In our day of ruin the devil seems bent on attacking the two great truths of Christianity, 1st, the Person of God’s Son; 2nd, the unity of the brethren, or of Christ’s “one body.” In the history of “brethren,” this was first marked in the division of 1848 {Bethesda}, when there was a refusal of those who made division to judge evil doctrine that affected the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the divisions that have taken place in the last 8 or 9 years, the object of the devil has been to destroy the effort of brethren to endeavor
notably so in the last attack on the truth by Mr. F. W. G.
I now turn to the subject of the paper before me, where this will be seen. God has allowed it to happen, that those who have been encouraged to write this late paper against “brethren,” are the wrong men to lead their forlorn hope! in their attack against God’s citadel and truth.
There is a well-known proverb, which says, “They who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” But our friends we fear have not this wisdom, and they must expect, if they throw stones at their fellows, that they will get a few back, which in their glass dwellings they will now feel a bit the discomfort of.
It may do them good to tell them that the real reason why they left Natural History Hall was not what they say, but there was a moral reason in the history of both their souls that was at the bottom of their departure, and which if they had judged in God’s presence, they never would have left. This is well known in the case of at least one, i.e. Mr. H., by many of the brethren at Montreal, who know that at the end of a dishonest course, when too, most scandalous things had been going on in his own family and at his own home, as regards him and his wife and son and he had lost the confidence of his brethren, and had found that his ministry was not received in the Assembly, he then sought a reason and excuse for leaving the Assembly, when he had no longer freedom to carry on his ministry publicly there. The other who had been cashier to a firm which had defrauded the Government out of thousands of dollars, still goes on with the firm, though the partner is now dead who did it. An association which lays the suspicion on him of dishonesty! (See Psa. 50:16, 1816But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? (Psalm 50:16)
18When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. (Psalm 50:18), first part.) Having said so much as to what is known amongst brethren in Montreal concerning the leaders in this last defection I proceed to their paper.
In page 2 they say, “The teaching of Lord A. P. Cecil, supported as it was by Mr. Mace, of first life by new birth, and afterwards the gift of eternal life for the believer, got possession of our minds, and reconciled us to the excision of the brother who was directly opposed to this, (as we then thought) fundamental truth.”
Now they know, or ought to know, that this is putting our teaching under false colors. I have never to my knowledge separated eternal life and new birth. If they had taken the trouble to look at the tract, “Eternal Life and the Holy Ghost,” they would have read this, (page 2, line 11 from bottom), “Now the Person of God’s Son, as the Eternal Life, presents Himself to the soul in a double way. 1st. He makes Himself heard by the soul, which up to that moment of time lay in a state of moral death, without repentance or faith or anything else. ‘The soul that hears shall live.’ John 5:2525Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (John 5:25). ‘Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.’ Rom. 10:1717So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17). Thus the man is born again, ‘not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ John 1:1313Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13).
“2nd. He breathes into every believing soul His own resurrection life, on the reception of the gospel, as the victorious Son of God over death, as exhibited in the words, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost.’ John 20:2323Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:23). It is not till then that the believer may be said to have received eternal life in its fullness.”
Again, if these men would only have taken the trouble to look into the paper called “Remarks on a Tract called ‘Life and the Spirit,’ with a Sequel,” they would have read these words, “now as to eternal life, in one sense they do have it, (that is from the first moment of quickening), [see the sentence preceding;] for no doubt quickening is from the Son, who was the eternal life with the Father from all eternity! ‘The Son quickens whom He will!’ John 5:2121For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. (John 5:21). But this is not eternal life in the full Christian sense of it,” etc., page 2.
Now I leave this to brethren to judge whether eternal life is separated from new birth. All that is said is that the fullness of it is not received till the reception of the gospel, and till the Spirit of life of the risen Christ breathed into them sets them free from the law of sin and death. Will these brethren deny this? I answer if they do they have denied the Christian state. And this is what their leader calls a doctrine of double quickening.
