——-has never got out of his head local constituted order, and the unity of the body I doubt ever really into it. The Lord will, I trust, direct the brethren, and, still more, the matter itself in London. It may be that common action there may not be spiritually enough for....
Independent churches would drive many out of communion, who are yet uneasy at London Bridge. I am not prepared to say it would not exclude me entirely. At any rate, the whole question is one of great import, and any rash action in it, or pressure of principles, unadvised. But I only take——-'s action in it as an element in God's ways. The communication of lists would be an outrage on conscience, if the gatherings are independent; the non-communication, a door to the relaxing of all discipline. The case at present is a practical difficulty; a rash solution of it might break up the brethren (if God allowed it) everywhere. For myself, I await the result, quietly trusting God, and as far as I may be given to do it, laboring for real unity. There is a tendency from circumstances to independent action. If independent churches are formed, of course I should not belong to them, or I should never have met at all as I have. Some have driven at this, but it was from the enemy. But serious brethren should weigh the consequences of a given course. Suppose independent churches were formed in London, and a considerable body of serious brethren declined forming part of them as a long settled conviction, the question would arise before all the gatherings in England—could they be received, or could those churches be owned by them.
We have had a most useful and happy conference in the snow at the Chaux-de-Fonds, which I left to-day for a week at Lausanne.
Affectionately yours.
Lausanne,
December, 1860.