Blackheath, January, 1875.
My Beloved Brother,
Avoiding all subsidiary questions, when I had settled those of ministry and worship, as held by “Brethren,” I felt that there was only one other matter for present decision, in order to some practical step. That was the question of discipline. There are many Christians, and we ourselves were amongst the number, who contend that the Lord’s table is open to all believers. This is of course fundamentally true, or it were not the Lord’s table. There arises, however, another thing to be decided. Are there any limitations imposed by the Lord Himself in His word? Diverse answers are returned to this question. In the Establishment there is no attempt whatever made to exercise discipline: any parishioner, except in one or two specified instances of gross sin, having the right, by its own laws, whether converted or not, to be “a communicant.” Practically, therefore, as the one or two exceptions seldom present themselves at the “altar rail,” there is no restriction in the Anglican Establishment. With Dissenters the practice varies. The Congregationalists, or Independents, are often as unrestricted as the Episcopalians; all who consider themselves believers being generally invited to the “Communion Service.” This is also the ease with a few Baptists, though not the common rule. In fact, they are divided into several classes, as you know. Some make “baptism” the condition of “communion”; some “membership of a church”; but almost all profess to exclude those who are walking disorderly. But it is not too much to say that doctrine is never (as far as I know) a matter for consideration. Thus take the association to which we belonged, an association composed of Baptist “churches” in London. One member, very prominent, has denied, in an article printed in a magazine of large circulation, the total depravity of human nature; another has declared for the “non-eternity” of punishment, etc., but this in no way affects their standing as members; and you will remember that we both deplored this, and, on one occasion, absented ourselves from a meeting because we feared we might in God’s sight be endorsing, by having fellowship with him, the “views” of the brother at whose chapel the association had been convened.
Turning to “Brethren,” I found that there had been division on this very ground; and hence I had very carefully to examine this subject also by the light of the Scriptures. My question, therefore, was this, Does the word of God teach that false doctrines—doctrines touching the person and work of the Lord, should disqualify for the Lord’s table? or, to put it in another form, ought we to have fellowship with the teachers, or the holders of false doctrine?
I will not, in answering this question, cite from the Old Testament Scriptures, lest their application to the matter in hand should be denied (though I cannot but remark that the principle of separation from evil teaching is there everywhere affirmed); but I pass at once to the epistles, as more especially treating of the Church of God. Take then, first, the epistle to the Galatians, and study chapter 1:8-9 in this connection. True, that evangelists are in contemplation, and such evangelists as would preach “another” gospel; but what, I ask, was this other gospel of theirs? It was simply the addition of ritualistic observances to faith in Christ as the means of salvation—a kind of gospel which is very prevalent at the present time: and if there is to be no discipline for doctrine, such “Galatian” preachers ought to receive, as they do almost everywhere now receive, the right hand of fellowship. But what says the apostle? “I would they were even cut off” (mutilated, no doubt, so as to destroy their energy) “which trouble you” (Gal. 5:1212I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:12)); and at the end of the epistle the apostle states the principle which is perpetually binding upon the church. “As many,” says he, “as walk according to this rule” (the true doctrine of “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,” verses 14-15), “peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:1616And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16)). The inference, then, is undoubted, that we are not to have fellowship with those who walk not according to this rule.
In another epistle we find him saying, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; ... from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Tim. 6:3-53If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:3‑5)). Read also the still stronger statements in 2 Timoty 2:15-21; also 2 John 9-119Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 9‑11). The epistles to the seven churches are also full of similar teaching. Take the portion addressed to “the angel of the Church at Ephesus.” Our Lord; in commendation, says, “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:22I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (Revelation 2:2)). On the other hand, He condemns Pergamos for the tolerance of false doctrine in the Church (Rev. 2:1414But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. (Revelation 2:14); see also 2:20).
These passages were of themselves sufficient to convince me that it was according to the Lord’s mind that there should be discipline for doctrine; and the reason is apparent. For if one who “walks disorderly” has to be put away from the fellowship of the saints, much more the teachers of false doctrine. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:66Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (1 Corinthians 5:6)). This is said of the permission of sin; but if disorderly walk “leavens,” much more false doctrine. Thus, if a believer falls into drunkenness, or any kind of open sin, he brings dishonor upon his Lord; but the believers with whom he is associated are not likely to be tempted to follow his example. On the other hand, if a saint is led aside into false doctrine, he will at once commence to propagate it, and numbers will, almost immediately, be contaminated. I will cite one instance of this which came under my own knowledge. A certain minister adopted “views” which depreciated the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and numbers of the believers connected with him followed him in these evil doctrines, and the godly remnant were, for the time, powerless. But the minister, too confident in his own influence, not content with the support he was receiving, proposed that the doctrines he now held should become the avowed basis of their association. This opened the eyes of some who had hitherto been quiescent; but still, when the question was put to the vote (for the trust-deed declared that the majority should settle such questions), the proposition of the minister was only defeated by a majority of one. The “leaven” was thereby arrested, for the minister was compelled to resign; but had he remembered the true character of leaven—that it works noiselessly—there is little doubt that in time the whole lump would have been leavened, as, indeed, it had already become, in the sight of God, before action was taken. Oh, it is a fatal doctrine, that evil teaching may be tolerated! The condition of the Church today is but the consequence of this pernicious laxity; and saints, instead of being established, are everywhere asking, What is truth? for they have no other standard left them, in many cases, than human opinion.