“Brethren” can well understand that a man can form a pool of water from the waters of a river close by, and then afterwards let in further and ever- inflowing supply that brings a fountain there, that shall ever keep the waters of that pond fresh. Will such call these two supplies, two ponds of water, or two kinds of water, as Mr. G. tries to fasten on the writer of the “Sequel,” two new births, or two lives, etc. He knows that what he said is false, and knows that the accusation is down-right wickedness. New birth and the further inflow of the living water by and in the Holy Ghost afterwards, are not two different lives, or two new births, but life and life in abundance, as Scripture says.
Let me tell this leader, that if he does not know what he is about, Satan knows well what he is about, and under cover of a charge of a doctrine of double quickening, he is trying to rob the brethren of what constitutes the true Christian state. He denies there is any communication of either life or the Holy Ghost in John 20:2222And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: (John 20:22). (See page 72 1st paragraph, “Life in Christ and Sealing with the Spirit.”)
Now after these plain statements what were these men doing just previous to leaving the assembly? Why, just trying to make out that what had been taught by A.P.C. and A.M. {Alfred Mace} was that new birth was in no sense eternal life, and that eternal life was a thing received afterwards. Now I call this positive wickedness. They say we thought you held that. I say, you have no right to think, you have the plain statements given in the tracts, and then you put a color on the teaching of the brother which altogether changes his meaning, and it is to catch the brethren in the same net you have been caught in yourselves.
But in vain the net is laid in the sight of any bird. And perhaps now, in the light of this paper, it may begin to dawn upon some that Mr. Pollock does not teach such different doctrine as to life to what A.P.C. does, as these men try to make out. Mr. Pollock holds that at new birth the believer has eternal life, as far as it is in the Son Himself, outside him, and as begun in the soul of the believer. Life through the Son! But Mr. Pollock also holds, as far as I know, with the writer that the possession of “eternal life in the Son,” as received in the gospel, and brought into the soul by the Holy Ghost, is something far more than new birth. We are now not only new-born, but “in the Son,” and “the Son in us.” And I would ask the writers of this paper how do they think that A.P.C. could go on in fellowship with Mr. Pollock, and that the year after the conference at Montreal took place, where the difference in sentiment is said to have taken place, in six or seven conferences all around the United States and Canada, if there had been the difference they try to make out between him and A.P.C. So I throw this charge back into their face, and I have no doubt that Mr. Pollock when he reads their paper will be as astonished as I am at their foul effort to make division between brethren. Perhaps they have forgotten that this is one of the seven abominable things the Lord hates.
I insert here an extract from a letter received by our brother, F. Hart, sr., from Mr. Pollock, dated Nov. 9th, 1887, after he had just received intelligence of the withdrawal of F.R. and Mr. Harper from Natural History Hall, as to some remarks Mr. H. has made about Mr. Pollock agreeing with their notions as to eternal life; “His charge against Guignard, Lowe and myself of holding the same doctrines that he does is absurd, and we may well pass it over. I should have thought that my tract was enough to have stopped his charge against me, and certainly Lowe’s book ought to have been enough to have cleared him.”
As to what Mr. Lowe said I have no knowledge. All I can say is that though there were small points of difference in doctrine, we were fundamentally on the same ground, and to the last we had fellowship together in the things of the Lord.
Who said, “a soul could be born again apart from the person and work of Christ?” I know not! They say, page 3, line 7 from bottom, “This, with what previously had been learned through Mr. Pollock, delivered him from Lord Cecil’s teaching; but it also led him to see that the excision of Mr. Grant was unrighteous.”
Oh, indeed! And so a supposed notion that error was held, or a little difference as to “eternal life” between two brethren, which has by no means separated these two brethren one from the other, led Mr. R. from Lord C.’s teaching, and made him see that Mr. Grant’s excision was unrighteous!
And let me seriously ask Mr. R., And do you believe that Natural History Hall put Mr. G. out for a little difference as to “eternal life,” such as he speaks about? Has he so forgotten the issue, or did the truth never get hold of him?
Let me tell him that it was not a difference about eternal life that was the great ground of separation from Mr. G. as to doctrine, but it was the practical denial of what “unity” is. Let me turn him, as he seems to forget, to the first head as to Mr. G.’s doctrine, put forward in the protest of 38 brethren against it.
