p429 My Dear A Ord, - I thank you for your letter. I have no objection to your statements that I am aware of. One phrase I was not quite sure of, but as to the purport of the whole I accept it. I said, as you remark, that I was quite ready to judge and correct expressions. I have repeated it over and over again; I waited only my return to England to take it up, which, with the Lord's help, I shall do. I could not do it before; I have not even materials. But your letter leads me further. Allow me to state some facts. This question was first raised by the most deliberate and unprincipled fraud as regards my statements, and continued by enemies to myself and the truth in the same spirit everywhere. Others took it up from whom I should perhaps have expected other things. All this leads me to see a work of the enemy behind the alleged difficulties of conscience which I am bound to respect, only the question goes further for me.

Had I not received your letter, I should have waited till I came to England to ascertain how far the consciences of saints were troubled, that is, to see how far the work of the enemy had gone; your statement I take as correct, and act before I return. It is no sudden resolution, but one in my mind a good while, only I waited for evidence of its being necessary before acting on it, or definitely concluding. I shall not break bread in England until the question is settled: I say in England, and I must explain this for other reasons. Had I been judged by any assembly, or had I been found to judge any assembly, as I did at Plymouth, recognising as I do the unity of the body, I should have broken bread nowhere till I were restored, or other assemblies had judged as I did the one I had left. But I do neither: I have nothing to judge the gatherings for, and they have never judged me. As to what is called leaving brethren, I have not the most distant thought of it. I see the unity of the body, in these questions the first of truths, owned there, and in fact there only. I am convinced as I never was, that the testimony of God, and the possession of His will, and of divinely given intelligence of His ways, His own testimony however feebly carried out, is in the testimony and position of brethren. I have not shade upon my mind as to it, and I believe this assurance is given of God. I need not say leaving it would be for me out of the question. I abstain from communion to relieve the consciences of others. Where the difficulty has not existed, I am not forced to do it. If an assembly said to me, You cannot here if you do not there, I should submit at once. I do not separate; if I did they would be bound to do so. I refrain in grace for others' sake. But it is a defiance to the enemy.

Further, in doing this I maintain as I desire the vital importance of holding fast the confession of the glory and perfectness of the Lord's Person, and relations with God. If I have touched that, I am alike unfit for teaching or communion. Captain H.'s conviction of my loyalty to Christ has nothing to do with it; it is a person's judgment of a person. Where Christ is in question in teaching, this is beside the mark; His glory must be maintained. Next, no handle can be given if I act thus for looseness as to Mr. N.'s doctrine through sufferance of mine. That must be judged on its own merits, and, if received, received because it is allowable. No personal attachment of brethren for me, for which I am profoundly thankful, can come, ought to come in the way here. They will not have to defend my statements, because I am amongst them, and they are, the subject being vital, responsible for them. They can judge them freely. I should of course give every explanation to clear up my meaning. I bind them to no acceptance of my statements in any case; many may not enter into them; but that their own consciences may not be troubled by them, as believing they are dishonouring to the Lord. …

If the enemy has succeeded in raising this question, my part is to relieve the consciences of all, to take care that the question of Christ's glory be maintained at its true elevation, and give every explanation or correction of expressions which the want of clearness may demand. At the same time, I do not conceal from myself that the truth of Christ's sufferings is lacking in some. Nothing can be more ruinous than the statement, that Christ's entering into such and such sufferings means that He was in the state that brought them. Yet that, by your own letter, is the question which perplexes men's minds. Impossible, if the reality of Christ's sufferings had not been lost or enfeebled with some. If Christ bore our sicknesses and carried our infirmities, was He by this sick Himself? Be assured the enemy has been at work here.

But my object is not to enter into explanations here. The smiting was on the cross, but there was that which was besides atonement in it. And He did enter into that. All this has, I believe, been already explained. But my object is to say that, on my return to England, with the explanation I have given, it is not my intention to teach or come into communion till brethren are at ease on the subject, but as I have said, as relieving their consciences, and maintaining, as not to be touched, the glory of the blessed Lord, not as in heart or act separating myself from them. I feel it is the best reply too, to those who without would either feel a difficulty, or desire to tamper with evil on that question. I must come to London, and brethren are so necessarily mixed up there with every place and all that passes, that I do not intend to go to any meetings there. You can communicate to any persons whom you know to be concerned about it, my intention.

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

Paris, May, 1866.

[51262E]