state was such that the Lord’s anger was kindled against them, and this was the real secret of the plague. Is it not so still? If we were in a right state, would the Lord allow a heresy to arise among us? Assuredly not. And while the leaders in these things are especially guilty, we never can get right with God unless we judge the whole state that has displeased Him. This, I believe, was done in an unusual degree by those who resisted the evil in the struggle of 1848. But it may well be questioned if there has been any such thorough work in connection with the later divisions. Had we sufficiently humbled ourselves before God, would we have been so repeatedly smitten of Him? This question may well exercise us all.
It is an undeniable fact that during the present [now the past] century God has wrought a very remarkable work in recovering to His people much truth that had been practically lost, recovering not only the blessed gospel of His grace in its riches and fullness, but also the truth as to the Church which is Christ’s body, and reviving the blessed hope of the Church, the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ. This was God’s work, and many were affected by it, and brought under its power.
But such movements are always followed by a time of testing. God works, and then leaves the results in man’s hand as responsible to hold fast, and witness to the truth entrusted to him. And here failure comes in. It has always been so. It was so after the great work which was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was so after the remarkable work of the reformation under Luther, Zwinglius and others. And it has been so since the work which began in the first half of the present [now past] century. I think no one can look over the history of this movement without recognizing that there has been very serious declension. And when there is declension there has been failure — lack of self-denial and of devotedness to the Lord; the truth losing its power over the soul, and with this the decline of spiritual energy and power. Where there is a divine movement going on which is marked by much power and blessing, it is easy to go on while the current is steady and strong. You are borne along, as it were, on the current and if you meet with external opposition it seems as nothing. But when the wave of power has passed over, and the reality of what has been done is being tested, it is quite another matter. Those who are not going on with God are then manifested. They are no longer attracted by show of power, nor by manifestations of wonderful blessing. The wave has passed over, having done its work, and these find their proper level. When there is only a show of power, which is not the result of truth realized in the soul, but merely the effect of association with others, it will not continue. It is evanescent and soon passes away, and when it is gone, the true state appears. Such persons may still continue in the position externally, but sooner or later they are likely to give trouble.
There is another thing in this connection. Many have been attracted by the grace that has been preached, and the simplicity and brotherly love that have been manifested, and have taken their place amongst us without any clear understanding of the real ground of gathering. They are in their right place, but need instruction and building up through the gracious ministry of the Word. They are babes, and need nursing and conducting up to the full knowledge of Christ, learning their place as members of His body, and the functions that belong to them as such. These are often neglected and make little progress, and when trouble arises they are at sea.
Many also have come amongst us of late years, who have taken their place with very little exercise of soul. They have got the truth easily, because it has been made easy for them, and they have not got it well. Those who were first in the movement were like the armies of Joshua, who had to conquer in order to possess. Their children did not have to do this, and so did not value, as their fathers did the land of Jehovah, nor did they fear Him and keep His commandments. The result was that they were soon overcome by their enemies. So it is now. Those who received the truth under deep and prolonged exercise of soul, searching the Word of God with fastings and prayers and tears, in the face of opposition and reproach, valued it when they got it. They bought it dearly, and would not sell it. But now the truth has been developed and formulated, even popularized, and many have got it with little labor or exercise. They have got it only from man, and have not made it really their own from the Word of God. And when the test comes they cannot hold it against the attacks of the enemy. Truehearted, earnest souls may get it, after they have learned their weakness; but they have to go all over the ground again with God so as really to possess what they only thought they had. But many do not stand the test at all, and where there has been lack of reality the door is opened to many evils. Worldliness, slackness of soul, neglect of prayer and reading God’s Word, and such like things manifest themselves in a state like this.