“1st. That Old Testament saints were ‘in the Son,’ by virtue of being quickened with the life that is in Him, (pages 13, 14,) there being no proof that eternal life in the Son (John 17:33And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3)) was given at all in the Old Testament, He being then in the Elohim, not yet manifested, though in Himself, He was ever the Eternal Life with the Father, as all receive. Moreover ‘in the Son’ is shown from John 10:31-3831Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (John 10:31‑38) to signify oneness, it being there oneness between the Father and the Son, and in John 12:24; 14:20; 17:20, 2124Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)
20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20)
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20‑21), as regards us, to mean oneness with Him in spirit, life and nature, and involving union, which could not be till redemption was accomplished, figured by the corn of wheat, one with it, the children of one family, one with the Son, He being their one life before God and the Father, and He one life in them, making them one family before the world.”
Now where does Mr. R. find here that a difference about eternal life was the great question? The point was what was unity, and what was not. Did he never remark, moreover, that when “eternal life” was mentioned in the protest words “in the Son” were carefully added. What was insisted on was that “in the Son” signified to be one. Mr. Grant stood up and said, “Oneness is not a scriptural term! ‘In the Son’ and ‘one with the Son’ are not the same thing; ‘In the Father’ and one with the Father’ are not the same thing. (See statement signed by John James, Lyman and others, page 8, line 12.)
Again, He said, “Scripture teaches that new birth is ‘life in the Son.’ If Old Testament saints were born again, then they had ‘life in the Son.’” (Page 9.) Again, “‘In the Son’ means ‘life in the Son.’” (Page 14, “Life in Christ, &c.”)
So here was the plain issue. Mr. G. denied that the expression which means the unity of the brethren, “in the Son,” before the Father, meant to be one, and he said that that expression signified “new birth,” and that Old Testament saints were therefore “in the Son.”
That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.
The unity was to be after the manner of the Son’s unity with the Father, and the Father’s unity with the Son, and the Lord prayed that they might be one (how? In us! And yet Mr. G. teaches that this was true in the Old Testament when Old Testament believers could not possibly be one, but when they were born of God. The Lord prays for it as a future thing that was never true till then. I say this is a distinct denial of the very ground brethren stand upon, as to unity, as far as the truth of “the brethren” goes, and beyond that it attacks the truth of the unity between the Father and the Son, which the terms “in the Son” and “in the Father” mean. Fancy the Father being in the Son by virtue of birth, or the Son in the Father in like manner! The absurdity of what this doctrine leads to shows its falsity.
So “unity” in the Son of God does involve “union,” though not the same thing; it was never true till Christ breathed into His disciples, and the Holy Ghost came down from heaven on the day of Pentecost. And it is not to be “in Deity,” as Mr. Grant teaches, but it is alone in the glorified Man who accomplished redemption.
It was Mr. Grant taught that to be “in the Son” signified to be “in Deity,” as Mr. Radford and H. well know. In controversies that went on, he said, “The Gospel of John is the Gospel of His Deity, ‘the only-begotten,’ not the First- begotten.’ The former is exclusive, and this is the force of the term ‘Son of God’ all through John’s Gospel. When He says ‘in us’ (alluding to John 17:2121That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:21),) that is ‘Deity!’” (See Statement signed by J. James, Lyman, etc., page 8.)
Now, that the chief point in John’s Gospel is concerning the Son of God as “the only-Begotten,” which is the term signifying His eternal relationship with the Father, no one denied! But that the term “Son of God” excluded reference to His manhood, was denied, and it was insisted, as Messrs. R. and H. very well know, that no saint could be “in the Son” till after He had become a man, had died, risen, and was glorified, and that unity in the Son of God was alone true as to us in this manner, yet they dare to charge us in the paper with holding union with “Deity.” They know it is a false accusation, put into their hearts by “the accuser of the brethren.” (Page 5, line 8-bottom of page.)
In their quotation from the protest, they quote the sentence, to suit their accusation, “‘In the Son’ is oneness with Him in spirit, life and nature, involving union,” and carefully leave out what follows, which explains all, “which could not be for any till redemption was accomplished, figured by the corn of wheat, one with it,” etc., the figure of Jesus as Son of Man going into death!
