Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/39

 God’s great safeguard against falsity is truth, his remedy against darkness is light. One by no means friendly to Bethesda, writes that this part of the letter is “in fact a reply to Mr. Newton’s errors seriatim,” whose testimony in the matter is of value, as he was one who had perhaps as much to say to the matter in the first instance as any one. This was just what this part of the letter was designed to be, a solemn protest against those views which it was not thought expedient to disturb the minds of the saints about, as long as it was possible to keep them outside.

The Letter further says:—

“We now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty in complying with the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth.”

This clause tells us what they could not consent to, viz., formally to investigate and as a church pass judgment; and to this we would give special prominence, because by some the question at issue between the Ten, and Mr. Alexander and those with him, has been entirely misunderstood. It has been assumed that this letter contained a refusal of the leading Brethren to investigate for themselves the evil doctrines at Plymouth, so as to enable them to keep out the evil should it arise amongst, or come into the midst of those in fellowship. We have already noticed that the evil tendencies of this teaching were fully appreciated, and a very clear judgment arrived at in reference to them; but what was demanded was something very different, it was that the matter should be formally investigated, and judgment given on it. It was and  that was objected to, and this point we will notice again hereafter. It was felt a solemn thing to commit the church to a “formal judgment” on a matter as yet not immediately connected with them, involving an act of excommunication on one or more, who had been looked up to as Christians for years. To those who with a wholesale excommunication are accustomed to cut off alike the precious and the vile, the godly sensitiveness of those who shrunk from passing sentence of condemnation formally as a church, may not be under stood. This official church declaration as to the heresy, and as to the manner of treating those who upheld it, was that which was demanded as pre-requisite for fellowship. We ask, can this be demanded on scriptural authority of any body of elders, in regard to false doctrines which may have arisen outside the fellowship of the Light of the Candlestick in which they individually stand, and beyond the bounds of the individual assembly