Bethesda Related Letters
John Gifford Bellett
Table of Contents
A Letter as to Bethesda
September 18th, 1849
My Dear Brother,
I have a desire to write to you remembering some happy communion with you and having, to some extent before now, conversed with you on the present question of Bethesda, and my present subject makes it right for me to communicate with one who is still in communion with her. I shall, however, use this as the occasion of considering certain principles of truth. For it is expected of us that we be nourished up in the words of faith and good doctrine, and that we grow to the knowledge of our Lord. Jesus Christ In the times of the apostles occasions arose which were used of the Spirit to unfold new portions of the divine and will to the saints. A large quantity of the instructions we get in the epistles, comes to us through the ignorance and error of the Churches, and all this happened for our learning. And so it is still. Occasions arise to call our thoughts to new and important principles of conduct; indifference to which then becomes guilt: such I believe to be the present moment with us ... May we have grace from God: use it wisely, graciously, patiently, and yet obediently. It was a thought with the brethren from the beginning that we received one another as believers or saints just because God had already received us in Christ Jesus. This thought remains unquestioned, only we must be careful lest the generality of this principle mislead us. We do, it is true, receive one another because we have been received already of God, and do this not to doubtful disputations, in other words, that we receive one another in the Lord, though, in many things, we be differently minded; not, however; agreeing to differ as though any part of God's truth were indifferent, but purposing to love one another, and to walk together in spite of differences. Hoping to attain more, we come together on that simple ground, but we walk together afterward for ends and purposes divinely appointed us. So we are not gathered as a congregation who find their pleasure or even their edification in certain ways or doings agreed upon; but we are gathered as part and parcel of the Church, to be, and to act according to the mind of God. Among its services it has to teach angels (Eph. 3.10.) to edify itself through joints and bands in the Holy Ghost, and to lead those outside to own God, in the midst of His saints (1 Cor. 14:23-25), to exercise discipline, to worship as a holy priesthood, to show forth the Lord's death. It is, moreover, the pillar of the truth, and as such it must keep itself erect and firm; the writing on it is to be large and legible. Nothing is to be allowed to shake or blot it; some may claim a right to try their hand with it, and plead many pretenses; they may talk of brotherly forbearance, the gentleness of Christ, the duty of not judging another man's servant, but the pillar must hold itself firm and inviolate; still, no such pretensions or pretenses, nor any other can be listened to; and occasions will arise when the integrity of the pillar is to be guarded with increased vigilance because of the enemy. It was, dear brother, another early thought among us; that we had to distinguish between communions and individuals; that is, that we could receive individuals on the ground of their own faith, when we could not do so on the credit of the communion to which they belonged, or as though we sanctioned the communion while we received them, but this was understood to refer only to a certain character of communion it had respect to, such as the Establishment, the Independents, the Baptists, the Methodists, among whom the truth was maintained; it did not contemplate such communions as the Universalists and Unitarians. For according to my knowledge of brethren from the beginning, an individual who desired fellowship with us, if there was no other objection than that he went to such places, that alone would have been enough for us to keep him outside. The smallest measure of affection to Christ would dictate this. I may say that I would instinctively shudder at any other thought, for we have a duty to Christ, a service to the truth lying upon us, and our receiving others must be after such a method as will leave us free to perform such duties and services, and not put us under such terms and compliances as compel us, in simple consistency to abandon them. We must accordingly distinguish between communions and individuals, and it is here our present sorrow and difficulty touching Bethesda arises.