All this paves the way for worse evils. As spiritual power declines, the energy of the flesh takes its place, and the development of a state that calls down upon us some expression of God’s displeasure. The evil may take form in the secret working of some moral evil, or the springing up of some heresy, or some attack upon the Person of Christ. God permits it. He is displeased, and allows the outbreak of something that will test, sift and humble. And it is a terrible thing when evil breaks out in the assembly of God, as is shown by the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, or, again, in the case of the two blasphemers, Hymeneus and Alexander, mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:2020Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:20). In Revelation 1 we see that all is taken note of by One who, although He has long patience, executes unsparing judgment against evil. Holiness becomes His house forever, and His holiness is inflexible. We cannot lay this too deeply to heart.
It is important, then, to see that when God allows some heresy to break out among His people, He has a controversy not merely with some leader (who may be a tool of Satan, or simply deceived by his own importance and led by his own will), but with His people. And if we are to get right, with God, there must be the judgment before God, not only of the immediate outbreak of wickedness, but of the state that afforded opportunity for its development. We have a remarkable illustration of this in the case of Israel going up against Benjamin, as recorded in Judges 20. The children of Benjamin had allied themselves to a horrible evil in refusing to deliver up for judgment the guilty sons of Belial. All Israel, four hundred thousand strong, went up as one man against Benjamin. And was not this right? But they went up in self-confidence and pride of heart, and as the judges of their brethren, and this was not right, and the Lord would not allow them to gain a victory. They must themselves be humbled, as well as Benjamin, and twice they were allowed to suffer defeat, losing in two battles forty thousand men. This was indeed a bitter and humbling lesson, but it was full of blessing. Their self-confidence and their legal spirit were completely broken. “Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.” This was a state the Lord could own, and the next day Benjamin was delivered into their hand.
Oh, that we might learn the deep lesson taught in all this! Have we wept and fasted before the Lord, in self-judgment and contrition of heart, because of all that has displeased Him? Have we so learned our own sin that our hard and legal spirit has been broken, and so that now we seek the removal of evil, not in self-confidence and as being judges of our brethren, but because God’s holiness requires it? And have we so learned Christ that, in judging sin, our love and our affection for our brethren are in no wise weakened by our hatred and our refusal of the evil? Have we not greatly failed in all this? And is not this one reason why the Lord has allowed us to be chastened more and more? The very needs-be of judging evil amongst us proves we have failed, and this ought to humble us in the dust before our God, as the first step toward carrying out His will in putting the evil away.
We need, then, to confess our sins in humiliation and self-judgment before God. And we cannot be too real and thorough in this work. It is the way of getting right with God, so that we may, in the light of His presence and in communion with Him, have a clear judgment as to all that brings dishonor upon the name of His Son.
On the other hand, if this is to be done in a public way, it should be understood that where there has been a firm resistance of evil, this cannot be confessed as sin. We could not confess that we had sinned in resisting Mr. Newton’s horrible blasphemy against the Person of Christ, or the clerical system of tyranny over the consciences of the saints, which preceded the public outbreak of this heresy at Plymouth. Neither could we confess that we had sinned in resisting Bethesda’s wretched neutrality and her adopted principle of allowing ecclesiastical association with blasphemers. Neither could we confess that we had sinned in resisting the partisan course and wrong teaching of other leaders who have been instrumental in bringing in later divisions. These are things that we could not confess as sin. There may be very much in the way and spirit in which this resistance of evil has been carried forward, but this is a different matter. Human infirmity mixes itself up, more or less, with all that we do, and this must not be allowed to be thrown as dust in the eyes of saints in order to blind them to the real issue, or as to who is on the Lord’s side. Nevertheless it is right that failure in this respect also should be confessed before the Lord and to one another. Such confession might serve to remove stumbling blocks out of the way of some, and in every way it would be pleasing to the Lord.
