Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/50



“Bristol, Monday, Nov. 25, 1849.

“,

“In reply to your letter of inquiry, touching certain points contained in what has been called the ‘Letter of the Ten,’ I beg to remark that, although we did not consider the fact of error having been taught at Plymouth, or elsewhere, as a sufficient reason for our bringing the matter before the body here, yet I fully allow that, if we were satisfied that the well-being of the saints here required our investigating and judging any particular form of error, it would be our duty to do so.

“In reference to the objection against our paper, grounded on the statement that, ‘even supposing 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 unsound,’ I beg to remark that, in all ordinary cases, and as a general rule of action, persons coming from a known heretical teacher, would not be received amongst us, except on the understanding that they had renounced his errors, and relinquished the body amongst whom the false doctrine was taught and maintained.

“During these seventeen years past this has been our mode of acting; neither do I know of a single instance in which persons, previously connected with heretical bodies, have applied to us for communion, and been received amongst us without, by that very act, relinquishing the connexion with their former associates. This has been the general understanding amongst us during these seventeen years past.

“I am satisfied that the other brethren who labour amongst us accord with the explanations I have just given.

“Hoping that these explanations may be satisfactory,

“I remain, my dear Brother, yours affectionately in Christ,

“To T. M. Bath.

“HENRY CRAIK.”

This letter confirms the remarks made before, that the whole question was, the propriety of bringing the matter before the body, and is of importance in reference to the two points to which objection had been made.

We conclude these remarks with an extract from some notes taken at the tie of a meeting (which took place June 30th, 1850) between several brethren from a distance, and Mr. Müller and Mr. Craik, and the other brethren. In reply to questions put to them the following answers were given:

“We never published the letter of the Ten. It was read to the church with explanations, and it was unjust to circulate it without those explanations. We deny its being a church standard. It was written because of certain circumstances, at a certain time, as stated at the outset, for the purpose of giving reasons why we had not complied with Mr. Alexander’s request, and judged the errors corporately. We acknowledge no rule but the Word of God. We cannot tell what course we should adopt under particular circumstances, unless it is definitively pointed out in the Word. We leave ourselves to the guidance of the Spirit at the time.”