How any honest brethren can go on too, with a leader that makes the astounding statement, (in his tract on “Relation of Assemblies,” by F.W.G., there giving as the alone ground for the separation at Montreal, that “Some of us have separated from the doctrine that Old Testament saints had life in the Son,” I cannot understand. There is a public falsehood that he knows is a lie, put forth before the whole brethren. And as leader, so are the led. They shirk the main question, and try and make it out to be a difference about “eternal life,” and supposing things of their brethren that they never held! No doubt this subject was touched on, and forcible reasons given against pressing what they taught that Old Testament saints had eternal life. But that was not the main question. It was what was “unity,” and what was not. And I boldly say that Mr. G. denies it by his doctrine.
“Community of life and nature,” (he says) “realized in dependence, and manifested in community of word and work, this is what the terms we have been looking at imply. They are the Lord’s own words, moreover, as we have seen, which affirm their similar meaning when applied to Himself and the Father or to His people in the Son and in the Father, ‘as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.’”
“This cannot be standing,” etc. (“Life in Christ and Sealing with the Spirit,” page 11, 7th line from bottom.)
So it is not unity, but community of life and nature, moreover it is realized in dependence, where is unity then? and manifested in community of word and work? It shows the writer has no notion of what constitutes either the unity between the Son and Father, nor the unity of the brethren in the Son before the Father, and he also denies the position this gives. It is a common nature got by new birth, that is all. The unity and position the unity gives is entirely taken away from us.
What wonder is it that these brethren, not seeing what “unity” is, have gone off the ground, and made division, and whoever they add, they only increase the sin of it.
I have nothing to say as to the way some of the brethren have misunderstood what I have endeavored to teach. I have only to repeat that I have never disowned the link between new birth and eternal life, only I have ever said that eternal life is more than new birth, hence the gift of God, which is eternal life in the Son, is only received in the gospel after new birth, though it may have quickened before that reception, and this gives deliverance. Christ breathing into the disciples His own Spirit of life at the same time. Eternal life in the Son is something outside of man altogether, in the Son in heaven.
As to Rom. 5:12-2112Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12‑21), which Mr. H. in a most unseasonable time spoke on at the Lord’s Table, I have only to repeat what a brother wrote to Mr. Radford, “Explain, ‘Did grace reign from Adam to Moses?’” What answer could he give to that? Did grace reign under law? Is it not since our Lord came in the flesh that grace reigns? I would add. When did it reign through righteousness? the only answer could be, at the cross! Well then, lastly, when did “unto eternal life” come in? The only answer could be, in the resurrection of Christ, and the glory afterwards! The whole doctrine of the passage is going forward, and not going back. Adam brought in sin, death and condemnation on all his descendants; Christ, become Head, after death and resurrection, brought in grace, righteousness and eternal life to all those connected with Him. Do we deny that Old Testament saints are now or will be in glory partakers of these blessings? Nay. (We have doubtless more.) But we deny they stood in them then, that is all! And is this all you have, Mr. H. for going out?
Page 15.—And so after all their show of liberality and saying they could break bread with us, but we could not with them, they at last apply Rom. 16:1717Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17) to Lord C. I suppose this is because he applied it pretty often to them, but in soberness.
I take up the doctrine we have learnt from Rom. 7. Here is a party supporting a man who says that a man who cries out, “I am fleshly, sold under (or a slave to) sin,” who habitually breaks (nay always) “every commandment of the law,” and who cries out, “Oh, wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me!” is a man who is justified and has got the Holy Ghost! (See Rom. 7:14, 19, 2414For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Romans 7:14)
19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (Romans 7:19)
24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (Romans 7:24). Compare with Craig st. Circular, Dec. 19th, 1884, page 3.)
“I maintain it fully, as others also have, that the man in the experience of Rom. 7 is a sealed man!” “I believe,” he says again, “that the experience of Rom. 7 is the break-down, not of a sinner seeking peace and acceptance with God, but of a saint seeking holiness, etc.” (“Life in Christ,” &c., page 8; see also pages 66 and 67.)