But what I believe to be of deepest importance for confession on every side, both in public and in private, is the state into which we had fallen — the worldliness, the earthly-mindedness, the self-seeking, the indifference to the truth of God and the glory of Christ, the unwatchfulness which left the door open for the enemy to enter and sow tares — all this associated with departure from first love, and more or less pretension as to the possession of heavenly truth and being gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, simply as believers or as members of His body, the only true ground of gathering. Of course, to be so gathered and to be in possession of what God in His wondrous grace has revealed to us in Christ is right. But the pretension to this, while the walk and life show that the heart is elsewhere, is something that God must blow upon. As to all this we certainly would do well to confess in the fullest way our sin and failure, and this with true sorrow and humiliation before Him. If there were general true confession of sin and seeking of His face as to all that has brought His hand so heavily upon us, we might expect abundant mercy and blessing at His hand.
“Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to Me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: and rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil. Who knoweth if He will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?” (Joel 2:12-1412Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: 13And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. 14Who knoweth if he will return and repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the Lord your God? (Joel 2:12‑14)).
And now a word as to the path of faith in the midst of the confusion and ruin. At a time when souls are perplexed and discouraged over the broken up and scattered condition of those who ought to be bearing a united testimony to the unity of God’s people as members of the body of Christ, many may be ready to ask: Is there such a path? Unhesitatingly we may answer, there is. God’s unerring Word, which is a lamp to the feet and a light to the path, will not fail those who take heed thereto. That Word declares: “There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture’s eye hath not seen; the lion’s whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed by it.” This is a path which no natural intelligence can discover, though it be keen as the eye of the vulture; nature can neither find it nor walk in it, even though it have the strength of the young lion. It is a path in which faith alone can walk. “Wisdom” and “understanding” from God are necessary to it. And no man can buy these. “The price of wisdom is above rubies.” It is beyond the reach of “gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire.” But “God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place thereof.” “And unto man He said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:7-287There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen: 8The lion's whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed by it. 9He putteth forth his hand upon the rock; he overturneth the mountains by the roots. 10He cutteth out rivers among the rocks; and his eye seeth every precious thing. 11He bindeth the floods from overflowing; and the thing that is hid bringeth he forth to light. 12But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding? 13Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living. 14The depth saith, It is not in me: and the sea saith, It is not with me. 15It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. 16It cannot be valued with the gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire. 17The gold and the crystal cannot equal it: and the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold. 18No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls: for the price of wisdom is above rubies. 19The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it, neither shall it be valued with pure gold. 20Whence then cometh wisdom? and where is the place of understanding? 21Seeing it is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air. 22Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame thereof with our ears. 23God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. 24For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven; 25To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure. 26When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder: 27Then did he see it, and declare it; he prepared it, yea, and searched it out. 28And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. (Job 28:7‑28)). Here, then, we have the secret of wisdom’s path. The fear of the Lord and departure from evil are wisdom and understanding.
Where these are the path will be clear; and where these are not all will be doubt and uncertainty, because the eye is not single. “The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.”
I would press upon beloved brethren, that the many discordant voices in Christendom cannot produce uncertainty as to the path, if the one voice of wisdom be heeded. God’s Word supplies the only light for the path. To have the understanding of this, we must be near to Him, having broken and contrite spirits which give Him His place as God; and this makes departure from evil imperative. It is just the lack of this state that has made us incapable of discerning evil and closing the door against it. If worldly interest or natural friendship or kindred ties, or anything else, is allowed to come in the way of the soul’s obedience to God in departing from evil, the light is dimmed and the soul is filled with perplexity. But if God has His proper place in the soul, there is unhesitating obedience, the Spirit who dwells in us is ungrieved and free, and fills the soul with Christ as its Object, and He becomes the touchstone by which everything is tested. How will it affect His glory? Will He be honored? Will His name be magnified? are questions that would settle many a difficulty. What then is the conclusion? Simply this, that if we would find the path all light, we must abide in His presence, who is light, and maintain in His fear that holy separation from evil which is necessary to His nature, because He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Thus will we be self-judged and the heart will refuse to tolerate what the light condemns, our path will thus be one of light, as well as of peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
I do not raise the question as to which one of the different companies is approved of God as having maintained the truth as to His Church, in separation from evil. Let all be judged by His Word, and He will guide the simple soul that fears Him and seeks only His will. I only press the point that God has xx path in which He will lead those who fear Him and depart from evil. His Word is plain as to this. We shall not find this path to be one of carnal ease. We shall meet the reproach of Christ in it, with much to exercise the heart, and we shall need the faith that brings God into all the difficulties. If we have not this, courage will fail, for we cannot walk this path in our own strength.