Having thus satisfied my own mind as to the principle, I was not very anxious to enter into the vexed question of the Bethesda controversy. Some years ago I examined it, but only from one side of the case. Now, however, I investigated also the other, and had conversations with some who were conversant with it from the commencement, and I came to the conclusion that the whole difficulty had arisen upon the question—Is there to be discipline for false doctrine? And if there is, ought the action of one assembly, in pursuance of this end, to be respected and maintained by the other assemblies? That is, supposing that a teacher of false doctrine is put out of communion in one locality, should it be right to receive him in another? The case as so put presents no difficulty, because, with the smallest amount of spiritual intelligence, any believer would at once see that if the assembly at Liverpool were to reverse the action of the assembly at Manchester, in a matter of discipline, it would thereby deny the truth of the unity of the body, and declare that what was rightly done by the saints in one locality might be undone in another.
But the case was complicated practically by another consideration, the actual question having arisen, Ought those in fellowship with such a teacher (and thereby, according to the Apostle John, “partakers of his evil deeds,” 2 John 10-1110If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 10‑11)) to be received into the fellowship of the saints? In my own judgment, the whole matter is fairly, temperately, and scripturally put forth in a pamphlet entitled, A Letter on Bethesda Fellowship; with an Appendix on the True Basis of Communion (Morrish); (and I would especially commend the appendix to the notice of any who desire to know what the Scriptures teach on the subject of communion). I say this after reading many pamphlets on the other side; indeed, by reading these my conviction was strengthened, that the positions maintained in the former were really unassailable. But while I say this much, I would by no means contend that no mistakes have ever been made in the application of the true principle of discipline; for this does not fall within my province to decide. My sole duty was to ascertain whether the principle was based upon the word of God. And I could only wish that all who are “exercised” on this subject would just divest themselves of all extraneous considerations, and confine themselves to the examination of the principle of discipline in dispute, asking but one question, Is it scriptural or not? For until they are settled as to this, they cannot be in a position to decide upon the merits of the Bethesda controversy.
If you will permit, I would like in a few words to remove one difficulty out of the path of inquirers. One is often met at the outset by such words as these: “Can it be right to exclude such and such men? Look at their holy lives, their devotedness; and do you pretend to sit in judgment upon their qualifications for the Lord’s table?” Such questions are common, and to some minds very terrible. May I then say that they have nothing to do with the matter? The only question we have to decide is this—Ought such discipline to be maintained according to the word of God? If so, it becomes a matter on our parts of simple obedience to the Lord, and not of passing judgment upon other believers; and one of His servants tells us, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments” (1 John 5:22By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. (1 John 5:2)). So that love to the saints is evinced, not by admitting them to the Lord’s table against His express will, but by keeping His commandments. Let me counsel all such through you, dear brother, to keep their eyes off from men and fixed upon the Lord, and then they will find that the path of discipline for doctrine, though sometimes very narrow, is yet the path of single-eyed obedience.
That the assertion of this principle should excite the most determined opposition is only what we should expect; for whatever tends to keep the Church of God as “the pillar and ground of the truth,” according to the divine purpose, is sure to excite the malice of Satan; and in no way can he compass his ends more successfully than by destroying the boundaries between truth and error. You, dear brother, are acquainted with Church history, and I appeal to you whether it is not the fact, from the second century downwards, that the source both of the weakness and the corruption of the Church has ever been in this fatal indifference to the maintenance of definite truth, in the evil tolerance of leaven in teaching as well as in life? The fact is, if you once cease to exercise discipline in the way named, all certitude as to the truth is soon lost in the conflict of confused and confusing opinions of men, and simple souls become a prey on every hand to doubts, if not to the artifices of Satan.
But whatever the opposition that this principle may excite (and surely it is a poor kind of Christianity that excites no opposition in the world), no one has a right to charge sectarianism on those who maintain it. A sect is composed of those who meet together, or associate themselves together, on the ground of agreement in a certain truth or doctrine, or as holding to a particular form of ecclesiastical polity. Thus Congregationalists, Baptists, Wesleyan, State-Churchmen, Presbyterians are all sects; indeed, they speak of themselves as the different “sections” of the Church. But wherever believers are gathered together as members of Christ in obedience to Him as Lord, and seek in dependence upon the Spirit to order all things in subjection to the word of God, maintaining the discipline which it directs, etc., they are in no sense whatever a sect; for there is a place at the table of the Lord, around which they are gathered, for every believer who is not disqualified by the Lord Himself on the ground of walk or doctrine. This, I think, will be clear to every unprejudiced mind.
Believe me, dear brother,
Yours affectionately in the Lord,
E. D.