p190 [J G Deck] BELOVED BROTHER, - I should except more against the general bearing of your argument than against particular passages in it.* Indeed I know of one whom it sent back into the Establishment, and justly if received; for you quote me as saying it is no church, and hence that they do not apply to it; in your argument upon them you leave room for no such distinction, nor do you even suppose that what has been a church can cease to be so by some principle it adopts. Your general reasoning is this: you are to judge the evil individuals, but in no case the body. Suppose, as in Sardis, very few to be such as will walk with Christ in white, and the mass to be unconverted - never mind, you are not to separate, however degenerate they are become. Now how is an ordinary mind to distinguish this from the Establishment? And you carry this so far, that you go through the churches, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, and press that the Lord even never acts against the body, but only against those that have sinned - an argument without any force, because it omits Ephesus, whose candlestick is to be removed for the smallest departure, and Laodicea, which is wholly vomited out of His mouth. Now whatever use you make of this, it makes your deduction of no value; because according to your way of putting it, Ephesus would be wholly rejected for "a fall which no eye marked but His own;" and Pergamos and Thyatira would not, for the grossest allowed evil. The conclusion I draw is, that your manner of reasoning about it is unsound. I think the contrast I alleged as to the Establishment best; but it does not reach this case, though it was a just answer to Mr. J. Kelly;** and I still hold the principles I there stated: only they do not reach the case either, which was not properly then before me.

{*["Is there such a thing as corporate rejection! Do we find in the word of God, cases that warrant our separation from whole bodies and assemblies of Christians, because of evil among them?" Letter on 'Receiving and rejecting brethren from the Table of the Lord,' 1851.]}

{**[See Letter to Rev. James Kelly, February 26th, 1839. Collected Writings, vol. 14, 285.]}

I do not think you can justly reason from Christ's dealing with a church to my dealing with it - a principle I did not enter on, nor perhaps think of, in writing to Mr. K. First, because God can bear with evil with which I ought not: witness His bearing with the world, Babylon, from out of which I am called to come. Secondly, because in many cases He can judge the wicked only by a discriminating judgment in power, as in the cases you refer to in Revelation 2, 3, and as He will do at the end of the age, which I cannot. Hence a conclusion from His judgment to ours is unsound. We do not remove candlesticks either; though the Lord may validate our acts as to it, binding what we bind, or loosing what we loose if it be according to His mind. But we ought, namely, a body of saints assembled in Christ's name ought, to answer the appeal of the Spirit to these churches, and repent if there be evil, and not continue in the evil - thus, if it had Nicolaitanes or Jezebel, not leave them if it could put them out - unless recovered by and to the truth.

But the case you speak of is not reached yet, or rather which you do not speak of, save by an allusion in a note. Supposing a body refuses to act in discipline, supposing after service as to its degeneracy, or in spite of remonstrance, or in any way which shews deliberate principle, it will accept of false doctrine, or false practice, specially as to what concerns Christ's glory (though all really does), what am I then to do? Walk with it - namely, accept myself also in my own acts the sin of which the Holy Ghost calls me to repent? I admit such a case ought never to be. My reasoning with Mr. K. was on the ground, that the principle and system were God's own. Is that the case when doctrinal dishonour to Christ, heresy, or immorality is accepted as admissible in the church of God, namely, compatible with Christ's house and with Himself? Is that God's principle and system? I know well you will say not, in an instant. Whether there has been sufficient patience is another question, and a very serious one; because God will be just and patient, if we are not: whether the right steps have, or have not, been taken, is so too: I think wrong ones were in some cases as to Bethesda. But that cannot now affect my relationship with such or such a body, though it may render my path more difficult. I can only say God will suffice for all, and turn all to good; and we must wait on Him, and on His leadings. We deal thus with hundreds of professing bodies, on one ground or another. If the principle of union in Christ were to be explained as meaning necessary continuance in, or admission of, evil, the brethren would be the wickedest sect or body in existence. Yet if evil is accepted, or refused to be put away, after all due measures are employed; if jealousy for Christ's honour be not the principle of union, that is, of the action of those united, this horrible principle is admitted. This being so, the question is one of fact. Of that I am satisfied. I suppose you also are now. And the mistakes in the manner of dealing with the evil of which others are guilty can never change the principles on which I am to act for myself, though it may render its application more difficult; which I do not doubt is the case, though I believe God, our faithful God, has overruled it for good, as He does in His wondrous grace everything for those that love Him.

I said you alluded to the principle, in which you evidently contradict your whole tract, and prove (forgive my saying so) that you reason from feeling, not from principle. "Our course here is … thirdly, to reject any coming from a place, or teacher avowedly [you mean, 'known to be,' for no one avows it] heretical, however professedly sound themselves, unless they would cease from all fellowship with such place or teacher." Be it so: but now (supposing it had been once a sound gathering, or treated as such) if degeneracy claimed service, not departure, you compel the sound man to depart from his gathering, though possibly the majority might be sound, and only the teachers perverting them (or indeed, vice versa); that is, you insist on his doing what you condemn. You are right in insisting on it (unless it be real ignorance of the case or facts); but then, how does, as an absolute principle, evil and corruption or false doctrine not claim departure? Your conscience is right; your tract leads people all wrong.