Let us then, beloved brethren, seek God’s face with purpose of heart to abide by His unchanging principles, which can be understood only in His presence. The obedient soul can say: “Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” Whatever there may be of ruin and confusion, God’s Word abides the same, and furnishes light for every step. We will have His Word and His Spirit. What need we, then, but to have hearts exercised in His presence to walk in the path of obedience, according to that Word, and under the guidance of His Spirit?
When the truth of Christianity was revealed, it was as clear as light itself that the family of God was one, and composed of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Has this truth changed? Certainly not. It was also just as clear that there was “one body,” composed of many members, indwell and united together by “one Spirit,” and that Christ was the Head of this body, all the members being united to Him, as well as to one another, by the Spirit. Has this truth changed? Certainly not. There may be a great mass of profession where there is no reality, and the people of God may be divided in every possible way; but it remains true that “there is one body and one Spirit,” and that every blood-washed, Spirit-sealed person on the face of the earth is a member of that body. As then, so now, this is the Church — -”the Church which is His body” (Eph. 1:22,2322And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:22‑23)). It is also just as clear that, in every city or locality where the saints were gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus, those so gathered were “the assembly of God” in the place — built together for a “habitation of God in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 1:22Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: (1 Corinthians 1:2); Eph. 2:2222In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:22)). These were gathered on the principle that the whole company of believers was one, and they locally represented the whole body. Even though there might be different meetings in a city, as a matter of convenience, on account of distance or numbers, the assembly was one, so that in Scripture we always read of “the assembly,” not “assemblies,” of such and such a city. There is no such thing as independence. The assembly was one everywhere. A man received at Corinth was received at Ephesus, because he had been received by the assembly of God.
On the same principle, a man put away for sin at Corinth was put away everywhere. An act of discipline carried out at Corinth “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” was valid in Ephesus and everywhere, for the simple reason that the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ at Corinth could not be set aside by the same authority at Ephesus or anywhere else. This is a simple principle connected with the truth that the assembly of God is one, however many local representations of it there may be in different places. There is one body, one Spirit, one Head and Lord, whose authority was the same in every local assembly. All this excludes independency, and shows that if there are a number of different companies of brethren in a place, meeting, walking and acting independently of each other, some of these at least, have departed in their position and walk from the simple truth that the assembly of God is one: they are not keeping the unity of the Spirit. These principles are simple enough, and we only need to be self-judged in the presence of the Lord to discern them.
I know that complications may arise, and every kind of difficulty. But we must hold fast the simple divine principles, which are plain enough in the Word of God, and not allow ourselves to be drawn away from these by any kind of complications or difficulties. If difficulties arise, they spring from our own state, and not from the Word of God. What we need, then, is to judge our own state, and wait upon God for light. God will never fail those who do this. But if this is refused, He may allow us to be overcome by the difficulties, and to bring upon us His chastisement because of our state.
Let us take the case of the division which occurred at Montreal ten years ago. It is an unquestionable fact that a new teaching had been introduced, which antagonized not a little of what we had received as of God, and resulted in gathering a number of adherents. This teaching and the partisan course connected with it were resisted with energy — an energy mixed up, perhaps, with more or less failure. There were charges and counter-charges of partisan spirit and wrong doing. Finally it was decided in the assembly to put away from amongst them the author of the new teaching. As to this final act, many believed it righteous, while those who had come under the influence of the teaching branded it as unrighteous. I do not raise the question here. But granting that all the charges on every side were true, what was the remedy? Would it not have been found in common humiliation and self-judgment before God, and while filled with sorrow because of this unhappy state, waiting upon Him for light? Would He have failed His people while they were thus looking to Him in self-abasement and contrition of heart? Impossible!