In Compton Street, Plymouth, an energy of evil was exposed in the progress of its working. It was guilty of putting dishonor on the Son of God. It held, therefore, a peculiar place in the apprehension of the soul, let me say I know the service of those who keep watch in the camp; the trumpet is; among other purposes, for sounding an alarm on the approach of the enemy, all we can desire is that it may be used with priestly skill when it has called the camp into action, that the action itself be conducted according to the mind and word of God; for the battle is to be in His name, and for His kingdom. Now by all this which I am suggesting, dear brother, do not think we are building again the thing which we once destroyed. I hold, as at the beginning, the broken, ruined condition of the Church, I know and still would testify as ever that the "great house," with its different vessels, is around us., I will say, as before, that no gathering of saints can assume to be the Candlestick in the place, and treat as darkness all that is not of itself. Such order and such authority are gone-this we have ever said, and still say. But with all this, we avow it, that we are not together as a convention of believers, but as part and parcel of the Church of God, and we have to take care that the principles and the testimony of the house of God be portrayed among us according to our measure in the Spirit. I am glad thus to speak a hide on principles before I come to the more immediate object. But I will now proceed. What has induced me to write to you, dear brother, as one still in communion at Bethesda, is the refusal which has or been sent from the laboring brethren
there to a request signed by ten or twenty' brethren from London and its neighborhood, to have a meeting of all those whose consciences arc troubled about present matters, in the hope that grace and confidence may be restored, this request being accompanied by a desire that all evil in those who, in anywise have been withstanding Bethesda, may be exposed, and that the Lord's honor, and the unity and holiness of His house may alone be thought of. This refusal, on a little further consideration, has troubled me. It has been, in measure, the occasion of my looking again at the matter generally. I am, therefore, writing to you, and shall be the more glad if ALL Bethesda read what I write, and indeed the dear brethren everywhere, for though dislike printing such matters very much-and that, too, on several grounds-yet there is not a judgment or act, I think I can say, that I desire to withhold from any. This refusal takes its warrant from the injurious treatment which certain brethren of Bethesda have received. But this is all nothing-Bethesda may have been ill-treated; wronged and insulted, but this is no ground for refusing this request, the request itself may be made in a style and language somewhat faulty—I do not say it is so, but even were it, all that would be as nothing., The Jordan was crossed by messengers who appeared in a high tone of challenge to have prejudged their brethren-it may be said their demand-and delivered their charge in a bad and proud spirit—But that is nothing. The two tribes and a half are bound to account for their pillar notwithstanding all that, and if they deny the camp the satisfaction they claim, Can they calculate on the communion of Israel, see Josh. 22. This refusal undertakes, I know, to satisfy the conscience of godly individuals, the case I judge asks for more than this-it is the standing of Bethesda among the saints that is in question-the meaning of the pillar of Bristol. Uneasiness, arising from such a service, is not to be allayed by private explanation, on individual satisfaction. It is an open, public question, it is a common uneasiness. Let the pillar that has been raised be vindicated as of old, dear brother, and this cannot be done while the challenge of the camp in unanswered. Let it be vindicated, and we shall have again, as in Josh. 22, the joy of all the tribes. I would pause here for a moment and pray you to seek to have this accomplished. Seek it, as I believe you may, on very solemn and affecting considerations.
Urge it by arguments such as these-the settlements of the minds of hundreds who entertain very loving desires towards Bethesda, the restoration of general brotherly confidence, the staying of the rejoicing in evil of many who seek occasion, and the help that this will afford to lead all with softened hearts to consider and confess their measure of wrong in the course of this painful history. If this be persisted in by the laboring brethren, and adopted by Bethesda generally, I know not how anything like communion can be expected. It will amount to the denial of all the commonest rights'; nay, obligations of fellowship in Christ. It is not only that we have a right, that is not the thing; we are bound; if need be, to inquire' after the nature of every altar in the land, the standing of all the gatherings. Do, then, seek this, dear brother, as you hope to see the peace of brethren, as a brother lately lamented in a letter to me, "is the sword to devour forever." But I must. go on a little further, for I have found my mind lately going over this whole case, and now I have to confess that I have been guilty of haste and careless in a particular which deserves attention and seriousness,-I mean as to " the letter of the ten " with respect to the Church Principles contained in it. I felt indignant, I remember, at the integrity of such men as (4. Muller, H. Craik, Hall and Meredith being questioned (as I thought it was) because of that letter, and I was quick to dispose of such a question,' I was nations and happy to assert the good consciences of such, having been long dear to me in the Lord. But now I have read this letter, and see It in the light of avowing certain principles which I judge to be at variance with those which alone are worthy of the Church of God.