I have been asked how much corruption would make me leave a gathering (supposing it once formed on true principle); I answered, no degree of corruption as a fact. But a refusal on principle, or deliberately by the body, to remove the least, or at any rate to seek to remove it, would make me leave it; and for the reason in my answer to Mr. K.: it would be not God's own system, but the opposite to it in the most possible way. I would make a remark here. You will find when a man walks with God, whatever his progress in the depths of the divine counsels or prophetic apprehension of His ways, and of what is passing around him, certain elementary parts of God's character and truth retain their full importance, and render him clear in judgment and sound in mind. Evil cannot have to say to or go on with God, nor God with it. Surely nothing simpler. Seducing power will always sin against some such truth as this; hence the godly man, however simple, is not deceived by brilliant or fascinating power or appearances. See Romans 2, how the plainest elements are laid at the bar of all the amazing scheme of doctrine which judged the wily effects of Judaizing teachers. See the message which Christ brought as the eternal life which was with the Father, in 1 John 1. You will tell me love, and love to the brethren, is one of these elements. I accept it; but I add, love to the brethren is distinguished from the faint human resemblance to it, by its consistency with the principle I have referred to, "By this we know that we love the brethren, when we love God and keep his commandments." Thus it is distinguished from a coterie, or human kindness of nature. It is clear if I go with two of your children, and lead them away from your will, it is not as your children I love them. There is no doubt that love, love of all the brethren is a distinctive mark of divine life.

Another principle I add in connection with this, dear brother. If we are walking with God, and looking to the church as Christ's, and that the house should be His, and so holy, and thus His honour sought to be maintained in it in grace, we shall trust Him for it. He is as Son over His own house, and most faithful in it; He will govern and rebuke according to the light we have, but never forsake. If I have failed in a simple ready seizing of the light, I may wait a moment, or go softly till I see my way, but I never shall distrust Him as to it. He it is that works for it, and alone can communicate blessing. For my own part, though I have felt all this very humbling, I have never doubted this a moment. I think it behoves us to go softly, but the more decidedly in the path of our feet, the more we feel that we have been straying. I am afraid afterwards to get at all away from Him. And that is true decision in the conscience; decision in energy is another thing, though it has always this for its basis. The camp was at Gilgal, wherever the victories were: if not, it was soon at Bochim.

As to the attacks, notice that the spirit of the world is working in those who condemn the principles I press. Hence I agree entirely that we (when needed) deal with individuals; but then I should see whether they had the principle of inter-communion with evil. If so, they are in heart of the principle of the gathering which you avowedly reject. This is a part of their state before the Lord. And if knowing that the gathering they come from hold this principle, and I could not lead them to renounce it, and necessarily (consequently, if honest) the gathering, I could not receive them. Indifferentism under the name of charity is the great snare now, not avowed error, and it is wickedness of heart, and that is the fruit. If I found them bona fide ignorant, and in heart opposed to this horrible principle, for my part I could receive them; only I should plainly warn them of their error and inconsistency in going back where the principle they condemned was acted on; I assume them to be ignorant themselves of the fact. It is only your own principle, of page 11 of the tract, applied to indifferentism. For a poor ignorant saint might never have perceived a heresy in the teacher, and yet gradually have his mind infected; and so of indifferentism; and I have seen sad cases. Let us only remember that both are the influence of Satan over the mind, and we shall seek the deliverance of souls, and charity will not be content without it; though in present circumstances (nay, in such cases generally) we have to avoid the appearance of sectarianism, proselytising, or attacks on others, the appearance of which only turns the ignorant, the very persons I speak of, away. I do seek bona fide faithfulness to get such delivered, not the seeking of quiet at the expense of Christ. Getting as you are out of a mistaken path or judgment, I feel quietness is even suitable, but the more we have felt we have erred, the more will conscience be decided if it is at work. The standing alone is a temptation, [a] mere escaping the burden of the church's sorrow. Had I sought this, I might have stayed comfortably where hundreds and thousands even [would] walk in peace with me, but I do not believe the Lord would have left me comfortable. He is too faithful. He would have proved me there. Indeed, in these cases it is either seeking to be roused by other and greater trouble, or, worse still, left where we have sought our own ease. No; our path is humbleness and even humiliation and lowliness, but full and entire confidence in Christ. We feel our sins and faults right when we can bring them to Him, and there we find His strength for the sorrow they have occasioned. Up to that, we seek our ease in the flesh, or have preferred some of them, to all the sorrow of heart they have occasioned. I hope that is all done with. You see I go a good deal further than you, but I shall be glad to hear what you say, as regards receiving: the intercommunion principle we have in common. Then further, I desire and seek unfeignedly restoration, but real, to God and before God, not playing at it to ease our own minds, but godly humble true return to and walking with Him according to His will, jealousy for Christ, and deliverance from the deceiving or blinding power of the enemy in habits of thinking; for this is the way He is working; of which we have the plainest proofs to my mind.

I hope I may see you soon, without knowing precisely the moment.

Ever affectionately yours

In the blessed Lord.

What I look for is real jealousy for the Lord. Then I could bear many mistakes.

[Received] August 29th, 1851.

[51098E]