As to the ecclesiastical position proposed, I shall say a few words. I shall now put before you the theory which it aims to establish. The rest was the chaff-the theory is the grain-its great object, as I judge. Now observe: " Supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come to the same conclusion touching the amount of positive error therein contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting individuals coming from Plymouth. For supposing (see 27) [a man or] the author of the tracts were fundamentally heretical, this would not warrant us in rejecting those who came from under his teaching, until we were satisfied that they had understood and imbibed views essentially subversive of foundation-truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-Street, Plymouth, last January, put forth a statement, disclaiming the errors charged against the tracts." Again, after saying, " We did not feel it well to be considered as identifying ourselves with either party" (31); or with a controversy "so carried on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of " (32). "At the same time (33) we wish distinctly to be understood, that we would seek to maintain fellowship with all believers; and consider ourselves as particularly associated with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus." " Unless our brethren (37), can prove, either that error is held and taught amongst us, or that individuals are received into communion who ought not to be admitted, they can have no scriptural warrant for withdrawing from our fellowship. We would affectionately entreat such brethren as may be disposed to withdraw from communion for the reasons assigned, to consider that, except they can prove allowed evil in life or doctrine, they cannot, without violating the principles on which we meet, treat us as if we had renounced the faith of the Gospel." " We are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matter [? of Plymouth] (39) was agitated, we have maintained [? in our own minds] that persons coming from thence, if suspected of any error, would be liable to be examined on the point."
This is of all importance. It shows the theory on which Bethesda is now acting. This they will do. It might better have been presented either nakedly as stated above-i. e., without the many reasons why they would not do what they would not do (which serve as dust to hide and conceal this)-or have been condensed into two or three propositions, into which its principles resolve themselves. It is most important, both in what it asserts and in what it omits. While I admit that Bethesda has always, so far as I know, been behindhand as to truth and the practical results of faith in Christ in heaven, and returning thence, and of the presence of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, during His absence-I do not admit that it is now in the state it was nine years ago. Practically, there is a new theory and new practice in it; and I think this might easily be shown, if necessary.