Take this passage from it, “supposing, the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they understood and imbibed views, essentially subversive of foundation truth, especially as those meeting at Ebringten Street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts." I need only refer you to previous parts of my letter, where I have spoken of different communions, and of our proper relation to such, in order to show you how entirely I judge this thought to be wrong. I could not refuse to say that such principles of Church action as this would make any place a defiled place, in Levitical language, leprosy would be detected by the priest to be in the house. I would ask you, also, how could any gathering of saints be consistently faithful to Christ. and still avow such principles? Fidelity to the Lord demands of us to reprove or make manifest the heretical teaching here intimated. But that cannot be done while we have fellowship with the place which countenances them.
The Apostle teaches me that I cannot reprove and have fellowship with the same unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5). This principle puts Bethesda on different grounds from any with whom we have hitherto had communication. For I am sure I could at any moment have said for myself, that if any congregation of Independents, Baptists, or Methodists avowed that they admitted persons who had religious fellowship with avowed heretics in the sense of the word, intimated in the passage quoted from the letter of the ten, provided they were themselves sound in the faith of the Son of God; I should not have even entertained the question of receiving them or not. Under such avowal I could never have been happy in their presence among us. I can again say, 'indeed, dear brother, how truly do I desire that all Bethesda Could 'seriously consider this-we are all learning, we are all in the school of God, we have much to correct, as well as in many things to advance. It is but little to confess ignorance and mistakes; I am confessing more at this moment, I am confessing carelessness and haste, and again I say to you, seek to bring their souls to the calm consideration of this, and do it as you may; on the sanction of some serious and solemn motives. I dread going, in unneeded vigilance or strictures with Bethesda, humble, upright, unworldly Ways have long marked her Course, services of singular praise to God are connected
with her, and I do not deny I have been unable to understand the word and action of many in the course of the resistance which has been offered to her, and to some supposed to be defiled with her; so stumbled have I been by these things, that had I been in certain places, I must have abstained from the Lord's table, fearing that such actions were sanctioned there, but this I do not pursue.
The request from brethren around London gives hope that all needed revenge on all disobedience (2 Cor. 10:6), will in due season be taken, let us but use the moment in the fear of God. I had more to notice on the letter of the ten (especially on the ground for declining to judge the tracts), but I rather think that my present purpose might make more than I have already said upon it inconvenient, for I am. now only designing to call to consideration the serious nature of this refusal to meet the-proposal of the London brethren, and how it may shut out all hope of restoration and work even further separation-and also by one instance (and one is enough)-to show how much the letter of the ten needs, in the Church principles of it, to be considered afresh; for we have to take heed that the order and testimony of the house of God pass through our hands without contracting defilement;- and, indeed, I would add, for my own admonition especially, dear brother, that we have also to take heed of heartless exercise of the mind over principles and doctrines.
God is not to be so served. " My son, give me thine heart." I need not tell what is, in His esteem, the first and greatest commandment, and the apostle says, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be anathema." It has been observed that the worst thing in controversy is its tendency to engender an intolerant spirit We must watch against the disturbing force of long-cherished points of discussion. The present uneasiness may be allayed, the Lord grant it, indeed! In the meanwhile, it has its profit with its sorrows. It helps to give our souls immediate business with Himself, and no lessons are so thoroughly or so deeply learned as those which we learn through our necessities. What is then taught us is likely to be something more than theory, in such a way (as I said at the beginning), the early churches learned many of their lessons. We are now at school, under the sorrow that has come upon our once happy and unsuspecting brotherhood in Christ. It may be well-it may be that not only ourselves, but others of the family of God, through our follies, exercises, and experiences, and the Lord's working in and by them, all, may be profited with us. The occasion lead us all (as I have done briefly in this letter), to consider the ways of the house of God; a knowledge of which, according to God, is in a great sense more important than the settlement of the present immediate matter.
May we advance in that holy knowledge, dear brother, and walk altogether again, and that speedily; and more in the sight of the Lord than ever! Amen.
Believe me, ever
Your affectionate brother,
J. G. Bellett.
A Letter on Neutrality as to Christ or Bethesda
Beloved Brother,
I am glad at having received your second letter, and I purpose, if the Lord will, to give it a larger answer than perhaps you counted on. But I do so designedly-for I believe the "Brethren" have, under present circumstances painful as they are, an opportunity of learning some good lessons, and we may, through grace help each other to improve the moment.
