February 1, 1901.
Dear —:
... The followers of Mr. Grant have made a great deal of the action of Montreal in putting him away, as if that were all. They fail to see that even if the meeting at Montreal had put him away without cause, the whole course of Grant and his partisans was schismatic. Must every one who thinks himself unjustly dealt with feel free to begin an independent meeting? The very thought is subversive of all government and authority. Granting that a man may be put away unjustly, his place would be to wait quietly on God to clear up his case, instead of forcing division to the ends of the earth. So the real question is not whether the Montreal action was just the right thing, or not, but whether Mr. Grant and others formed a party, by his new teaching and the pursuing of a partisan course.
While I do not see what else the meeting at Montreal could have done than set Mr. G. aside, I have never doubted that there was failure in some respects as to the way it was brought about, but this does not alter its validity in the least. Nor is there any scripture to prove that an assembly action, in order to be valid, must be unanimous. In 2 Corinthians 2:66Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. (2 Corinthians 2:6), it is simply the “punishment which was inflicted of [the] many.” The Greek has the article with “many,” showing it was the mass, not necessarily all. Mr. Grant was not the only guilty one. In fact, I believe John James was more guilty than he, and was the leader in consummating the division, Grant himself having fallen under his influence. And John James is now with the Open Brethren. Even the principles of Mr. Grant were too narrow for him. But there were a number of other men active in propagating the principles of independency. Was it to be supposed that these would consent to the putting away of the one whose teaching they admired? If a man in a meeting were guilty of highway robbery, and some friends of his were guilty of helping him to keep possession of his booty, is it to be supposed that they would support the assembly in taking action against this guilty man? And if not, must the hands of the assembly be tied by their opposition, and hindered from clearing itself from the wickedness? I put it in this way simply for the sake of the principle involved. The assembly is not infallible, and may make mistakes, but it has authority, and this is to be respected, not rebelled against. And if a wrongdoer has sympathizers, their judgment may be overruled.
It is said that those who went with Grant were “godly” men. I am not disposed to deny it. But their support of him, and their going out and beginning an independent table was not godliness. It was high-handed rebellion, like that of Jeroboam in leading the revolt of the ten tribes. We have to admit that even men who are called “godly” may get into a very wrong state, and do wrong things.
Mr. Grant went from Plainfield to Montreal avowedly to prevent division. I do not doubt he may have been honest in this. But immediately when he got there, I believe he fell into the trap laid for him by James and others. And he and his partisans held a meeting the first night, while another meeting was going on in the assembly room. Did this look like an effort to prevent division? On the contrary, it was already division consummated, all except the public declaration of it. I have a letter of Mr. Grant himself, written, I think, to Mr. Manger in which he convicts himself of holding meetings with his abettors at least twice in Montreal, and twice, I think, at Ottawa, and that while other meetings were going on. These were the distinct marks of a party maker.
When Mr. Grant went to M. he asked meetings of the assembly to look into and discuss his teaching. He might have meant well enough. But was this the path of the peacemaker? The teaching was looked into and condemned by the mass. And he was admonished to cease the teaching of the doctrine. A first and second admonition were both despised.
Now, while the teaching was wrong, it would have been borne with, had Mr. G. not made a special effort to spread it, thereby forming a party. But he made a party by it, and thereby, in the scripture sense of the term, became a “heretic,” that is, the leader of a school of opinion. In this course he persisted against all remonstrance, actively propagating the spirit of division at Montreal, Ottawa and elsewhere, at the very time his case was pending. It was for this the action was taken at Montreal — not the mere fact of his differing from the generally received teaching on certain questions.
But at the time of the action there was a crowning proof of the existence of a party formed by Mr. G. and his teaching. Before the action of putting him away was consummated by reading it at the Lord’s table — when it had only been determined on a Wednesday night, or Thursday night meeting to put him away — Mr. Grant and his party walked out of the meeting, after announcing a meeting at a certain house on Craig Street to be held a night or two after. They did not wait for the consummation of the action to put Mr. Grant away (which actually occurred some two weeks later), but went out as a party, and at their meeting consulted, and under the advice of Mr. Grant, set up an independent table the next Lord’s day. A clearer case of a schismatic action, and a schismatic table, could not well exist. I cannot doubt that the action taken against him was just, even allowing that mistakes may have been made. If Mr. Grant had been right he would have said to those who sympathized with him: Brethren, I do not want, and will not have, a party. I put myself into the hands of God, and will abide His will. And I advise you to remain quiet, and not agitate the matter. We must not on such slender grounds bring about a division among the people of God. We will wait and let God work, and manifest His will.
If he had done this, the saints at large would very soon have seen that Mr. G. was no party maker, and an attempt would soon have been made to show that Montreal had made a mistake in judgment, and calling for a reconsideration of their action, and withdrawal of it. But no, Mr. Grant and his adherents acted in bold defiance of the assembly, consummating the division at Montreal, and forcing it upon all assemblies everywhere. Instead of leaving the case in the hand of God, or in the hands of their brethren generally, they took it out of court. They decided their own case, and deliberately chose division. Submission to the judgment of others was no part of their creed.
I might mention many other details, but it would do no good. The thing is to grasp the general principle, and to see that it is no mere case of discipline, just or unjust, but that a party was formed in the effort to annul the force of much that Mr. Darby taught. My own belief is that the party had its moral root in personal feeling against Mr. Darby. I feel morally sure of this but do not enter into it....
Yours affectionately in the Lord,