Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/47

 a work of fifty pages, he may require our investigating error said to be contained in one of much larger dimensions; so that all our time might be wasted in the examination of other people’s errors, instead of more important service.”

As to the “right to demand” an examination of fifty pages, or of five hundred, written by persons at a distance, we refer to what we have already written. It may be wise and right to do so, it may be otherwise; but we can concede no right to demand anything of the kind. We will, however, remark, that it would have been well if all assemblies of saints had given themselves to the “more important service” of examining their own ways and hearts in the light of the sanctuary, and prayerfully watching over the life and walk, the doctrine and the faith, of those committed by God to their care, rather than in wasting precious time in oftentimes vain investigations of things that take place a hundred miles off, and in futile examinations of books and papers, the product of some speculative mind, whose speculations, in a very few years, have become among the dead and buried follies of the past. Some have objected to the expression “other people’s errors,” as if it implied that they were those with whom Bethesda had nothing to do. This contradicts the terms of the whole letter, and the practice of the church, which would ever seek interest in all that interests the weakest of the Lord’s little ones; but an interest in the whole family of God is one thing, and a demand to judge is another.

“It only remains to notice the three reasons specially assigned by Mr. Alexander, in justification of his course of action. To the first, viz—‘That by our not judging this matter, many of the Lord’s people will be excluded from communion with us,’—we reply, that unless our brethren can prove, either that error is held and taught among 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 reason 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.

“In reply to the second reason, viz.—‘That persons may be received from Plymouth holding evil doctrines’—we are happy in being able to state, that ever since the matter was agitated, we have maintained that persons coming from thence—if suspected of any error—would be liable to be examined on the point; that in the case of, one individual, who had fallen under the suspicion of certain brethren amongst us, not only was there private intercourse with him relative to his views, as soon as it was known that he was objected to—but the individual referred to, known to some of us for several years as a consistent Christian—actually came to a meeting of labouring brethren for the very purpose that any question might be asked him by any brother who should have any difficulty on his mind.