Page:Groves - Darbyism - Its Rise and Development and a Review of the Bethesda Question.djvu/54

 judging of his views, they must necessarily be the guide in leading to a decision on them. During the remaining four or five meetings, sixteen of the brethren spoke, and gave their views as to the tracts, entering very fully into the questions at issue. The result of these deliberations was, that the following conclusion was arrived at: “That no one defending, maintaining, or upholding Mr. Newton’s views or tracts, should be received into communion.” Of this decision Lord Congleton writes: “This conclusion was given out two or three times by the brethren Groves, Müller, and Craik.” This public announcement we particularly would bring to notice, because it has been asserted by many, ignorant of the facts of the case, that the judgment thus arrived at was merely the private judgment of a few, whereas it was much more to be regarded as expressing the judgment of the Church than was the Letter of the Ten.

We hear much said of “judging the evil,” to use the expression of others, but we would ask whether all those who are amongst the Exclusives themselves, have judged it? Whether the thoughts of one in a hundred have ever been intelligently exercised in the matter at all? Whether it is not in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a matter in which those concerned have merely accepted the statements and views of others? Nay more, whether it is not the design of the party to keep as many in ignorance as possible as to the real matter at issue? And if such be the case, what is there to justify the exclusive holiness, claimed for the position they maintain, into which many are led, deceived by a falsely assumed catholicity. We are bold to say that more was done in Bethesda to judge and repudiate those views, which had caused so much trouble and sorrow to all who loved the Lord, than by any assembly acting under the Darby discipline. Those who witnessed or have perused the accounts taken of these godly and prayerful deliberations in Bethesda, cannot but thank God, that, amidst the turmoil and the strife of those days, there were some who were enabled to maintain their integrity towards God, in an earnest and zealous care for that which in any way affected doctrinally the glory of the person of the Blessed Lord, and who in their zeal against error, desired not to forget their duty towards those who offend; as they were reminded by Mr. Craik, that they should seek to know “what was the kindest way in which a brother, who had departed from the Truth, and those upholding him, should be treated, so as, if possible, to lead them to repentance.”

It would have been imagined that the whole controversy between Bethesda and her opponents, as far as they were concerned, would have been brought to a close; the investigation which was demanded had taken place, and the