July, 1852.
DEAREST BROTHER, Your letter gives little difficulty in answering, because as to its great principles it is quite what I feel myself, and I will add, as regards the—meeting, the difficulty of acting in the Lord's mind as to humiliation, and yet keeping clear of evil ourselves there, for that was the point that was so delicate a one as to succeeding in practice, that had I not felt guided of God, I should have felt it hopeless. And while I believe He graciously did help us, yet feeling it a very nice point to attain, not in principle but in practice, (with 150 people one could only, as to particular right, estimate of the position and individual acts, in the main trust God that we should be kept), and earnestly desiring there should be no practical loosening of any separation from evil, I could in no way be surprised if persons felt scruples or difficulties as to the point reached; and their jealousy as to committing themselves to any compromise with evil I heartily sympathized with. Our affair was not to arrange communion, but to avoid any communion with what could affect the conscience as defiled, and yet have the humiliation on the ground you state.
I now turn to the difficulty you mention, as to Bethesda being on the ground of Dissenters or the Establishment. This has been pressed much by persons who sought, while owning there was evil, to involve us again in looseness of fellowship with the principles of Bethesda. This is not your object at all, but your difficulty turns on the same point. But to me far graver considerations make a total and complete difference. There had been fellowship rightly or wrongly with Bethesda, and the first question was, was it to be continued? That is, people had been received, if they came thence, and brethren went there, received in like manner. Subsequently to this, persons holding the most horrible doctrine as to Christ were received, inquiry refused, and the doctrine laid down and accepted by the body that no such inquiry should be. That is, they took as a body this position of unfaithfulness on foundation matters to Christ.
The Establishment has not done this; indifference to persons holding a false Christ, has never been proclaimed as its principle. Nor has any dissenting body that I know ever done so. This is the difference, then to me, a grave positive sin against Christ, the body having accepted this as a principle. Where a dissenting body had done this, I would not receive its members, unless the individual were cleared of the sin. Nor can I consent to set ecclesiastical faults, of judgment (however grave as regulating my conduct in connection with the unity of the body) on the same ground as positive indifference to what concerns the personal glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
An Independent goes ecclesiastically wrong; when he comes to me, though inconsistent, perhaps through want of conviction, he goes ecclesiastically right; but as to Christ's personal glory, and the foundation of union, he is perhaps as jealous as I am, and, it may be, more faithful. Supposing now Bethesda, unfaithful, for I am only showing the difference of principle, supposing they are as regards the Person of the Lord Jesus, I am, in receiving one who forms part of it, acquiescing in this sin, which is in no sort cleared by his coming amongst us, but rather acquiesced in by us. Fidelity to the truth as to Christ's Person is in question in one case, and not in the other.
Now, this is a difference all important, which is before all unity, and at the foundation of all unity too. To hold unity independently of it, is to put the church-i. e. unity of men-in place of Christ, not to build it on Him. To me, this is as clear as the sun at noon-day, and I believe it to be a question of the value we have for Christ. If persons say we are now separated for good and have nothing whatever to say to Bethesda as being outside the pale of Christian unity, I should have no objection to examine each case, provided the sin in which they have been implicated, be inquired into and pressed, and continuance in it taken account of-in a word, that indifference to Christ be in no way accepted or acquiesced in. That is the whole matter with me; though I think there are other grave points in the Bethesda case, all fade to my mind before this.
I would not on any account have invited one whom I know to be in false doctrine to -; in one case when I feared it might be, I took particular pains to guard against any mixture with it. I do distinguish between persons actually deliberately guilty of the sin, and persons (though not knowing what to do, or prejudice or ecclesiastical difficulties) not cleared from ecclesiastical connection with it, though they would abhor it in itself. I certainly would not have invited a person I supposed to be deliberately and unrepentingly guilty of it. It was proposed to me to have it open to them, and I declined.
, Two courses were open-excluding Bethesda as a body by name or inviting individually on some well-known principle, (not of course on private choice). I first thought of the former, and finally acted on the latter, but in a way I believed to be effectual, and which was carried into effect on the same principle, which would not let in those who held to the sin. Without of course pretending that all was perfect on these points, still careful godly pains were taken to maintain the fear of God, and certainly our gracious God watched over the matter for us.
Some I might not shake hands with, others I should; I cannot lump all together in the game moral judgment. I see scripture teaches me in certain cases when I condemn, not to treat as an enemy but admonish as a brother. This is the ground I publicly took on returning to England. I believe I am on right ground, and I must deal with each case individually.
I have been interrupted and distracted in every possible way while writing this letter, but I trust I may have conveyed the point of my thought. If you have any difficulty, I am sure you will kindly write again. The whole question with me is, the real faithful maintaining, as far as in us is, the glory of the Lord Jesus, for its own sake and as the basis of union. Affectionately yours in the Lord, J. N. D.
August, 1852.