For that end and with that hope, it is well to separate our minds, as far as we can, from the personalities and even the acts, which have marked the progress of this controversy, that we may be the more free to look at the principles involved in it. But if you judge that there has been too easy a passing over of certain offenses, I refuse not to own (as I said in a former letter to which you refer) that I have indeed been stumbled by some things done, said, and written, which I believe every saint ought to be able to judge, and judging, to resent.
If it he said, in defense of these things, that relative claims are to be postponed when faith apprehends the Lord's claims, I can understand that, and see it largely illustrated in scripture. But I do not understand, that, because Satan is assailed or because a work of the enemy is undergoing exposure, respect to some ordinary rules of good faith and charity is to be denied. I read that, when Michael contended with Satan, he did not bring against him a railing accusation.
One from whom for more than twenty-five years I have learned mach of the mind of God, long since said to me, " Take care you do not correct the flesh by the flesh." Had this been remembered by us all in the progress of this sad controversy, we should now have to rejoice in results instead of mourning over them.
And it is not only that wrong things have been done; opportunities of good have also been hindered and lost. A sifting has been going on, I would not deny. But in the progress, some have not had the skill of a Master's hand. Has there been that "gentleness," that "patience," that "meekness," in instructing, which the Apostle enjoins, even where a work of the devil is distinctly owned? Has there been his required " absence of striving?" (2 Timothy 2).
I am quite ready to say these things, and to ask these things, dear brother. But still I say, I would rather that we could consent to lay this aside for a time, and look together at what through God's grace, even this occasion (grievous though it be) may afford us and bring to us a blessing. If there were in each and in all a readiness to discover and confess one's own measure of wrong, a harvest might be and would be reaped. And from the letter of request lately written to B-from brethren near London, I cannot but hope that this readiness does exist.
You ask me to answer one or two questions as to what my conduct would be, were I in certain places. I do not like the language generally of either threat or resolution; nor do I find that I am as yet equal to say what would be the course in many cases which might be suggested. Here in Dublin we are speaking together, and desire to do so patiently, not listening to hearsays or charges, but considering principles of action, with God's mind in His word about them, as far as we have grace to discern it.
To deal however, with principles in the abstract, or as at a distance, is a different thing from dealing with persons and places long loved and cherished. The affections get at once engaged. I should not, for the present, 'lightly seek many places which I could mention to you from this feeling; greatly longing for a time of restitution among us, and willing to escape from the necessity of acting, if I may do so, without foregoing clear duty or service.
You tell me, there are precious saints at B——. Sure I am of it, dear brother, and can recall happy moments of the Lord's presence, times of refreshing, as we speak, between their souls and mine. Would there were an open heart in all to let in the flow of these sweet remembrances! For sure I am there are many misinterpretations, and in a thousand instances confidence is deserved where now it is withheld.
And further I say as to B——, let acts be allowed to cancel acts. If prejudice were not at work among us, this, I believe, would be readily allowed. If B——at the beginning were slack in judging the evil doctrine, her subsequent dealings with it may be received as restoration or repentance. Common grace and candor would (under ordinary circumstances) be pleaded for as much as this. And I could indeed say, 0 that this candor and grace were in exercise! But still, on the other hand, I would expect that B——, on her part, would be ready to act further than she has, if uneasiness remain as to the real value of these ulterior acts of her's in the, minds of any. If her faithfulness to the Lord be still questioned, let her add zeal, and revenge, and clearing of herself, to what she may have already done.
This is not too much to expect from either side.
But acts, dear brother, are not the only ingredients in the case. There have been standards lifted up. And B-'s standard puts her on wrong ground. I am sure of it. Principles avowed by -public writings, after the- most solemn sanction of the whole assembly, are (in my eye) standards. And these writings are not to be canceled by acts or by any private communications.
