JND
Letter 5
Hereford,
October 6th, 1851.
... With
regard to Mr. —, I have not seen him since the Bethesda question
arose, so it is possible that by presenting the matter clearly to him
and to his conscience, he would be brought back, even if he has at present
gone astray. I suppose that he is more or less connected with Bethesda;
now if it is so, and if he rejected warnings, and persisted in keeping
up connection with B., I could not walk with him; I am going to tell
you why, leaving him aside, not knowing what would be the effect of
a conversation with him. First I must tell you that I believe that if
one meeting receives the members of another, and the members of the
former go there in their turn, there is a bond between the two, though
I own that in the present case other motives have power over me. This
is how it is then as to B. Doctrine is not in question, but faithfulness
to Christ
69
with respect to doctrine or holiness. I would not receive a person who
knowingly formed part of a meeting which admits heretics, or persons
whose conduct is bad, because the principle of indifference to good
and evil, to error and truth, is as bad as the wrong action, and even
worse. Let me be clearly understood. I believe that the church is bound
to be jealous with respect to the glory of the Person of Christ. If
Christ is despised, I have no principle of union. I believe that B.
has acted with profound contempt for the Lord, to say nothing of brethren.
Here there is nothing equivocal. Mr. N. was maintaining a doctrine of
which Mr. Müller himself said that if it were true, Christ would
have needed to be saved as much as we did. This doctrine placed Christ
under the effect of Adam’s sin by His birth, in saying that He
had to gain life by keeping the law. We had driven away this doctrine
and those who upheld it, and the struggle was ended. The persons who
had supported Mr. N. had published confessions with respect to the doctrine,
and had made confessions before the brethren publicly of the falsehoods
and wickedness by which they had tried to make good their views and
to justify themselves; it was a truly extraordinary work of Satan.
Well, a lady
wished to introduce Mr. N. to teach in a meeting near Bethesda; this
meeting refused; she left the meeting accordingly. She was introduced
at B., Mr. M. knowing that she was maintaining and propagating this
doctrine, Mr. Craik the other pastor having had to do with her. She
went there because they admitted such persons into that meeting. At
the same time, two gentlemen, who made part of the meeting which Mr.
N. had formed when he was obliged to leave on account of this doctrine
(those who had supported him having left him and made confession), these
two communicants of Mr. N.’s, I say, were also admitted to B.
It is proved true that these
70
three disseminated Mr. N.’s tracts in the B. assembly. The lady
induced a young lady to go who was the most active and intelligent agent
that Mr. N. had, in order to spread his doctrines. In consequence of
these circumstances, several godly brothers of B. asked that all this
should be examined; they said that they did not ask even that the judgment
of the brethren should be taken thereupon, but that they should examine
the matter and the doctrine themselves. This was decidedly refused.
I received a letter from Mr. C., blaming me as sectarian for making
these difficulties, even when he was not prepared to receive everything
that Mr. N. was teaching. They had many meetings of the flock and the
ten labouring brothers (of whom two were really disciples of Mr. N.)
Messrs. M. and C. at their head, presented a written paper to the assembly
at B., declaring that this was a new test of communion, which they would
not admit; that many excellent brethren did not give so decided an opinion
upon Mr. N.’s doctrine; that they were not bound to read fifty
pages to know what Mr. N. taught, the members of his flock being—mark
this!—already admitted at B. A brother asked permission to communicate
some information about Mr. N.’s doctrine, in order that the assembly
might understand why they held to it that the doctrine should be judged;
and this was peremptorily refused, and the paper which said that many
had not a bad opinion of the doctrine, rejecting as a new condition
of fellowship the examination into the doctrine, was laid down as the
absolute condition of the pastorate of Messrs. M. and C., without which
they would withdraw from their ministry in the midst of the assembly.
Those who justified them on the ground of this paper were to rise, which
was done by the assembly, thirty or forty forthwith leaving B. So that,
with knowledge of the matter, they laid down as the basis of the B.
assembly, indifference to the truth as to the Person
71
of Christ; and they preferred to see about forty godly brethren leave,
rather than to examine into the question, having in fact in their midst
the members of the N. meeting. This was so much the more important in
my eyes, because Satan was seeking at that moment, and still seeks,
to forbid the assembly of the children of God to examine into and to
judge any heresy whatsoever; that once a person has been acknowledged
as being a Christian, one has no right to know what he holds. This has
been plainly laid down as a principle by many persons who blame us,
and they desired to take advantage of it to force us to receive a young
man who distinctly denied that there was such a Person as the Holy Ghost.
I do not say that all lay down this principle, but the enemy has sought
to bring it in, and amongst the brethren who opposed me on this question,
some of the most violent maintain it.
Now the principle
of indifference as to the Person of Christ being laid down at Bethesda,
and the assembly having publicly accepted it, I refuse to admit this
principle. They have admitted persons put outside amongst us on account
of blasphemy. Messrs. M. and C. are the pastors of the assembly in virtue
of this principle. This letter has never been withdrawn: they claim
to have done right. Many things will doubtless be told you in excuse,
and to make it appear that they have done things which nullify this:
I know how it is with them. For me their condition before God has become
much much worse. I should be ready to say why. I believe that
they are themselves more or less infected with false doctrine, but I
cannot enter into the story in detail. Mr. M. said to me (after
having acknowledged that Christ would have needed to be saved as much
as we, if this doctrine was admitted) that they maintained the letter
of the ten to the full, and that they had done well in all that they
had done. Well, indifference to
72
Christ is a grave sin: an assembly which bases itself publicly on this
principle I cannot accept as a Christian assembly. Assemblies which
are connected with B., which go there and receive from thence, are one
with B.—save the case of persons who are ignorant of the matter,
an exceptional case of which it is not necessary to speak. For my part
this is what I do; having distinctly taken my position I judge each
case individually according to its merits, but I will not receive a
person who keeps up a connection with B. with knowledge of the matter
Faithfulness to Christ before everything; I know not why I labour and
suffer if this is not the principle of my conduct.
The fact
is that brethren had fallen into a state of spiritual demoralisation
which required this sifting, and as they get out of it individually
they reject B., which is taking place, thank God, every day. Persons
who have written tracts against me write their own condemnation, while
declaring that they were deceived at Bristol. As to that, my resolution
is taken: I am deeply convinced that the basis of the B. meeting is
contempt of Christ, and I do not walk with those who accept it, and
I will not mix with it; it would be indifference to my own conduct.
If consequently I walk alone it is well; I am content as to myself;
I deplore the condition of souls. I do not say, that all that has been
done to oppose it has been wise. I do not think so, but my judgment
of the matter in the main is definitely taken. I believe B. in a much
worse condition than at the beginning of the question.
J.N.D.
*
* *
|
