p357 DEAREST BROTHER, - It seems to me unreasonable that gatherings should be called upon to give out names, with their own responsibility engaged thereby, and not have an opportunity of objecting or delaying. The Saturday meeting had for its object that those interested in the various gatherings should have an opportunity of fellowship and consultation, so as to effect concurrent action. That they bound anything is an utterly false accusation; and the way the enemy has sought to assail this meeting, through unprincipled attacks or personal feeling, is a proof to me that it is of God. The reading out the names even in the gatherings concludes nothing, for the very object is, that if there be objection it may be mentioned. … But it was long ago felt that it was desirable that a name should not be publicly given out until all practical inquiry was made, as it was very disagreeable to have a name publicly mentioned, and demur made thereto on moral grounds, when it could be avoided. Hence the previous inquiry and consultation. Till they are announced to be received, nothing is officially done, but the previous inquiry is the ground on which that takes place.

Now in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the testimony of the local gatherings must be relied on, and that is to be desired; but it would not be, if the others were precluded from saying anything where they may possibly have something. And surely, if I am to give out people's names, I must have liberty to make a difficulty if I have one; and the case has arisen, and the previous inquiry just what gives efficiency to this process. If brethren who care for the saints were present from all the gatherings, mutual consultation and godly care would take place; and, while they could not, and are not meant to decide anything, they could bring the names, or anything else, before all the gatherings, with adequate previous inquiry, so that things should not be done rashly. Confidence would be produced in common action.

The notion of - I totally repudiate. London is not as large as Galatia. It is utterly false, and there was no agglomerated population, where a person could walk on a Sunday morning to another part of the town, perhaps when under questions of discipline, where he resided. … But I go on the facts; the analogy is wholly and practically false. The difficulties are practically great in London, but with cordial co-operation they disappear; and I believe in the power of the Spirit of God to overcome the difficulties which arise from the immense size of the town, and produce common action. If every one will go his own way it cannot be; but you have independent churches and members of them. In Galatia a man was of a local church, and if he went to another place took a letter of commendation. Could I take one, say from the P., every Sunday morning I went down to P. or K.? We are necessarily one body in London, and with grace can so walk.

I mourn these efforts to dislocate the united action hitherto carried out, but as yet will hope that we may not have the testimony that we have not enough of the power of God's Spirit to overcome the practical difficulties, but are obliged to confess that we give up the testimony to the unity of God's church in London. - 's practical independency, or congregationalism, I repudiate with every energy I am capable of. What I earnestly desire is, the cordial co-operation of brethren to maintain common order in one body according to the scriptures and the unity of the Spirit of God; and I earnestly pray that the beloved brethren in London may be kept in grace seeking it, in the faithful desire of union, and service in lowliness of heart, and I am sure of the faithfulness of God to help them, and carry it out in grace for them. May the Lord bless and keep them. I have laboured with them, and suffered with them, and trust the Lord that He will bless them in the unity of the Spirit of God. May they remember that there is one Spirit and one body.

May, 1863.

[51215E]