They must be canceled by writings of equal dignity with themselves. If the assembled brethren sanctioned them, let the brethren be assembled to annul them, with confession too of the error they were betrayed into. I allude to the "Letter of the Ten." And I say further, that if that letter but seem to admit that doctrines which involve reproach on the Lord Jesus may be carelessly passed by-if it but seem to admit that communion may be held with places defiled by such doctrines, let me ask you, dear brother, ought it not to be renounced with indignation? Ought not private injuries to' be forgotten, that this service may be done in a way worthy of it? But my present purpose is not with B——. They are surely not only at liberty but bound to act to, their Master. But as my late letter, to which you refer, has led to no action on their part, I am not appealing to them again. A letter from an individual, though printed, is no act of the assembled brethren, such as the case asks for. My business therefore is not now with them. But I have a purpose and a desire towards others who are truly dear to us all.
There are, as you know, (because you refer me to them) other public writings as well as this "Letter of the Ten." They are called Memorandums or Statements put forth by the gathered saints of some different places, well known to us and long loved and cherished. I invite you to look again at those writings for a little. I lament them very much, for they are hindering restoration. Be sure of it: negative ways are not sufficient in moments of general alarm and suspicion. Defective statements ought to be remedied; they hinder restoration. These writings do not, I know, give us all which the brethren in those different places would set forth, if they saw the need. I want them to see this need. The anxiety and diffidence which have been raised demand a heavy pressure to allay it, and these writings only increase it. They are direct stumbling-blocks in the way of restoration.
They do not give pledges that anything more than christian fellowship is proposed. Read the Declarations for instance from Tottenham, Torquay, and Taunton. They are not the voices which would naturally break forth from church-ruins; and nothing other than such voices ought to be heard in these Declarations. I do not say we need them at all. But if we get them, let them be such. Evangelical brotherhood, or christian association, will not meet (as you happily express it) "the instincts of the liv- ing stones." No, indeed. Those instincts desire "the spiritual house, the holy priesthood." If these Memorandums come forth in such an hour as tile present amongst us, let them avow the peculiarities of the church. The moment demands this, and anything less than this will be a stumbling-block. It is not like one's infancy of twenty years ago. Questions are now raised which had no place then. Fears and suspicions are now awakened as to the principles of our common ways in Christ. The time is important to the edification and health of our gatherings, and calls for more consideration than those writings give it.
I greatly desire the dear brethren would review them. One letter from a kind-hearted brother (well-known among us) seems to speak as though false doctrine were not matter for the action of the gathered saints, wrong practices being their due concern. I know you are not of this mind, and I know not where I am, if such a thought as that is to find place among us. We might well open our eyes, not with admiration but with amazement and sorrow, and ask, "what manner of stones and what buildings are here!" Weak though we be in more senses than one, still we are to be as decided as John himself in shutting the door in a given case-as fervent as Paul himself in purging out leaven; and though but a church-ruin, we are still to do the duty of the church in being a pillar of the truth. Those Memorandums or Statements (to say no more) do not avow right principles, while (in a very important article) the "Letter of the Ten" is inconsistent with right principles.
'It is this which led me to say (to which you refer) that they were not as guilty as the Letter from B-. They were put forth, I do not doubt, simply to meet a moment of peculiar character, and seem to take independent ground; and, as I said before, they do not, I know, adequately present the mind of the brethren who signed them. But I desire that the stumbling-block may be taken out of the way. " Cast up, cast up the high way," dear brother, "gather out the stones, lift up a standard for the people." These writings are stones to be gathered out, I am sure. They hinder our traveling together "the high way." The recalling of them would be a gathering out of stones, and lead (I have hope) to the lifting up of a standard worthy of the people of God in this day. I dread a fixed and adopted separation among us. Efforts ought still to be made for a restoring of gatherings one to the other, and for their finding themselves in an advanced position. It is terrible to contemplate a permanent breach.
Thus have I taken upon me to speak to you, beloved, but designing it to be in the hearing of those brethren who have put forth those writings, and indeed of all the brethren. For it is my thought, as I have already said, that we have an opportunity now of growing together, if heat and pride and the spirit which brooks not delay or opposition do not work to spoil us of it.
And here I will consider something further with you, which this matter has suggested to me.
I am aware that some are hindered by the fear that we are abandoning our former ground, on which the thoughts of "the church being in ruins" had put us. But this is not so.
