APPENDIX
LETTER OF THE TEN
51
“DEAR BRETHREN,—Our brother, Mr. George Alexander, having
printed and circulated a statement expressive of his reasons for withdrawing
from visible fellowship with us at the table of the Lord; and these
reasons being grounded on the fact that those who labour among you have
not complied with his request relative to the judging of certain errors
which have been taught at Plymouth; it becomes needful that those of
us who have incurred any responsibility in this matter should lay before
you a brief explanation of the way in which we have acted.
“And
first, it may be well to mention, that we had no intimation whatever
of our brother’s intention to act as he has done, nor any knowledge
of his intention to circulate any letter, until it was put into our
hands in print.
“Some
weeks ago, he expressed his determination to bring his views before
a meeting of the body, and he was told that he was quite at liberty
to do so. He afterwards declared that he would waive this, but never
intimated, in the slightest way, his intention to act as he has done,
without first affording the church an opportunity of hearing his reasons
for separation. Under these circumstances, we feel, it of the deepest
importance, for relieving the disquietude of mind naturally occasioned
by our brother’s letter,explicitly to state that the views relative
to the Person of our blessed Lord, held by those who for sixteen years
have been occupied in teaching the word among you, are unchanged.
“The
truths relative to the divinity of His Person—the sinlessness
of His nature—and the perfection of His sacrifice, which have
been taught both in public
52
teaching and in writing, for these many years past, are, through the
grace of God, those which we still maintain. We feel it most important
to make this avowal, inasmuch as the letter referred to is calculated,
we trust unintentionally, to convey a different impression to the minds
of such as cherish a godly jealousy for the faith once delivered to
the saints.
“We
add, for the further satisfaction of any who may have had their minds
disturbed, that we utterly disclaim the assertion that the blessed Son
of God was involved in the guilt of the first Adam; or that He was born
under the curse of the broken law, because of His connection with Israel.
We hold Him to have been always the Holy One of God, in whom the Father
was ever well pleased. We know of no curse which the Saviour bore, except
that which He endured as the surety for sinners—according to that
scripture, ‘He was made a curse for us.’ We utterly reject
the thought of His ever having had the experiences of an unconverted
person; but maintain that while He suffered outwardly the trials
connected with His being a man and an Israelite—still in His feelings
and experiences, as well as in His external character, He was entirely
‘separate from sinners.’
“We
now proceed to state the grounds on which we have felt a difficulty
in complying with the request of our brother, Mr. Alexander, that we
should formally investigate and give judgment on certain errors which
have been taught among Christians meeting at Plymouth.
“1.
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.
53
“2. The practical reason alleged why we should enter upon the
investigation of certain tracts issued at Plymouth was, that thus we
might be able to know how to act with reference to those who might visit
us from thence, or who are supposed to be adherents of the author of
the said publications. In reply to this, we have to state, that the
views of the writer alluded to could only be fairly learned
from the examination of his own acknowledged writings. We did not feel
that we should be warranted in taking our impression of the views actually
held by him from any other source than from some treatise written by
himself, and professedly explanatory of the doctrines advocated. Now
there has been such variableness in the views held by the writer in
question, that it is difficult to ascertain what he would now acknowledge
as his.
“3.
In regard to these writings, Christian brethren, hitherto of unblemished
reputation for soundness in the faith, have come to different conclusions
as to the actual amount of error contained in them. The tracts some
of us knew to be written in such an ambiguous style, that we greatly
shrunk from the responsibility of giving any formal judgment on the
matter.
“4.
As approved brethren, in different places, have come to such different
conclusions in reference to the amount of error contained in these tracts,
we could neither desire nor expect that the saints here would be satisfied
with the decision of one or two leading brethren. Those who felt desirous
to satisfy their own minds, would naturally be led to wish to peruse
the writings for themselves. For this, many among us have no leisure
time; many would not be able to understand what the tracts contained,
because of the mode of expression employed; and the result, there is
much reason to fear, would be such perverse
54
disputations and strifes of words, as minister questions rather than
godly edifying.
“5.
Even some of those who now condemn the tracts as containing doctrine
essentially unsound, did not so understand them on the first perusal.
Those of us who were specially requested to investigate and judge the
errors contained in them, felt that, under such circumstances, there
was but little probability of our coming to unity of judgment touching
the nature of the doctrines therein embodied.
“6.
Even supposing that those who inquired into the matter had come
to the same conclusion, touching the amount of positive error therein
contained, this would not have guided us in our decision respecting
individuals coming from Plymouth. For 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 subversive of foundation
truth; especially as those meeting at Ebrington-street, Plymouth,
last January, put forth a statement, disclaiming the errors charged
against the tracts.
“7.
The requirement that we should investigate and judge Mr. Newton’s
tracts, appeared to some of us like the introduction of a fresh test
of communion. It was demanded of us that, in addition to a sound confession
and a corresponding walk, we should, as a body, come to a formal decision
about what many of us might be quite unable to understand.
“8.
We remembered the word of the Lord, that ‘the beginning of strife
is as the letting out of water.’ We were well aware that the great
body of believers amongst us were in happy ignorance of the Plymouth
controversy, and we did not feel it well to be considered as identifying
ourselves with either party. We judge that this controversy had been
so carried
55
on as to cause the truth to be evil spoken of; and we do not desire
to be considered as identifying ourselves with that which has caused
the opposer to reproach the way of the Lord. At the same time we wish
distinctly to be understood that we would seek to maintain fellowship
with all believers, and consider ourselves as particularly associated
with those who meet as we do, simply in the name of the Lord Jesus.
“9.
We felt that the compliance with Mr. Alexander’s request would
be the introduction of an evil precedent. If a brother has a right
to demand our examining 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.
“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 amongst
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
56
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. Mr. Alexander himself was the principal party in declining
the presence of the brother referred to, on that occasion, such inquiry
being no longer demanded, inasmuch as the difficulties relative to the
views of the individual in question, had been removed by private intercourse.
We leave Mr. Alexander to reconcile this fact, which he cannot have
forgotten, with the assertion contained under his second special reason
for withdrawing.
“In
regard to the third ground alleged by Mr. Alexander, viz., that by not
judging the matter, we lie under the suspicion of supporting false doctrine,
we have only to refer to the statement already made at the commencement
of this paper.
“In
conclusion, we would seek to impress upon all present the evil of treating
the subject of our Lord’s humanity as a matter of speculative
or angry controversy. One of those who have been ministering among you
from the beginning, feels it a matter of deep thankfulness to God, that
so long ago as in the year 1835,* he committed to writing, and subsequently
printed, what he had learned from the Scriptures of truth relative to
the meaning of that inspired declaration, ‘The Word was made flesh.’
He would affectionately refer any whose minds may be now disquieted,
to what he then wrote, and was afterwards led to
* “Pastoral Letters,”
by H. Craik.
57
publish. If there be heresy in the simple statements contained in the
letters alluded to, let it be pointed out; if not, let all who are interested
in the matter know that we continue unto the present day, ‘speaking
the same things.’
“(Signed)
HENRY
CRAIK, |
EDMUND
FELTHAM, |
GEORGE
MÜLLER, |
JOHN
WITHY, |
JACOB
HENRY HALE, |
SAMUEL
BUTLER, |
CHARLES
BROWN, |
JOHN
MEREDITH, |
ELIJAH
STANLEY, |
ROBERT
AITCHISON.” |
The above
paper was read at meetings of brethren at [Bethesda] Chapel, on Thursday,
June 29th, and on Monday, July 3rd, 1848.
*
* *
|
