Question: The great denominations of Christendom, from Rome downwards, are all wrong in their constitution and outward form, and should be separated from. But where the constitution, the outward form, is correct, like the various sections of Brethren, does not scripture seem to show that there should be no separation, whatever the evil, but that saints should stay within, and strengthen the things that remain (e g. 3 John, the Seven Churches, etc.)? Does not this seem to derive all the greater force from the fact that there appears to be no instance of separating from the outward thing? Surely saints could remain within and remember the Lord without setting up another table though in daily walk only associate, or follow, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Immoral persons it is clear should be put out. Those going out would then manifestly not be saints, not being in fellowship. X.Y.Z.
Answer: Resemblance in outward form is no sufficient warrant that the saints are truly gathered to the Lord’s name. There might be acceptance of fundamental evil in the allowance of a false Christ, either on the human side or the divine. Communion with one who does not bring the doctrine of Christ, as 2 John proves, is more fatal than any moral laxity, wicked as this would be, and demands more stringency, as He is of infinitely more weight than any or all professing Christians. Even ordinary greeting is forbidden b such a deceiver and antichrist. Indifference to such sin is to become a partaker of the evil deeds, even if one does not imbibe the evil doctrine. 2 Tim. 2 also is clear that when evil is allowed within, and vessels to dishonor are sanctioned instead of being excluded, the faithful are bound to separate. If a so-called Christian assembly keeps them in defiance of all right call to purge them out as leaven, the true saint must purge himself out, in order to be a vessel unto honor, and to follow all that is godly with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
The Apocalyptic churches do not touch discipline or polity, but the Lord’s dealing with them, from decline and peril of the candlestick removed to the final spewing out of His mouth. The argument of hence denying responsibility to withdraw goes so to contradict our duty as shewn elsewhere as to evince its falsity and evil. For it would compel us to have fellowship with Nicolaitan antinomianism, fornication, adultery, &c. What proves too much disproves itself. Tolerating evil under the Lord’s name is intolerable; and no evil is so bad as heterodoxy as to Christ, whether held or winked at and unjudged. To give it license of the Lord’s table is heinous sin.