But if, instead of this, the adherents of the new teaching immediately separated themselves from the assembly, openly and publicly identifying themselves with the one who was put away, was not this being overcome of evil? When I say evil, I mean not the action of the assembly in putting away, but the whole state which issued in a party separating from the assembly. Not only were these brethren overcome by the evil, but their act placed them in a position of schism and independency by which they precipitated and forced division everywhere. It may be said that if they had remained in the assembly, they, at least the active ones among them, would have been dealt with too. Be it so; it in no wise alters the principle. They could have humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God, and, supposing they had been wrongly dealt with, this would not have been in vain. The effect would have been just the opposite of that produced by the course which they pursued. Had they, in sorrow and self-abasement, waited on God to act upon the conscience of the whole body, it might have prevented a division which went everywhere. As it was, their act only revealed that the glory of the Lord Jesus and the unity of the assembly were entirely eclipsed by party considerations.
Again, if we take the division of 1848, we have a very different case, but the violation of divine principles was even more flagrant. First there was the introduction of a persistent course of heretical teaching, and finally the introduction of la false Christ in the assembly, and thus the true Christ was displaced. Labor, entreaty, remonstrance, all failed. Separation from this wickedness became imperative, and through the active energy of the Spirit of God many withdrew from the defiled camp. Others again displayed shocking indifference as to preserving the saints from this foul heresy which was well known to be actively working. Horrible neutrality as to evil affecting the Person and glory of Christ was deliberately maintained at Bethesda, and the principle of allowing ecclesiastical association with blasphemers voted by the assembly and signed by the leaders. Was this conserving the glory of Christ? On the contrary, it was shutting Christ out, and forfeiting all title to be owned as an assembly of God. The principle of association with a false Christ became the moral basis of that assembly. Again separation became imperative. It may be said many godly people remained. Very likely, but they were overcome of evil, and lost their title to be owned as on divine ground, and by their refusal to act according to truth and for the glory of Christ, by maintaining separation from evil, they perpetuated a breach that God might have healed, had all humbled themselves before Him, confessing their unfaithfulness and sin, instead of laboring so zealously to save appearances and preserve their own reputation at the expense of Christ.
As in these cases, so in every case, God will make a way for those who fear Him, and depart from evil. But I repeat, God must have His place in the soul. Obedience to His Word and seeking the glory of Christ in a path of separation from evil are imperative. We may have to mourn the fact that so many refuse to humble themselves in repentance and contrition before God, and that they are allowed to follow a self-chosen path, which does not have simply Christ and His glory as its end; but we need not be discouraged. “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” It was when Paul had to say to Timothy: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me,” that he encouraged his son in the faith to stir up the gift that was in him, and not to be “ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,” but to be a “partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God,” exhorting him to be “strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.”
If there has been much breaking up and scattering, it shows that there has been much that God could not approve; and He has allowed all this evil to come upon us, that we might be chastened and humbled. But if with all this there has been real separation from evil, in the fear of God, it proves that there is still an energy of the Holy Spirit which refuses evil, and which proves that God is with us, maintaining in us, however feebly, a testimony to Christ till He comes.
Let us not then, beloved brethren, be discouraged. We may be few, we may be weak, we may be despised, we may be chastened in spirit because the hand of our God has been upon us, but if God be with us, we have nothing to fear. The hour calls for true-hearted faithfulness and devotedness to Christ, whatever of reproach and suffering for His name it may involve. The struggle will not be long. “A little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (Heb. 10:3737For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. (Hebrews 10:37); Rev. 3:1111Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. (Revelation 3:11)).