He teaches also (“Life in Christ and Sealing with the Spirit,” page 27, line 5), “Thus the one born of God can never be in the flesh.”
Rom. 7 is a man under bondage, under the law, “sin has dominion over him,” he is not free. Moreover, the 1 Tim. 1 teaches that to apply the law to a righteous man is misapplying it, for it was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless, etc. The Epistle to the Galatians teaches that applying the law to Christians, or to those sealed with the Spirit, was another gospel, which made the teachers of it accursed, and he would they would cut themselves off that troubled them. Gal. 1, 5. And this proves that Rom. 7 cannot be the experience of a righteous man, or one sealed, as the passages in the preceding paragraph also show.
But he answers, I don’t teach that he is under law, it is only as to his own conscience, he thinks he is. Fancy a wife divorced from an old husband and married to another, being under conscience to the old all the time!
I answer this doctrine teaches moral adultery from Rom. 7:1-41Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (Romans 7:1‑4), for the husband is alive, and the woman alive to him as to conscience, and yet she belongs to Christ at the same time, according to Mr. G.’s doctrine; it is as if a woman could be to two husbands at one time, instead of being dead and risen with Christ, and separated in conscience, heart, and everything from the old one. Who is teaching contrary to the doctrine we have learnt from the Epistle to the Romans? I answer unhesitatingly this teacher is doing so, and his party is supporting him. So I send back their charges on themselves, and let God defend the right.
And is this a small difference of doctrine, such as whether Old Testament saints have “life in the Son”? As to Mr. R. applying Eph. 4:33Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3) to the writer for teaching contrary to the doctrine we have learned, I append an extract from the Synopsis, from Titus 3:1010A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10):—
When a man tried to set up his own opinions, and by that means to form parties in the Assembly, after having admonished him once and a second time, he was to be rejected; his faith was subverted. He sins, he is judged of himself. He is not satisfied with the assembly of God, with the truth of God: he wants to make a truth of his own. Why is he a Christian, if Christianity, as God has given it, does not suffice him? By making a party for his own opinions he condemns himself.
And when added to this, there is Mr. G.’s teaching on “Propitiation and Substitution,” and the denial of “local unity” in an assembly in a city—And further misty teaching in his book on the “Numerical Structure of Scripture,” in which if I followed him, I should be “constrained” by his division of the Old Testament Scripture into 36 books, which he divides into the numbers 3 x 12, (page 55) to be led into the belief that the Trinity was revealed in the Old Testament, 3 being according to his own interpretation “the fullness of Godhead in manifestation”—Also that “the unity of the Godhead and God as Creator” is revealed in the New—(See page 64 and 110, from his division of the Bible into 5 Pentateuchs, 4 in the Old and 1 in the New.)—For “one,” according to his own interpretation, signifies “God in unity,” or as “Creator”—I say, thank you, Mr. G., I had rather abide in the old paths, I don’t know where you are leading me to, and when I am caught in the maze, or the far galleries of the supposed metal mine discovered, (page 1), how am I to get out, when my lantern-bearer falls, and his lantern goes out. Truly he is leading his followers not into the heavenly places in Christ, but into the bowels of the earth, how far no one knows!
And am I, after all these years, to learn that the Bible is come from the mould of the Pentateuch. (Paul’s Epistles too, moreover,) and that these Epistles are divided into 2 Pentateuchs, 5 individual Epistles and 5 collective, (see pages 62 & 123) and that two of the individual ones (i.e. giving the saints their individual position before God) are Ephesians and Colossians? (Page 124) Oh, I say, have pity, this is poor cold teaching. I have learnt better from my God and Father and from the teachers he has sent, and can thank Him that he gave the Natural History Hall Assembly power to manifest Mr. G. as a heretic and that he was righteously put away as a wicked person. And as for his poor followers, (haughty indeed in Montreal, when, in rebellion against the Lord who put one away, they go out, and three days after set up a new table,) I unfeignedly pray often that God would give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth, who are led captive by the devil at his will, lest they should have to face the Lord at His judgment seat in their sin!
