Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/40

 to which they belong? We think not. That elders should seek an insight into dangerous forms of error that may be spreading, so as to be able to guide, and warn, and admonish all connected with them, is admitted on all sides, as demanded by the position they hold as shepherds over the flock; and it must be allowed that this letter affords abundant proof, that Mr. Müller, Mr. Craik, and those with them, were alive to the dangerous statements that had been made.

We now take up the nine reasons given in this letter for not pronouncing a judicial church sentence on Mr. Newton and his views, and shall append a few remarks under each head.

“1st. We considered from the beginning, that it would not be for the comfort or edification of the saints here—nor for the glory of God—that we, in Bristol, should get entangled in the controversy connected with the doctrines referred to. We do not feel that, because errors may be taught at Plymouth or elsewhere, therefore we, as a body, are bound to investigate them.”

This clause has been objected to, because it is said to deny the unity of the body. That there were no seclusive principles intended to be advocated in this letter, is plain from the desire expressed a little lower down, “to maintain fellowship with all believers;” and to be “particularly associated with those who meet, as we we do, simply in the Name of the Lord Jesus.” Surely there is no separating of themselves in an unholy isolation here; and if in some measure they have been forced into isolation, by some of their brethren who would judge for them, as to the course they ought to have pursued, it has been occupied in sorrow of heart. They have sought in spirit fellowship with Elijah, when he built bis altar of “twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob,” and to enter into the spirit of Daniel’s prayer and confessions, realizing their oneness with all saints in their conflicts, sorrows and failings. The assertion here made is merely that “we in Bristol,” i.e. the church meeting in Bethesda, are not ipso facto bound to investigate “as a body,” what is done in Plymouth; and further, that the only grounds on which they could feel themselves justified to take church action on that or any matter, would be that it was demanded either by what was needed for “the comfort or edification of the saints” in Bristol, or for “the glory of God.” There is neither expressed nor implied, a desire on the part of the leaders, to stand aloof from the trials of many tried ones in Plymouth; but it was earnestly and persistently maintained, that evil, and only evil, could result from bringing these matters before the church, as long as almost all were in happy