Connected with this, let me remind you, that Israel, after their return from Babylon, was Israel still. They had not the ark, the glory, nor the Urim; nor did they affect that to which such things were needed. But they fully recognized themselves as God's Israel. As far as they could, they did' the services of such, and behaved themselves as such; but they never did anything in any other character, or what was inconsistent with that character.
This is much to be remembered. Did they, I ask, bring home with them the customs of the heathen? "The latter house" was not what "the former house" had been, and the old men wept; but, as far as conditions allowed it, the ways of the two houses were alike. They never brought in the customs of the heathen; and, as simply and surely as ever, they took knowledge of themselves as the Israel of God. Their circumstances were changed. They were in ruins. Their fair things and their honorable things were spoiled. They were subject to the Gentile. But they were Israel still. This was their principle. And accordingly, as soon as anything was discovered inconsistent with that, it was judged. You remember the case of intermarriages, and the more pertinent one of Nehemiah avenging the act of Eliashib who prepared a chamber for Tobiah the Ammonite in the house of the Lord.
They owned their circumcision, their separation to God, as jealously as ever. They refused Samaritan brotherhood, while they were debtors to the patronage of the Gentiles, and were partakers of their bounty. Horonites, Ammonites, and Moabites, were the same to them as ever they had been.
No glory had entered the latter house, as it had the former. This may have tried their faith. The Ark had not been preserved for them, as in another land of Philistines, nor had it returned to them as in victory from another temple of Dagon. It was lost to them. This may have tried their faith also. Nor had they their priest with Urim and Thummim. Thus were they in ruins, shorn of beauty and strength; and some of their brethren were still in Babylon. But in the presence and midst of all this, they avow themselves to be God's Israel as surely and simply as ever. They allow of nothing inconsistent with "the former house," they well knew and were constrained to feel, that they had not all its glory in "the latter house."
This is for us, dear brother. We are, in our way and measure, to be "stewards of the mysteries of. God," and that too, under the holy sanction of being "faithful." And neither love's sake, nor brotherhood's sake, or any other impulse, is to prevail with us to forego the services which attach to so precious a stewardship. The peculiarities of the house of God are to be our peculiarities; and though we own Israelites in Babylon, we are not to own Samaritans or Chaldeans in Zion. Nor are we to own ways unworthy of Zion in a returned captive, though we see him the witness of rains and of weakness.
This theme is worthy of our thoughts; and I confess I desire all our dear brethren to take counsel upon it. Would that they were to do it together calmly and in love!
I own saints (to be sure I do) where I cannot see church-rains, as for instance in the Establishment. The Establishment is not a church-ruin. It is an important thing in the earth, which must scorn the idea of ruins. Nay, it denies the church in her very first element; for it has not gone to Christ as a Stone "disallowed of men," but has linked His name with the government and men of the world. But God's dear people are there.
But even, when an assembly is not of that earthly and important character, and takes a lowlier bearing, yet it may not be a church-ruin. I must still inspect it, whether or not it own the peculiarities of the house of God.
Christendom is not to be mistaken for church-ruins. Christendom is as "a great house," which I must judge-the few who call on the Lord out of a pure heart form the church-ruins where I must be found (2 Timothy And it is a holy question for us, beloved;-"Are we upholding merely christian fellowship? or are we dwelling, according to the holiness of God, within the precious precincts of a church-ruin?" In a time of growing intelligence and social advancement as the present is, when long peace among the nations has given great play to the skill and speculations of man, and when the religion of the human mind has been cultivated and respected, it is needful to remember, with increased care, that the truth of God and the house of God have their blessed peculiarities; that not one of them is to be sacrificed to the morals, the politics, or the religion of man; and that we are not to mistake for them what man produces, be it as good as it may. Ruins are weak things; but. still they tell of the original building. And so, in our present weakness, we must still tell of the peculiarities of the church.
In the truth or mysteries witnessed by us-in the nature, subject, and purpose of our discipline-in the ways and ordinances of the assembly-in the whole process of our common edification, the peculiarities of the house of God must be seen. I avow ruins as simply as ever. But if it be necessary, I add, that they are church-ruins, unlike either the old Roman temples, or the buildings of the philanthropists or Reformers of this our day.