Plainfield, in accepting the Craig st. table and receiving Mr. Grant after he had been put away for heresy, and deciding against Montreal under his influence, plainly acted in independence of the Lord’s authority, and is a schismatic table.
Lastly, page 21, in answer to their considerations as to the righteousness of putting away Mr. Grant:—
1st. Was Mr. Grant a heretic? He was. He formed a party by his evil doctrines of denying “unity,” mixing up law and grace, Judaism and Christianity together!
2nd. We have no delegate from an apostle now appointed over the Assemblies, or apostles; but we have the writings of the apostle to the delegate, telling him to have done with, or reject a heretic. If a master in a house has done with a servant, does the servant continue inside or outside the house? If he is put out, is it right for the household to go out with him? or to obey the Master, or the steward that carries out Master’s wishes?
3rd. A gathering is bound to obey apostolic authority given through a delegate.
4th. The word “reject” is as strong a word as “put away.” It is the same word as is used for refusing to hear the Lord who speaks to us from heaven! (Heb. 12:2525See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: (Hebrews 12:25)), and for refusing widows from the number to be supported, (1 Tim. 4).
Therefore, (page 22),
1st, to remain with Natural History Hall is not what the Lord calls as unrighteousness.
2nd. The teaching, whether Old Testament saints had eternal life or not, was not the ground of putting away Mr. G.
3rd. I have shown that their interpretation of what A.P.C. and A.M. teach of life and afterwards eternal life being given is a false interpretation.
4th. There is no subjection of conscience demanded to English brethren, but the exhortation “to keep the unity of the Spirit” with all brethren!
Now, Messrs. R. and H. what have you to say as to leaving Natural History
Hall, unless a moral reason as shown at the beginning?
I thank God that opportunity is given now for correcting false statements and notions, that have been circulated far and wide amongst brethren, putting the question on a false basis before them. I repeat that it is not merely a question as to the true nature of eternal life, which I believe most important, and hold most firmly that God in His nature and as Father was never known in the Old Testament, nor the Son who was the eternal life for (?) He was never manifested till the incarnation; (?) God was until (?) Christ came, hid behind a vail. Where was “the life of God” seen in the Old Testament saint? It was never a question as to whether Old Testament saints had or had not eternal life. But Mr. Grant’s doctrine that Old Testament saints were “in the Son,” involved the denial of “unity” which he publicly did in the teaching, (?) As has been shown. It is shown now, besides, that it touches the truth of the “unity” between the Father and the Son. Moreover, his practical denial of any interval of time between the receiving of “new birth” and the “Holy Ghost,” left no room for repentance. There was the mixture of law and grace in his teaching on Rom. 7; and lastly, a man had all the blessings of Christianity at new birth without knowing them, the gospel being merely the means of his apprehending what he possessed before at new birth!
By this system of evil doctrine he made a party, proved publicly and independently in three of the largest Assemblies in Canada, as also in Philadelphia, one of the largest Assemblies in the States; and as making a party by his evil doctrine, he came under the title of a heretic, and on this account he was righteously put away.
I add a little extract from the judgment, as it has been spread far and wide that the action against Mr. Grant was simply for making a party, and that the doctrine by which he made the party was a thing of little or no moment.
“ASSEMBLY MEETING, Dec. 10th, 1884
It being now manifest that the Protest of Brethren of the 29th November, against the doctrines of Mr. F. W. Grant, as brought out in his late publication, “Life in Christ and Sealing with the Spirit,” has failed to produce, any retractation, but that, on the contrary, Mr. Grant is maintaining the attitude he assumed, when the Protest was read, i.e:, that he would hold to every word he had therein written; and as this admonition has failed to check the determined course of schism he is still adopting, the Assembly gathered to the Name of the Lord, in Montreal, believe the time has come, when the only course left is to obey the command of the Apostle, given in Titus 3:1010A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (Titus 3:10): “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject!
By this it will be seen clearly that the ground for declaring him a heretic was the system of evil doctrine he held. He caused divisions by bringing in doctrines contrary to the doctrine we had learnt. He made the heresy by his evil doctrines!