Farewell, beloved. Do not blame this letter as a mere protracting of a painful discussion. Is it not better to be patient with one another, or (if it seem so) to protract discussion, than to sit down contented with our divided state? I remember the same brother (to whom I have already alluded) also saying to me some long time since, that it was a terrible thing to be indifferent about those with whom we were ever joined at the Lord's table.
May he, and you, and I, and all of us, cherish this godly sentiment, now that a trial has come upon us.
Let our dear brethren at Tottenham, Torquay, and Taunton, read this letter; I mean to send a copy to Bath. Indeed I should be glad if all saw it; and if we could but get our hearts exercised together, so as to meet again in an advanced position for our common blessing in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ever yours,
beloved brother,
J. G. B.
No Fellowship With Dishonor to Christ
I refuse the language used by brethren from whom we have seceded, that we have "excommunicated them." This is not a just expression; and it produces indignation, and immediate determination in the mind to have nothing to do with people or with principles of such a bearing. It is not excommunication. It is standing at the door of the house of God, and, if certain persons come to the door seeking entrance, we act as the spirit of the apostle lets us know we ought to act, and we forbid them entrance.
We do not inquire if they are saints of God or not: this we may know elsewhere. The apostle does not tell us to make any such inquiry. But we refuse to receive them coming up to the door of the house of God from the temple of an idol (1 Cor. 10). They have declared or admitted the declaration, without judging it (and this makes them partakers with it), that they receive at their table one who comes from a place where Christ is dishonored, if he himself is sound in faith and morals, and has not imbibed the heterodoxy. And I say no more but just ask, Is a place where Christ is dishonored other in our eyes than an idol's temple, where the cups of demons are drunk? We have no such custom, neither the churches of God. But we say, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (or of those who dishonor the Lord Jesus). Judge in yourselves, judge the principle in the light of the word. To me it seems, self-evidencing, light, and power, and virtue, and holiness are in it.
But now that I am on this subject with you, I will linger a little over it, though it be very painful, and has been so to me for many years; for I dearly loved those personally from whom I am separated congregationally.
There are three distinct elements-to use a phrase in much present use:-formalism, socialism, and divine holiness.
Formalism obtains in all the aged systems of Romanism and the parish church.
Socialism has made great inroads on it in this day of ours. To a great extent it is the favorite principle of the present generation; whether in or out of the church, we see it in activity. The men of the world are combining, and form their joint-stock companies, their confederacies, for the advance of present accommodation and international brotherhood. Such is the day. The saints are always tempted by the spirit of the age, and are now very much acting on this principle. They receive one another in an abstract way, not under the condition the word of God prescribes, as in 1 Cor. 10. And the social atmosphere is very grateful: they breathe it freely and encourage one another by no means to disturb it.
Divine holiness pauses in the light of everything, and challenges it, however precise, amiable, respectable, and widely accredited, by the light of the Lord, and forces it to give an account of itself to the word of God. It has its peculiarities, which it can never surrender either to socialism or to formalism. It is something more than the moral sense of man, or even than a " charity " that refuses to judge or distinguish things that differ. It is the mind of God dispensed in scripture in any given age, and walking in the light of His mind. This divine holiness is a separating principle, but not that of a Pharisee, all to the tradition of men, or assumed higher holiness in one's self, but that of obedience to God's peculiarities-the principles of His house revealed in His word.
It is, easy nowadays to take the journey from formalism to socialism. There is much in the temper of the age to put a very large generation on that road, so that great countenance is given to those who are traveling there. But to travel from socialism to divine holiness is another thing altogether. I add, and this only, that to us it is plain, that among the peculiarities, or attributes, of divine holiness is found that principle which I have already noticed-that if one come from an idol's temple, where the cup of demons had been drunk (though he be a saint of God), he is not to be received in the house of God. He may say, It is my liberty, and I may go where I please. Divine holiness replies, I cannot combine with such liberty. Yours affectionately in the Lord,
To———, Nov. 18th, 1863. J. G. B.
P.S.-I should like with you to look at the Book of Nehemiah, as illustrating formalism, socialism, and divine holiness. We are now called "Exclusives." If this title belongs to us, it belongs to the apostle who tells us to act upon the principle which has given us the title.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.